By Dr. Steven Long, DO, MHA, CPT
Beyond Health | Precision Medicine for High-Performance Living
Red light therapy (RLT) has surged in popularity, with devices promising to soothe pain, heal skin, and even boost mood—all from a few minutes under a reddish glow. From at-home wands to clinic panels, it’s marketed as a non-invasive fix for everything from wrinkles to joint aches. In my practice, patients often ask about trendy therapies, intrigued by bold claims but wary of wasting time or money. Does RLT deliver, or is it just a flashy placebo? Let’s examine the science, indications, and evidence to see what holds up.
RLT uses low-wavelength red or near-infrared light (600–1000 nm) to penetrate skin and tissues, where it’s absorbed by mitochondria, the cell’s energy hubs (Hamblin, 2017). This is thought to boost ATP production, reduce inflammation, and promote healing. Unlike UV light, RLT doesn’t damage skin, making it appealing for various uses. Sessions typically last 10–20 minutes, using devices ranging from $50 handheld units to $10,000+ professional setups. The claim: it’s a safe, versatile therapy. But the devil’s in the data—let’s look at its main indications.
RLT’s biggest draw is skin rejuvenation. A 2014 meta-analysis found 8–12 weeks of 630–830 nm RLT (2–3 sessions weekly) improved skin elasticity and reduced wrinkles in small trials (Avci et al., 2014). A 2020 study showed 660 nm light reduced acne lesions by 36% after 12 weeks, likely by calming inflammation (Ablon, 2020). Evidence strength: Moderate. Studies are promising but often small, industry-funded, and lack long-term follow-up.
For joint pain, RLT shows potential. A 2019 review found 830 nm light (15–30 J/cm²) reduced osteoarthritis pain and stiffness, with effects lasting weeks (Stausholm et al., 2019). Athletes use it for muscle recovery—a 2016 trial reported less soreness after 660 nm exposure post-exercise (Leal-Junior et al., 2016). Evidence strength: Moderate. Results are consistent but limited by short trials and variable dosing protocols.
RLT may speed tissue repair. A 2018 study on diabetic foot ulcers found 660 nm light (2 J/cm²) improved healing rates over 8 weeks (Mittermayr et al., 2018). Similar benefits appear for burns and surgical scars. Evidence strength: Moderate to Weak. Data is encouraging, but most studies are small and lack robust controls.
Emerging claims suggest RLT boosts mood or cognition via brain stimulation. A 2021 pilot study found 810 nm light (transcranial) improved depression scores slightly after 4 weeks (Cassano et al., 2021). Cognitive benefits are murkier, with animal studies outpacing human data. Evidence strength: Weak. Human trials are sparse, and effects are speculative.
Red light therapy isn’t a scam—moderate evidence backs its use for skin health, pain relief, and wound healing, but claims about mood or cognition are shaky. It’s not a cure-all, and results depend on consistent use with quality devices (660–830 nm, 2–30 J/cm²). If you’re curious, start with a reputable home unit or clinic, but don’t expect miracles. For my patients, I recommend pairing RLT with proven strategies: a solid skincare routine, physical therapy for pain, or counseling for mood. Got questions about RLT or other therapies? Our team can help you weigh the options.
