August 1, 2025

15 Minutes for Optimal Red Light Therapy: Time is the Trigger

How can we use low dose red light therapy and be assured we are getting the optimal benefit? A new dosing theory explains it as a switch that is triggered by a stimulus and exposure time. Not as a basic energy equation.

Summary:

In recent articles and interviews, researchers discuss how red light therapy dosing should be viewed as turning on a switch. In contrast to the popular assumption that dosing red light therapy (and other medicines) follows a response curve.

Treatment time is the key aspect of dosing. The intensity (mW/cm^2) and fluence (J/cm^2) are highly variable and often quite low. There needs to be a minimum threshold of intensity, but most human clinical studies with LED devices use a wide range 3 to 50 mW/cm^2.

Just 15 minutes of low intensity (<50mW/cm^2) exposure appears to trigger a cellular switch for 100% benefits. A common range for clinical grade LED treatments is 10 to 20 minutes. For direct treatments it is as low as 1-3 minutes, for example: treatments for eye health and skin contact for muscle treatments.

The most consistent dosing strategy for optimal Red Light Therapy is to focus on proper exposure time; not on excessive intensity (mW/cm^2) or fluence (J/cm^2).

Dose-Response for Red Light Therapy

The conventional model for Red Light Therapy is that it follows a dose-response curve. Like most medicine, it is assumed that higher doses correspond to proportionally stronger effects.

As an example with arbitrary numbers (i.e. the numbers don't matter we are just using semi-random numbers to explain the concept):

6 J/cm^2 corresponds to a 60% effect,
8 J/cm^2 corresponds to a 80% effect,
10 J/cm^2 corresponds to a 100% effect

This would be a literal interpretation of the Law of Reciprocity dosing model for Photobiomodulation. The effectiveness changes with the "dose". A dose-response curve.

Like many illustrations of the biphasic dose response curve, we get the concept that just one point is a peak of optimal effectiveness. Only one dose is the best for a particular circumstance. One dose to rule them all.

This causes worry that we could under-estimate or over-estimate the exact location of the optimal dose.

Additional dose after the peak reduces the effectiveness. It follows the Arndt-Schultz Law in medicine, also known as the Biphasic Dose Response or the Law of Hormesis.

Switch means 100% Effect:

When you flip a switch or pull a trigger, that represents a 100% on/off condition. Similarly Dr. Jeffrey often proposes that the dose-response behaves more like a switch than a curve.

"There's no dose-response curve in red light treatment, so it's a switch. You need to put enough energy in to flick the switch." -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

In that way, we could imagine the dose-response is flat. A plateau of effectiveness. Once you are on the plateau, increasing or decreasing the dose does not change the effect. As long as the "dose" (time, intensity, fluence) are in the correct range, then we get 100% of the effect.

Thus, no longer needing to worry about optimal dosing, under-dosing, or over-dosing. All we need is to find the minimum-effective-dose (MED) to flip the switch into 100% response. Even what many would consider an under-dose has the same therapeutic effect as a higher dose.

"3 minutes is as effective as 20 minutes, right. the only difference between the two is going for the 20 minutes you're wasting more energy." -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

Additional dose would only represent wasted time or resources with no additional benefit. Excessive intensity or fluence would only correspond to unnecessary overheating risks. Oversized devices would represent wasted money, electricity, and space.

"there is one issue and again we don't understand this, is you only need a small of red light to change something, three or four minutes is enough to - it's a switch. Switch happens - something happens that's a positive switch. So giving a large amount of red light often is just a waste of effort." ...

"But if you give red light for a long period of time, you know, an hour, it's just really not very effective. My argument here is, I think you are overcharging the battery. It just is ineffective." -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

Excessive time would eventually flip the switch off again into being ineffective. So this time-trigger dose theory still follows a biphasic dose response.

Time is the Most Consistent Dosing Parameter

Successful PBM studies use a wide range of Intensity (mW/cm^2) and "Dose" (J/cm^2). Leading to uncertainty and confusion about proper dosing protocols.

But if we shift our perspective to focus to exposure times, a much clearer pattern emerges.

These are all going to be human studies with LED Devices (i.e. LED panels, LED wearables, and LED beds). This way these studies are actually relevant to consumer devices.

20 minutes: 50 mW/cm^2, 60 J/cm^2: 2025 - Brain Injury - PMID: 40719008
15 minutes: 9 mW/cm^2, 8.1 J/cm^2: 2025 - Systemic Vision - PMID: 40628952
15 minutes: 40 mW/cm^2, 36 J/cm^2: 2024 - Systemic Glucose - PMID: 38378043
14 minutes: 24 mW/cm^2, 20 J/cm^2: 2023 - Brain Fog - PMID: 37018063
15 minutes: 2.9 mW/cm^2, 2.6 J/cm^2: 2023 - Virus Recovery - PMID: 36495670
20 minutes: 28 mW/cm^2, 33.6 J/cm^2: 2023 - Fibromyalgia - PMID: 37753995
20 minutes: 30 mW/cm^2, 36 J/cm^2: 2023 - Hand Pain and Stiffness -PMID: 37476675
10 minutes: 30 mW/cm^2, 18 J/cm^2: 2023 - Cognition - PMID: 37760145
10 minutes: 6.4 mW/cm^2, 3.8 J/cm^2: 2020 - Diabetic Circulation - PMID: 33398615
20 minutes: 50 mW/cm^2, 60 J/cm^2: 2016 - Sports Injury Recovery - PMID: 27141153
20 minutes: 48 mW/cm^2, 57.6 J/cm^2: 2012 - Muscle Fatigue - [Link]

References [1] thru [11]

Based on the trend of human studies with LED devices, we see a fairly consistent average dosing preference for 15 minutes with a range of 10 to 20 minutes.

However, there is a wide range of intensities (2.9 to 50 mW/cm^2) and fluences (2.6 to 60 J/cm^2). Representing the broad range of effective "doses" that can flip the switch for beneficial effects. It may be the exposure time is the most consistent dosing variable here.

Using percentages to analyze the variability:

Fluence: 2.6 to 60 J/cm^2: 2,208%
Intensity: 2.9 to 50 mW/cm^2: 1,624%
Time: 10 to 20 minutes: 100%

The exposure time has a much tighter range of only 100%, compared to the other parameters are far over 1,000% of variability. Understanding that there is a weak correlation between intensity/fluence and effectiveness helps make sense of this data. The stronger correlation is between time and effectiveness.

Time Triggers the Switch:

This dosing theory was solidified in a recent peer-reviewed article published by Dr. Jeffrey's research group. One quote below indicating that exposure time is the trigger for the effectiveness, and there is no dose response function.

"In insect experiments where greater numbers can be used, there is a clear triggering effect in exposure times at around 1 min, with no evidence for a dose response function22,23"' [2]

Dr. Jeffrey has been explaining this dosing method in many recent interviews:

"and that is another confounding factor, when you talk to biologists, they don't like light on animals when you take the eyes away, they also automatically feel there is a dose-response curve..." ...

"there is a switch, now this causes problems in our understanding. Lets say the light is releasing an enzyme, ok? And it's a trigger, its a switch. I can give you a broad range of intensities of infrared light and I'm still getting the same effect." -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

As Dr. Jeffery often notes, the exposure time is the most consistent aspect of dosing. Other factors like intensity (mW/cm^2) and energy (i.e. J/cm^2) are very low and can be more variable for the same effect. Thus, not showing any conventional dose-response.

Millions learn that 15 Minutes is Optimal

Dr. Roger Seheult has also elevated this research and dosing methodology on his MedCram platform and in recent podcast interviews.

He describes it nicely to in a podcast that currently has over 5 million views:

"after about 15 minutes to 20 minutes of this type of light in that type of setting, there is a switch that turns on and it and you and you don't need further stimulation. Further stimulation doesn't do anything more. Its a its a very bizarre thing. You would think that the more light that you gave the more the effect would be. Its not. After about 15 minutes there is something that changes in the mitochondria." - Dr. Seheult [YouTube]

As Dr. Seheult explains, this perspective is very bizarre and counter-intuitive. This is why it is important to observe the real experimental data rather than relying on oversimplified dosing equations.

Now that millions of people recently heard that 15 minutes is the optimal dose for red light therapy, it is a good time to discuss this important dosing method.

Peer-Reviewed Time-Dependent Dosing References:

Many other Photobiomodulation publications and studies have also referenced the importance of exposure time to reach a beneficial response. This time-trigger dose theory is not new or unique to Dr. Jeffery's group.

The 2009 Biphasic Dose Response article notes that the Time is the true "dose" when prescribing Photobiomodulation.

"In our view the safest way to record and prescribe LLLT is to define the four parameters of the medicine (see table 1.) and then define the irradiation time as “dose”."[12]

This next quote also confirms that exposure time is extremely important and can hardly ever be changed.

"Exposure (exposure time) on one area (zone) and total duration of the procedure are measured in seconds or minutes. This is an extremely important parameter that can hardly ever be changed. Total duration of the LLLT procedure (consistent effect on all the areas) should not exceed 20, or 5 minutes for one area (except for ILBI)." [13]

According to a PBM textbook, direct treatments like skin contact devices to treat the muscles, the treatment time is 30 to 150 seconds. Transcranial (head) treatments are typically in the range of 4-30 minutes. Again they emphasizes that J/cm^2 is an unreliable way to prescribe dosing. [14]

A 2024 article also reiterates that the dose is prescribed as a specific intensity (irradiance) and treatment time:

"In a first approximation, the biostimulation seems to be optimal when a specific irradiance is applied during a specific time" [15]

Another famous review article specifically notes how the illumination time is important, and there is clearly a threshold of exposure time needed to ensure proper effectiveness:

"Furthermore, the illumination time is also important.¹⁷ There exists a certain minimum length of time (few minutes) that the light needs to be on the tissue for the best effects to occur.¹⁷" [16]

Another PBM textbook also confirms that there needs to be a threshold of treatment time for benefits to be produced.

"However, there is some evidence that the treatment time must be longer than a certain minimum value to produce any benefit." [17]

Thus, it has been well documented in Photobiomodulation literature that exposure time is a key aspect of optimal dosing, and cannot be overlooked as an inconvenience that can be shortened with high power and simple calculations of Fluence (J/cm^2).

Less Intensity, Same Time, Same Benefits:

Dr. Jeffery demonstrated this time-dependent switch effect is in his famous eye-health studies.

One 2020 article used 670nm on the eyes in the mornings at 40mW/cm^2 for 3 minutes and found an improvement in color vision. [18] This result made headline news.

However, Dr. Jeffery says in one interview that the 40 mW/cm^2 is uncomfortably bright and would likely reduce compliance. So in a follow-up study in 2021, he reduced the intensity to 8 mW/cm^2. [19]

"So we can now deliver an effective dose - again remember it's a switch - at a much lower energy and get a as good a physiological effect as if we give high energy. So we can now deliver something that is very comfortable." -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

Contrary to the popular dosing theory, he did not increase the exposure time to compensate for the same "dose" of J/cm^2. The exposure time was the same at 3 minutes.

Both 40mW/cm^2 and 8 mW/cm^2 had the same effectiveness at 3 minutes of exposure time. Regardless of the "dose" of J/cm^2 changing from 7.2 J/cm^2 down to 1.44 J/cm^2.

In several interviews, Dr. Jeffery describes a similar experiment where the batteries had faded and the devices only emitted about 1 mW/cm^2. Yet the benefits remained the same, likely because it was still used for 3 minutes. [YouTube]

Based on these experiments, effectiveness correlates most strongly to exposure time. Not with intensity (mW/cm^2) or fluence (J/cm^2).

His research group also followed the same pattern with systemic treatments with LED panels on the patients backs.

One 2024 study used 40mW/cm^2 for 15 minutes and found an improvement in systemic blood glucose tests. [3] The next 2025 study used 9 mW/cm^2 for 15 minutes on the back demonstrated a systemic improvement in color vision tests. [2]

Again demonstrating in clinical studies a massive reduction in intensity and dose, but the exposure time remained the same at 15 minutes for a positive systemic response.

Different Doses, Same Benefit:

One 2021 pilot study on 15 humans used 630nm and 940nm LEDs to treat Pressure Injuries (superficial non-healing wounds). They divided into 3 equal groups; one group treated with 6 J/cm^2, another group treated with 8 J/cm^2, and one control group. [20]

The intensity was 9 mW/cm^2 for Red and 23 mW/cm^2 for NIR, the exposure times were 654 seconds (10.9 minutes) for the lower dose and 774 seconds (12.9 minutes) for the higher dose. [20]

They found that both doses performed equally.

"For this reason, there was no significant difference ( p > 0.05) between the two groups receiving different doses of LED phototherapy." [20]

Thus, showing no dose-response as long as the intensity, exposure time, and fluence are in an appropriate range. Additional exposure time or fluence does not improve the result within a given range of effective doses. The dose-response is flat.

Biphasic Response based on Time or Fluence?

Many of the biphasic dose response studies focus on the "dose" of J/cm^2. The different doses appear to have different effects.

However, they most often hold intensity constant and change the exposure time to achieve the different fluences (J/cm^2).

"We irradiated the neurons with different fluences of 0.03, 0.3, 3, 10 or 30 J/cm2 delivered at a constant irradiance of 25 mW/cm2"[21]

Thus, the Biphasic Dose Response studies are actually changing two variables;

J/cm^2
Exposure Time

Perhaps they are incorrectly tracking the effectiveness with the J/cm^2, when the effectiveness actually depends on the exposure time.

"there was a clear biphasic response (including a possible inhibitory effect) with changes in irradiation time and therefore fluence."[21]

More experiments would need to hold Time constant and vary the Intensity to confirm.

One famous rodent study did that. They held the Time constant and changed the Intensity for the different J/cm^2.

10 minutes: 5 mW/cm^2, 3 J/cm^2 - Effective
10 minutes: 50 mW/cm^2, 30 J/cm^2 - Effective
1 minute: 50 mW/cm^2, 3 J/cm^2 - Not Effective

The only condition that was ineffective was the 1 minute exposure, even though 3 J/cm^2 was shown to be effective with the low intensity light.

Both 30 J/cm^2 and 3 J/cm^2 were nearly equally effective, as long as they were delivered with the same exposure time of 10 minutes. [21]

The Biphasic Dose Response review article of 2009 notes:

"This observation led us to propose that the illumination time was an important parameter in some LLLT applications."[21]

This is a highly cited study that established the well-known effect that exposure time plays an important role in obtaining the correct benefits from photobiomodulation.

A more recent 2025 rodent study also investigated varying intensities for the same fluence. They confirmed the optimal dose was 50 mW/cm^2 at 2 J/cm^2. Doses from 100mW/cm^2 were less effective even at the same fluence.

"The optimal dose appeared to be the one combining 50 mW/cm² and 40 s irradiation time, which corresponds to 2 J/cm² (85,71% wound closure)"

...

"Irradiation at an increased power density of 100 mW/cm², with energy doses of 2 and 4 J/cm², did not appear to accelerate the healing process.

This suggests that wound healing is not solely dependent on energy dosage, but rather on the specific combination of irradiation power and duration [13]." [22]

The last quote above says that the benefits of PBM are based on a specific combination of intensity and exposure time. The effects are obviously not solely dependent on fluence (J/cm^2) or energy dose.

Intensity: The Least Important Parameter for Red Light Therapy

A recent 3rd party test revealed that the LED Helmet used in one of the above studies claimed to be 24mW/cm^2 was actually only emitting 6.22 mW/cm^2. [4] Yet it still had a beneficial effect reported in the article despite delivering 4x less energy than they thought.

https://pbmfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PBM_Testing_CaseStudy_1-1.pdf

Many clinical and consumer LED products are delivering 2x less intensity than advertised (or worse). Significantly less light is absorbed with non-contact treatments due to reflection losses (~60% less).

According to the mainstream dosing claims, most devices on the market would be ineffective due to low intensities (less than 100mW/cm^2) and low absorbed energy doses (J/cm^2).

Since Red Light Therapy benefits are primarily triggered by exposure time, this would explain why most devices are still effective.

Excessive Intensity Restricts adequate Exposure Time

Name-Brand LED Panels back in 2018 were nearly half as powerful as the latest generation LED panels are now. Yet, the treatment time recommendations are often in the same range as they were before, 10-20 minutes.

We surmise that brands and influencers have independently found that exposure time is key to benefits through anecdotal and intuitive observations. Despite not following the science, they still stumble into the correct answers.

One study used a commercial LED panel 660nm+850nm with 46mW/cm^2 at treatment distance. It was used for only 5 minutes total, 2.5 minutes each side. Even though the calculated 6.9 J/cm^2 was appropriate compared to prior studies, the study failed to find a significant benefit. [23] Aside from the lack of skin contact, we could now also assume the exposure time was too low to be adequate to flip the switch for this type of treatment.

This confirms what has been documented in many articles. High power and mathematical dosing calculations will often lead to poorer results.

"Even though when a device provides a high power, it means that the necessary “dose” is reached in less time. However, there is a “dose rate effect,” and when the dose is applied very quickly, the beneficial effects diminish." [24]

And:

"The time course over which this is delivered is also important. Mathematical reciprocity of exposure time and irradiance to achieve a specific light dose can be ineffective or be deleterious." [25]

Saving time was the marketing promise of high intensity panels based on dosing math. They claim to be more effective and penetrate deeper, which would imply even lower doses would be effective. However, consumers are learning the hard way that they still need adequate exposure time for proper benefits.

A textbook on Photobiomodulation confirms:

"Using more powerful devices as a way of reducing treatment time is not a reliable strategy."[14]

This is another way that high intensities reduce effectiveness. Excessive intensities may restrict obtaining adequate exposure time when calculating for J/cm^2. Especially when those intensities are falsely inflated.

High intensity additionally restricts exposure time now due to discomfort, heating, skin redness, hyperpigmentation, or overstimulation side effects. Influencers often need to justify overdosing and overheating to ensure the consumer gets adequate exposure times to reach the beneficial effect. Consumers often need to slowly increment treatment times to build tolerance to the excessive intensities.

The real solution would be to recommend lower intensities so the consumer can comfortably reach the optimal exposure time of 15 minutes to flip the switch for red light therapy effectiveness.

Now that we know there is no dose-response curve, the consumer would be assured they are still getting the optimal effects even at relatively low energy densities and intensities.

More Power isn't Better

Dr. Jeffery is often outspoken on the issue of excessively large, overpowered LED panels.

"So, you know, you don't have to - I see these massive panels that cost three or four thousand dollars of red light that people purchase, you are probably wasting your money. You're really wasting your money." -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

And:

"there is a big danger that the companies push, the companies are saying 'my red light device is even more powerful than everybody else's red light device' - and people are buying that and you know get these devices with big fans on the back of them - this is rubbish, it's complete rub..."

...

"don't go buy a device that you kind have developed as a nuclear reactor, you don't need it, and you don't need to spend a lot of money on it. You know, it's, everything is about moving down not moving up" -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

And yet another one:

"so you don't need high technology, you don't need a vast amount of light, you don't need a vast amount of energy, you got to get your timing right, and you got to exclude other wavelengths of light, but you don't need these devices that some companies are turning out, these beasts!" -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

High powered LED devices are unnecessarily dangerous and do not offer any therapeutic advantage in the context of true Photobiomodulation. They might feel nice as a fancy LED heat lamp, but they do not fulfill the type of therapy that they are advertised as.

Conclusion: Time for a Paradigm Shift

The mainstream dosing theory of using J/cm^2 is often shown to have wide variability and inconsistent results. Many studies specifically debunk this theory.

"in our experiments the biological process triggered in isolated mitochondria by electromagnetic fields at 810 nm is not determined by the fluence alone and, as a consequence, the Roscoe-Bunsen law of reciprocity does not hold true." [26]

When a theory or model fails to fit the experimental data, then it is time to consider alternative theories and models.

Photobiomodulation dosing as a time-triggered switch is much better model that explains the clinical effects and consumer experiences.

Dr. Jeffery is specifically designing human studies that confirm this theory. In addition, we can retroactively view many other studies that are in good alignment. Focusing on adequate intensity and proper exposure time has been strongly recommended as the clinical grade dosing method in the peer reviewed literature and PBM textbooks for many years.

In many ways, this simplifies dosing. No more math or calculations needed. Low intensity (3 - 50mW/cm^2) exposure for around 15 minutes is the sweet spot for dosing LED products. For direct treatments into the eyes or skin contact for muscle treatments, then the exposure time is 1-3 minutes.

As this quote confirms in one article. There is no need for math or energy calculations with Photobiomodulation dosing. You just need proper intensity and exposure time.

"Calculation of energy is measured in joules (J or W s), and energy density (J/сm2 or W s/сm2 ) is not carried out as there is no need for this information for efficient laser therapy." [13]

Influencers readily admit that dosing with J/cm^2 is too confusing and too variable. But they still cling onto this theory without considering alternatives. Focusing on only J/cm^2 is the best way to justify their high intensity affiliated products. As always, their interpretation of the science correlates to the most profitable sales narrative.

Keeping the consumer confused about dosing is a form of control to promote exclusive insider products. Only the latest generation name-brand panels can deliver high intensity and energy in short time for the best benefits. When that is the opposite direction that real PBM scientific research is going.

"So everything we are doing is saying less energy, less time, still getting a good effect. I don't know where the bottom is." -Dr. Jeffrey [YouTube]

If the consumer knew they could get the same benefits with low intensity and adequate exposure time, they could buy almost any cheap LED panel off of Amazon or Alibaba. In fact, we often review Alibaba devices and recommend turning down the intensity for true clinical-grade usage.

We must be open-minded to alternatives that contradict our preconceived notions if we truly want to push the science of Photobiomodulation forward. The effects of light on health are often noted to be bizarre and counter-intuitive - even by the leading doctors in the field. We must learn to explore every possible option even if it doesn't seem plausible at first.

Bonus Section - Additional Quotes:

This blog was getting too cluttered with quotes from YouTube video interviews. Here are a few additional quotes that we moved down here.

We clipped together most of the quotes conveniently in our own YouTube Channel:

Of course, we encourage you to listen to the full interviews to learn more.

"I don't know where the switch is, I really don't know where it is in terms of - well I know where it is in terms of time - I don't know where it is in terms of energy, but these energies are very low, they're very low" -Dr. Jeffrey

https://youtu.be/mvq3e3g6Cs4?si=NlIf4j0-zgMUkH34&t=4279

Another interview also discusses the same dosing method:

"We're also finding the energy levels that we can use that have an effect are - they're going down nearly all the time, remember it's a switch. So we can get that switch with a bright red light, we can also get that switch with a dim red light." ...

"They just don't get the idea of a switch" ... "sometimes there isn't a dose response curve. Something happens, you do something, and it's a switch. But there are not that many switches in the body. A lot of things are dose-responses, but we will get there." -Dr. Jeffrey

https://youtu.be/tlvv28JEBqc?si=lgwfRpDPD_cCHrvQ&t=2452

And another interview as well:

https://youtu.be/m0igm0mqiBk?si=pKP5wyh7oeH3JJM0&t=1825

Another interview with over 100k views also reiterates:

"at the beginning the more light that you give, the more benefit you get and then after a certain point there's really no more benefit, there may even be detriment. I can tell you for instance in talking to Glen Jeffrey, he's been studying the mitochondria now for decades and he's told me this on several occasions, whether the mitochondria is in a drosophila fly, if its in a bee, or a in a human, after about 15-20 minutes of stimulation, you're going to get the sort of the maximal benefit after that period of time." - Dr. Seheult

https://www.youtube.com/live/VLmn_P3eBuU?si=KOsG-6iiNWfPSTQ2&t=3464

Another interview with over 12K views also notes:

"This thing called the biphasic response of light, which is, that it takes a certain amount of time for light to make it's effect on the mitochondria and what he is seeing is about 15 to 20 minutes, is what he sees. And then further exposure to light after that, has diminishing marginal utility." ...

"But it seems as though just, for some reason just a few minutes, maybe 10 maybe 15 longer its hard to say, and obviously we need studies to look at that, but the effect that he is seeing it is like almost a switch turns on after a certain amount of time. Its not like this linear relationship and the effect can last for days." - Dr. Seheult

https://youtu.be/UF8UE6cJaWQ?si=Q5oFMO_ikwHNeV1H&t=3116

YouTube References:

[A]

Vitamin D Expert: The Fastest Way To Dementia & The Big Lie About Sunlight!

The Diary Of A CEO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQJlGHVmdrA

[B]

Sunlight Deficiency As A Contributor To Poor Health: Roger Seheult, M.D. (‪@Medcram)

Conquer Aging Or Die Trying!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8UE6cJaWQ

[C]

Power Up Your Mitochondria With Red Light Therapy | Dr Glen Jeffery Interview

Modern Healthspan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MzKjYjEE1g

[D]

Boost Mitochondria with Sunlight & Infrared light | Glen Jeffery

Live Longer World

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvq3e3g6Cs4

[E]

#150 | NIR & Deep Red Light to Preserve Eye Health | Glen Jeffrey PhD

Wise Athletes podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0igm0mqiBk

[F]

Secret SUNLIGHT Benefits with Dr. Roger Seheult

KenDBerryMD

https://www.youtube.com/live/VLmn_P3eBuU

[G]

Harnessing Light for Health: A Conversation with Professor Glenn Jeffrey

Tracy Donegan Podcast

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tlvv28JEBqc

References:

[1]

Tate DF, Lindsey HM, Wilde EA. Transcranial Photobiomodulation and Firefighter Health and Wellness: A Single-Arm, Open-Label Pilot Study. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2025 Jul 28. doi: 10.1177/15578550251362096. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 40719008.

[2]

Jeffery G, Fosbury R, Barrett E, Hogg C, Carmona MR, Powner MB. Longer wavelengths in sunlight pass through the human body and have a systemic impact which improves vision. Sci Rep. 2025 Jul 8;15(1):24435. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-09785-3. PMID: 40628952; PMCID: PMC12238558.

[3]

Powner MB, Jeffery G. Light stimulation of mitochondria reduces blood glucose levels. J Biophotonics. 2024 May;17(5):e202300521. doi: 10.1002/jbio.202300521. Epub 2024 Feb 20. PMID: 38378043.

[4]

Bowen R, Arany PR. Use of either transcranial or whole-body photobiomodulation treatments improves COVID-19 brain fog. J Biophotonics. 2023 Aug;16(8):e202200391. doi: 10.1002/jbio.202200391. Epub 2023 Apr 29. PMID: 37018063.

[5]

Pereira PC, de Lima CJ, Fernandes AB, Zângaro RA, Villaverde AB. Cardiopulmonary and hematological effects of infrared LED photobiomodulation in the treatment of SARS-COV2. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2023 Jan;238:112619. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2022.112619. Epub 2022 Dec 5. PMID: 36495670; PMCID: PMC9721157.

[6]

Fitzmaurice BC, Heneghan NR, Rayen ATA, Grenfell RL, Soundy AA. Whole-Body Photobiomodulation Therapy for Fibromyalgia: A Feasibility Trial. Behav Sci (Basel). 2023 Aug 29;13(9):717. doi: 10.3390/bs13090717. PMID: 37753995; PMCID: PMC10525895.

[7]

Choi AR, Kang JH, Park KJ, Lee HI, Kim TJ. Effects of light-emitting diode therapy on hand stiffness and pain in non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-refractory patients with tenosynovitis. J Rheum Dis. 2023 Jul 1;30(3):170-175. doi: 10.4078/jrd.2023.0004. Epub 2023 May 4. PMID: 37476675; PMCID: PMC10351370.

[8]

Chaudhari A, Wang X, Wu A, Liu H. Repeated Transcranial Photobiomodulation with Light-Emitting Diodes Improves Psychomotor Vigilance and EEG Networks of the Human Brain. Bioengineering (Basel). 2023 Sep 5;10(9):1043. doi: 10.3390/bioengineering10091043. PMID: 37760145; PMCID: PMC10525861.

[9]

de Sá CMD. Effect of 660/850 nm LED on the microcirculation of the foot: neurovascular biphasic reflex. Lasers Med Sci. 2021 Dec;36(9):1883-1889. doi: 10.1007/s10103-020-03235-4. Epub 2021 Jan 5. PMID: 33398615.

[10]

Foley J, Vasily DB, Bradle J, Rudio C, Calderhead RG. 830 nm light-emitting diode (led) phototherapy significantly reduced return-to-play in injured university athletes: a pilot study. Laser Ther. 2016 Mar 31;25(1):35-42. doi: 10.5978/islsm.16-OR-03. PMID: 27141153; PMCID: PMC4846838.

[11]

Yang, Dandan, Wu, Xiaoying, Hou, Wensheng, Zheng, Xiaolin, Zheng, Jun, Jiang, Yingtao, Assessing the Therapeutic Effect of 630 nm Light-Emitting Diodes Irradiation on the Recovery of Exercise-Induced Hand Muscle Fatigue with Surface Electromyogram, International Journal of Photoenergy, 2012, 652040, 8 pages, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/652040

[12]

Huang YY, Chen AC, Carroll JD, Hamblin MR. Biphasic dose response in low level light therapy. Dose Response. 2009 Sep 1;7(4):358-83. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.09-027.Hamblin. PMID: 20011653; PMCID: PMC2790317.

[13]

Sergey V. Moskvin, Andrey V. Kochetkov, Chapter 40 - Russian low level laser therapy techniques for brain disorders, Editor(s): Michael R. Hamblin, Ying-Ying Huang,

Photobiomodulation in the Brain, Academic Press, 2019, Pages 545-572,

ISBN 9780128153055, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815305-5.00040-3.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128153055000403)

[14]

James D. Carroll, Chapter 7 - Light sources and dosimetry for the brain and whole body,

Editor(s): Michael R. Hamblin, Ying-Ying Huang, Photobiomodulation in the Brain,

Academic Press, 2019, Pages 89-95, ISBN 9780128153055,

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815305-5.00007-5.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128153055000075)

[15]

Jaroslava Joniová, Emmanuel Gerelli, Georges Wagnières,

Study and optimization of the photobiomodulation effects induced on mitochondrial metabolic activity of human cardiomyocytes for different radiometric and spectral conditions,

Life Sciences, Volume 351, 2024, 122760, ISSN 0024-3205,

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lfs.2024.122760.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0024320524003503)

[16]

Randa Zein, Wayne Selting, and Michael R. Hamblin "Review of light parameters and photobiomodulation efficacy: dive into complexity," Journal of Biomedical Optics 23(12), 120901 (11 December 2018). https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.23.12.120901

[17]

Low-Level Light Therapy: Photobiomodulation

Author(s): Michael R. Hamblin, Cleber Ferraresi, Ying-Ying Huang M.D., Lucas Freitas de Freitas, James D. Carroll

Published: 2018

https://doi.org/10.1117/3.2295638

PDF ISBN: 9781510614161 | Print ISBN: 9781510614154

[18]

Harpreet Shinhmar, MSc and others, Optically Improved Mitochondrial Function Redeems Aged Human Visual Decline, The Journals of Gerontology: Series A, Volume 75, Issue 9, September 2020, Pages e49–e52, https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaa155

https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/75/9/e49/5863431

[19]

Shinhmar, Harpreet et al. “Weeklong improved colour contrasts sensitivity after single 670 nm exposures associated with enhanced mitochondrial function.” Scientific reports vol. 11,1 22872. 24 Nov. 2021, doi:10.1038/s41598-021-02311-1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8613193/

[20]

Baracho VDS, Chaves MEA, Huebner R, Oliveira MX, Ferreira PHDC, Lucas TC. Phototherapy (cluster multi-diode 630 nm and 940 nm) on the healing of pressure injury: A pilot study. J Vasc Nurs. 2021 Sep;39(3):67-75. doi: 10.1016/j.jvn.2021.06.002. Epub 2021 Jul 18. PMID: 34507703.

[21]

Huang YY, Sharma SK, Carroll J, Hamblin MR. Biphasic dose response in low level light therapy - an update. Dose Response. 2011;9(4):602-18. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.11-009.Hamblin. Epub 2011 Sep 2. PMID: 22461763; PMCID: PMC3315174.

[22]

Statha D, Sfiniadakis I, Rallis M, Anastassopoulou J, Alexandratou E. Investigating the wound healing potential of low-power 661 nm laser light in a pigmented hairless murine model. Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2025 May;24(5):779-790. doi: 10.1007/s43630-025-00725-8. Epub 2025 May 8. PMID: 40338500.

[23]

Zagatto AM, Dutra YM, Lira FS, Antunes BM, Faustini JB, Malta ES, Lopes VHF, de Poli RAB, Brisola GMP, Dos Santos GV, Rodrigues FM, Ferraresi C. Full Body Photobiomodulation Therapy to Induce Faster Muscle Recovery in Water Polo Athletes: Preliminary Results. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2020 Dec;38(12):766-772. doi: 10.1089/photob.2020.4803. PMID: 33332232.

[24]

dos Santos Mendes-Costa, L., de Lima, V.G., Barbosa, M.P.R. et al. Photobiomodulation: systematic review and meta-analysis of the most used parameters in the resolution diabetic foot ulcers. Lasers Med Sci 36, 1129–1138 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-020-03192-y

[25]

Lanzafame R. Light Dosing and Tissue Penetration: It Is Complicated. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2020 Jul;38(7):393-394. doi: 10.1089/photob.2020.4843. Epub 2020 Jun 5. PMID: 32503388; PMCID: PMC7374595.

[26]

Amaroli A, Clemente Vargas MR, Pasquale C, Raffetto M, Ravera S. Photobiomodulation on isolated mitochondria at 810 nm: first results on the efficiency of the energy conversion process. Sci Rep. 2024 May 14;14(1):11060. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-61740-w. Erratum in: Sci Rep. 2024 Sep 13;14(1):21416. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-72599-2. PMID: 38744931; PMCID: PMC11094005.

Back to Musings