2025 State of Full-Body Red Light Therapy Research: Mad Science
What does the peer-reviewed literature have to say about Whole Body LED Red Light Therapy? Not much, actually.
It should be shocking to learn that there are very few published studies specifically on whole body red light therapy. Whenever we find a new article on the topic, it is quite a treat.
On January 30th, 2025 - a new systematic review published looking at the effects of Whole-Body Red Light Therapy on sports exercise performance and recovery.
Title below:
"A systematic review on whole-body photobiomodulation for exercise performance and recovery" [1]
PMID: 39883205
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39883205/
Red and NIR Light Therapy holds great promise for improving athletic performance. It has been studied for nearly every aspect of athletic performance. From workout recovery, to reducing Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness, accelerated muscle growth, improved performance, sleep, HRV, and more.
So this new review article sets out specifically to look at articles that are relevant to our industry - Whole Body LED exposure for athletic recovery.
Systematic Review Articles:
A systematic review is a type of peer-reviewed article that collects all the relevant clinical trials that meets the inclusion criteria. They apply a standardized approach to interpret and summarize conclusions on that topic.
Rather than trusting manufacturers and influencers to synthesize their interpretation of many individual studies in a potentially biased way - this allows researchers and authors to summarize many articles in a structured way that helps reduce bias.
Systematic Review of Full Body Red Light Therapy for Sports:
The authors found only 5 studies that met the inclusion criteria (whole body PBM for athletic recovery) representing 105 participants of both sexes.
The authors concluded that whole-body PBM demonstrated improvements in sleep, but made no significant improvement in exercise performance or recovery.
"Whole-body PBM may improve sleep quality but shows no evidence of benefits for exercise recovery or performance. "[1]
This systemic review highlights many deficiencies in whole body red light therapy science. Namely, the apparent lack of studies that actually use whole body PBM and the subsequent inconsistencies in results.
"This systematic review does not support the use of
whole-body PBM for exercise performance and recovery." [1]
The Lack of Skin Contact:
In contrast, the authors discuss how local, targeted, skin contact PBM studies show better and more consistent results. They reference 4 other review articles that confirm that skin contact application with hand-held devices or pads have better results.
"In all the trials selected in these four reviews [9–12],
PBM was performed with a hand-held device or pads in
direct contact with the skin irradiating a local area in specific
muscles, using red and near-infrared wavelengths between
630 and 980 nm." [1]
As usual, the suspected main issue is the lack of skin contact method for whole body devices. The authors are concerned that the benefits from targeted skin-contact studies are being used out of context to sell large non-contact LED panels.
Which is exactly what is happening with influencers and brands pushing for large whole-body red light therapy devices that offer lucrative affiliate kickbacks.
"Some companies promote the use of whole-body LED panels based on the evidence from local PBM. These organizations primarily pursue profit-driven objectives and do not
necessarily represent the stance of the academic community." [1]
It is rather concerning that peer-reviewed articles feel the need to call out the LED Panel industry for these deceptive marketing practices.
Full Body Photobiomodulation (PBM):
Full-Body or Whole-Body Photobiomodulation is the act of using Red and/or Near-Infrared light on the entire body for a therapeutic effect.
It may come as a surprise to learn that this is a very new subset of Photobiomodulation research.
The oldest study we can find on Whole Body PBM dates back to 2012. This means that Whole Body PBM is only 13 years old (as of this writing in 2025).
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3499892/
Photobiomodulation (PBM) was derived from Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) dating back to the 1960's. Thus, the foundation and vast majority of studies used small lasers.
A 2018 article makes this statement:
"To this day, more than 3500 scientific articles on photobiomodulation have been published. Approximately 85–90% of the original research has utilized lasers as light sources." [2]
Despite the abundance of large LED panels to the consumer, studies on Whole-Body Red Light Therapy are still quite scarce. Lasers have been the dominant treatment method that has proven to achieve most of the benefits in clinical studies.
Yet in marketing, it is often implied that giant LED panels are essential to obtain any benefits from Red Light Therapy. In reality, the opposite is often proven to be true. Most benefits are gotten from small, localized, targeted, low powered lasers.
Whole Body PBM Articles:
This systematic review found only 5 studies on whole-body red light therapy for athletic recovery that met the inclusion criteria.
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23182016/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33332232/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33345040/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37099210/
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36006085/
[1]
They discuss 2 other articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria.
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36006085/
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S141335552400162X
[1]
They even note 3 ongoing trials registered:
- Ferraresi C (2020) Effects of full body light therapy on the muscular performance of Rugby athletes: randomized, doubleblind, crossover and placebo-controlled clinical trial. https://TrialsearchWhoInt/Trial2Aspx?TrialID=RBR-7x65zj
- Rodrigues FM, Dos Santos GV (2022) Effects of Light Therapy on Muscle Performance in Trained People. https://TrialsearchWhoInt/Trial2Aspx?TrialID=RBR-8ksktby
- de Oliveira IA (2023) Effect of Whole-body Photobiomodulation on Muscular Performance Enhancement. https:// ClinicaltrialsGov/Ct2/Show/NCT05989815
[1]
So in the next few years we can look forward to at least 3 more articles on Full Body Red Light Therapy on athletic performance.
Full Body Light Therapy for Other Conditions:
The systemic review also references 5 articles that use whole-body for other conditions such as Long-COVID brain fog, and four on fibromyalgia.
- Long-Covid Brain Fog - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jbio.202200391
- Fibromayalgia - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40122-022-00450-5
- Fibromayalgia - https://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/13/9/717
- Fibromayalgia - https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/12/5/1116
- Fibromayalgia - https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnins.2024.1264821/full
[1]
In total, that makes only 12 articles on whole-body red light therapy. This systematic review article marks the first systematic review article specifically on whole-body red light therapy.
So we can see that whole-body red light therapy can indeed be beneficial for other conditions, however it is currently not recommended for athletic performance until the dosing parameters are optimized.
Turning Red Light Therapy into Heat Therapy
The Systematic Review article notes that there is a significant loss of penetration when using LED devices at a distance from the skin. Which we cover in great detail in previous blogs like this one.
"One of the differences between whole-body and local PBM is the distance between the light source and the skin. If the light source is further away as is the case during wholebody PBM, the penetration of light into the skin decreases and the intensity required is higher." [1]
To compensate for the poor penetration, the authors comment that higher intensities may be required. They recommend more studies to optimize the proper intensity and dosing with full body treatments.
In that way, the LED Panel brands and influencers have been one step ahead of this finding. They likely observed their products were inadequate with non-contact dosing so they had to vastly increase the intensity output and promote overdosing.
However, at some threshold using excessively high intensity then the LED Panels become a fancy form of heat therapy (Thermotherapy). Which seems to be the current situation with many of the latest generation panels from the major brands.
High Intensity LED panels would need to use pulsing, scanning, or external cooling like fans (aimed at the user) to still qualify as non-thermal PBM.
Instead, influencers are currently petitioning researchers for unrestricted heating as long as they don't literally burn people.
Should You Feel Heat During Red Light Therapy?
We summarized in a previous blog many of the parameters from the above Full-Body RLT articles like intensity, wavelengths, exposure time, and dosing. Click Here to go to that blog.
One topic we have also covered is what should be felt during clinical grade red light therapy. Since Photobiomodulation and Low Level Laser Therapy is non-thermal by definition - it comes as no surprise that most patients do not feel anything at all. You can Click Here to check that blog.
In a recent interview, Dr. Arany tells Ari Whitten this about the fact that patients don't feel anything during treatments with true non-thermal Photobiomodulation:
"That’s the other thing that people find. A practical joke that several of my colleagues tell me is that neither the patient feels anything nor can the clinician see any change, but we still charge them money. That is one of the problems with this treatment, is people stop–, they’re not patient enough to see the benefits after two to three appointments."
Dr. Arany, YouTube Interview, [Link to Transcript][4]
All of the full-body articles make no mention of intentionally heating the body. As that would mean they are doing a thermotherapy (heat therapy) and not a Photobiomodulation therapy (non-thermal light therapy).
In the same interview, Mr. Whitten - clearly not listening to any information that doesn't confirm his bias - insists that people will always feel some heat during red light therapy.
"Just to clarify, there is some bit of heating that occurs with using an LED panel or a pad-style device. Do you think that’s harmful?"
Ari Whitten, YouTube Interview, [Link to Transcript][4]
We have to assume that Mr. Whitten has never even tried a Cold Laser, his only experience is with high intensity LED devices that cause heating. So it is natural that he would make this assumption and have this blindspot bias.
The argument is that heating is not "harmful", but completely disregarding the real goal should be seeking optimal dosing. If your goal is merely not harming people, you have already completely lost the plotline.
One of the Full-Body studies on Fibromyalgia documented the patients commentary on how they felt during the treatments. This is how some of the patients describe it.
"It’s like the warmth going through my body, it’s amazing, it’s like being in the sun. " [3]
Another one comments:
"It’s just like a nice warm summer’s day on an Ibiza beach...
...
it’s just nice and warm and soothing in there" [3]
Some of the patients appear to be suffering from poor circulation and poor temperature regulation, so it may be just the warmth is the nitric oxide, vasodilation, and a return to normal body temperature. Unfortunately there was no monitoring of skin temperature to confirm if there was an actual increase in temperature, or just a sensation of warming.
When I tried the NovoThor bed at a clinic, it was surprisingly warm despite the low intensity it emits (about 28mW/cm^2). Likely it was the device itself was heating up and transferring the heat to my body, and not a direct consequence of the light causing heating.
Some subtle warmth is allowable with full-body red light therapy. However, it would be more scientific to monitor skin temperature and define safe and optimally effective thresholds for the maximum allowable skin temperature. When intentionally causing heat, then it essentially becomes more of a Heat Therapy and less of a PBM therapy.
More Full Body Red Light Therapy Research:
On the Brain-PBM YouTube channel - researchers presented their preliminary results from ongoing full body red light therapy trials. So we can be hopeful that in the near future there will be more published research from this group.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS_7PRbg_Vc
Like any good science, the first step is to take accurate measurements. In this case, the intensity of the devices they are using. This is crucial for safety, accurate dosing, and allowing future researchers to understand, replicate, or build off of these results.
To no ones surprise, the researchers found that most LED Panel and LED Bed manufacturers were falsely advertising their intensity numbers by a wide margin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KS_7PRbg_Vc
The above are some examples of their measurements versus what they found was being marketed by the manufacturer.
They also reported the Joovv Mini 3.0 panel at 12 inches the average intensity is about 25mW/cm^2, and the PlatinumLED Biomax 900 average intensity at 15 inches away is 56mW/cm^2.
The real shame is that many consumers believe they are getting high intensities and doses from these devices, yet with the false advertising of intensity and not considering reflection losses - they are actually getting benefits from significantly lower doses than they thought.
Corrupt Red Light Therapy Industry:
The researchers seemed to be fearful of litigation, so they made up some excuses that the false advertising was likely unintentional and based on discrepancies in measurement methodologies.
While no measurement is perfect and there is always some margin for error, there is no industry I have ever worked in that would tolerate measurement discrepancies by 2x or even 10x.
There is a similar sentiment of fear and complacency we see from "independent" influencers.
According to an email from Alex Fergus:
"I was also told that my calling companies numbers out I could get in trouble. Who am I to say - with no qualifications in light or measurement - with a $3000 device - that the company with their numbers are wrong. I could get done for defamation there as well. Especially if one were to replicate their measurement tests and come out with the same figure. Again - there are lots of things to consider here."
Alex Fergus, Email, 11/12/2023
Alex claims he was advised to not call out brands for false advertising too harshly since that could cause "trouble" for him. Disturbingly, this would imply that Alex's legal consul advised him that it was fine to continue being financially affiliated with such blatantly problematic brands.
"Actually - my last point - I feel like you are attacking me a lot. But I don't work for these companies. I'm not even affiliated with some of them (not everyone wants to be affiliated with me). So why is it all my fault if they're doing things that you don't agree with? Why don't you spend your time attacking them, or suing them. "
Alex Fergus, Email, 11/9/2023
Alex acknowledges that the brands he is affiliated with could be sued for false advertising. In some expert-level blame-shifting, it is GembaRed's fault that brands are still false advertising, we should have sued them a long time ago to force them to stop.
Alex Fergus is not technically an employee of these brands, so in his mind he is just exploiting a perfectly legal loophole by endorsing them. Mr. Fergus is just running an "independent" marketing agency that happens to be funded by brands that false advertise. In reality, influencers get sued often for endorsing scam products.
"Spoken to companies re this issue:
re:
"And if you think I have that much influence in the space (by saying I'm going to stop endorsing them) you're dreaming." - You clearly haven't even tried and are using logical fallacies and assumptions to downplay the impact.
No, in fact this is wrong. I have spoken to a few companies about this. Including some of the big names."
Alex Fergus, Email, 11/12/2023
It is likely that Alex Fergus politely discussed this issue to his overlords at MitoRed and PlatinumLED. They refused to stop false advertising, and some unseen force is compelling Mr. Fergus to continue endorsing them (money, legal, sociopathy). No, his intentions are pure. They simply make objectively the best panels on the market, and he would never deprive his audience of the best panels because of something so petty as medical fraud.
Mr. Fergus's logic says that if you can't stop the looters, then you should join in on the looting yourself. Alex Fergus refuses to stop affiliating with brands that false advertise, because he claims it won't stop them anyway. So why should he be financially punished for someone else's crimes? That wouldn't be fair. As always, Alex Fergus is the helpless victim here. Like our next influencer here too.
Ari Whitten incriminates himself in his interview with Dr. Arany:
"I have a lot of third-party lab data on some of these devices, so I know the true numbers, not the ones that the companies give on their websites, which are very inaccurate, as I’m sure you know."
Ari Whitten, YouTube Interview, [Link to Transcript] [4]
Mr. Whitten vaguely calls out brands like PlatinumLED and RedTherapyCo (RedRush) that are false advertising their intensity. They even have the 3rd party data and choose not to properly advertise on their product pages on their websites. They choose to publish falsely high numbers likely gotten from solar power meters.
While Mr. Whitten is pretending to be a hero by pointing it out, it is the same deception he committed himself in his 2018 book The Ultimate Guide to Red Light Therapy by using solar power meter measurements. And we assume Mr. Whitten remains financially affiliated with those brands that are still false advertising to this day, and will perhaps even publish another updated book on Red Light Therapy where he knowingly endorses brands that false advertise again.
This industry is being held captive by corrupt brands and influencers. Even the independent researchers seem to be fearful to stand up to it.
Influencer Dosing Guides:
Even the influencers pretending to be experts are aware that they have no evidence-based dosing guidance for the LED Panels they push as Medical Grade or Clinical Grade.
Ari Whitten asks of Dr. Arany:
"Let’s say we’re in the 60s or 70s as far as irradiance milliwatts per square centimeter. What does treatment time typically look like?"
Ari Whitten, YouTube Interview, [Link to Transcript] [4]
Not getting much of an answer, Mr. Whitten asks again:
"Is there any sort of piece of advice or guidelines that you would offer to people with some of these home devices? Let’s say they have an LED panel that’s in the range of 60 to 80 milliwatts per square centimeter"
Ari Whitten, YouTube Interview, [Link to Transcript] [4]
Mr. Whitten seems to not know the answer himself, which is why he is repeatedly asking a basic dosing question. There aren't any whole body studies that use such high intensity, so any guesses about proper dosing with them would be entirely speculative and not evidence-based.
If these devices and intensities were so clearly "medical grade", we should expect an abundance of published data about them with minimal ambiguity for dosing.
Let us recall back to his 2018 book; Mr. Whitten was rather insistent that 100mW/cm^2 is the magical number for effective intensity. So it is odd to see him talk about intensities 60 to 80 mW/cm^2 so much.
Why the big shift? Was there some new scientific research that contraindicated 100mW/cm^2 and now 60 to 80 mW/cm^2 is more ideal? Or is it just shifting the "best" parameters to exactly match the products he intends to sell.
Of course, Mr. Whitten's interview questions are inherently biased. Instead of first asking an open-ended question like what an appropriate or optimal intensity would be for full body light therapy, Ari is specifically fishing for dosing advice with the parameters of brands that he is affiliated with.
Since he knows his affiliated products are non-contact, high intensity, quickly cause overdosing, and produce a lot of heat - those are the narratives he pushes with his biased questions throughout his interviews with researchers. It seems Ari is jumping to conclusions about these topics, without having a strong understanding of the basics of dosing in the first place.
The interviews themselves becoming nothing more than marketing stunts to promote book and affiliated panel sales. Often omitting any kind of financial disclosures that would satisfy the FTC guidelines. Like in the comment section when he recommends PlatinumLED.
Conclusions:
This current Systemic Review of Whole Body Red Light Therapy does not advise it's application for athletic performance. Sorry, LeBron. The authors recommend targeted skin contact application for athletes - at least until more studies are conducted and they confirm more effective dosing protocols.
With more trials, there could be better understanding of the benefits and proper dosing of Full Body Red Light Therapy. For now, there is no good compensation factor to go from Laser dosing up to Full-Body LED dosing. That is a massive leap in technological differences.
Like any medicine, Red Light Therapy needs accurate dosage measurements in order to even proceed with more clinical trials. Research is going to be stifled by the distrust that professionals have with LED manufacturers. It should be an embarrassment that the researchers are just now uncovering how fraudulent the commercial industry has become.
There could have been nearly a decade of Citizen Science by now if brands were more truthful with the intensities they were providing to consumers. Since brands and influencers are using the consumer for their own medical experiments, we would hope they are collecting data on the results that could benefit mankind in the long run. It is like mad science, except without the science.
Until there are more studies, the benefits of Full Body Red Light Therapy remains speculative based on extrapolating skin-contact laser studies out of context. Even if we ignore the measurement issues and corruption, then the issue is finding proper dosing protocols that can even achieve the benefits consistently.
References
[1]
Álvarez-Martínez M, Borden G. A systematic review on whole-body photobiomodulation for exercise performance and recovery. Lasers Med Sci. 2025 Jan 30;40(1):55. doi: 10.1007/s10103-025-04318-w. PMID: 39883205.
[2]
Heiskanen V, Hamblin MR. Photobiomodulation: lasers vs. light emitting diodes? Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2018 Aug 8;17(8):1003-1017. doi: 10.1039/c8pp90049c. Erratum in: Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2018 Oct 31;18(1):259-259. doi: 10.1039/c8pp90049c. PMID: 30044464; PMCID: PMC6091542.
[3]
Fitzmaurice, B.C.; Grenfell, R.L.; Heneghan, N.R.; Rayen, A.T.A.; Soundy, A.A. Whole-Body Photobiomodulation Therapy Propels the Fibromyalgia Patient into the Recomposition Phase: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis. Biomedicines 2024, 12, 1116. https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines12051116
[4] Interview: The Energy Blueprint, Ari Whitten - https://theenergyblueprint.com/the-science-of-red-light-therapy-dosing-with-dr-praveen-arany/