This seems dubious. What in world would be the mechanism?
On the other hand, I don't see the harm in doing this and it seems easy to replicate. Hopefully others will quickly try to replicate it, and if they do, try to figure out why.
Red light is established as a powerful trigger of cell repair mechanisms. Sunlight is a massive source of red light (and other colors) and if you stay indoors as much as the average person does, shining artificial red light on yourself may help make up for deficiencies.
I guess the new LED bulbs miss a lot of frequencies that were present in incandescent (black body radiation) bulbs. I wonder if we'll see a bunch of "light frequency deficiency" diseases arising as a result.
> "Intranasal Light Therapy involves the simple process of clipping a small red light diode to the nose to illuminate the nasal cavity. Researchers have found that this act initiates the process of healing a large number of health conditions such as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, diabetes, sinusitis, dementia and various viral infections." - http://www.drgcohen.com/site/healing-approach/intranasal-lig...
The more panacea it is, the more woo it probably is, eh?
[Edit: NB. Nitric Oxide is produced in the paranasal sinus cavities[1], and when inhaling through the nose it gets drawn into the body. It appears to be involved in arterial flexibility, increasing blood flow, decreasing blood pressure, immunity, neurotransmission, and relatedly treating erectile dysfunction. Humming appears to increase the production of Nitric Oxide[3]. Maybe the red light up the nose just makes you breathe through your nose?]
[3] does not claim that humming increases production of NO. It claims that humming improves air exchange between the parasinuses (which produce NO) and the nasal cavity. This results in increased exhalation of NO. Production was not measured.
Why shouldn't it, all parts of the body needs a frequent stimulation, otherwise process of minimizing energy output (ie for tissue maintenance, repair of muscles and joints, etc.) kicks in.
Our bodies are a bit dumb in this, albeit with good intentions - momentarily preserve energy, make body weaker long term. It made sense in the past though, otherwise we wouldn't be probably here.
Yes indeed, its interesting the different quantities I've noticed - like up to 17,000 my body really ramps up, I could do that every day, and often do, but I did 30,000 the other day I was tired the next day. Though when I started 5,000 was a major achievement. I'd love to see wider studies on this, like do muscles change? and how etc. I guess sports science focuses on athletes, Is there much average Joe science? apart from weight loss. I'm amazed also at how easy walking is, and how little calories I burn walking - which is why I started - to lose a few pounds.
Do a bit of reading on the mitochondria, ATP and the electron transport chain. I still don't understand exactly the mechanism, but it seems that our cells might share some characteristics with photosynthetic cells, and certain kinds of light might increase energy production on a cellular level. From what I remember in bio class, light energy sets off chain reactions by displacing electrons in photosynthetic cells. This paper was from 2008, and they specifically call out low-intensity red light and near-infrared light. Seems like this idea has been floating around for a while now, and somewhat well backed up.
If only more people would take the time to read the existing literature and studies before they say things like "this is dubious" without having a shred of understanding what it is they are talking about.
I think it seems a little dubious as well just considering the study was done with only 24 ppl.
If it works, I'd imagine the mechanism is something on the cellular level, similar to how blue light disturbs sleep by stirring up activity within a certain type of retinal cell.
While the sample is small, the article states "Researchers built on their previous findings in mice, bumblebees and fruit flies, which all found significant improvements in the function of the retina's photoreceptors when their eyes were exposed to 670 nanometre (long wavelength) deep red light."
This might not be so out-of-the-blue implausible.
Mechanisms are not always obvious. 40 Hertz blinking light has been conclusively proven/replicated to reduce amyloid plaques in mice, which may offer a path towards Alzheimer’s treatment. Most people wouldn’t have believed you before the replications succeeded.
I agree, mechanisms are not always obvious. In the short term the only thing that matters is, "does it work?" If a larger study replicates the positive benefits of red light, well then, let's use it for that purpose!! But I would like to know why...!
On the other hand, I don't see the harm in doing this and it seems easy to replicate. Hopefully others will quickly try to replicate it, and if they do, try to figure out why.