Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SURVEY | Effectiveness of light therapy for rosacea and/or seborrheic dermatitis

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • findingaway
    replied
    Rand,

    Glad you read my other post re 633 nm, which I switched to last night.

    Also found this which might be of interest. I've started using green tea last night, although how you expose it to extreme oxidative stress I'm not sure? Leave it out? Think it will be as beneficial in the fridge?

    Green Tea and Red Light-A Powerful Duo in Skin Rejuvenation.

    Sommer AP, Zhu D

    Institute of Micro and Nanomaterials, University of Ulm , Ulm, Germany .

    Abstract Objective: Juvenile skin has been the subject of intense research efforts since ancient times. This article reports on synergistic complementarities in the biological actions of green tea and red light, which inspired the design of a green tea-assisted facial rejuvenation program. Background Data: The approach is based on previous laboratory experiments providing insight into a mechanism by which visible light interacts with cells and their microenvironment.

    Methods: After 2 months of extreme oxidative stress, green tea-filled cotton pads were placed once per day for 20 minutes onto the skin before treatment with an array of light-emitting diodes (central wavelength 670 nm, dermal dose 4 J/cm(2)).

    Results: Rejuvenated skin, reduced wrinkle levels, and juvenile complexion, previously realized in 10 months of light treatment alone, were realized in 1 month. Conclusion: The accelerated skin rejuvenation based on the interplay of the physicochemical and biological effects of light with the reactive oxygen species scavenging capacity of green tea extends the action spectrum of phototherapy. The duo opens the gate to a multitude of possible biomedical light applications and cosmetic formulas, including reversal of topical deterioration related to excess reactive oxygen species, such as graying of hair.

    Leave a comment:


  • findingaway
    replied
    Originally posted by Rand627 View Post
    I meant..4 minutes of red and 3 of IR tomorrow. Then again on..Saturday, so a 48 hour difference.
    Cool. It prob fine to mix the wavelenghths - the Britebox does it - but I wouldn't myself.

    Good luck

    Leave a comment:


  • Rand627
    replied
    I meant..4 minutes of red and 3 of IR tomorrow. Then again on..Saturday, so a 48 hour difference.

    Leave a comment:


  • findingaway
    replied
    Originally posted by Rand627 View Post
    Hm. Well maybe I'll try 3 minutes of IR and 4 minutes of red tomorrow. There are so many variables that it's going to take quite a bit of time before I know what I'm doing. Why do you think having both on at the same time affects anything?
    If you meant 3 mins of IR today and 4 of IR tomorrow, then that would be cool. Personally I'd give it 48 hours between sessions. The second day is always my best day.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rand627
    replied
    Hm. Well maybe I'll try 3 minutes of IR and 4 minutes of red tomorrow. There are so many variables that it's going to take quite a bit of time before I know what I'm doing. Why do you think having both on at the same time affects anything?

    Leave a comment:


  • findingaway
    replied
    Originally posted by Rand627 View Post
    Hm, interesting stuff as always. Today was the first day I could feel the sensitivity after the RLT. I did 6 and a half minutes with all of the minutes with red and 5 minutes of IR.

    Taking a picture of myself tomorrow for an application. Hah, gonna have to do some photoshopping. Wish me luck.
    Good luck Rand.

    I would build up slowly though. I dived straight in there because I wanted to see results and it back fired. Plus, I'd stick to one wavelenghth per session if I were you.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rand627
    replied
    Hm, interesting stuff as always. Today was the first day I could feel the sensitivity after the RLT. I did 6 and a half minutes with all of the minutes with red and 5 minutes of IR.

    Taking a picture of myself tomorrow for an application. Hah, gonna have to do some photoshopping. Wish me luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • findingaway
    replied
    Originally posted by Rand627 View Post
    Interesting, what are the supposed benefits of 633 vs 660?
    That, Rand, I have no idea! But I'd love to know! The only thing I have managed to find is in this article, but does really explain why (plus I also found a post from someone saying not to use 630nm for healing): http://heelspurs.com/led.html

    630 is not as beneficial as 660, but it's still a good wavelength at least for skin. 660 nm will penetrate deeper because 630 is blocked more by blood and collagen, and 660 nm has a better biological response. *630 nm red is slightly orange and 660 nm red is a "deeper" red. *Since 660 nm is almost infrared, the human eye is not able to see it as well. *630 nm red is used in key rings, traffic lights, and car tail-lights because it's 6 times easier to see than 660 nm (see the photopic response factor - chart ). *The eye doesn't suddenly stop sensing light at 700 nm, but it is a gradual decline in sensitivity. *You can see the healing and pain relief effect of light therapy by applying a laser pointer or a key ring light to small cuts for 2 minutes or to an arthritic finger joint for 20 minutes.
    The article also touches on other wavelenghths.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rand627
    replied
    Interesting, what are the supposed benefits of 633 vs 660? I didn't even realize the omnilux and the ledman's unit were different in terms of wavelength.

    And yeah, it's definitely good quality. Really light, but I guess that's just because they are LEDs.

    Leave a comment:


  • findingaway
    replied
    Originally posted by Rand627 View Post
    Hah..maybe, I do have time to use both at different times. This is on a completely different subject, but how do you shave? Electric or a razor?
    Hi Rand,

    I would just stick to red. If I had a 660nm as opposed to a 633nm, I'd be using red too. In fact thinking of getting a LEDman unit too. Is it good quality?

    Re shaving, I use a wet shaver every 2-3 days. Never used an electric one. I do get some irritation, but it goes after a while.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rand627
    replied
    Hah..maybe, I do have time to use both at different times. This is on a completely different subject, but how do you shave? Electric or a razor?

    Leave a comment:


  • findingaway
    replied
    Originally posted by Rand627 View Post
    My goodness it sounds like you've been doing quite a bit of research. I think tomorrow I'm going to do 6 minutes of red and on the last 3 minutes add the IR. I pretty much hold it against my skin as well, so I should get quite a bit of light in there.

    So you say your burning has completely gone? If so, that's quite remarkable. Burning is one of the most annoying parts of this disease.
    Yep. Gone apart from when I flush, but even it's just a light feeling, 10% of where it was before.

    Just remember that 6 mins on your device is not the same as 6 mins on mine.

    Also, from the reading ive done, I would mix the wavelenghths. I can't explain why more then to say almost exclusively, every study used just one wavelength at a time. This may be because red and infrared do slightly different things. Maybe like trying to microwave a meal while it's cooking in the oven...?? Lol, I love my analogies.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rand627
    replied
    My goodness it sounds like you've been doing quite a bit of research. I think tomorrow I'm going to do 6 minutes of red and on the last 3 minutes add the IR. I pretty much hold it against my skin as well, so I should get quite a bit of light in there.

    So you say your burning has completely gone? If so, that's quite remarkable. Burning is one of the most annoying parts of this disease.

    Leave a comment:


  • findingaway
    replied
    Well as long as you had a good time

    I've been doing a LOT of reading on RLT and feel I have moved an inch forward. Enough, however, to adjust my "dose" accordingly - educated guess I think they call it.

    In a nutshell, been emailing professors that have written/conducted studies with RLT and asked them the questions outlined in a previous post.

    The only response (not surprisingly) I have got back is, "try the Near-Infrared as it has more effective anti-inflamatory effects" and "LLLT can be anti-inflammatory but can also increase blood flow and angiogenesis so it is not a clear cut application in rosacea" - very helpful of them to get back, but i'm not sure it answered my question.

    So now I have administering 6 minutes of NIR (Near Infrared) every 48 hours based on experiences on this forum and studies I read.

    The burning has gone!! Yay! But, my eye went crazy the other day :/ and I have been experiencing some flushes more then usual - this might be due to the fact that - and this is my theory based on others experiences - new blood vessels are formed as a result of the RLT prior to the anti-inflamatory action taking effect (which is cumulative), so basically you flush more to start with and then it calms down.

    I *think* this has something to do with the immediate release of NO (Nitric Oxide) and then later, a cumulative effect takes place which actually inhibits NO (iNOS). It's all very complicated.

    BTW, by "dose" I mean J/cm2.

    Example:

    A LED device has these specifications:

    Red (wavelength 633 nm). Power output 8.4 mW/cm2. A mW is a milliWatt, or a thousandth of a Watt.

    The light output is 8.4 mW per cm2 and your goal is 4 Joules per cm2 per treatment. One Joule is defined as one Watt per second, so in order to achieve that, you should know that J = W x S (Joule is Watt x Seconds)

    In our case, we want to know how many seconds, so our equation becomes S = J / W. We just said 4 Joules is the target energy to be delivered to a square centimeter of skin, and the output of LED devices is stated in mW, so the formula to use is: Seconds of treatment per cm2 of skin = 4000 mJ / milliWatt per cm2 of skin.

    4000 mJ divided by 8.4 = 476 seconds.

    So each time you use the device, you should apply it for 476 seconds (8 minutes) on a skin surface area with the same size as the light emitting surface area as the device. This means that if you want to treat a skin area that is four times larger than the light emitting part of the LED device, that you need to move it over the skin for 4 x 8 = 32 minutes in total.

    If the output per cm2 is not specified, look for the total output of the device and divide the total output by the total area of the panels with LEDs. This will give the Wattage per cm2. Example: Output area is 10 cm2, total Wattage is 50 mW. Wattage per cm2 is 50 divided by 10 = 5 mW.
    This is completely fictional as my device has an output of 70mW/cm2 (red) and 55mW/cm2 (Near Infrared), so 8.4 is very low.

    I think the LEDman's device has an output of 25mW/cm2 and if this is the case, to adminster 4 J/cm2 you would use the device as close to your skin as you can for (4 / 0.025) 160 seconds (2 minute 40 seconds).

    I have been admistering 6 minutes at 55mW/cm2 so (360 x 0.055) 19.8 J/cm2.

    To get 19.8 J/cm2 from the LEDmans, assuming the intensity is 25mW/cm2, you would need to use the unit for (19.8 / 0.025) 792 seconds (13 minutes 12 seconds).

    However, I have no real clue as to whether this is an optimum dose, so by all means do your own research!

    A bare minimum of 4 Joules per cm2 per treatment is required to attain any kind of biological effect. Again, there is a maximum threshold too (although this is harder to determine) and just to complicate things, 4 J/cm2 is not the same as 4 J/cm2 with different time or intensity...

    For example:

    When cooking a lamb joint you know how to get the right temperature for the right time, e.g. 220º C for 1 hour (never having cooked a lamb joint, I guess this is right.

    But 2200º for 25 mins or 22ºc for 10 hours would not get the same cooked lamb joint. Get the heat right then get the cooking time right don't multiply one by the other to get a single number.

    This is the same with RLT.

    (Power / area) x time is J/cm2
    e.g. (0.001W / 0.2cm2) x 80 seconds = 4J/cm2 (this would heal a wound)
    also (10W / 0.001cm2) x 0.0004 second = 4J/cm2 (this may burn a patient)
    also (0.00001W / 10cm2) x 4,000,000 seconds = 4J/cm2 (will have no effect)

    Each is 4J/cm2.

    To heal a wound you need 10mW/cm2 - 50mW/cm2 max for a minute or so apparently.

    How this translates to an effective dose for rosacea? I'm not sure...yet.

    PS - Really annoying as I found this page: http://members.rosacea-research-and-...p?showtopic=71 - on the RRDi, but they have deleted the part when he mentions exactly the wavelength and J/cm2 that you need to get great results with RLT.

    His name is Matthew Iris and he writes a lot of the Rosacea Community Forum - which I think is the other one. But I cannot find him. Annoying.

    Leave a comment:


  • Rand627
    replied
    So I basically destroyed my skin on the campout. Was in the desert sun for about 4 hours without a hat or a drop of sunscreen. Got badly burnt and am still recovering 3 days later. Skin's quite a bit more red than usual.

    So, any results from the RLT is null for a bit.

    And I'm throwing caution to the wind for now. Taking 3k IU of D3 as well as the RLT every other day with quinacrine every day. Taking Vitamin D is something alot of people do..and its pretty natural, so I don't think it'll hurt. We will see though.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X