Has anyone considered Halogens?

[hozer2k]

After reading through some of the research, something glaring pops out to me. We have been focusing on LED's, but what about halogens? There does not seem to be any consensus or knowledge of what is better between the 600nm and 900nm range.

LED advantages:
A specific frequency is used (may be good or bad as indicated below). Low heat. Can be directly compared so some studies, although none that I have seen are for rosacea.

LED disadvantages:
One potential problem with the LED is that it is peaky. The more peaky, the more chance of failure in my opinion. The % activated cells can be very specific to wavelength. Therefore, unless you are right at the right frequency, you may not be doing a great job. LED's come in certain frequencies that are not necessarily the optimum for biological purposes. Relatively high cost. Also, some units appear to be putting out a paltry amount of energy to the target. This should have little effect on anything but your pocket book. Cannot obtain a full band of energy level and as indicated above, noone knows what the proper frequencies are, if there are any. Peaks for # of cells activated occur at 620nm, 680nm, 760nm, and 820nm.

Halogen advantages:
A broad spectrum is released and therefore you would cover blue light (for better or worse), yellow (who knows?), red, and near infrared. Therefore, if the LED that was being used "missed" the right frequency because it was too peaky, the halogen should cover it. Also, a lot of energy can be output at a relatively cheap cost. Many studies I have seen have very high energy levels, far higher than the typical LED devices we use. The halogens can come closer to some of the levels and covers 620nm-900nm..something the LED cannot do.

Halogen disadvantages:
Heat is bad for rosacea and these can generate a lot of heat. But this can be mitigated with good deisgn. Also, you are getting a broad spectrum. This may be good or may be bad. The UV can be filtered out easily though and is largely blocked by the glass in the halogen. The ultraviolets can be filtered out, but this takes more effort. Blues...well it has been said that blue can aggrevate rosacea. I am not convinced of this and I have not seen anything that would indicate this of yet. This may be a significant problem for some though. For some with an acne component or if the blue helps with p&p (unknown) this can significantly help as the acne study found the blue was very effective at killing acne causing bacteria. Peter said he was able to tolerate the blue and red lamp.

This being said, exactly what is the fascination with LED's? Convenience? less risk because it is low energy? because NASA studied it? something else?

[Twickle Purple]

Folks, don't use Halogens on your face.

I've got nothing more to add to this thread.

[hozer2k]

A halogen that is properly filtered and designed can provide all the benefits of sunlight (and synonymously a variety of LED's that may help rosacea such as yellow, red, near infrared) at the same time without the negative effects of sunlight (ultraviolet) and shortcoming of LED's (stated above).

I request that all responders stick to the original question and consider the science. The knowledge is there...now let us discuss it. Lets keep this thread on a scientific and informed level. If you are not familiar with the science, I respectfully request that you keep personal opinion to yourself. This way those who are familiar can discuss it and conclusions may be able to be drawn after the discussion. Thanks.

[Twickle Purple]

[Twickle Purple]

One potential problem with the LED is that it is peaky. The more peaky, the more chance of failure in my opinion.

And your source, please?

[IowaDavid]

A halogen that is properly filtered and designed can provide all the benefits of sunlight (and synonymously a variety of LED's that may help rosacea such as yellow, red, near infrared) at the same time without the negative effects of sunlight (ultraviolet) and shortcoming of LED's (stated above).

I request that all responders stick to the original question and consider the science. The knowledge is there...now let us discuss it. Lets keep this thread on a scientific and informed level. If you are not familiar with the science, I respectfully request that you keep personal opinion to yourself. This way those who are familiar can discuss it and conclusions may be able to be drawn after the discussion. Thanks.

Holding tongue. Must...hold...tongue.

[phlika29]

I am a little confused so I'm going to ask a really stupid question. Do you mean some sort of special red halogen light (is that a contradiction in terms)?

[hozer2k]

The halogen will provide light in a broad spectrum. You will get blue, red, green, yellow, near infrared, infrared, and possibly UV. However, you can filter out the UV and infrared and you will be left with everything between about 400nm and 920nm...depending on how you chose to filter the light.

From about 600nm to 920nm is the wavelength where "healing" may occur, or at least the light can penetrate oxygenated blood (light will not pass too far if its below about 580nm). This seems to be the frequency range that those in favor of "light healing" try to aim for. That is why when using LED's for that choice, most choose the 660nm or 880nm wavelengths or something in between. It is not coincidence that 660nm (red light), 850nm, 880nm (near infrared) are chosen in these studies.

The LED is "peaky" compared to the halogen or sun, no doubt. It emits light at a given wavelength with a relatively small bandwidth.
http://www.acnelamp.com/images/acnel...bletop_red.png
Since the optimum frequency for healing may lie somewhere between 600nm and 900nm (there is no consensus on how it works and much less that there is an preference in this range) , there is a good chance you might miss hitting the optimum frequency or frequencies.

P.S. This is a discussion thread and intended to talk about about the science in an open manner. If I am continually put into defense mode, that will only hinder the discussion. This is unnecessary and does not provide information. A halogen may not be as "cool" as a LED (no pun intended), but the focus should be on the actual science of what is going on.

At this time I am not considering the use of halogens, but I cannot see why it should be totally ignored either.

[TheMediumDog]

Heelspurs has pretty good things to say about halogen light. Maybe heat would be an issue, though, for those for whom this is a problem.

[Twickle Purple]

Boy, does this invite some folks to consider home made units and get burns. It's like dejavu all over again. Could we just get Nase in here now and kill this part of the forum once and for all?

Yes, the type of light source is not necessarily the critical component. -- that has been covered in the LLLT Intro. Heelspurs is not writing to an audience with rosacea skin, MediumDog. You don't see a lot of studies on the healing properties of halogen lighting do you?

Hozer, pull up some studies about that utilize the scenario your posting about. And not on Acne, that's not healing, that's killing bacteria -- bacteria has nothing to do with rosacea. Something that utilizes narrow spectrum Red, which is a proven and well documented anti-inflammatory.