Scientific finding: LEDs may reduce wrinkles
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skincare Tools & Do-It-Yourself Skincare

free skin care · Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:55 am

ScienceDaily (Oct 20, 2008) - Researchers in Germany are describing a potential alternative to Botox and cosmetic surgery for easing facial wrinkles. Their study reports that high intensity visible light from light emitting diodes (LEDs) applied daily for several weeks resulted in "rejuvenated skin, reduced wrinkle levels, juvenile complexion and lasting resilience".

LEDs are the miniature lights used in an array of products, from TV remote controls to traffic lights.

In the study, Andrei P. Sommer and Dan Zhu point out that high-intensity visible light has been used in medicine for more than 40 years to speed healing of wounds. That light actually penetrates into the skin, causing changes in the sub-surface tissue. Until now, however, scientists have not known the physiocochemical nature of those changes.

They report identifying how the visible light works - by changing the molecular structure of a glue-like layer of water on elastin, the protein that provides elasticity in the skin, blood vessels, heart and other body structures. Figuratively speaking, the light strips away those water molecules that are involved in the immobilization of elastin, gradually restoring its elastic function and thus reducing facial wrinkles.

"We are justified in believing that our approach can be easily converted to deep body rejuvenation programs", the researchers state.

Article from ScienceDaily:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081020094355.htm

There is a link to the complete study at the bottom of the article.

free skin care · Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:58 am

Very interesting article. A couple of things from it: The researchers used a home built 660 nanometer LED array that they found ineffective since the intensity of the light was too low. They got positive results using a 600-720 nanometer device daily (with 50% in the 660-680 range) with much higher light intensity. They posit a "light intensity threshold" below which the molecular water stripping effect does not occur. So it looks like light intensity is as important as wave length.

Also, they refer to another study that found that high dose infrared light (760-1440 nm) has the potential to cause photoaging. Anyone know anything more on this?

free skin care · Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:19 pm

flitcraft wrote:

Very interesting article. A couple of things from it: The researchers used a home built 660 nanometer LED array that they found ineffective since the intensity of the light was too low. They got positive results using a 600-720 nanometer device daily (with 50% in the 660-680 range) with much higher light intensity. They posit a "light intensity threshold" below which the molecular water stripping effect does not occur. So it looks like light intensity is as important as wave length.

Also, they refer to another study that found that high dose infrared light (760-1440 nm) has the potential to cause photoaging. Anyone know anything more on this?

Flitcraft - I could not find that. I have a prolight Red and this caught my interest.

free skin care · Sun Oct 26, 2008 9:38 pm

Hmmm. The plot thickens Think

free skin care · Mon Oct 27, 2008 9:53 pm

Sis, click on the original study referenced in septembergirl's news item. The study is quite interesting, though some of what they reference isn't substantiated through independent studies. I wouldn't stop using the ProLight Red unless we find more info that suggests that high dose infrared is a problem.

Sometimes I do wish that I had unlimited time to track down these studies, though...

free skin care · Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:11 am

I found the original study interesting, and plan to run down the studies in its reference section too.

For me the most important aspect of the study is that it confirms what we have suspected--that the output of the LED really matters. This seems to tip the balance strongly in favor of the stronger lights like ProLight and AALS.

Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:29 am

flitcraft wrote:

Very interesting article. A couple of things from it: The researchers used a home built 660 nanometer LED array that they found ineffective since the intensity of the light was too low. They got positive results using a 600-720 nanometer device daily (with 50% in the 660-680 range) with much higher light intensity. They posit a "light intensity threshold" below which the molecular water stripping effect does not occur. So it looks like light intensity is as important as wave length.

Also, they refer to another study that found that high dose infrared light (760-1440 nm) has the potential to cause photoaging. Anyone know anything more on this?

I find this very interesting too...

free skin care · Wed Oct 29, 2008 9:28 am

I found this one;

Augmentation of UV-induced skin wrinkling by infrared irradiation in hairless mice

Abstract
Skin aging can be divided into intrinsic aging and photoaging. Sunlight is a major cause of photoaging, and is composed of ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) radiation. Although the effects of UV radiation on skin aging have been widely studied, little is known about the biological effects of IR on the photoaging process in human skin. We found that chronic IR treatment induced wrinkles in hairless mice, and augments UV-induced wrinkle formation and UV-induced skin thickening in hairless mice. Histologically, we found that IR treatment augments UV-induced epidermal and dermal thickening, and that UV-induced increases of collagen and elastic fibers in dermis. Moreover, chronic IR treatment increased MMP-3 and MMP-13 mRNA expressions significantly in hairless mouse skin and augmented UV-induced MMP-3 and MMP-13 mRNA expressions and UV-induced MMP-2 and MMP-9 activities. From these results, we demonstrate that IR alone induces skin wrinkling and augments UV-induced wrinkle formation. Taken together, we suggest that IR plays an important role in the development of photoaging.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T31-4GXW911-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=8bb8a36539fb351e7f5c51aafed1d5f4

I don't know why that link looks wierd, hope it works.. Confused

I think we shouldn't be really concerned with this for a couple of reasons.

1. The IR wavelengths in our at home devices are below 1000nm. I believe the really high nm numbers are the culprit...right.. Confused

2. Our LED's don't give off UV rays.

3. I can only speak for myself here, but I can tell you this; in the course of one year, my wrinkles have all disappeared, except for a couple of lines around my eyes (which are much improved.) But this is since only using the AA device that only has 1 IR wavelength..

Arghh! There's always a fly in the ointment and something to worry about.;; Shock

Well all I know is I'm going to continue using my lights, till I'm 6 feet under.. Cool

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.