FAQ’s

No. The good thing about red light is that you can see it. Shine the light at your clothes and see if it comes out the other side. The colour will be absorbed by the fabric. Only red light that you can see reaching your skin can be absorbed by your skin.

This depends on the condition you are treating, the motivations for use (i.e. wellness, particular complaints) and the device you are using. For most conditions, daily to every-other-day use of the panel or pod for at least two weeks is recommended, followed by a once- or twice- weekly maintenance regimen.

Yes. Using red light therapy for too long can reduce the effectiveness of your treatments. Red and near infrared light therapy has a “sweet spot” where the light is most effective. Follow the directions that come with your device and resist the urge to over do it.

Red light therapy will work for the minimisation of scarring, inflammation, fine lines, and many skin conditions in most people. The amount of time that it takes for a visible difference to occur will vary from one person to the next, depending on individual health factors including the type of skin condition to be corrected and its severity, hydration state, general inflammatory status, etc. Results will usually start to be seen in anywhere from 24 hours to 2 months of proper use, or under 20 minutes for pain relief with infrared and red light.

Because the infrared wavelength spectrum is outside what can be picked up by the human eye we are unable to see them. You can check they are working by viewing the pad through a camera lens. If the red lights are visible the infrareds are working!

Yes! As the effect of light therapy on an unborn baby has not been researched it is recommended not to use the device over a pregnant area until further research has been done. 
It is not recommended to use the devices over heavy bleeding. 
Using light therapy over cancerous tumours and hyperactive thyroid glands is a point of conjecture.

Yes! It has even been approved by the FDA! There are 100’s, maybe even 1000’s of peer reviewed published studies showing the benefits of red light therapy.

Light sources such as the sun and common lightbulbs emit light in all spectrums of visible light – hence the name ‘full spectrum light’ Sunlight in the morning or evening is the best, with more of it being red/NIR. Strength of light otherwise depends on location and time of year.
You can get about 30mW/cm2 of light intensity of the relevant wavelengths from midday sunlight in summer. Only about half of this will be really at/near the peak wavelengths. An even smaller amount will be the more penetrative near infrared wavelengths. Light therapy products utilise the part of full spectrum light that has been shown to have healing properties. This typically ranges from 620 nanometers (nm) in length, until to around 1000nm in length. MitoGen devices use two well documented and researched frequencies within this band (660 and 850nm) In this way light therapy devices “exploit” and amplify the range of the full spectrum that has been shown to heal.


Factory data on red light devices often uses a solar power meter for irradiance. We have included the more accurate laser power meter data, which is calibrated specifically to the wavelengths used in our products. We have included both for rteaders to compare against other brands that advertise the irradiance with the solar power meter.

No. “Low levels of light are good for you, while high levels are bad for you.” (Ying-Ying Huang, Aaron C.-H. Chen, […], and Michael R. Hamblin. Biphasic Dose Response in Low-Level Light Therapy Dose Response. 2009; 7(4): 358–383.) There is a favouritism in the PBM community that more intensity is better. To the Western mindset, bigger is better, hence high-intensity products (>/=100mW/cm2) imply more value and “faster” treatments. In fact we can achieve the same dose and effect regardless of intensity or administered timeframe. For example: To reach a 6 J/cm^2 dose would require about: – 1 minute at 100mW/cm^2 – 14 minutes at 7mW/cm^2 Is it logical to assume that both of these scenarios would provide the “same” biological response? Certainly not. So there are clear limitations in applying the above law to PBM. An article on the ThorLaser website echos this same scenario and concern. They state that administering the same “dosage” in J/cm^2 at very different intensities will certainly illicit a very different clinical result. (https://www.thorlaser.com/Dosage.htm) In experimental trials looking at Biphasic Dose, too high of intensity shows a lack of improvement. Indeed if we hold dose (J/cm^2) constant and only change the irradiance (mW/cm^2), researchers find a biphasic response curve! Further, too high of an intensity >100mW/cm^2 would also risk thermal degradation effects. So what does the science say? In “Infrared and Skin: Friend or Foe” the author offers that lower irradiance <50 mW/cm^2 is less likely to induce detrimental effects. (1) Irradiance from 5 to 50 mW/cm^2 is generally used for stimulation and healing, while higher irradiances can be more for nerve inhibition and pain relief. (7) A dose of 3 J/cm2 was significantly more effective when delivered at 5mW/cm^2 than 50mW/cm2. It performed the same as 30 J/cm2 delivered by 50mW/cm^2. Indicating that the duration of treatment also plays a role. (2) When treatments are administered too closely together, the cumulative dose can reach an inhibitory range. (6) This could even mean that in the first days of treatment could have a beneficial effect and then cross over into a biphasic region. (7) A 12-week study, understanding that the effects of PBM in muscle tissue lasts up to 48 hours, chose to use a low intensity of 8.1 mW/cm^2 for 15 seconds per treatment, 3 times a week. They cautiously designed a low dose to avoid the cumulative biphasic dose. And they were right, this course of treatment improved overall muscle fitness versus the placebo! (9) The application of 5 J/cm2 with 4 mW/cm^2 had a significant effect on wound tensile strength, while the same dose delivered at 15 mW/cm^2 had no effect. (7) The dose required to promote a therapeutic response is <10mW/cm^2, a dose 100 times this amount was found to have detrimental neuronal effect in mice. (4) Hart et al. were so concerned about high dose biphasic response for brain PBM, that they were considering the additional exposure from Sunlight on patients adversely affecting clinical trials. (3) Human stem cells had a peak response at 3 J/cm^2 with 16 mW/cm^2, where higher doses had diminished benefits. (5) One study on collagen production found that medium irradiances and exposure durations were effective – 1.2 mW/cm^2 for 145 sec. (1) What does this all mean? Intensity does matter, but more isn’t always better! Sources: (1) Barolet D, Christiaens F, Hamblin MR. Infrared and Skin: Friend or Foe. J Photochem Photobiol B. 2016. (2) Ying-Ying Huang, Aaron C.-H. Chen, […], and Michael R. Hamblin. Biphasic Dose Response in Low-Level Light Therapy Dose Response. 2009; 7(4): 358–383. (3) Hart, Nathan S. Fitzgerald, Melinda. A New Perspective On Delivery of Red-Near-Infrared light therapy for disorders of the brain September 19th, 2016 http://www.discoverymedicine.com/Nathan-S-Hart/2016/09/a-new-perspective-on-delivery-of-red-near-infrared-light-therapy-for-disorders-of-the-brain/ (4) Johnstone, Daniel M et al. Turning On Lights to Stop Neurodegeneration: The Potential of Near-Infrared Light Therapy in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Disease Front. Neurosci., 11 January 2016 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00500 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2015.00500/full (5) Yuguang Wang, Ying-Ying Huang, […], and Michael R. Hamblin Red (660 nm) or near-infrared (810 nm) photobiomodulation stimulates, while blue (415 nm), green (540 nm) light inhibits proliferation in human adipose-derived stem cells. Sci Rep. 2017; 7: 7781. Published online 2017 Aug 10. doi:  10.1038/s41598-017-07525-w PMCID: PMC5552860 PMID: 28798481 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5552860/ (6) Pocket Dentistry. Jan 5, 2015 https://pocketdentistry.com/15-low-level-lasers-in-dentistry/ (7) Ying-Ying Huang, Sulbha K Sharma, […], and Michael R Hamblin Biphasic Dose Response in Low-Level Light Therapy – An Update https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3315174/#!po=31.5385 (8) Shang-Ru Tsai, Ph.D. and Michael R Hamblin, PhD Biological effects and medical applications of infrared radiation J Photochem Photobiol B. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 May 1. Published in final edited form as: J Photochem Photobiol B. 2017 May; 170: 197–207. Published online 2017 Apr 13. doi: 10.1016/j.jphotobiol.2017.04.014 (9) Cleber Ferraresi, PhD, PT, Danilo Bertucci, MSc, Josiane Schiavinato, MSc, Rodrigo Reiff, PhD, Amélia Araújo, MSc, Rodrigo Panepucci, PhD, Euclides Matheucci, Jr, PhD, Anderson Ferreira Cunha, PhD, Vivian Maria Arakelian, PhD, PT, Michael R. Hamblin, PhD, Nivaldo Parizotto, PhD, PT, and Vanderlei Bagnato, PhD

Effects of Light-Emitting Diode Therapy on Muscle Hypertrophy, Gene Expression, Performance, Damage, and Delayed-Onset Muscle Soreness

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5026559/ (10) Biostimulatory windows in low-intensity laser activation: lasers, scanners, and NASA’s light-emitting diode array system.

Sommer AP¹, Pinheiro AL, Mester AR, Franke RP, Whelan HT.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11547815 (11) “Dosage” is a difficult subject. Why ? 4 things you should know about PBM laser beam measurement and dosage James Carroll – THOR lasers https://www.thorlaser.com/Dosage.htm