Evan Bernstein

Proponents claim that this light stimulates mitochondria, the powerhouses of our cells, to produce more energy, ATP, which supposedly improves healing, reduces inflammation, and accelerates fat breakdown.

How red light stimulates mitochondria is thought to be through interaction with cytochrome C oxidase, CCO for short, which is a key enzyme in the mitochondrial electron transport chain.

Bob has nothing to do with the electrons you were talking about.

Red and near-infrared light are thought to be absorbed by CCO, displacing nitric oxide , which otherwise blocks mitochondrial respiration.

The idea sounds appealing and astonishingly simple.

You shine light, energize your cells, and your body performs better.

But while this effect on mitochondria has been observed in vitro,

Very important there, you know, cells in a lab.

When you're translating that effect into outcomes that we actually care about, like weight loss or some other measure of improved health, that is a very different challenge.

That's what Scott wrote.

And this is where the skepticism is definitely warranted.

What are the quality of the studies that have been done on people as opposed to, you know, seeing cells react in petri dishes or test tubes?

Well, apparently it's not all that impressive.

You have small studies, short duration trials, manufacturer sponsored trials, relying on less accurate surrogate measures.

And the risks of biases, of course, are always high.

Do they also look at things like the longer term safety and frequent prolonged exposure to red light therapy?

That's not really been well studied.

And ultimately, the safety depends on the specific product in use and how it is used.

And there are a lot of these products out there.

You'll see them in face masks, lamps, wearables, all sorts.