The infrabed

I also ordered a slightly different device that uses 830nm and 625nm. I'll be trying both devices.

reVive Light Therapy Portable Handheld Anti-Aging Treatment System
_https://www.target.com/p/revive-153-light-therapy-anti-aging-system/-/A-15646402
_https://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/store/product/revive-light-therapy-trade-portable-handheld-anti-aging-treatment-system/1041404829

_http://heelspurs.com/led.html
830 nm verses 850 nm
Judging from the biological response to different wavelengths, it would appear 830 nm is the best of all wavelengths. But 850 nm may reach deep tissue better, and has a few more photons per mW/cm^2. The 830 nm LED is harder to find, and I don't know if its efficiency is as good as the more common 850. In the end, there may not be any difference between the two. There is other test tube work that showed 850 nm worked better than 830 nm for inflammation markers and my own experience has not been able to tell a difference for ankle, shoulder, and back injuries.

830 nm might work better by something like 30% but it's exponentially decreasing in strength by something like 10% in the exponential. At some point, the exponential effect on the 10% becomes larger than the 30%. This means that for the skin or cuts less than 2 mm deep, you would need to apply the 850 nm light 13 minutes instead of 10 minutes for the 830 nm. You save only 3 minutes by using the 830 nm, if it works better. But for deep injuries more than 1/2 inch, where you might need to apply the 850 nm for an hour, you might need to apply the 830 nm for 2 hours ... a huge difference. A similar effect might exist for 660 nm verses 670 nm, but I do not know which one penetrates better due to the complex nature of blood absorption in this range.

hlat said:
880 nm is not as good as 850 nm or 830 nm, according to this source.

_http://heelspurs.com/led.html
880 nm verses 850 nm
There are some companies that claim 880 is "the best" frequency, but it appears 880 is absolutely not as good as 850 or 830 nm LEDs. 880 LEDs are putting out frequencies in the range of 870 to 890 and are getting blocked 25% more by water absorption than 850 and the biological response to 880 nm is much less than at 850 nm

hlat said:
I ordered this NIR device, reVive Light Therapy Pain System. It says it uses 56 lights in 880nm and 4 lights in 660nm.
_https://www.target.com/p/revive-153-light-therapy-pain-system/-/A-15646399
 
After a period of using the infra bed every day (a bit over a week) I'm now using it about every third day for 30 minutes. That seems to be about right at present.
 
Laura said:
After a period of using the infra bed every day (a bit over a week) I'm now using it about every third day for 30 minutes. That seems to be about right at present.

Hey Laura, was there any specific feedback from your body that made you start using the infrabed every third day instead of daily?

I'm curious due to this post:

Prodigal Son said:
I have been using the infrabed every other day for the past two and a half weeks or so. Initially the sessions were for a total of 15 mins, and for the last week 30 mins. At first there were clear benefits: heart beats less on walking and during stress (daily one hour walks for heart health); and my prostate health seemed to have improved at night. However, I have been waking up groggy despite sleeping better than before - also with more dreams and deeper sleep for longer as Pierre reported for him. However, my morning walk performance has deteriorated, with heart beats higher and not walking as far in the same time as before (1 hr). Like Pierre, I was puzzled at what was happening. My first thoughts were that the NIR were building up in the body and doing repair work before one could feel the benefits of the process. As an experiment I reduced a session to 15 mins with no change (improvement) in effects. This seemed to confirm that thought.

Yesterday, a hot day, after a session on the bed (during which I felt as if I was sweating, rather than just feeling slightly warm as before) I felt 'wasted' for the rest of the day, and my sleep pattern was back to pre-infrabed, with a lot of night urination. (...)

Followed by this post:

Laura said:
Maybe once one has "topped up the tank", so to say, it's time to cut back to once a week?

How did you assess the "tank" has been filled? I have experience of doing too much too quickly with different supplements and I'd prefer to avoid doing it again.
 
I think that when it switches from giving you energy to making you tired maybe it is time to back off?
 
Yup, I'll use the data there is about NIR, experience from other protocols/detox reactions and my gut feeling, test my way forward.

I've had some reactions only after a couple of days with the NIR, but I wait to report until I'm pretty sure. Now I use NIR, FIR and hot water bottle...

Also, got my Pentox today, so I have to include that in the mix.
 
A Jay said:
Konstantin said:
Sorry to hear this.
I don't have anything else to add, just try the advices that you received and I wish you a speedy recovery, Worldbridger!

I'd also like to wish you a speedy recovery, worldbridger!

I had a canning accident a number of years ago and got second degree burns from boiling hot fat on my arm and face, so I understand the pain you're going through. I don't have any other advice, but would second the recommendation for reiki and DMSO.

The number one burn treatment in our house is liquid lecithin. It is very fast in relieving the pain and aids the forming of new skin. This is something we discovered 'by accident' many years ago and we continue to use it. We have a jar of it stored in the kitchen just for this purpose and when we want to orally take lecithin we just get the liquigels capsules. We don't use the granules.
 
worldbridger said:
Thanks DougEE, "liquigels capsules"....you mean you rub it in?
We use the liquid lecithin to treat burns by just gently placing the liquid on top and let it soak in. This should be done as soon as possible after getting the burn. But when we want to take lecithin orally (for various reasons) we use the capsules that have the liquid lecithin in them. Yes, you can break open a liquigel and place the liquid lecithin on top of the injury to let it soak in.
:)
 
Laura said:
I think that when it switches from giving you energy to making you tired maybe it is time to back off?

Thank you Laura, yeah, I guess that's a reasonable approach :) My energy levels are still pretty high but I started getting other symptoms, such as very faint headache, dry skin and I've been thirsty quite a lot. I was wondering if this mean the point of 'saturation' is in fact approaching. So far some people here have mentioned that they felt great and then it got worse. I guess I was trying to work out if there's anything in between.

I think I'll back off at this point as I much prefer to maintain the current energy levels instead of seeing them decrease and having to bring them back up.

I noticed one more interesting thing. I've so far done approximately 10 rounds of DMSA and I've never gotten bad results whilst on it - on the contrary - I feel very well throughout each 2-day round and I do take quite a high dose. (I understand this may sound a bit unusual as this is not really a standard reaction to DMSA) Each round so far has been followed by 2-3 days of quite intense tiredness and very low mood whilst I remineralise.

I finished a round yesterday so today I expected to be feeling quite rough. Strangely enough, I've been feeling great all day in terms of my mood, energy levels and mental clarity. I understand that correlation isn't causation, yet the only thing that was different this time was the LED lamp so it did make me wonder if there is in fact a link.
 
Ant22 said:
Laura said:
I think that when it switches from giving you energy to making you tired maybe it is time to back off?

Thank you Laura, yeah, I guess that's a reasonable approach :) My energy levels are still pretty high but I started getting other symptoms, such as very faint headache, dry skin and I've been thirsty quite a lot. I was wondering if this mean the point of 'saturation' is in fact approaching. So far some people here have mentioned that they felt great and then it got worse. I guess I was trying to work out if there's anything in between.

I think I'll back off at this point as I much prefer to maintain the current energy levels instead of seeing them decrease and having to bring them back up.

I noticed one more interesting thing. I've so far done approximately 10 rounds of DMSA and I've never gotten bad results whilst on it - on the contrary - I feel very well throughout each 2-day round and I do take quite a high dose. (I understand this may sound a bit unusual as this is not really a standard reaction to DMSA) Each round so far has been followed by 2-3 days of quite intense tiredness and very low mood whilst I remineralise.

I finished a round yesterday so today I expected to be feeling quite rough. Strangely enough, I've been feeling great all day in terms of my mood, energy levels and mental clarity. I understand that correlation isn't causation, yet the only thing that was different this time was the LED lamp so it did make me wonder if there is in fact a link.

Dear Ant22 read this article,maybe you will find the answer here.i am gland you feel much better. :)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/02/26/photobiomodulation.aspx
 
Not to put too fine a point on it, or beat a dead horse, but I just want to repeat that since there are whole lot of unknowns about the details of light therapy, it's better to be cautious with overdosing. Of course, like anything else, there are many individual variables that would need to be taken into account (e.g. pain and suffering/serious conditions vs. less serious/health maintenance, etc.) But since there IS evidence of a biphasic dose effect, at least those who do not need immediate maximum effects/benefits from light therapy, should be patient and go slow, so as not to risk losing all benefits for a time by overdosing. Again, since much details are unknown, we don't even know what it takes to get over an overdose to then start getting benefits again (like how long in time of refraining from light therapy for "how much" overdose, individual variables etc.). Finally, some of the graphs that show the cellular bi-phasic dose effect show a "detrimental result" when gone over the beneficial dosage curve - i.e a large overdose may actual have results for the specific treatment below the starting baseline (worse). Just keeping all this in mind seems reasonable.
 
SeekinTruth said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, or beat a dead horse, but I just want to repeat that since there are whole lot of unknowns about the details of light therapy, it's better to be cautious with overdosing. Of course, like anything else, there are many individual variables that would need to be taken into account (e.g. pain and suffering/serious conditions vs. less serious/health maintenance, etc.) But since there IS evidence of a biphasic dose effect, at least those who do not need immediate maximum effects/benefits from light therapy, should be patient and go slow, so as not to risk losing all benefits for a time by overdosing. Again, since much details are unknown, we don't even know what it takes to get over an overdose to then start getting benefits again (like how long in time of refraining from light therapy for "how much" overdose, individual variables etc.). Finally, some of the graphs that show the cellular bi-phasic dose effect show a "detrimental result" when gone over the beneficial dosage curve - i.e a large overdose may actual have results for the specific treatment below the starting baseline (worse). Just keeping all this in mind seems reasonable.

I agree. Since this is something that really does have an effect - crazy though it may seem - one should go slow and carefully observe and be aware of what the body is doing and how it is feeling. And everybody is different, so what works for one may not work for another.

I backed off from doing it every day after a day, about a week ago, when I spent some time outside in the sun. The following day I had a headache and I just felt sort of revulsion at the idea of the infrabed. So, I waited a day or two, and then went and felt the resurge of energy again. So that made me think I should pay attention to how I feel and also maybe how much sunlight I was getting too. Then, after a couple of cloudy days indoors, I needed it again. I did it yesterday and feel like I will do it again today because it "appeals" to my system. I don't know a better way to describe it. After today's session, I will observe how I feel and decide about tomorrow later.
 
Laura said:
SeekinTruth said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, or beat a dead horse, but I just want to repeat that since there are whole lot of unknowns about the details of light therapy, it's better to be cautious with overdosing. Of course, like anything else, there are many individual variables that would need to be taken into account (e.g. pain and suffering/serious conditions vs. less serious/health maintenance, etc.) But since there IS evidence of a biphasic dose effect, at least those who do not need immediate maximum effects/benefits from light therapy, should be patient and go slow, so as not to risk losing all benefits for a time by overdosing. Again, since much details are unknown, we don't even know what it takes to get over an overdose to then start getting benefits again (like how long in time of refraining from light therapy for "how much" overdose, individual variables etc.). Finally, some of the graphs that show the cellular bi-phasic dose effect show a "detrimental result" when gone over the beneficial dosage curve - i.e a large overdose may actual have results for the specific treatment below the starting baseline (worse). Just keeping all this in mind seems reasonable.

I agree. Since this is something that really does have an effect - crazy though it may seem - one should go slow and carefully observe and be aware of what the body is doing and how it is feeling. And everybody is different, so what works for one may not work for another.

I backed off from doing it every day after a day, about a week ago, when I spent some time outside in the sun. The following day I had a headache and I just felt sort of revulsion at the idea of the infrabed. So, I waited a day or two, and then went and felt the resurge of energy again. So that made me think I should pay attention to how I feel and also maybe how much sunlight I was getting too. Then, after a couple of cloudy days indoors, I needed it again. I did it yesterday and feel like I will do it again today because it "appeals" to my system. I don't know a better way to describe it. After today's session, I will observe how I feel and decide about tomorrow later.

Indeed the time spent in the NIR as well as the frequency of exposure is fundamental, here is an important concept to keep in mind:

Non-ionizing radiation

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/EM-spectrum.svg

Non-ionizing (or non-ionising) radiation refers to any type of electromagnetic radiation that does not carry enough energy per quantum (photon energy) to ionize atoms or molecules—that is, to completely remove an electron from an atom or molecule. Instead of producing charged ions when passing through matter, the electromagnetic radiation has sufficient energy only for excitation, the movement of an electron to a higher energy state. Ionizing radiation which has a higher frequency and shorter wavelength than nonionizing radiation, has many uses but can be a health hazard; exposure to it can cause burns, radiation sickness, cancer and genetic damage. Using ionizing radiation requires elaborate radiological protection measures which in general are not required with nonionizing radiation.

The region at which radiation becomes considered as "ionizing" is not well defined, since different molecules and atoms ionize at different energies. The usual definitions have suggested that radiation with particle or photon energies less than 10 electronvolts (eV) be considered non-ionizing. Another suggested threshold is 33 electronvolts, which is the energy needed to ionize water molecules. The light from the Sun that reaches the earth is largely composed of non-ionizing radiation, since the ionizing far-ultraviolet rays have been filtered out by the gases in the atmosphere, particularly oxygen. The remaining ultraviolet radiation from the Sun is in the non-ionizing band, and causes molecular damage (for example, sunburn) by photochemical and free-radical-producing means that do not ionize.

Different biological effects are observed for different types of non-ionizing radiation. A difficulty is that there is no controversy that the upper frequencies of non-ionizing radiation near these energies (much of the spectrum of UV light and some visible light) is capable of non-thermal biological damage, similar to ionizing radiation. Health debate therefore centers on the non-thermal effects of radiation of much lower frequencies (microwave, millimeter and radiowave radiation).. The International Agency for Research on Cancer recently stated that there could be some risk from non-ionizing radiation to humans. But a subsequent study reported that the basis of the IARC evaluation was not consistent with observed incidence trends. This and other reports suggest that there is virtually no way that results on which the IARC based its conclusions are correct.

Mechanisms of interaction with matter, including living tissue

Near ultraviolet, visible light, infrared, microwave, radio waves, and low-frequency radio frequency (longwave) are all examples of non-ionizing radiation. By contrast, far ultraviolet light, X-rays, gamma-rays, and all particle radiation from radioactive decay are regarded as ionizing. Visible and near ultraviolet electromagnetic radiation may induce photochemical reactions, or accelerate radical reactions, such as photochemical aging of varnishes[8] or the breakdown of flavoring compounds in beer to produce the "lightstruck flavor". Near ultraviolet radiation, although technically non-ionizing, may still excite and cause photochemical reactions in some molecules. This happens because at ultraviolet photon energies, molecules may become electronically excited or promoted to free-radical form, even without ionization taking place.

The occurrence of ionization depends on the energy of the individual particles or waves, and not on their number. An intense flood of particles or waves will not cause ionization if these particles or waves do not carry enough energy to be ionizing, unless they raise the temperature of a body to a point high enough to ionize small fractions of atoms or molecules by the process of thermal-ionization. In such cases, even "non-ionizing radiation" is capable of causing thermal-ionization if it deposits enough heat to raise temperatures to ionization energies. These reactions occur at far higher energies than with ionizing radiation, which requires only a single particle to ionize. A familiar example of thermal ionization is the flame-ionization of a common fire, and the browning reactions in common food items induced by infrared radiation, during broiling-type cooking.

The energy of particles of non-ionizing radiation is low, and instead of producing charged ions when passing through matter, non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation has only sufficient energy to change the rotational, vibrational or electronic valence configurations of molecules and atoms. This produces thermal effects. The possible non-thermal effects of non-ionizing forms of radiation on living tissue have only recently been studied. Much of the current debate is about relatively low levels of exposure to radio frequency (RF) radiation from mobile phones and base stations producing "non-thermal" effects. Some experiments have suggested that there may be biological effects at non-thermal exposure levels, but the evidence for production of health hazard is contradictory and unproven. The scientific community and international bodies acknowledge that further research is needed to improve our understanding in some areas. Meanwhile the consensus is that there is no consistent and convincing scientific evidence of adverse health effects caused by RF radiation at powers sufficiently low that no thermal health effects are produced.

Health risks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radio_waves_hazard_symbol.svg

Non-ionizing radiation can produce non-mutagenic effects such as inciting thermal energy in biological tissue that can lead to burns. Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) from the World Health Organization (WHO) released a statement adding radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (including microwave and millimeter waves) to their list of things which are possibly carcinogenic to humans.

In terms of potential biological effects, the non-ionizing portion of the spectrum can be subdivided into:

The optical radiation portion, where electron excitation can occur (visible light, infrared light)
The portion where the wavelength is smaller than the body. Heating via induced currents can occur. In addition there are claims of other adverse biological effects. Such effects are not well understood and even largely denied. (MW and higher-frequency RF).
The portion where the wavelength is much larger than the body, and heating via induced currents seldom occurs (lower-frequency RF, power frequencies, static fields).

Types of non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation

1- Near ultraviolet radiation
2- Visible light

3- Infrared
Infrared (IR) light is electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between 0.7 and 300 micrometers, which equates to a frequency range between approximately 1 and 430 THz. IR wavelengths are longer than that of visible light, but shorter than that of terahertz radiation microwaves. Bright sunlight provides an irradiance of just over 1 kilowatt per square meter at sea level. Of this energy, 527 watts is infrared radiation, 445 watts is visible light, and 32 watts is ultraviolet radiation.

4- Microwave
Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wavelengths ranging from as long as one meter to as short as one millimeter, or equivalently, with frequencies between 300 MHz (0.3 GHz) and 300 GHz. This broad definition includes both UHF and EHF (millimeter waves), and various sources use different boundaries.[4] In all cases, microwave includes the entire SHF band (3 to 30 GHz, or 10 to 1 cm) at minimum, with RF engineering often putting the lower boundary at 1 GHz (30 cm), and the upper around 100 GHz (3mm). Applications include cellphone (mobile) telephones, radars, airport scanners, microwave ovens, earth remote sensing satellites, radio and satellite communications.

5- Radio waves
6- Very low frequency (VLF)
7- Extremely low frequency (ELF)

8- Thermal radiation
Thermal radiation, a common synonym for infra-red when it occurs at temperatures commonly encountered on Earth, is the process by which the surface of an object radiates its thermal energy in the form of electromagnetic waves. Infrared radiation that one can feel emanating from a household heater, infra-red heat lamp, or kitchen oven are examples of thermal radiation, as is the IR and visible light emitted by a glowing incandescent light bulb (not hot enough to emit the blue high frequencies and therefore appearing yellowish; fluorescent lamps are not thermal and can appear bluer). Thermal radiation is generated when the energy from the movement of charged particles within molecules is converted to the radiant energy of electromagnetic waves. The emitted wave frequency of the thermal radiation is a probability distribution depending only on temperature, and for a black body is given by Planck's law of radiation. Wien's displacement law gives the most likely frequency of the emitted radiation, and the Stefan–Boltzmann law gives the heat intensity (power emitted per area).

Parts of the electromagnetic spectrum of thermal radiation may be ionizing, if the object emitting the radiation is hot enough (has a high enough temperature). A common example of such radiation is sunlight, which is thermal radiation from the Sun's photosphere and which contains enough ultraviolet light to cause ionization in many molecules and atoms. An extreme example is the flash from the detonation of a nuclear weapon, which emits a large number of ionizing X-rays purely as a product of heating the atmosphere around the bomb to extremely high temperatures.


As noted above, even low-frequency thermal radiation may cause temperature-ionization whenever it deposits sufficient thermal energy to raises temperatures to a high enough level. Common examples of this are the ionization (plasma) seen in common flames, and the molecular changes caused by the "browning" in food-cooking, which is a chemical process that begins with a large component of ionization.

9- Black body radiation

Reference _https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation

The key point in the above info is THERMAL RADIATION... so as Laura is suspecting exposure to the point of thermal generation (heat) should be AVOIDED and watched carefully...

Too much time in NIR devices could lead to Thermal Effects... just my two cents... :cool2: :cool2: :cool2: :cool2: :cool2:
 
I think taken literally that would mean your skin is getting so hot it starts to cook... I think the effects we're seeing here are much more subtle.

I think it might be fair to compare this IR exposure to being in the sun on a really hot day, say 110-120F. This is physically draining as well, I think everyone has experienced the sluggishness from several very hot days in a row.

This makes me wonder if drinking extra water would help with IR therapy similarly to how it helps in hot weather?
 
Several weeks ago I embarked on taking my blood pressure at 10am, 1pm and 4pm as noted in the book Stop The Thyroid Madness. I rest a few minutes sitting down, take a reading, then immediately stand up and take another reading. If the standing BP is the same as or higher than the sitting BP then the thyroid is healthy. Well all my standing BPs over that week were lower than the sitting BP, indication of a thyroid problem.
I had already ordered the Fuloon NIR 850nm light, so I decided to use it for this problem as well as for certain spots on my body like left knee and left temple. I was resting the unit directly against the skin for 15 minutes per day at each spot. It certainly does have an effect and I'm pleased at the improvements made.
So a few days ago I decoded to do some blood pressure readings again and discovered that since using the light that ALL my BP readings are a minimum of 10% higher than the earlier readings. In fact some systolic readings that were 116 are now 146, which is a significant change. So I've taken a break from the light for a few days and the BP readings have decreased. So I'm rethinking the idea of placing the light directly on the skin as I suspect that the dosage is too high. The ratings on the lamp indicate an output of 18 watts for the surface area of the lamp of about 225 sq cm. I'm guessing that I should retry the lamp but at a distance of maybe 15cm.
Any ideas on how to calculate the proper distance?

PS _https://www.amazon.com/Stop-Thyroid-Madness-Revolution-Treatment/dp/0615477127/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1504358471&sr=1-1&keywords=stop+the+thyroid+madness+book+revised+second+edition
 
Back
Top Bottom