7 replies to this topic

[elemerendero1]

Hello, until recently, I thought that LLLT was too expensive, but I read here on the forum you can use the LEDs at low cost that are used to illuminate the security cameras.

But I want to know if there are clear guidelines and whether they depend on the number of LEDs and other factors.
For the tDCS for example is usually used with 2.0mA 20 minutes or 40 minutes by 1.0m, usually once a day, but a study also shows the possibility to use it twice a day.

As it regards the LLLT instead? What is the maximum / recommended? And if something changes, for example, I use something like this

 

http://www.amazon.co...DWBR9MXSCAZD9MQ

 

or this

 

http://www.amazon.co...d_i=B00QM3KI7E?

And in addition to the maximum, how often is it used? A? Twice daily? The metabolic effects (increased cerebral blood flow) as they last?

 

Finally, a very important thing : I read on the forum to take the led and put them directly on the head , but there is no danger in this ? I read that it can cause burns , this depends on the duration ? So ( I repeat myself ) than you should take the treatment to prevent damage ?

[Spinlock]

LLLT is a scam, so there are no guidelines.

[Jochen]

LLLT is a scam, so there are no guidelines.

 

would love to see your arguments for your statement so we can understand your position on LLLT

[Spinlock]

 

LLLT is a scam, so there are no guidelines.

 

would love to see your arguments for your statement so we can understand your position on LLLT

 

 

Because shinning a laser at your head doesn't make you smarter, and if it does, then so would walking out in the sun. Don't belive a couple of poorly design studies you see on the internet.

 

http://www.spectrame...index.php?id=99

http://www.skepticno...-laser-placebo/

[lostfalco]

Hey elemerendero, here are a few possible suggestions and the most recent UT Austin study performed on healthy humans. =)

 

http://www.longecity...ts/#entry582938

 

Full pdf here. http://homepage.psy....ogy_InPress.pdf

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/26017772

 

J Neuropsychol. 2015 May 28. doi: 10.1111/jnp.12074. [Epub ahead of print]

Improving executive function using transcranial infrared laser stimulation.

Blanco NJ1,2, Maddox WT1,2,3,4, Gonzalez-Lima F1,3,5.

Author information

Abstract

Transcranial infrared laser stimulation is a new non-invasive form of low-level light therapy that may have a wide range of neuropsychological applications. It entails using low-power and high-energy-density infrared light from lasers to increase metabolic energy. Preclinical work showed that this intervention can increase cortical metabolic energy, thereby improving frontal cortex-based memory function in rats. Barrett and Gonzalez-Lima (2013, Neuroscience, 230, 13) discovered that transcranial laser stimulation can enhance sustained attention and short-term memory in humans. We extend this line of work to executive function. Specifically, we ask whether transcranial laser stimulation enhances performance in the Wisconsin Card Sorting Task that is considered the gold standard of executive function and is compromised in normal ageing and a number of neuropsychological disorders. We used a laser of a specific wavelength (1,064 nm) that photostimulates cytochrome oxidase - the enzyme catalysing oxygen consumption for metabolic energy production. Increased cytochrome oxidase activity is considered the primary mechanism of action of this intervention. Participants who received laser treatment made fewer errors and showed improved set-shifting ability relative to placebo controls. These results suggest that transcranial laser stimulation improves executive function and may have exciting potential for treating or preventing deficits resulting from neuropsychological disorders or normal ageing.

 

Edited by lostfalco, 10 June 2015 - 12:47 AM.

[elemerendero1]

Hi Lostfalco! In fact being that discussion long enough, I had read with little accuracy and I lost some detail.

However, I do not know if you can help in this, but I would also ask you an opinion.

I had found an illuminator 850nm 96 LEDs (5mm) at a fair price (40 euro), size 13.5 * 11.5, power 15W, but the store has made a mistake and sent me another article (of the same value ), a spotlight 850nm from the surface circular (diameter 6.5 cm), 48 LEDs (5mm), absorption 400mA.

The point is this, spotlights with these features I find them around at about 10 euro (probably what I received was a better quality of materials, but we are interested only led of course, not the material that is around :D ), the reason why I chose to spend a little 'more to the light source 96LED was to cover a larger area. Having not yet talked with the seller, I do not know if I can get the product that I had chosen and still imagine that if will replace the product, it will bear the shipping costs (unless it is more serious than I imagine) at this point the remaining solutions are 2:
1) I keep the product I received. Although the LEDs are less so is the surface, then the density should be the same, the only problem would be that I did not want to have, that is, having to waste more time to pass from one side of the skull and having to hold it in place with your hands (I already know that it will be uncomfortable). To be precise the product I received is this http://www.laserelec...ri-vs-ir48.html

Sure, I burn my ass thinking that I could buy one like 10 euro, or that with the same price I had purchased a product that I covered at least twice the area and that it would probably be easier to use.
2) I try to return the product and let me repay (if the seller agrees), to buy from another seller. I'll spare you all the calculations, I would that of the 55 euro budget (what I've spent so far) I remain EUR 27.5 (EUR 27.5 and thrown in the toilet ... but now "we salute you"), I could use for this http://www.andromeda...ERNO-JG-80.html.

What I wonder is, the latter illuminator  of which I put the link, it's better than that I have? Leaving aside the few LED difference (we assume that they are equal in number), I see that the size of the LEDs is higher (5mm vs 7mm), I also see that the latter requires a power of 1200mA while the spotlight that I have and requires 400mA while my spotlight reports that illuminates up to 35 meters, the second illuminates up to 60/80 meters. It seems obvious that the latter is more powerful, but for the purposes of LLLT is better or worse? Furthermore, despite being more powerful also it has a major surface, which is better from the point of view of convenience, but do not know how to judge as regards the power required for the sessions of LLLT. I mean, I do not know for what should LLLT in power, now I try to see in the studies what characteristics have the used products. Meanwhile you can advise me if you know something about it?

By the way ... you still use the LLLT? Feel I can say that it has obtained substantial benefits with its use? I'm always a bit 'skeptical about the opinions and the enthusiasm that I read on the forum, but I think up to be taken into account in any case (and your opinion interests me a lot).

PS: I am not interested at this time to speak of the effectiveness dell'LLLT, that definitely is yet to be assessed, but initial results lead me to want to try it.

[elemerendero1]

Ok I Found This

 

"In humans, 2 persons with chronic mTBI recently have been reported to have improved cognition after a series of treatments with transcranial, red, and NIR LEDs [57,58]. The LED cluster heads were applied to the forehead and scalp areas (the hair was not shaved off but was parted underneath each 2-inch-diameter LED cluster head). Each cluster head had 61 diodes (9 red 633-nm diodes and 52 NIR 870-nm diodes). Each diode was 12-15 mW, and the total power output was 500 mW. The LED cluster heads were applied to bilateral frontal, parietal, and temporal areas and to the mid-sagittal suture line.

Each LED cluster head was applied for 10 minutes per placement. With the device used here (parameters described above), 1 joule per cm² (J/cm²) energy density was produced during every 45 seconds of exposure time. The energy density dose at the forehead-scalp was 13.3 J/ cm²; the power density was 22.2 mW/cm² (±20%). The power density refers to the mW of power applied per cm². The ± refers to the range of fluctuation (plus or minus 20%) on the power density per cm². This power density is well below that used in other transcranial laser or LED studies to treat acute stroke cases or severe depression cases (225 mW/cm²) [59]. It is estimated that only approximately 3% of the photons delivered to the forehead-scalp surface will reach 1 cm, to the cortex [60]. The dose of 13.3 J/cm² per placement area was estimated to deliver only 0.4 J/cm² to the brain cortex. No sensation of heat or pain was reported during the LED application to the skin or scalp. These LED cluster heads (MedX Health Corp, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada) are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treatment of musculoskeletal pain; they were used off-label for treatment of cognition in the mTBI cases. No potential existed for ocular damage because the LEDs produce noncoherent light. These LED cluster heads also have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for home treatment."

 

The problem is that I can not figure out if the product I have now is compatible with these features. http://www.laserelec...ri-vs-ir48.html

I really hope that I have not completely threw all the money in the toilet.

[Ames]

 

 

LLLT is a scam, so there are no guidelines.

 

would love to see your arguments for your statement so we can understand your position on LLLT

 

 

Because shinning a laser at your head doesn't make you smarter, and if it does, then so would walking out in the sun. Don't belive a couple of poorly design studies you see on the internet.

 

http://www.spectrame...index.php?id=99

http://www.skepticno...-laser-placebo/

 

 

Because everything on longecity has to be for IQ enhancement?

 

Your post is pointless.