4th May 2026

Newsletter Monday

Reader

Red light therapy is having a moment.

Masks. Panels. Beds.

All promising some version of:

“skin rejuvenation”
“faster healing”
“joint recovery”

It’s one of those trends that starts small… and then quietly expands its job description.

Way back when...

It reminded me of being a kid around 1987/88, I’d have been about 9 or 10.

My brief quest to be a gymnast and follow in the footsteps of Nadia Comăneci (having watched the film Nadia, on a loop) was under threat from knee pain.

Somewhere in the quest to be pain free, a red heat lamp appeared in our house and my job was to put my knee under it for a while, and repeat.

Now bear in mind when this was, I don’t even think we had a microwave by then.

I must ask mum where that thing came from.

Anyway, I had high expectations.

I can’t remember how long I used it for.

I do remember that it took about a year away from the sport for me to be pain free.
Spoiler: I never became the next Nadia. A year off at that age - you’re moving on.

But I did have high expectations that that glowing red light was doing something important.

Forty years on - here we are.

The pitch is similar:

Light → cells → magic happens.

And to be fair, there is some science behind it.

Certain wavelengths of light can affect cellular activity in controlled settings. That’s not controversial.

What is less clear is how that translates into:

meaningful skin changes
faster injury recovery
better joint outcomes

…in real people, using devices bought online and used at home.

That TEMU bargain or eBay deal probably isn’t medical grade.

This is where things tend to drift, the example in the article is a good illustration of this.

Lady uses it.

Feels better.

And the conclusion becomes: it worked.

But that’s not how we prove something works.

Injuries improve over time anyway.

Pain fluctuates.

Skin changes with routine, environment, hormones, and frankly… lighting.

Feeling better is not the same as proof.

If something genuinely improves healing or joint outcomes, we should be able to show that in well-controlled trials, in significant numbers of people.

Not just before-and-after photos.

Not just testimonials.

Not just “I tried it and it felt good.”

Proper evidence.

The kind that is slow, expensive, and often far less exciting than the marketing.

Reading the article, it’s noticeable that the scepticism comes from the experts who aren’t selling it.