Listen or watch on your favorite platforms
Show Notes
On today’s episode of AP Class, we’re breaking down the evidence behind a fan favorite, red light therapy. From LED masks to luxury wellness studios, red light therapy has completely taken over the beauty and longevity space. But as providers, we wanted to know, is there actually evidence behind this, or is this a trend wrapped in really good marketing? So today we’re diving into a randomized split-face study that compared amber light and red light therapy to determine if these truly improved wrinkles and signs of aging. We’ll break down the science, the study, and the clinical outcomes, plus what this means for patients who are trying to decide if purchasing these devices are worth the investment.
Episode participants:
Radiance Wellness | radiance.well
Megan Ucich | the.skin.practitioner
Aayesha Patel | aaestheticsbyaayesha
Sarah Pertschuk | beautyinjectorsarah
Downloads:
Why This Conversation Matters
Few aesthetic treatments have exploded in popularity as quickly as red light therapy.
From LED face masks and wearable panels to wellness studios dedicated entirely to light-based treatments, photobiomodulation (PBM)—the scientific term for red light therapy—has become one of the most talked-about trends in aesthetics.
Patients ask about it constantly. Does it actually work? Is it worth the investment? And can a device you use at home really create meaningful improvements in aging skin?
In this episode of AP Class, we break down a randomized controlled trial comparing red light and amber light therapy for facial rejuvenation.
The takeaway? Unlike many beauty trends that generate more marketing than evidence, this study demonstrates that LED light therapy can produce measurable improvements in wrinkles—with results that are difficult to ignore.
What Is Photobiomodulation?
Photobiomodulation (PBM) refers to the use of low-energy light to trigger biological changes within cells.
The mechanism is surprisingly fascinating.
Red and amber wavelengths are absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase within the mitochondria—the part of the cell responsible for producing energy. When this happens, a cascade of cellular activity occurs that may:
- Increase cellular energy production (ATP)
- Stimulate fibroblasts
- Enhance collagen synthesis
- Reduce collagen breakdown
- Modulate inflammation and oxidative stress
In simpler terms, light acts as a signal that encourages skin cells to function more efficiently. The result is healthier tissue behavior and potentially improved skin quality over time.
The Study: Red vs. Amber Light
One of the most interesting aspects of this research is that it compared two popular wavelengths directly:
- Red LED (660 nm)
- Amber LED (590 nm)
Most previous studies evaluated red light alone. This study wanted to determine whether one wavelength was truly superior when both were delivered at the same energy dose.
Researchers enrolled women aged 40–65 with Fitzpatrick II to IV and Glogau photoaging scale types II–IV, moderate signs of photoaging, and used a split-face design, one of the strongest study models in aesthetic medicine.
Each participant received:
- Red light on one side of the face
- Amber light on the other side
- 10 treatment sessions over a four-week period
- Two to three sessions per week
- Ten minutes per session
Because every participant served as her own control, variables such as genetics, skin type, lifestyle, and skincare routines were minimized.
The Headline Result: A 30% Reduction in Wrinkles
This is where things get exciting.
Using specialized imaging equipment rather than patient opinion alone, researchers measured wrinkle volume in the crow’s feet region around the eyes.
Both treatments produced statistically significant improvement.
| Treatment | Wrinkle Volume Reduction |
|---|---|
| Red Light | 31.6% reduction |
| Amber Light | 29.9% reduction |
That means both wavelengths reduced wrinkle volume by roughly 30% after only one month of treatment.
The red light group performed slightly better, but the difference was small enough that most patients—and probably most providers—would not notice the distinction clinically.
Translation: The important finding isn’t that red light beat amber light. It’s that both worked.
More Isn’t Always Better
One of the most valuable lessons from this study challenges a common assumption in aesthetics.
Many people believe:
- More treatments are better
- Higher power is better
- Daily use is better
The research suggests the opposite may be true.
The study authors noted that lower-energy protocols delivered two to three times per week appeared more effective than higher-energy or more frequent treatment schedules studied elsewhere.
This is encouraging for patients because it makes the treatment much more realistic.
You do not necessarily need:
- Daily sessions
- Hour-long treatments
- Professional appointments multiple times per week
In this study, 10 minutes a session two to three times weekly produced measurable results.
What Didn’t Improve?
This may be the most important section for managing expectations.
While wrinkle volume improved substantially, not everything changed.
Hydration
Researchers found no meaningful improvement in skin hydration. In fact, red light showed a slight reduction in measured hydration values.
Elasticity
Many patients hope red light therapy will tighten loose skin or create a lifting effect.
This study found no significant improvement in skin elasticity. But of note, elasticity data was incomplete which can alter the outcome of the results seen.
This distinction matters.
Reducing wrinkles and tightening tissue are not the same thing.
LED therapy appears helpful for improving fine lines and skin quality, but it should not be viewed as a replacement for treatments designed specifically for lifting and tightening.
Quality of Life Improved
One often overlooked aspect of aesthetic research is how patients actually feel.
Even though the objective improvements were relatively modest, participants reported meaningful improvements in quality of life and satisfaction with their appearance after treatment.
That matters.
At the end of the day, aesthetic medicine isn’t simply about measurements and photographs.
It’s about helping patients feel more confident in their own skin.
Who Might Benefit Most?
The authors highlight an interesting group of patients who may particularly benefit from photobiomodulation.
Because LED therapy is non-invasive and low inflammation, it may be useful for people who are poor candidates for more aggressive rejuvenation treatments, including:
- Patients with diabetes
- Individuals prone to keloid formation
- Patients with impaired wound healing
- People who wish to avoid lasers or other inflammatory procedures
For these patients, PBM may provide a safer pathway toward facial rejuvenation.
What This Means for Providers
- The Evidence Is Better Than Many People Expect: A 30% reduction in wrinkle volume is a meaningful finding for a completely non-invasive treatment.
- Red and Amber Light Both Work: Although red light performed slightly better statistically, the real-world difference appears small. Providers should focus less on choosing between these wavelengths and more on using them appropriately.
- Position It as an Adjunct: LED therapy should be viewed as part of a broader treatment plan—not a standalone anti-aging solution.
The greatest value may come from combining it with:
- Medical-grade skincare
- Microneedling
- Facials
- Other evidence-based aesthetic procedures
As discussed in the episode, it complements good treatment plans rather than replacing them.
What This Means for Patients
If you’re considering purchasing an LED mask or red-light device:
- The evidence suggests it can help reduce wrinkles
- You do not need to use it every day
- Consistency matters more than intensity
- It will not create facelift-like tightening
- It works best as part of a comprehensive skin-health strategy
Most importantly:
You should view red light therapy as a tool—not a miracle. A useful tool, but still just one piece of the puzzle.
Closing Thoughts
This study reinforces something we discuss often in aesthetics:
The best treatments are rarely the most dramatic.
Red light therapy isn’t replacing lasers, fillers, surgery, or neuromodulators. But it doesn’t have to.
What makes this technology compelling is that it’s safe, accessible, evidence-based, and capable of producing measurable improvements in wrinkle reduction without downtime.
For providers, the message is that photobiomodulation deserves a place in the conversation.
For patients, the message is simpler:
Yes, the science suggests red light therapy works. Just don’t expect it to do everything.
Class dismissed—for now.
