Red Light Therapy and NASA

Many red light therapy (RLT) device manufacturers cite NASA’s research to support their red light products, but let’s take a closer look at what those studies actually say. Read my earlier blog on how this wellness trend came about and how some of the hype may be misplaced.

1. What Did NASA Actually Study?

NASA's LED photobiomodulation (PBM) research began in the 1990s and early 2000s, focused on wound healing in space (for astronauts in low-gravity environments). Muscle and bone loss prevention in microgravity, skin regeneration & pain relief (for superficial injuries).

💡 Key Point:

• The studies did NOT test LED therapy for deep tissue penetration (like reaching the ovaries or uterus).

• NASA never claimed LEDs worked the same way as medical lasers.

2. Why Did NASA Use LEDs Instead of Lasers?

NASA originally used lasers in early research but switched to LEDs due to cost & safety – lasers are expensive and impractical for space travel. LEDs could be built into panels for astronaut recovery and they require less power for treating skin wounds and muscle fatigue.

3. Do NASA’s LED Studies Apply to Fertility?

Short Answer: No. Here’s why:

NASA studied LEDs for wound healing, not ovarian function or fertility.

• The primary studies tested near-infrared (NIR) LEDs on skin-level injuries, NOT deep tissue therapy.

NASA’s LED technology is different from what’s sold today.

• Their LED systems were high-powered and engineered for specific medical purposes, NOT repurposed grow lights or generic LED panels.

Fertility PBM requires deep tissue penetration.

• The ovaries, uterus, and reproductive system require light to reach deeper tissues, which LEDs struggle to do due to scattering and non-coherent emission.

• NASA’s studies didn’t measure LED effectiveness for reproductive health.

💡 Key Takeaway:

• Manufacturers citing NASA’s LED studies for fertility devices are misrepresenting the research.

• The most effective fertility PBM research is based on medical-grade lasers, NOT LED panels or lamps.

4. Why Do So Many LED Device Companies Cite NASA?

Marketing Power: NASA adds credibility, even if the studies don’t apply to fertility.
Consumer Confusion: Many people don’t realize NASA’s studies were on skin healing, not deep tissue penetration.
Lack of Regulation: Companies can make bold claims about LED therapy without FDA scrutiny if they market devices as wellness products.

The Bottom Line?

NASA’s LED studies were groundbreaking for surface-level healing, but they are NOT proof that LEDs work as well as red light panels.

Medical-grade lasers remain the gold standard for fertility PBM due to:

• Deeper penetration into reproductive tissues.

• More targeted energy delivery.

• Clinically supported effects on ovarian function, egg quality, and endometrial health.

LED panels—even those using NASA-inspired technology—are not a proven alternative for fertility treatments.