Why We Chose These 5 Red Light Wavelengths (And What the Research Says)

Red light panels keep adding wavelengths. Seven, eight, sometimes more. A longer list looks better on a product page, but a panel only has so many LEDs and so much power to share between them.

When we chose the Red by Heisen Blue Tabletop Panel, we started with the research instead of the spec sheet. We ended up with five wavelengths: 630 and 660 nm red, and 810, 830 and 850 nm near-infrared. Here is why, with the studies linked so you can read them yourself.

Why does the wavelength matter in red light therapy?

Wavelength is the colour of the light, measured in nanometres (nm). It affects how far light travels into your body and what absorbs it once it gets there.

Depth. A widely cited review of the field describes 600 to 700 nm being used for superficial tissue and 780 to 950 nm for deeper tissue. It also notes that 700 to 770 nm has limited biochemical activity. That is why most panels, including ours, have two groups of LEDs with a gap in between.

Absorption. The leading explanation is that light is absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase, an enzyme in your mitochondria. Cell research found response peaks at about 613 to 623 nm, 667 to 684 nm, 751 to 772 nm and 812 to 846 nm. In a separate study on neurons, 670 and 830 nm were the most effective of the five wavelengths tested. These were lab findings in cells, but they help explain why researchers keep returning to these regions.

What do studies show for each of our 5 wavelengths?

630 nm (red). In a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial of 60 people, a home LED mask using 630 and 850 nm significantly improved crow's feet scores compared with the sham device at 8, 12 and 16 weeks.

660 nm (red). This is the most-published single wavelength in our search below. In a single-blinded, split-face study, more than 90% of people had reduced wrinkle depth and skin roughness after 12 treatments at 660 nm. A sham-controlled trial of 95 women found shorter wrinkles on image analysis and higher satisfaction, although one wrinkle rating scale showed no difference between the groups.

810 nm (near-infrared). In a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of 28 high-level soccer players, 810 nm light before exercise improved muscle strength and reduced soreness and markers of muscle damage at the lower power settings. The best results came from the lowest power tested, and the authors noted that more power is not necessarily better. This trial used lasers, not LEDs.

830 nm (near-infrared). In a randomized, double-blind, split-face trial of 76 people, 830 nm alone, 633 nm alone and the two combined were compared with sham light. Treated skin showed wrinkle reductions of up to 36% and elasticity increases of up to 19% from baseline, along with more collagen and elastic fibres in skin samples.

850 nm (near-infrared). Along with the 630 nm mask trial above, a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial used an 850 nm LED cluster before intense running and recorded longer time to exhaustion and lower markers of muscle damage and fatigue. That trial had just one participant, an elite runner, so it is a promising signal and not a conclusion.

The wider reviews point the same way. A review of 39 muscle performance trials found generally positive results from 655 to 950 nm, while rating the evidence as very low to moderate quality. A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials in knee osteoarthritis found less pain and disability at recommended doses of 785 to 860 nm and of 904 nm.

Are these really the most studied wavelengths?

We wanted a number instead of a slogan, so we ran our own PubMed search on November 5, 2026. For each wavelength, we searched for papers mentioning it along with terms such as photobiomodulation, low-level laser or LED.

Our five wavelengths appear in roughly six times as many papers as 940, 1060 and 1064 nm combined. But this is a rough keyword count, not a measure of quality. It includes lab and animal research, and it says nothing about whether a study was positive.

The table also shows one exception: 630 nm has fewer tagged clinical trials than 940 nm. We kept 630 nm because it sits close to the 633 nm used in skin trials like the one above, and it has held up in a sham-controlled trial of its own.

Why did we leave out wavelengths like 940 and 1064 nm?

They are not fake, and some have real research behind them. A review of 22 studies on 1064 nm reported less pain and better function, particularly in knee conditions. But those studies used high-powered lasers above 0.5 W, a different kind of device from a home LED panel, and the authors call 1064 nm a relative newcomer.

Those longer wavelengths also come with an open question. The same review that describes the depth ranges above notes some contention over whether light above 900 nm is absorbed more by water than by cytochrome c oxidase, while the 1064 nm review notes that 810 to 830 nm has the lowest water absorption of commonly used wavelengths.

The decision comes down to trade-offs. Every LED given to another wavelength is one that isn't in the two bands with the most research behind them. One skin trial even tested this idea directly: a broad 570 to 850 nm spectrum showed no advantage over 611 to 650 nm red light alone, although both improved skin and collagen density. That doesn't settle the question for every panel or every goal, but it does show that more light colours don't automatically mean better results.

What should you keep in mind about this research?

Nobody has crowned a best wavelength. We're not aware of research ranking these wavelengths head-to-head, and doses, devices and goals vary from study to study. We chose these five because of their track record, not because a study proved them the winners.

Wavelength is only half the story. A study's results depend on its dose and device as well, so they don't automatically transfer to another product. None of the studies above tested our panel. That is exactly why we're having ours independently tested, so you can see what it really delivers.

Why is the Red by Heisen Blue panel worth it?

We put our money into the things you can check for yourself:

• 75 dual-chip LEDs, all in the red and near-infrared bands. No wavelengths added to make the list longer.
• Output measured with a spectroradiometer. The manufacturer's readings show 76.5 mW/cm² of red and 59.7 mW/cm² of near-infrared at about 5.5 inches (14 cm), measured separately. We'll publish the full independent lab report before pre-orders open.
• 135W of real power draw. That is what it draws from the wall, not an "equivalent" number made by multiplying LEDs by a rating.
• A 3-year warranty, handled by our own team. If something goes wrong, you deal with us.

It's the same approach we take with our methylene blue: test it, publish the results and let you check them. Join the waitlist for the Red by Heisen Blue Tabletop Panel, or read how methylene blue and red light connect.

Frequently asked questions

Are more wavelengths better in a red light panel? Not automatically. A panel's LEDs and power are shared across its wavelengths, so each one you add gets a smaller share. What matters is whether the extra wavelengths are worth the LEDs they take up.

What is the best wavelength for red light therapy? No single wavelength has been shown to be the best. Red around 630 to 660 nm has been studied widely for skin, and near-infrared around 810 to 850 nm has been studied for deeper tissue such as muscle and joints.

Can I see all 5 wavelengths? No. You can see the red light, but near-infrared is invisible, so some LEDs can look dim or dark in near-infrared mode. Near-infrared is still reaching your skin, so wear the included goggles for face and close-up sessions.

This article is for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. These statements have not been evaluated by Health Canada or the Food and Drug Administration. The Red by Heisen Blue Tabletop Panel is designed for personal wellness use and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.