What did you buy? I’ve been wanting to try it, but every time I look I get confused.
@RainWeasley I purchased the According to Gospel Equine Light Therapy, purchased the small, refurbished too! It works, my horse loves it, I love it. I’ll take it. It has 30 visible red (660nm) and 36 near infrared (880nm).
1 Like
Some of this is because that is the correct way to write science – we are experts at bet-hedging words because almost nothing in the world is ever 100% certain. As soon as you say “yes,” you have to say “but.” Because outliers & randomness (which we like to call stochasticity because it sounds cooler).
I can point at a wall & tell you that if you walk into it, your face will hurt – BUT there is an incredibly tiny but technically statistically real chance that because atoms are composed of moving particles with spaces between them, that you could walk through that wall if said atoms & space chanced into just the right gap. Is that actually going to happen? No - I’m comfortable placing a bet that your face will hurt. But as a long-time scientist, I have to acknowledge that possibility exists.
I don’t have any first hand experience with red light therapy & always caution strongly between drawing too many parallels between horse & human physiology. One observation I will make after reviewing the posted link is that it points out that the energy penetrates ~5 mm (which I just measured to be about 1/2 my pinky nail) beneath human skin surface. According to multiple studies, horse skin is about 1 mm thicker than human skin, plus hairier. So if this light does anything, it’s only going to reach things at or very very near the surface. On the article’s list of things of “evidence exists to support some benefit”, all of those things are either on the surface or very very shallow in humans.
I’m also a little unclear (& don’t have time to do a lit review right now) on the actual mechanism. I doubt “strengthen mitochondria” is the right term, I’m not sure if this is possible (but gives me an amusing mental image of mitochondria at a tiny gym). It sounds like it may be more accurately described as stimulating mitochondria to produce ATP at a faster rate, which may be possible, but do mitochondria have a limit to their production capability (most things do)? Also, just because you have more ATP doesn’t mean you control over where & how it’s used. It’s certainly possible that having that ATP locally available in an area may help increase rate of healing, but someone who specializes in microbiology would be better qualified to comment on that.
It’s also very difficult to tease out confounding variables, particularly with healing. Individuals within any species heal at different rates & this can be affected by age, diet, multiple aspects of care, genetics, even climate. Everything loves to tout “increases in circulation”, but that can be brought about by simply moving, rubbing, or warming an area (i.e. wrapping). And there are often no controls to compare how that same animal would have healed with just time & rest.
Those are my thoughts on the science side. Would I personally spend money on it? No, not for a horse. It may (and that’s a big may) offer small benefits in some specific situations (perhaps open wounds, large surgical sites, things you want to close as rapidly as possible), I don’t see enough here that would make it worthwhile to just have on hand & no indication that it would even reach muscles or internal soft tissues that are what we most commonly struggle with.
I understand. I was trained as a Naval Aviator and we learned a LOT of science (Aerodynamics, Thermodynamics, Meteorology, Physics, Chemistry, etc.). Later I specialized in Anti-Submarine Warfare and added a bunch of Oceanography, Biology, and Geology to the mix. It was less about pure theory than the consequences of taking, or not taking, some action in a defined environment. In dealing with facts we learned that they are either Certain*, Probable, or Possible. We also learned the Holy Trinity of Knowledge: The Need to Know, The Nice to Know, and The Superfluous.
Since we rarely dealt with living things in our job (except, perhaps, the need to terminate them while not terminating ourselves in the process) we didn’t delve deeply into philosophy. That was a job for others.
Later in life I learned the SOAP process which is the bedrock of medical treatment. When dealing with any problem, however, the SOAP (because it requires learning the art of distinguishing between Subjective and Objective evidence) is often a “hard sell.” The common claim is, “It worked for me so I don’t need to inquire further.” This often followed by, “And neither do you. Just send me the some money and I’ll share my knowledge with you.”
In the case of “red light” I’ve yet to find anything approaching reliable fact. I understand that fact in science is often more dynamic than static but that doesn’t mean that you can NEVER rely upon them. Sometimes you have to. The article cited is a textbook example of “intellectual tap dancing.” It basically says, “we looked at this, found no efficacy that we could ascribe to the process, but can’t say it didn’t work either.” Meaning that “you’re on your own.” And this leads to a Logical Fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. Right now, in the larger world, this Fallacy has become the bedrock of many public policies. That is a VERY BAD THING. It leads to expenditure of time and money on problems that may not be problems. And time and money spent on Initiative Alpha (based on the Fallacy) is time and money you don’t have to spend on Initiative Bravo (based on a reality). Rigorous thought can lead to “politically incorrect” conclusions, "socially incorrect conclusions, or “religiously incorrect conclusions” so we don’t teach it. This leads to production of “PR correct conclusions.”
There is NOT a problem exclusive either Left or Right.
Since conclusive knowledge upon which policy can be built will almost never exist we have to learn to live with policy built on inconclusive knowledge.
G.
*The “Certain” category has two parts: Certainly YES and Certainly NO.
Thank you everyone for your replies. I remain curious and I would hope that I am open to new things. However, after reading here at COTH and on the internet (and I continue to observe the horse) I am slightly skeptical about the efficacy of this particular therapy. I suspect longer turnout and saddle fit may be better ways to address the issues for this mare.
I think anything you can buy for at-home use is unlikely to have benefits beneath the skin. Otherwise, I think it would be highly dangerous and require special training.
So it is possible that various types of light therapy might help improve healing to surface wounds, hairless patches, or itchy spots. But the idea that an OTC light can penetrate to the exact depth needed to help heal muscles, deep tissue or joints injuries is highly unlikely.
1 Like
Indeed.
This is also true of the various “magnetic” devices. An MRI machine DOES affect living tissue. It’s also a VERY big device.
G.
