Industry Deep Dive

You will come across brands advertising very high wattage ratings with the implication that their panels are extremely powerful. However, this is a trick because:

1. What they are doing is using the maximum power rating of the bulbs not the actual power being run through the unit e.g. 300 5W bulbs and calling it 1500W (300 x 5 = 1500)
2. But no light would ever draw this much power - if it did you would have a huge safety issue because the whole thing would overheat!
3. In reality only a fraction of each bulb's potential output power is ever used (this maximises efficiency and is also why 5W bulbs offer no benefit over 3W bulbs and are a waste of money)
4. The number which matters is the irradiance, a measurement of brightness

Note: inputs wattages can provide a rough guide on irradiance, but are not the most accurate because more efficient designs like the Hero300 can produce higher irradiances with lower power consumption. But if, for example, you see a panel with half the input power it almost certainly would also produce less irradiance.

This is why we use the number of LEDs to signify the model name, hence we sell the Hero300 and not the Hero1500!

No red light therapy panel pushes its LEDs to their maximum capacity because to do so would overheat the unit causing enormous safety issues.

This means 5W bulbs offer no benefit over 3W bulbs; their capacity would never be used anyway so output power and irradiance is watt's (pun intended) actually important. 5W bulbs and 3W bulbs will produce the same irradiance.

To make matters worse, 5W bulbs are actually less efficient than 5W bulbs because an LED's "wall-plug (i.e., power conversion) efficiency is inversely proportional to its output power”. They produce less light per unit of power as the total power increases, which is accentuated by larger LED sizes. This means to get the same amount of irradiance from 5w bulbs as 3W bulbs, you would need to expend more electricity.

We talked with our suppliers who confirmed that the Hero300 panel would produce the same irradiance while drawing:

• 455W with 5W bulbs
• 273W with 3W bulbs

That's 182W of wasted electricity - over a third - if we went for 5W bulbs instead of 3W bulbs - bad for the environment and for your energy bill!

But most red light therapy panel companies don't care - they think you won't understand this and will naively believe the higher rated bulbs mean a superior product when in fact the opposite is true

Running 5W bulbs makes no sense; there is zero advantage in terms of irradiance and they will cost you more to purchase and run.

So which bulbs do we use in the Hero Series panels?

3W bulbs, of course!

A lot of the pulsing hype derives from a 2010 study showing the positive effects of pulsing light, however this was done with lasers not LEDs. While studies show lasers produce similar biological effects, with no significant difference in outcomes, from a technical perspective lasers operate fundamentally differently to LEDs and produce far more heat which can even burn patients, with authors saying “because there are “quench periods” (pulse OFF times) following the pulse ON times, pulsed lasers can generate less tissue heating. This increased power can cause tissue heating at the surface layers and in this instance pulsed light could be very useful". Therefore the benefit of pulsed light refers to laser safety because you could treat a patient with "potentially much higher peak power densities than those that could be safely used in CW [continuous wave i.e. non-pulsed light]". But this is irrelevant to LEDs because they do not produce nearly the same heat as lasers and studies indicate that red light therapy is safe³. There's simply no need to have an "OFF time" with modern LED red light therapy panels like our Hero Series.

Further, were you to use pulsing in your red light therapy sessions, you would be unnecessarily halving the amount of light received in any given treatment period because half the time the lights would be off. This means you would need to treat yourself for twice as long to get the same total exposure time, wasting time and electricity.

Finally, if you look through the photobiomodulation literature you will see most studies on red light therapy used continuous wave light.

This is why we opted to omit pulsing from Hero Series panels, passing on the savings to you. Pulsing is simply not necessary and, in our view, is even counterproductive.

As an aside, pulsing light can also entrain the brain into alpha, delta and theta states visually, similarly to how binaural beats can do so through the auditory system. However this does not require any particular wavelength of light nor much power, you could even just use your phone screen for neural entrainment (certainly not worth upping the cost of the Hero300!). And in case you're curious, here are some free pure binaural beats for auditory entrainment (we find this a relaxing alternative to visual entrainment, just put it on headphones in the background at super low volume so you forget it's even playing).

The most common wavelengths which are included in almost all red light therapy panels (including ours) are:

• 660nm (red)
• 850nm (near-infrared)

This combination works well because the red light treats the skin while the near-infrared penetrates deeper and treats underlying tissue and muscles. To cite a 2019 paper, combining multiple-wavelength sources "can present a therapeutic advantage by providing concurrent energy delivery to biological tissues at different depths.”

The industry trick here is brands claiming that these particular wavelengths are chosen because they are the most researched; while there are studies on 660nm and 850nm, to say they are the most researched simply isn't true.

If you look through the literature you will observe a range of wavelengths being researched, with the 600-700nm (red) and 800-900nm (near-infrared) ranges yielding most of the promising results and the 700-800nm range being relatively ineffective/inert.

The real reasons 660nm and 850nm are so commonly used is:

1. They are some of the most mass-produced LED wavelengths which keeps costs down
2. They sit around the middle of the two most effective treatment ranges (600-700nm and 800-900nm)

Using these wavelengths in red light therapy panels strikes a balance between commercial viability and delivering a research-based product.

However to better reflect the promising research of 630nm, 810nm and 830nm red light therapy we added a few additional well-studied wavelengths to the our Hero Series panels with the intention of increasing your coverage while keeping our panels affordable:

630nm: 10%
660nm: 40%
810nm: 5%
830nm: 5%
850nm: 40%

If you look at our competitors, you will see few have 5 wavelengths and those which do are either more expensive of poorer quality.

Likewise, we have paid similar attention to selecting research-backed wavelengths for our red light therapy LED masks and direct on skin devices. See more details along with wavelength specific studies on our Wavelength Research page.

We do not see solar meter measurements as an industry trick because they are used so consistently that they fulfill their function of allowing people to compare brands.

That being said, beware of brands with extremely high irradiance measurements because this probably means they were taken immediately in front of the panel (where you body never should be because you would be exposed to maximum EMF!) and not at safe usage distances like ours are.

The most important thing to remember is to compare panel irradiance measurements at the same distances.

When we show people our panels in person, they are always amazed at how bright they are.

With a power consumption of only 273W (lowered by the use of 3W bulbs), the Hero300 has a solar panel measured irradiance of:

• 209mw/cm2 at 3"
• 172mw/cm2 at 6"
• 141mw/cm2 at 12"
• 125mw/cm2 at 18"
• 103mw/cm2 at 24"

Single vs Dual Lens LEDs: Why Single-Chip Designs Are Better for Red Light Therapy

Some brands promote dual-chip or dual-lens LEDs as more powerful - but this is often just marketing. What truly matters is:

• True power output and irradiance
• Number of optical output points (lenses)
• Long-term reliability and thermal performance

🔢 Configuration Comparison (273 W Panel)

300 Single-Chip LEDs:

• 300 chips total (1 per lens)
• Each chip receives 0.91 W
• 300 individual lenses = maximum coverage and uniformity
  

150 Dual-Chip LEDs:

• 300 chips total (2 per lens)
• Each chip receives 0.91 W
• Only 150 lenses = reduced light distribution
  

300 Dual-Chip LEDs:

• 600 chips total (2 per lens)
• Each chip receives just 0.46 W
• 300 lenses = good coverage, but lower energy per chip
  

🔍 Why Single-Chip LEDs Perform Better

1. More Lenses = Better Coverage

Panels with more lenses deliver more even light. Uniform irradiance is essential for effectiveness. See Huang et al. (2009), which highlights how consistent energy delivery improves results in photobiomodulation.

2. Dual-Chip Panels Can Be Misleading

Panels with 600 chips (300 dual-chip LEDs) often split the same 273 W of power, giving each chip only 0.46 W. That's less output per chip—not more—despite inflated marketing claims.

3. Dual-Chip LEDs Fail Sooner

Dual-chip modules create more heat in less space, leading to thermal stress and faster failure. Studies confirm this:

• Study on thermal stress in multichip packages
• Thermal degradation in COB LED modules
• Thermal aging response in multi-chip LEDs

Choosing single lens LEDs is one of the reasons our panels perform so well and boast a 100000 hour LED lifetime rating - about 10 years of continuous use!

✅ Summary

• Single-chip LEDs deliver more power per lens and better coverage
• Dual-chip LEDs often split power and reduce effectiveness
• Dual-chip modules have higher failure rates due to heat stress

When choosing a panel, focus on real specs like power, lens count, and measured irradiance—not inflated chip counts or vague marketing terms.

Both panels and direct on skin devices can be effective red light therapy products. Which is best for you depends on your goals and what will most smoothly integrate into your lifestyle.

If you are after general wellness and self-care then panels are superior because of their versatility while direct on skin devices offer more niche configurations and form factors for those with specific goals.

Here are some advantages and disadvantages of both types:

Panels

• Skin-contact devices can only cover a relatively small area of the body at once, requiring much more time to get equivalent exposure
• Skin-contact devices cannot reach crevices or fit around all the contours of your body
• Panels, on the other hand, reach every crevice because the light source is further away and illuminates freely
• Only top quality skin-contact devices (like ours!) avoid EMF exposure while well made panels like the Hero Series can be used at their recommended usage distances with 0 EMF
• Around 50 times the power of skin-contact devices compensate for additional distance and reflections
• One of the biggest criticisms of red light therapy panels is that large amounts of light reflects off your body. This is, however, compensated for by the much stronger power and irradiances of panels. Skin-contact devices are usually only around 10W, and that is fine because the light doesn't need to be strong when it's directly on the skin. But it also means panels, with almost 50 times the power, are designed to compensate for this extra distance. And remember, that extra distance is what allows the light to reach the places skin-contact devices can't.

Direct on Skin

• Used more often in scientific studies
• Less power required because direct-skin contact means minimal reflections and efficient absorption
• More targeted treatments for specific needs
• Smaller and easier to move, pack away and travel with
• Can move around more while receiving treatment
• Generally less expensive than panels
• Generally broader range of wavelengths to treat specific issues e.g. blue for acne orange

Good quality panels and direct on skin devices can both provide the myriad of benefits associated with red and near-infrared light therapy.

Large stands need to be expensive because of how complex their design is and how heavy and expensive they are to ship.

But many customers want a simple "boot" style floor stand, and these are often sold for $150 or more!

We view this as an industry trick because it's a way of offsetting the cost of the actual panel onto the accessories you use with it.

We have priced our "boot" style floor stand, the HS1, at just $62.

To match other brands, we offer a full refund for any order returned to us within 60 days as long as it is in as-new condition.

But remember:

Red light therapy panels are heavy and expensive to post.

Promoting "risk free" 60 day trials is an industry trick - these are never truly risk free because of the weight and cost of return-shipping your panel.

But we are confident you'll love your Hero Series device so much you won't want to return it anyway!

While being able to dim your lights is a nice feature for a lamp, it doesn't make much sense for red light therapy. All you are doing by lowering the brightness is getting less exposure during your sessions - you may as well have bought a cheaper and less powerful panel!

Having fixed (but very high) irradiance on Hero Series panels is one of the ways we are able to keep costs down without compromising on the things which matter: Irradiance, safety and durability.

Some brands justify higher prices by providing you smart modes for different treatment types. This involves turning off some of the LEDs and just keeping on the ones which have been shown to provide x benefit for y condition. However this is a pointless "feature":

1. All wavelengths included in any decent red light therapy panel will be beneficial in some way and studies indicate that red light therapy is safe so there's no reason to moderate any particular wavelength³
2. Each LED (or lens in the case of dual lens panels) can only produce one wavelength, so you are not gaining extra power on the other wavelengths by turning some off i.e. your skin won't gain more benefits by turning off the wavelengths associated with improving depression

This means by turning off some wavelengths while keeping others on, all you are doing is lowering the total effectiveness of your red light therapy treatment because you are removing certain wavelengths and their associated benefits.

Note: Hero Series panels are still capable of turning on Red (630nm and 660nm) and NIR (810nm, 830nm and 850nm) wavelengths separately, but there's no point in having individual control of each individual wavelength e.g. turning only 810nm on.

These involve automating gradual bright increases when using red light therapy in the morning and decreases when using it at night. This is not worth paying extra money for however because:

1. Getting sunlight first thing in the morning is optimal for health anyway, so we think you should go outside before jumping in front of your panel!³
2. A human study "demonstrated that red-light illumination positively affected sleep quality and endurance" and boosted melatonin, suggesting using red light therapy at night is highly effective for sleep without the need for any "smart mode" (which probably won't work anymore anyway the moment app support is dropped by the brand!)

Some brands justify higher prices by providing you the ability to individually control the amount of each wavelength. This is pointless however, given:

1. All wavelengths included in any decent red light therapy panel will be beneficial and studies indicate that red light therapy is safe so there's no reason to moderate any particular wavelength³
2. Each LED (or lens in the case of dual lens panels) can only produce one wavelength, so you are not gaining extra power on the other wavelengths by turning some off

This means by turning off some wavelengths while keeping others on, all you are doing is lowering the total effectiveness of your red light therapy treatment because you are removing certain wavelengths and their associated benefits.

There's simply no point in having control over individual wavelengths.

Many brands make generic health claims without providing links or checking if the studies they refer to used similar wavelengths and/or technologies to their products. we provide direct links to the RLT studies which inform our product design.

Click the links below to view studies on each of the following or visit our RLT Wavelength Research page for an overview:

• Sleep better
• Reduce pain and inflammation
• Increase muscle mass and recovery
• Stimulate collagen production, rejuvenating skin and wrinkles
• Reverse hair loss
• Improve neural function, depression and brain diseases
• Elevate adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production and boost mitochondria function
• Heal injuries and wounds
• Improve eyesight