The scientific study the cosmetic LED industry won’t want you to see. World-first study confirms the superiority of LYMA Laser’s low level laser therapy compared to near infrared LED, which is great to light up a room, but not your skin

  • Scientific study by LYMA involving Genemarkers and Imperial College London reveals LYMA Laser’s low level laser therapy changes gene expression in the dermis, but LED failed to

  • Evidence confirms LYMA’s laser near infrared laser technology has a biological penetration up to 12cm, whereas LED near infrared light can’t reach even the dermis – where regeneration takes place

  • Questions claims by cosmetic LED industry, suggesting popular beauty LED masks are all hype over results

Imperial College London experiment to demonstrate (LEFT IMAGE) near-infrared LED light penetration through human hand, compared to (RIGHT IMAGE) LYMA Laser’s near infrared low level laser penetration through human hand

In a groundbreaking revelation, a new scientific study conducted by leading WellTech company, LYMA, in collaboration with Genemarkers and Imperial College London, has proven that LYMA’s low level laser therapy is the only light technology able to regenerate skin in the dermis, contrary to what the cosmetic LED industry will have you believe.

The study conclusively demonstrates that low level laser therapy is effective in the dermis, whereas LED light does not biologically penetrate the dermis, debunking a common belief in the multi-billion-dollar LED cosmetic device industry.

The global LED Light Face Mask Market size was valued at USD 238.1m in 2021 and is poised to grow from USD266.43 in 2022 to USD 654.98m by 2030*. Despite the booming market, this study reveals that a significant portion of consumers may only be getting surface level benefits from LED masks and LED beauty devices.

The scientific study commissioned by LYMA, tested gene expression in the dermis—the true benchmark of skin regeneration. Over a five-day period, skin samples were exposed to both the LYMA Laser and LED light of equivalent power and frequency (500mw, 808nm). The results were staggering, with 45 genes in the dermis affected by the LYMA Laser, compared to only one gene by the LED light. This clear disparity proves that LED light cannot penetrate the dermis and therefore lacks biological effectiveness.

By effectively targeting the genes in the dermis, the LYMA Laser resets users’ epigenetic master board, enabling genes to function as they did prior to the onset of ageing. The Genemarkers study confirms that the LYMA Laser can upregulate repair-associated genes and downregulate those linked with ageing and skin health decline. This means that collagen production and other regenerative processes function as they did in younger skin.

To support the study, LYMA also partnered with Department of Physics at Imperial College London via Imperial Consultants, where laser scientist Dr. Stefan Truppe conducted a visual experiment** to further bring to life the Genemarkers findings.

Dr. Graeme Glass, leading Plastic & Aesthetic Surgeon and Associate Professor of Clinical Surgery at Weill Cornell Medical College, comments: “The popularity of LED masks, including the various at-home options like Iron Man-alike masks, sunbed-style shields, and handheld wands is undeniable. But they are cheap to produce, and questions have always been raised about how effective they are in the deeper layers of the skin where real change happens. Our study confirms that only near infrared laser light changed gene expression in a way that will translate to visible improvements in the appearance of skin. Furthermore, these results shine a spotlight on the the LED-based light therapy market, suggesting that the hype used to sell these products Is highly questionable.”

Dr. Stefan Truppe comments, “When we look at the penetration in a very dense medium, like skin or tissue, LEDs lose their power very quickly. Whereas a laser can stay focused and collimated over a long distance. This is why laser is able to deliver a large amount of near infrared light to deep tissues over a large treatment area compared to LED of the same frequency and power.”

To further substantiate its findings, LYMA also commissioned a clinical study involving 20 patients with chronic, non-healing wounds. The patients were randomised into two groups, one receiving standard care and the other receiving standard care plus laser treatment three times per week for four weeks. The results found:

  • The laser treatment cohort saw an average wound area reduction of 78%, with four out of ten patients achieving complete wound healing

  • In contrast, eight out of ten patients receiving standard care showed no improvement at all

Wound healing after-surgery costs the NHS more than £8.5 billion annually***, with around ten million operations performed each year, which represents the third-highest expense for the NHS, after cancer and diabetes. Incorporating the LYMA Laser into wound care protocols could significantly reduce these costs, potentially offering substantial savings to the NHS. The LYMA Laser was originally developed as a medical laser in a research unit in Leipzig, its primary purpose was to heal a range of injuries, including degenerated cartilage, torn tendons and respiratory inflammation. It later transpired that it was also having an astonishing side-effect. To reach the damaged tissue, it needed to pass through the skin, which began to visibly transform the skin’s texture.

Lucy Goff, LYMA Founder comments, “The at-home beauty device category is awash with false promises. While LEDs may give some superficial benefits, this new study cements that laser technology is biologically more effective than LED. At LYMA we’ve strived for better efficacy in all of the categories we operate and the LYMA Laser is unrivalled in skin transformation, not just on the surface but deep in the dermis where real rejuvenation happens. We hope this new research helps customers make more informed decisions when shopping for a product that can truly help tackle their concern. Cosmetic devices that are proven to make a difference to the skin are always going to be clinic-grade devices, which by their nature are expensive, and unfortunately it is a fact that cheap, plastic, devices may look a bargain, but they are a complete waste of money.”

LEAVE A REPLY