The pharmaceutical and medical shill-website ‘Medical News Today’ recently posted an article about red-light therapy and its effects on blood sugar levels. While it’s worrisome that the evil medical industry pushes something like ‘red-light therapy,’ it’s mainly because it’s another way to treat symptoms and making tons of money while doing nothing about the real cause of the problem.
Let’s see what they have to say before I give you my view on it. They start off with three bullet points.
- “Type 2 diabetes is manageable and potentially reversible through medications and lifestyle changes.”
- “A new study has found red light therapy reduced blood sugar levels in healthy participants.”
- “The study authors suggest red light therapy could help people with type 2 diabetes manage their condition.”
Actually, medications only help you manage the situation as you continue to do everything wrong, as in consuming toxic carbohydrates – it does nothing to correct the situation. Only changes to your “lifestyle” will help, as in eliminating all toxic plant-based foods, especially carbohydrates and vegetable-/seed-oils.
Now, let’s see what they have to say about red-light therapy.
“A new study recently published in the Journal of Biophotonics suggests that red light therapy could help people manage their blood sugar. While the study was conducted on people without diabetes, the study’s researchers from City University London believe this therapy could be helpful for those with the condition.”
Again, the researchers “believe” it can be helpful, as they ‘theorize’ on things they do not really understand derived from the interpreted “results” they believed they observed in their study. Let’s see where this is going.
The Claim: Red light therapy improves glucose metabolism
“Red light therapy uses low-wavelength red light or near-infrared light that is targeted to a specific area of the body using a laser or other device.
The red light can penetrate through the skin and positively impact the mitochondria within the body’s cells, helping to create more energy and allowing the cells to function better and repair themselves.
It lubricates the energy-making machine. But in producing more energy this way they need more raw material and this is largely glucose. They take this out of the blood.”
In nature, while sun light has both red- and blue light, the only time you experience real concentrated red light is when the sun rises and sets, and that is for a very short and limited time. Those into sun gazing take advantage of these few minutes every day.
Question is, can you artificially make the same kind of red light, the same wave-lengths? And what wave-lengths are beneficial? And are they beneficial because there are different wave-lengths working together creating synergy, or are there specific ones that work alone? Impossible to know. And even if you did, can you be sure that such a man-made red-light device is accurate, or actually does exactly what they say?
And with that in mind, if the wave-lengths are slightly off, will they have another effect, or none at all? And that takes us to the next big statement and follow-up question.
They claim that red light is absorbed by the mitochondria, helping to create more energy and allowing the cells to function better and repair themselves.
Of course, this cannot be proven, as we cannot watch a living cell in its natural environment (as it works in synergy within our bodies.) We can only watch cells in an unnatural Petri dish outside of our bodies through a microscope.
So, this “increasement in cell efficiency” is simply a theoretical idea based on some vague effects observed from various studies, such as “better” blood sugar control after a ‘red-light session.’
Actually, there can be several explanations to these effects, such as the cells getting stressed from the artificial red-light exposure and they upregulate their metabolism in order to protect themselves, burning a lot more glucose.
Also, most cells can only store a specific amount of glucose depending on the type of cell and its health status. Cells that have been exposed to excessive amounts of glucose for long periods of time has become so severely damaged (as seen in “insulin resistance” and diabetics) that they actually refuse to take up glucose as it would kill the cell. Now, if the cells suddenly take up more glucose again, that is likely because something is interfering with, as in stressing, the cell’s protective mechanism. And if that is the case, the “beneficial” effects are temporary, as the cells will take more damage and eventually die.
This ‘stress’ scenario is actually much more likely than that the cells get “stimulated” to work better for a short while, upregulating its normal functions, especially if the cells were damaged to begin with, as repairing of a cell takes time and resources, not some magical red light.
Even if the researchers claimed that the test group were healthy, anyone who has consumed carbohydrates for a while has damaged cells and an unhealthy metabolism. What they call normal is not normal for actual healthy people.
With that said, we as humans are supposed to be exposed to sun light at various intensities throughout the year. But is it really needed for cell functionality? For optimal health? If it is, then most of our world, where there is actual winter, would be inhabitable as daylight and direct and strong sun-light is very rare.
Next Claim: How does red light therapy help with diabetes?
“Researchers recruited 30 healthy participants with no known metabolic conditions. Half of the group received a 15-minute 670 nm red light treatment 45 minutes before drinking 75 grams of sugar diluted in 150 mL of water. The other half of the group also imbibed the sugar drink but received no red light therapy.
All study participants were also asked to take oral glucose tolerance tests and record their blood sugar levels every 15 minutes over the next two hours.
Upon analysis, scientists found that participants receiving the red light therapy reduced their peak blood sugar level and also reduced their total blood sugar levels during the two hours, compared to those not receiving the light therapy.
It is clear that light affects the way mitochondria function and this impacts our bodies at a cellular and physiological level. Our study has shown that we can use a single, 15-minute exposure to red light to reduce blood sugar levels after eating.”
Again, the “researchers” assumed that the red-light therapy increased cellular function and therefore, for some reason, began using more glucose as fuel. Normally, cells use mostly fat as fuel and only tap ‘deeper’ into glucose when exposed to stress, as in exercise or during a fight and flight response. Same thing when someone does something as stupid as consuming carbohydrates, adding extra glucose into the system which we normally get from gluconeogenesis. That extra glucose is an immediate threat to our physiology and has to be neutralized as quickly as possible or we would die. That exogenous glucose is metabolized in the liver, stored in cells as glycogen and as body fat, and some of it is used as fuel due to the stress response for the cells themselves.
So, again, does the cells magically start working better from red light, or are they experiencing stress, as in damage, from an artificial and unnatural amount of red light that they would never experience naturally in nature, not even in the early morning or late evening?
With that said, let’s humor them and say that red-light therapy is beneficial, that it temporarily for a few hours make the cells work a little bit better. Even if that might help with lowering blood glucose after a meal, why the heck would you ingest a meal that increase blood sugar to begin with, especially if you have diabetes? That is frikkin’ retarded! It’s the same old backwards thinking. Always trying to put a band aid on an oozing wound instead of sewing it together and fixing the actual problem.
Instead of exposing yourself to 15 minutes of red-light therapy before every single meal, which would be a real hassle (and actually might be damaging your cells even further,) how about fixing the real problem, that of diabetes? How about stop consuming plant-based garbage slave foods? How about actually consuming your natural species-appropriated, species-specific carnivorous diet and start healing, as in fixing the actual problem?
Oh yes, that would mean no more diabetic medications or stupid red-light devices. That would mean a customer lost. No, we can’t help people become healthy now, can we? It’s all about making money and keeping people enslaved, dependent on their bullshit medical system.
So, to conclude, the verdict on red-light therapy is still out there. I would not touch it, as there’s no guarantees it’s even in the ballpark of what our natural sun produces. And with that said, sun exposure is natural. Just get some sun-light whenever you can, but don’t stress about it (otherwise there would be no people living and surviving in areas with long winters.) Keep it simple and focus on our natural diet, on stress management, and on sleep quality. Those three simple things will get you more than 95% of the results and keep you healthy.