850nm and 660nm: Are They Really the Best Wavelengths?

By Dominic Lamb – LightTherapy.no

You've been researching red light therapy for a while. You've noticed something. Almost every device, from the cheap ones on Amazon to the premium panels with the sleek branding, lists the same two wavelengths: 660nm and 850nm. Over and over again. Which raises a reasonable question - are these actually the best wavelengths available? Or is something else going on?

The honest answer is that 660nm and 850nm are good, useful wavelengths with solid research behind them, but they dominate the market primarily because they are cheap to manufacture and easy to source at scale - not because the science singles them out as optimal for every application. Understanding why matters, because if you are buying a device for a specific purpose, there are wavelengths that will serve that purpose better. A 2013 review by Dr. Michael Hamblin in Photomedicine and Laser Surgery documented the absorption peaks and tissue response profiles across a wide range of wavelengths, and the picture is considerably more nuanced than the 660/850 duopoly suggests. You can read the full paper here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23952929/

Why 660nm and 850nm became the standard

There is a manufacturing reason for this that nobody selling you a red light panel is going to volunteer upfront. LEDs at 660nm and 850nm are produced in enormous volumes for industrial, agricultural and early medical applications. That volume drives down the cost of the chips significantly. When the consumer red light therapy market started growing, device manufacturers sourced what was cheapest and most available. The research showing benefits at these wavelengths was genuine - but the reason these wavelengths have been researched more than others is partly circular: they were available and affordable, so they were studied, which produced papers, which gave companies something to point to.

I run a BioWave Core range that uses primarily 660nm and 850nm, and I want to be straight with you about why. It is because those wavelengths deliver real, documented benefits at a price point that makes red light therapy accessible. For someone in Norway who wants to supplement the light they are not getting in the winter months, a BioWave Core panel is a a good tool. I am not going to pretend otherwise. But accessible and optimal are not the same thing, and if you have specific goals, you should know the difference.

What 660nm and 850nm actually do

Both wavelengths work through the same primary mechanism: absorption by cytochrome c oxidase in the mitochondrial electron transport chain, which increases ATP production and triggers a cascade of downstream cellular effects including reduced inflammation, improved tissue repair and enhanced circulation. The difference between them is essentially depth of penetration.

660nm sits in the visible red range and penetrates primarily into the upper skin layers - epidermis and superficial dermis. This makes it well suited to skin health applications: collagen stimulation, wound healing at the surface, acne, general skin quality. It is less effective for anything requiring deeper penetration.

850nm is near-infrared and penetrates significantly deeper - into muscle, bone, deeper connective tissue, and in some cases crossing the blood-brain barrier in targeted applications. It is the go-to choice for muscle recovery, joint pain and deeper inflammation. It does all of these things reasonably well. The question is whether it does them optimally, and the honest answer is: not always.

The wavelengths worth knowing about

630nm is the wavelength I would put in any face mask, and I am direct about this with customers. It penetrates the upper skin layers more effectively than 660nm for surface applications - better uptake for collagen response, clearer evidence for acne and skin clarity improvement, stronger superficial photobiomodulation. The 30nm difference from 660nm might sound trivial but it shifts the absorption profile meaningfully for anything happening in the epidermis. If skin health is your primary goal and you are looking at a face mask or a device you will use on your face, the presence or absence of 630nm is worth asking about before you buy.

810nm is where things get interesting for deeper applications. Research has consistently shown 810nm to have superior bioavailability compared to 850nm for neurological and muscular applications, reaching deeper tissues with better cellular uptake. A 2016 study published in Photobiomodulation, Photomedicine, and Laser Surgery found 810nm to be particularly effective for transcranial photobiomodulation - meaning it crosses into brain tissue more efficiently than longer near-infrared wavelengths. Read the paper here: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26989823/. For muscle recovery, bone penetration and neurological support, 810nm has a strong case for outperforming 850nm.

830nm is the wavelength I return to most often when I am designing a custom panel for someone with specific needs. It sits closer to the peak absorption spectrum of cytochrome c oxidase than 850nm does, which gives it stronger systemic bioactivity at the mitochondrial level. What makes 830nm unusual among near-infrared wavelengths is that it also shows meaningful superficial benefits - wound healing, skin health, eye health, hair growth - while still penetrating deeply enough for musculoskeletal and neurological work. It covers more ground than either 660nm or 850nm alone. A 2021 review in Cells documented the superior absorption characteristics of 830nm across multiple tissue types, including the skin: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33671579/

Beyond these, there are wavelengths worth knowing about for specific purposes. 460nm blue has documented effects on circadian regulation and bilirubin breakdown. 525nm green shows evidence for vascular and mood-related pathways. 590nm yellow is one I use in certain specialist devices for rosacea and melasma, where it outperforms red in reducing vascular redness without the irritation risk. 940nm and 1060nm near-infrared go deeper still and have applications in serious musculoskeletal and metabolic contexts. None of these are mainstream yet, but the research exists and grows every year.

Does that mean you should avoid any device that only uses 660nm and 850nm? No. It means you should buy with your eyes open about what you are getting and why. If someone is telling you those are the two best wavelengths full stop - ask them who funded that claim.

How response to light is individual

There's something worth saying here that the industry largely ignores. How your body responds to a given wavelength is not uniform. Go outside with someone on a sunny day and watch how their skin responds compared to yours. The difference is immediate and obvious. Fitzpatrick skin type, melanin density, tissue thickness, your specific health history, what medications you are taking, your mitochondrial baseline - all of these change how photons interact with your cells. This is one reason why I offer a bespoke panel service where you and I work through what you are actually trying to achieve before anything gets manufactured. A panel designed for a 30-year-old woman targeting facial skin health is a different device from one designed for a 55-year-old man with chronic knee pain and a history of nerve injury. That distinction matters.

It also means that if you have tried red light therapy (rødlysterapi) with a standard 660/850 device and the results have been modest, the issue may not be the therapy - it may be the wavelength. Worth knowing before you conclude it doesn't work for you.

What I actually stock and why

The BioWave Core range uses primarily 660nm and 850nm. It is our accessible entry point and it is good equipment - I test every panel with a spectrometer before it ships, and the irradiance output matches the claimed spec. For people who want to supplement their light intake during Norwegian winter without spending a lot, it does that job well. The red and near-infrared deficit we accumulate between October and March here in Norway is real and measurable, and any quality device in this range helps address it. (I've written about how that winter deficit specifically affects metabolism and energy in the post on light, circadian rhythm and weight loss in Norwegian winter if that context is useful.)

The PulseWave Pro range uses a wider and more considered wavelength combination, including 630nm, 810nm and 830nm alongside the standard red and near-infrared. It is designed for people who have specific goals and want equipment built around the research rather than around manufacturing convenience. It costs more because it costs more to build. That trade-off is worth it for some people and not for others, and I would rather you understood what you were paying for than felt pressured into a higher price point.

If you are not sure which is right for you, email me at admin@lighttherapy.no before you order. I will ask you a few questions and tell you straight what I think. If a BioWave Core device will serve your needs, I will tell you that. If your situation calls for a bespoke panel with a specific wavelength combination, I offer that too - and I recently built one for a customer that required completely restructuring the driver configuration and LED ratios to hit the right wavelength balance for their specific condition. That is not something any other company in Norway is doing. Not because I am trying to make a point about it. Because it is what good service in this space actually requires.

See the full red light panel range and the portable and specialist devices if you want to see what properly specified looks like across different price points. Questions? The FAQ page covers a lot of the common wavelength questions, or message me directly.