News

Exploring the Benefits of LED Headlamps for Outdoor Activities Introduction: In today's blog post, we will delve into the world of LED headlamps and explore the numerous benefits they offer for outdoor activities. From enhanced visibility and safety to energy efficiency and longevity, these versatile and convenient lighting solutions have revolutionized the way we navigate the great outdoors. Enhanced Visibility and Safety: LED headlamps provide unparalleled visibility in the darkest of environments. With their powerful and focused beams, they illuminate the path ahead, ensuring you can see every obstacle and potential hazard. Whether you're hiking, camping, or exploring caves, LED headlamps offer a sense of security and confidence, allowing you to fully immerse yourself in your outdoor adventures. Energy Efficiency and Longevity: One of the standout advantages of LED headlamps is their remarkable energy efficiency. Compared to traditional incandescent or halogen bulbs, LEDs consume significantly less power, ensuring prolonged battery life and reducing the need for frequent replacements. With an LED headlamp, you can enjoy extended periods of illumination without worrying about running out of power. Versatility and Convenience: LED headlamps are designed with versatility and convenience in mind. They often feature adjustable brightness settings, allowing you to customize the intensity of the light based on your specific needs. Additionally, many LED headlamps are lightweight and compact, making them easy to carry and wear for extended periods without causing discomfort. Whether you're camping, running, or working on a project, LED headlamps adapt to your activities effortlessly. Conclusion: LED headlamps have revolutionized outdoor activities by offering enhanced visibility, safety, energy efficiency, and longevity. Their versatility and convenience make them an indispensable tool for adventurers and outdoor enthusiasts alike. So, next time you embark on an outdoor expedition, make sure to equip yourself with an LED headlamp and experience the brilliance it brings to your outdoor escapades.

TWO NEW LED THERAPY WASIT BELT COMING!

OBJECTIVE The objective of the present study was to assess the degree of pain relief obtained by applying infrared (IR) energy to the low back in patients with chronic, intractable low back pain. METHODS Forty patients with chronic low back pain of over six years` duration were recruited from patients attending the Rothbart Pain Management Clinic, North York, Ontario. They came from the patient lists of three physicians at the clinic, and were randomly assigned to IR therapy or placebo treatment. One patient dropped out of the placebo group; as a result, 21 patients received IR therapy and 18 recieved placebo therapy. The IR therapy was provided by two small, portable units in a sturdy waistband powered by small, rechargeable batteries made by MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc (Canada). These units met safety standards for Food and Drug Administration portability, and are registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a therapeutic device. The unit converted electricity to IR energy at 800 nm to 1200 nm wavelength. The treated group received IR therapy. The placebo group had identical units, but the power was not connected to the circuit-board within the IR pad. Patients attended seven weekly sessions. One baseline and six weekly sets of values were recorded. The principle measure of outcome was pain rated on the numerical rating scale (NRS). The pain was assessed overall, then rotating and bending in different directions. RESULTS The mean NRS scores in the treatment group fell from 6.9 of 10 to 3 of 10 at the end of the study. The mean NRS in the placebo group fell from 7.4 of 10 to 6 of 10. CONCLUSION The IR therapy unit used was demonstrated to be effective in reducing chronic low back pain, and no adverse effects were observed. Keywords: Chronic back pain, Infrared therapy, Low back pain, Lumbar pain The use of electricity for healing dates from 2750 BC, when electric eels were used to provide electric shocks (1). Magnetism from lodestones was also used by ancient people. Attempts to use electricity and magnetism in the 18th century met with little success. In 1975, Melzack (2) developed transcutaneous electrical stimulation (TENS) for prolonged pain relief. This provided 50% pain relief in 50% of patients in one study (3) but was no better than the placebo in another (4). Electrical and magnetic fields have been used successfully to stimulate bone repair (5) and soft tissue healing (6). Recently, infrared (IR) therapy has been developed, which has shown improved wound healing (7–9), relief of arthritic knee pain (10), increased endorphin levels (11) and bioactivation of neuromodulators (11–13). Because low back pain is the most common cause of musculoskeletal disability, it was decided to determine the effect of IR on this condition using a new instrument developed by MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc (Canada). Go to: THE IR UNIT The IR unit developed by MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc is light, portable and designed to be worn on a belt. It is powered by a small, rechargeable battery and is claimed to be 99% efficient in converting electricity to IR energy. It contains an IR-emitting element in a unique design with an IR grid and buzz bars down each side to deliver the electricity, converting it to IR energy at a wavelength of 800 nm to 1200 nm. This instrument has met safety standards for portability and was registered with the Food and Drug Administration as a therapeutic device in 2003. The unit used in the present study (Figure 1) contained two IR units and two batteries housed in a sturdy lumbar belt. The batteries require recharging every 24 h and were then functional for 8 h to 10 h per day. The IR output was reliable at 800 nm to 1200 nm of wavelength, and there was an automatic shut-off if the temperature rose to 42°C. This feature was lacking in IR laser units, which therefore could cause thermal injury. Figure 1) Infrared lower back pain wrap (MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc, Canada) Go to: THE POTENTIAL FOR ADVERSE EFFECTS The continued use of heating devices in the past, some as simple as a hot water bottle, have caused the development of skin changes known as erythema ab igne. Very thin individuals and those with bony spurs have the potential to develop thermal injury, but no injuries have been found during extensive testing of the MSCT unit on horses and human volunteers (S Wolfe, personal communication). Go to: METHOD It was decided to conduct a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of IR using the IR wrap in patients suffering from musculoskeletal low back pain attending the Rothbart Pain Management Clinic (RPMC), North York, Ontario. The protocol was submitted to the Ethics Committee of the RPMC and approval was obtained. The committee was comprised of three internal members of the RPMC and two external physicians. Safety features of the IR wrap were considered to be satisfactory because the wrap meets the safety standards of the Food and Drug Administration for portability and registration. Moreover, the emitted IR at 800 nm to 1200 nm is considered to be a form of energy that is not harmful to tissues and even protects from the effects of ultraviolet light because of IR`s antioxidant effect. The only theoretical harmful IR effect discussed in the literature is overheating, but this is unlikely to occur with the MSCT unit because it has an automatic shut-off at 42°C. The waist wraps given to both groups were identical. In the placebo group, the power was not connected to the circuit board within the IR pad. Patients were informed which group they were in at the end of the study; those in the placebo group could try the IR wrap. Care was taken to ensure that both treated and control subjects continued to use the treatment throughout the investigation period. All subjects were correctly advised that heat may not always be felt because with prolonged use, the response of the tissues may change. Of the 40 subjects enrolled, there was only one dropout (a 60-year-old man assigned to the placebo group), resulting in 39 study participants in total. Patient recruitment took place by means of a notice posted in the patient waiting room of the clinic. The average duration of low back pain was 6.5 years. Subjects ranged in age from 26 to 80 years. There were 20 women and 19 men. The investigations carried out included x-rays, computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. All patients were already on other forms of therapy for chronic pain at the direction of the treating doctor. The patients continued their medications and nerve blocks during IR or placebo treatment. Medications included antidepressants, anti-inflammatories and opioids (21 of 39 participants were on opioids). Nerve blocks included paravertebral nerve blocks and occasional caudal epidural blocks. Those in the placebo group were advised that they would be able to try the active IR wrap after the study. Experimental design This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Data were collected using an 11-point numerical rating scale at commencement and then at weekly intervals for seven variables for each subject: overall pain (standing still), pain bending forward, pain bending backward, pain rotating right, pain rotating left, pain bending right and pain bending left. All subjects suffered from low back pain, but initial pain levels differed. Twenty-one subjects received the IR wrap and 18 were assigned to the placebo device. Statistical summary The average pain for each subject was calculated for each of the seven weekly observations; a summary was then produced for each time interval using Procedure Means (PROC MEAN), a feature of the SAS statistical software program (SAS Institute Inc, USA). Go to: RESULTS The IR therapy group showed a progressive decline in pain levels of approximately 50%, which was greater toward the end of the seven-week study period (Table 1 and Figure 2). This was highly significant both by within-group comparison (P<0.0001) and compared with the placebo group (P<0.0001). There was also a small decrease in pain levels in the control group (Table 2). Figure 2) Mean pain scores for each group at seven weekly observations. The above plot clearly shows the statistically significant differences in reported pain levels between the infrared wrap treatment group (group 0) and the placebo group (group 1) TABLE 1 The change in mean pain scores in treatment and placebo groups over seven weeks Pain scores Group Assessment interval n Mean ± SD Treatment, n=21 Week 1 21 6.94±1.63 Week 2 17 6.28±2.18 Week 3 18 6.46±1.91 Week 4 19 5.89±2.04 Week 5 16 5.42±2.31 Week 6 16 4.54±2.63 Week 7 21 3.05±1.57 Placebo, n=18 Week 1 18 7.48±1.64 Week 2 16 7.31±1.85 Week 3 17 6.60±1.03 Week 4 18 7.34±1.80 Week 5 17 6.23±1.37 Week 6 17 7.48±3.27 Week 7 17 6.02±1.46 Open in a separate window Note: Each subject`s reported pain scores are dependent over the seven weeks TABLE 2 Repeated measures analysis Effect P Conclusion Time × group interaction <0.0001 The interaction effect was significant. On average, each subject`s reported pain decreased over time, but the decrease in reported pain was much higher for the IR wraps treatment group than it was for the placebo group. Time (among individual subjects) <0.0001 There was a time effect. On average, each subject`s reported pain decreased over time. Groups (among subjects in a group) 0.0021 There was a group effect. When averaged over time, subjects in the IR wraps treatment group reported less pain than subjects in the placebo group. Open in a separate window IR Infrared Go to: DISCUSSION Back pain is the most common cause of disability in North America, and it accounts for 64% of new consultations at this pain clinic (RPMC); many of these patients have had failed back surgery. The present study demonstrated significantly greater pain relief in the IR-treated group than in the placebo group. Both groups continued with their prestudy treatment such as antide-pressants, opioids and palliative nerve blocks, and this may account for the small decrease of pain in the control group. Alternatively, actually wearing the lumbar belt without the IR may have been beneficial. There was only one dropout from the placebo group. The reduction in pain in the treated group was progressive over seven weeks, with a 50% pain reduction in the entire group (Figure 2), while the control group achieved an approximately 15% reduction in pain. Electrical stimulation with the TENS has been shown to provide a 50% pain reduction in only 50% of patients in one study (3), and was found to be no better than placebo in another (4). It is therefore probable that IR is more effective than TENS. Pain relief with IR has been shown for arthritis of the knee (10). Other beneficial effects documented are increased wound healing (7–9), blood flow (14,15), endorphin levels (11) and bioactivation of neuromodulators (11–13). Because IR warms the tissues, it may be prudent to avoid its use in cases with documented malignant hyperthermia and also scleroderma, because some forms of that condition deteriorate in sunlight, which has a wavelength close to IR. Also, many forms of prolonged heat therapy have produced a skin condition known as erythema ab igne; this is a potential theoretical risk, even though it has never been reported with IR. Another hazard is thermal injury in very thin individuals or those with bony prominences, even though the device will automatically shut off if the skin temperature in contact with the IR unit reaches 42°C. No adverse effects of any sort were found in the present study, as was the case with the extensive use of the MSCT IR unit in animals, principally horses (S Wolfe, personal communication). The MSCT IR unit can conveniently provide prolonged therapy because it is light and portable, and when charged, the batteries provide IR therapy for 10 h while the wearer remains active during the day or resting at night. One weakness of the blinding procedure in the present study was that IR energy could have caused heating, but the inactivated placebo unit did not. We may have overcome this problem by explaining to the subjects that warming is not always felt because of a variable response of the tissues, thus leaving open the issue of whether warming occurred or not. In any future study, the IR unit will be compared with a heat unit. Go to: CONCLUSION In a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, the IR wrap has clearly demonstrated that it is easy to use, safe and effective, and reduced chronic back pain by 50% over six weeks. Contraindications are rare (possibly malignant hyperthermia and scleroderma), and the risks of thermal injury are low and are minimized by the use of an automatic shut-off when the unit in contact with the skin rises to a temperature of 42°C. Other units such as lasers may not have such a safety device. Go to: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the information on IR therapy provided by Stan Wolfe BSc DVM, of Garland, Texas, and MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc for providing the IR wraps for the study. None of the authors have a financial relationship with MSCT Infrared Wraps Inc. The authors also wish to acknowledge the excellent assistance provided by Ms Terri Hirschler in preparing the manuscript.

Hello everyone, I'm so happy to inform you that we developed two new Light Therapy Torch. The torch include 5 different wavelength LEDs: 420nm(blue) + 630nm(red) + 660nm(red) + 850nm(infrared) + 950nm(infrared). The output can reach 9 watts, much powerful that the other similar lights. These new devices can be powered by 3-AAA or 1-18650 or 1-26650.

1. 620-630nm is the first treatment window of light on the skin 2. 605nm, 610nm and 620nm is the peak absorption of haemoglobin, so the penetration depth of 620nm --- 630nm light on the skin is basically proportional to the wavelength. 3. short wavelengths less than 480 have a tanning effect. 4. 540 and 580 is a vascular disease The light absorption spectrum of melanin is monotonically decreasing with increasing wavelength. Again, in order to avoid the side effects of <480nm and to take into account that melanin is only distributed within the epidermis, shallow penetration is required. Therefore, the lower limit of 540nm can be used to treat vascular lesions and at the same time remove the darkness very effectively. If there are no vascular lesions on the face, then choose the lower limit of 590nm, which can not only remove wrinkles and skin rejuvenation, but also remove melanin, achieving the effect of "skin rejuvenation and whitening". 6. Wrinkle skin rejuvenation is the target of photons is dermal tissue. On the one hand, it requires a certain depth of penetration. The longer the wavelength in the visible to near infrared range, the deeper the penetration. On the other hand, dermal tissue is much larger than haemoglobin, microvessels and melanin, and of course requires much more heat. The longer the wavelength, the more efficient the photothermal conversion. Therefore the lower limit of the wavelength for wrinkle rejuvenation is chosen near the lower limit of the first treatment window. When photorejuvenation is used to improve the structure of the dermis, a wavelength between 596-610nm is chosen, which overlaps with the wavelength used for hair removal. Rejuvenation of hair-free areas is not a problem, but rejuvenation of hairy areas may result in hair removal at the same time. This should also be taken into account when performing other treatments. 7. The root of the hair is 3-5mm below the epidermis, so hair removal requires a wavelength that penetrates deeper into the soft tissue. Also long wavelengths with high photothermal conversion efficiency are required due to the large size of the hair follicles to be destroyed, which are 20-100um in diameter. On the other hand, if the wavelength is too short, the melanin in the epidermis will be absorbed first and heat will be generated in the epidermis before it penetrates deep into the hair follicle, which will easily cause epidermal damage. The lower limit of wavelength for hair removal is generally chosen at the lower limit of 620nm for red light, with a range of variation between 620-625nm. 8. All photorejuvenators in China today have a fixed wavelength at the top end and a different filter at the bottom end depending on the needs. In other words, a photorejuvenator is a continuous spectrum light source with a limited and variable spectral range. For example, for acne treatment, the wavelength range is 380-1200nm; for vascular or pigmented lesions, the wavelength range is 520-1200nm; for skin rejuvenation and whitening, 460-470nm; for hair removal, the filters are limited to 460-470mm. 9. exists in an abundance of wavelengths. When the human body is exposed to photons, different tissue components within the skin selectively absorb different wavelengths, so there are different effects occurring in a single exposure. For example, when treating with 430-1200nm, in addition to doing acne to implement sterilization and clearing, redness is also removed. This is when the haemoglobin Z high absorption peak of 415nm comes into play, which is not found in the 520-1200nm filter. Also, the wavelengths required for tanning, wrinkle removal and hair removal are all included. This is why photonics has a spectrum of therapeutic effects. 10. With multiple wavelengths acting simultaneously, multiple effects can be achieved with good control. If not well mastered, there is a risk that the desired effect may coexist with side effects. For example: too much germicidal UVC may blacken the skin; when removing wrinkles, burn off beard hair that should not be removed; for darker skin tones to remove redness, it is better to use 460-470nm than 520-1200nm, as the wavelength increases and melanin absorption decreases.

What is RED LIGHT and Near-Infrared Light Red Light Delivered at 660nm, red light is readily absorbed by surface tissues and cells, leading to enhanced skin health and healing Near Infrared Light Delivered at 850nm, near infrared (NIR) light is invisible to the human eye, and penetrates into deeper tissues, leading to enhanced recovery and inflammation support.

The colours in the visible light spectrum all have properties that can penetrate through the skin to various different depths. Ok so what? What can it do when it does penetrate the skin. Well the answer is a lot, and it has had science testing and documenting the results for over forty years now. Everybody knows that light effects our skin. Sunlight, that`s UV light, can cause some significant changes to our skin, some desirable and pleasing but other changes can be damaging, or in the worst cases life threatening. We can`t see the sunlight, but we can see its effects. A nice healthy sun tan, or bring out some freckles, which can be charming. But go too far with sunlight and it`s not nice and not cute. All this and just from light that we can`t even see. Red light and all the wavelengths used in light therapy home treatments are safe. Red light does not burn but it does penetrates the skin deeper than the sun`s UV light. Where it can produces significant therapeutic changes to the skin tissues.

We are the origianl red light therapy device supplier in China, and we have producted this kind of torches more than 6 years. Two new red light therapy device torch will be displayed in our website on October. New Shape! New Function! New Power System!