Muscle recovery is one of the most studied uses of red and near-infrared light, and one of the most oversold. The honest picture: a fair number of small trials, several reviews that lean towards a modest effect on some measures, and some well-designed whole-body studies that found little or nothing.
We read every abstract below on PubMed on 20 October 2026. Our own devices don't have confirmed specifications and haven't been tested in any trial, so none of this is a claim about what a Redlume Ritual product will do for your training.
If you want the background on why light might affect muscle at all, start with red light and your cells.
Recovery is a vague word, so trials break it into things they can count.
Performance: how many repetitions someone manages, how long until they're exhausted, or how much force a muscle produces.
Muscle damage markers: blood levels of creatine kinase, an enzyme that leaks from muscle after hard exercise.
Soreness: delayed onset muscle soreness, or DOMS, usually rated on a pain scale a day or two later.
A study can find a change in one of these and nothing in the others, which is exactly what happens in this field.
Leal-Junior and colleagues (2015) pooled randomised controlled trials published from 2000 to 2012. They kept 13 trials of acceptable quality. Compared with placebo, light treatment increased time to exhaustion by about 4 seconds and the number of repetitions by about 5. The most consistent results came from red or near-infrared light applied before exercise.
Vanin and colleagues (2018) went wider. They included 39 trials with 861 participants, all healthy people. Their meta-analysis found some effect in favour of light for time to exhaustion, repetitions, peak force and blood lactate. But they rated the quality of evidence as very low to moderate, and they called for more research because of small samples and a lot of variation in methods and light settings.
Some trials say it may, others found nothing. A 2018 review by Vanin and colleagues of 39 trials found some effect on performance measures but rated the evidence very low to moderate quality, and a 2016 review by Nampo and colleagues found little effect on soreness.
The evidence is mixed. A 2025 network meta-analysis by Chen and colleagues found less soreness than placebo in the first 48 hours, while a 2016 review by Nampo and colleagues of 15 studies found no clear effect on pain. Most trials used probes held on the muscle, not panels.
In the trials reviewed by Leal-Junior and colleagues in 2015, the most consistent results came from light applied before exercise. That's a pattern in research settings, not a recommendation for any home device.
We can't say that and we don't claim it. Our device specifications are not confirmed and no study has tested them. The research here used other equipment under trial conditions.
How red and near-infrared light is thought to interact with cells: mitochondria, cytochrome c oxidase, ATP, nitric oxide, penetration depth and dose.
Does red light boost cellular energy? What studies of mitochondria and ATP found, why most of the evidence is from cells and animals, and what we won't claim.
Why red light is a growing area of recovery research, what is still unknown about dose, devices and blinding, and which better-designed trials are under way.
Red light therapy side effects as the research reports them: what is common, what is rare, medicines and conditions to check, and when to stop.
Ferraresi, Huang and Hamblin (2016) reviewed 46 studies with 1,045 participants. They noted that studies used single laser probes, laser clusters, LED clusters and flexible LED arrays, and that results were sorted into settings that worked and settings that didn't.
One thing worth knowing: Ernesto Leal-Junior is an author on three of the reviews on this page, and his São Paulo laboratory specialises in phototherapy for sport and exercise. That doesn't make the findings wrong. It does mean independent replication matters.
Nampo and colleagues (2016) looked specifically at muscle damage and soreness. They found 15 studies with 317 participants. Light applied before exercise was linked with lower creatine kinase only when lasers were used, and there was no difference in swelling, range of movement or strength. Their conclusion was that low-level light may not have a substantial effect on exercise-induced muscle damage and pain.
Chen and colleagues (2025) compared several recovery methods for DOMS in a network meta-analysis. Light treatment showed less soreness than placebo at 24 and 48 hours, but beyond 48 hours there was no notable benefit from any of the methods compared with placebo.
Ferlito and colleagues (2022) compared light with cold therapy in four trials with 66 people. Light came out ahead on strength, soreness and damage markers, but the certainty of evidence was rated moderate to very low. Four small trials isn't much to build on.
Most of the trials above held a probe or LED cluster directly against a muscle. That's quite different from standing in front of a panel. The studies that used whole-body light beds are closer to home use, and their results are notably weaker.
Ghigiarelli and colleagues (2020) gave 12 trained men a whole-body light session around a hard resistance workout, in a crossover design. There was no significant difference in creatine kinase or in a saliva marker of inflammation compared with the control condition.
Zagatto and colleagues (2020) tested full-body light on 13 young water polo players after official matches, against a placebo. They found no meaningful differences in hormones, inflammation, muscle damage, strength, jump height or heart rate variability, apart from one isolated marker after the first match.
Forsey and colleagues (2023) ran the largest of the three: 48 active men and women, single-blind, crossover, with 20 minutes of whole-body light before repeated sprint cycling tests. Light didn't improve power output or lactate. Heart rate variability the next morning was higher after the light session, which the authors read as a sign of better recovery. But there was no difference in how recovered or stressed people said they felt.
When light did show an effect, the settings were specific. Vanin and colleagues reported most positive results with wavelengths from 655 to 950 nm and doses measured in total joules per muscle group. Leal-Junior and colleagues found the most consistent results with light used before exercise.
Neither tells you what a home panel delivers. That depends on its output at your distance and the time you spend in front of it, which is why we wrote a guide to reading device specifications.
If someone tells you red light is proven to speed recovery, they're overselling. If someone tells you there's nothing to it, that's also not quite right. A fair summary is: some small effects on performance measures in lab trials, mostly with probes on the muscle; inconsistent effects on soreness; and little to show from the whole-body studies so far.
If you try light at all, treat it as an extra, not a replacement for sleep, food and rest days.
If you have an injury, ongoing pain, or soreness that doesn't settle within a few days, see a GP or physiotherapist rather than reaching for a device. Talk to your GP or pharmacist first if you're pregnant, take medicine that makes your skin sensitive to light, have an eye condition, or have epilepsy triggered by flashing lights. Read our pages on eye safety and side effects as well.
We won't tell you our panels speed up recovery, reduce soreness or improve performance. No trial has tested them, and their specifications aren't final. For where the research is heading next, see the future of recovery and red light.