Red vs. Amber Light: A 30% Wrinkle Reduction Showdown
New data suggests you might not need high power to reverse skin aging—but keep an eye on your hydration levels.
This randomized clinical trial on facial photobiomodulation is a rigorous look at how different light wavelengths affect skin aging over a distinct four-week period. Rather than relying on marketing claims, researchers Mota et al. conducted a “split-face” experiment to pit the gold-standard red light against the lesser-known amber light to see which one actually moves the needle on wrinkles.
As someone who already targets my face for 10 minutes each morning—originally just for mood benefits during the brutal winter—I was curious to see if the science backed up the cosmetic perks I’ve suspected.
“PBM with red or amber LEDs was similarly effective for wrinkle volume reduction... producing a 30% wrinkle volume reduction.”
What’s the Big Idea?
The experimental design utilized in this work is a precise “split-face” comparison, meaning each participant acted as their own control group. This setup is fantastic for isolating variables because it removes genetic differences from the equation; researchers treated one side of a participant’s face with red light (660 nm) and the other with amber light (590 nm).
Building on that structure, the goal was to answer a specific question: Does the wavelength matter if the energy dose is identical? Most of us in the biohacking space are familiar with red light—I’ve been using a red light panel for years now, originally to treat tendon damage from rock climbing. But amber light often gets ignored. This study standardized the output, using a relatively low energy density (3.8 J/cm²) applied for 10 minutes, two to three times a week. They weren’t blasting the skin with high heat; they were gently stimulating the mitochondria.
It’s fascinating because the mechanism involves cytochrome c oxidase, a photo-acceptor in our cells that helps generate energy. The researchers hypothesized that since both red and amber allow this absorption, they might both boost collagen. It raises a question about versatility—if red light helps my tendons and I’ve even used it for cognitive improvement, could the amber spectrum offer something different or complementary for the skin surface?
Why It Matters and What You Can Do
The data emerging from this analysis is surprisingly consistent across color spectrums, challenging the idea that “red is best” for everything. After just 10 sessions spread over a month, participants saw a roughly 30% reduction in the volume of crow’s feet (periocular wrinkles) on both sides of the face.
This suggests that consistency beats intensity. You don’t need to fry your face to get results. However, there was a catch that really stood out to me: the red light side actually showed a decrease in skin hydration, while the amber side stayed neutral. While I can’t say I’ve noticed fewer wrinkles personally (I don’t have many yet), I have noticed a lot less acne and a more even complexion since starting my daily routine. If red light dries out the skin slightly while fixing the structure, that might explain why my complexion feels clearer but also signals that we need to be careful about moisture.
To put this into practice, consider these adjustments to your routine:
Lower the intensity: The effective dose here was low (approx 6 mW/cm²). If you have a high-power panel, you might not need to sit right up against it.
Prioritize moisture: Since red light might reduce local hydration, apply a quality moisturizer or serum immediately after your session.
Stick to the schedule: The protocol was 2–3 times a week, not necessarily every day. Though, if you’re like me and use it for wakefulness, daily use is fine as long as you monitor dryness.
What’s Next on the Horizon
The broader implication of these findings is a shift toward lower-power, multi-color protocols that target specific layers of tissue. While red light penetrates deeper (which explains why I used it for climbing injuries), amber sits closer to the surface.
This opens the door for “stacking” treatments. In the future, we might see devices that automatically cycle wavelengths—amber for surface texture and redness, red for deep collagen and inflammation. I’ve recently started using my panel to try and regrow some of my hair, which relies on stimulating the follicle deep in the scalp. If amber proves effective for surface-level issues like melasma or pigmentation, as the researchers hint it might, we could tailor our light baths much more precisely.
Who knows, maybe soon we will see protocols that alternate colors by the day of the week to prevent the hydration loss seen with exclusive red light use. It turns the concept of “light nutrition” into a customizable recipe rather than a single-ingredient meal.
Safety, Ethics, and Caveats
A critical aspect of this analysis is the confirmation that low-level light therapy is safe for populations that usually can’t do aggressive anti-aging treatments. The paper notes that because this method is non-thermal (it doesn’t heat up the tissue) and anti-inflammatory, it’s a viable option for people with diabetes or those prone to keloid scarring—groups that often have to skip chemical peels or laser resurfacing.
However, we shouldn’t ignore the hydration statistic. The study found a statistically significant drop in water content on the red-light side. While the participants reported a better quality of life and didn’t seem to mind, it’s a reminder that “natural” doesn’t mean “neutral.” Everything has a biological cost. I found that the light was good for my mood as well, especially during the brutal winter months, but I never considered it might be dehydrating my face. It’s a good check on our assumptions: even beneficial inputs require balance.
One Last Thing
If you are chasing longevity or just better skin, remember that this study achieved results with consistent, moderate effort over four weeks—proof that patience often outperforms power.
Explore the Full Study
Photobiomodulation Reduces Periocular Wrinkle Volume by 30%: A Randomized Controlled Trial. DOI: 10.1089/photob.2022.0114