The Red Light Therapy Facial Fat Loss Link: Myth Or Reality?

"Hey Bart, does 1,064 nm near-infrared light cause local facial fat loss?"

"I've used the normal wavelengths only, such as 660 nm and 850 nm, and my face looks leaner - does red light therapy cause this problem?"

"How do I avoid facial fat loss at all problems when using light therapy? I don't want to look even leaner!

Well, there's been tons of discussion about whether red light therapy causes local facial fat loss. Some people are terrified that near-infrared and specific wavelengths of near-infrared, such as 1,064 nm light, cause facial fat loss.

Of course, there's a good reason to be afraid of that consequence: your face will look worse if this were the case. So, in this article, I explore this topic in great detail. I've added a summary with the basics below if you're short on time. I've also added summaries to important sections if you don't want to read the full details.

In the full blog post, I explore all fat loss studies in relation to red light therapy, all mask studies out there. I also explore the science on fat loss spot reduction specifically, and compare typical light therapy applications to sunlight, and more.

These arguments make it extremely unlikely that light therapy with normal use causes facial fat loss in isolation. Yes, red light therapy and other wavelengths of light can stimulate general or systemic fat loss.

Defintion: With local fat loss or the spot reduction of fat I mean that you're losing fat in a single area of the body, without other areas that are affected. Systemic or generalized fat loss, on the other hand, entails that you're losing body fat across the body with most if not all areas of the obdy affected.

The latter often happens when you're on a diet - you lose fat around your waist and hips, but also some around your arms, your chest, and also in your face. People with lower body fat percentages tend to have a leaner face - and people with higher body fat percentages tend to have a face that is less lean!

My conclusion is that it's not likely that a single wavelength of light or a combination of them causes fat loss in the face in isolation, without affecting the rest of the body, under normal circumstances.

Find out why below:

The Red Light Therapy For Fat Loss Studies

In the past, I've written an article about red light therapy for fat loss. In that article, I went through all available science on the topic and showed that red light therapy can aid fat loss.

However, I was fortunate enough to find Vladimir Heiskanen's method of registering these studies - under "cosmetic medicine" and "body contouring" in his Excel sheet with red light therapy studies (3). So I found more studies than I did for my original article.

Let's go through a few studies on red light therapy for fat loss:

• First, a study uses 635 nm - 680 nm light to aid fat loss (1). Here, the red light created additional fat loss around the waist. There were two weekly treatments for four weeks (2). The treatments lasted 30 minutes. Areas around the waist and hips were irradiated. Here's the outcome of the research - for the difference between the participants receiving a placebo treatment vs the laser therapy treatment:

"Cumulative girth loss at treatment 8 (4 weeks of treatment) was 2.15 cm with 15 subjects in the laser group and 16 subjects in the placebo group (laser −0.78 ± 2.82 cm vs. placebo 1.35 ± 2.64 cm) in those who maintained their weight within 1.5 kg of their baseline weight (p < 0.05). Cumulative girth loss at treatment 8 (4 weeks of treatment) was 1.33 cm with 19 subjects completing in the placebo group and 20 subjects completing in the laser group (laser −0.87 ± 2.65 cm vs. placebo 0.47 ± 3.19 cm) regardless of weight change (p = NS). The standardized pictures of the participants showed a significant 1.21 difference (laser 1.21 ± 0.42 vs. placebo 0 ± 0) in appearance on a 0–3 scale favoring the LAPEX 2000 LipoLaser group comparing baseline to week 4 (treatment 8) pictures (p < 0.001). " (2)

• The most important conclusion here is that the red light can increase fat loss. Keep in mind that red light - such as the 630 nm or 660 nm often makes up to half the light emitted by most red light therapy products. So, if facial fat loss also occurs in this study - which is likely, it's because of the red light - and this is because of generalized or systemic fat loss. The laser treatment caused almost an inch of fat loss around the midsection after four weeks in this study.
• Below, you can see some of the differences, with regards to before and after, of the fat loss (2):

• The full text of the study contains more examples if you're interested (2)!
• When the same researchers did an in vitro - an "in the glass" foundational laboratory study - they found that red light helps release fat from the cells.
• Unfortunately, we don't have the exact treatment parameters of the laser in the 600s nm range. But given that it's only a ten mW laser, it's not extremely strong! However, multiple lasers were used on the waist and hip area and the treatment lasted a long 30 minutes! Nevertheless, the main conclusion here is that light therapy does stimulate (systemic) fat loss, even at wavelengths such as 630 and 660 nm that are very commonly included in most products!
• Another study used 635 nm and 1,060 nm combined in the abdominal and neck area (4). Abdominal fat was reduced, but also fat around the neck. There were significant reductions in waist circumference. The power output was 22 - 36 mW/cm2 and the treatment time was 20 - 30 minutes.
• One more study compared radio frequencies with red light therapy (5). The light therapy was at a total dose of 4 J/cm2 at 635 nm. Twelve 20-minute sessions were applied, and the waist-to-height ratio improved more in the light therapy group. What's interesting is that this study did control for calories and applied aerobic exercise. Nevertheless, while controlling for calories, the light therapy group had better weight loss!
• A recent 2024 study shows that light therapy improves body composition, even though there may not be any weight loss (6). I can't see any treatment parameters, though! The study is far from perfect in setup.
• Next, a green light therapy at 532 nm that shows (systemic) fat loss (7). I've discussed these results before in my green light therapy article. Different treatment protocols were used but twice weekly exposure led to the most weight loss here, of 1 kilogram of fat loss (2.2 pounds) and 2 inches of waist circumference loss (5+ centimeters). Again, we don't have the power output or the total dose, unfortunately. Nevertheless, this study does prove that it's not just red light at 630 or 660 nm that can promote fat loss, 532 nm green light can dot he same! And, naturally, keep in mind that if green light stimulates fat loss around the waist, your face will also look leaner!
• One more green light study using the 532 nm wavelength has similar results (8). After four weeks of treatment, the results seem to continue to increase. The intervention group receiving the light lost about 4X as many centimeters around the body as the control group. Once again, it's not just red light that can promote (generalized) fat loss across the body...
• Another study uses 450 nm blue light, 630 nm red light, and 808 nm near-infrared light (9). Participants lost 4 centimeters from their upper abdomen and about 5 from their middle and their lower abdomen. All study participants lost waist circumference.
• A 2017 study claims that light therapy doesn't work through any local mechanism but through the systemic mobilization of fat (10). Here, applying the light therapy directly against the skin (the contact method) led to some minor side effects. There was also no good fat loss result and arguably a gain! This is the only study with a negative or neutral outcome - depending on how you view it.
• Then, a 635 nm study that shows weight loss (11). This result was accomplished with one session a week. The study used six 17 mW 635 nm diodes but not much good info is available about the power output or total dose (12)! Suffice it to say that the 635 nm exposure leads to (generalized) fat loss once again!
• Another 635 nm study applied the light on the abdomen, tights, or hips, in part because of cellulite (13; 14). Once again, there was fat loss with 635 nm but once again the treatment protocol wasn't described well - no mW/cm2 power output measurement or total dose.
• A laser acupuncture study used "0, 358, 478, and 597 J/cm²" as a total dose at 810 nm, with four weekly sessions for 6 weeks. The 358 and 597 J/cm2 dose led to a lower body weight, waist circumference, and hip circumference than the placebo. Keep in mind that the dose per acupuncture point is really high but that the treatment area in such cases is really small. So the total dose is low when considering it from a full-body perspective! Here, once again, the 810 nm wavelength can stimulate systemic fat loss.
• Then, once again, a 635 nm study (15). The light reduces upper arm circumference. The total dose was just under 4 J/cm2. Below, you can see the results of the study (16):

• And here's how study participants rated the results (16):

• Then, a study using 650 nm and 915 nm with two weekly treatments for four weeks (17). The upper tights lost 1 centimeter of circumference when they were treated and less when untreated. Do keep in mind that the systemic effects of red light therapy may also play a role here - so the untreated tight may also get an effect. The study setup, therefore, isn't perfect, and I'd rather have seen a placebo group of participants who didn't receive any treatment at all. Massage was also applied, which may bias the results.
• One more study uses the same 650 and 915 nm wavelengths (18). On average, there were 14.3 treatments over four to six weeks. The leg treated with light therapy and massage lost about 1+ centimeter of circumference while the other leg gained almost 4 centimeters of circumference. The latter result is quite crazy and makes me slightly question the outcomes. Here there does seem to be a spot reduction of fat loss - in other words, "local fat loss" - but I do question how the other leg can grow by a whopping 4 centimeters (almost 2 inches) in six weeks...

What About Face Mask Studies? Do Face Mask Studies Show Local Fat Loss?

So let's now consider a few red light therapy mask studies that I could find from Heiskanen's datasheet (3). I include these facial mask studies specifically because they emit the light directly onto the face, with the so-called "contact methods", where LEDs are pressed directly against the skin.

When the LEDs are pressed directly against the skin, there's little to no reflection of the light and the net dose you're getting goes up dramatically.

I'm aware that some people may be happy with facial fat loss, especially if you're overweight or obese, but the main issue here is fat loss when your face is already lean. Leaner people don't want to lose even more fat on their faces and then have a look of undereating or being in starvation mode.

In this case, if red light therapy causes facial fat loss, you'd expect that result to be clearly visible in the red light therapy mask studies. So let's explore the outcomes here - and check for unexplained side effects:

• First up, there's a study with the Illumimask, with 445 nm blue light and 630 nm red light (19). The study participants also use a topical agent. The mask leads to better outcomes in acne and inflammation without the topical agent. There's no report of side effects (20). There's no report of local fat loss in the face either.
• Another case study, with one participant, uses 650 nm and 840 nm (21). Skin brightness improved but there is no mention of local facial fat loss or even excess facial fat loss.
• One more study uses 627 nm for skin rejuvenation (22). Two different face masks are compared, with the new mask using micro-LEDs. The study setup and dosing protocols aren´t described that well, but the micro-LEDs win out big time. Here are some of the improvements mentioned:
  

"After 8 weeks of treatment, the test group showed a 23.67% increase in the change rate of deep skin elasticity at the perioral area, which was 340% higher than that of the control group."

"The wrinkle reduction rate for the test was ≈10.9%, while the control group achieved a reduction of ≈4% after 8 weeks of treatment, indicating an outstanding benefit of up to 270%"

"The test group achieved a greater increase of ≈28.8% in skin density, while the control group showed only a ≈12.3% increase, making a remarkable difference of up to 230%" (23).

• So, once again, no mention of a side effect or somehow unexpected local facial fat loss in this study! Also, people don't complain of losing too much fat in the study or any aesthetic problems because of fat loss.
• Then there's the famous Dior mask study (24). My fellow contributor and the owner of this website, Alex Fergus, has broken this study down in detail in the following video:

• That study uses the wavelength of around 630 nm, with a total dose of 15.6 J/cm2. The treatment time is 12 minutes in total. The results of the study are incredible, with progressively better skin over time up until three months of treatment. Here's the result described by the authors of the study:

"1. 15.6% decrease in the depth of crow's feet wrinkle,

2. Decrease of 5.4% of the clinical score of slackening of the oval of the face and 13.6% of the R0 value translating a firming effect,

3. 26.4% increase in dermal density,

4. 6.8% decrease in cheek roughness and 28.5% decrease in pore diameter, indicating a smoothing effect,

5. 34.9% decrease in the quantity of sebum.

After 2 months of use ([day] 56), a further improvement in the above parameters was noted. A significant increase of 12.5% in skin elasticity and 32.7% in skin tone homogeneity were also observed.

After 3 months of use ([day] 84), all the parameters analyzed were improved compared to the values obtained at D56." (25)

• The researchers also write this:

"The satisfaction questionnaire after 2 and 3 months of use reflects this effectiveness: 100% of the volunteers find that the mask significantly improves the overall condition of their skin and 85% of the volunteers felt good after a session." (25).

• So there's no mention of unwanted local facial fat loss in this study! Keep in mind that this 633 nm is exactly the wavelength that caused generalized fat loss in earlier studies in the previous section. So 630 nm or 633 nm causes general fat loss, but there's no report of excess loss of facial fat or unexpected facial fat loss by a wavelength that causes fat loss in general!
• Then there's a study with 633 nm, 830 nm, and 1,072 nm (26). The latter is really interesting because some people think that for some reason, the wavelengths in the 1,050-1,080 nm range somehow cause facial fat loss while others do not. More on that topic soon. Here's the outcome of the study:

"Primary outcomes included adverse events and facial rejuvenation as determined by participant-reported satisfaction scales and quantitative digital skin photography and computer analysis after 6 weeks of treatment. The participants reported overall favorable results and improvements in all individual categories, were satisfied with the treatment, and would recommend the product to others. The participants perceived the greatest improvement in fine lines and wrinkles, skin texture, and youthful appearance." (26)

• Once again, no adverse effects and no specific local facial fat loss, even with the inclusion of the 1,072 nm wavelength. Remember that the light is even used directly on the skin, leading to a higher net power output. In other words, more light reaches into the skin and into deeper tissues such as the fat, if you place a device directly on the skin and press it against it!
• Then there's a 660 nm and 850 nm face mask study (27). Study participants also used hyaluronic acid, however, so the effects can't be just attributed to the light therapy. There was a hyaluronic-only group is this study, however, and they did worse than the group that combined hyaluronic acid and the face mask. Here's the outcome - group A here uses the two therapies combined:

"After treatment, the volume measurement (mm³ ) for prejowl sulci and nasolabial fold flattening as well as the area measurement (pixel) for lower chin firmness improvement was significantly reduced, and the number of pores (ea) for enlarged pores as well as the desquamation index (%) for the amount of corneocytes significantly decreased in both Group A and Group B. Moreover, the percentage of skin density significantly improved. Furthermore, Group A showed a significantly faster and higher rate of improvement than Group B" (27)

• Again, no mention of facial fat loss, somehow! Instead, there are skin improvements across the board!

What About 1,064 nm Or 1,072 nm Studies And Similar - Is There Any Unintended Fat Loss Side Effect There?

Lastly, I checked Vladimir Heiskanen's document for specific 1,064 nm or 1,072 nm studies and whether these report any facial fat loss. I've only used beauty studies specifically here. It took quite some time to scan through the entire document as there are 267 hits for 1,064 nm, 12 for 1,070 nm, and 26 for 1,072 nm.

Here's what I found - only specific and relevant studies on 1,064 nm first:

• A 1,064 study shows the normalization of hypertrophy in fat cells (28). This is an in vitro study, however, a foundational petri dish study in the laboratory. But, 1,064 nm - just as many wavelengths - does seem to have a direct effect on fat metabolism.
• In a rat study, 1,064 nm light helps boost collagen synthesis (29). Different dosages were used. There's no mention of unintended fat loss.
• Another 1,064 animal study has the same outcome (30). The 1,064 nm light also lowers inflammation.
• A mice study compares 595 nm, 1,064 nm, and 1,320 nm and showed that 1,064 nm worked best for skin elasticity and for skin blood flow (31). No mention of unintended fat loss as a side effect of 1,064 nm!
• A human study comparing lasers and LEDs, at different wavelengths such as 810 nm and 1,064 nm, shows that 1,064 boosts oxygenation in the red blood cells the most (32). Energy production also increases. However, the light therapy was applied on the forearm. Hence, the 1,064 nm wavelength likely affects metabolism as a whole for the human body. There's more 1,064 nm mitochondrial research for nerds interested in that (33).
• When 1,064 nm is applied to the human forehead, such changes also occur (34; 35; 36).
• A study using a huge dose of 1,064 nm for facial paralysis (a nerve injury) that affects the facial muscles, dosed at a whopping 500 mW/cm2 for a total dose of 30 J/cm2, shows no facial fat loss as a side effect (37). Here's the full treatment protocol for those interested:

" Eleven trigger and affected points were irradiated with 1064 nm with an irradiance of ~0.5 W/cm² delivered with a collimated prototype flat-top (6 cm²) in a pulsed mode, with a 100 µs pulse duration at a frequency of 10 Hz for 60 s (s) per point. Each point received a fluence of 30 J/cm² according to the following treatment protocol: three times a week for the first three months, then twice a week for another three weeks, and finally once a week for the following three months. The results showed an improvement in facial muscles' functionality (FMF) by week two, whereas significant improvement was observed after 11 weeks of PBM" (37).

• So this is not a small dose - several areas of the face were treated with huge power at the 1,064 nm wavelength for long periods of time! The study is a case series with only 3 participants, however, so this outcome needs to be replicated in studies with more participants. Nevertheless, all of these participants received high-powered laser treatment at 1,064 nm!
• Another study using 1,064 nm for Bell's Palsy, a facial paralysis condition, also shows no facial fat loss side effects mention (38). Here three treatments per week are used for six weeks in total.
• One more in vitro study does show that 1,064 nm affects fat metabolism (39). Of course, the same can be said for many other wavelengths!
• Lastly, a review from 2021 that analyzed all previous research on 1,064 nm light stated the following effects (40):

"These studies have established that 1064 nm HPL-PBMT can effectively reduce pain, increase ROM, increase functional scores, and increase the quality of life for knee osteoarthritis and spinal disorders, with limitations." (40)

• No specifics about fat loss in general, or local facial fat loss in particular, were attributed to the wavelength. Only high-powered laser studies were included (40). So, if this wavelength somehow uniquely caused local fat loss, the studies would have picked up on it (41)! When the 1,064 nm wavelength is applied to the lower back, or shoulder, or elbow, or heel, there's no local fat loss happening because of it - none is mentioned in these studies.

These are the 1,064 nm studies. Now let's consider the 1,070+ nm studies:

• The 1,070 nm studies mostly have to do with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and brain health and don't have fat loss as their topic.
• The 1,072 nm wavelength also has overall brain health as its main topic, as well as some herpes studies for the lips. And, of course, there's the earlier 1,072 nm face mask study I talked about that doesn't show any facial fat loss in men (26). There's also one more anti-aging study that shows that 1,072 nm can reverse aging caused by ultraviolet light exposure (42). Here, the researchers write:

"Between 52% and 57% of volunteers were able to accurately identify an improvement in the fine lines and wrinkles of the treated areas of skin. Fewer volunteers, between 37% and 46%, observed an improvement in the bags under the treated eye or eyes." (42).

• Keep in mind that this was with 6-8 weeks of 1,072 nm exposure (42)! Again, no mention of local facial fat loss because with this 1,072 nm wavelength. The full text of the study has no mention of facial fat loss either even though the 1,072 nm light was applied directly to the skin for weeks (43). A handheld device was used here.
• Interestingly enough, there's also a review about 1,072 nm light and facial health or "photorejuvenation" (44). In this study too, the wavelength is considered safe while aiding skin health. Researchers write:

"to date, clinical research regarding the application of 1072 NIR is limited to treatments for infections and photorejuvenation treatment in females. However, 1072 NIR light therapy may benefit male patients. This theoretical application is based on the biological properties of this subgroup having increased cutaneous density and thickness and the physical properties of 1072 NIR allowing it to penetrate increased depth. 1072 NIR can reach more cells throughout the epidermis and dermis compared to other parts of the electromagnetic spectrum traditionally used in phototherapy to provide unique and targeted benefits. " (44)

• Again, there's not much research on this wavelength for skin health but facial fat loss is certainly not mentioned as a side effect!

Next up, let's consider another argument of mine that makes facial fat reduction because of specific red wavelengths, or near-infrared wavelengths, extremely unlikely under normal conditions:

Sunshine Exposure And Ancestral Humans

Next up, an argument of mine regarding sunlight exposure and (local) facial fat loss. People in hunter-gatherer societies spend many hours per day outdoors and thus get tons of sunlight exposure as well.

For most of human history, your ancestors used to be hunter-gatherers. Assuming that modern humans (Homo sapiens) appeared on the scene 300,000 years ago, and agriculture only started a few thousand years ago, your ancestors have lived in either direct or indirect sunlight exposure for most of its time.

In fact, it's only after the Industrial Revolution that most humans have started to move indoors (45). Nowadays, people in developed nations such as the US spend 90%+ of their time indoors (46). It's very important to understand this wasn't always the case.

Your ancestors thus got tons of exposure to direct and indirect sunlight throughout their day. It's also assumed that Homo sapiens only migrated to Europe 40,000 years ago or so, meaning that most of the time of human history we've spent around the tropics with strong sunlight (47).

So let's take a look at that sunlight - the spectrum of the sun - to be more precise:

As you can see, the red part of the light spectrum is the light that reaches the Earth's atmosphere. There's a tiny part of the ultraviolet spectrum that reaches the Earth (up until 400 nm in wavelength), then a huge visible part of the light spectrum with lots of blue and green light (especially when the sun is high up the sky), up until the red part of the spectrum at 680 nm or 700 nm.

After 700 nm or so, into the near-infrared spectrum, the light starts to drop off but there's still a large area under the curve between 1,000 and 1,250 nm. So here are the implications:

• People living outdoors, such as in hunter-gatherer societies, get loads of exposure to blue and green light - both which promote generazlied fat loss
• There's also loads of red light exposure - which has shown to promote generalized or systemic fat loss. Check my earlier section for that evidence.
• And there's loads of near-infrared exposure as well, even 10-15% of the area under the curve in the 1,000 - 1,250 nm range.

So if any of these wavelengths magically created local facial fat loss, without people losing weight or fat in general, then outdoor workers or people living in a hunter-gatherer society would have a huge problem. In that case, you'd see outdoor workers and hunter-gartherers with excess facial fat loss, without their general fat levels being affected.

But we don't observe that outcome. It's very common sense and you'll just have to take a walk at a construction site to know that the previous conclusion is false.

So let's take a step back:

This light spectrum, with loads of blue, green, red, and near-infrared, all which may promote fat loss, have been part of the human experience for hundreds of thousands of years.

Hence, it's also unlikely that red light therapy products that emit these wavelengths somehow do cause local facial fat loss. Light is light, and light at the same wavelength and power density will have the same effect whether it's coming from the sun or from a red light therapy product.

So right now, there's no evidence that, say, the 600s range or that 1,064 nm or 1,072 nm light causes local facial fat loss. Again, yes, some wavelengths do cause fat loss but that's more of a generalized phenomenon across the body.

I spend lots of time every year in Latin America - in Brazil, Peru, Mexico, and now Paraguay. In those countries, there are tons of people who work outside most of the day, such as construction workers, lifeguards, waiters and waitresses, police officers, security guards at carparks, and so forth!

If, somehow, a wavelength emitted by the sun would give unique facial fat loss, you could have seen that all around you by now. But that's not the case - sure, sunlight exposure in the right dose promotes health but you don't see construction workers or waitresses around you in these countries with extreme facial fat loss that indoors wokers don't.,

So there's that...

Lastly, I want to talk about fat loss in the human body. And, specifically, the topic of spot reduction of fat. So let's explore how fat loss in the human body works below:

Now that I've talked about these light therapy studies, let's talk about fat loss in general. That topic helps you better understand where I'm coming from, and what other reasons may be as to why you may experience facial fat loss even though light therapy is unlikely the cause:

Fat Loss In The Human Body - And Its Effect On Facial Fat

So let's talk about fat loss. Fat loss is obviously an important topic in relation to facial fat loss because if you lose overall body fat, your face tends to lose fat as well. My face, for instance, is a lot leaner when I've got visible abs versus when I'm more fat. And I've cycled through both options many times in my life.

I also know how to lose body fat easily myself: focus on getting 8-9 hours of sleep each night, exercising in the gym 3-5 times per week, moving throughout the day, avoiding blue light at night, getting sunlight exposure during the day, and eating a healthy diet overall work best.

But what does the science say about fat loss? Let's look at the latest systematic reviews on fat loss - systematic reviews analyze and integrate all available high-quality research on a given topic:

Resistance training, as do many other methods, help you lose body fat (48). Generally, it seems best when you lose weight gradually, not very quickly (49). A minimum of 175 minutes (almost 3 hours) per week of resistance exercise and aerobic exercise is best to lose body fat (50). Resistance exercise is promising to help you maintain your lean body mass (which includes your muscle mass), which helps create a more favorable balance for your body fat percentage (51).

Time-restricted eating can help in this process - so "intermittent fasting", where you eat all your calories within an 8 hour to 12-hour window each day (52). There's genetic variation, however, as some people have an easier time losing body fat than others (53). Science is not clear whether lower fat or lower carb diets are best - so it's likely best to experiment here and observe what works for you (54; 55). If you need to save time, you may want to focus on High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) (56).

All of these strategies promote systemic fat loss. And, with systemic fat loss, you'll lose body fat in your face as well. If you've ever seen a bodybuilder on stage, their faces will be extremely lean - because these people are at very low (and unhealthy) body fat percentages.

Nevertheless, there's more than fat loss alone that can change the look of your face. I'll explore some other reasons why your face may look differently below - even though you may not have had local facial fat loss in the absence of systemic fat loss:

Facial Appearance: Facial Fat Loss And Other Reasons Your Look May Change

Here I consider scientific reviews on facial fat loss from the last five years. First of all, it's possible and even likely that you'll get changes in the face - especially after massive fat loss (57)! Here, researchers write that:

"We observed a correlation between massive weight loss and facial aging. The most significant fat regional devolumization was observed along the mid-cheek region and with central neck skin laxity. The apparent age of patients was higher among those with massive weight loss. In our study, we demonstrated that massive weight loss causes accelerated facial aging, manifested through fat devolumization, and increased skin laxity. Further quantitative volumetric facial analyses postbariatric surgery would yield valuable results." (57)

Please keep in mind that Ozempic - the now very popular weight loss prescription medicine - has a strong link to facial fat loss:

"In 3 studies, the authors evaluated the effects of Ozempic on facial changes and concluded that with the use of Ozempic, they noted volume changes along the midfacial region, periorbital region, temples, and an increased number of facial wrinkles. In 1 study, researchers showed that patients on Ozempic appeared 5 years older than those without. In only 1 study, authors performed objective volumetric facial analyses on 5 participants taking Ozempic and found a reduction in the superficial temporal fat pad by an average of 41.8% and a reduction in the cheek fat pad by an average of 69.9%." (58).

No bueno!

However, plastic surgery and other corrections are possible for people affected by this Ozempic-based facial fat loss (59). Fat deposits from other areas of your body can be placed in your face, for instance, for correction (60).

Surgeries that cause rapid fat loss in some people, such as bariatric surgery, is also well-known to cause local facial fat loss (59). Therefore, as I stated earlier, gradual fat loss over time may be more beneficial for your fat loss goals and your facial structure! With regards to the facial corrections, researchers write that:

"Macrofat and microfat have the benefit of providing volume to restore areas of facial deflation and atrophy in addition to improving skin quality; nanofat has been shown to improve skin texture and pigmentation. [,..] The opportunity exists to individualize the use of [grafting with your own body fat, specifically] with the various subtypes of fat for the targeted correction of aging in different anatomic areas of the face. Fat grafting has become a powerful tool that has revolutionized facial rejuvenation, and developing precise, individualized plans for autologous fat grafting for each patient is an important advancement in the evolution of facial rejuvenation." (60)

So, whatever happens, if you've got disposable income, facial fat loss can permanently be corrected! That's good news in a way, but not helpful for everyone. The promotion of local facial fat loss may also be possible through some means, such as through the application of cold therapy (61). Cold exposure can kill fat cells (permanently), and applying cold to the face may create that effect.

And, for improving facial fat volume, there are many other options besides your own body fat - hyaluronic acid, hydroxyapatite, and many other fillers are commercially available nowadays (62). These procedures aren't entirely without risk, however, as even using your own body fat may increase embolism risk or eye problems (63; 64)! So, if you ever think about using such a procedure, ensure you're doing it with great medical professionals!

It's not just fat loss that occurs in the face with aging but also bone loss (65). Muscles also change with age (66). Below, you can check some of the examples of changes throughout aging - beginning with changes in the jaw structure (66):

Here, you can see more changes in the deeper bone structure (66):

Next up, changes in facial fat, muscle, and wrinkles throughout the ages (66):

So, the whole facial fat loss dynamic is complicated! There's no easy answer here. Facial aging and a few other factors may explain why your face looks different than before, even thought it wasn't local facial fat loss that caused the problem.

Researchers state the following about that dynamic:

"Facial aging is an intricate process involving interrelated changes to bone, muscle, fat, and skin. It is typified by deterioration of skin tone and texture, deflation due to loss of bone and fat, descent of soft tissues due to loss of muscle tone and skin elasticity, disproportion as hollowing and/or hypertrophy occur in different facial areas at different rates and chronological times, and dynamic discord, or loss of balance between interacting muscles. Too often, clinicians treat these signs of aging without a real understanding of their etiology. Recognizing the anatomical alterations that underlie the changing appearance of specific facial areas may enable clinicians to treat patients more precisely and effectively to achieve optimal outcomes. " (66)

My point? Facial aging, in general, and facial fat loss, specifically, are complex processes with many mediating processes that are complex as well. Let's explore a few other reasons you may lose fat in the face that I've not talked about before:

Other Factors Explaining What May Look As "Facial Fat Loss"

Below I've added a few other factors that I've not covered before that explain why you may think you've got facial fat loss even though you don't:

• Hormonal changes (67; 68; 69; 70; 71; 72). Different hormones here, such as thyroid hormones, female sex hormones, and others, can affect the look of your face. Estrogen can even affect the outcome of a fat graft (transplantation of fat) to the face (70). High cortisol levels - an energy and stress hormone - can also affect how your face looks (71). Overall, many different hormones can affect your looks (72). In men too, using testosterone replacement therapy, for instance, can influence how you look to others (73).
• Genetics (74; 75; 76). While this topic is complicated, some people are just better genetically gifted to avert facial fat loss - especially with aging. There's also a link between genetics, being overweight, and accelerated aging (76).
• Stress (77; 78; 79; 80). Simply put, you look differently when you're stressed! This doesn't affect facial fat per se but appearance. And differences in appearance likely affect people's perception of their facial fat - indirectly.
• Wrinkles - which have nothing to do with facial fat per se but do affect how others perceive the amount of facial aging (81; 82; 83). And, with facial aging, you may also more likely to spot differences in facial fat. Similar things may be true for sleep deprivation and others - making people notice their facial fat or the absence thereof more quickly. The use of stimulants may be similar.
• Disease - some health conditions, such as Cushing syndrome, can affect facial fat (84; 85; 86; 87; 88; 89). Excess facial fat due to disease can also be a sign of heart disease–facial fat is closely linked to visceral fat (between the organs) in your stomach (87; 88; 89).
• Inflammation - with more systemic inflammation you'll look very differently than when your inflammation levels tend to be low. The same is true for edema - these can make your face seem fuller, even though it's not directly fat that's causing your face to look fuller.

The problem here is that many of these factors can also be influenced by red light therapy again. I don't have to go into extreme detail here, but suffice it to say that both your local and systemic inflammation levels can be influenced by red light therapy in a big way. The same is true for wrinkles, stress levels, or hormone levels.

So, if you affect your inflammation levels or edema or wrinkles, the appearance of your face can change. That change in appearance doesn't directly mean that you've lost facial fat locally but there are many other explanatory factors possible, as I've tried to show above!

Systemic Versus Local Fat Loss: Is Local Facial Fat Loss Even Possible?

Lastly, let's consider the topic of systemic fat loss versus spot reduction of fat loss (or local fat loss). This topic has been extremely influential in the fitness industry for many decades. I still remember discussions around this topic when I entered this industry 2+ decades ago, and even then, the scientific consensus was that spot reduction isn't possible.

Let's recap what I've mentioned in my introduction:

Spot reduction fat loss or local fat loss entails that you're exercising your abdominals, for instance, with crunches or situps, and stimulating fat loss around that area.

Systemic fat loss, on the other hand, means that the human body more or less evenly distributes body fat in certain areas, and that you cannot specifically stimulate fat loss around the abs by doing abdominal exercises, or stimulate fat loss around the glutes by doing hip trusts, etc!

Now, I lean very much towards the systemic fat loss thesis myself, but there are some caveats. I think that in certain circumstances, such as stimulating your body with tons of adrenaline and cortisol, the body will store more fat in a certain area, such as the abdominals. The love handles, moreover, seem to have a link with insulin functioning.

But, overall, fat loss in the human body seems to be functioning mostly on a systemic level. Some recent studies do show that spot reduction may exist, to a limited extent however (90; 91; 92). But, the extent to which spot reduction is possible is likely minimal. So overall, the scientific consensus is that fat loss is mostly systemic.

Yes, if you use high-powered lasers on the left side of your love handles, more fat may be lost there than the other side of your love handles. But, the question is also, for how long this imbalance will persist. And, the amount of local fat loss you can achive in an area, without systemic fat loss, isn't too great. So if you want to lose lots of fat around your hips or belly, you'll have to focus on strategies that promote generalized fat loss.

This information is important as it showcases why the light therapy studies show generalized fat loss is possible on the one hand, by why the mask studies don't show any specific local facial fat loss. More or less, if you don't have a strong impulse to target systemic fat loss, it's unlikely you'll lose fat in your face.

And, most studies for facial beauty with masks treat the skin superficially, without a high dose. Hence, these studies don't show local fat loss.

My Analysis Of The Facial Fat Loss Situation

So, am I absolutely 100% certain that no wavelength that is used in red light therapy ever causes facial fat loss? The answer here is "no".

In certain circumstances, I could imagine triggering fat loss that would otherwise not be triggered under normal circumstances. For instance, if you'd use a high-powered laser at 630 nm on your face, or maybe 810 nm, or even 1,064 nm. We simply don't know the outcome of such experiments because they've not been reported in the scientific literature.

But that's really different than the normal circumstances I've talked about before. With a red light therapy full body setup, for instance, you may get 40 mW/cm2 of red light in the 610 - 680 nm range. Check out some of the body panel setups that my friend Alex has reviewed below:

But that 40 mW/cm2 you're getting at a 6-inch distance from the full body setup is more or less similar to what you'd be getting from sunlight! So I'm not talking about special circumstances here.

Examples of special circumstances are if you would be using 300 mW/cm2 of blue light, or green light, or 630 nm red light, or 1,064 nm near-infrared light with a high-powered laser, on a very specific location such as your love handles - or your face! In such cases, local fat facial fat loss may occur.

So you cannot rule out that some wavelengths cause facial fat loss under very unique, special circumstances. But under normal circumstances, with power outputs that equal the exposure of sunlight, it's extremely unlikely that some wavelengths cause facial fat loss in the absence of general fat loss across the entire body.

Keep in mind that I'm not questioning whether generalized fat loss occurs because of light therapy - it does. However, specific facial fat loss, in the absence of general fat loss, isn't occurring according to the latest science on this topic.

So, in the end, it's unlikely that local facial fat loss occurs with light therapy. But, I do want to consider a few limitations:

• First, I'd like to see more studies that attempt to achieve local fat loss. Here, you could use a higher-powered laser on the face and measure fat loss - while also monitoring fat loss on the waist, hip, and chest regions, for instance. This experiment would more clearly show whether local fat loss is possible. You'd also want to learn how long this effect lasts, and whether the body compensates for the local fat loss over time, if it occurs at all.
• Secondly, there are individual variations. People respond very differently to light therapy. In our Facebook group, we've seen people with rashes after using red light therapy or a "sunburn"-like effect. We've had people who are very tired after a normal session - even though that's not normally the case. Can I rule out local facial fat loss for everyone, for that reason? No. Local facial fat loss may be extremely rare but occur sometimes - just as local facial fat gain, because of light therapy. But, that's true of any effect. For now, at least, there's no reason to believe that, say, 630 nm red or 810 nm near-infrared or 1,064 nm near-infrared specifically causes facial fat loss, in the absence of systemic fat loss.
• Thirdly, I'd like to see more testing with different study parameters. I've already alluded to this in my first point. But, I'd love to see a wide expansion of testing fat loss in general, under many different circumstances, such as panels, high-powered lasers, lower-powered lasers, etc, with all types of different wavelengths, in people who have normal body fat percentages, and those who are overweight, in athletes and non-athletes, etc! More studies will give us far more insight into the dynamic. And, I'd love to see isocaloric studies with light therapy - so putting the control and intervention group in a study on the same number of calories in a metabolic ward that they cannot exit (if they want to stay in the study), so that a better measurement of the fat loss effect is found. We don't know, for instance, whether red light therapy helps you burn more calories because there's more energy production, or whether there's another mechanism involved.
• Fourth, I will also say that if someone has local facial fat loss with a red light therapy panel, it's very likely that this is the case because of the 630 nm or 660 nm wavelength. That wavelength, along with some others such as 810 nm has shown generalized fat loss in studies. And of course, if you lose body fat systemically, your face will also look leaner. So, after going through all the evidence here, my first inclination is to consider facial fat loss after using a high-powered panel the result of the more common wavelengths that are used, such as 630, 660, 810, 830 nm, etc! Yes, 1,064 or 1,072 nm likely also has an effect on generalized fat loss - but it's not unique in that regard!
• Fifth, many studies don't specifically look out for local facial fat loss. This should be a potential outcome of the study. Nevertheless, if people really were unhappy, with the outcomes after the mask studies, they would almost certainly have mentioned that and wouldn't have been so happy with their new facial appearance across the board!

And that's it...

Congratulations if read all the way to the end! Finally, let's conclude:

Conclusion: So, Does Red Light Therapy Cause Local Facial Fat Loss?

The interesting thing about the discussion about whether local facial fat loss because of light therapy is a reality or myth is that it depends so much on perception. And, that perception is shaped by science on the one hand, and our cosmetic goals on the other hand.

Obviously, you and I both fear losing fullness in the face because of local facial fat loss. Fortunately, my conclusion after going through tons of different studies is that this outcome is extremely unlikely. Could that conclusion change in time? Yes. Could scientists find special circumstances wherein local facial fat loss can be achieved, without any systemic fat loss occurring? Sure! But the risk, for the average person, to lose facial fat if you use red light therapy products in the prescribed way is extremely low!

Science is never 100% certain, so I'm more comfortable with a degree of uncertainty here. And, scientific consensus tends to change over time, so I'm hopefully not too dogmatic in my conclusions.

The good news is also that red light therapy makes you look better in general. The mask studies are almost unanimously positive about how people appear (according to their own ratings, often!). The fat loss studies show that you can be a leaner person overall, with systemic fat loss promotion. And, inflammation will decrease, making you look less puffy and aiding in your anti-aging endeavors.

So, this article has a happy ending in a way!

As always, don't consider light therapy your only tool in the toolbox. Sunlight, movement, exercise, a healthy diet, proper sleep, normal (nasal) breathing, avoiding toxins, destressing, and having social contacts are all super important for health. So keep in mind that I'm never advocating for just light therapy for your appearance, it's only one important tool in the toolbox!

And with that statement, we've reached:

The end...

This is a post by Bart Wolbers. Bart finished degrees in Physical Therapy (B), Philosophy (BA and MA), Philosophy of Science and Technology (MS - with distinction), and Clinical Health Science (MS), has had training in functional medicine, and is currently chief science writer at Lighttherapyinsiders.com

Found This Interesting? Then You Might Like:

• Start Here - Light Therapy 101 & Buyers Guide
• What Is Red Light Therapy?
• Discount Codes, Deals & Recommendations - Red Light Therapy
• Red Light Therapy For Weight Loss: The Science Of Supercharging Fat Loss
• How To Use Red Light Therapy At Home: Expert Tips
• 36 Powerful Red Light Therapy Benefits
• James Carroll Photobiomodulation Course: 16 Amazing Lessons Learnt