That's why I included and tested the bulbs recommended by Dan Wich, the 200-watt PS30 incandescent, but I noticed feeling subjectively better with the R40 red bulb, so mostly stuck with that. Perhaps the extra heat given by the R40 was good for me during the winters, adding to the perceived benefit over the clear PS30.
Latest posts made by Jojiswims
-
RE: TikTok Biohacker Tests Red Light Chicken Lamps, Claims They Are Ineffective
-
TikTok Biohacker Tests Red Light Chicken Lamps, Claims They Are Ineffective
Ray recommended 250–500 watt heat lamps—up to 3 at once in the winter—as an effective source of red light. Many on the old forum, including myself, use the Philips 250 Watts R40 Brooder Incandescent Heat Bulb housed in a Bayco brooder clamp.
Dan Wich from toxinless.com & selftestable.com uses the PLT 200PS30 (200 Watts) bulbs, which I also own. This setup—with either bulb—I have used since 2016.
Recently, med student/tiktok influencer Eviba Carter tested a 250-watt chicken bulb, based on its ability to irradiate 20 J/cm^2 (his measure for minimal therapeutic dose). He calculated that these bulbs take over 55 hours to give off 20 J/cm^2, and claims the expensive red light therapy devices produce "100 times as much red light while using only half the power; with this, at 1 foot away, I'd get [that] dose in 33 minutes."
The TikTok: TESTED cheap chicken bulb for red light therapy
What do you think? Is this methodology sound; missing anything? Are there benefits to the chicken heat lamps he is neglecting? Is his standard for determining therapeutic dose valid? Or should we move away from the economic option and opt for the investment into targeted red light devices?