Does Red Light to the Brain Boost Endurance In Trained Cyclists? What the Data Actually Says
The Energy Code
Constant Load Outcomes: No Effect
Mike reports heart rate, lactate, RPE and efficiency ratios showed expected drift but no PBM vs sham differences.
Transcranial photobiomodulation (tPBM) is everywhere in performance culture —shine near-infrared light on the prefrontal cortex and supposedly you get better oxygenation, lower perceived effort, delayed central fatigue, and improved endurance. This Deep Dive episode breaks down a clean, double-blind crossover study in trained cyclists who rode their own bikes through a standardized constant-load effort followed by a 25-minute time trial. The conclusion was clear: acute tPBM at 810nm (40Hz, 20 minutes, with an intranasal component) did not improve performance, heart rate, lactate, perceived exertion, or pacing dynamics versus sham. The real value is what the null result teaches: dose, penetration, target engagement, and context matter —especially in trained athletes.
(Educational content only, not medical advice.)
-
Article Discussed in Episode:
-
Key Quotes From Dr. Mike:
“Does it (tPBM) actually work in real athletes under real performance conditions with real outcomes like power, heart rate, and pacing?”
“Can enough light penetrate scalp and skull to meaningfully modulate cortical function?”
“Parameters matter, penetration matters, and athletes are a hard population to move.”
“Wavelength and irradiance aren’t specs for marketing — they’re the difference between signal and nothing.”
-
Key Points
-
Clean test of hype: trained cyclists, double-blind, randomized crossover, real performance outcomes.
-
Protocol: 20 min tPBM (810nm, 40Hz; prefrontal targeting + intranasal probe), then warm-up → 15-min constant load → 25-min time trial.
-
Result: no meaningful differences vs sham in power, HR, lactate, RPE, or efficiency-style ratios.
-
Likely explanations: insufficient cortical photon dose/penetration, parameter selection (wavelength/irradiance), acute vs chronic effects, no direct confirmation of brain “target engagement,” athlete ceiling effects.
-
Takeaway: null results are useful—optimize parameters, verify engagement (fNIRS/EEG), test chronic protocols, and match outcomes to what the PFC actually influences (pacing decisions, inhibition, interoception).
-
Episode timeline
-
0:19–1:42 — The promise vs the test: trained cyclists + double-blind crossover; headline null result
-
1:59–3:27 — Why tPBM could work: mitochondria, CCO, ATP/NO/redox; PFC role in pacing & effort
-
3:28–4:55 — The real question: can enough light reach cortex in trained athletes? Study design + protocol
-
5:13–5:59 — What they measured: HR, lactate, RPE, time-trial power, power/HR and power/RPE trends
-
6:10–7:35 — Results: expected fatigue drift in both blocks, no separation between PBM and sham
-
7:44–10:52 — Why it may have failed: penetration, dosimetry, wavelength, acute vs chronic, ceiling effect
-
10:57–11:59 — What good science does: treat null as signal; what to optimize next
-
12:05–13:56 — BioLite lens: tissue accessibility vs skull barrier; “systems not magic”; stack fundamentals
-
14:02–15:17 — Closing: what the study proves (and what it doesn’t); next episode tease
Dr. Mike's #1 recommendations:
Deuterium depleted water: Litewater (code: DRMIKE)
EMF-mitigating products: Somavedic (code: BIOLIGHT)
Blue light blocking glasses: Ra Optics (code: BIOLIGHT)
Grounding products: Earthing.com
-
Stay up-to-date on social media:
Dr. Mike Belkowski:
BioLight:
The AI-powered Podcast Player
