Does Red Light to the Brain Boost Endurance In Trained Cyclists? What the Data Actually Says

Apr 1, 2026

A rigorous trial tested near-infrared brain light on trained cyclists during sustained efforts and a 25-minute time trial. The data showed no performance, heart rate, lactate, or perceived-exertion benefits versus sham. Discussion focuses on dose, skull penetration, targeting the prefrontal cortex, and why parameter choices and athlete ceilings can drive null results.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

How Brain PBM Is Supposed To Affect Endurance

Transcranial photobiomodulation (tPBM) aims to modulate brain mitochondria to influence effort perception and pacing via the prefrontal cortex.
Theoretical pathway: light → cytochrome c oxidase → ATP/NO/redox changes, potentially altering PFC oxygenation and decision-making during endurance.

ANECDOTE

Design Of The Cyclist PBM Trial

The study used trained male amateur cyclists in a randomized double-blind crossover with 18 in final analysis and each did both conditions.
Protocol: 20 min PBM or sham, 3 min rest, warm-up, 15 min constant load at +5% LT1, then 25 min self-paced time trial on own bikes.

INSIGHT

Exact PBM Parameters Used In The Study

Active PBM used 810 nm near-infrared light pulsed at 40 Hz with multiple forehead LEDs plus an intranasal probe for 20 minutes; sham matched placement but delivered no light.
Device tolerability was good and no side effects were reported, so blinding and safety were acceptable.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

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:

Effects of transcranial photobiomodulation on performance and cardiovascular responses in trained cyclists

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: