Latest on Lasers 25th August 2024
Don't Fall For Lyma's Dubious Claims—LED Is The Scientifically Proven Solution For Optimal Skin Health
Last week, at-home device company Lyma released a statement that they had a scientific study that the “LED market won’t want you to see.” The study, they claimed, proved that LED devices featuring near infrared light — which have been used at-home for skin rejuvenation and regeneration to promote collagen, elastin, and hyaluronic acid production in the skin — were ineffective when compared to the Lyma’s low level laser therapy, which they claim is 100x more powerful than LED, can penetrate up to 12cm into the dermis, and can change gene expression.
CurrentBody Skin*, the leader in at-home LED therapies vehemently disagrees with the contents of Lyma’s release, not only because the claims being made against the entirety of the LED industry — a technology that has been trusted and proven through numerous independent, clinical trials and studies over the past 60 years — are completely false, but because Lyma is misrepresenting both their product and their science.
Study after study, from the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology to the Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, has proven that LED technology with the combination therapy of red and near infrared wavelengths at varying penetration depths from 2-10mm — like that found in CurrentBody Skin’s collection of LED therapies and, indeed, other reputable LED brands, that have been FDA-cleared with clinically-recognized wavelengths to brighten, balance, smooth, firm, and plump the skin — are proven to be regenerative for the skin, as well as penetrate the dermis to subsequently impact wound healing and stimulate collagen production. Lyma’s claims that LED technology as a whole only provides “surface-level benefits” is patently false and has been proven so time and time again by independent, third-party clinical studies over the last few decades with well-respected and regarded research.
More troublingly, Lyma’s claims about their own product are both bizarre and misleading to customers. The brand claims its cold laser is 100x more effective than LED, which is statistically impossible in an at-home device. They do not provide any independent, third-party studies to support those claims. In fact, they’ve been the subject of a recent ruling by the Advertising Standards Authority (the U.K.’s version of the FTC) which flagged a handful of their social media ads for misleading claims. A ruling initially passed by the ASA in January 2024 and upheld in June 2024, found that the brand’s social media ads claiming Lyma is 100x more powerful than LED, that it is the most powerful at-home beauty device, and implying it delivered superior results to all other LED masks needed evidence to be backed up. Lyma compared their device to four other LED devices, and even when using a small sample size such as that, the brand could not prove in a single case that their device provided more power or efficacy than the four devices they hand-selected for comparison. The LED market is one of the fastest growing markets in the at-home device category and features new entries every year, meaning comparing the Lyma to just four devices and claiming that it is more powerful than every LED device based on that was already biased and unfounded — a viewpoint that ASA clearly agreed with when upheld their ruling that Lyma was making false claims in their advertising.
As far as Lyma’s gene expression claim goes, it’s a bit more nuanced than the brand is making it out. Lyma claims that their device affects 45 different genes in the dermis whereas LED light only affects one. There is substantial scientific evidence demonstrating that LED light can penetrate the dermis (particularly red and near infra-red wavelengths) and subsequently impact wound healing and stimulate collagen production of both. Gene expression represents only one aspect of the complex regeneration process that takes place in the skin and should be looked at within the broader context of the skin’s physiological processes. A comprehensive evaluation should include evaluating skin elasticity, strength, barrier function and more.
In addition to not being independent or third-party, the studies that Lyma provided as evidence of its penetration into the dermis continue its trend of being misleading on multiple fronts. While the brand claims to have three studies to prove its device can penetrate up to 12 cm into the dermis, it in fact has one study and the other two studies merely review the first study. As for that initial study? It was done on mice (not on humans) and looks at wound healing in mice using different types of laser wavelengths — it is not a comparison between laser and LED each technology’s and depth penetration as Lyma tries to position in its marketing materials.
But, perhaps the most egregious issue with the release is that Lyma is actually attacking itself with this statement. Because, despite branding itself as a “low level laser therapy” device, what the Lyma actually is is an LED treatment.
Lyma, like almost every at-home skin-care device, is designated by the FDA as what’s known as a class 510(K) medical device. That requires them to get FDA approval on their product — based on the public records of their FDA 510(k) medical device filing, this reveals that while the brand may market themselves as a “laser,” according to the 510(k) premarket device filing with the FDA, in Lyma’s own words as to how they describe their product, the Lyma device is “substantially equivalent to the LightStim for Wrinkles and the Trinity Wrinkle Remover,” with the FDA classifying it as a “an Over-the-Counter (OTC) light based device intended for the use in treating full-face wrinkles. The LYMA Laser incorporates a near-infrared LED light source within the optimum Therapeutic Optical Window at 808 nm, optimized for Low Level Light Therapy, and a red LED light source at 620 nm.” In other words, the Lyma is a near infrared and red LED light on the end of a stick — not a laser.
Not all LED treatments are created equal, so now that you know the truth about Lyma and what they actually are, ask yourself: Would you rather pay a premium price for product that wraps itself in pseudoscience marketing, misrepresents what it actually is, doesn’t provide independent studies to back up its outrageous claims, and denigrates the very technology that powers it? Or, do you trust your skin with a reputable brand like CurrentBody Skin that offers full face, neck, and décolleté masks with hundreds of LED lights at clinically recognized wavelengths that are backed by independent studies for a more reasonable price point?
*CurrentBody has been developing, manufacturing and selling home use devices technology since 2009 across 90 countries. It is part of the home use device working group, which is involved in the safety and efficacy of such devices. More recently, CurrentBody has set up a Beauty Device Authority BDA to help ensure that ethical companies are protected in this space.