I wear LED masks at home and think they're worth the money
If you've ever wondered what all the fuss is about, or whether you should invest in one yourself, I'm going to walk you through the pros and cons and share a few devices I think are actually worth the
money
.
Before I get started, though, let me say this: these devices are only worth buying if you're going to commit to using them consistently. Using LEDs in your skincare routine is a marathon, not a sprint. It takes regular use – several times a week, over a long period of time – before you'll see results. Think of it as a tool to help maintain your skin's health overall. Using LED is not a quick fix and shouldn't be treated like one (especially considering the financial investment involved in purchasing a good one).
First, let's talk about what LED actually is. LED stands for light-emitting diode. LED light therapy has been around for a long time – more than 30 years.
Nasa
was the first to use it back in the 1980s to help stimulate plant growth. During those experiments, one of the scientists noticed that his skin lesions were healing faster than usual. His discovery marked the beginning of LED light therapy for the skin.
READ MORE
Today, LED therapy is widely used in
hospitals
and clinical settings. In fact, if you've had a facial or skin treatment at a clinic recently, there's a good chance you've spent some time under an LED light. These lights, typically red and near-infrared, are absorbed by your skin cells during treatment.
Different LED wavelengths (or lights) – like blue, red and infrared – target a variety of skincare concerns all at once, including acne, dullness, fine lines, uneven skin tone and the signs of ageing. Arguably, at-home LED masks won't provide the same results as in-clinic, but they're excellent for prolonging results and aiding in healing and repair post-treatment.
LED masks available for home use are non-invasive and generally safe. There are a few potential side effects to keep in mind, however, such as skin dryness, redness or eye strain if used without eye protection (many masks now include built-in eye protection).
Light therapy may also pose issues for those with migraines or epilepsy. Additionally, some research suggests that blue light can stimulate melanin production, so it may be best to avoid if you have hyperpigmentation or melasma.
Now, on to the masks. If you're dealing with rosacea, eczema, acne, persistent breakouts and inflammation (and not dealing with hyperpigmentation issues), a blue light LED mask is a great option. Blue light works on the top layer of the skin and research shows it triggers a chemical reaction that kills c.acnes – the bacteria linked to acne.
[
Managing stress: 'It's okay to put down some of the plates you're spinning before they all come crashing down'
Opens in new window
]
[
Wearable LED device can help protect and improve brain health
Opens in new window
]
Great options are available, depending on budget, including OmniLux Clear (€462 from omniluxled.com) and Dr Dennis Gross DRx SpectraLite FaceWare Pro (€525.40 from Cult Beauty). Both have the added benefit of red light in addition to blue.
If your main goal is anti-ageing, specifically reducing fine lines and wrinkles, boosting collagen production and improving skin tone and overall appearance – a red light LED mask is your best bet. Red light penetrates deeper into the skin, stimulating collagen production while soothing inflammation and redness.
Many red-light masks also include infrared or near-infrared light, which goes even deeper than red and is particularly effective for anti-ageing. Infrared light targets fine lines, wrinkles and pigmentation while accelerating skin recovery and stimulating collagen and elastin production. Notable choices include OmniLux Contour Face Mask (€462 from omniluxled.com) and Foreo FAQ 201 RGB LED Face Mask (€529 from foreo.com).
You might be wondering why they are so expensive. Many of the brands behind the most popular and highly recommended masks on the market – like OmniLux, Dr Dennis Gross and CurrentBody, among others – use carefully tuned wavelengths, and individually test the efficacy of each LED light.
Many of these brands also offer the best coverage in terms of fit and the number of LED lights per mask – factors that contribute to their higher price point.
There are also many non-mask LED devices that target specific areas, such as the lips, eyes, neck and chest. Whatever you decide to go for, make sure to do your research. Identify your skincare goals, choose the appropriate type of LED light to match, consider your budget and then pick a device that backs up its claims with research and proven efficacy. And most important of all – commit to using it consistently.
This week I'm loving ... Erborian CC Eye Cream
Erborian CC Eye Cream (€44 from Boots)
If you're looking for a new under-eye treatment, it's worth considering my current favourite – Erborian CC Eye Cream (€44 from Boots). It contains centella asiatica, known for its soothing and brightening properties, as well as peptides to help improve skin texture. The formula is creamy, lightweight and hydrating, but even better, as you blend it into the skin, it instantly brightens the area. It's available in two shades that adapt to your skin tone and includes SPF20 protection.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Times
5 days ago
- Irish Times
Eli Lilly obesity pill disappoints in trial, sending shares down 14%
Eli Lilly 's potential obesity pill helped patients lose less weight than investors had hoped during a trial, sending shares in the drugmaker down more than 14 per cent in early trading. The pharmaceutical group said on Thursday that patients taking orforglipron lost an average of 12.4 per cent of their body weight, at the lower end of the market's expectations for the closely watched medicine. Trial participants taking a placebo lost 0.9 per cent. A pill is expected to offer less dramatic weight loss than injectables, where Lilly's Zepbound currently offers the most weight loss at an average of 23 per cent. Evan Seigerman, an analyst at BMO Capital markets, said investors had been hoping for a minimum weight loss of about 13.7 per cent of body weight. Novo Nordisk 's oral weight loss drug, which has been submitted for approval in the US, helped trial participants lose about 15 per cent of their body weight. Shares in Novo Nordisk, Lilly's main rival in the obesity market, jumped as much as 14 per cent. Mr Seigerman also said the trial showed the rate of side effects when taking Lilly's pill – nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea – was slightly worse than expected. The trial result was announced as Lilly reported its second-quarter results, beating analysts' expectations, and raised the midpoint of its guidance for the full year. David Ricks, Lilly's chief executive, said it was 'another quarter of strong performance'. The pharmaceutical industry is under pressure from the Trump administration to lower prices voluntarily, or face a 'Most Favoured Nation' drug pricing policy that would peg US drug prices to the lower prices in other developed nations. Mr Ricks warned against importing 'foreign pricing controls', arguing it would harm patients and US competitiveness. The company reported revenues of $15.6 billion (€13.4 billion) in the three months to June, up 38 per cent on the same period last year. Sales of Zepbound, prescribed for obesity, soared by 172 per cent, and Mounjaro, prescribed for diabetes, jumped 68 per cent. Lilly now expects full-year revenue between $60 billion to $62 billion, up from its previous range of $58 billion to $61 billion. The optimistic outlook contrasts sharply with rival Novo Nordisk, which lowered its forecasts for profit and sales growth last week, wiping €60 billion off its value. Novo Nordisk has been losing ground to Lilly in the US market, as well as facing competition from copycat versions of its weight loss and diabetes drugs. Investors had been excited that Lilly could dominate the market for oral weight loss drugs with orforglipron. While the trial result disappointed investors, the once-daily pill met the trial's goals, including showing it can have a positive impact on heart health, and Lilly said it was on track to submit the medicine to regulators for approval later this year. Just over 10 per cent of the high-dose patients dropped out of the Lilly trial due to adverse side effects, the company said. No liver safety issues were seen. In April, Lilly shares jumped almost 15 per cent when another trial, among diabetic patients, showed it could help them lose weight and lower their blood sugar. Daniel Skovronsky, Lilly's chief scientific officer, told analysts they should be wary of comparing trials over different time periods and in different populations. 'Wall Street is kind of focused on the exact numbers here, the cross trial comparisons, [but] I don't think that carries over to the real world,' he said. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025
Irish Times
02-08-2025
- Irish Times
The Mind Electric: Stories of the Strangeness and Wonder of Our Brains by Pria Anand. Keen observations and evocative storytelling
The Mind Electric: Stories of the Strangeness and Wonder of Our Brains Author : Pria Anand ISBN-13 : 978-0349019109 Publisher : Virago Guideline Price : £22 A 19-year-old student developed a searing headache and slowly lost her vision, so gradually that it took her several days to realise that she had been struck blind. Certain that the blindness was divine punishment for a secret sin, she told no one. It wasn't until she walked into a wall that her grandmother intervened. The student's story is one of many patient stories that Pria Anand, a neurologist at Boston Medical Centre, uses to illustrate the myriad symptoms and deficits of neurological diseases. Anand is a compelling narrator and vivid storyteller. Having studied literature and cognitive science before her medical career, she writes with striking precision and sensitivity. Her love of language shines through in the compassionate way she describes patients and the complex challenges they face when the nervous system fails to function as it should. For Anand, hospitals are places of both heartache and wonder, and it is through stories we begin to make sense of the senseless. READ MORE This collection of stories honours scientific endeavour in pursuit of improved patient care. However, Anand is acutely aware of medicine's historical and contemporary failings and strongly advocates for care that does not discriminate based on gender, race or socioeconomic status. Her passion for equitable patient care makes this a powerful, engaging and, at times, a tender read. The title The Mind Electric might suggest an exploration of the intangible realms of thought, feeling and consciousness. In reality, Anand's focus is more grounded in the physical brain and its observable functions. This focus does not disappoint. Stories of disrupted sight, speech, hearing, touch, movement, memory and pain are crafted with skill and insight. The influence of Oliver Sacks is both clear and acknowledged, with rare and compelling neurological conditions taking centre stage. Such stories offer powerful insights into neuroanatomy and brain function. However, readers whose lives have been affected by conditions such as dementia, Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis may find their experiences less reflected in this collection. The Mind Electric is a valuable and welcome addition to the canon of medical writing. While medical students and doctors in training will find much to learn from Anand's insights, the book also offers broader appeal. Anand's keen observations and evocative storytelling make for compelling reading. Des McMahon is a consultant in palliative medicine, St Vincent's University Hospital and Our Lady's Hospice & Care Services.
Irish Times
28-07-2025
- Irish Times
Drugs like Ozempic aren't changing negative narratives around diet and weight
Friends keep asking me what I think about Ozempic . I know they're asking because I've written about food history, gender and eating disorders, but until recently I wasn't sure what I thought, wasn't sure that someone who has never had metabolic disease or lived in a body that attracted comment had any business having opinions about the drugs called GLP1 agonists. I support any development that undermines the idea that bodyweight has a moral aspect, or that individuals control the size of their bodies. We are shaped in every way by environment, society and genetics far more than by the small scope of personal choice within those determinants. Health is mostly determined by heredity and wealth. So if the new drugs stop people insisting that self-discipline and self-starvation are the answer to fatness, all to the good. [ Sarah Moss: 'I'm a classic first child. A driven overachiever. Slightly neurotic' Opens in new window ] But I'm not sure they're generally helping us live better lives. I gather GLP1 agonists are good as diabetes medication – not an area in which I am qualified to opine. Their rising use for other purposes seems to be correlated to increasing media excitement about extreme thinness, particularly in women, which is demoralising to those of us who grew up with heroin chic and the worship of emaciation and have lived in the shadow of those ideals ever since. If the drugs are changing narratives about diet and weight, I'm not seeing it. There's no decline in mindless writing about and advertising of 'guilt-free' foods and 'guilty pleasures'. (What you put in your mouth has no bearing on your moral worth. The only sinful foods are those harmfully produced.) READ MORE I understand that these medications work by depriving people of pleasure in eating. I'd argue that pleasure is politically and ideologically important as well as nice, that without pleasure we fall prey to the idea that life is nothing but scarcity and survival, which leads quickly to the idea that life is a competition and weakness is failure, at which point you're well down the road to dark places we don't need to go. Taking expensive drugs to make daily life less fun so you take up less space doesn't sound to me like the kind of choice made by happy people in a functional society, though you could argue that unhappy people in a dysfunctional society – for example, fat people hoping to be paid, promoted and desired as much as their thinner colleagues in Europe today – might perfectly sensibly make such decisions. Getting thin to succeed in a fat-phobic society is still an understandable individual solution to a structural problem. And it seems to me that the big structural problem here is not that people are fat but that we have created and continue to promote a food system that makes most consumers unwell, and are now creating and promoting a regime of medication that, at great financial and personal cost, claims to counteract the effects of that food system. We're all being sold ultra-processed, intensively farmed food that makes us and our planet sick, and then being sold drugs that moderate the effect of that food on individual bodies but compound the harm to the environment. I am certain that the same shareholders profit from the manufacture and sale of the food that causes the problem and the drugs that treat it. Ozempic's popularity is a symptom and driver of social and economic injustice, and I wish we could spend some of its cost on systemic change instead None of which means that I blame any individual for making whatever decisions seem necessary to cope. I only note that the troubles that show up in our bodies rarely began there, and therefore the sustainable solutions won't begin with injections. There are countries that have been able to reduce the proportions of intensively produced and processed foods consumed by their populations, especially by children. There are examples of local, regional and national governments creating and sometimes imposing healthier and more sustainable environments, but it can't happen without at least some popular demand, and the established interests and beneficiaries of harmful systems will never want such change. So what I think about Ozempic is that its popularity is a symptom and driver of social and economic injustice, and I wish we could spend some of its cost on systemic change instead. We could subsidise the production and transport of a lot of fresh local produce and build a lot of playgrounds, sports facilities and bike lanes for what we lose paying pharmaceutical companies to heal us from their absence. And it would be much more fun.
