Red Light Therapy for Athletes: Recovery & Performance

About the author

Evelyn Reed, M.S.

Health Science EducatorCertified Wellness Coach

Evelyn Reed, M.S., is a Health Science Educator and Certified Wellness Coach specializing in evidence-based, at-home wellness solutions. With a Master's degree in Health Science, she focuses on translating complex scientific research on cellular health and light therapy into practical, accessible protocols. Evelyn is dedicated to empowering individuals to manage pain, improve sleep, and enhance skin vitality. Her science-first, empathetic approach makes her a trusted advocate for achieving long-term health goals.

As a red light therapy wellness specialist working with serious athletes, I see the same tension over and over: you push your body to its limits because your sport demands it, yet your long‑term success depends on how well you recover between those efforts. Red light therapy sits right in the middle of that tension. It is marketed as a way to bounce back faster, hurt less, and maybe even perform better. The reality is more nuanced. There is promising science, real-world enthusiasm from teams and performance centers, and also clear gaps and inconsistencies in the evidence.

In this article, I will walk you through what red light therapy actually is, how it may help competitive athletes, what the research shows (and does not show), and how to use it intelligently as part of a broader recovery strategy rather than as a magic fix.

What Red Light Therapy Is in the Athletic Context

Red light therapy, often called photobiomodulation or low-level laser therapy, uses specific red and near‑infrared wavelengths of light to influence how cells function. Most athletic protocols use visible red light around 630–660 nanometers and near‑infrared light around 810–850 nanometers. These wavelengths are delivered by LEDs or low‑power lasers through panels, pads, beds, or targeted probes.

At the cellular level, the main working hypothesis is that these photons are absorbed by an enzyme in mitochondria called cytochrome c oxidase. Studies summarized in National Strength and Conditioning Association (NSCA) Coach resources and in a Journal of Biophotonics review describe a cascade where light absorption increases adenosine triphosphate (ATP) production, alters nitric oxide and reactive oxygen species, and modulates gene expression linked to inflammation and repair. Function Smart Physical Therapy notes that ATP production in muscle tissue may increase by up to about 200 percent in some experimental conditions.

Red light primarily affects superficial tissues such as skin and more superficial musculature, while near‑infrared penetrates deeper into muscle, fascia, tendons, ligaments, and even bone. That deeper reach is why near‑infrared is often emphasized in sports performance and injury protocols.

The key point is that this is a non‑thermal, non‑ionizing therapy. Unlike tanning beds, red light therapy does not use ultraviolet radiation and, when dosed appropriately, does not burn the skin.

How Red Light Therapy Might Help Competitive Athletes

Cellular Energy and Fatigue Resistance

High‑level training drains energy at every level: systemic, muscular, and cellular. The mitochondria in your muscle fibers act as tiny power plants, and many photobiomodulation studies target them directly.

The NSCA Coach–focused summaries and the Physical Achievement Center describe how red and near‑infrared photons displace nitric oxide from cytochrome c oxidase, allowing oxygen to bind more effectively. This improves oxidative phosphorylation and boosts ATP output. Better ATP availability improves muscle contraction and relaxation efficiency and supports calcium handling in muscle cells, which may translate into less fatigue during and after hard efforts.

A comprehensive review in Journal of Biophotonics examined dozens of human trials where photobiomodulation was applied before strength or endurance exercise. Several of those “muscle pre‑conditioning” studies found that treated athletes could perform more repetitions, maintain torque longer, or delay the rise in blood lactate compared with placebo. Others, particularly early elbow-flexor trials, found no meaningful differences. The pattern is encouraging but not uniform, and benefits seem to depend heavily on using effective wavelengths, doses, and treatment areas.

Inflammation, Pain, and Tissue Repair

After a race weekend, a heavy training block, or an acute injury, inflammation is both your friend and your enemy. You need it to start the repair process, but too much, for too long, compromises both comfort and performance.

Dynamic Sports Medicine and Vitality RLT both describe red light therapy as a tool to reduce inflammation and pain while accelerating tissue repair. Mechanistically, studies summarized in the Journal of Biophotonics and in reviews cited by Vitality RLT show that photobiomodulation can reduce pro‑inflammatory cytokines, edema, and oxidative stress markers, while increasing antioxidant activity and collagen synthesis.

A WebMD review of red light therapy points to positive, though still developing, evidence for short‑term pain relief in inflammatory conditions and tendinopathy. A review of 11 pain studies found mostly favorable results, and a separate analysis of 17 clinical trials in tendinopathy reported low‑to‑moderate quality evidence that red light can reduce pain and improve function. University Hospitals notes that clinicians are particularly interested in its potential for superficial inflammatory problems and some tendinopathies, while being clear that it will not repair major mechanical damage such as complete ligament tears or advanced osteoarthritis.

On the injury side, Function Smart Physical Therapy highlights research where red or near‑infrared light has been associated with faster healing of muscle strains, tendon injuries, and even bone, via improved collagen production and new blood vessel formation. The Physical Achievement Center describes how red light and near‑infrared light support muscle repair and hypertrophy by increasing collagen and modulating genes tied to muscle growth.

Muscle Recovery, DOMS, and Return‑to‑Play

Delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and exercise‑induced muscle damage (EIMD) are a daily reality for competitive athletes, especially after novel or eccentric‑heavy training. The question is whether red light therapy meaningfully changes that recovery curve.

The Journal of Biophotonics review on photobiomodulation in human muscle tissue examined 46 trials, mostly in single‑joint strength models. Some studies using pre‑exercise light reported less DOMS, lower levels of creatine kinase, and better preservation of force output in the days after eccentric exercise. Others, particularly earlier trials with different wavelengths and doses, found no differences compared with placebo.

A 2022 study in the Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research looked at phototherapy after a brutal repeated‑sprint protocol designed to induce muscle damage: 40 sprints of about 50 ft each with a deceleration zone emphasizing eccentric load. Thirty‑three active college‑aged adults were randomized to real phototherapy or sham. Over five days of follow‑up, the phototherapy group reported significantly less soreness in the calf muscles, but there were no meaningful differences in vertical jump, agility, quadriceps soreness, hamstring soreness, or overall soreness. The authors concluded that while light therapy might modestly help specific muscle groups, it did not translate into practical performance gains for sports built on short, high‑intensity, multi‑joint movements.

In contrast, a pilot study in Laser Therapy on injured university athletes is more impressive from a clinical standpoint. Varsity athletes with acute soft‑tissue injuries were treated with an 830‑nanometer LED system (HEALITE II) delivering 60 joules per square centimeter over 20 minutes. Across hamstring strains, knee and ankle sprains, and other injuries, the average return‑to‑play time with red light therapy was about 9.6 days, compared with a historically expected 19.2 days under conventional care. That represents roughly a 50 percent reduction. Pain scores improved by 2–8 points on a 10‑point scale, and by the end of 2–6 sessions, all analyzed athletes reported a pain score of zero. No adverse events were documented.

However, this was a pilot study without a concurrent control group and relied on historical expectations for comparison. The authors themselves called for larger, well‑controlled trials before treating this as standard care. Vitality RLT cites the same study as evidence that red light therapy can speed return to play, but that interpretation needs to be balanced by the study’s methodological limitations.

Sleep, Stress, and Cognitive Recovery

For elite performance, sleep is not “nice to have”; it is a primary recovery modality. Athletic Lab emphasizes that sleep restores immune, endocrine, nervous, and musculoskeletal systems, and that poor sleep is an early warning sign of overtraining.

Several small studies suggest red light therapy may support sleep and circadian health. Athletic Lab references research in Chinese female basketball players where evening red light sessions over 14 days improved subjective sleep quality, increased nocturnal melatonin, and were associated with better endurance performance compared with controls. Another study cited there found that using red light during or just after waking reduced sleep inertia, the grogginess that blunts short‑term performance and alertness.

Vitality RLT notes a Journal of Athletic Training study in which female basketball players reported improved sleep and endurance after two weeks of red light therapy. Rehabmart’s overview of why athletes and CEOs use red light therapy also points to its ability to reduce oxidative stress and improve mitochondrial function, which can help with fatigue, brain fog, and stress resilience in high‑demand lifestyles.

Stanford Medicine, in a broad review of red light therapy, is more cautious. Their experts highlight that while the biological mechanisms are plausible, claims about improvements in sleep and cognitive function remain speculative without larger, high‑quality clinical trials.

Long‑Term Tissue Resilience and Injury Risk

Beyond getting through tomorrow’s training, competitive athletes care deeply about career longevity. Function Smart Physical Therapy and the Physical Achievement Center both describe how photobiomodulation may increase collagen production and support tendon and joint health. By modulating inflammation and supporting connective tissue quality, red light therapy is positioned as a potential tool to strengthen tendons and ligaments and reduce overuse injury risk.

The Voice in Sport platform frames red light therapy as a way to help athletes handle the cumulative stress of training over a career, citing benefits such as less soreness, shorter injury‑recovery time, and improved mental resilience when treatments are applied to the head or neck. Their expert suggests that daily sessions of about 20 minutes can be effective and notes that flexible pads and handheld units allow targeted treatment to joints, muscles, or even the head.

At the same time, a TrainingPeaks coach review warns that, despite these theoretical benefits and some positive data, the overall performance evidence remains inconsistent and often unimpressive when strict training outcomes are measured.

What the Science Says: Balancing Promise and Skepticism

When athletes and coaches ask whether red light therapy “works,” the honest answer is that it depends on what you are hoping for and how strictly you define success.

Here is a brief comparison of the evidence landscape across key goals.

Goal or Application	Evidence Summary	Practical Implication for Athletes
Acute injury recovery and return‑to‑play	Pilot work in university athletes using 830 nm LEDs showed roughly 50 percent faster return‑to‑play and strong pain reduction with no reported adverse events, but methods were limited and larger controlled trials are needed.	Reasonable to consider as an adjunct in sports medicine settings, especially when supervised; not yet a stand‑alone, proven replacement for standard rehab.
DOMS and muscle recovery after training	Review in Journal of Biophotonics shows mixed results: some trials report less DOMS and lower muscle damage markers, others show no difference. A repeated‑sprint study only found lower calf soreness, with no performance benefit.	May help localized soreness or recovery perception, but do not expect dramatic, consistent performance changes in explosive multi‑joint sports.
Strength and endurance gains	When applied before resistance or treadmill training, some studies report more rapid strength and endurance improvements and greater fatigue resistance between sets, while others show no performance change.	If you already have core recovery habits in place, strategic pre‑training use may offer small added benefits; results are not guaranteed.
Chronic pain, arthritis, tendinopathy	WebMD and University Hospitals reviews describe modest short‑term pain and stiffness reductions in rheumatoid arthritis and low‑to‑moderate evidence for tendinopathy pain and function, with some promise in chronic pain and fibromyalgia.	Can be a useful non‑drug option for managing chronic pain and tendon issues, particularly under clinical guidance.
Sleep, mood, and cognitive recovery	Small trials in basketball players show improved sleep and melatonin; other work suggests reduced sleep inertia. Stanford Medicine notes that broader claims remain speculative.	May help some athletes sleep and feel better, but should be seen as experimental, not a replacement for sound sleep hygiene.
Overall sports performance	A TrainingPeaks review concludes that, despite aggressive marketing, evidence for meaningful performance enhancement is sparse and inconsistent.	Consider red light therapy primarily as a recovery and symptom‑management tool, not as a cornerstone performance enhancer.

As photobiomodulation became an official Medical Subject Heading in 2015, research output accelerated. Rehabmart cites about 550 randomized controlled trials and 5,000 laboratory studies on red light therapy generally, with more than 40 new papers emerging monthly. Stanford Medicine emphasizes, however, that the strongest evidence is still in dermatology and hair regrowth, with performance, sleep, and chronic pain claims lagging behind.

From an evidence‑based standpoint, the most defensible uses for competitive athletes today are as follows: supporting pain management for certain soft‑tissue or joint issues, possibly shortening recovery from some acute musculoskeletal injuries in a supervised setting, and modestly easing soreness after heavy training. Effects on peak performance, long‑term adaptation, or broad wellness should be approached with cautious optimism rather than certainty.

Red Light Therapy's scientific promise for athlete recovery balanced with skepticism.

Practical Ways Competitive Athletes Use Red Light Therapy

Scientific nuance matters, but so does the practical question: how are serious athletes actually using red light therapy in the field?

Timing Around Training and Competition

Function Smart Physical Therapy and the Physical Achievement Center both emphasize the importance of timing. Pre‑exercise red or near‑infrared light, applied 15–30 minutes before a session, can serve as muscular pre‑conditioning. The aim is to raise cellular energy availability, improve oxygen utilization, and blunt the rise in muscle damage markers and lactate during the session. Some studies show increased repetitions to failure or longer time to exhaustion with this approach.

Post‑exercise sessions, especially within the first two to four hours after training, are focused on recovery. The goal is to support rapid repair, enhance blood flow to clear metabolic waste, and provide energy for rebuilding stressed tissues. Vitality RLT recommends using red light therapy around hard training sessions to reduce strength loss and soreness and to shorten downtime between sessions.

In practice, many competitive athletes adopt a simple rhythm: brief exposures before key strength or endurance sessions several times per week, followed by post‑training or evening sessions timed to support sleep and recovery. Athletic Lab suggests treating about 20 minutes of exposure as a practical upper limit for their device, with diminishing returns beyond that and the option to reduce time by bringing the body closer to the light source.

Typical Parameters in Athletic Settings

Across sports medicine clinics and performance centers, certain patterns repeat in protocols described by Function Smart, Dynamic Sports Medicine, and the Physical Achievement Center.

Most athlete‑focused protocols use near‑infrared wavelengths between roughly 810 and 850 nanometers for deep muscle and joint penetration, often combined with red light around 630–660 nanometers for superficial tissues and skin. Session lengths commonly range from 10 to 20 minutes per treated area, with higher‑powered clinic devices allowing shorter exposures to deliver the same energy.

The Lehigh University pilot study in Laser Therapy used a standardized protocol: 830‑nanometer light, about 20 minutes per session, delivering 60 joules per square centimeter at an irradiance of 50 milliwatts per square centimeter. Treatments began as soon as possible after injury and were typically given in cycles of three consecutive days, with short breaks, totaling about two to six sessions per injury.

A critical lesson from the Journal of Biophotonics review is that red light therapy follows a biphasic dose–response pattern: too little light has little effect, while excessive energy can blunt or reverse benefits. That is one reason why copying influencer routines without understanding device output can be unhelpful.

At‑Home Devices vs In‑Clinic Systems

Athletes today have access to everything from small handheld wands to full‑body light beds. WebMD and University Hospitals both note that home devices are typically less powerful than clinic‑grade systems and may take longer to produce noticeable effects.

Stanford Medicine emphasizes that clinical devices are generally more powerful and better controlled in terms of wavelength and intensity, but that even there, effectiveness varies with how precisely dosing and frequency match what successful trials used. Some consumer devices are cleared by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but this clearance mainly addresses safety and substantial equivalence to existing devices, not broad proof of performance or recovery benefits.

Cost is a real consideration. University Hospitals mentions home devices starting just under about $100. Rehabmart notes that higher‑quality systems can range from approximately $1,000.00 to $150,000.00, with many serious performance‑grade setups in the $3,000.00 to $5,000.00 range. For many competitive athletes and teams, that means weighing the price of a light system against other recovery investments such as quality sleep environments, nutrition support, or manual therapy.

The table below summarizes key differences.

Feature	In‑Clinic Systems	At‑Home Devices
Typical power and coverage	Higher power, larger coverage areas, controlled dosing, often full‑body or large panels	Lower to moderate power, smaller panels, masks, or portable pads and wands
Supervision and protocol design	Guided by clinicians or performance staff familiar with research parameters	User‑driven; dependent on reading instructions and self‑experimenting
Cost structure	Per‑session fee or bundled into rehab and performance programs	Up‑front device cost; low marginal cost per use
Evidence alignment	More likely to match protocols used in published studies	Highly variable; many marketing claims extend beyond available evidence
Best suited for	Rehabbing injuries, chronic pain programs, integrated recovery suites	Ongoing maintenance, supplemental recovery, and sleep support in motivated athletes

For many competitive athletes, starting with a well‑chosen home device or facility‑based membership can make sense, as long as expectations are realistic and use is consistent.

Competitive athletes benefit from red light therapy for recovery, injury prevention, performance.

Pros, Cons, and Safety for Elite Athletes

Potential Advantages

For competitive athletes, the primary advantages of red light therapy are that it is noninvasive, generally low risk, and can be integrated into existing recovery routines without additional medication or significant discomfort.

Function Smart Physical Therapy, Vitality RLT, and Rehabmart all highlight several overlapping benefits: reduced pain and inflammation, shorter downtime between hard sessions, improved tissue quality and collagen production, and a possible reduction in injury risk through better tendon and joint health. Chronic pain sufferers, including those with arthritis or tendinopathy, may experience meaningful symptom relief when other modalities have only partially helped. Athletes with packed schedules often appreciate the possibility of returning to high‑level training and competition sooner after minor strains or overuse issues.

From a performance‑system perspective, having a tool that may modestly reduce DOMS, help maintain training volume, and support sleep can be valuable, even if the effects on time‑trial performance or match statistics are modest.

Limitations, Risks, and Who Should Be Cautious

The limitations are just as important to understand. Stanford Medicine makes it clear that, outside of skin and hair indications, high‑quality clinical evidence is still limited and mixed. TrainingPeaks concludes that data on performance enhancement are not strong enough to justify the large financial outlay for most athletes, particularly when compared with proven fundamentals like structured training, sleep, and nutrition.

The 2022 repeated‑sprint EIMD study, the Journal of Biophotonics review, and systematic reviews summarized by Athletic Lab all underline that protocols, devices, and outcomes vary widely. Some trials show benefits; many do not. This heterogeneity suggests athletes should view red light therapy as a promising adjunct, not as a primary engine of adaptation.

Regarding safety, WebMD and Stanford Medicine report that red light therapy appears low risk when used correctly. Adverse events are rare and usually mild, such as transient warmth or skin redness. However, a small early‑stage trial found that very high light intensities could cause blistering and more marked redness. There is also potential for eye damage with strong LEDs and lasers, so protective goggles are recommended, especially in clinic settings. WebMD notes that there is no evidence that red light therapy causes cancer, and it does not use ultraviolet light, but people with a history of skin cancer or significant eye disease should consult a physician first.

Photosensitizing medications are another important caution. Individuals whose drugs make their skin or eyes more sensitive to light should avoid or carefully supervise exposure. Pregnant people have been included in some laser light treatment studies without observed harm to mother or fetus, but data remain limited, so it is prudent to involve a healthcare professional before starting treatment during pregnancy.

Infographic: Elite athlete pros, cons (high injury risk, mental stress), and safety for performance.

Integrating Red Light Therapy into an Elite Recovery System

When I sit down with a competitive athlete to talk about adding red light therapy, we begin with a simple framework: foundations first, adjuncts second.

Sleep is the cornerstone. Athletic Lab and University Hospitals both emphasize that no technology replaces consistent, high‑quality sleep with appropriate duration and timing. Nutrition, hydration, smart training design, load management, and strength and mobility work form the rest of the base. Only once these are reasonably in place does red light therapy make sense as a targeted tool.

For a high‑performance runner, hockey player, or basketball athlete, a sensible integration plan might look like this. A few evenings each week, they spend 10–20 minutes exposing key lower‑body muscle groups to a red and near‑infrared device while they stretch, breathe, or do light mobility work. On heavy strength days, they may add a brief pre‑session exposure using wavelengths and approximate doses that echo successful trials, acknowledging that results are not guaranteed. If they are working through a mild hamstring strain or Achilles tendinopathy under the guidance of a sports medicine clinician, clinic‑grade red light sessions may be woven into their rehab plan alongside manual therapy and exercise, especially in the early post‑injury period.

Throughout, athletes are reminded that red light therapy does not replace essential steps like respecting pain, adjusting load, or seeking medical evaluation for serious injury. It is most valuable when it helps them maintain good training consistency without over‑reliance on pain medications or aggressive training while still compromised.

FAQ

Is red light therapy more of a performance booster or a recovery tool?

Based on current evidence, red light therapy is better viewed as a recovery and symptom‑management tool than as a direct performance booster. Some studies show improved strength or endurance metrics when light is applied before training, and a notable pilot study found faster return‑to‑play after injury. At the same time, several well‑designed trials and coach analyses report no meaningful changes in objective performance. It is reasonable to hope for subtle gains in how you feel and recover, but it is not realistic to expect dramatic improvements in race times or match statistics from red light alone.

How often should competitive athletes use red light therapy?

Most protocols in the literature and in performance practices involve repeated sessions several times per week over at least two to four weeks. Vitality RLT and Voice in Sport describe daily or near‑daily sessions of around 20 minutes as common for athletes using at‑home devices, while Athletic Lab treats 20 minutes as a practical upper limit per area for their equipment. Ultimately, consistency matters more than occasional long sessions, and the ideal frequency depends on your specific goals, device output, and overall training load.

Who should talk to a medical professional before starting?

Anyone with a history of skin cancer, serious eye disease, uncontrolled chronic illness, or those using medications that increase light sensitivity should consult a physician before starting red light therapy. Pregnant athletes, or those with complex pain conditions such as fibromyalgia or advanced osteoarthritis, should also involve their healthcare team to ensure that red light is appropriate and integrated safely with other treatments.

Can red light therapy replace other recovery methods like sleep, nutrition, or physical therapy?

No. All major clinical and coaching sources, including Stanford Medicine, University Hospitals, Athletic Lab, and the Journal of Biophotonics review, point to red light therapy as an adjunct, not a replacement, for established recovery and rehabilitation practices. It should sit alongside quality sleep, sound nutrition, well‑structured training, physical therapy when needed, and other evidence‑based modalities such as exercise therapy and appropriate load management.

Red light therapy can be a thoughtful addition to your recovery toolkit if you are a competitive athlete pursuing elite performance. Use it with clear goals, realistic expectations, and respect for the rest of your recovery system, and it can help you train harder, hurt less, and protect the longevity of both your body and your career.