How infrared phototherapy and photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) affect recovery and performance for running, OCR, and endurance sports
Thomas Solomon, PhD.
Updated onReading time approx 5 minutes (1250 words).
What you’ll learn:
Infrared phototherapy uses infrared (or near-infrared) light to warm up a specific muscle area, raising local muscle temperature.
Infrared phototherapy is unlikely to improve recovery after exercise, but it may give a small boost to performance when used before exercise (for example, more reps-to-failure or longer time-to-exhaustion).
Curious about the how and why? Scroll down for the details, the nuances, and the nerdy bits.
The information I provide is not medical advice. Before making any changes to your habits of daily living based on any information I provide, always ensure it is safe for you to do so and consult your doctor if you are unsure.
What is infrared phototherapy/photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT)?
Humans have used heat for sore muscles basically forever. And yes, pop culture agrees: Mr Miyagi “fixed” Daniel LaRusso’s leg mid-fight with some intense hands-on heat wizardry… then Daniel went back out there and did the Crane Kick thing. Science is still catching up to karate movies, sadly.
In actual lab studies, older-school heat tools (like hot-water perfused garments) suggest that heating the thigh to about 52°C (about 126°F) for 90 minutes, 5 days per week, for 8 weeks may increase knee extensor strength in untrained, healthy young adults. Another study found that 5 sessions of thigh heat treatment (54 to 55°C, about 129 to 131°F) after a tough eccentric knee extension workout (300 maximal eccentric contractions, using both legs) may speed up recovery of fatigue resistance (but not strength) in the same type of population. Interesting, and also mildly brutal.
Infrared phototherapy is a newer, more “techy” cousin of these heat-based ideas. It also goes by a bunch of aliases — photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), diathermy, infrared low-level laser therapy, light-emitting diode (LED) therapy, and so on — like a spy who can’t stop collecting passports. Whatever the name, the basic idea is simple: you shine infrared (or near-infrared) light on a target muscle to deliver energy locally.
A narrative reviewA narrative review describes an entire body of evidence to summarise what is known on a topic. However, instead of using a systematic approach, a narrative review takes a subjective approach that allows the author(s) to express their opinion on the topic. concluded that infrared phototherapy might help sports performance, especially strength and muscle growth, which could raise questions about fairness within World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) rules. There are studies suggesting it can boost the muscle-building or strength response to resistance training in untrained men and older women. An identical-twin case studyA report of an interesting and unexpected outcome (a side effect, usually an adverse outcome) in a person who has received a specific treatment. A case study shows what is possible in one person, not what is probable in all people. reported better strength and less muscle damage, and another case study suggested a possible endurance benefit in 1 elite runner — but that finding was not confirmed in a small randomised controlled trialThe “gold standard” approach for determining whether a treatment has a causal effect on an outcome of interest. In such a study, a sample of people representing the population of interest is randomised to receive the treatment or a no-treatment placebo (control), and the outcome of interest is measured before and after exposure to the treatment and control..
So yeah, the “performance” story sounds exciting. But most of those examples focus on doing better during exercise, not recovering after exercise. Also, cherry-picking studies is fun, but it’s not exactly the scientific version of eating your greens. Let’s look at the broader evidence.
What is the scientific evidence on the effect of infrared phototherapy/photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) on recovery and athletic performance?
Some evidence suggests that using infrared phototherapy before exercise might lower post-exercise blood levels of creatine kinase (CK), which is a biochemical marker of muscle damage (see Li et al. 2024, Machado et al. 2020, Luo et al. 2022, and Nampo et al. 2016. However, the evidence suggests infrared phototherapy is unlikely to reduce muscle soreness or pain caused by exercise (see Nampo et al. 2016). There are also few studies overall, and large differences between studies make it hard to be confident about the “average” effect. Importantly, there is currently no data on the recovery of performance after exercise.
Using infrared phototherapy before resistance exercise does not seem to increase muscle strength (Bezerra et al. 2023), but it may help you last longer during the session. In studies, people often did more reps-to-failure, completed more total reps, and had a smaller drop in maximal voluntary isometric contraction (basically, a hard “max squeeze” without moving the joint) during resistance exercise (see Li et al. 2024, Dutra et al. 2022, Luo et al. 2022, and Leal-Junior et al. 2013). One study also found it may improve recovery of feelings of fatigue after a resistance session (Bezerra et al. 2023).
Using infrared phototherapy before endurance exercise might extend time-to-exhaustion during cycling (see Dutra et al. 2022 and Luo et al. 2022), but there are very few studies on endurance performance overall (including running). The effects on time-trial performance need more research before we can make firm conclusions. Also, the current evidence does not show a clear benefit of infrared phototherapy alone, or combined with training, for improving running performance measured with time-trial or time-to-exhaustion tests (see Nascimento et al. 2024).
When performance benefits show up, they mostly show up when phototherapy is used before exercise, not after (see Dutra et al. 2022, Luo et al. 2022, Leal-Junior et al. 2013, and Borsa et al. 2013).
In the review by Leal-Junior et al., the biggest and most consistent effects were reported when: (i) red or infrared wavelengths were used, (ii) treatment was given before exercise, and (iii) the device delivered 50 to 200 milliwatts at a dose of 5 to 6 joules per spot. If you’re shopping for a device, those specs are worth checking.
One more nuance: there are only a handful of studies in this area, and many are from the same research group. We really need more independent labs to weigh in.
A different application showed up in Hafen et al. 2019. They used infrared heat treatment on the quadriceps for 2 hours per day for 10 days, raising muscle temperature by about 4.2°C (about 7.6°F) above normal body temperature, and they reduced muscle atrophy in an immobilised leg in physically active, healthy adults. This suggests a potential role for maintaining muscle mass during prolonged bed rest (injury, illness, hospitalisation) or older age, but we need more studies to be confident.
Phototherapy might also beat cryotherapy for relief from delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and muscle damage (see Ferlito et al. 2021), but that claim needs a lot more research behind it.
On the safety side, there are currently no documented adverse effects of phototherapy, so it seems unlikely to harm recovery.
Can infrared phototherapy/photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) enhance recovery and athletic performance?
Infrared phototherapy is unlikely to reduce post-exercise muscle soreness, and there is currently no direct data on whether it speeds up the recovery of performance after exercise.
The most consistent upside is when it’s used before exercise: it may improve performance during muscular endurance tasks (for example, more reps-to-failure or more total reps). Muscle strength itself does not seem to improve.
Some evidence suggests pre-exercise infrared phototherapy might extend endurance time-to-exhaustion in cycling, but evidence for running is unclear.
There is some evidence that infrared heat treatment may help maintain muscle mass during prolonged bed rest (injury, illness, hospitalisation), but more studies are needed before we get too excited.
The effect sizesA standardized measure of the magnitude of an effect of an intervention. Unlike p-values, effect sizes show how large the effect is and indicate how meaningful it might be. Common effect size measures include standardised mean difference (SMD), Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g, eta-squared, and correlation coefficients. are generally small, and appear to be similar between trained athletes and untrained people, and between males and females. However, few studies have directly tested these comparisons.
Keep in mind: there are few studies on this topic and many have been published by the same lab. There is also high heterogeneityHeterogeneity shows how much the results in different studies in a meta-analysis vary from each other. It is measured as the percentage of variation (the I2 value). A rule of thumb: if I2 is roughly 25%, that indicates low heterogeneity (good), 50% is moderate, and 75% indicates high heterogeneity (bad). High heterogeneity means there’s more variability in effects between studies and, therefore, a less precise overall effect estimate. (variability) in results between studies, a moderate to high risk of biasRisk of bias in a meta-analysis refers to the potential for systematic errors in the studies included in the analysis. Such errors can lead to misleading/invalid results, and unreliable conclusions. This can arise because of issues with the way participants are selected (randomisation), how data is collected and analysed, and how the results are reported., and possible publication biasPublication bias in meta-analysis occurs when studies with significant results are more likely to be published than those with non-significant findings, leading to distorted conclusions. This bias can inflate effect sizes and misrepresent the true effectiveness of interventions, making it crucial to identify and correct for it in research.. So, the overall certainty of evidenceCertainty of evidence tells us how confident we are that the published results accurately reflect the true effect. It’s based on factors like study design, risk of bias, consistency, directness, precision, and publication bias. Low certainty means more doubt and less confidence, and that future studies could easily change the conclusions. High certainty means that the current evidence is so strong and consistent that future studies are unlikely to change conclusions. is lowA low quality of evidence means that, in general, studies in this field have several limitations. This could be due to inconsistency in effects between studies, a large range of effect sizes between studies, and/or a high risk of bias (caused by inappropriate controls, a small number of studies, small numbers of participants, poor/absent randomization processes, missing data, inappropriate methods/statistics). When the quality of evidence is low, there is more doubt and less confidence in the overall effect of an intervention, and future studies could easily change overall conclusions. The best way to improve the quality of evidence is for scientists to conduct large, well-controlled, high-quality randomized controlled trials.. Therefore, additional high-quality randomised controlled trialsThe “gold standard” approach for determining whether a treatment has a causal effect on an outcome of interest. In such a study, a sample of people representing the population of interest is randomised to receive the treatment or a no-treatment placebo (control), and the outcome of interest is measured before and after the exposure to treatment/control. are needed to increase the certainty (confidence) in the overall effect sizes reported in meta-analysesA meta-analysis quantifies the overall effect size of a treatment by compiling effect sizes from all known studies of that treatment..
Further research is also needed to determine the optimal dose and light wavelength of infrared phototherapy.
The nice part: infrared phototherapy doesn’t appear to harm recovery or performance. So, if you like it and it seems to work for you, you’re probably fine to keep it in your routine. Just remember that time and money spent doing recovery with something that has no clear benefit might be better spent resting, eating something nutritious, and doing something calm… boring, but wildly effective.
How to use this: If you’re going to try infrared phototherapy, the evidence points toward using it before a key workout, aimed at the specific muscles you’re about to hammer. Keep expectations realistic: think “small performance nudge”, not “instant recovery cheat code”.
Information you can trust. All content on Veohtu is meticulously researched and written by Thomas Solomon, PhD. He does not sell supplements, recovery products, or ad space, and he has no sponsorships, brand affiliations, or ambassador roles. Everything you read reflects his independent views, shaped solely by peer-reviewed scientific evidence — and that will never change.
Full list of meta-analyses examining infrared phototherapy/photobiomodulation therapy for recovery
Here are the meta-analyses I've summarised above:
Effects of photobiomodulation, intermittent pneumatic compression and neuromuscular electrical stimulation on muscle recovery: Systematic review with meta-analysis. Canez et al. J Bodyw Mov Ther. 2025
Photobiomodulation therapy as an adjunct to resistance exercises on muscle metrics, functional balance, functional capacity, and physical performance among older adults: A systematic scoping review. Kumar et al. Lasers Med Sci. (2024)
Can pre-exercise photobiomodulation improve muscle endurance and promote recovery from muscle strength and injuries in people with different activity levels? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Li et al. Lasers Med Sci. (2024)
A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Effects of Photobiomodulation Therapy on Running Performance. Nascimento et al. Int J Exerc Sci. (2024)
Effects of photobiomodulation therapy on the functional performance of healthy individuals: a systematic review with meta-analysis. Bezerra LO, de Macedo LES, da Silva MLA, de Oliveira JMP, de Morais Gouveia GP, de Andrade PR, Micussi MTABC. Lasers Med Sci. 2023
Deconstructing the Ergogenic Effects of Photobiomodulation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of its Efficacy in Improving Mode-Specific Exercise Performance in Humans. Yago M Dutra, Elvis S Malta, Amanda S Elias, James R Broatch, Alessandro M Zagatto. Sports Med. 2022
Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Muscular Performance and Soreness Recovery in Athletes: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Wun-Ting Luo, Chieh-Jui Lee, Ka-Wai Tam, and Tsai-Wei Huang. Sports Health. 2022
Comparison between cryotherapy and photobiomodulation in muscle recovery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. João Vitor Ferlito, Marcos Vinicius Ferlito, Ernesto Cesar Pinto Leal-Junior , Shaiane Silva Tomazoni, Thiago De Marchi. Lasers Med Sci. 2021
Phototherapy on Management of Creatine Kinase Activity in General Versus Localized Exercise: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Machado AF, Micheletti JK, Lopes JSS, Vanderlei FM, Leal-Junior ECP, Netto Junior J, Pastre CM. Clin J Sport Med. 2020
Effect of phototherapy (low-level laser therapy and light-emitting diode therapy) on exercise performance and markers of exercise recovery: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Leal-Junior EC, Vanin AA, Miranda EF, de Carvalho Pde T, Dal Corso S, Bjordal JM.
Lasers Med Sci. 2015
Effect of low-level phototherapy on delayed onset muscle soreness: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Nampo FK, Cavalheri V, de Paula Ramos S, Camargo EA.
Lasers Med Sci. 2015
Does phototherapy enhance skeletal muscle contractile function and postexercise recovery? A systematic review.
Borsa PA, Larkin KA, True JM.
J Athl Train. 2013
Share this article with your people:
Who is Thomas Solomon?
My knowledge has been honed following 20+ years of running, cycling, hiking, cross-country skiing, lifting, and climbing, 15+ years of academic research at world-leading universities and hospitals, and 10+ years advising and coaching in athletic performance and lifestyle change.
I have a BSc in Biochemistry, a PhD in Exercise Science, and over 90 peer-reviewed publications in medical journals.
I'm also an ACSM-certified Exercise Physiologist (ACSM-EP), an ACSM-certified Personal Trainer (ACSM-CPT), a VDOT-certified Distance Running Coach, and a UKVRN Registered Nutritionist (RNutr).
Since 2002, I’ve conducted biomedical research in exercise and nutrition and have taught and led university courses in exercise physiology, active recovery, biochemistry, and molecular medicine.
And, with my personal experience of competing on the track (800m to 10,000m), the road (5 k to marathon), on the trails, and in the mountains, by foot, bicycle, cross-country ski, and during obstacle course races (OCR), I deeply understand what it's like to train and compete — I've been there, done it, and gotten sweat, mud, and tears on my t-shirt.
Disclaimer: I occasionally mention brands and products, but it is important to know that I don't sell recovery products, supplements, or ad space, and I'm not affiliated with / sponsored by / an ambassador for / receiving advertisement royalties from any brands. I have conducted biomedical research for which I’ve received research money from publicly-funded national research councils and medical charities, and also from private companies, including Novo Nordisk Foundation, AstraZeneca, Amylin, the A.P. Møller Foundation, and the Augustinus Foundation. I’ve also consulted for Boost Treadmills and Gu Energy on R&D grant applications, and I provide research and scientific writing services for Examine.com. Some of my articles contain links to information provided by Examine.com but I do not receive any royalties or bonuses from those links. Importantly, none of the companies described above have had any control over the research design, data analysis, or publication outcomes of my work. I research and write my content using state-of-the-art, consensus, peer reviewed, and published scientific evidence combined with my empirical evidence observed in practice and feedback from athletes. My advice is, and always will be, based on my own views and opinions shaped by the scientific evidence available. The information I provide is not medical advice. Before making any changes to your habits of daily living based on any information I provide, always ensure it is safe for you to do so and consult your doctor if you are unsure.