Reviewed and recommended: Baby Quasar at home LED device
It was without much enthusiasm that I embarked on trying out the Baby Quasar LED light therapy device. It's a boring and somewhat time-consuming process (as I related in last week's post) and, frankly, I wasn't at all convinced that I would see any results from a salon device that has been scaled down for use at home. Well, I've seen the light. Baby Quasar works.
Before I describe the results, it is worth a brief diversion to explain what LED is and how it works. LED stands for light emitting diode. A low-level power output uses red light (visible) and infra-red light (invisible). LED is much gentler than intense pulse light (IPL) or laser resurfacing. It works by stimulating the body's tissues to convert the light energy into cellular energy. It boosts collagen production and scavenger cells that remove excess pigmentation or scar tissue.
In Europe, LED has been used for about 50 years to treat muscular pain, scars and wounds. It came to be used in the US relatively recently in the 1980s.
Now let's be clear: the results are not on a par with my salon experiences with LED (which I think
are amazing). But there is a very distinct improvement of my skin's texture. It is firmer, plumper and has a nice healthy glow. I've been using the Baby Quasar on my hands as well as face and here the results are even more impressive. After three sessions, the clock has been turned back by at least a year.
LED is a fairly gentle treatment. The only side effects are some temporary pinkness and a terrible thirst (LED boosts lymphatic drainage, so have a glass of water to hand). The Baby Q, so far, seems to be extremely reliable and doesn't overheat. And, unlike some of the in-home devices, it has three settings and infra-red light. I won't be giving up my salon sessions, but this is a great little booster for in between times.
Loading...
I have a suggestion:
I think you should also try the Pretika knockoff of this device, "Pretika Lightsonic Pulsating Light Therapy" and compare the two. The Pretika version is significantly, significantly cheaper.
Pretika also has a brush which is a knockoff of the clarisonic brush- again, much cheaper. I have the Pretika brush. I think it would be a good idea to compare the pretika brush to the clarisonic also.
Posted on September 8, 2008 at 9:15 am
Splendid idea. I have sent off for a Pretika brush. If that doesn't sandblast my face off then I might venture to the LED. Anyway, I'll let you know how I get on the brush.
Posted on September 8, 2008 at 11:43 am
Why did my e-mail display earlier? I don't like that, can it be fixed? I thought it's not supposed to display the e-mail.
Posted on September 8, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Dead right. I'll contact Typepad and look into it.
Posted on September 8, 2008 at 5:12 pm
It's my understanding from other forum posts that the Pretika brush does an adequate job for the price point, but the real difference is in the brush head.
Clarsonic offers brushes of multiple stiffness, whereas the Pretika brush comes in one stiffness. According to one reviewer who has Rosacea, the Pretika brush stiffness is the default "OW" setting. :)
Posted on September 8, 2008 at 9:53 pm
It looks as if you inadvertently put your email address in the author line. I've removed it.
Posted on September 9, 2008 at 5:56 am
Thank you for removing the e-mail address. I'll try to be more careful now. About the relative stiffness of the Pretika brush- I don't find it stiff but I've never tried the clarisonic. It should be used gently, and not pressed into the skin. But I really am interested in a comparison to the clarisonic. Maybe the pretika brush head is similar to one of the less soft clarisonic brush heads?
Posted on September 9, 2008 at 6:06 am
I was wondering if you had a chance to review the Pretika Lightsonic compared to the Baby Qasar? As an Esthetician for over 15 years I have been impressed with the Pretika Lightsonic particularly for the price.
Posted on April 26, 2009 at 2:52 pm
I haven't tried the Pretika Lightsonic, however I wasn't very impressed with their version of the Clarisonic brush.
Posted on April 27, 2009 at 2:18 am
Hi Marta,
I just received my Baby Quasar and the instructions included are not what I would consider thorough, so of course I checked TIA for more information. I tried the links to the above-mentioned Related Articles "Why I Chose Baby Quasar and How to Use It" and "A Demonstration of How to Use the Baby Q" but I don't get redirected to those articles - the links just bring me back to the home page. Could you please provide links to those pages.
Thanks for your help!
Posted on November 14, 2009 at 4:05 am
Angela, the links should be fixed now.
Posted on November 14, 2009 at 8:26 am
Marta, you are a goddess! Thank you so much for your quick response - and on a Saturday no less.
Posted on November 14, 2009 at 10:19 am
I've got the TAnda LED system, and since they all seem to be based on the same technology I was wondering if there really would be any difference between any of them, especially since the Baby Quaser seems to be higher priced? Do you have any plans to perhaps consider conducting a comparison on these? Thanks Marta, I check out your website daily and already have a list of products I plan on trying out.
Posted on November 29, 2009 at 9:04 am
Laura, that's a good idea. I'll try to get hold of some samples to review.
Posted on November 30, 2009 at 6:40 am
marta, I've researched a bit into the different brands. I've read that the Tanda unit often lose charge after a while (even connecting the unit to an outlet will not work) and customer service isn't as good as Quasar. For something so expensive, you'd think they would have good customer service. I'm actually interested in a comparison between the combination of Baby Quasar red and blue, Lightstim, and Lightwave CS. Lightstim and Lightwave CS are much more affordable if both anti-aging and acne are the concerns.
Posted on December 27, 2009 at 5:06 am
Hi Shirlene,
From what I can tell, LightTherapy (which looks a bit Heath Robinson) seems to be for acne only. Lightstim looks more comparable to the Baby Q and is less expensive. I did one reviewer saying that Lightstim took longer than BQ to get results. I'll see if we can get hold of one.
Posted on December 31, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Is there any long term damage from the Baby Quasar Red? Is it ok to use on Asian skins? Thanks:)
Posted on April 28, 2011 at 10:43 am
I bought a used Baby Quasar Red on EBay a couple of months ago. Can it be repaired or should I buy new next time? Thanks!
Posted on July 16, 2011 at 9:31 am
So which one is better the red or the blue for aging skin. I dont have any lines or wrinkles but Im in my forties already.
Posted on February 21, 2012 at 12:30 am
Hi Madeline, the red is better for aging skin. The blue is for acne.
Posted on February 21, 2012 at 8:59 am