Recovery devices explained

Recovery devices range from well-studied to wishful thinking, and the marketing rarely tells you which is which. This guide sets out what each device is, what it claims, and what the research actually shows.

How to read the evidence ratings

• Strong: many good-quality trials agree, usually pooled in large reviews.
• Moderate: many trials point the same way, but they're small or the effect is short-lived.
• Mixed: some positive trials, but results vary or the studies are small.
• Weak: few trials, or good trials that mostly found no difference from a sham.
• None: no reliable trials, or trials that found it works no better than a placebo.

In fairness: &Recover sells red light panels, LED masks and lasers. We've rated them by the same rules as everything else.

This guide is general information, not medical advice. If you have pain that is new, severe or not settling, see your GP or a registered health professional first.

Light devices

These all shine red or near-infrared light onto the skin. The research term is photobiomodulation (PBM). What differs is the light source, the power and how much light reaches the tissue.

Red and near-infrared LED panels

Evidence: Mixed

• What it is: a flat panel of LEDs, usually red (around 630–660 nm) and near-infrared (around 810–850 nm).
• The claim: supports muscle recovery, joints and skin.
• What research shows: a 2018 review of 39 trials of light used around exercise found generally positive results with both lasers and LEDs, though trial quality was low to moderate and doses varied widely. A 2025 review found LEDs and lasers gave similar gains in repetitions. Most trials used small LED arrays on target muscles rather than large panels.
• Where: home or clinic. Roughly £150–£1,500.

LED face masks and wraps

Evidence: Mixed

• What it is: LEDs built into a mask, pad or flexible wrap that sits on the skin.
• The claim: mostly skin appearance; wraps are sold for joints and muscles.
• What research shows: the best-known trial (136 people, 2014) found smoother skin and denser collagen after 30 sessions, compared with untreated volunteers. But it used full-body light units rather than masks, and had no sham group. Trials of masks themselves are small. Some masks now advertise laser chips or 1064 nm light. There's no evidence 1064 nm helps facial skin, and invisible light that close to the eyes adds risk.
• Where: home. Roughly £50–£500.

Low-level lasers (Class 3B)

Evidence: Mixed, and among the best-studied here

• What it is: a handheld laser (up to 500 mW) placed on the skin over a small area. Low power, so it doesn't heat tissue.
• The claim: reduces pain and supports tissue recovery.
• What research shows: a 2009 review in The Lancet pooled 16 trials and found less pain than with sham lasers. Getting the dose right mattered.
• Where: clinic, and increasingly home. Roughly £500–£5,000. Needs eye protection.

High-power lasers (Class 4)

Evidence: Mixed

• What it is: a laser above 500 mW that warms the tissue, used by clinicians.
• The claim: reaches deeper and works faster.
• What research shows: a 2023 review of 48 trials found less pain and better function than controls, though many of the trials had a high risk of bias. A 2024 review of 12 trials (704 people) compared high- and low-power lasers directly and found neither clearly better for pain.
• Where: clinic only. Serious eye and burn hazard.

Laser or LED? Pulsed or continuous?

The honest answer to both is that nobody has proven one better. What the research does say:

• Laser or LED: a 2018 review by Heiskanen and Hamblin concluded the benefit doesn't seem to depend on laser light. LEDs at the right wavelength and dose appear to work too. Few trials compare them head to head.
• What matters more: the wavelength, the dose (power × time) and getting the light to the right spot. A laser concentrates light on a small area; a panel covers a large one at lower intensity.
• Does it heat tissue? Low-level lasers and LED panels don't heat tissue meaningfully; they work through light, not warmth. That's why they're called "cold" lasers. Class 4 lasers can warm tissue, so they're kept moving.
• More isn't always better: light follows a "sweet spot" dose. Too little does nothing, and well beyond the sweet spot the benefit fades.
• Pulsed or continuous: there's no agreement. A 2010 review found nine direct comparisons, and six favoured pulsing, but most were lab or animal studies. Continuous light is what most human trials used.
• Does pulsing mean a longer session? Often, yes. If the light is on half the time at the same strength, it delivers half the energy, so matching the dose takes twice as long. Some devices pulse at a higher peak to make up for it, so check the average power, not the peak.

When comparing devices, ask for the wavelength, the power density (mW/cm²) and the recommended time. Be wary of any claim that one type is proven better.

Infrared saunas

Evidence: Weak, for recovery claims

• What it is: a cabin heated by infrared lamps. Often confused with red light therapy, but it works by warming the whole body.
• The claim: recovery, detox, relaxation.
• What research shows: little good evidence for recovery. The main effect is heat.
• Where: home or gym. Home units roughly £1,000 upwards.

Magnetic and electrical devices

"Magnetic therapy" covers two very different things: a magnet that just sits there, and a device that pulses a changing field. The evidence for each is not the same.

Static magnets (bracelets, insoles, wraps)

Evidence: None to weak

• What it is: a permanent magnet worn against the body.
• The claim: relieves pain and improves circulation.
• What research shows: a 2007 review pooled nine placebo-controlled trials and found no real difference in pain between magnets and dummies. The authors couldn't rule out a small benefit for one type of joint pain, so more research was suggested.
• Where: home. Usually £10–£100.

PEMF (pulsed electromagnetic field) devices

Evidence: Mixed

• What it is: a mat, pad or clinic machine that sends pulses of magnetic field through the body.
• The claim: reduces pain and supports tissue and bone repair.
• What research shows: reviews disagree. Some find better function, others no clear pain benefit over sham. Devices and settings vary widely, which makes them hard to compare.
• Where: home or clinic. Home mats from about £200 to several thousand.

TENS (nerve stimulation) and EMS (muscle stimulation)

Evidence: TENS moderate; EMS mixed

• What it is: sticky pads that pass a mild electric current through the skin. TENS aims at nerves to dull pain; EMS makes muscles contract.
• The claim: TENS relieves pain; EMS strengthens or recovers muscles.
• What research shows: a 2022 review of 381 TENS trials found pain was lower during or straight after use than with a sham, with no serious side effects. The relief is short-term, while the device is on.
• Where: home. TENS units from about £20. Not for people with a pacemaker without medical advice.

Sound, vibration and pressure

Shockwave (ESWT)

Evidence: Moderate for some problems, mixed overall

• What it is: a clinic machine that fires strong acoustic pulses through the skin. "Radial" shockwave spreads out near the surface; "focused" shockwave reaches a deeper point.
• The claim: kick-starts healing in long-standing tendon and soft-tissue problems.
• What research shows: NICE's main guidance dates from 2009 and called the evidence inconsistent. Newer reviews are more positive: a 2024 review of eight meta-analyses found better pain and function than sham shockwave in knee osteoarthritis. Results still vary by problem, and the placebo response is strong. It can be uncomfortable, and bruising and local soreness are reported.
• Where: clinic only. Usually priced per session.

Therapeutic ultrasound

Evidence: Weak

• What it is: a handheld probe that sends sound waves into tissue, long used in physio clinics. Not the same as an ultrasound scan.
• The claim: reduces pain and speeds soft-tissue healing.
• What research shows: despite decades of use, reviews of placebo-controlled trials have found little evidence it works better than a switched-off probe.
• Where: clinic, and cheap home units.

Percussion massage guns

Evidence: Mixed

• What it is: a handheld device with a rapidly pounding head.
• The claim: faster recovery, less soreness, better flexibility.
• What research shows: short-term gains in flexibility are fairly consistent. Effects on strength and longer-term recovery are mixed. Avoid the front of the neck.
• Where: home. Roughly £30–£400.

Compression boots

Evidence: Weak to mixed

• What it is: inflatable sleeves for the legs that squeeze and release in sequence.
• The claim: flushes the legs and speeds recovery after training.
• What research shows: a 2024 review of 17 studies (319 people) found a trivial to small benefit for muscle function and some reduction in soreness, with very variable effects on markers of muscle damage.
• Where: home or gym. Roughly £300–£1,500.

Inversion tables

Evidence: Weak

• What it is: a hinged table that tips you head-down, so your body weight gently stretches the spine. A form of traction.
• The claim: takes pressure off the discs and relieves back pain.
• What research shows: a Cochrane review of 32 traction trials found little or no effect on pain, function or return to work. Some people feel real relief, and a small trial of 47 people found that 60-degree inversion eased back pain and improved flexibility over eight weeks.
• Where: home. Roughly £80–£300. Hanging head-down raises pressure in the head and eyes, so it's not for anyone with high blood pressure, heart disease, glaucoma or other eye conditions, or who is pregnant.

No need to go fully upside down. A partial tilt still puts traction on the lower back, because the weight of the upper body pulls on the lumbar spine. Most tables tilt in stages, and the studies used around 60 degrees. Going further adds pressure in the head without any proven extra benefit, so start shallow and build up.

Our view: best suited to people who are generally fit and can get on and off the table without strain. If climbing on, locking your ankles in or getting back upright is a struggle, it's the wrong tool.

Pressure chambers: HBOT and soft-shell

Evidence: Strong for specific medical uses; weak for recovery

• What it is: a sealed chamber where you breathe oxygen at higher than normal pressure. Medical HBOT (hyperbaric oxygen therapy) chambers are hard-shelled and use pure oxygen at two to three times normal pressure. Soft-shell "mild" chambers, sold for wellness, run at around 1.3 times.
• The claim: faster recovery, less inflammation, anti-ageing and more energy.
• What research shows: in hospitals it's an established treatment for a set list of problems, such as decompression sickness, carbon monoxide poisoning and slow-healing diabetic foot ulcers. For recovery, a Cochrane review of nine small trials found no evidence it helped muscle soreness after unaccustomed exercise, and some evidence of slightly more pain. Most wellness claims borrow from studies of medical HBOT, not soft-shell chambers.
• Where: hospital units for medical use; spas, gyms and clinics for wellness sessions. Home soft chambers cost thousands. Pressure changes can hurt the ears and sinuses, and pure oxygen is a fire risk, so these need trained supervision.
• For healthy people: wellness chambers are sold mainly on longevity and general health. There's no good evidence they improve either. The most-quoted study measured one marker of cell ageing in a small group of older adults, with no sham group and no measure of actual health.

Fringe devices

These are sold with big claims and testimonials. The common thread is that no reliable trials support them. The biggest risk isn't the device itself: it's delaying proper care while you try it.

Rife machines (plasma tubes)

Evidence: None

• What it is: a frequency generator, often with glowing gas-filled glass tubes or hand-held electrodes, based on 1930s ideas from Royal Raymond Rife.
• The claim: "matching the frequency" of a disease to destroy it. Some sellers claim it treats thousands of conditions.
• What research shows: Cancer Research UK says there is no reliable evidence it works. Shocks and skin rashes have been reported.
• Where: home, sold online. Often hundreds to thousands of pounds.

Bioresonance

Evidence: None

• What it is: a machine linked to the body by electrodes that claims to read and "correct" the body's energy frequencies. Often sold as a test for intolerances.
• The claim: detects and treats imbalances, intolerances and pain.
• What research shows: no good-quality trials support it as a test or a treatment. The UK advertising regulator (ASA) has upheld complaints against bioresonance claims several times, ruling that they weren't backed by evidence.
• Where: private clinics, priced per session.

Ionic bracelets and "frequency" pendants

Evidence: None

• What it is: jewellery said to release ions, "balance energy" or carry a healing frequency.
• The claim: relieves aches and boosts energy.
• What research shows: in a 2002 Mayo Clinic trial, 610 people wore either an "ionized" bracelet or an identical dummy for four weeks. Both groups felt better, by the same amount.
• Where: home. Usually £20–£150.

What about people it worked for?

Every device in this guide, including the fringe ones, has people who swear by it. Those experiences are real, and they deserve respect rather than ridicule. But a single story can't tell us what caused the result.

• Belief is powerful. Expectation, hope and the focus of a daily routine change how we feel, especially pain, energy and mood. In trials, people using a switched-off sham device often improve a great deal. That's not imagination; it's a measurable effect.
• A prognosis is an average. When someone is told they have a limited time, many people with the same diagnosis live longer, some much longer. Long survivors exist with or without any device.
• We mostly hear the success stories. People for whom a device didn't work rarely share their story.

That's exactly why fair tests matter. A trial compares the real device with an identical sham, so belief works equally in both groups and any extra difference belongs to the device. It's the one test that sceptics and supporters can both trust, and anyone selling a device could run one.

Hope helps people live better, and that's worth a great deal. The real danger is when hope in a device replaces a treatment that's been shown to work. Use whatever helps you feel better, but alongside proper care, never instead of it.

Weighing the evidence against the cost

The rating is only half the picture. Even a moderate benefit can be well worth having if the device is affordable, safe and something you'll actually use. A weak rating matters more when the price is high.

Before you buy, weigh up:

• The outlay against the alternative. A home device can cost less than a course of clinic sessions, and you can use it as often as you need.
• Cost per use. A £300 device used three times a week for a year costs under £2 a session. The same device left in a cupboard is expensive.
• The downside if it doesn't work for you. Look for a money-back period or a returns policy, so a modest gamble stays modest.
• Safety. A cheap device with real risks is never a bargain.

So a £20 TENS unit with moderate evidence is a low-risk try, while a Rife machine costing hundreds with no evidence is a poor bet at any price.

At a glance

Costs are rough UK guides and vary widely by brand.

Sources

• LED and laser around exercise: Vanin et al., Lasers Med Sci, 2018 and laser versus LED review, Lasers Med Sci, 2025
• Red light and skin: Wunsch & Matuschka, Photomed Laser Surg, 2014
• Low-level lasers: Chow et al., The Lancet, 2009
• High-power lasers: Arroyo-Fernández et al., J Clin Med, 2023 and Saleh et al., Lasers Med Sci, 2024
• Laser versus LED: Heiskanen & Hamblin, Photochem Photobiol Sci, 2018
• Dose "sweet spot": Hamblin, Photochem Photobiol, 2018
• Pulsed versus continuous: Hashmi et al., Lasers Surg Med, 2010
• Static magnets: Pittler et al., CMAJ, 2007
• PEMF: Markovic et al., 2022 and Cianni et al., J Clin Med, 2024
• TENS: Johnson et al., BMJ Open, 2022
• Shockwave: NICE guidance HTG200 and umbrella review, 2024
• Therapeutic ultrasound: Robertson & Baker, Physical Therapy, 2001
• Massage guns: Sams et al., Int J Sports Phys Ther, 2023
• Compression boots: Biology of Sport, 2024
• Inversion tables: Cochrane review, traction for low back pain and 60-degree inversion trial
• Pressure chambers: Bennett et al., Cochrane review, 2005
• Rife machines: Full Fact, citing Cancer Research UK
• Bioresonance: ASA advice on bioresonance therapy
• Ionic bracelets: Bratton et al., Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2002 (summary)