Red Light Therapy or EMS for the Face, How They Differ
Medically reviewed by
4 independent reviewers
Andrew Conrad Barile, PT, DPT
Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) | Licensed Physical Therapist (PT) | CEO and Founder, Xtreem Pulse LLC
Read bio
Dr. Andrew Conrad Barile is a Doctor of Physical Therapy and the CEO and Founder of Xtreem Pulse LLC, the engineering company behind PureLift. He earned his Doctorate in Physical Therapy from Daemen College and is a licensed physical therapist.
He brings over two decades of clinical and entrepreneurial experience across physical therapy, craniosacral therapy and medical device innovation, built on a working knowledge of human anatomy and muscle physiology.
For PureLift LAB he reviews how current is delivered across all ten levels, from sub-sensory nanocurrent and skin-level microcurrent to motor-level EMS, and how the Infuse pass fits into the same ten-minute routine.
Bertica M. Rubio, M.D.
Board-Certified Physician, Dartmouth Medical School | Medical Director, Antiaging Regenerative Medicine Clinic
Read bio
Dr. Bertica M. Rubio is a board-certified physician and Medical Director of the Antiaging Regenerative Medicine Clinic in Redlands, California. She earned her Doctor of Medicine from Dartmouth Medical School and completed her pediatrics residency at UC Irvine Medical Center.
With decades of clinical experience, she specialises in age management medicine, regenerative medicine, wound healing and growth factor therapies, and her practice integrates evidence-based medical science with advanced aesthetic treatment.
For PureLift LAB she reviews articles for medical accuracy across the whole dial, from the gentle nanocurrent and microcurrent settings through to muscle-level EMS and the Infuse pass.
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS
Board-Certified Otolaryngologist | Head and Neck Surgeon | Fellow, American College of Surgeons | Mount Sinai
Read bio
Daniel Grinberg, MD, FACS is a board-certified otolaryngologist and head and neck surgeon at ENT and Allergy Associates in West Nyack, New York. He earned his medical degree from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons.
He completed his otolaryngology residency at New York University Medical Center, serves as Assistant Clinical Professor at Mount Sinai School of Medicine, and is a Fellow of both the American College of Surgeons and the American Academy of Otolaryngology.
For PureLift LAB he brings a wider clinical lens, connecting at-home facial stimulation from microcurrent to EMS to the anatomy underneath, with the same rigour we apply to every device specification.
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann
Chair of Angiology, Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg | Clinic Director, University Clinic for Angiology
Read bio
Prof. Dr. med. Ivo Buschmann is Chair of Angiology at the Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane and Clinic Director of the University Clinic for Angiology at the Brandenburg University Hospital.
He trained at the University of Hamburg, was a Max Planck Society Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, and held senior consultant posts at the Charite Universitatsmedizin Berlin before his appointment as Chair in 2016.
One of Europe's leading authorities on arteriogenesis, with over 150 peer-reviewed publications and US and EU patents, he reviews for PureLift LAB how the evidence on electrical stimulation is read and where its limits lie.
Share
Red light and EMS get compared as rivals, and they work on different layers through completely different physics, so the comparison is the wrong shape.
This article compares the two on what decides the result you actually see, such as:
- What red light does
- What EMS does
- Matching each to a concern
- Running both together
- Both in one device
and many more!
Neither is better, and if you own both the order matters.
Key Points:
Light is absorbed by cellular structures in the skin; current fires the nerve that drives muscle.
Red light is for the appearance of lines and texture, EMS is for the muscle layer.
They do not interfere, so running both is a matter of practicality rather than risk.
Light goes first on bare clean skin, then the conductive serum and the EMS pass.
PureLift GLOW is the only model with both in one handheld.
What red light does
Light at specific wavelengths penetrates a short distance into the skin and is absorbed by cellular structures, which is an optical and biochemical route rather than an electrical one.
A split-face LED phototherapy trial supports red light for the appearance of lines (Lee 2007).
Blue light at around 465 nm is studied for inflammatory acne, working on a different mechanism again and on a different concern.
Light does not reach the muscle layer at these wavelengths and output levels, and nothing about a longer session changes that.
What EMS does
EMS delivers current through the skin to the motor nerve underneath, and when enough of it arrives the nerve fires and the muscle contracts without any instruction from you.
That threshold is the whole story, since below it nothing contracts however the current is shaped (Ward 2009).
Kavanagh 2012 followed 108 women using daily facial muscle stimulation for twelve weeks and ultrasound measured an 18.6 percent increase in cheek-muscle thickness (Kavanagh 2012).
Chang 2020 tested the same idea against an identical-looking dummy device and found muscle thickness and bite force increased after six weeks (Chang 2020).
Matching each to a concern
Fine lines, texture and tone sit in the skin, so red light is aimed at the right layer for those.
Breakouts are also a skin concern, and blue light is the wavelength studied for them.
A softening jawline and flattening cheeks are shaped by what sits underneath the skin, and muscle is the one part of that a device reaches, which is EMS territory.
So the question is not which technology is stronger, it is which layer your complaint lives in, and most people honestly asked will name something in both.
Running both together
Light and current do not compete for the same pathway, so there is no interaction to worry about and the sequence is decided by practicality.
If you are using an LED mask and a separate current device, run the mask first on bare clean skin, since anything on the surface can absorb or scatter light before it arrives.
Then apply a water-based conductive serum generously and run the EMS session, because wearing a mask over that layer would smear it and defeat both.
A full stack lands around twenty minutes, and if that is more time than you have, alternating days beats halving both sessions.
Check your mask's own instructions, since a few are designed to be used with a specific serum and the manufacturer's guidance beats a general rule.
Both in one device
PureLift GLOW at $999 carries red at 634 nm, cleared for the treatment of wrinkles, and blue at 465 nm, cleared for mild-to-moderate inflammatory acne, at 5 light levels, and the two can run together as purple.
The light runs while you work rather than as a separate step, so it costs no extra time in a ten-minute session.
Being honest about the structural difference, GLOW lights the area the probe is passing over while a mask illuminates the whole face at once, so coverage is not equivalent.
Against that, the masks in this price band deliver no current at all, so if you were buying both anyway GLOW replaces the pair.
The other four PureLift models have no light, and they run the same nanocurrent, microcurrent, EMS, Infusion and iontophoresis, so if you already own a mask you like there is no need to move up to GLOW.
Safety notes for either
Follow eye-protection guidance for any light device, and blue light can leave dark marks on medium and deeper skin tones, so start on a low setting.
Do not stack two treatments on skin that is already irritated, sunburnt or broken, and if you are new to both, run them on separate days for the first fortnight so you can tell which one your skin is reacting to.
Anyone with a pacemaker or another implanted electronic device, anyone pregnant and anyone with epilepsy or a seizure disorder should not use an electrical facial device at all.