Magnetic boots and magnetic rugs are everywhere in the horse world — in tack rooms, at competitions, in the "recovery" section of every catalogue. Red light therapy is newer to the equine market but growing fast. Owners increasingly find themselves choosing between the two, and the honest starting point is this: they are not two versions of the same idea. Red light therapy (photobiomodulation) works by delivering light photons that are absorbed inside the cell. Static magnetic therapy works — or is claimed to work — by placing permanent magnets against the body. Completely different physics, and, as this guide will show, two very different evidence pictures.
Before going further, one distinction has to be cleared up, because it causes more confusion than any other in this area: static magnetic therapy is not PEMF. "Magnetic therapy" in the horse world usually means passive permanent magnets sewn into wraps, boots, and rugs. PEMF (pulsed electromagnetic field therapy) is a powered device producing a pulsing, time-varying field — a genuinely different modality with a stronger evidence base. This article is about static magnets. If you are weighing red light against PEMF specifically, that is a separate comparison, and our red light therapy vs PEMF guide covers it, because PEMF and static magnets sit at opposite ends of the evidence spectrum.
And the third point sets the honest tone. We sell red light therapy devices, so it would be easy to simply dismiss magnetic therapy — but that is not the fair or useful thing to do. Magnetic products are passive, low-risk, inexpensive, and popular for real practical reasons, and the scientific debate around them is not entirely settled. What this article will do is lay out what controlled equine studies have actually found, be honest about the limits of the evidence on both sides, and give magnetic therapy its due where it is due — while being clear about where the science currently stands.
The Short Answer
Red light therapy and static magnetic therapy work through completely different physics — and the controlled evidence treats them very differently.
Red light therapy (PBM): photons absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase → ATP production, nitric oxide release, inflammatory modulation. Mechanism well-characterised; large overall evidence base (equine-specific still developing).
Static magnetic therapy: permanent magnets in wraps/boots/rugs, claimed to increase blood flow and reduce pain. Controlled equine studies (JAVMA 2000; a blinded placebo-controlled magnetic-blanket trial) found no significant effect on blood flow, skin temperature, or pain thresholds versus non-magnetic controls.
Not the same as PEMF: PEMF is a pulsed, powered field with a stronger evidence base. Static magnets are passive and largely unsupported in horses.
The fair caveat: magnetic therapy is passive, cheap, and low-risk, and some horses seem to like it — but the physiological claims are not well supported. Neither modality replaces veterinary care.
Two Completely Different Physics
The first thing to understand is that these modalities have almost nothing in common at the mechanistic level. One uses light. The other uses a static magnetic field. They are as different as a torch and a fridge magnet — because, in a literal sense, that is roughly what they are.
| Red light therapy (PBM) | Static magnetic therapy | |
|---|---|---|
| Physics | Photonic — light photons at 660 nm (red) and 810–850 nm (near-infrared) | Static magnetic field — permanent magnets sewn into wraps, boots, and rugs |
| Proposed mechanism | Photons absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase in the mitochondria → increased ATP, nitric oxide release, modulation of inflammation and tissue repair | Claimed to increase blood flow and reduce pain by acting on charged particles and the iron in blood — an effect not demonstrated at therapeutic magnet strengths |
| Mechanism clarity | Well-characterised. Primary chromophore identified; downstream pathways mapped | The main proposed mechanism — increased blood flow — has been directly tested in horses and not supported |
| Delivery | Timed sessions (typically 10–15 minutes per area) with a powered LED device | Passive — magnets worn continuously for hours; no dosing, no timer |
| Energy source | Battery or mains (the LED array is powered) | None — permanent magnets require no power |
| Evidence base | Large across species (thousands of PBM publications); equine-specific clinical evidence still developing | Repeatedly negative in controlled equine studies; weak overall |
The practical takeaway from the physics alone is limited — plenty of therapies with unusual mechanisms turn out to work. What matters is not how strange the mechanism sounds, but whether the claimed effect can be measured. That is where the two modalities genuinely part ways.
The Critical Distinction: Static Magnets Are Not PEMF
This deserves its own section because getting it wrong leads people to good conclusions about the wrong thing. When a product or a person refers to "magnetic therapy," they could mean one of two completely different things:
- Static magnetic therapy — permanent magnets producing a constant, unchanging field. This is the passive boots, wraps, and rugs that make up the bulk of the equine "magnetic" market. No power source. This is what the present article is about.
- PEMF (pulsed electromagnetic field therapy) — a powered device generating a pulsing, time-varying electromagnetic field. This works through electromagnetic induction, which can activate cell-membrane receptors, and it is a genuinely different modality.
The evidence gap between them is large. PEMF is FDA-approved for the treatment of non-union fractures in humans and has a substantial research base, even if its equine-specific evidence is still limited. Static magnets have repeatedly failed to demonstrate their claimed effects in controlled equine studies. So a blanket statement like "magnets don't work" is imprecise — it is accurate for passive static magnets, but PEMF is a different proposition. If your decision is really red light versus PEMF, read that comparison rather than this one.
Why the confusion matters commercially
Marketing often blurs the line deliberately. A product described as "using magnetic technology" or "magnetic field therapy" might be passive static magnets — riding on the credibility of PEMF research that does not apply to it. The two are priced differently, powered differently, and supported by evidence differently.
Before buying anything on the strength of "magnetic" claims, establish which one it is: does it plug in or charge (likely PEMF), or is it simply a wrap with magnets sewn in (static)? The answer tells you which body of evidence is relevant — and they are not the same body of evidence.
What the Controlled Studies Actually Found
This is where an honest comparison has to be specific, because the marketing claims for magnetic products are precise — increased blood flow, reduced pain — and precise claims can be tested. In horses, they have been, and the results are not what the marketing implies.
| Study | What it tested | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Steyn et al., JAVMA, 2000 | Randomised controlled trial in horses: a commercial static magnetic wrap on one metacarpus vs a control wrap on the other, worn 48 hours; blood flow measured with radiolabelled red blood cells and scintigraphy | The static magnetic wraps did not increase the blood flow pattern of the metacarpus under the wrap |
| Magnetic-blanket crossover trial (2014) | Prospective, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled crossover in 10 healthy horses: a 900-gauss magnetic blanket vs a placebo blanket; measured muscle blood flow, skin temperature, mechanical nociceptive thresholds, and behaviour | No significant additional effect from the magnetic blanket versus the non-magnetic blanket on any measure |
| Systematic review of CAM electrotherapy (sport & companion animals) | Reviewed the published evidence for electrotherapies (including magnetic modalities) in horses, dogs, and cats | Studies were few and generally small; the overall evidence base is weak, and beneficial results have often not been independently replicated |
Reading these honestly
Two rigorous, controlled equine studies tested the two headline claims of magnetic products — increased blood flow and reduced pain — using objective measurement (radiolabelled cells, thermography, algometry) and proper placebo controls. Both found no significant effect. The proposed mechanism has not merely gone untested; it has been tested in horses and not supported. That is a stronger statement than "we don't know yet," and it is the honest reading of the equine literature as it stands.
It is also fair to note that this is an area some describe as still controversial — occasional studies with different magnet configurations or endpoints keep the debate open, and a handful of manufacturers cite their own or commissioned studies. But the weight of the controlled, independent equine evidence points against the physiological claims, not toward them.
Red Light Therapy's Evidence — Honestly Stated
For the comparison to be fair, red light therapy has to be held to the same honesty. Its position is stronger than static magnets', but it is not "proven cure" territory either.
What is well established is the mechanism: photobiomodulation acts through a specific, identified photoreceptor — cytochrome c oxidase — with mapped downstream effects on ATP production, nitric oxide-mediated vasodilation, and inflammatory modulation. Across all species and conditions, the overall PBM literature is large and includes high-quality human trials and systematic reviews. This is a fundamentally better-characterised and better-supported foundation than static magnetic therapy has.
What is still developing is the equine-specific clinical evidence. There are promising in vitro equine studies and some controlled work, but large-scale equine trials for specific conditions remain limited, and results across animal wound and soft-tissue models have not been uniformly positive. We have written about this honestly elsewhere, and it matters here: red light therapy's advantage over static magnets is real but is a difference of degree — a stronger mechanism and a larger, more positive evidence base — not a claim that PBM is definitively proven for every equine condition.
The honest summary of the evidence gap
Static magnetic therapy's central claims have been tested in controlled equine studies and not supported. Red light therapy has a well-characterised mechanism and a large cross-species evidence base, with equine-specific clinical evidence still growing. So on evidence, red light is the better-supported choice — but the honest framing is "characterised and developing" versus "tested and not supported," not "proven" versus "useless."
The Practical Comparison: Effort, Cost, and Fit
Evidence is not the only axis owners weigh. Magnetic therapy's genuine appeal is practical, and an honest comparison has to give it credit there.
| Red light therapy | Static magnetic therapy | |
|---|---|---|
| Effort | Requires a timed daily session per area (10–15 min); someone has to run it | Truly passive — put the wrap, boots, or rug on and leave it. Nothing to operate |
| Cost | Moderate to high one-time device purchase | Generally lower; simple magnetic boots and rugs are inexpensive |
| Battery / charging | Yes — the LED device is powered | No — permanent magnets need no power, ever |
| Best-supported use | Superficial soft-tissue support, wound healing, muscle recovery — where mechanism and evidence align | No use is well-supported by controlled equine evidence; used mainly for general comfort and "maintenance" |
| Risk | Very low at consumer LED power densities (non-thermal) | Very low — passive, non-thermal, no known harm |
| The honest catch | Equine clinical evidence still developing | Controlled equine studies have not shown the claimed physiological effects |
Where magnetic therapy genuinely wins is convenience and cost: it is the most passive modality in the barn, and the cheapest to buy. If an owner's honest goal is a low-effort, low-cost comfort layer — a rug the horse wears overnight — and they are not relying on it to treat anything specific, that is a defensible choice on those terms. What it should not be is a substitute for a therapy or a treatment that the horse actually needs.
Being Fair to Magnetic Therapy
It would be easy, and self-serving, to end here with "magnets don't work, buy light instead." That is neither accurate nor fair, so it is worth stating plainly what magnetic therapy has going for it.
- It is genuinely low-risk. Passive static magnets are non-thermal and have no known harmful effects. Nothing about wearing a magnetic rug hurts the horse.
- It is passive and effortless. No session, no timer, no battery. For busy owners, that convenience is real value even setting the physiology aside.
- The wrap itself has effects. A magnetic boot or rug still provides warmth and gentle compression — and warmth and light support can be genuinely comforting to a stiff or older horse, independent of the magnets.
- Many horses seem to like it. Owners and professionals report horses appearing more relaxed. That subjective impression is real, even if its cause is not necessarily the magnetic field.
- The debate is not fully closed. Occasional studies and different magnet designs keep the scientific conversation alive, and absence of a demonstrated effect is not the same as proof that no effect could ever exist under any configuration.
The fair conclusion is not that magnetic therapy is worthless — it is that its specific, marketed physiological claims are not supported by controlled equine evidence, while its practical virtues (passive, cheap, low-risk, comforting) are real. An owner who values those virtues and keeps their expectations honest is not making a mistake by using a magnetic rug.
Which Should You Choose — or Should You Combine Them?
The decision comes down to what you are actually trying to do.
- If you want the better-supported active therapy — something with a characterised mechanism and a genuine evidence base for supporting soft-tissue recovery, wound healing, and muscle comfort — red light therapy is the stronger choice. For the leg and lower-limb areas where magnetic boots are typically used, red light therapy leg boots target the same regions with a better-supported modality, and for the back and hindquarters where magnetic rugs sit, a full-body red light therapy blanket covers the equivalent area.
- If you want a passive, low-cost comfort layer and you are not relying on it to treat a diagnosed problem, a magnetic rug is a reasonable, low-risk option on those terms — just do not expect the physiological effects the marketing promises.
- If you want to use both, you can — there is no conflict, and both are low-risk. But be clear-eyed about the division of labour: the red light therapy (and the vet's plan) is doing the meaningful work, while the magnetic component is contributing warmth, support, and routine.
The line that matters most: for any injury, lameness, or diagnosed condition, the decisive factor is veterinary assessment and treatment — not the choice between two supportive modalities. Neither red light nor magnetic therapy should delay a vet visit or replace a diagnosis. Choose a supportive modality to sit alongside proper care, and if a condition is not improving, the conversation to have is with your vet.
Conclusion: Different Physics, and an Honest Evidence Gap
Red light therapy and static magnetic therapy are not competing versions of the same idea — they are different physics with very different evidence behind them. Red light therapy works through a well-characterised photochemical mechanism and rests on a large cross-species evidence base, with equine-specific clinical evidence still developing. Static magnetic therapy relies on a mechanism — increased blood flow — that has been directly tested in controlled equine studies and not supported.
The most important practical point is one of definition: static magnets are not PEMF. Passive magnets in boots and rugs are largely unsupported in horses; PEMF is a powered, pulsed modality with a stronger evidence base and its own separate comparison. Confusing the two leads to sound conclusions about the wrong thing.
And the fair conclusion respects both sides. Magnetic therapy is passive, inexpensive, low-risk, and comforting, and those are real virtues — but its marketed physiological effects are not backed by controlled equine evidence. Red light therapy has the stronger mechanistic and evidence-based case, without being a proven cure for every condition. If you are choosing the better-supported active therapy, red light is the more defensible option; if you want a low-effort comfort layer with honest expectations, a magnetic rug is a reasonable choice on those terms. Either way, browse the equine red light therapy range with the evidence in mind — and keep the vet, not the marketing, at the centre of any decision about a condition that matters.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is red light therapy or magnetic therapy better for horses?
On the strength of the evidence, red light therapy has the better-supported case. The two work through completely different physics — red light therapy (photobiomodulation) delivers photons absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase in the mitochondria, a mechanism that is well-characterised, while static magnetic therapy relies on permanent magnets whose proposed mechanism (increasing blood flow) has been directly tested in horses and not supported. Controlled equine studies, including a randomised controlled trial published in JAVMA in 2000 and a blinded placebo-controlled crossover study of magnetic blankets, found no significant effect of static magnets on blood flow, skin temperature, or pain thresholds compared with non-magnetic controls. Red light therapy has a much larger overall evidence base, though its equine-specific clinical evidence is still developing. That said, neither is a cure, both are low-risk, and the modality that matters most for any diagnosed condition is the veterinary-directed treatment plan. Note also that static magnetic therapy is not the same as PEMF, which has a stronger evidence base.
Do magnetic boots and rugs actually work on horses?
The controlled evidence in horses is not encouraging. The claim behind magnetic boots and rugs is usually that static magnets increase blood flow and reduce pain — but when this has been tested rigorously in horses, it has not held up. A 2000 randomised controlled trial at Colorado State University applied a commercial magnetic wrap to one metacarpus and a control wrap to the other for 48 hours, measuring blood flow with radiolabelled red cells, and found that the magnets did not increase blood flow under the wrap. A later randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled crossover study of a 900-gauss magnetic blanket found no significant difference from a non-magnetic blanket in muscle blood flow, skin temperature, mechanical nociceptive thresholds, or behaviour. So the specific effects magnetic products are marketed on have generally not been demonstrated in controlled equine studies. Magnetic therapy is low-risk and passive, and some owners report subjective benefit, but the physiological claims are not well supported.
Is magnetic therapy the same as PEMF for horses?
No — and this is the single most important distinction to get right. Static magnetic therapy uses permanent magnets sewn into boots, wraps, and rugs that produce a constant, unchanging magnetic field. PEMF (pulsed electromagnetic field therapy) uses a powered device to generate a time-varying, pulsing electromagnetic field. They are not the same thing, and the evidence is very different: static magnets have repeatedly failed to show effects in controlled equine studies, whereas PEMF has a stronger evidence base overall — it is FDA-approved for the treatment of non-union fractures in humans, and it acts through a different mechanism (electromagnetic induction activating cell-membrane receptors). When someone says a product "uses magnets," it is worth checking whether they mean passive static magnets or an active PEMF device, because the two sit at opposite ends of the evidence spectrum.
Can you use red light therapy and magnetic therapy together on a horse?
Yes — there is no conflict between them, because they work through entirely different (and in the case of static magnets, largely unproven) mechanisms, and both are low-risk. A horse can wear a magnetic rug and also receive red light therapy sessions without any interaction. The practical question is not whether they can be combined, but whether combining them adds value: if the magnetic component is not producing a measurable effect, its main contribution is the warmth and gentle support of the wrap itself, plus whatever comfort the horse takes from the routine. There is no harm in using both, but the red light therapy — and above all the veterinary-directed care plan — is where the meaningful support comes from. Do not let a magnetic product substitute for proper diagnosis and treatment of any condition.
Why do so many horse owners use magnetic therapy if the evidence is weak?
Several reasons, and they are worth understanding rather than dismissing. Magnetic products are genuinely appealing on a practical level: they are passive (put the rug or boots on and leave them, no battery, no session to time), relatively inexpensive, low-risk, and widely available. Many owners and some professionals report that their horses seem more comfortable or relaxed when wearing them. That subjective impression is real, but it can arise from several sources other than the magnets themselves — the warmth and gentle compression of the wrap, the placebo effect on the owner's own observations, natural fluctuation in the horse's condition, and the reassurance of the daily routine. Long-standing popularity, strong testimonials, and endorsements from top competitors reinforce the belief. None of that is the same as controlled evidence that the magnets produce a physiological effect — which, in horses, has generally not been found.
Key References
- Steyn PF, Ramey DW, Kirschvink J, Uhrig J (2000). Effect of a static magnetic field on blood flow to the metacarpus in horses. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association, 217(6), 874–877. (Randomised controlled trial; static magnetic wraps did not increase metacarpal blood flow.)
- Prospective, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled crossover study of a 900-gauss magnetic blanket in horses (2014). Magnetic blankets did not induce significant additional effects on muscle blood flow, skin temperature, mechanical nociceptive thresholds, or behaviour versus non-magnetic blankets. (Equine Veterinary Journal / PubMed 24779912.)
- Bergh A, Boström A, et al. — A systematic review of complementary and alternative veterinary medicine in sport and companion animals: electrotherapy. Animals. (Few studies, small numbers; weak overall evidence base for electrotherapies including magnetic modalities.)
- Mayrovitz HN (2025). Investigations into the impact of static magnetic fields on blood flow. Cureus, 17(1):e78007. (Review; claims that static magnetic fields promote increased blood circulation are not well supported.)