Dr. Schultz Explains- Facial Exercise *Promotes* Skin Aging
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skincare Tools & Do-It-Yourself Skincare

free skin care · Thu Sep 10, 2009 8:34 pm

He says, When you move your skin... when you stretch skin, you stretch the elastin fiber..."

Yep. That's true, and it's a good thing. If that caused damage, then my inner thighs would be saggy and wrinkly because I can do the splits, thus stretching my skin as far as it can go... Skin is skin... We see many women recover beautifully from stretching out their skin over a 9 month PG belly. Those that don't, tend to have started out heavier... or like me got to stretch out over 2 babies. Although I have twin mom friends with NOT ONE stretch mark... and hey... 9 months of slow baby stretch is A LOT more than anything you would ever do to your face...

Your UNDERWEAR are made out of dead, synthetic materials. They don't have blood flowing to them, and they are no longer of a substance that is made of REPRODUCTIVE cells. That's what cells do right???? split and reproduce? ALL CELLS! The reason we age, is because we quit doing that so effectively. So we aid it... we peel our faces manually, and chemically! Facial exercises assist with all of this turnover... The explanation of that is way to long to write here...

His bit about elastins having a numbered amt of stretches in them is the same argument that your heart has a numbered amt. of beats in it... So don't do cardio... you'll max out your beats and die early... so no childhood sports ok??? An inappropriate use of an if then statement...

He says, if you stretch your skin you will sag... blah...blah...blah... Hmmm... I must be a complete freak of nature impervious to the laws of physics... That hasn't happened... People GET ME A CAPE!

Compares skin to a paperclip... a live thing to a dead metal thing... Apples and oranges... actually, Fruit and boxed crackers... No where NEAR the same thing!

This man is also a chronic frowner (see those 11's and also a chronic brow raiser... Watch him again.) He is proving through his own facial expression how well muscle development works. He holds himself in an expression that is not attractive. But he could smooth that out if he'd do about 5 different exercise. His forehead hasn't sagged, he's worked his muscles almost into a frenzy up there... all in one direction.

His lips are completely atrophied to something that I would expect from a smoker. Now, even those that don't like facial exercises 'cause they don't like the results will tell you that they over developed their lips to that of look like a chimp... He could work his lips to a nice happy medium, and get rid of that look.

When I took statistics in college the first thing they taught us was HOW EASY it is to manipulate data to say what you want. I was also required to take a class in Logic... If a then B...

So, you can say. All Cat are Animals. If A is a Cat then A is an Animal. But you can not then turn the statement around... If A is an Animal, then A is a Cat... Now can you? Cause it could be a dog. This man is either very poorly educated. Or Extremely educated. He either doesn't know what he's talking about ... or he thinks his viewers are very poorly educated and stupid enough to listen to him.

I really don't think this boils down to whether or not we as sellers of facial programs are more trustworthy or not... I think it boils down to using CURRENT science about skin and regeneration and applying it with at least some common since. And when we make comparisons for the sake of argument. We do so with things that are relevant...

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:12 am

I don't have a dog in the fight since I am still on the fence about embarking on a program and have no financial investment in it, but I gotta call them as I see them:

On one side: many, many dermatologists and medical professionals with extensive backgrounds in dermatology, physiology, anatomy etc. with no economic interest in facial exercise - advising against it.

On the other side: product/program sellers with little to no (?) medical or physiological training selling products that tout the benefits - with only photos to back up their claims (again, please let me know if I am wrong! I want to wrong on this!)

I don't know. Looks interesting to me. The best part is we are each free to spend our time and money as we choose.

By the way, attacking the messenger is an easy shot. Poking fun at his face is juvenile behavior. Why not present more evidence refuting his message? studies or similar?

BF

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:43 am

Seany, enjoyed reading your well reasoned response.

With respect to the other comments,
I am shaking my head here. The person with the opinion, who isn't selling the concept, doesn't have to prove a thing. The burden of proof lies with the promoter/seller.

As I said, we can all have fun spending our resources in whichever ways we enjoy Smile

From the emotion this thread has drawn, I get the feeling there must be good money to be made in promoting facial exercise. Either that - or the emotion is coming from very happy followers of the practice.

If that is the case, since there are no studies, please point me to the blogs with all the success stories with data and photos! you know...the kind of websites where nobody is trying to sell anything - that would be great!

Thanks, BF

free skin care · Fri Sep 11, 2009 10:50 am

I do know that Dr. Obagi does facial exercises and massage .... this information is publicly available on the Zo SkinHealth website. Sorry I am new here and can't post links yet (just go to the zoskinhealth site and click "it's his birthday can you gues how old he is?" section). I know that many of the EDS members respect Dr. Obagi and his opinions as well as his products and systems; many in the medical community do as well. Not sure about this Dr Schultz though.
I did a quick search through my sources last night; I can find absolutely nothing that verifies the assertion that elastin fibers break after a certain amount of continuous usage. Doesn't appear to be a plausible statement to me.

free skin care · Tue Sep 22, 2009 6:39 pm

Dr. Schultz,

Thank you for taking the time to explain so thoroughly your thoughts on facial exercise for us.

Your explanation about the degradation of collagen and elastin makes perfect sense to me.. Like most things in life, repeated stressors all have a way of catching us in the end.

Thank you also to the member who shared this thread with the Doctor.

free skin care · Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:51 am

Dr. Scultz, rereading this and thinking about it further I do have some questions and comments regarding your various points.

1) Finiteness of elastin
Okay, so if our elasin fibres are finite (can only take so many stretches), why is that aging bodybuilders still look fantastic vs elderly people who haven't worked out? Your argument hasn't convinced me that facial muscles are any different physiologically than say my thigh or arm muscles. By extension of your argument, should people NOT be working out their bodies?

2) I still don't think you're analogy between a paperclip and the skin works. A paper clip is not constantly regenerating its cells in order to repair, thrive and survive. Can you make an analogy between facial muscles and other muscles? Or some other animate item that is constantly repairing itself?

3) So with your thoughts on the belly of the muscle... how come my entire thigh muscle can be defined? If my thigh muscle bulks a little more in the belly (hypothetically let's say this is 3/4 up my thigh) is that because there are more muscle fibres at this point? Would that not also apply to say the zygomaticus muscle... a bit more bulking where there are more fibres?

5) "Facial muscles regardless of whether or not they work, stress the skin." Okay, so bodybuilding as well stresses the skin...correct? Is this really a bad thing?

I don't look to facial exercises to reduce my wrinkles. I've been doing them to eliminate the beginnings of sag -- which I've accomplished. My wrinkles haven't gotten any worse since I've been doing the exercises -- they've improved. Question for you....can you ignore the wrinkle aspect for now and definitively say that facial exercising using resistance CANNOT address the problem of sag and loss of facial volume? If you need clarification of what kind of resistance I use, I can explain that further. Or you can go the Flex Effect site to get a better idea of how that program uses resistance to build facial muscles. I don't think all facial exercise programs are equal. I would suggest you look at Flex Effect, Santa Maria Runge and Ageless if you Dare as they are really the only ones that IMHO apply resistance to the acutal muscle (Aprile maybe you can explain how pushing your feet against the wall creates resistance in your cheek muscles in the Carol Maggio program -- sorry, I can't get my brain around that).

Sorry for the long-winded post, I just want to further understand your argument.

Vangirl

Smile

free skin care · Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:13 am

Wow! I think Dr. Schultz has been extremely gracious, generous, and professional in coming on this board and respectfully explaining and trying to address our critiques. I think we all learn the most when we are able to fully express and argue our points (without feeling like we have to pull punches), yet avoid name-calling. Thank you, Dr. Schultz, for doing this and for modeling open and frank discussion, while maintaining respect for all.

I wanted to try to offer some questions and try to play devil's advocate, if you don't mind. I represent the opposite camp, and believe that facial exercises work--provided the exercises are being done properly, adequate rest is taken, etc.--and have personally had good experiences with them. Here are my thoughts and comments.

Dr. Schultz wrote:

1. What proof is there that there is a finite number of stretches and relaxations of the elastic tissue?

If you are looking for medical experiments that prove the premature failure of elastic facial tissue...

How are you using the word "finite"? I, and at least a couple others, originally thought you meant it to say that an elastic fiber has a fixed and specific number of stretches that it can endure, before it breaks. But now it seems like you are using the word "finite" in the much looser sense of "nothing lasts forever". Could you clarify which usage you are using?

Also, when you say the "premature failure" of elastic fiber, it sounds like you are arguing that some people's elastic fiber wears out and tears faster than other people's, right? I don't think anyone here would disagree with that statement, so I think we are all on the same page here.

Dr Schultz wrote:

2. How can you compare an inanimate fiber to a living tissue in the skin when making your point about elastic tissue?

While I understand why my "underwear" metaphor (i.e., inanimate elastic fiber) is an easy target to poke at when writing a post disagreeing with my viewpoint, I want to make sure that people aren't getting lost in the details here. Of course inanimate elastic fibers aren't the same as living facial tissues/fibers/etc. in all aspects. However, the illustration is still poignant: while both skin and inanimate fiber both degrade over time, they also both degrade quicker if subjected to above average wear and tear.

Ok, so we all agree the rubber band analogy, that while it is helpful in some regards, isn't perfect in that skin is not inanimate. I think you do a great job discussing the "wear and tear" side of the equation, but I think the real main critique of your rubber band analogy that you have not addressed yet at all is the "repair" side of the question. Just as there are collagen digesting enzymes, there are collagen synthesis enzymes. All living systems in the body have molecular repair pathways (e.g., for DNA, the DNA polymerases also have repair activity, etc.).

So the reason I have a problem with the rubber band analogy is that it ignores all of the repair pathways in the body. Also, while I buy your arguments about wear and tear, I do not buy the arguments about that this is the only or even always the dominant process. For example, burn victims, as you know, have their skin heal and repair over time, so "wear and tear" is not always the dominant process. Also, a century ago, exercising muscles in the body was thought to speed up the "wear and tear" of the body, so people actually avoided exercise! It's hard to believe nowadays. But there are just so many parallels for me between your argument that facial exercise wears down the facial tissue and the now-known-to-be-false theory that body exercise wears down the body. We now know scientifically that that is false: even though exercising the body's muscles creates oxidative stress, the body not only initiates repair process that repair the oxidative damage but also makes the body stronger and the body's tissues healthier than they were before the exercise. (The only caveat is that if you do too much exercise, then you can exceed the body's ability to repair and re-build...but this is just simply a matter of achieving the right balance.) Anyhow, so for me, the question you have not answered is why in exercising the face, you think (a) these repair and rebuilding mechanisms do not matter, or (b) the wear and tear that comes from exercising facial muscles is much worst than the wear and tear that comes from exercising the body's muscles.

Dr. Schultz wrote:

Exercises that are done against resistance (e.g., weights, gravity, etc.) increase muscle tone and mass, most significantly, over the main part of the muscle (some people refer to it as the "belly" of the muscle).

Agreed!

Dr. Schultz wrote:

There is less definition (if any) formed at the points farthest from the "belly."

Somewhat agree. How much definition you get at the belly of the muscle versus as the end of the muscle depends on the technique, though for many traditional bodybuilding exercises that focus on strict isolation, more of the build is indeed in the belly of the muscle.

Dr. Schultz wrote:

So, if you have a muscle whose belly is underneath skin that contains wrinkles, and you tone and increase the size of that muscle, as it and its "belly" get larger, it will expand, thereby "pushing out" the wrinkles.

I completely agree. In fact, this supports the idea that some wrinkles are due to the fact that volume losses in the face can cause skin to fold in on itself to form wrinkles.

Dr. Schultz wrote:

However, also while you're exercising, as the muscle is pushing against the skin and stretching it, it's also causing wear and tear on your elastin. And while the skin above the belly may be sufficiently stretched to compensate for the wear and tear (which causes wrinkles and sagging), you may end up with adverse side effects on the skin that was still stressed during the exercising but wasn't receiving the benefit of being on top of the belly.

Again, my critique here is that there is no nuanced discussion of the repair processes for skin, and a discussion of when repair processes outweigh and do not outweigh wear and tear. As far as we know for the body, exercising a particular muscle not only positively affects that muscle and local tissues, but also the whole body. Your claim above is in contradiction to this to this fact and suggests that exercise is strictly a local effect that only effects the belly of the muscle.

Dr. Schultz wrote:

(On another interesting note, people who smile a lot usually get worse crows feet than those who don't, but I'd prefer to take my chances, smile, be happy, and get a few lines.)

That's great, and I totally agree that it is so important to smile and be happy Smile

Well said.

Dr. Schultz wrote:

Lastly, as I mentioned previously, in order for muscles to strengthen and tone, they need resistance.

Agreed. And that's why I think facial exercise programs that only involve toning exercise (low or no resistance) are lacking.

Dr. Schultz wrote:

I do not believe that with facial exercises you can create enough resistance to actually tone and increase your muscle size more than you'd be damaging your skin.

To clarify, do you think it is possible to restore volume to the face using facial exercises? It's just that you think that in the process, you also damage the skin, right? Could you explain why you have come to the conclusion that the pros of increasing muscle size and increasing circulation do not outweigh the negatives? Is this based on theory, patient experience, your own experience, or something else?

Dr. Schultz wrote:

Facial exercises regardless of whether they build muscle, stress the skin.

Yes, and so does regular body exercise stress the surrounding local tissue...so again why you think the stress in facial tissue doesn't get repaired via the post-exercise repair mechanisms, but body tissue does, needs to be addressed.

So some questions: Then given your concern about any sort of stress to the skin,

(1) Do you have concerns about massage or massage-type products, like the Vacu-lifter, Endermologie, Velasmooth, etc? Do you think that the stress to the skin from massage outweighs the benefits of increased circulation, etc.?

(2) I noticed in your practice, that you use botox. Why it is okay then to stress the skin by injecting botox, a strong poison, but not to do facial exercise? Is it that you think that the benefits from the relaxation of muscles are worth the damage to the skin to the skin and tissues? Or is it something else?

(3) I noticed in your practice, you use lasers. Why do you use lasers to treat skin issues? Lasers create small local damage via the application of amplified light usually of a small wavelength band of light to the skin and tissues, BUT THEN RELY ON THE BODY'S HEALING PROCESSES to fix the damage and leave the skin in a better state than it was before the laser-induced skin damage. Why do you think this is so different from the body's repair mechanisms post-exercise?

Finally, it would be great to get responses to these questions and critiques, if you have the time. Thanks so much, Dr. Schultz, for your time and generosity in coming to EDS to argue your points and explain your position. This was awesome, and I really appreciate your professionalism and openness. Best wishes Smile

free skin care · Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:41 am

Since facial exercise is not exactly a "recognized" science, I did a fairly thorough search on the pros and cons (this took me several weeks). On the side of plastic surgeons and dermatologists, I noted a predominance of cons. I read their articles, read their arguments, then I researched their credentials; i.e. where they went to med school, if they were touting products or services, where they were located--any information I could find. Then I looked at the "theory" of facial exercise as it compared with other exercise, read articles and talked to estheticians (my daughter is one; I know others, as well) and looked at the theories behind facial massage and movement of the facial muscles--why we get lines, how we get lines, and so forth. I was familiar with Dr. Schultz because of doing that, although of some who have been mentioned on the forum I am unfamiliar. I was not impressed by his video help series, though. Anyway, then I decided to "experiment" with several different techniques, noting differences and seeing which ones worked. I ended up deciding upon Maggio's, as the structure of my face and my particular needs seemed suited to her program. I have also incorporated several other techniques...there are a lot of them out there! But, this was only after analyzing my data. So, while my research isn't "paper worthy" and I am not a scientist, (although my husband is a biological research scientist), I am a true believer in the scientific method. That is what I followed in this case. I'm a bit anal in my insistence on knowing why something works. With the right "key" words and search engines, it is possible to find information worthy of consideration. How to discern information and sources online was an integral part of teaching my classes, especially when it came to research paper time. And, I am still researching the subject.

free skin care · Wed Sep 23, 2009 6:16 pm

I think many of you have raised excellent points to counter the opinion of Dr. Schultz and his educated opinion of why facial exercises cause aging of the skin. I would just like to add a few comments of my own:

When exercising the body, you usually do not make direct contact with the skin. It is the moving of the body's joints which cause the muscles to contract and elongate and therefore build (since the muscles are connected to the joints/bones by way of the tendons). As the muscle builds over time, it develops definition ... the skin accommodates the increase in size of the muscles (just as the skin accommodates the increase in size of the abdomen during pregnancy). BTW, I have seem body builders with stretch marks ... this indicates to me that sometimes the skin is overly taxed and can not accommodate the increase in muscle growth.

Facial exercises are somewhat different ... direct contact with the skin is necessary to provide resistance (holding, pinching, grabbing of the muscle beneath the skin surface). Occasionally both sides of the muscle (anterior and posterior) are held (ie placing fingers inside the mouth as well as on the skin surface). I believe Dr. Schultz has clearly stated that in his opinion "I do not believe that with facial exercises you can create enough resistance to actually tone and increase your muscle size MORE THAN you'd be damaging your skin." (my emphasis added.) He further concludes that "Facial exercises regardless of whether they build muscle, stress the skin."

I believe that it is the method that many facial exercise programs have developed (ie: direct contact with the skin to provide resistance) that creates the dilemma; there is a possible trade-off between increasing muscle size and potential deterioration of collagen and elastin within the dermal layer of the skin. For many of you younger facial exercisers, you may not be worried about (yet) about the skin issues raised by Dr. Schultz. Some of us more "mature" women do take this potential problem into consideration though.

free skin care · Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:08 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

I believe that it is the method that many facial exercise programs have developed (ie: direct contact with the skin to provide resistance) that creates the dilemma; there is a possible trade-off between increasing muscle size and potential deterioration of collagen and elastin within the dermal layer of the skin. For many of you younger facial exercisers, you may not be worried about (yet) about the skin issues raised by Dr. Schultz. Some of us more "mature" women do take this potential problem into consideration though.

Even with this argument though, it seems to me to still leave the question unanswered on why techniques like lymphatic massage, Vaculifter, No Lipo Lipo, and Endermologie are GOOD for the skin but the slight stretching and stress of the skin from facial exercises is bad. Honestly, I don't see the natural distinction in that all of the above cause stress to the skin and underlying tissues, but if done properly, the pros outweigh the cons.
Out of curiosity, does anyone out there have a theory to explain how massage and the Vacu-lifter, for example, are good for the skin but facial exercise is bad for the skin?? Do people also report signs of skin stress from massage, Endermologie, Velasmooth, No Lipo Lipo, etc.?

free skin care · Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:28 pm

cm5597 wrote:

Lacy53 wrote:

I believe that it is the method that many facial exercise programs have developed (ie: direct contact with the skin to provide resistance) that creates the dilemma; there is a possible trade-off between increasing muscle size and potential deterioration of collagen and elastin within the dermal layer of the skin. For many of you younger facial exercisers, you may not be worried about (yet) about the skin issues raised by Dr. Schultz. Some of us more "mature" women do take this potential problem into consideration though.

Even with this argument though, it seems to me to still leave the question unanswered on why techniques like lymphatic massage, Vaculifter, No Lipo Lipo, and Endermologie are GOOD for the skin but the slight stretching and stress of the skin from facial exercises is bad. Honestly, I don't see the natural distinction in that all of the above cause stress to the skin and underlying tissues, but if done properly, the pros outweigh the cons.
Out of curiosity, does anyone out there have a theory to explain how massage and the Vacu-lifter, for example, are good for the skin but facial exercise is bad for the skin??

I agree with what you have said CM .... there is little distinction between handling the skin during facial exercises and the devices you have mentioned (other than the amount of time devoted per treatment session and frequency/duration,perhaps). However ... do you have any evidence that these devices are beneficial for the skin? I have read many testimonials from EDS members stating that they see improvement from these devices/ procedures; unfortunately, I haven't seen any real "science". Anecdotal testimony is only one way to evaluate a procedure or even a product. I think there is also a question of appearance vs potential adverse affects. Your FACE may appear plumper, more firm, healthier after using these devices ... but underneath the surface ... is it harmful? I think it's all a matter of pros and cons; short term vs long term affects. Anything less than long term studies which include examination of the dermis and epidermis (at the microscopic level) is probably just speculation or educated guesses at this point.
Your statement that "...if done properly, the pros outweigh the cons" is a leap of faith IMO ... that's the basic question that we all want answered.

free skin care · Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:55 pm

Sister Sweets,

Dr. Bob Marshall is a holistic practitioner, who has Ph.D. in BioChem, degree in nutrition, and runs clinics with amazing success rate in California (and some in Texas).

He was mentioned before on this board by several people, so I mentioned him as well. I do know several people who are alive today thanks to him.

You can look upwww.healthline.cc (orwww.prlabs.com) for more info.

Sorry for deviating from the subject.

free skin care · Thu Sep 24, 2009 11:41 am

I like studies, too. If someone were interested in doing a study on facial exercise, but it was expensive, I'd definitely consider contributing financially to it, as I think it's really that important of an issue. I would want to know the "how" and the "why" and the "want to expect" and the "range of outcomes" people can experience in a *controlled* study. It would be great to measure things like (1) volume increase/decrease in muscle fiber, (2) increase or not in muscle strength, (3) any changes in oxygen and nutrient transport, (4) changes in circulation, (5) changes in collagen types, content, and density, (6) degree of denaturation of collagen (i.e., collagen damage), (7) improvement or not in depth of wrinkles, ( Cool

changes in sebum production, (9) rate of turnover of cells, etc. This are all super-important questions, imo. Claudia, what prevents such studies? Are they super-expensive, and if so, roughly how much do they cost? Or, is it other issues, like finding a lab that would do that research, or recruiting enough volunteers?

But even though I am a science person, I confess that I am absolutely moved sometimes when a critical mass of anecdotal evidence is positive AND there is a compelling scientific hypothesis behind it all.

For me, about the stretching and massage to the skin, to be honest, I first started believing that moderate stretching might be beneficial to the skin when I heard about Seymour Systems years ago and saw this unusual video on the Discovery Channel:

http://www.seymoursystems.com/discovery_video.html

In the video, there is a mom who has "post-baby belly" with loose skin. But after a month of stretching and aggressive massage on her **already clearly damaged skin**, her stomach looked amazing and clearly healed dramatically. This segment was aired on the Discovery Channel. I fully admit that this is 100% anecdotal evidence on a particular massage technique, but when something like that happens--which is the direct opposite of what you expect--then it really opens your eyes and makes you re-think things. Since then, I have looked at some literature on skin stretching (but not a lot), and I posted a couple of those studies above that show that moderate skin stretching is beneficial. Then I started to hear more and more about people using massage and other circulation-boosting techniques (Vacu-Lifter, No Lipo Lipo, etc.) and it just seemed to all fit together for me.

So that, along with a background formerly in body-building, I am totally convinced that massage and moderate stretching is beneficial to tissues and muscle.

BUT---A HUGE BUT---I think what is so difficult is that what constitutes "moderate" stretching varies SOOOOOOO much from person to person. Someone young has fewer defects in their collagen, their body recovers and repairs faster, etc. The more underlying damage there is to the skin, the more one runs the risk of damage the skin by over-stretching. Plus, things like diet, circulation, exercise, make a huge difference in the health of the tissues, the repair speed, etc. I think this is why people have such diverse experiences, and that this is really the important issue that needs to be addressed: how does the amount of massage and stretching that is good for a person vs bad for a person vary by lifestyle, environmental, and genetic background. For example, maybe a person in their 60's with a not great diet and slower circulation who is just starting facial skin massage must be 10x more gentle in their massage to get good results...this would be a HUGE difference in my book...I don't know what the numbers are, so I just making this up...but I would not be surprised if the differences were that stark or greater, hence explaining why some people get great results and others do not...This is all just to say that I agree with Lacy, that the older you are.the more damage to the skin, the more you need to be careful with stretching/massage...not to avoid it, but to proceed at the right degree that brings the best results....

Just my two cents Smile

Okay, maybe my two dollars Smile

free skin care · Sat Sep 26, 2009 9:49 am

I did not get the impression at all that Aprile's comment was denigrating or anti-doctor. It was more about pro-CHOICE in our health care and our need to stop treating the medical profession as demigods and start being in charge of our own health. And being ALLOWED to do so. Many dr.'s would support Aprile's position: Christine Northrup, Depok Chopra, the late Dr. Mendelsohn, the late Dr. Lendon Smith among them. There are a multitude of studies out there--medical studies--many from Australia--that talk about the dangers of HRT from unnatural sources. I can provide a list of some of them if anyone is interested. (I had a needed hys/ov., as well, so I read a lot about it before I had it done, as well as about the treatment options).A lot of what is done is arguably unnecessary, especially surgeries for "looks", or "convenience", and I don't think Aprile was insinuating that all surgeries, all meds, all procedures, are bad. But, there are dr.s out there who refuse to respect a layperson's right to research and argue about their own treatment, as well as use their degrees and "knowledge" to frighten people who would question them into quietly taking their advice because they are the "doctor" And there are those, specifically in the area of "youth and beauty" who take advantage of their positions to frighten women into not making their own informed choices. Granted, there are alot of natural herbs, foods, vitamins, treatments, etc. that are also dangerous. That is where moderation and knowledge comes in. As well, the whole Botox thing--Botox was meant for serious problems until it got into the "Beauty" industry. The same with collagen injections. Self-empowerment is key.I am certainly not anti-doctor--my husband is in the medical field as a researcher and all of our friends are either scientists or doctors. I know they care deeply about people and are devoted to what they do and finding new cures and treatments. But, there are also those who would be treated as gods simply because of a degree hanging on a wall. And, there are those in it for the money. So, as in all things, it is "buyer beware".

free skin care · Sat Sep 26, 2009 4:34 pm

janiek7 wrote:

I purchased Louise Annette's Ageless if you Dare and have been exercising for a couple of months. I see some good things happening with my face. I am just shy of 50. I am a little concerned about the Dr. Schultzs' remarks, however.

Okay Janiek, so let me get this straight ~ you are pleased and seeing some good results, but now you are worried because of Dr. Schultzs' remarks. This is my point precisely! He made some comments and NOW since he's a doctor, even though HE DID NOT PROVE ANYTHING with his comments or unimpressive video, you are worried and perhaps even scared. That's what I call NOT FAIR. He chose to use this forum to scare women when in fact HE IS USING TECHNIQUES which are invasive, pose health risks, possible injury, and cost tons of dough to boot. This does not bother you? This does not factor into the equation or make you question his credibility?

janiek7 wrote:

I don't think this thread is about whether doctors are legitimate or not, April

.

That may very well be, Janiek7, BUT when a doctor comes on the thread making accusations about something that I KNOW works, has worked for me for over 10 years, has NOT caused me any harm, my face has not fallen apart, is easy to do, not time consuming, has helped me remain youthful and vibrant, helped save my sanity, I take personal offense. I don’t need to disprove his comments, because I AM LIVING PROOF that Facercise works just like Claudia and others are living testimonials for the Flex program. If you'd like, you can to go my blog and see my photos. http://aprilevesblog.blogspot.com.

janiek7 wrote:

You are attacking him for things you assume him to be guilty of that having nothing to do with the original concern/intent of the thread. I think this is called obfuscation.

Hmm… head scratch. I am not attacking him of anything other than offering services that are certainly questionable, definitely have side effects and risks, could pose injury to the skin, and some of his services are downright dangerous like Botox. I didn’t say that HE lies about their safety to his patients or that HE doesn’t disclose the risks and or side effects. I said there are doctors who certainly do. I don’t think I am obscuring anything or going away from topic. He chose to come on the forum to defend his video and theory that facial exercises cause harm, AND comments like mine and Claudia’s and others who’ve had tremendous success with facial exercise programs are to be expected. It just goes with the territory.

All the best,
Aprile

free skin care · Sun Sep 27, 2009 5:33 am

I am no expert or advocate on either side. And I'm also not a doctor, but I am an engineer and IT person, so that follows I have some reasoning skills........

1. Elastin only has so many stretches. Well knowing how cells renew/regenerate and that our skin replaces itself in 28 days, that just doesn't make sense to me.

2. If this were true, wouldn't Deb, Claudia (well, she's still young), Carole, Eva, and there's a 4th well know facial exercise guru over 40, look like total crap?? But they don't do they?

3. But what about Claudia, if you only have so many stretches, etc? I bet she's done this since she was a teenager, she should look like the Elephant man by now!

4. Of all the products/ creams procedures discussed on this forum, you would all have to agree that most tout facial exercise as one of the best things they have done. And I'm talking about long time forum users here that read up on things and have intelligent discussions. Some of the most dramatic improvement pics I've seen are facial exercises. It's been around for a 15 - 20 years now, what else besides retin-a maybe has been an ongoing anti aging method for 20 years!

So of all the people on the forum that love it and have seen benefit, are their faces going to fall apart when some bomb goes off? When then? 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, 30 years? If it's 30, then I don't care.

6. What about dry brushing? That is a world wide accepted system for skin health. If you do it, you can see a difference in 3 days. Isn't that 'abusing', pulling and stretching the skin? Wouldn't our whole body fall apart?

7. Now that I'm thinking about it, what about massage in general? Millions do that every day, same concept, not going to repeat myself.

So I understand that people like Claudia and Louise can't defend everything down to the cellular level, they aren't medical scientists, they just represent a system that they created to do the exercises they have seen work. I bet the Power 90 can't explain his system down to cellular level either, In most medical science, many times they just find things that work, it's not 100% fully understood initially, sometimes never.

So do it or don't do it, it's up to you. I worry about botox, but I have days when I can't stand the wrinkles anymore and give in. I'm hoping other things I'm doing will eventually correct them, then I'll stop.

Seems crazy this fighting over this, but I feel Claudia's frustration in this argument, As for me, with the research background I have, I have to disagree with this guy based on the evidence.

free skin care · Sun Sep 27, 2009 3:27 pm

Different techniques work for different people, and obviously some people will never be comfortable doing facial exercise (I know people who can't wear contact lenses because they can't stand to put anything in their eyes.)

The issue here, I think, is that Neal made a rather unilateral, controversial statement, backed up by "proof" of rather dubious quality. I don't know anything about him so maybe he likes to be at the center of a brouhaha (all publicity is good, right?) but I don't approve of anyone hiding beyond a degree to conduct scaremongering.

Like many of you, I have research experience, and have worked as a consultant to the health care industry and as a journalist covering health care. I have had conversations about controversial topics with various doctor friends, and I can't think of any who have ever said definitively "that is wrong; this is right." There are so many gray areas in medicine! Docs are often the first to acknowledge -- maybe not in a public forum, but in conversation -- that they don't really understand why something works and something else doesn't.

Bottom line: we don't know. But we do know that people who don't exercise end up with lots of wrinkles and sag, and we have reason to believe that facial exercisers tend to age a little more gracefully. Works for me.

free skin care · Mon Sep 28, 2009 2:47 pm

Hi Barefoot,

I agree that a couple of us have tried to at least question the doctor's opinions and CM has brought up some studies about "stretching." I get that you're not giving much credence to our arguments as we're not the experts and our opinions don't carry as much weight as a well-known doctor. That still doesn't mean he's proved his point.

Barefoot, do you yourself believe that it is okay to stretch the body but not the face? Or do you believe the body shouldn't be stretched either? Just curious about your take on that. I really wish I could find Deb Crowley's argument, something about how building muscle builds elastin fibre. I'm sure Deb or Claudia will weigh in when they can.

A couple of other points... Dr. Schultz has said that exercise will damage the skin. Lots of anecedotal evidence from facial exercisers plus their pictures that contradict this. I wonder if Dr. Schultz could provide us with pictures of women who have exercised their faces and for whom the elasticity has gone kaput as a result?

Another anecdotal type thing. I was in the bookstore this weekend and came upon a book called "The Anatomny Coloring Book". The cover of the book is an anatomical drawing of the face. One side of the face is obviously youthful as the muscles are all in their correct position. The other side shows old age. I'm guessing this as all the muscles have atrophied. Obviously this is a drawing but it is really easy to imagine the skin over top and see how muscle wasting and atrophy are at least partially responsible for the aging face. Just an observation. You can google the book but all the pics of the cover are really low res and small so it wouldn't be worth it to post it here. But next time you're in a bookstore check it out!

I get that you're not going to change your mind because no one has weighed in to your satisfaction to counter his theories. You might have to wait a while for one of the gurus to weigh in. You might be waiting forever if you need a scientific study. Meanwhile, I'm going to keep exercising my face. Cool

free skin care · Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:21 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

Aprile, I do not know how to make my position any clearer. Dr. Schultz's words carry more weight because he has the scientific credentials and he is not involved in the sale of facial exercise. Does that mean his assertions are correct? not necessarily, all it means is that in the absence any verifiable rebuttals - they remain(at least to me) as being more believable.

Well, you are clear ~ but I just don’t happen to agree. You feel Dr. Schultz is a doctor with credentials and therefore his words carry more weight. Well, how do you know how much he actually knows about elastin and collagen of the face? He purports to know about the effect of facial exercises on both of them in his video. Is it just because he says so? That just doesn’t make sense to me. For instance, doctors give advice to their patients every day about nutrition when in fact they have very little knowledge about nutrition. (In a recent study by the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition , it showed that 60 percent of medical schools in the United States are NOT meeting minimum recommendations for their students’ nutrition education.) Yet, doctors continue to advise their patients anyway. So, I feel you can’t just assume this doctor is knowledgeable because he has a diploma hanging on his wall.

Barefootgirl wrote:

To throw things like Botox into the argument is to create a red herring in an attempt to detract from the real issue itself.

While Dr. Schultz may not be involved in the sale of facial exercise, HE IS INVOLVED in the sale of Botox, fillers, chemical peels, and lasers. To think this is a red herring is ridiculous. He obviously felt that facial exercise was cutting into his business; otherwise he wouldn’t have addressed it in that silly video he made. Did you think he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart? Also, don’t forget, once you purchase that facial exercise book or dvd, there’s no need to buy another. You basically have a lifetime plan for a very inexpensive investment. Unlike those procedures, which keep you coming back for more.

Barefootgirl wrote:

Oh and I remain somewhat amused by the passion here. This is a discussion just like all the other product discussions here on EDS - why has this one gotten so personal? Good question, that one.

There have been a lot of passionate discussions on EDS. I think the reason for the passion here is his attack on facial exercise. If I were to guess I'd say that many women who’ve turned to facial exercise were disappointed by other services or procedures that didn't work or didn't acheive the goal of lifting their faces... Or perhaps they didn't want to go the invasive, "chemical route". Facial exercises offered something those services and procedures could not ~ a chance to lift & firm the skin, as well as make up for lost elastin and collagen by creating volume with muscles, hence creating a younger looking face ~ RISK FREE. Now the good doctor wants to throw a monkey wrench into the situation, and many of us take it personally because we've incorporated it into our daily lives. Plus, you can't argue with success ~ the good doctor even said that himself! So tell me why are we arguing about this?

free skin care · Tue Sep 29, 2009 12:31 am

I do not have medical background, and use my own judgment for which route to take. As Keliu pointed out there are pros and cons for everything.

What are the alternatives to facial exercises that tone muscles? Without toned muscles saggy face is saggy face regardless how good the skin is.

However from what I have seen. Facial exercises tone muscles, and facial massage tightens skin. Double benefit. The men and women that pioneered facial exercises, and have years and years of facial exercises behind their backs look a level better then the rest of the crowd.

At this time we have a handful of people that have been doing facial exercises for years and years. It is a fairly new trend for the majority of people, and years would pass before we have decades worth of solid empirical evidence with thousand people involved.

On FlexEffect board there are amazing pictures of Loli where you actually can see how her skin tightened over the years. I can not post Loli's pictures since it is on a members only forum, but here is a picture of Deb age 60 after years of facial exercises

With available info we make the best decisions that suit us. For me in simple terms when I age I prefer to look as Deb, not as Dr. Schultz.

free skin care · Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:52 am

Lacy53 wrote:

Founder/Creator Skin Care Product Brands"?

He is not selling facial exercises, but he DOES have a vested interest in NOT promoting them.
Am I impressed by his credentials? Not really. Ivy League credentials do not necessarily make the education a better one. Hmmm, I also wonder to what socio-economic group he caters? At least with some of the facial exercise techniques, there is library availability. Skin care should not only be for the upper and upper middle-classes. For example, a struggling single middle-aged woman returning to university could take out a library book on Facercise or Facial Yoga. I doubt her financial priorities could--even if she wanted--include expensive dermatological treatments. Sure, facial exercise is a business. But more on the "teach a man to fish..." side. One doesn't necessarily HAVE to buy the products. I'm still not impressed by the quality of information on his video series. Doctor or not. I do not like to be condescended to when a doctor is speaking to me, either via a mass video or personally.

free skin care · Tue Sep 29, 2009 9:52 am

Actually, I am entirely not impressed with his credentials.

1. Practice on Park Ave - just think what needs to be done to just cover the rent. I, based on several unfortunate experience in the past, run away from physicians practicing on Park Ave. Practicing in Lenox Hill hospital just confirms money oriented aspect of his practice.

2. Same is being selected in "Best Doctors ...". I happened to know several of them personally and being good friend with them would never consider asking them for a professional advice (one of them is even Bord Certified in several disciplines).

3. He is not a part of academic medicine, and they are the only ones who actually do serious medical research (with NIH grants, labs, statisticians, etc.) - what that means that he would be spending 60-80% of his time doing research, and the remaining 40-20% seeing patients. It would also mean that the study before being published will have a very serious peer review - the selection criteria used, statistics, etc. Then, if selected, it would be published in very specialised publications (based on sub-specialty - not just dermatology), and it would require an equally educated person to understand it due to specifics not comprehensible by a laymen.

These physicians would consider beneath them to write a book for general population and/or participate in a forum, such as this one, nor would they have the time. In a small country, such as USA, they all know each other by name (since there are very few who achieve that level) and as such do care immensely about their professional reputation.

In general good physicians are not using GOOGLE or pubmed when they need the info - they have their own professional facilities to do their search.

3. Englewood Hospital is one of the worst in our area, so that speaks for itself.

4. As every other medical fields dermatology is highly specialised, and he seems to be all over the map (based on his webpage), that is usually a bad sign as well.

4. The 2 top dermatology departments in NYC area are: MSKCC and NYU. He is not affiliated with either of these two.

All in all - nothing to be impressed with.

5. There were also historic facts that support the facial exercise - there were famous french courtesans (for example, Ninon De Lanclo - pardon, if the spelling is incorrect) who had a wrinkle free skin into very advanced age based on their own system of facial exercise.

6. According to my dermatologist (who is a Chief of Dermatology at MSKCC, and before that had the same position at UPenn, and is widely known in the professional circles throughout USA) - as of Spring 2009 there was no scientific proof that LEDs work or that they are safe long term. However, it works for many people and for them it is worth taking the potential risk.

Same is true for facial exercise.
Same is true for many herbal supplements and alternative medicine techniques.

HTH

free skin care · Tue Sep 29, 2009 2:44 pm

Hermosa wrote:

It's pretty clear from his CV and his self-promotion that he is of the ambulance-chaser mindset.

This argument about the doctor's credentials is starting to become very, very silly and unworthy of discussion.

free skin care · Tue Sep 29, 2009 6:02 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

Hi cm; I took a look at the studies (abstracts) you providing which are related to elastin and collagen production with respect to skin stretching. To be totally honest, these studies are beyond my limited knowledge and understanding

My disclaimer: I used to do biochemistry research and have co-authored four publications in biochemistry (specifically on intra- and extra-cellular cell signaling and apoptosis), but it has been some years since I've been involved in biochemical or biomedical research. Therefore, I do claim to understand scientific jargon more than most, but I do not claim to have the knowledge that a dermatologist, skin scientist, or tissue engineer has--and these experts would probably be able to glean more from these papers than I can. Just want to get that on the table that I am not 100% infallible, though I am certainly trying my best.

Lacy53 wrote:

I would like to note the following observations:

Lacy, just curious, since you only tried to point out the limitations: (a) Are you playing devil's advocate, (b) trying to simply point out the limitations, (c) somewhat unconvinced, or (d) strongly unconvinced ? Just curious where you're coming from Smile

Lacy53 wrote:

Cyclic distension of fibrin-based tissue constructs: Evidence of adaptation during growth of engineered connective tissue
- this study deals with artificial skin "seeded with porcine valve interstitial cells" (I think these are pig heart valve cells?). I believe studies such as this are related to cardiovascular research; not sure they are directly applicable to facial exercises increasing elastin and collagen production.

* Yes, the fibrin-based tissue constructs were seeded, or started, using pig cells

* The "valve" refers to the aortic valve in the heart. Regardless, the key word is "interstitial", not "valve". the functionality of institial cells is to form cell and tissue connections via elastic fibers (see below).

* Interstitial cells are cells that "not peculiar to or characteristic of a particular organ or tissue but which comprises fibrous tissue binding other cells and tissue elements", i.e., they are cells that can carry out the function of serving as fibrous tissue in many places throughout the body (these are the cells that serve as glue in the body and bind cells and tissues together via elastic fiber). Interstitial cells are found in the skin in significant numbers and are among the connective tissue cells in the skin.

* What is special about Valve interstitial cells is that they are phenotypically similar to fibroblast cells. Fibroblasts are cells that synthesize collagen and the extracellular matrix, and they play critical roles in wound healing. (Fibroblasts are the most common cells in connective tissue in animals.)

* For severe burn victims who need skin grafts/transplants, when human skin grafts/transplants are not available, the most common substitute is pig skin/tissue/organs because of the overwhelming similarity to human skin/tissue/organs. (Though with organs, you have issues with immunohistocompatibility...but that's another issue...)

* All of this explains explains why valve interstitial cells are used in connective tissue research.

* So this study is *not* directly related to heart research, or xenotransplantation (e.g., the using of animal hearts for heart transplants in humans), but to tissue engineering and tissue stretching. I am 100% positive of this.

* This study clearly states in the title and abstract the purpose of the article is to study the effect of variable stretching (aka cyclic distention) on tissue cells. It is not about the heart.

Lacy53 wrote:

It is unclear to me whether it was the stretching or the seeding (or both)that caused the increase in collagen density:they mention a significant difference over the control (but I don't see where they define the control tissue).

* So seeding is not part of the treatment vs control set-up. "Seeding" simply means that the cell type that was used to grow, or seed, the tissue was the porcine valve interstitial cells.

* The control group had no tension/stretching applied to it. The various experimental groups had various levels of stretching applied to them.

* The experimental groups underwent stretching that was equivalent to anywhere from 2.5-20% strain. Strain is the percent elongation of a material, so 20% strain means the tension/stretching applied to the tissue increased the length of the tissue by 20%. For example, if the length of skin between your jaw and your eyes is 5 inches long, then that would be the equivalent of stretching your skin by 1 inch, so that that 5 inches now covers 6 inches.

Lacy53 wrote:

This was a 2 week study; not really long term.

* Actually, it was a 3 week study Smile

* Pros: It shows a significant increase in collagen density on a very short time scale! That is quite encouraging, actually! And that would be consistent with people reporting increases in skin thickness after a couple to a few weeks of facial exercise and/or massage.

* Cons: This study is not a long-term study to show whether this results persist long-term

Other fascinating pros and cons:

* Pro: For CONSTANT tension/stretching, the best results were obtained with a 15% strain (i.e., an area of skin that is 6 inches long would be stretched roughly by 1 inch). The researchers found that a 15% strain increased the *strength* of the skin (aka the ultimate tensile strength) by 47%, which means that the skin is stronger and less suspectible to damage, and that the density of collagen in the skin increased by 29% over the controls, which were unstretched. These are significant increases.

* Pro: For VARIABLE BUT INCREMENTAL tension/stretching: The researchers found that the strength of the skin increased by 98% (that's a doubling of the strength of the skin!), and collagen density increased by 34%. Therefore, variable stretching was even better than constant stretching. For variable stretching, not only was the collagen density greater, but also the amount of collagen per cell increased (and by a large 70%!)

* Pro: This article specifically says that "Studies with human dermal fibroblasts showed similar improvements", which in translation means, human elastic fiber skin cells showed the similar improvements and responses to stretching. In other words, for both human skin cells and pig connective tissue cells (specifically, the valve interstitial cells), the same types of results were obtained.

* Con: This study was non conducted in vivo, i.e., it was not done in a live animal or human (though in this particular case, this is not a strong argument).

* Con: This study did not measure whether any damage was done to the collagen and elastic fiber. *However*, it would be reasonable to assume that if the tissue increased in strength and collagen density, it would be unlikely that the fraction of collagen damage per unit volume would increase. In other words, damage to collagen makes it weaker, not stronger, so if the stretching significantly damaged the collagen, then one would expect that the fibruous tissue would become weaker, not stronger. In the experiment, the skin became stronger.

* Con: This study was done with young, undamaged tissue, and may not apply to quite the same extent (i.e., less strain may be optimal) for older, more mature skin

CONCLUSION: Up to a certain point (about 15-20% strain), connective tissue cells that are stretched are both stronger and have increased collagen density. That's actually pretty compelling evidence there.

Lacy53 wrote:

"In vitro tendon engineering using human dermal fibroblasts"
- I think this study says if you take infant dermal fibroblasts (extracted from foreskin tissue) and seed it into tendon tissue (from a human amputation patient) then stretch it moderately (for not too long, not too much)then collagen is produced "in vitro" (in a laboratory setting). Not sure this study is directly applicable to facial exercises either.

* Cell type used: infant skin connective tissue cells (fibroblasts from foreskin)

* The purpose of the study was to use skin connective tissue cells to try to engineer/replace tendon. Tendon is a strong band of fibrous connective tissue connecting muscle to bone, and that can withstand considerable tension/stretching. Tendon is made of collagen, among other things.

* The applicably is in terms of whether stretching is good or bad for the skin (obviously this study does not shed any light on the benefits of exercise and muscle toning)

* Pro: Stretching/tension roughly doubled the thickness of the tissue over the controls.

* Pro: The stretching/tension produced more type I and III collagen and the formation of this collagen was normal, as desired. In the unstretched group, the formation of collagen was abnormal ("An irregular collagen pattern was observed in the group without tension.")

* Pro: The stretched tissue was 3.5 times stronger than the unstretched tissue, against suggesting that the collagen is not damaged by the stretching, but instead becomes stronger and less suspectible to damage.

* Con: A longer time (14-18 weeks) of stretching was not as beneficial and some benefits started to declined (more dead cells and hollowing of fiber only, however, they reported that they increased the tensile stress later in the experiment at the 14th week, so that could explain some or all of the difference), while all other observables were still favorable. It is hard to judge or make sense of these peculiar results, and what caused them. It could be the particular amount of stretching, the use/non-use of constant/variable stretching, or that this experiment was not done in a living animal.

* Con: This study was conducted in vitro, not in vivo (i.e., not in a live animal, but again, this isn't the strongest con argument against this study)

* Con: I am not sure what strain they are achieving, so they may or may not be "over-stretching" the tissue, relative to the fact that other studies found the optimal amount of strain to be around 15%, with more being anywhere from less beneficial to detrimental.

* Con: This is not a long term study.

Authors' CONCLUSION: Stretching/tension is beneficial for connective tissue, but the effect may not be optimal if the stretching/tension is applied for too long.

Lacy53 wrote:

The effect of stretching on formation of myofibroblasts in mouse skin
- this study examines mouse skin;

* Cell type used: myofibroblasts. "Myo" means muscle. These cells are inbetween fibroblasts and smooth muscle cells in differentiation (which you could think of as meaning "the degree of specialization"). Myofibroblasts are important because they are involved wound strengthening, which they do by depositing extracellular collagen fiber and then they help "contract" the wound via mediated pulling on the collagen bundles.

Lacy53 wrote:

when skin is subject to stretching alone, myofibroblasts were found. When skin was wounded and stretched, inflamation was found as well as myofibroblasts (at a lesser rate than stretching without wounding). Wounded skin with no stretching showed very few myofibroblasts. The researchers conclude that stretching causes the proliferation of myofibroblasts. FYI, myofibroblasts are defined as a fibroblast combining the ultrastructural functions of a fibroblast and a smooth muscle cell; they are most often associated with wounds and healing. I am not sure this is the same as collagen or elastin nor am I sure if it is even related to them. Once again, I am unsure this can be related to stretching of human skin during facial exercises.

* The study looks at whether stretching/tension and wound healing activates the myofibroblasts to supposedly strengthen the tissue

* Pro: This study was done in vivo, i.e., used like animals, rather than just skin cells

* Pro: "Stretching alone produced little evidence of inflammation" in the dermis

* Interesting Find: Stretching alone activates myofibroblasts, specialized connective tissue cells

* Skin that had been both stretched and wounded showed a marked inflammatory response, implying that the inflammation must have been from the wound, since stretched skin alone did not show significant inflammation.

* Interesting Find: Wounding alone (with no stretching) did not activate myofibroblasts nearly as much as stretching

Lacy53 wrote:

(We are not hairless mice!)

* No offense, but the argument "we are not mice" misses the point. Of course we are not mice, but the fact is that we are so similar to mice and other animals, that most of the studies done these days are done on animals, and most of the times we find the exact same or similar results in humans. For example, the research showing that sunscreen protects against cancer was done on hairless mice. In general, the number of times that research done in mice does not at all apply to humans is only a very small fraction of the time.

CONCLUSION: It is the stretching, not the inflammation or the wound, that activates myofibroblasts. Other studies have shown that stretching is critical for wound healing, and this study lends further support to the idea that it is the myofibroblasts that support the healing process. In other words, not all stretching is bad; some is needed to activate the myofibroblast cells that are involved in wound healing.

Ok, I think I have covered most of the main pros and cons of these studies.

All I'm claiming is that Dr. Schultz insinuates is that all stretching is bad, whereas the literature suggests that moderate stretching is or can be beneficial, including by increasing skin strength and collagen density and sometimes even collagen deposition per cell. All I'm trying to do is to prove Dr. Schultz wrong on his unilaterial, unnuanced statement that stretching the skin and tissue is always bad... I think I've done that and showed that there is evidence that suggests moderate stretching is or can be beneficial, but too much or too little stretching can be detrimental... But please holler (politely Smile

) if you think this assessment is wrong.

Cheers and best wishes to all Smile

free skin care · Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:03 am

I think it's evident by the consensus of this thread that most women are unimpressed and quite infuriated by "Bully" Doctors. It is amazing to me that in 2009, women would elevate a doctor's opinion to the level of gospel. Thanks for sharing all of your detailed information CM5597! YOU are quite impressive in your knowledge base, and thanks for taking the time to post!! I think COURT IS DISMISSED due to lack of evidence presented by the "good doctor", as well as the findings posted by CM5597. Everyone should rest assured your faces won't fall apart or your skin will stretch beyond the point of no return. How much stretching is there anyway with facial exercise? With Facercise, stretching is very minimal in my opinion. Best, Aprile

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.