Anti-Aging LightStim
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skincare Tools & Do-It-Yourself Skincare

free skin care · Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:19 pm

Did you guys read this thread:
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=35559

I'm going to call LS tonight and show them the study.

free skin care · Thu Sep 17, 2009 3:26 pm

I seen it, not sure I believe it. Let us know what Steve says. I would be very interested since I am going to make a decision shortly whether to buy one or not.

free skin care · Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:10 pm

ricayhermosa wrote:

Did you guys read this thread:
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=35559

I'm going to call LS tonight and show them the study.

You must have missed this in the other thread.. "Vanilj" posted this email she recieved from Steve (LightStim);

I've been thinking about buying a device from Lightstim, but I was a bit concerned about this study. I e-mail Lightstim regarding this, and this is the answer I got;

Hi Sara,

This is a very interesting article. I will be looking into the green tea extract to see if I can get a sample to test. That said, here is what I have learned from being one of the oldest LED manufacturers in the business. Science is only as good as the devices they are testing. The error lies in putting out findings that are either positive or negative and not clarifying which device and it's specification that they used in a particular test.

For example: Science says you cannot use multiple wavelengths at the same time as they will corrupt each others purity and cancel each other out. They are correct.... but only to a degree. They are correct for other LED companies who have been unable to unravel this mystery. LightStim uses multiple wavelengths in all its devices and we have had 3 major companies try to reverse engineer our lights to uncover our secrets. None have been successful so far. The reason they are interested in our technology is our statistics. For example: we have sold about 10,000 Anti-Aging Lights in the last 9 months or so and we give a 90-day Money Back Guarantee. We have only had 2 Lights returned for "no results or unsatisfactory results". This is pretty much unheard of. Additionally, the degree of improvement they speak of in the article is "supposed" to be obtained in 1/10th the normal time when using just LEDs and no creams or serums. Yet the 8-week clinical trials we performed for the FDA had much more significant results than what they are speaking of. So I am really interested in the green tea extract as maybe we can get even better results.

As to the "high levels of reactive oxygen species as by products": I imagine they are referring to free radicals. Having no UV light, LEDs are very safe, so safe that the FDA is no longer requiring LED manufacturers to do safety testing as there just are no reports of injuries or side effects from using LEDs Light Therapy. That said, Blue light LEDs do create a free radical particle which specifically attacks the P. acnes bacteria which is the cause of acne. It kills that bacteria. The exact wavelength that we use in our Acne Light is 465nm Blue and that is the exact wavelength that has been being used for well over 20 years in hospitals for newborn babies with Jaundice. I'm sure you've seen yourself, or pictures or in movies where they have blue light panels over some newborns in the maturity ward of hospitals.

Additionally, about 3 years ago, studies started to show that the best way to attack Acne was using both Blue and Red LEDs as you get the healing power of Red at the same time. We took that a step further and our Acne Light has Blue, Red and Infrared LEDs. The Red and Infrared together are the classic combination that has been used medically for a variety of treatments for many years. The 2 together rejuvenate cells and heal.

For them to make a statement such as they did is irresponsible as ALL LIGHT is radiation. In science they don't even use the word "light" when speaking of illuminating something, they always say "irradiating" instead. But all radiation is not bad. The sun gives us radiation, and along with it comes vitamin D which we cannot live without. Unfortunately, the sun also gives us UV which has very caustic free radicals and causes cancer. UV is below 400nm. LED light therapy generally is between 405nm and 960nm's. Our lowest nm LED is our Blue which is 465nm.

I hope this helps you in your research and again, please feel free to send any other questions.

Best wishes, Steve Marchese, Lightstim
On Sep 16, 2009, at 1:45 AM

free skin care · Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:27 pm

The letter doesn't address anything regarding Infrared A causing photodamaging, just rumbling on how great their products are. JMHO.

free skin care · Thu Sep 17, 2009 5:48 pm

ricayhermosa wrote:

The letter doesn't address anything regarding Infrared A causing photodamaging, just rumbling on how great their products are. JMHO.

Seem's antioxidants, especially green + white tea's, are the remedy/prevention.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18449210?dopt=Abstract

Infrared radiation-induced matrix metalloproteinase in human skin: implications for protection.

Schroeder P, Lademann J, Darvin ME, Stege H, Marks C, Bruhnke S, Krutmann J.

Cell Biology/Molecular Ageing Research, Institut fuer Umweltmedizinische Forschung, Heinrich-Heine-University Düsseldorf gGmbH, Duesseldorf, Germany. peet@gmx.de

Human skin is exposed to infrared radiation (IR) from IRA; 760-1,440 nm) was shown to elicit a retrograde mitochondrial signaling response lnatural and artificial sources. In previous studies, near IR radiation (eading to induction of matrix metalloproteinase-1 (MMP-1) expression. These studies, however, have exclusively employed cultured human skin fibroblasts ex vivo. Here, we have assessed the in vivo relevance of these observations by exposing healthy human skin in vivo to physiologically relevant doses of IRA. Eighty percent of the tested individuals responded to IRA radiation by upregulating of MMP-1 expression. Specifically, IRA irradiation caused increased expression of MMP-1 in the dermis, but not in the epidermis. Raman spectroscopy revealed that IRA radiation also caused a significant decrease in the antioxidant content of human skin. In vitro studies had previously shown that IRA-induced MMP-1 expression was mediated through an oxidative stress response, which originates from the mitochondrial electron transport chain. We now report that incubation of cultured human dermal fibroblasts or treatment of human skin with specific antioxidants prevented IRA radiation-induced MMP-1 expression in vitro and in vivo. Thus, IRA irradiation most likely promotes premature skin aging and topical application of appropriate antioxidants represents an effective photoprotective strategy.

This thread is already discussing the study posted in the link you provided, and much more;

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?tid=35494

ETA: Now you all know why I preach about the importance of antioxidants ad nauseum.. No problems with photoaging for me with 2 years of AALS use.

free skin care · Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:46 am

I don't know about anyone else, but I tend to use AALS on bare skin, so I'm trying not to press the panic button and do away with my LED.

The last thing my poor skin needs is MORE damage, eek! Crying or Very sad

Hopefully someone can reassure me Sad

free skin care · Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:50 pm

Steve Marchese, President of LightStim International, Inc., asked me to post his reply on the forum. I hope it answers all your questions and dispells all you doubts.

Be warned: it's very long, so I divided it in two parts.

Hello ladies, gentlemen and manufacturers of the EDS forum. I am joining in on this thread to just give you a couple of the many things wrong with this study. I have included the full study and the MACHINE that was used in the study for your comparison to your LED devices, regardless of what manufacturer you bought from or are thinking about buying from. My statements will have nothing to do with LightStim, as LightStim is not the issue.

These articles and the study were designed as an outright attack on LED Lights using the 833nm or 850nm wavelength Infrared LEDs, which are used in consumer devices. You will see more studies of this type on other wavelengths as time goes on. This study was about going to an extreme, never even envisioned by any of the LED Light Manufacturers, to show some possibility of a negative reaction. The next paragraph will show you just how far they were willing to go.

All LEDs lights that are sold to the public have 1 or 2 SPECIFIC wavelengths, not the FULL RANGE OF 700 to 1440nm all at once. All LED's lights that are sold to the public put out less than 10 watts and less than 12 joules. All LED lights sold to the public have a per location treatment time of 1 to 10 minutes, except Omnilux at 20 minutes. The study used a water cooled MACHINE, it is not a device- it is a machine, and it puts out 360 to 720 Joules and 520 watts!!!! And according to the study they applied it for 57 to 114 minutes and they applied ALL of the wavelengths from 760 to 1440nm. No manufacturer I know of uses above 980nm in a device sold to the public. With that many Joules and Watts I'm surprised nobody was hurt!

This is so irresponsible that a one paragraph totally misleading article was put on the internet. When you look at the above statistics and you look at the machine they used in the test, this would be likened to this: A number of manufacturers put out similarly effective sleeping pills that has a dosage of 1 pill per night and is taken by 5 million people over a 20 year period with not a single instance of someone being harmed.

Then a study summary comes out on the internet and states nothing more than in a test done in Germany they have concluded that some people may die from taking such a sleeping pill. Everybody gets upset. When you finally get to see the whole study, which you have to pay for by the way, you find that the study consisted of giving people 500 sleeping pills in one night! That is how irresponsible PubMed is for putting up this paragraph. It was done to sell the full article and I'm sure they were successful. Why else would they not put up this gross discrepancy and make people think that there consumer LED light might have anything to do with this crazy powerful machine that the FDA would never allow into your hands?

The study itself is completely flawed in that they are treating the whole range of 740 to 1440nm. No machine in our industry does such a thing. Every manufacturer either uses 833nm or 850nm, including LightStim, in their anti-aging devices. Who would even think doing a test like this unless they wanted negative results that they could then use to sell a skin care product? The skin care industry is freaked out that you will all stop buying their products because of the cost and effectiveness of LED. Why would anyone do a study and subject people to 360 joules and 520 watts?

LED's have been being used for 30 years with no side effects. Newborns have been put under them to treat Jaundice for over 20 years with no side effects. Dermatologists have used them for over 15 years to treat acne with no side effects.

All of you on this forum should be proud that you have chosen these safe and effect devices, no matter what company you bought from. They are all good devices. Some might be better than others and some manufacturers might embellish their claims more than others, but they all work to one degree or another and as long as they aren't made in China you won't hear me saying anything bad about any of them. That's would be in poor taste.

You know, I did a similar study on myself. If any of you have ever met me in person you have seen this. From when I was 25 years old on, I never did anything for my skin. No moisturizers, I ate poorly (until I married my wife), I layed in the sun most days and I subjected by face to the radiation of old style computer monitors for about 10 years. Then, at 57 years old, I used my LightStim Anti-Aging Light on the left side of my face on my smile line. I picked the left side because it was much worse than the right. Both sides were deeply creased to where if you run your finger along my cheek, it gets stuck in the fold or crease. I used the Light for about 9 or 10 weeks, everyday and many times for more than the recommended 3 minutes (I'm just being totally honest here). At the end I had reduced that deeply creased fold or wrinkle by about 80% and there was only a line, no crease, left. At trade shows estheticians jaws drop when they spot it. Anyways, then I did not use the light for 6 months and I saw no change, no worsening. I decided to continue and see how long it would go. At 8 months, my wrinkle start to get worse again. So at that point I started using my Light again 2 times per week. The wrinkle went back to the 80% improvement again and I've held it there with 2 applications per week. So I almost totally reversed 32 years of abuse in 10 weeks and then again abused it by not using a maintenance program to hold it there. That was my long term study on myself.

I could have explained this to you in another way, similar to what they have done in this study. I could have said that I used the Light and reduced the wrinkles, but as time went on, particularly in the 7th and 8th month, I noticed some aging in my skin and so conclude that LED use MAY cause aging of the skin (similar wording to what they used in the study). Of course, unless you saw the whole study, you would think my study concludes there may be a problem.

You will find other studies in the future and just remember that LED's have been being used for medical purposes for over 30 years. It did not start with NASA. Most medically oriented devices use Red and Infrared together. To date, there are no side effects.

The question you have to ask yourselves is who would benefit from funding a study that was designed specifically to discredit LED Light Therapy? Nobody in this day and age can afford to fund a study to discredit a technology which has worked for over 30 years with no side effects unless it benefits themselves in some way.

Below it the MACHINE they used in the study. Below that is the whole study.

Best wishes to you all,

Steve Marchese, President, LightStim International, Inc.

free skin care · Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:55 pm

http://www.hydrosun.de/en/content/view/9/27/

Click on the following link to see the picture of the machine:

http://www.hydrosun.de/en/content/view/44/78/

hydrosun 500

Technical information for hydrosun® Irradiator
Radiation emitted: filtered infrared-A(wIRA®), no UV-radiation
Irradiation field: up to 25 cm (9.8") diameter (tube by choice) (wahlweise mit Tubus)
Rated voltage: 230 V, 50 – 60 Hz,
Power input: 520 W
Dimensions: length:30 cm (11.8"),width: 27,5 cm (10.8"), height: 23 cm (9")
Irradiance: E = 310 mW/cm² to 400 mW/cm2 (in the optical axis)
Safety switch: automatically, self repositioning after cooling down of the irradiator
Weight: about 4,5 kg (9.9 lbs) net
CE-certification: in compliance with directive 93/42/EWG, EN 60601-1
Classification: active medical device IIa

Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:18 pm

ricayhermosa wrote:

Steve Marchese, President of LightStim International, Inc., asked me to post his reply on the forum. I hope it answers all your questions and dispells all you doubts.

Be warned: it's very long, so I divided it in two parts.

Hello ladies, gentlemen and manufacturers of the EDS forum. I am joining in on this thread to just give you a couple of the many things wrong with this study. I have included the full study and the MACHINE that was used in the study for your comparison to your LED devices, regardless of what manufacturer you bought from or are thinking about buying from. My statements will have nothing to do with LightStim, as LightStim is not the issue.

These articles and the study were designed as an outright attack on LED Lights using the 833nm or 850nm wavelength Infrared LEDs, which are used in consumer devices. You will see more studies of this type on other wavelengths as time goes on. This study was about going to an extreme, never even envisioned by any of the LED Light Manufacturers, to show some possibility of a negative reaction. The next paragraph will show you just how far they were willing to go.

All LEDs lights that are sold to the public have 1 or 2 SPECIFIC wavelengths, not the FULL RANGE OF 700 to 1440nm all at once. All LED's lights that are sold to the public put out less than 10 watts and less than 12 joules. All LED lights sold to the public have a per location treatment time of 1 to 10 minutes, except Omnilux at 20 minutes. The study used a water cooled MACHINE, it is not a device- it is a machine, and it puts out 360 to 720 Joules and 520 watts!!!! And according to the study they applied it for 57 to 114 minutes and they applied ALL of the wavelengths from 760 to 1440nm. No manufacturer I know of uses above 980nm in a device sold to the public. With that many Joules and Watts I'm surprised nobody was hurt!

This is so irresponsible that a one paragraph totally misleading article was put on the internet. When you look at the above statistics and you look at the machine they used in the test, this would be likened to this: A number of manufacturers put out similarly effective sleeping pills that has a dosage of 1 pill per night and is taken by 5 million people over a 20 year period with not a single instance of someone being harmed.

Then a study summary comes out on the internet and states nothing more than in a test done in Germany they have concluded that some people may die from taking such a sleeping pill. Everybody gets upset. When you finally get to see the whole study, which you have to pay for by the way, you find that the study consisted of giving people 500 sleeping pills in one night! That is how irresponsible PubMed is for putting up this paragraph. It was done to sell the full article and I'm sure they were successful. Why else would they not put up this gross discrepancy and make people think that there consumer LED light might have anything to do with this crazy powerful machine that the FDA would never allow into your hands?

The study itself is completely flawed in that they are treating the whole range of 740 to 1440nm. No machine in our industry does such a thing. Every manufacturer either uses 833nm or 850nm, including LightStim, in their anti-aging devices. Who would even think doing a test like this unless they wanted negative results that they could then use to sell a skin care product? The skin care industry is freaked out that you will all stop buying their products because of the cost and effectiveness of LED. Why would anyone do a study and subject people to 360 joules and 520 watts?

LED's have been being used for 30 years with no side effects. Newborns have been put under them to treat Jaundice for over 20 years with no side effects. Dermatologists have used them for over 15 years to treat acne with no side effects.

All of you on this forum should be proud that you have chosen these safe and effect devices, no matter what company you bought from. They are all good devices. Some might be better than others and some manufacturers might embellish their claims more than others, but they all work to one degree or another and as long as they aren't made in China you won't hear me saying anything bad about any of them. That's would be in poor taste.

You know, I did a similar study on myself. If any of you have ever met me in person you have seen this. From when I was 25 years old on, I never did anything for my skin. No moisturizers, I ate poorly (until I married my wife), I layed in the sun most days and I subjected by face to the radiation of old style computer monitors for about 10 years. Then, at 57 years old, I used my LightStim Anti-Aging Light on the left side of my face on my smile line. I picked the left side because it was much worse than the right. Both sides were deeply creased to where if you run your finger along my cheek, it gets stuck in the fold or crease. I used the Light for about 9 or 10 weeks, everyday and many times for more than the recommended 3 minutes (I'm just being totally honest here). At the end I had reduced that deeply creased fold or wrinkle by about 80% and there was only a line, no crease, left. At trade shows estheticians jaws drop when they spot it. Anyways, then I did not use the light for 6 months and I saw no change, no worsening. I decided to continue and see how long it would go. At 8 months, my wrinkle start to get worse again. So at that point I started using my Light again 2 times per week. The wrinkle went back to the 80% improvement again and I've held it there with 2 applications per week. So I almost totally reversed 32 years of abuse in 10 weeks and then again abused it by not using a maintenance program to hold it there. That was my long term study on myself.

I could have explained this to you in another way, similar to what they have done in this study. I could have said that I used the Light and reduced the wrinkles, but as time went on, particularly in the 7th and 8th month, I noticed some aging in my skin and so conclude that LED use MAY cause aging of the skin (similar wording to what they used in the study). Of course, unless you saw the whole study, you would think my study concludes there may be a problem.

You will find other studies in the future and just remember that LED's have been being used for medical purposes for over 30 years. It did not start with NASA. Most medically oriented devices use Red and Infrared together. To date, there are no side effects.

The question you have to ask yourselves is who would benefit from funding a study that was designed specifically to discredit LED Light Therapy? Nobody in this day and age can afford to fund a study to discredit a technology which has worked for over 30 years with no side effects unless it benefits themselves in some way.

Below it the MACHINE they used in the study. Below that is the whole study.

Best wishes to you all,

Steve Marchese, President, LightStim International, Inc.

Mr. Marchese:

Thank you for your intepretation of that study.

Can you also provide us with your intepretation of the other numerous cited studies that show damage from IR wavelengths?

Can you also provide us with scientific studies of your product that specifically show what each wavelength in your specific product does for the skin. Since you use three different wavelengths how are consumers to know that the positive benefits are actually coming from IR and not from the other two wavelengths?

Can you also provide any scientific studies of your specific product showing that your IR wavelength will not cause any long term damage to the skin?

Thank you

Sat Sep 19, 2009 8:22 am

Maxon, just an FYI that you may want to email those questions to the LightStim people directly as I don't believe they participate on the forum and will likely miss your post. I am assuming the email that ricayhermosa shared is probably in response to numerous questions they have been getting from EDSers regarding the study and so wrote a response for sharing on the forum that explains their position to everyone at once.

For those who are interested in following this discussion, I am posting a link to the dedicated thread that maxon782 started on it in Skincare Tools & Do-It-Yourself Skincare Forum:

Infrared Radiation - LED Lights
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=35559

free skin care · Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:00 pm

I've read through quite a bit of this thread and I'm unsure which Light Stim would suit my skin.
I'm young (23) so I know Kassy has said the AALS may be a bit pre-mature for young skin.

These are my issues:

1. I have light flushing of the cheeks - which I control with serums and various precautions (no saunas, rarely drink, and avoid spicy foods).

2.I have a few break outs (around the chin and nose) I always have one or two blemishes kicking around it seems. I have a few clogged pores from rich products..

3.I guess my worst problem is the texture of my skin. i have large pores on the sides of my nose and chin and the texture around my mouth is not as smooth as I would wish- I had a bad habit of popping every whitehead that came around back in the day.

I feel like the AALs could be a good fit as it might help me build collagen/smoothe out some of the texture and even my pigmentation. If anyone has any suggestions or advice I would be thrilled to hear them. TIA LS lovelies!

free skin care · Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:46 pm

This is the answer to a question regarding hyperpigmentation and scarring:

"treatment that uses red and infrared light that corrects any skin damage and stimulates your lymphatic system. It also causes cells to produce ATP, which the cells need to maintain proper health. Pretty much all of my clients do LED treatments as well as weekly or monthly facials. LED is great for anything from acne scars and wrinkles to active acne. It really helps all skin types. For general maintenance, clients get it with their facial once a month."

So I guess the AALS is a good bet Cool

free skin care · Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:58 am

callalily wrote:

This is the answer to a question regarding hyperpigmentation and scarring:

"treatment that uses red and infrared light that corrects any skin damage and stimulates your lymphatic system. It also causes cells to produce ATP, which the cells need to maintain proper health. Pretty much all of my clients do LED treatments as well as weekly or monthly facials. LED is great for anything from acne scars and wrinkles to active acne. It really helps all skin types. For general maintenance, clients get it with their facial once a month."

So I guess the AALS is a good bet Cool

It leaves everything else in the dust, IMHO! And believe me, I try/buy everything.. Embarassed

Sun Sep 20, 2009 8:16 am

I guess the question is - which one is best. Red or amber or combo. Confused

I still wonder about the one at Hollywood Beauty Secrets. She has such a great reputation that I can not imagine her selling an inferior product and at such a great cost.

I want something easy to use that doesn't take a lot of time.

Thanks for all the great informative posts.

M

free skin care · Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:14 am

So, is the Lightstim effective in treating hyperpigmentation? My head is spinning with all of these LED threads, but I have a feeling that LED will be the answer in treating my hyperpigmentation. My skin needs something that is deeply healing and repairative that won't irritate my skin/strip the epidermis. I just need to figure out which device will be the best for me.

I think we need something like an LEDs 101 thread.

Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:27 pm

I don't post too often but I purchased the AALS during a Mother's Day promotion this year. I have used it faithfully: 4-5X per week for the first 3 months and then 3X per week since.

I have horrible hyper-pigmentation and to make matters worse I got back into bicycle racing after a 15 year hiatus. I figured with all of the sun exposure my skin would look like crap (there's no way to reapply your sunblock during a 60 mile road race.) Sunblock can only do so much anyways.

Well, my hyper-pigmentation isn't gone, but at least it didn't get worse. What I did notice was a v. nice plumping effect on my lips - much more youthful, although the effect is subtle. My guess is the AALS has had had a similar effect on the rest of my face, but w/out B/A pictures it's hard to tell.

I look forward to reading about your results. BTW, I am a HUGE fan of TCA peels to treat pigmentation. This requires prepping w/ retin-A for at least two weeks and NO sun exposure. I plan on doing a Jessner's/30% TCA in early December. Last one was 2 years ago.

Sun Sep 20, 2009 6:28 pm

I don't post too often but I purchased the AALS during a Mother's Day promotion this year. I have used it faithfully: 4-5X per week for the first 3 months and then 3X per week since.

I have horrible hyper-pigmentation and to make matters worse I got back into bicycle racing after a 15 year hiatus. I figured with all of the sun exposure my skin would look like crap (there's no way to reapply your sunblock during a 60 mile road race.) Sunblock can only do so much anyways.

Well, my hyper-pigmentation isn't gone, but at least it didn't get worse. What I did notice was a v. nice plumping effect on my lips - much more youthful, although the effect is subtle. My guess is the AALS has had had a similar effect on the rest of my face, but w/out B/A pictures it's hard to tell.

I look forward to reading about your results. BTW, I am a HUGE fan of TCA peels to treat pigmentation. This requires prepping w/ retin-A for at least two weeks and NO sun exposure. I plan on doing a Jessner's/30% TCA in early December. Last one was 2 years ago.

free skin care · Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:32 pm

gumgirl wrote:

I don't post too often but I purchased the AALS during a Mother's Day promotion this year. I have used it faithfully: 4-5X per week for the first 3 months and then 3X per week since.

I have horrible hyper-pigmentation and to make matters worse I got back into bicycle racing after a 15 year hiatus. I figured with all of the sun exposure my skin would look like crap (there's no way to reapply your sunblock during a 60 mile road race.) Sunblock can only do so much anyways.

Well, my hyper-pigmentation isn't gone, but at least it didn't get worse. What I did notice was a v. nice plumping effect on my lips - much more youthful, although the effect is subtle. My guess is the AALS has had had a similar effect on the rest of my face, but w/out B/A pictures it's hard to tell.

Outdoor sports huh. I hear ya. I did an aquatics program in an outdoor pool today (4 hours outside in the sun) and I came home with a smattering of freckles which to my mind alerted (sun damage! sun damage! - I've been trained well..)
Can't you grab your screen and do a quick spritz while you are on your bike. Just the face and neck really. Do you wear a hat? Sorry I'm being a bit of a mom, but just trying to help!

free skin care · Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:36 pm

ps you should post more! It's really fun and I think you have an interesting perspective as an athlete. Half of us are trying to get in shape (well I should speak for myself) we/mostly I could use your good advice.
I just read an article that athletic women require more botox as they have more muscles in their faces (who would have thought).

free skin care · Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:29 am

Callalily you really are the lucky one having being trained at 23!
Wish I'd known what you do at that age, boy how good I'd look now.
And I knew there was a good reason why I'm not the full on athletic type. Bad Grin

free skin care · Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:44 pm

Is this still the code for EDS members?:

EDS83py4t

free skin care · Tue Sep 22, 2009 7:46 am

callalily wrote:

Is this still the code for EDS members?:

EDS83py4t

Is this a discount code for the LightStim?

Tue Sep 22, 2009 8:41 am

leathal wrote:

callalily wrote:

Is this still the code for EDS members?:

EDS83py4t

Is this a discount code for the LightStim?

Yep - just checked it out and it adds an additional 10% discount.

I'm getting really close to buying one of these - but I am still confused on what is the best choice, though I'm leaning towards the AALS. My face is starting to get gaunt and squarish, plus the skin on my body is looking old Sad

Does this have any effect on elasticity as well as the collagen rebuilding?

free skin care · Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:32 am

txgirl wrote:

leathal wrote:

callalily wrote:

Is this still the code for EDS members?:

EDS83py4t

Is this a discount code for the LightStim?

Yep - just checked it out and it adds an additional 10% discount.

I'm getting really close to buying one of these - but I am still confused on what is the best choice, though I'm leaning towards the AALS. My face is starting to get gaunt and squarish, plus the skin on my body is looking old Sad

Does this have any effect on elasticity as well as the collagen rebuilding?

If your face is starting to get a guant squarish look that is usually as a result of facial fat loss. As we age we tend to lose more of the facial fat, or as some call it baby face fat, which can make us look guant and squarish. It also can make us look older too.

If your guantness and squarish look is due to facial fat loss than an LED device will not have much affect on that since it can not replace the fat in the face.

Tue Sep 22, 2009 10:45 am

I strongly suggest facial exercises for the look you are trying to achieve. Facial exercises aren't perfect but man, they sure help.

MM

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.