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

free skin care · Sun Dec 13, 2009 8:36 pm

I'm thinking Nanci needs to hire Kassy to whip up some pre-treatment serum for sale on NCN's site. (For those of us who aren't into the DIY mode).

free skin care · Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:00 pm

this is a bit late as Lacy53 discussed in detail about Nancy's pre treatment serum on Wednesday Dec. 9th in detail here:

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?p=501800

But I'm sure you never saw that before posting here!

Kassy_A wrote:

DiPhx wrote:

Kassy - your neck is fantastic!! Last I remember reading you were doing a green tea pre-treatment serum before the AAlightstim and some cupping. Is that still your routine or have you changed it?? I have been using the AAlightstim for almost 2 years and have now incorporated the green tea before the lightstim and my neck doesn't come near yours - what is your secret??? Thx DiPhx

I alternate with nothing or the LED recipe I posted originally... Now and then I've used freshly brewed green tea, but don't find anything different with it.. I also tried CP's, and nothing much with that either... I've had the best luck with my own recipe to tell you the truth. (I've tried it all in these 25 months.. Laughing

)

Talking about green tea, I was just in the middle of shooting an email to Nanci (NCN) about the new Green Tea LED Treatment Serum she's offering... I don't know how she missed it, but there's occlusive ingredients in it, and one of the preservatives does it's job by forming formaldehyde to kill bacteria.. Anyhoo, it's not compatible for LED use IMHO.

Here's reason enough not to use it with an LED (from my notes on one of the emulsifier ingredients) It's typically used in an oil/water formulation;) (Google some of the content, and a pdf with full info should come up in the search!)

Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate

Crosspolymers, when applied on the skin, provide quick release of the oil
phase due to the absence of a lamellar liquid crystal structure. This results in
the rapid formation of an occlusive layer and consequently the desired feel of
the emollients is perceived quickly on the skin.

There's also silicone in it, which purpose is to act as an occlusive and impart that nice smooth feeling to the skin, which typically remains until washed off.. (I can recall past use of silicone containing creams/lotions, and when I went to rinse my face many hours after applying, I could feel the *slip* as soon as the water touched my skin..

People need to do their own research on ingredients they want to use, and not just take a manufacturers word that "it's just perfect for a particular treatment"... In this case Nanci has clearly missed the mark..

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION!!! (I love Nanci and have used many of her products, but this one is a pass for me.)

free skin care · Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:25 pm

Oh by the way Lacy53's post is on page 14

HTH
DM

free skin care · Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:59 pm

Well then, it's a good thing I let everybody in on the "emulsifier" she couldn't find... And that yes indeedy, the dreaded "silicones" are occlusive and not recommended for LED treatments..

I'm still trying to figure out the point your making, since the ingredient I spoke about above was the one Lacy didn't discuss. Anybody who does a 'google' can find the same things Lacy and I found.

Here's the post Darkmoon refers to;

Lacy53 wrote:

You are welcome skippie; happy to save you some money whenever that's possible! As I said, I don't know if silicones, polymers and even aloe vera gel/juice is appropriate for LED use. They may be occlusive to light (I know they can be occlusive to water).

I went through the ingredients again. The EDTA is used as a stabilizer and possibly a chelating agent too; the polymer is a film-forming ingredient; silicones are for slip (which makes sense when using a galvanic device); Triethanolomines (aka TEA) and DMDM Hydantoin are preservatives. However, they are known to give off/release formaldehyde to make the environment less favorable to the microorganisms. For that reason, some people don't like using them on their skin. There doesn't appear to be any emulsifier in this serum.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 12:37 am

Kassy_A wrote:

DiPhx wrote:

Kassy - your neck is fantastic!! Last I remember reading you were doing a green tea pre-treatment serum before the AAlightstim and some cupping. Is that still your routine or have you changed it?? I have been using the AAlightstim for almost 2 years and have now incorporated the green tea before the lightstim and my neck doesn't come near yours - what is your secret??? Thx DiPhx

I alternate with nothing or the LED recipe I posted originally... Now and then I've used freshly brewed green tea, but don't find anything different with it.. I also tried CP's, and nothing much with that either... I've had the best luck with my own recipe to tell you the truth. (I've tried it all in these 25 months.. Laughing

)

Talking about green tea, I was just in the middle of shooting an email to Nanci (NCN) about the new Green Tea LED Treatment Serum she's offering... I don't know how she missed it, but there's occlusive ingredients in it, and one of the preservatives does it's job by forming formaldehyde to kill bacteria.. Anyhoo, it's not compatible for LED use IMHO.

Here's reason enough not to use it with an LED (from my notes on one of the emulsifier ingredients) It's typically used in an oil/water formulation;) (Google some of the content, and a pdf with full info should come up in the search!)

Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate

Crosspolymers, when applied on the skin, provide quick release of the oil
phase due to the absence of a lamellar liquid crystal structure. This results in
the rapid formation of an occlusive layer and consequently the desired feel of
the emollients is perceived quickly on the skin.

There's also silicone in it, which purpose is to act as an occlusive and impart that nice smooth feeling to the skin, which typically remains until washed off.. (I can recall past use of silicone containing creams/lotions, and when I went to rinse my face many hours after applying, I could feel the *slip* as soon as the water touched my skin..

People need to do their own research on ingredients they want to use, and not just take a manufacturers word that "it's just perfect for a particular treatment"... In this case Nanci has clearly missed the mark..

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION!!! (I love Nanci and have used many of her products, but this one is a pass for me.)

Kassy - thanks I found this post very helpful.

PQ.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:47 am

Hi everyone, I looked up each ingredient in this Replenix Green Tea Serum and could not figure out if any of them are occlusive. Some of the descriptions are too technical for me. Can someone please take a look at them?

purified water, 90% polyphenol isolate, sodium hyaluronate, bisabolol, cucumber extract, chamomile extract, triethanolamine, polysorbate-20, carbomer, methylparaben, diazolidinyl urea, tetrasodium EDTA.

Thank you for your help.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:06 am

Kassy_A wrote:

Talking about green tea, I was just in the middle of shooting an email to Nanci (NCN) about the new Green Tea LED Treatment Serum she's offering... I don't know how she missed it, but there's occlusive ingredients in it, and one of the preservatives does it's job by forming formaldehyde to kill bacteria.. Anyhoo, it's not compatible for LED use IMHO.

Here's reason enough not to use it with an LED (from my notes on one of the emulsifier ingredients) It's typically used in an oil/water formulation;) (Google some of the content, and a pdf with full info should come up in the search!)

Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate

Crosspolymers, when applied on the skin, provide quick release of the oil
phase due to the absence of a lamellar liquid crystal structure. This results in
the rapid formation of an occlusive layer and consequently the desired feel of
the emollients is perceived quickly on the skin.

There's also silicone in it, which purpose is to act as an occlusive and impart that nice smooth feeling to the skin, which typically remains until washed off.. (I can recall past use of silicone containing creams/lotions, and when I went to rinse my face many hours after applying, I could feel the *slip* as soon as the water touched my skin..

People need to do their own research on ingredients they want to use, and not just take a manufacturers word that "it's just perfect for a particular treatment"... In this case Nanci has clearly missed the mark..

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION!!! (I love Nanci and have used many of her products, but this one is a pass for me.)

Hi Kassy - thank you for your email! I'm emailing you back but this really needs to be addressed here for all to see. The following is from the creator of the DermaWave and will clear things up – and it’s pretty interesting!

“First off, as it relates to particular serums or ointments 'blocking light'. Let's forget for the moment that both silicones and polymers have been used for optical transmission, itself ... such as in the creation of fiber optics -- as well as a host of plastic, vacuum-formed lenses used in cell phones and disposable cameras, say ... But for those who wish to dispute, there's a device that settles such things. It's called a 'densitometer'. It's used in the sciences, engineering, the photo-optical industry -- as well as the motion picture industry to check film stock exposure density, scene by scene, when they're mass-producing the 'release prints' for theater distribution ...

Okay, not everyone has a densitometer at home, like we do. Still, you have one built into your head. Actually you have two of them. They're called the eyes. Take any serum or ointment you wish to 'test'. Place it on a 'slide'. Okay ... you threw away your microscope kit in the 9th Grade ... A sheet of glass, then. Okay ... clear plastic if you're afraid of cutting up your hands. You just made a 'smear'. Now shine the light (from an LED, say) though the serum and behold ... While the light will seem more diffused (though, far less so than that imparted by the actual skin, itself), there will still be 'light-a-plenty' projecting right through it -- and at any wavelength. There'll be somewhat of a reduction with very white creams as 'white' has a reflectance value. But when one actually smears these creams on a slide, they're often amazed at just how translucent these white creams are once 'spread' (as they would be on the skin).

In a related aside experiment, try this one as a 'penetration test' for an LED (at almost any wavelength). Mask out two sides of the lens found of one of our smaller heads. Black tape is great -- but you can use a couple of layers of masking tape, in a pinch. What you want to create is a wide slit, but no wider than a thumb at the head's 'front end'. Now wider than a thumb because ... we're going to project that light ... right through the thumb. Indeed, place the underside pad of the thumb on the LEDs illuminating through the slit. Dim the room lights (you don't need total darkness). Now behold! See the thumb nail -- clear on the other side of the thick thumb -- be fully 'transilluminated' by the light. And keep in mind, we're doing this with a skeletal structure in the way, to boot.

Now .... show me any cream, ointment, serum, elixir or gel that has the opacity of a thumb ... with a skeleton inside. Feel free to repeat the 'Transilluminated Thumb' experiment with any serum of your choosing smeared on your thumb pad. By the way, the thumb is generally also thicker than any skin section you'll find on a face -- even among the obese.

Now ...as to 'cross-polymers' ... this 1) relates to synthetic polymers and 2) results in an altered viscosity (becoming somewhat thicker) -- particularly with the synthetic polymers that are designed -- specifically - to be photo-reactive, such as in dentistry where they're using as setting agent to 'cure', say, veneers. And even here, they're designed to be photo-reactive at a specified wavelength. Others are photo-reactive to not just 'any light' but specifically to ultra-violet light, solely. And there are no LEDs used for photo rejuvenation -- at any wavelength -- that emit UV (Blue, at 420 ~ 460nm would be the closest you would come ... Amber, Red -- nowhere even close, existing on the complete, other side of the rainbow). But moreover, if a product isn't good for LED exposure, it wouldn't be good for any common daylight exposure, either. For an LED - at any given wavelength -- is merely a sliver of ... daylight exposure. It only works because it's 'narrow-band selective'.

And, finally, for any cosmetic ingredient to magically 'servo-convert' into formaldehdye... uhhh ... no. Any high school chemistry teacher would tell you this. The internet is just filled with misinformation Nanci.”

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:54 am

NCN wrote:

.... There'll be somewhat of a reduction with very white creams as 'white' has a reflectance value. But when one actually smears these creams on a slide, they're often amazed at just how translucent these white creams are once 'spread' (as they would be on the skin)....

Yes Nanci, he is referring to the refractive index. What is generally considered occlusive in the skin care industry refers to occlusive to WATER, meaning water is slow to either penetrate into or escape from the skin. Occlusive to light is different as I have stated many times before on this forum. White products are slightly occlusive to light (but may not be occlusive to water; it depends on the actual ingredients and formulation). When light travels from one medium to another the speed of the light waves slows when it changes from one medium to another and some light will be reflected back from the surface. Zinc oxide, found in many sunscreens is white; part of it's value is due to the fact that it reflects the sunlight back from the surface of skin.

Occlusive to water is different than occlusive to light! That's my simple and somewhat unscientific understanding of the issue at least.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:23 pm

Thanks for sharing Nanci!

Unfortunately for me, I didn't understand much of what he said, and will err on the side of caution, and try to avoid what I believe are occlusive ingredients. (LED treatments just take too much time in the long term, to gamble with what might result in that time having been wasted.. Confused

) Anyway, that's what's good for me, as I have no time to waste.. Laughing

What ever happened to just plain talk, where 20 words will do to answer a simple question.. Argh!

Thanks again Nanci!

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:02 pm

I'd just love to say that I really appreciate clear and concise answers. I far prefer them to an amateurs opinions. Please keep them coming!

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:05 pm

Oh, and longer and indepth is fine with me. It's preferable to the guesswork that we're prone to without access to those with actual knowledge.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:07 pm

Trigger,
I couldn't agree more! I feel they made it clear as glass!
Smile

DM

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:20 pm

Quote:

Unfortunately for me, I didn't understand much of what he said

What's difficult to understand? Let me know where I can help you wrap your head around it Kassy.

Basically LEDs can shine right through our bodies, (my reading has taught me that many penetrate at least a couple of inches in, which is why they can sooth muscles). Even a thick cream (of the type we are not discussing above) would be hard-pressed to lessen the intensity of your LED treatment.

Sure, if you're slathering yourself in zinc or suncream it would be a problem, particularly as LED light is actually the same as a narrow band of sunlight, but otherwise, even cold cream isn't going to stop the wonderful anti-aging progress you're seeing with your LED.

Was that too long or difficult to understand?

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:10 pm

Perhaps this is simple enough to comprehend:

Back before the day of LED's we used to play around as kids with regular old flashlights, just a tiny incandescent bulb! We would turn off the lights and put the light end in our mouths and wow it would shine through the skin on your cheeks, a silly kids game but most old enough did it! If an incandescent bulb which is much less powerful than LED's can shine through ie: penetrate skin I see how something as clear as silicone would be easily penetrated by LED's.

A little note on silicons they come in many consistencies and properties from very liquid to solid, maybe even gasses I haven't researched that as of yet, but I think Nancy knows what she is doing, this is her livelihood we are talking about here!

Just a simple take on light penetrating skin!

HTH
DM

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:21 pm

Trigger,

I did not realise that you were a Lighstim user. How do you handle it with your migraines? I am just curious, since it may be one of the triggers for it.

Have you seen any improvements? Would you care to share your before and after pictures?

Thanks in advance should you do it.

As far as serum is concerned I would not use it, as I would not use anything containing silicone or synthetic polymers to begin with. I try to avoid getting any unnecessary exposure via skin absorption, and prefer a more natural solution.

I currently use Lighstim, it made a huge difference in the condition of my skin (and it kept even though I was too short on time and had not used it for the past month). I use Kassy's serum; I found it to be effective and easy to prepare (even for a nitwit like me).

For anyone who remembers elementary physics (6th grade for me, but since my dad, PhD in Physics had explained it to me when I was 6 years old and I did not quite comprehend it at the time, it left a life long impression) it does not exactly make sense - like water does allow the light to go thru (that is why you need the entire body to be covered with sunscreen), but at the same time it does not allow all of it and reflects some back (so, sitting on the beach in the shade you still need sunscreen, since you are getting hit indirectly). What that means that even water will lessen the ray's ability to penetrate.

So what needs to be measured is not just the ability to block the light but also to reflect it.

My assumption would be that they measured it for their unit and wave lengths that they utilize, but how can we be sure that Lighstim utilizes exactly the same ones?

As far as the ability for the Lightstim to help with joint/muscle pain - it used to be true for the original Lighstim (infrared only), but not true for the anti-ageing one. That is based on trying them both and their ability to provide pain relief is quite different - not a scientific observation by any means.

HTH

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:32 pm

Sigma - I'm a migraine sufferer and have never had a problem using the AALS - which I do at least 5 nights a week.

Just want to point this out in case other migraine sufferers are turned off using the device.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:49 pm

Quote:

Trigger,

I did not realise that you were a Lighstim user

You mustn't have read my post. I didn't say I used the device. I'm sorry, is this thread only for current users of AALS and not for everyone like the rest of EDS?

Perhaps you'd like to join the Safetox thread and get updated with my migraine issue. It's very nice to see you care so much. BTW, you don't have to own the device there to join the discussion Shock

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:58 pm

Quote:

For anyone who remembers elementary physics (6th grade for me, but since my dad, PhD in Physics had explained it to me when I was 6 years old and I did not quite comprehend it at the time, it left a life long impression) it does not exactly make sense - like water does allow the light to go thru (that is why you need the entire body to be covered with sunscreen), but at the same time it does not allow all of it and reflects some back (so, sitting on the beach in the shade you still need sunscreen, since you are getting hit indirectly). What that means that even water will lessen the ray's ability to penetrate.

Perhaps you need to explain this.

As far as not wanting to use certain ingredients etc, that's entirely up to you. That's not really what is being discussed here though.

And for your info, I do use an LED (omnilux) so the conversation is of some interest to me - seeing as I suddenly feel I need an excuse for my involvement.

Re pics, seeing as you're claiming the wonderful results, yours would be more relevant!

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:11 pm

Trigger, you don't need an excuse for your involvement. Since this thread is usually followed by users or those who hope to use the darned thing one day ( like me... as soon as those kids finally graduate and I don't have tuition fees Rolling Eyes

)it's perfectly understandable that Sigma would make that assumption.Relax, no need to be defensive.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:32 pm

Oh! Do excuse me! Perhaps I'm feeling a little annoyed at being asked to produce pictures of myself again (for about the 3rd time in 2 days). I find it very assuming and would prefer to be left to my privacy like most others here. Perhaps I'm getting a bit paranoid after being asked so often. I'm wondering why I'm of such interest! I've checked this thread often, and can honestly say that despite the big raves, I haven't seen anyone posting pictures here who look as though they've had dramatic results. Why would someone who hasn't even claimed to be a happy user be being pestered for pictures? Just doesn't make sense to me.

For future information, and just so I won't be asked again - particularly by those that have no intention of reciprocating, I won't be sharing my photos here, just like the other 99.9999% of forum members.

Thanks!

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:35 pm

Trigger,

thank you so much for being so kind and observant.

I am following the Safetox thread, and that is how I know about your migraines (I am not a mind reader, so how would I otherwise). My husband suffers from them, so I am considering buying it for him. At the moment, since I am not familiar with the device yet and have nothing of value to contribute, I am merely following it and learning and very happy that your issue with electrodes had been happily resolved.

One of the side effects of blinking lights (and I believe waves in certain range) is that it MAY trigger migraines, but it does not mean that it always will.

This thread is for Lightstim and I find it rather strange, when people who do not use it and are not familiar with this specific device feel the urge to contribute.

Be it as it may it is a free country and a free forum and a free thread, so as far as I am concerned any participation is more then welcome.

For Physics question - perhaps, a school text book would be of help here.
It seems rather elementary to me (as I mentioned it was covered in my 6th grade), but there are books that explain light reflection (try to shine a pocket light on a mirror and see it being reflected on a wall) and light penetration.

I have no before pictures, and will have to ask my husband to take them now, which is tricky (he has a professional camera, which is very complicated for me; all the others are fully manual and my limited knowledge in that field prevents me from doing it correctly). May be some day I will convince him to do it, or may be Keliu will visit the USA....

In the meantime Kassy's pictures speak volumes, and there are many others here who are happy with their results in a fairly short period of time.

I own several LEDs(Prolight Blue, Prolight Platinum, Lightstim and have access to my mom's Quasar). My only issue with Lightstim is time, I just wish there was something that would be as good and less time consuming.

Please, do tell us about Omnilux - do you like it, did it help you with any issues, etc.

That would be indeed informative and constructive.

In terms of chemicals in the serum - that is EXACTLY what is being discussed - it's light reflective/penetrating properties and potential toxicity.

All the best!

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:46 pm

I recently purchased a AALS and noticed my pigmentation getting slightly darker. Not long after getting it, I took a break from it because I did a dermaroll. I've just started up again and after last night's session again noticed a few new pigmentation spots.
When I posted the first time about this Queenpedaque said that the same thing happened to her, but then eventually they got lighter.
I'm feeling slightly worried (actually quite worried!) that the fading part might not happen to me, and that I'll just keep getting more and more spots.

Can anyone help explain to me how LEDs effect pigmentation, and whether they really will get lighter. Or if there are certain skin types that are better off avoiding LEDs altogether.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

how do you girls use the AALS on your nose and nose bridge? i have some broken capillaries on the nose bridge between my eyes.

having problems angling it to touch the skin as well as avoiding the light. despite closing my eye lids, the AALS light still hurts my eyes.

thanks

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:32 pm

Oh well, I guess I won't worry about there being any light occlusive ingredients in my Replenix Green Tea Serum. Smile

According to all these posts, it seems there's nothing that can stop my mighty LightStim.

free skin care · Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:39 pm

packratmack,

It would appear that you are correct it may reflect and refract light a miniscule amount but so would water or any pre treatment serum! I believe you are fine with your serum!

IMHO
DM
Very Happy

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.