| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:35 pm  |
Relax, fat_swan, there's nothing in the article to suggest that you've been duped. Despite its provocative title, the research in question was linked to life span and aging, not wrinkling per se. Understanding the genetic component to lifespan in worms is helpful in pointing researchers toward fruitful areas of work for life span and aging issues in humans. But if you've been using anti-oxidants to delay or reverse skin damage, this research is irrelevant. There's a lot of clinical evidence that anti-oxidants applied to the skin can be effective in addressing hyperpigmentation and fine lines associated with age.
If you have any doubt that cellular damage caused by exposure is a major cause of skin aging, just compare the skin on your face to the skin in a part of the body that gets little sun exposure. If it were nothing but genes, you'd expect to see similar aging patterns all over the body.
So keep using anti-oxidants to help with sun damage to the skin. Just don't expect a longer life span, particularly if you're a worm. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 3:57 pm |
there are more and more new things coming up, and its scary, what if 20 years later, they find out that long usage of retinoids causes cancer etc?  |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:14 pm |
| flitcraft wrote: |
| Just don't expect a longer life span, particularly if you're a worm. |
 |
_________________
31, combo - oily, breakout-prone, fair complexion, sensitive and prone to rosacea |
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 4:40 pm |
Calorblind, it's true that we don't really know the long term effects of the skincare actives we are using. They simply haven't been around long enough and there are no epidemiological studies uncovering correlations between their use and potential health issues down the road. So, if you are really risk averse, you should probably not be using active skincare.
That said, you can make more and less risky decisions, based on the limited evidence we currently have. I tend not to use products unless there is a plausible scientific theory as to what is going on with the product and some clinical studies showing some degree of efficacy. I also avoid products that have shown in vitro negative effects, recognizing that this doesn't necessarily mean that the ingredient causes problems in vivo. And I try to use the lowest dose of a product that gives good results--a change from my earlier practice of constantly upping the percentage of actives hoping for even better results. And I avoid growth factor products since I had a serious bout of cancer and I have been told that other unrelated growth factors have been linked to the cascade of cellular changes that culminates in some cancers.
That's just my personal approach--some may be more conservative than I am and some less so. It's a choice that we all have to make ourselves, balancing the potential benefits with the potential, largely unknown risks. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:33 pm |
| flitcraft wrote: |
| Calorblind, it's true that we don't really know the long term effects of the skincare actives we are using. They simply haven't been around long enough and there are no epidemiological studies uncovering correlations between their use and potential health issues down the road. |
Totally agree. We have no way of knowing what anything we are using is doing to our health in the long run.
So, flitcraft, since to stick to products that have some clinical studies backing them up, what products are you using on your skin? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:20 pm |
My mainstays are Vitamin C serum and a retinoid. Unfortunately, I can't tolerate Retin A, but I do use Avene's retinaldehyde products. I also use sunscreen daily--usually a European sunscreen with mexoryl or tinosorb because of its UVA blocking efficacy. I tried to add in NIA 24 for its niacinamide, but I had a bad reaction to the sunscreen version, so I will have to take it easier when I reintroduce it.
Oh, and I am a true believer in the power of LED light therapy. The research is admittedly preliminary but my positive experience with using a combo red, infrared, amber light is consistent with the current research. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 8:31 pm |
| Thanks for the reply, flitcraft! |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 9:30 pm |
For whatever it is worth, Dr. Leslie Baumann was recently quoted as saying that LED therapy is not quite there yet..she says that in another 2 - 3 years, an effective technology will be available.
From what I have read here on the forum so far, results appear to be mixed (?) and no general consensus (?)
BF |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Feb 24, 2009 10:45 pm |
Thank you, flitcraft, for your patience in explaining the difference between life span and aging. That article had me freaked for a bit!! 
You say you use the lowest dose of an active that gives good results. So for retinol, and vitamin C how much do you use? Thanks |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:24 pm |
More on LEDs: I agree that the research right now is in its earliest stages, and that there is insufficient clinical evidence now to conclude what the optimal time of exposure is and which wavelength combo best promotes skin repair. Hopefully we will know more in a few years, as Dr. Baumann suggests.
In the meantime, anecdotal evidence from users on the forum is quite mixed. Some users have found almost immediate results, though that was not my personal experience. Others have not had positive results. For me, it was at least six or seven weeks before I noticed anything positive, and increased positive results took months from first usage. Keep in mind that I am just one user, using my LED along with other products, with my own specific skin history and needs. Your results will almost certainly vary from mine. When we know more about the best ways to use LEDs and which of us are likely to benefit and in what ways, it will be easier to make the personal decision to use them or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:06 am |
| can u use LEDs on broken skin |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 26, 2009 11:22 am |
| bciw wrote: |
| can u use LEDs on broken skin |
NASA tested it on burned skin with positive results. Are you saying broken from blemishes, rashes or lacerations?
The Baby Blue is specifically for acne and users I know found it works for that. Rashes should respond to the anti-inflammatory wavelengths (BabyQ). But lacerations - probably not a good idea. |
_________________
✪ My go-to products: MyFawnie.BigCartel.com ✪ |
|
|
|
|
Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:10 pm |
a zit with the red pinprick hole that's left after the white head comes off
can you call this broken skin? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 16, 2009 3:01 pm |
| bump! |
|
|
|
|
| Wed Jul 23, 2025 11:03 am |
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. |
|
 |
|
