Kassy's AALS pre treatment?
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skincare Tools & Do-It-Yourself Skincare

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:22 am

JonnyNJ wrote:

Since one can not tell what may block the infrared without determining the absorbance spectra of the chemical I will be using my LightStim on a clean are face.

Jonny, perhaps you could address this statement from the Estee Lauder patent application:

The light transmission rates of Formulas 1 and 2 were measured by a Hewlett-Packard UV-Vis spectroscope (Model HP 8452A) upon application to a 0.1 mm path length quartz cell. Each sample material was placed in the cell, which was then placed in the UV-Vis spectroscope instrument to measure the amount of light transmitted through the sample from the LED source to the detector. Results are recorded in terms of intensity vs wavelength. Formula 1 demonstrated a light transmission rate of about 92%, and Formula 2 demonstrated a light transmission rate of about 88%.

From the information I have found, the HP UV-Vis spectroscope (Model HP 8452A) "is a single-beam, microprocessor-controlled spectrophotometer. Visible/UV - range of 190 to 820 nm with 2 nm resolution". Does that allay any of your fears about using a pretreatment serum?

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:54 am

Tända Regenerate Pre-Treatment Gel

Water/EAU/Aqua, Glycerin, Propylheptyl Caprylate, Polyquaternium-37, Caprylic/Capric Triglycerides, Pentylene Glycol, Tamarindus Indica Seed Extract, Butylene Glycol, Hexapeptide-9, Teprenone, Tabebuia Impetiginosa Bark Extract, Ethylhexylglycerin, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol, Sodium Hydroxide, Michelia Alba Leaf Oil, Sorbic Acid.

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 11:59 am

Lacy53 wrote:

Jonny, perhaps you could address this statement from the Estee Lauder patent application:

...Results are recorded in terms of intensity vs wavelength. Formula 1 demonstrated a light transmission rate of about 92%, and Formula 2 demonstrated a light transmission rate of about 88%. [/i]

... Does that allay any of your fears about using a pretreatment serum?

90% average is good. Well within my tolerance limits. I've been doing a little more research on this and I believe that as long as one stays away from minerals (i.e. zinc oxide, etc) then transmission rates should be acceptable at all wavelengths with just about any transparent topical product, aqueous or oil based.

Regarding the LightStim, I'm thinking now that I may use a very thin tamanu/emu oil or tamanu/jojoba oil blend with green tea oil or green tea oil soluble extract of which there are a few choices. I want the anti-inflammatory effects of tamanu and the antioxidant properties of green tea. The only aspect that may be an issue is reports on EDS that the QVC LightStim (which should be in my mailbox as I write) produces more heat than some find comfortable. This could be an issue with too much oil.

I really miss having laboratory equipment to test with. We used to do things like tape our sunglasses into the spectrophotometer to determine what wavelengths were blocked and how much light transmission rates were decreased. As expected, product labeling was often misleading and cost was not directly related to effectiveness. Those were fun times! (Note: we did not do this during working hours.)

I ran across this article that I thought was interesting regarding infrared and skin sun damage from UV.

"Infrared Radiation May Protect Skin Against Aging and Damage"

I found it here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6366/is_1_11/ai_n28727126/

The original source cited in the article is the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

This is the part that I found most interesting:

"Infrared's protective effect emerged almost immediately after exposure and reached a peak 24 hours later. The protection then declines, disappearing after 3 days. Infrared's effect was cumulative. For example, two 30-minute irradiations reduced the number of cells killed by UVA to just 2%. Three irradiations eradicated UVA's effect. Similar results emerged in the studies of UVB."

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:54 pm

**I'll copy this to the AALS thread also since the same conversation is going on there**

Lacy53 wrote:

So it doesn't appear that the scientists/chemists at Estee Lauder think oils or silicones are occlusive to LED light.

To conduct their study of the 2 example serums, the inventors used the Tanda Regenerate (660nm red) LED device. Tanda does offer for sale 2 different Pretreatment Topical Gels for use with their system; Tända Regenerate Pre-Treatment Gelfor use with their red light and Tända Clear Pre-Treatment Gel for use with their blue light. The description for these gels is:

Tända Pre-Treatment Gels
Specially formulated to optimize the delivery of light to the skin:

-Free of light-reflecting properties which may interfere with light delivery
-High degree of transparency allowing for maximum light penetration
-Specific viscosity reduces reflection and refraction of light to the skin

All Tända topicals are botanically-based, hypoallergenic and non-comedogenic.

While that does sound very much like the wording in the patent application, I can't say for sure that these pretreatment serums are related to the patent application. Tanda doesn't seem to list the ingredients on their website either.

http://www.tandaskincare.com/pre-treatment-topicals

-What I've underlined is relevant to all I have tried to share here for more than a year on the subject. (Thanks for posting that!)

-For anyone who is interested in trying to really learn how to read a 'patent', and more importantly pick out the important parts they try to hide, this website is a great start;

http://chemistscorner.com/how-to-read-a-cosmetic-patent/

DIY'ers will find a wealth of info throughout these pages (and other links provided) as well. In fact, it's because of my 3 years of intense study (overall), that I was able to wind up with the couple of sentences I personally noted from that entire patent;

Specifically, the topical composition is capable of transmitting at least 80%, preferably at least 85%, and more preferably at least 90%, of the EM emitted by the LEDs to the skin. In other words, the topical composition absorbs, reflects, scatters, or blocks little or no EM emitted by the LEDs, thereby minimizing any potential interference thereof with the LEDs.

@All, my sincere apologies to those of you who have had so much confusion thrown at you in the form of "copy + paste". It's unfortunate that the really important parts were left out, and only the confusing parts (that could perhaps cast doubt on what I said) were copied + pasted.

Anyway, I hope those who are really interested in learning how to decipher the good stuff contained in *patents*, will take advantage of the link I posted above. And of course you are always welcome to pick my brain for thoughts, as I've already done a great deal of my homework... Very Happy

In closing I'd just like to tell all of you this; I have always been happy to share everything I've tried, learned, screwed up royally or had great results with, here with all of you. Yes, I posted pictures of both disasters as well as raves when something proves worthy.

A few of you know me personally, and several of you are Facebook and Skype *friends*. Because of that you know that if I post a picture it is the real deal, and hokus pokus (or hiding behind an alias) is not what I'm about. In short I am what I am and have nothing to hide. I'm no glamour girl. I couldn't care less about designer anything. I own one or two lip glosses and occasionally put some clear lash conditioner on my eyelashes. I've had a broken nose for the last 30 something years that was never a priority to do something about. I have no lips to speak of, my entire tooth structure is crooked from a bout of meningitis that had me in an 8 day coma in my youth. And last but not least the dreaded sag is *trying* to take over.. Laughing

So with all that said, it's only right that those of you who don't know me, can at least give me the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps believe that by God, the things that I've shared here are indeed doing what I claim. As I said before, "I'm no glamour girl", but I'm fairly confident that I don't look like the typical 60 year old, who has smoked for 46 years. And NO, I haven't had any type of cosmetic procedure at all. I'm having too much fun seeing how well I can hold back the aging clock on my own. If I ever do make that appointment though, I assure you it will be to fix my poor crooked nose, so I can breath through it.. Laughing

Me + Mr Kassy (Oct 2010. He's 64 and not a good listener, cute non the less )

The Grandson's and I (Oct 2010.. I put this in so you can see my skin enjoys the same glow as their's.

So that's what you get from me; no secrets, no lies, no drama and hopefully no confusion. As always, take it or leave it alone...

BIG hugs,
Kathy Very Happy

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:11 pm

JonnyNJ wrote:

Regarding the LightStim, I'm thinking now that I may use a very thin tamanu/emu oil or tamanu/jojoba oil blend with green tea oil or green tea oil soluble extract of which there are a few choices. I want the anti-inflammatory effects of tamanu and the antioxidant properties of green tea. The only aspect that may be an issue is reports on EDS that the QVC LightStim (which should be in my mailbox as I write) produces more heat than some find comfortable. This could be an issue with too much oil.

I ran across this article that I thought was interesting regarding infrared and skin sun damage from UV.

"Infrared Radiation May Protect Skin Against Aging and Damage"

I found it here:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6366/is_1_11/ai_n28727126/

The original source cited in the article is the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

This is the part that I found most interesting:

"Infrared's protective effect emerged almost immediately after exposure and reached a peak 24 hours later. The protection then declines, disappearing after 3 days. Infrared's effect was cumulative. For example, two 30-minute irradiations reduced the number of cells killed by UVA to just 2%. Three irradiations eradicated UVA's effect. Similar results emerged in the studies of UVB."

The only issue I can think of when using oils with the LightStim LED is transference to the device itself. Probably not very sanitary, but that shouldn't impede the penetration of light IMO. I suppose the same could be said of any topical pretreatemnt to some extent.

The article you quoted was written some time ago; I too have been looking at research into the effects of infrared light in the skin. Have you seen these?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0781.2003.00054.x/full#f1

http://www.nature.com/jidsp/journal/v14/n1/full/jidsymp20097a.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687728/?tool=pubmed

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:47 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

The article you quoted was written some time ago; I too have been looking at research into the effects of infrared light in the skin. Have you seen these?

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0781.2003.00054.x/full#f1

http://www.nature.com/jidsp/journal/v14/n1/full/jidsymp20097a.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687728/?tool=pubmed

The article is from 1999. I don't believe that this negates the data and the more recent data expands upon the effects of IR light upon skin with regards to exposure time.

The first two articles that you site demonstrate damage to the skin with chronic, extended exposure. The third demonstrates benefits to the skin, specifically collagen synthesis, through 15-20 minute exposure.

I think that the four articles altogether can be summed up by the traditional saying about "too much of a good thing...".

I used my LightStim on a clean face today and the heat generated felt to me to be warm, above tepid, but not hot.

What was interesting was that the instruction manual stated that the device is intended for use in the treatment of the the periorbital area. There is no mention in the manual specifically about use on other facial areas. The website uses "skin" as the target area. Also, the manual does not include any warning about use near the eyes aside from saying to close the eye on the side of the face that you are applying the light to. Goggles are provided in the box and there is no reference to them in the manual.

The reason that I mention this is because the Palomar PaloVia home anti-aging device is for use in the periorbital area. So now I'm wondering whether the PaloVia may actually work on facial wrinkles and that the periorbital reference is because of an FDA marketing approval aspect or to meet another regulatory requirement.

Also, the LightStim instructions say that cleanliness of the unit is important and to wipe the bulbs off with alcohol after each use.

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:11 pm

JonnyNJ,

That was one of my mom's favorite sayings "too much of a good thing....." along with everything in moderation.

Now that you have the device in hand, up close and personal what is your take on oils used in conjunction with the AALS? 1) as far as heat being an issue 2) would it get into the device anymore than say an aqueous serum?

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 2:43 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Now that you have the device in hand, up close and personal what is your take on oils used in conjunction with the AALS? 1) as far as heat being an issue 2) would it get into the device anymore than say an aqueous serum?

I don't believe that either water or oil will get inside the device unless it is covered/submersed with liquid. The instructions say to wipe off the tops of the bulbs. This is probably because with repeated use and without regular cleaning an opaque or semi-opaque dried, baked on film could develop over the top of the bulbs and decrease the light transmission.

In regards to oil use and heat, I applied a thin layer of emu oil to one side of my face and a thicker layer to the other side. I waited 15 minutes and the thin layer had soaked in whereas the thick layer was still a little gooey. I prewarmed the LightStim for ten minutes so that it would be at a stable temperature. Then I used the Lightstim for five minutes on each side. There was no discernable difference between without or with a thin application emu oil. The side with the heavier application felt warmer but was no where near being too warm for comfort.

I looked at the Lightstim bulbs and rubbed my fingers against the bulbs after using it on the heavier oiled side. As expected, I couldn't see anything and I did not feel anything either. Nonetheless, I'm fairly certain that the bulbs are slimed and I will wipe them off before turning the unit on again.

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 3:08 pm

Thanks JonnyNJ!

That only makes sense that cleaning the bulbs after use is recommended, I feel whatever is used on our faces should be kept clean anyway!

I thought the unit would have a sufficient seal around the bulbs to avoid any liquids/lipids from entering as it is suggested you wipe it with alcohol to cleanse the unit, but you verified that assumption!

Good to know about the warmth not being an uncomfortable temperature.

Thanks again for the quick reply. Smile

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:07 pm

JonnyNJ wrote:

I don't believe that either water or oil will get inside the device unless it is covered/submersed with liquid. The instructions say to wipe off the tops of the bulbs. This is probably because with repeated use and without regular cleaning an opaque or semi-opaque dried, baked on film could develop over the top of the bulbs and decrease the light transmission.

In regards to oil use and heat, I applied a thin layer of emu oil to one side of my face and a thicker layer to the other side. I waited 15 minutes and the thin layer had soaked in whereas the thick layer was still a little gooey. I prewarmed the LightStim for ten minutes so that it would be at a stable temperature. Then I used the Lightstim for five minutes on each side. There was no discernable difference between without or with a thin application emu oil. The side with the heavier application felt warmer but was no where near being too warm for comfort.

I looked at the Lightstim bulbs and rubbed my fingers against the bulbs after using it on the heavier oiled side. As expected, I couldn't see anything and I did not feel anything either. Nonetheless, I'm fairly certain that the bulbs are slimed and I will wipe them off before turning the unit on again.

I agree with your comments about oils not getting inside the device. But oil will leave a residue if it is not wiped off - I discovered this from using the High Frequency Wand with oils.

I have also experimented with doing LED treatments after applying Emu Oil. I also felt that my skin became warm (a bit like sunbaking with oil on the skin) but not uncomfortably hot. What I did find was that the oil penetrated into the skin much faster and my skin felt really hydrated afterwards.

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:55 pm

Kassy_A wrote:

As I said before, "I'm no glamour girl", but I'm fairly confident that I don't look like the typical 60 year old, who has smoked for 46 years. And NO, I haven't had any type of cosmetic procedure at all. I'm having too much fun seeing how well I can hold back the aging clock on my own. If I ever do make that appointment though, I assure you it will be to fix my poor crooked nose, so I can breath through it.. Laughing

Kassy_A, you look amazing!! Your skin is glowing, and you have a sharp elegant jawline!

free skin care · Thu Dec 16, 2010 9:05 pm

Keliu wrote:

I have also experimented with doing LED treatments after applying Emu Oil. I also felt that my skin became warm (a bit like sunbaking with oil on the skin) but not uncomfortably hot. What I did find was that the oil penetrated into the skin much faster and my skin felt really hydrated afterwards.

I noticed that also. My skin felt very smooth and "comfortable". I may end up using the LightStim on my hands this winter with oil. At some point during the winter the skin usually starts to crack. I have the standard 2 panel DPL unit but I've only used it a few times. What I really like about the LightStim is that I can use it while I'm on the internet or watching television.

free skin care · Sat Dec 17, 2011 3:31 pm

I made a quick simple water based spritz about a month ago and have been enjoying using it pre LED treatment lately.. DIY'ers might like to give it a try..

Water Based Pre Treatment for LED

- 8oz spritz bottle
- 6oz distilled water
- 1oz aloe vera gel (look for one that's clear with minimal ingredients and NO oil
- 1 tsp niacinamide
- 1 tsp wheat germ extract (not oil!)
- 1 tsp green tea extract
- 2 tsp of "pure opti-msm" (or 4 or 5 capsules)
- 1 tsp licorice root extract

Dissolve the msm and niacinamide (powders) in the water, add and stir in remaining ingredients (one at a time), transfer to the spritz bottle and shake it up.. I keep it in the fridge and use it up in about 2 weeks.. It's great for anytime use, but really working nicely when applied about 1/2 hour before I use the LED.. I also use it to thin down my CeraVe cream which I love for both face and body use..

Enjoy!

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.