Let's Make a List / Name That Fantastic Active
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:40 pm

Keliu wrote:

DrJ - you have a habit of not posting the links and crediting the source of your information! In addition, the study you quoted appears to be referring to Radio Frequency which I thought was different to Ultrasound. Radio Frequency devices heat the dermis to damage and stimulate collagen and are targeted at tightening the skin, not product penetration - The STOP is an example of a home-use RF device.

I think you missed them. The source is listed in my note right above the abstract. To wit: ...Dermatol Surg. 2012 Jan;38(1):20-7. This is standard notation for references in the medical literature.

It is ultrasound, not RF, as explained right in the abstract ... "Intense focused ultrasound (IFUS)" which is clearly not an RF device.

Keliu wrote:

Also - do you have any data on whether 1 or 3 mhz ultrasound should be used on the face - their appears to be some confusion about this. But this study is talking about 4 and 7 mhz. I'm confused! But I'm not sure whether we're comparing apples with apples.

4 and 7 Mhz has been the standard in formal studies of safety and efficacy. E.g.

Lasers Surg Med. 2011 Jul;43(5):366-75.Safety study of transcutaneous focused ultrasound for non-invasive skin tightening in Asians.
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2010 Feb;62(2):262-9. Ultrasound tightening of facial and neck skin: a rater-blinded prospective cohort study.

I'm not aware of studies at the 1 and 3 Mhz levels. But lower ultrasonic frequencies should penetrate deeper into the skin. The home devices I have seen are 1, 3, 5 Mhz. The low end for body skin, the higher end for delicate e.g. periorbital tissues. Some overlap with 4 & 7, but not a perfect match. Are you worried about safety or efficacy with lower?

Keliu wrote:

It was Dr. Setterfield who made the comment about the ineffectiveness of home use ultrasound devices. I believe he was commenting in relation to their ability to penetrate topicals into the skin - especially in comparison to needling. BFG - I think you'd be the one to clarify this.

I'll let Dr. Setterfield defend his own opinion aboiut US. But I might tend to agree that needling is more effective. A gaping micrometer hole punched through skin is a superhighway compared to any IC spaces opened up by US, RF, or laser.

free skin care · Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:42 pm

Yes, it was Dr. S, referring to the ones that he is currently aware of. I was hoping that between them, they could locate one or work with a manufacturer to create one.

Speaking of Bellaire, I believe their Dermapen look alike is the same one reviewed and bashed by Sara Vaughter.

BFG

free skin care · Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:45 pm

Quote:

On the first primary outcome measure, two blinded clinicians felt that 8 of 10 subjects (80%) showed clinical improvement 90 days after treatment

great, and I feel like a latte.

BFG

free skin care · Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:52 pm

DrJ wrote:

Are you worried about safety or efficacy with lower?

both

It isn't/wasn't a matter of needling OR sonophoresis. It is/was a matter of using sonophoresis following needling to further drive the actives down into the skin. Presumably, because it is not wise to use those longer needles so frequently. So it would look something like this:

Sonophoresis leading to a deep roll followed by more sonophoresis leading to a deep roll...and on and on and what you end up with is *greatly* enhanced skin if you can believe the before/after photos of Des Fernandes. To my eye, his photos appear to the most believable.
BFG

free skin care · Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:59 pm

I wasn't aware that we were supposed to be using the sonophoresis after needling - I'll have to give that a try.

But I would really like to now why DrS feels that the home devices are ineffective.

free skin care · Wed Jun 13, 2012 6:48 pm

DrJ wrote:

Barefootgirl wrote:

Are you worried about safety or efficacy with lower?

both

It isn't/wasn't a matter of needling OR sonophoresis. It is/was a matter of using sonophoresis following needling to further drive the actives down into the skin. Presumably, because it is not wise to use those longer needles so frequently. So it would look something like this:

Sonophoresis leading to a deep roll followed by more sonophoresis leading to a deep roll...and on and on and what you end up with is *greatly* enhanced skin if you can believe the before/after photos of Des Fernandes. To my eye, his photos appear to the most believable.
BFG

Photos, a single time captured, from a single angle, lit one way, can be deceiving. I don't see phono adding anything to penetration after rolling, in theory. I would be far more concerned about the actives which are gaining access as the ultimate determinant of efficacy. You can only do so much with the damage paradigm. Plus, the older you get, the less capability you have to respond to it in a positive way.

free skin care · Thu Jun 14, 2012 6:57 am

Keliu wrote:

But I would really like to now why DrS feels that the home devices are ineffective.

His email address is easily obtained via his website, you could write and ask him.
He was responsive to me.

BFG

free skin care · Thu Jun 14, 2012 7:00 am

DrJ wrote:

Photos, a single time captured, from a single angle, lit one way, can be deceiving. I don't see phono adding anything to penetration after rolling, in theory. I would be far more concerned about the actives which are gaining access as the ultimate determinant of efficacy. You can only do so much with the damage paradigm.

Dr. F has been presenting his protocol (needling, iontophoresis and sonophoresis with specific topical actives) for probably over 15 years to various and major dermatological conferences around the world...as far as I know, I haven't seen anyone yet challenge his findings.

If they have, I would be interested in hearing about it.

BFg

free skin care · Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:03 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

DrJ wrote:

Photos, a single time captured, from a single angle, lit one way, can be deceiving. I don't see phono adding anything to penetration after rolling, in theory. I would be far more concerned about the actives which are gaining access as the ultimate determinant of efficacy. You can only do so much with the damage paradigm.

Dr. F has been presenting his protocol (needling, iontophoresis and sonophoresis with specific topical actives) for probably over 15 years to various and major dermatological conferences around the world...as far as I know, I haven't seen anyone yet challenge his findings.

If they have, I would be interested in hearing about it.

BFg

How would you hear about it? When I attend these conferences, there is always lots of pushback and debate. But unless it is something that "catches on" and stimulates others to do research, you never hear about it. The debates do not get transcribed or published. And in terms of trends, needling as an academic pursuit never caught on to the extent that you might see other academics push for a different protocol. I say all this as a believer in the value of needling, and of the physical modalities. However, I also need to know how stuff works. And when I see overlap between modalities, in terms of mechanisms of action, I want to try to see whether combinations of tissue disrupting events are additive, synergistic, or just throwing in all hoping for the best. And in terms of actives, DrF may be stuck in a time warp if he has been saying the same thing for 15 years. A lot has changed along the way. I have the highest regard for my colleagues worldwide, but there is always room for a healthy, respectful debate on the science. He would say the same.

free skin care · Thu Jun 14, 2012 8:15 am

I would never suggest that any one practitioner/reseacher is a sole guru of all perfect knowledge. Surely my persona here on EDS bears that out Laughing

That said, we see lots of public debate regarding the various benefits of lasers and other treatments, but never see anyone publicly in the mainstream (except for Paula Begoun and she doesn't count LOL) refute the benefits of needling. As I said, if anyone has refuted his work, I would love to see it.

I am sure from looking at his papers, that he has tweaked here and there, but he found something that appears to work for his clients and that of others..and he is not alone. I believe Horst Liebl has a strong following as well.

Certainly he doesn't need me to sound his own horn for him.
BFG

free skin care · Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:28 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

I would never suggest that any one practitioner/reseacher is a sole guru of all perfect knowledge. Surely my persona here on EDS bears that out Laughing

That said, we see lots of public debate regarding the various benefits of lasers and other treatments, but never see anyone publicly in the mainstream (except for Paula Begoun and she doesn't count LOL) refute the benefits of needling. As I said, if anyone has refuted his work, I would love to see it.

I am sure from looking at his papers, that he has tweaked here and there, but he found something that appears to work for his clients and that of others..and he is not alone. I believe Horst Liebl has a strong following as well.

Certainly he doesn't need me to sound his own horn for him.
BFG

I appreciate what you are saying, and I am a true believer in the foundational work of Dr's F&S. But, as scientists tend to do, I view things through the lens of my own training, research, etc. I am not a plastic surgeon (like DrF). I see things more from a cell physiology & biochemistry viewpoint. We understand the underlying mechanisms of healing so much better than we did 15 years ago, so I want to go back and challenge any conventional wisdom that may have made perfect sense then, but could be improved upon now, updated to the current state of the art in cutaneous cell biology.

free skin care · Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:47 am

Any thoughts on L-glutathione anyone? It's a potent antioxidant. This is what I read on Skinactives:

"L-Glutathione (gamma-L-Glutamyl-L-cysteinyl-glycine) is a tripeptide composed of the amino acids L-glutamine, L-cysteine and glycine. Glutathione is part of the antioxidant defense system of the cell, together with superoxide dismutase, catalase, alpha-D-tocopherol (vitamin E), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), and others. Glutathione is crucial to cell life, and impairment of the glutathione system results in damage to the cell membrane and cell death."

Is it "crucial" to skin health to use glutathione then or do we have enough of our own? (If that makes sense.)

free skin care · Sat Jun 16, 2012 5:48 pm

egyptiangoddess wrote:

Any thoughts on L-glutathione anyone? It's a potent antioxidant. This is what I read on Skinactives:

"L-Glutathione (gamma-L-Glutamyl-L-cysteinyl-glycine) is a tripeptide composed of the amino acids L-glutamine, L-cysteine and glycine. Glutathione is part of the antioxidant defense system of the cell, together with superoxide dismutase, catalase, alpha-D-tocopherol (vitamin E), ascorbic acid (vitamin C), and others. Glutathione is crucial to cell life, and impairment of the glutathione system results in damage to the cell membrane and cell death."

Is it "crucial" to skin health to use glutathione then or do we have enough of our own? (If that makes sense.)

There is typically a gradient of glutathione in keratinocytes, with less the closer you get to the surface. Why? It gets used up in protecting cells. The problem with supplementation is getting it into cells, and then into mitochrondria inside cells. We are well suited to make our own, and we increase levels by taking in antioxidants, which then "protect" glutathione by lessening the need for it to be expended.. The effectiveness of antioxidants e.g. carnosine, Vit E, etc) can be seen by measuring an increase in glutathione levels.

free skin care · Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:34 am

Interesting, thank you DrJ. Do you think it's a good topical ingredient to use? I'm thinking about purchasing a product that contains L-glutathione. It seems to be a good topical antioxidant.

free skin care · Mon Jun 18, 2012 5:15 am

Bump for DrJ so he can maybe see my question. Very Happy

free skin care · Mon Jun 18, 2012 2:56 pm

egyptiangoddess wrote:

Interesting, thank you DrJ. Do you think it's a good topical ingredient to use? I'm thinking about purchasing a product that contains L-glutathione. It seems to be a good topical antioxidant.

Hi egyptiangoddess, Glutathione (GSH) is a tightly regulated intracellular constituent, and is limited in its production by negative feedback inhibition of its own synthesis through the enzyme gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase. This means that whatever you add via topical application is compensated in your cells by reducing the amount it makes. So the net effect in nothing. Having said that, if you were in a state of serious depletion, e,g, exposure to the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard (HD) which causes severe GSH depletion, it could help. Is photoaging enough to cause such depletion? Not as far as I know. Does the company selling this provide any literature references?

free skin care · Mon Jun 18, 2012 7:58 pm

DrJ wrote:

egyptiangoddess wrote:

Interesting, thank you DrJ. Do you think it's a good topical ingredient to use? I'm thinking about purchasing a product that contains L-glutathione. It seems to be a good topical antioxidant.

Hi egyptiangoddess, Glutathione (GSH) is a tightly regulated intracellular constituent, and is limited in its production by negative feedback inhibition of its own synthesis through the enzyme gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase. This means that whatever you add via topical application is compensated in your cells by reducing the amount it makes. So the net effect in nothing. Having said that, if you were in a state of serious depletion, e,g, exposure to the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard (HD) which causes severe GSH depletion, it could help. Is photoaging enough to cause such depletion? Not as far as I know. Does the company selling this provide any literature references?

Dr J, does the same thing apply if you take it internally as a supplement?

free skin care · Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:29 pm

bethany wrote:

DrJ wrote:

egyptiangoddess wrote:

Interesting, thank you DrJ. Do you think it's a good topical ingredient to use? I'm thinking about purchasing a product that contains L-glutathione. It seems to be a good topical antioxidant.

Hi egyptiangoddess, Glutathione (GSH) is a tightly regulated intracellular constituent, and is limited in its production by negative feedback inhibition of its own synthesis through the enzyme gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase. This means that whatever you add via topical application is compensated in your cells by reducing the amount it makes. So the net effect in nothing. Having said that, if you were in a state of serious depletion, e,g, exposure to the chemical warfare agent sulfur mustard (HD) which causes severe GSH depletion, it could help. Is photoaging enough to cause such depletion? Not as far as I know. Does the company selling this provide any literature references?

Dr J, does the same thing apply if you take it internally as a supplement?

Yes, generally. Some does get absorbed, but typically a single pass through the liver will metabolize what gets in. Whole blood levels will not change.

free skin care · Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:30 pm

It was tried in Autism Spectrum Disorders, without success.

free skin care · Mon Jun 18, 2012 9:39 pm

DrJ wrote:

It was tried in Autism Spectrum Disorders, without success.

Thank you!

free skin care · Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:01 am

Thank you DrJ, very interesting. This is the product in question:

https://www.osmosisskincareproducts.com/Essence-17p6.htm

It is a Vitamin C powder that you mix in your hand (with serum, aloe, water etc.) It only contains LAA, L-glutathione and D-alpha tocopherol. It's a convenient way to use LAA without having to make an LAA serum etc. and seems to get very good reviews. I just wasn't sure about the L-glutathione. I like the ease of use with this product but I suppose I could do the same with just LAA powder as well. I still would like to try this product though as my first introduction into LAA.

Do you have any thoughts DrJ? I certainly wouldn't want to harm my skin by using glutathione or anything. Though I know that's probably silly. If it works good as an antioxidant then that seems ok?

free skin care · Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:04 am

DrJ wrote:

It was tried in Autism Spectrum Disorders, without success.

Interesting.

free skin care · Tue Jun 19, 2012 5:10 am

This is from Xtendlife about the supplement L-glutahione - it's supposed to be a good anti-oxidant. Apparently the ubiquitous mice do very well on it!

http://www.xtend-life.com/popup/ingredients/L-Glutathione.aspx

free skin care · Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:46 am

Keliu wrote:

This is from Xtendlife about the supplement L-glutahione - it's supposed to be a good anti-oxidant. Apparently the ubiquitous mice do very well on it!

http://www.xtend-life.com/popup/ingredients/L-Glutathione.aspx

Interesting. From this ref:

"L-Glutathione is ineffective when taken orally... for two reasons. One... the molecule is too large to pass through the cell membranes and two..."

Since it is a tripeptide, that rings hollow. Plenty of much larger molecules get absorbed.

"Scientists ultimately figured out how to make the molecule smaller so it could pass through the cell membranes. Reduced Glutathione, such as we use in our Total Balance formula, is well absorbed by the body."

Crapola. Reducing a small molecule does not make it smaller. Who are they trying to fool?

"It is able to benefit you in all the same ways as Glutathione, but is additionally important as it helps to increase and maintain the functions of other antioxidants."

What???

For example, as a ‘ground’ for antioxidant enzyme activity such as for Glutathione peroxidase (a powerful enzyme and scavenger of free radicals, which defuses damaging peroxides (formed by the oxidation of lipids and further causing rancidity).

That's what regular GHS does, you moron.

"So, this solved the first problem! This meant that there was only the one outstanding issue of how to get the Glutathione to the cells."

No, the problem is that by competitive inhibition, if you add glutathione your body makes that much less.Unless it has a dire need that manufacture cannot make up.

"enteric coating" blah blah blah

It is a tripeptide. It will survive.

But if I ever get mustard gas poisoning, I will definitely come to you guys for my enteric coated, reduced GSH.

free skin care · Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:35 am

DrJ, will you please look at my last post on the previous page of this thread? I was asking about the product with glutathione. 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.