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

free skin care · Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:22 pm

rileygirl wrote:

Keliu wrote:

Riley - if you're finding that the light is too hot on you neck - why don't you treat that area first.

Good idea. I used the AALS last night for 2 minutes on each side of the neck and it was much better. I also did the neck next to last. Figured I would save the intense heat for my lip lines! Laughing

I was going to suggest the same to you riley!

With my sensitive decollete - I've tried doing a 2 minute treatment there a few times to see if it would do anything. My chest definitely does NOT like heat, so it's a good idea to treat there first. OR, let the LED cool down a bit.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 7:41 am

I saw this on ebay for anyone interested....it has the serum with the package
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250746483695&ssPageName=ADME:X:RTQ:US:1123

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:26 am

It probably would have been helpful if you also posted my original post, which led to Nanci's response + the *debate*.;

Kassy_A wrote:

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.)

As far as "debating" goes, what wasn't deleted can be viewed on pages 50 + 51 of this thread.. As far as the subject matter, I still stand by what I said above one year ago. Perhaps at this point it's just best to agree to disagree, and we can all continue to do as we see fit individually. For anybody who is interested in just plain talk all about LED's, and why and how they work; "Heelspurs" is a good start: http://heelspurs.com/led.html#summary ... As far as what I've learned from studies I've read, I have no links to provide you with, because I just make personal notes from the important bits I read. For me the proof is in the mirror, and I've shared that here with pictures. If that isn't good enough, then I have nothing else to offer.

Keliu wrote:

For those of you interested in the debate on serums blocking LED waves. This is a post from Nanci at NCN ProSkincare on the subject - it was made back in December '09. The DermaWave is the LED device sold by NCN. Following is Kassy's reply:

NCN wrote:

Quote:

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.”

Kassy wrote:

Quote:

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

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

Thanks again Nanci!

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=29297&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=1250

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 10:52 am

ugh I think the last 3 times in 4 months I asked a question anywhere on this forum I've got in the middle of a debate and never gotten an answer because someone posted something different after me and it got missed.bad timing I guess Laughing

I give up. I will try to figure things out without all you lovely experts..just thought someone could save me from another few hours of research or a mistake in spending Crying or Very sad

I have offered a lot of advice myself the times I've posted here so hopefully it's not that I'm offending anyone with my questions.. ?
Perhaps I should have posted my question in the LED pre-treatment serum thread but there wasn't much activity there..short thread etc..

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:00 am

Pollyanna wrote:

ugh I think the last 3 times in 4 months I asked a question anywhere on this forum I've got in the middle of a debate and never gotten an answer because someone posted something different after me and it got missed.bad timing I guess Laughing

I give up. I will try to figure things out without all you lovely experts..just thought someone could save me from another few hours of research or a mistake in spending Crying or Very sad

I have offered a lot of advice myself the times I've posted here so hopefully it's not that I'm offending anyone with my questions.. ?
Perhaps I should have posted my question in the LED pre-treatment serum thread but there wasn't much activity there..short thread etc..

Sorry if I missed you Polly. Sometimes I don't get to the forum for days, and in that case I only look at the last page of the few thread I follow.. So sorry.

Please PM me with your questions, and I'll help if I can. (Sorry nobody else chimed in for you.. Sad

)

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:17 am

Kassy_A wrote:

Pollyanna wrote:

ugh I think the last 3 times in 4 months I asked a question anywhere on this forum I've got in the middle of a debate and never gotten an answer because someone posted something different after me and it got missed.bad timing I guess Laughing

I give up. I will try to figure things out without all you lovely experts..just thought someone could save me from another few hours of research or a mistake in spending Crying or Very sad

I have offered a lot of advice myself the times I've posted here so hopefully it's not that I'm offending anyone with my questions.. ?
Perhaps I should have posted my question in the LED pre-treatment serum thread but there wasn't much activity there..short thread etc..

Sorry if I missed you Polly. Sometimes I don't get to the forum for days, and in that case I only look at the last page of the few thread I follow.. So sorry.

Please PM me with your questions, and I'll help if I can. (Sorry nobody else chimed in for you.. Sad

)

Thanks Kassy...You've been PM'd Very Happy

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:59 pm

Kassy_A wrote:

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.

But this is relating to a layer which is occlusive to WATER not LEDs.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:25 pm

Keliu wrote:

Kassy_A wrote:

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.

But this is relating to a layer which is occlusive to WATER not LEDs.

Exactly.

Occlusive means impenetrable to to air and moisture. It does not mean light impenetrable. This is the definition and is not subject to "in my opinion". If impenetrable to light is meant, another word should be used that actually means light impenetrable. The use of the word occlusive with regards to light is incorrect.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:36 pm

opaque

o·paque [oh-peyk] adjective, noun, verb, o·paqued, o·paqu·ing.
–adjective
1. not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through.
2. not transmitting radiation, sound, heat, etc.
3. not shining or bright; dark; dull.
4. hard to understand; not clear or lucid; obscure: The problem remains opaque despite explanations.
5. dull, stupid, or unintelligent.
–noun
6. something that is opaque.
7. Photography. a coloring matter, usually black or red, used to render part of a negative opaque.
–verb (used with object)
8. Photography. to cover up blemishes on (a negative), esp. for making a printing plate.
9. to cause to become opaque.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:47 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

opaque

o·paque [oh-peyk] adjective, noun, verb, o·paqued, o·paqu·ing.
–adjective
1. not transparent or translucent; impenetrable to light; not allowing light to pass through...

Darkmoon- Good choice. About the only thing likely to be in topically applied products that are opaque are undissolved minerals such as zinc oxide and titanium dioxide used in sunscreens that physically block light. Even then, if sunscreen is applied to the skin some of the light will still get through to the skin because the transmitted light would go inbetween the mineral molecules. A thick white coating of zinc oxide ointment would be opaque.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 5:55 pm

Exactly! It's back to 7th grade science or earlier, it's been too long! Opaque is what comes to my mind as what blocks light, and minerals as you mention are the closest we get in skin care, and I give people enough credit to not apply a heavy physical sunscreen or diaper ointment to their faces prior to any light treatment.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:00 pm

JonnyNJ wrote:

Exactly.

Occlusive means impenetrable to to air and moisture. It does not mean light impenetrable. This is the definition and is not subject to "in my opinion". If impenetrable to light is meant, another word should be used that actually means light impenetrable. The use of the word occlusive with regards to light is incorrect.

This is the crux of the matter. We all have our own opinions on everything, however, that shouldn't mean that we can alter the facts.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:24 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

... and I give people enough credit to not apply a heavy physical sunscreen or diaper ointment to their faces prior to any light treatment.

I just did a google search to see if any one does use diaper ointment on their face. Some women do. I can stop myself from trying that by calling diaper ointment by the same term that I read another woman uses- "Rear Schmear".

Yup... that'll stop me for sure! Bad Grin

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:30 pm

JonnyNJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

... and I give people enough credit to not apply a heavy physical sunscreen or diaper ointment to their faces prior to any light treatment.

I just did a google search to see if any one does use diaper ointment on their face. Some women do. I can stop myself from trying that by calling diaper ointment by the same term that I read another woman uses- "Rear Schmear".

Yup... that'll stop me for sure! Bad Grin

Too funny, Then again when having to buy some to use for my dad, right next to the national brand there was another called, "Bottom Butter" Bad Grin

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:36 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Too funny, Then again when having to buy some to use for my dad, right next to the national brand there was another called, "Bottom Butter" Bad Grin

Egad!! "Bottom Butter" conjures up an even more horrifying visual!!!

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:40 pm

JonnyNJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Too funny, Then again when having to buy some to use for my dad, right next to the national brand there was another called, "Bottom Butter" Bad Grin

Egad!! "Bottom Butter" conjures up an even more horrifying visual!!!

Especially in the baby product section!!!

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:49 pm

JonnyNJ wrote:

I just did a google search to see if any one does use diaper ointment on their face. Some women do. I can stop myself from trying that by calling diaper ointment by the same term that I read another woman uses- "Rear Schmear".

Yup... that'll stop me for sure! Bad Grin

It's never stopped me! Monistat chafing gel (meant for the vagina) makes a fabulous makeup primer! Not to mention the vaginal estriol cream now being used by many.

But on a serious note - zinc is excellent for the skin (as is taking oral zinc tablets). But not for a pre-LED treatment.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 6:53 pm

Pollyanna wrote:

ugh I think the last 3 times in 4 months I asked a question anywhere on this forum I've got in the middle of a debate and never gotten an answer because someone posted something different after me and it got missed.bad timing I guess Laughing

I give up. I will try to figure things out without all you lovely experts..just thought someone could save me from another few hours of research or a mistake in spending Crying or Very sad

I have offered a lot of advice myself the times I've posted here so hopefully it's not that I'm offending anyone with my questions.. ?
Perhaps I should have posted my question in the LED pre-treatment serum thread but there wasn't much activity there..short thread etc..

Pollyana - nobody meant to ignore you - in fact the ongoing debate about pre-treatment serums is most pertinent to the questions you asked. Any good nourishing serum should be fine to use. Just don't use Retin-A prior to using an LED.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 9:06 pm

JonnyNJ wrote:

I just did a google search to see if any one does use diaper ointment on their face. Some women do.

This stuff works great if you have raw irritated skin (like from Retin A). You would be surprised.
Very Happy

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:20 pm

rileygirl wrote:

JonnyNJ wrote:

I just did a google search to see if any one does use diaper ointment on their face. Some women do.

This stuff works great if you have raw irritated skin (like from Retin A). You would be surprised.
Very Happy

The skin on the sides of my chin, on the lower jaw sometimes get very irritated when I use Retin A, Vitamin C, or scrubs too much or too often. I usually use a lot of emu oil on the irritation but I'm going get some diaper ointment and try it next time.

free skin care · Wed Dec 29, 2010 6:00 am

JonnyNJ wrote:

The skin on the sides of my chin, on the lower jaw sometimes get very irritated when I use Retin A, Vitamin C, or scrubs too much or too often. I usually use a lot of emu oil on the irritation but I'm going get some diaper ointment and try it next time.

You need just a tiny bit. This is what a lot of Obagi users use when the skin is raw from the system! You'll have to report back how your results are with it.

free skin care · Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:50 pm

The 302 Ointment Rx was a zinc based cream/paste and was perfect for irritated skin. I did like that product.

... but it would be considered an 'occlusive' ingredient and not good for use w/ an LED

free skin care · Wed Dec 29, 2010 12:58 pm

foxe wrote:

The 302 Ointment Rx was a zinc based cream/paste and was perfect for irritated skin. I did like that product.

... but it would be considered an 'occlusive' ingredient and not good for use w/ an LED

Occlusive or Opaque I am sure it is a lot more costly than Desitin ointment. Laughing

free skin care · Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:03 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Occlusive or Opaque I am sure it is a lot more costly than Desitin ointment. Laughing

That it is. I liked the 302 ointment Rx, as well. However mine kept molding on me! Laughing

free skin care · Wed Dec 29, 2010 2:18 pm

rileygirl wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Occlusive or Opaque I am sure it is a lot more costly than Desitin ointment. Laughing

That it is. I liked the 302 ointment Rx, as well. However mine kept molding on me! Laughing

EWWWWWWWWWW How gross! Bad Grin

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.