[HN Gopher] The only skin care that works? science video respons...
___________________________________________________________________
The only skin care that works? science video response (2020)
Author : olalonde
Score : 123 points
Date : 2021-08-23 04:47 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (labmuffin.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (labmuffin.com)
| westcort wrote:
| Lanolin plus retinol was what one youthful looking expert in the
| field used. They looked decades younger than they were.
| make3 wrote:
| how one individual looks means literally nothing. do they have
| research / guarantees on large samples for the individual
| products / delivery methods, etc, is what matters.
|
| Like others have said, I would like to know products OP
| actually does recommend, as they seem to have proper reasoning
| NonContro wrote:
| After a decade of struggle with skin conditions, what works for
| me:
|
| - Eliminate all foods that contain added sugar, including milk
| (lactose)
|
| - Have cold/lukewarm showers, every 2nd day
|
| - Use a rough washcloth and Nivea Sensitive Men's facewash
|
| - Occasionally use anti-dandruff Ketaconazole shampoo, but
| otherwise a 'natural' shampoo and conditioner without Sodium
| Lauryl Sulfate
|
| - Wash face each night before bed with warm water. Use the
| washcloth once, then wash in 95c water
|
| - Change bedsheets every 5 days, wash pillows and quilts every ~2
| months (all on hot)
|
| - Moisturise face after shower with beard oil. Water-based
| moisturisers don't last.
|
| - Minimise ejaculation instances, to conserve zinc and other
| minerals
| tleb_ wrote:
| With so many solutions, how could you be sure each one has an
| important role?
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Basically all these things keep the oil off your face, your
| skin healthy, and your pores closed.
| Bellamy wrote:
| Fucking brilliant.
| plexman wrote:
| Ketoconazole blocks hormone steroid synthesis and reduces
| testosterone levels.
| morsch wrote:
| When used externally?
| bendtb wrote:
| Could masturbation be the cause of skin problems in teenagers
| :-) ?
| kongolongo wrote:
| Not sure about the ejaculation point. Especially with zinc, the
| amounts released from ejaculation are far less than the rda and
| the same is also true with the other trace minerals present in
| semen. Even if we account for multiple ejaculations per day,
| diet contributes much more to any possible mineral imbalances
| than ejaculation could. You really can't out ejaculate even
| just a single day worth of zinc rda food intake. At ~3% of the
| rda per ejaculation that's ~33 ejaculations.
| hnacct0310304 wrote:
| It's about the overall system. If the man has a full sack,
| his body won't be utilizing its top-notch resources to
| replenish itself, making sure it is always at-the-ready. Once
| restocked, the resources devoted to that unique assembly line
| can be applied to repair and enhance operations.
|
| Having to arm that legion of competitive swimmers is an
| energetic undertaking of no small measure and no small
| importance -- quite the opposite, actually. That is why
| fasting and exercise are effective ways to tamp down one's
| sexual impulses. Well, avoiding stimulation (visual and
| otherwise) can also help tame our more primal energies.
|
| [[[ Also, the GP failed to mention exercising and avoiding
| the consumption of refined oils as other ways to keep the
| skin less clogged and infected. ]]]
|
| Regardless, semen retention is a way for a man to keep his
| body burning less quickly through our molecular environment,
| both internally and externally. The old Taoist texts (IIRC)
| teach 60 or 80 drops of blood are required to produce a drop
| of semen, and some significant amount of food to create a
| drop of blood. Stem the loss and the pipeline backs up, in a
| good way, so long as the man doesn't become an unbearable
| ahole, but that's related to self-control via self-evolution
| of the ego combined with the amount of stimulation they
| must/choose-to endure.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| Thank you for this. A well thought out response.
| dillondoyle wrote:
| You had me until the last one ;)
|
| Does anyone have science on specifically sugar? I find that
| correlation too (only with lots of cheap candy/bad greasy
| food), but feels kind of Goop-like bs. what is the mechanism
| for that to affect bacteria on the face?
| s9w wrote:
| Instant dismissal of the most massive unnatural behavior done
| on earth with literally a mountain of (animal) studies
| backing it up.
| Sunspark wrote:
| I present to you honey. Honey never goes bad, it has anti-
| fungal and anti-bacterial properties and for this reason is
| why it also helps with wound healing.
| plexman wrote:
| I believe that the authority in sugar is DR. Robert Lustig.
| He has a great book called Fat Chance, there he explains in
| details how sugar is a toxin and correlates with a plethora
| of diseases. Great read from a true hero that saved many
| obese kids during his practice.
| Sunspark wrote:
| Sugar is more than that, it's also an addictive drug. Try
| quitting sugar and see how far you get.
| [deleted]
| nazgulnarsil wrote:
| The author does have a simple recommendation list
| https://labmuffin.com/basic-skincare-guide-product-recommend...
| stingrae wrote:
| simple? that has like 25 products on it.
| camel_Snake wrote:
| And the first dozen or so all belong in the same category -
| cleanser.
|
| She just lists out different options for different sub-
| categories. Dry skin might prefer a different medium than
| oily skin.
|
| Overall there were 3 categories in that list - cleanser,
| moisturizer, and sunscreen. Pick one from each of the
| category that suits you.
| evo_9 wrote:
| From what I've research the best way to improve your skin quality
| is from the cells out; surface creams are just treating the top
| most layer of your skin and feel nice but don't generally do all
| that much.
|
| If you want to improve your skin from the cells out you can take
| something like this, which is what I take(Collagen Powder
| Protein):
| https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LXADO9Z/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
|
| Here is a doctor I follow that did a thorough breakdown of the
| research available about a year ago:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iydUMEoO-6w
| hbcondo714 wrote:
| > One group of ingredient that ASAP Science does recommend,
| alongside antioxidants and retinol, are palmitoyl polypeptides -
| if you use all three then you're checking all the boxes for
| science-backed anti-aging skincare.
|
| That paragraph sums it up but according to the article not all
| retinoids are the same. Read on for more scientific information
| on what's out there for your specific skin care needs.
| icebergwarrior wrote:
| I wish they made some recommendations and application schedule.
| That statement alone makes is very hard to figure out which
| products are legit and which are not.
|
| The average reader (me) just wants to buy 3 products, use them
| nightly, and move on, without doing hours of research.
| e_y_ wrote:
| From what I remember from Labmuffin's past articles, she
| doesn't give a specific nightcare routine because it varies
| based on the individual, so some trial and error is required.
|
| Maybe that's a bit of a cop out, but if there were a perfect
| combination then there wouldn't need to be so many different
| products (marketing aside, even the same formulations of
| active ingredients are available as washes, creams, lotions,
| serums, peels, etc).
| mikedilger wrote:
| There are other non-ingredient things that matter: limiting sun
| exposure, cleaning the oil/dirt, and using something to
| maintain hydration (glycerin, aqueous cream, ... petroleum
| jelly in extreme cases).
| sunshineforever wrote:
| Retinol!
|
| available at dollar tree for one dollar!
| yawaworht1978 wrote:
| I need something to reasonably explain to my wife that all these
| things don't work, the brand indoctrination is profound and the
| credit card bills hefty. Any good study on all the things that
| don't work?
| v3rt3x wrote:
| I second this.
| [deleted]
| goostavos wrote:
| I think if you're coming at it from an angle where you're going
| to sit your wife down on the couch, show her some studies, and
| then wait for the "thank you for clarifying my thinking!" to
| roll in, you're doomed to fail / upset your SO.
|
| I think the personality types you generally find in tech, which
| are so focused on what we can produce / output, don't
| understand that _consumption_ is a perfectly valid hobby or
| interest for people to have.
|
| I'd wager very few people actually buy the miracle claims on
| the products. I think they instead just find it fun. I gave my
| SO a lot of crap before realizing that some people just find
| stewardship of an object enjoyable. There's a whole subculture
| related to it. The ownership, displaying, and usage _is_ the
| hobby.
| mynameishere wrote:
| More like, people want the illusion that they can make
| themselves more attractive. If you say the truth, "Well dear,
| your skin's current appearance is a combination of genetics
| and avoiding the sun," then you've basically said, "You can't
| undo the past, therefore all hope is lost. Also, you're
| stupid for thinking this cream can help you."
| mr-wendel wrote:
| This comment is a wonderful template to consider. In my
| personal context, this would be about leaving a certain very-
| American religion and being the more-or-less first to take
| plunge: you really wanna share your "greater truth" and help
| those close to you unburden themselves by letting go of
| something so obviously false.
|
| You really can't "red pill" people, and the closer they are
| to you the lower the chances of success.
|
| You can, however, ask (non leading) questions and listen. If
| you can't start by being curious, don't expect them to make
| that leap first... and thats really where you have to start
| before you can change your mind.
| nostromo wrote:
| I doubt the majority of people using expensive skin care
| creams are actually doing it just for fun and not for any
| actual benefit.
|
| It's more common to hear people say, "it probably isn't doing
| much, but you never know." This is similar to people buying
| lottery tickets, "I doubt I'll win, but you never know."
|
| "I just enjoy it, ok?" is probably what someone would say to
| get rid of a pestering husband. :)
| artichokes wrote:
| > consumption is a perfectly valid hobby
|
| No it is not.
| bigfudge wrote:
| I agree with you but perhaps explain why. Taking pleasure
| in things we use seems healthy, but fast fashion etc and
| general consumer culture in the west seem psychologically
| suboptimal and are environmentally disastrous.
| satellite2 wrote:
| Additionally, most products contain water and glycerin which
| has evidence regarding skin hydration.
|
| So most product will produce a small effect.
|
| On top of that they smell good (rich), which is probably also
| an important part of the experience.
| Goronmon wrote:
| _I 'd wager very few people actually buy the miracle claims
| on the products. I think they instead just find it fun. I
| gave my SO a lot of crap before realizing that some people
| just find stewardship of an object enjoyable. There's a whole
| subculture related to it. The ownership, displaying, and
| usage _is_ the hobby. _
|
| An alternative is that bringing up this type of topic ends up
| sounding like some form of:
|
| "Hey, you know all that stuff that stresses you out everyday?
| Well, regarding one of the less important ones, you are doing
| it totally wrong and I want you to correct yourself."
|
| Even you are technically right, there is very little upside
| to bringing it up, especially out of nowhere. Assuming, of
| course, they aren't doing anything wildly dangerous.
| totetsu wrote:
| More than a hobby, it's like a gender roleplaying ritual for
| identity construction. ( And class I guess if it's expensive.
| Same reason me think golf is fun)
| gumby wrote:
| Because the science is so hard to do, the products are
| basically entertainment. If you think of it that way it's hard
| for me to get too upset -- when it's affordable.
|
| Some products are flat out dangerous though, and regulation is
| scant.
|
| When my MIL was dying of cancer eventually then sent her home
| and "prescribed" various homeopathic concoctions (German
| insurance covered all this). At first I was appalled but
| eventually realized that as there was nothing left to do for
| her, the homeopathic bottles of water were a form of palliative
| care: giving her a sense of agency. I came to realize that it
| was a kindness.
|
| Wearing makeup is often less critical, but given how important
| appearance is in culture, literature, and stereotyping,
| providing a sense of agency can be of enormous psychological
| value.
| hellbannedguy wrote:
| I've only seen one person venture into this battlefield, and it
| was a comedian doing a bit.
|
| The guy is a very funny Aussie. It's Jim Jeffries. His bit went
| my girl comes to bed with oily skin from those pricy creams.
|
| I tell her look at my face. Not a wrinkle, and I just use soap.
|
| Anyway, when I saw a dermatologist in high school, for years it
| seemed? He would only recommend glycerin soap, and Certaphil if
| you have very dry skin. Benzoyl peroxide, erythromycin roll on
| lotion, and I was on erythromycin pills for bad acne. Think
| most pores blocked up. He detested dermatologists who sold out,
| and developed their own phony beauty creams.
|
| This was when some doctors had integrity--80's? And it was
| starting to change.
| munchbunny wrote:
| My experience with dermatologists has been the opposite. Over
| the last 2 decades, the dermatologists I've seen mostly just
| recommended pretty basic stuff like gentler unscented soaps,
| moisturizers in general, or Vaseline/Aquaphor. That's not
| including actual prescription drugs of course.
| nostromo wrote:
| Check out Examine, they also cover skin care topics.
|
| https://examine.com/topics/wrinkles/
|
| https://examine.com/topics/skin-quality/
|
| https://examine.com/topics/skin-elasticity/
|
| ... among others.
|
| Unfortunately there's not a lot of great science out there,
| which is crazy given that the cosmetics industry is nearing
| $0.5T annually.
| Bombthecat wrote:
| I guess... Because the results would be devastating...
| distantaidenn wrote:
| I guess it depends on what type of skincare they are doing. My
| ex (Korean), had a 7 or 8 step routine each night. This is
| fairly normal for young women in Korea.
|
| She explained it to me as such: it wasn't so much an anti-aging
| regime, as a protection from the elements regime -- in
| particular pollution, as South Korea has some trouble with
| seasonal fine dust. I suppose it makes sense. And for what its
| worth, her skin did have a healthy, shiny, glow after applying
| all the layers -- which is also part of the appeal.
| [deleted]
| heavyset_go wrote:
| If it's not causing harm, I'd just leave it. They probably like
| using the products and studies aren't going to change that.
| ornornor wrote:
| Look at it this way: if it really had the long lasting effects
| that the ads wants you to believe it has, then it would be a
| medicine and wouldn't be sold OTC.
|
| Because it barely does anything at all and certainly won't
| change your skin overtime, it doesn't need FDA approval, isn't
| prescription only, and isn't a medicine.
|
| It's all marketing that makes you think it's medical, but they
| never say it. They just advertise it with white lab coats,
| sciency sounding weasel words, mathematical looking curves and
| graphs... but it's just overpriced and over marketed cream.
| Your brain is tricked into connecting the dots and concluding
| it's medicine but they'll never say it outright because they
| can't because it's not.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| There are plenty of effective skin care products with active
| FDA approved ingredients that are also OTC. Salicylic acid
| and benzoyl peroxide are two of them.
| nkozyra wrote:
| > Look at it this way: if it really had the long lasting
| effects that the ads wants you to believe it has, then it
| would be a medicine and wouldn't be sold OTC.
|
| I think this is a little simplistic. The FDA isn't inherently
| interested in anything effective being deemed a drug, even
| when it comes to oral supplementation.
|
| Plenty of non-medicine, non-FDA-regulated substances that
| work like medicines in some situations and do have real,
| repeatable effects are sold OTC.
|
| Plenty of actual medicines that are FDA-regulated are sold
| OTC.
| ProjectArcturis wrote:
| I'm at the age where I should start taking better care of my
| skin, but when it comes to reading up on the science and then
| translating that into deciding on products to buy, my eyes just
| glaze over. Did anyone put together a simple list of
| scientifically supported products that I can smear on my face?
| koolhaas wrote:
| Science supports that the sun really damages your skin, so you
| should absolutely use a sunscreen or SPF 30 moisturizer every
| morning.
|
| Digging deeper into types of ingredients that block sun, things
| get a bit more tricky. In general I've read dermatologists say
| "physical" sun screen ingredients are best, like zinc oxide,
| because they aren't absorbed through your skin like a
| "chemical" ingredient. But they also leave your skin looking
| more white.
|
| And beyond that, just wash your face in the morning and night
| with a face wash product, not bar soap. Something simple from
| Neutrogena.
| barcoder wrote:
| Good diet and keeping hydrated are probably more important
| mlok wrote:
| Related :
|
| Open Beauty Facts : https://world.openbeautyfacts.org/
|
| This database of products is a sister project of Open Food Facts
| : https://world.openfoodfacts.org/
|
| Many apps are based on these two DB.
| css wrote:
| I searched for a ton of products I use on this site and found
| no results-I find EWG[0] to have a much better dataset.
|
| [0]: https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/
| tablespoonsruby wrote:
| EWG is a source of misinformation:
| https://www.theecowell.com/blog/a-case-against-the-ewg
| css wrote:
| This article cherry-picks a few items and discussed how EWG
| interprets the ingredient safety. It does not follow that
| all of EWG is misinformation; dismissing the useful
| database of ingredients, animal testing statuses, and other
| data is itself misinformation.
| funkaster wrote:
| I haven't found anything other than anecdotal accounts but I
| would love to see a study/more detailed article about Mother Dirt
| products[0] - I found them super interesting because of the
| different approach.
|
| [0]: https://motherdirt.com/
| hereme888 wrote:
| The most proven anti-aging for skin, that I'm aware of, is
| prevention of UV rays damaging the skin.
|
| Sunscreens are amazing "anti-aging" formulas.
|
| Interesting fact: sunscreens are not proven to prevent melanoma;
| only basal cell carcinoma and other skin cancers. Beware I said
| "proven". They may, but evidence is not there yet, as of last
| time I checked.
| dade_ wrote:
| Especially sunscreen on overcast days. UVA doesn't cause
| tanning or sunburn, but it does pass through clouds and damages
| the skin.
| gpt5 wrote:
| +1. Some of the worse burns I had were during overcast days.
| normaldist wrote:
| So are there OTC retinol products that work better than others?
| camel_Snake wrote:
| I just recently adapted a skincare routine but I've been happy
| with The Ordinary. Retinols can be very irritating so the
| general recommendation I've heard is to start at a smaller %
| and use maybe once a week to start, working your way up in
| frequency then concentration.
| Eric_WVGG wrote:
| This isn't a particularly scientific review, but Amber A'Lee
| Frost wrote an amusing bit about the retinoid A313 Pommade.
| "skincare is what the French have instead of a space program."
| I picked up a tube, it seems pretty great.
|
| https://theoutline.com/post/8395/french-skincare-is-the-futu...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-23 23:01 UTC)