Agreed mars. I was recently in a dermatologist office for an unrelated issue. They said there was no treatment other than surgery (and they aren't surgeons!). They told me to adopt a wait and see attitude. Seems to me there is a lot of unnecessary worry about this issue. It is something beyond our control.
There are two things one can do to help minimize sagging skin: DMAE applied topically (Johnson and Johnson's study on topical DMAE and it's effect on skin along with before and after facial photos can be found in Dr. Perricone's book The Perricone Prescription) and red LED light therapy, which is so effective at helping the skin produce more of it's own collagen and elastin, estheticians in California are now banned from using it as it's considered an invasive medical procedure.
Thanks for the links, Slimmer. If the studies were sponsored by Johnson & Johnson (information that the linked abstract doesn't mention), then they are not credible. Vendor-sponsored studies all too often are shown to have strong bias to "prove" safety & efficacy. There have been many scandals too numerous to count, sadly, in which highly paid medical researchers--doctors-- falsified data to get the results desired by their sponsoring vendors.
Before & after photos can be doctored and often are! Dr. Perricone sells a line of skin care products and any claim he makes is probably to get you to buy the product. If the stuff works, great, but buyer beware.
I don't know a thing about LED therapy but the fact that it's now considered a medical procedure doesn't mean it's effective, though it might be. It may mean a bunch of consumers were injured because of lack of proper training by cosmeticians--just a possibility, not saying that happened.
Thanks for the links, Slimmer. If the studies were sponsored by Johnson & Johnson (information that the linked abstract doesn't mention), then they are not credible. Vendor-sponsored studies all too often are shown to have strong bias to "prove" safety & efficacy. There have been many scandals too numerous to count, sadly, in which highly paid medical researchers--doctors-- falsified data to get the results desired by their sponsoring vendors.
Before & after photos can be doctored and often are! Dr. Perricone sells a line of skin care products and any claim he makes is probably to get you to buy the product. If the stuff works, great, but buyer beware.
I don't know a thing about LED therapy but the fact that it's now considered a medical procedure doesn't mean it's effective, though it might be. It may mean a bunch of consumers were injured because of lack of proper training by cosmeticians--just a possibility, not saying that happened.
Estheticians are trained to use LED light therapy and people even use it at home.
LED light therapy was banned because "No licensee may perform any act which affects the structure or function of living tissue of the face or body. Any such act shall be considered an invasive procedure."
There are no documented injuries from LED light therapy/photofacials.
Perricone's book is about nutrition and, yes, he makes some recommendations for vitamins, supplements, and skin care products - but not just his own, products in all price points and some you can find in super markets. He's a respected, board certified dermatologist and nutritionist, as well as educator. I trust his opinion, but I would never buy his products. Stupid expensive.
Reading a research abstract is very intriguing, however, as Mars pointed out, the devil is in the details. For example, the media is guilty frequently of reporting something has been "proven" based on the fact that a study was completed.
Anyone who has successfully completed research-oriented grad school has been trained to read the entire research study with a critical eye. How was the study designed? Which statistical analysis was used (often the wrong one produces skewed results)? And more importantly (and not published), which data were ignored as "outliers"? Especially medical studies and studies funded by large corporations are guilty of ignoring critical data because it doesn't fit their mold. Quality research uses a true null hypothesis.
Long response to say the abstracts are interesting but prove nothing.
Reading a research abstract is very intriguing, however the devil is in the details. For example, the media is guilty frequently of reporting something has been "proven" based on the fact that a study was completed.
Anyone who has successfully completed research-oriented grad school has been trained to read the entire research study with a critical eye. How was the study designed? Which statistical analysis was used (often the wrong one produces skewed results)? And more importantly (and not published), which data were ignored as "outliers"? Especially medical studies and studies funded by large corporations are guilty of ignoring critical data because it doesn't fit their mold. Quality research uses a true null hypothesis.
Long response to say the abstracts are interesting but prove nothing.
Reading a research abstract is very intriguing, however, as Mars pointed out, the devil is in the details. For example, the media is guilty frequently of reporting something has been "proven" based on the fact that a study was completed.
Anyone who has successfully completed research-oriented grad school has been trained to read the entire research study with a critical eye. How was the study designed? Which statistical analysis was used (often the wrong one produces skewed results)? And more importantly (and not published), which data were ignored as "outliers"? Especially medical studies and studies funded by large corporations are guilty of ignoring critical data because it doesn't fit their mold. Quality research uses a true null hypothesis.
Long response to say the abstracts are interesting but prove nothing.
Lisa - that is the most concise summary of why research studies should be viewed skeptically that I have seen in a long time. Thank you!
