99 replies to this topic

[bryan]

I know, I know, this is a very old topic, but I just had to let Bryan know-

I FINALLY GET IT.

Glad to hear it!!

Skin can feel dry and be dehydrated, but that is the SKIN, not the SEBACEOUS GLANDS. Sebaceous glands produce sebum at an unchanging rate, regardless of the condition ("dehydration"/dryness or oiliness) of the skin. Sebaceous glands, being underneath the skin, are not affected by any topical/external treatment.

The only thing I want to add here to that is that there are _some_ topical treatments which can affect sebum production, but they generally aren't really commonly-available things that are obtainable by the public. Potent topical antiandrogens like RU58841 or 17a-propylmesterolone would probably do the trick, but good luck on getting your hands on either one of those. A topical 5a-reductase inhibitor like gamma-linolenic acid would probably work, too, but you can only get it from a chemical company, and it's VERY expensive.

But those things are DRUGS, not just simple skin cleansers. They have drug-like effects on the sebaceous glands.

[arturX]

I think it's great you decided to do the test on yourself but I think you should have tested over a longer period.
Your "greasy" tests are an accumulation of sebum buildup along multiple days and the "washing" tests display sebum accumulated only a few hours after you washed. I think the test should be made only after a 8 week long greasy/washing periods, that is 16 weeks altogether.

[lyssa jr]

Alcohol can really dry out and irritate the skin. I wouldn't recommended it. I know it sounds like a good idea because of sterilization, but it's just not good I hope you don't do that daily. lol

[ben100604]

I remember when this thread started...

[bryan]

Your "greasy" tests are an accumulation of sebum buildup along multiple days and the "washing" tests display sebum accumulated only a few hours after you washed.

NO THEY ARE NOT!! You obviously didn't understand my procedure, even though I took great pains to describe it in considerable detail in the first post of this thread. The "greasy" tests were conducted in exactly the same way as the "washing" tests: first I washed and de-fatted my skin, then I made a Sebutape impression every half-hour thereafter. Go back and CAREFULLY re-read that post!

I think the test should be made only after a 8 week long greasy/washing periods, that is 16 weeks altogether.

And yet you used to see other people regularly posting on this forum that they supposedly got an "overcompensation" of increased oil production in a LOT less time than it took me to do that test!

I have a distinct feeling that if I did do the test over 8 weeks (16 weeks altogether), that still wouldn't be good enough for you, and you'd then change it to six months. Then it would have to be a YEAR, etc. etc.

[arturX]

Alright you did the tests that way, but what's the purpose of finishing of a greasy test with soaps and alcohol? Anyway, 7-10 days is way too short time period. Sebaceous glands are not that responsive. It's not only about the amount of sebum, it's also about the speed of secretion and the amounts of stored sebum in your epidermis.

I have a distinct feeling that if I did do the test over 8 weeks (16 weeks altogether), that still wouldn't be good enough for you, and you'd then change it to six months. Then it would have to be a YEAR, etc. etc.

You're being untrustworthy man. Why would I ask you to do a test for 6 months, a year, etc.?
16 weeks is sure long enough. If it wouldn't work for you, I would probably ask you the following questions: is your back oily, is your chest oily, what about the scalp, your ears, do you spend a lot of time in the sun/heat, etc.?

[bryan]

Alright you did the tests that way, but what's the purpose of finishing of a greasy test with soaps and alcohol?

It's to get all the sebum off your skin. If you're trying to measure the true rate at which sebum is produced, first you have to get it completely off your skin, then measure how much reappears a short time later (like 15 minutes, or half an hour, or an hour, or whatever).

Anyway, 7-10 days is way too short time period. Sebaceous glands are not that responsive.

LOL!! I hereby deputize you to watch what other people post on this forum, and them come down on the ones who say things like "I started washing my face with [fill-in-the-blank product] yesterday, but it cleans my face too well, and now my skin is 'overcompensating' for it by producing too much oil!"

It's not only about the amount of sebum, it's also about the speed of secretion and the amounts of stored sebum in your epidermis.

Sure, but once you stick to the same daily routine for a while, the speed of secretion closely parallels the true production rate of sebum within the sebaceous glands.

I have a distinct feeling that if I did do the test over 8 weeks (16 weeks altogether), that still wouldn't be good enough for you, and you'd then change it to six months. Then it would have to be a YEAR, etc. etc.

You're being untrustworthy man. Why would I ask you to do a test for 6 months, a year, etc.?

So the results would come out like you want, I'd imagine.

16 weeks is sure long enough.

I agree with you on that: 16 weeks is WAAAAAY long enough. But many people here believe (or at least they USED to believe) that the sebaceous glands can alter their sebum production rate very quickly, like after only a day or two of washing, or even less.

If it wouldn't work for you, I would probably ask you the following questions: is your back oily, is your chest oily, what about the scalp, your ears, do you spend a lot of time in the sun/heat, etc.?

If WHAT wouldn't work for me? I don't understand what you're saying.

[arturX]

It's to get all the sebum off your skin. If you're trying to measure the true rate at which sebum is produced, first you have to get it completely off your skin, then measure how much reappears a short time later (like 15 minutes, or half an hour, or an hour, or whatever).

Why haven't you used just water for the greasy wash?

LOL!! I hereby deputize you to watch what other people post on this forum, and them come down on the ones who say things like "I started washing my face with [fill-in-the-blank product] yesterday, but it cleans my face too well, and now my skin is 'overcompensating' for it by producing too much oil!"

I meant (but didn't write) that they're not that responsive in terms of reducing sebum output. They sure can increase it fast enough though.

So the results would come out like you want, I'd imagine.

I don't see what would I gain from that.

I agree with you on that: 16 weeks is WAAAAAY long enough. But many people here believe (or at least they USED to believe) that the sebaceous glands can alter their sebum production rate very quickly, like after only a day or two of washing, or even less.

A day or two... is a naive thinking.

If WHAT wouldn't work for me? I don't understand what you're saying.

Work for you as in "I'm trying to be less oily". Or I missed the purpose of your involvement as original topic starter?

[bryan]

It's to get all the sebum off your skin. If you're trying to measure the true rate at which sebum is produced, first you have to get it completely off your skin, then measure how much reappears a short time later (like 15 minutes, or half an hour, or an hour, or whatever).

Why haven't you used just water for the greasy wash?

Because water is a lousy cleanser. Do you really think just splashing/rinsing your face with some water will get all the oil off?

LOL!! I hereby deputize you to watch what other people post on this forum, and them come down on the ones who say things like "I started washing my face with [fill-in-the-blank product] yesterday, but it cleans my face too well, and now my skin is 'overcompensating' for it by producing too much oil!"

I meant (but didn't write) that they're not that responsive in terms of reducing sebum output. They sure can increase it fast enough though.

I don't understand what your point is. That thread has to do with your response to topical antibacterials, not washing.

So the results would come out like you want, I'd imagine.

I don't see what would I gain from that.

So do you or do you not believe in the "feedback theory", aside from the separate issue of how long it (supposedly) takes to manifest itself?

If WHAT wouldn't work for me? I don't understand what you're saying.

Work for you as in "I'm trying to be less oily". Or I missed the purpose of your involvement as original topic starter?

If you wash more often, you obviously will be less oily, since the "feedback theory" has been soundly refuted. What I don't understand is why you asked about my back, chest, scalp, and ears, and how much time I spend in the sun. What does that have to do with anything?

[arturX]

Yes, water can remove the oil from your skin. It can also bring down mountains.
Alcohol can surely remove oil too and even more than necessarily. Some types of alcohol can go *really* deep into your skin, FYI.

According to my experience, as you can read it, I believe in the feedback theory. That's the only logical explanation I can come up with concerning my condition.

I asked about your back, chest, scalp and ears because if you have oily skin there, then you're wasting your time on the feedback theory since that's not your "core" problem.

Who soundly refuted the "feedback theory? AFAIK there has been numerous research going way back to 1938. that supports the "feedback theory".

[bryan]

Yes, water can remove the oil from your skin. It can also bring down mountains.

Sure, and I imagine it could blow your head right off your shoulders, if you swam up the outlet tunnel from Boulder Dam where the water gushes out. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to WASH YOUR FACE with water alone, especially if you're doing it as part of a scientific test that requires your skin to be thoroughly clean.

According to my experience, as you can read it, I believe in the feedback theory. That's the only logical explanation I can come up with concerning my condition.

I asked about your back, chest, scalp and ears because if you have oily skin there, then you're wasting your time on the feedback theory since that's not your "core" problem.

What you said in that other post of yours doesn't have anything to do with the feedback theory, and neither does what you said above about my back, chest, scalp, and ears. You don't seem to understand what the "feedback theory" actually is. In a nutshell, it's the belief that washing your skin stimulates the sebaceous glands to produce even MORE sebum, to replace what was washed off. But we now know that that's not true! Sebaceous glands produce sebum continuously, whether you wash your skin or not.

Who soundly refuted the "feedback theory? AFAIK there has been numerous research going way back to 1938. that supports the "feedback theory".

I've started a few different threads on this site over the years which provide the appropriate citations to the scientific literature which debunks the "feedback theory". Here's a list of the most important ones, and you can use the Search function to find them (if you still can't find them, let me know and I'll provide a direct link to them):

"The myth of skin washing and sebum production" (Acne Research forum)
"Still more evidence against the 'feedback theory' " (Acne Research forum)
"If you stop washing, do you get MORE oily, or do you get LESS oily??" (Acne Research forum)
(And, of course, this thread that we're posting in right now is a fourth one, showing the results of my own personal test.)

[arturX]

But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea to WASH YOUR FACE with water alone, especially if you're doing it as part of a scientific test that requires your skin to be thoroughly clean.

I image then if you would find yourself somewhere where there is no alcohol or soap, you wouldn't resort to washing your face with only water then?
I still think it's wrong to finish the greasy test with alcohol and soap. Aren't you trying to see how your skin reacts when not in contact with that stuff for the purpose of greasy test?

I think the tests should have been done this way.

Frist, you stop washing your skin for the same period of time (8 weeks in this case). You don't use soap or alcohol at the end but only water and a towel/paper. You wait 24 hours and use the sebutape.

Second, you wash your skin with alcohol and soap for a certain time period (let's say 8 weeks). Then at the end, you clean your skin and wait 24 hours. Then you use the sebutape.

I can bet you will see huge difference between the results. That's it, very simple.
Anyway, prior to the tests you shouldn't do or put anything special on your skin fro some time to sort of start from "level zero" to get the most accurate results. It's not OK to start either of the test while on Accutane, for example.

In a nutshell, it's the belief that washing your skin stimulates the sebaceous glands to produce even MORE sebum, to replace what was washed off. But we now know that that's not true! Sebaceous glands produce sebum continuously, whether you wash your skin or not.

LOL, nobody said they don't produce sebum continuously. Of course they do, that's their job! But the speed/storage levels/amount of sebum they produce depends on how often you wash it away. Even people with naturally oily skin can irritate their glands into producing huge amounts of sebum.

I've started a few different threads on this site over the years which provide the appropriate citations to the scientific literature which debunks the "feedback theory".

Duh, there is research that supports the "feedback theory" you know. Chemicals that can dissolve sebum not only on the surface of your skin but inside the sebaceous gland exist. Can you imagine what happens when you dry up the interior of a sebaceous gland -- it doesn't wither and die like a flower, it fights back to defend itself from the crappy chemicals by coating itself and the skin with larger and larger amounts of sebum.

Yes... my sebaceous glands will produce sebum continuously until the day I die. I know that and have no issue with that fact. But as I said earlier, if you mess with them, their sebum output level will increase. Is it my fault most people like to think that if they don't see visually traces of sebum on their skin surface they automatically think their glands aren't secreting any sebum at all? We all know bacteria exists on our skin but we don't see it as well. Nobody's going around saying "I have no bacteria I cannot see them!". Doing that is ignorant and naive.

[bryan]

I image then if you would find yourself somewhere where there is no alcohol or soap, you wouldn't resort to washing your face with only water then?

Oh, I don't know. I may or may not do that, if that's all that I had available to me. But that's completely different from doing a carefully-controlled TEST like I described earlier in this thread.

I still think it's wrong to finish the greasy test with alcohol and soap. Aren't you trying to see how your skin reacts when not in contact with that stuff for the purpose of greasy test?

Yes, but just a SINGLE washing with soap and alcohol certainly isn't going to have any such effect. Aren't you the one who said that sebaceous glands don't react THAT rapidly, which is why you recommend a testing period of 8 weeks??

I think the tests should have been done this way.

Frist, you stop washing your skin for the same period of time (8 weeks in this case). You don't use soap or alcohol at the end but only water and a towel/paper. You wait 24 hours and use the sebutape.

You've got to be FAR more precise than that! There's no way that you can expect "water and a towel" to clean your face well enough for the purposes of such a serious scientific test.

Neither do I understand why you suggest waiting "24 hours" before using the Sebutape. All that does is introduce still more unpredictable variables into the process. You want to wait a very short amount of time, something like half an hour or so.

Second, you wash your skin with alcohol and soap for a certain time period (let's say 8 weeks). Then at the end, you clean your skin and wait 24 hours. Then you use the sebutape.

What's this thing you have about "24 hours"??

In a nutshell, it's the belief that washing your skin stimulates the sebaceous glands to produce even MORE sebum, to replace what was washed off. But we now know that that's not true! Sebaceous glands produce sebum continuously, whether you wash your skin or not.

LOL, nobody said they don't produce sebum continuously. Of course they do, that's their job! But the speed/storage levels/amount of sebum they produce depends on how often you wash it away.

NO IT DOESN'T. Haven't you read those threads I provided for you? The "feedback theory" has been completely discredited, and in more ways than just one.

Duh, there is research that supports the "feedback theory" you know.

Really? Then cite that "research" for me.

Chemicals that can dissolve sebum not only on the surface of your skin but inside the sebaceous gland exist. Can you imagine what happens when you dry up the interior of a sebaceous gland -- it doesn't wither and die like a flower, it fights back to defend itself from the crappy chemicals by coating itself and the skin with larger and larger amounts of sebum.

LOL! You're more than 50 years behind the times! Kligman & Shelley originally disproved the "feedback theory" in 1958, and it's been further disproved again in other tests since then.

Yes... my sebaceous glands will produce sebum continuously until the day I die. I know that and have no issue with that fact. But as I said earlier, if you mess with them, their sebum output level will increase.

Read the threads I cited for you, and start LEARNING.

[arturX]

Why WRITE in BIG letters, I can READ very WELL, thank you.

Sure, I'll cite some of this "research" (good thing you've quoted it, sure tells me what you think of it before even reading it)

This one determines the connection between rates of sampling and replacement
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ut32254520970266/

This one as well, citing multiple sources
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q271020707h55g98/

This one debunks Sebutapes and mentions external factors as having a role in sebum formation
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0

This one as well
http://www.cuderm.com/bionet/Sebutapemethodplusindicator.pdf

This one mentions sebum regulation levels can be controlled by follicular ostia
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u101807602135n84/

An experiment done on cattle about temperature's influence on sebum
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h26m5337pq0h5056/

I could go on like this all day, citing various biochemistry and biology books we have here at my job.
I have a gut feeling I'm wasting my time debating this subject. This is like arguing whether the world is flat or not.

Read the threads I cited for you, and start LEARNING.

No, you're the one that should start learning. Just because you're sixty, you think you know it all. I'll ask you a few questions, you don't have to answer. Just something to think about.
Have you ever even been in a biochemistry laboratory? Worked there? Do you have a degree in biology or chemistry? Do you even know what sebum is and what role does it play? Why wouldn't you resort to washing your skin with only water? Who told you alcohol was good for skin's health? Would you opt for a daily swim in a pool of alcohol? Have you ever met or spoken with someone who doesn't rely on western world hair and skin care products? Your grandmother or grandfather perhaps? Have you seen how their skin looks in person? Do you even know anything about how people went by before those products existed? Have you ever heard of a condition called seborrhea (not dermatitis)? Can you accept that there is more to skin and sebum than you think there is? Can you accept that there only exists one type of oily skin but with multiple causes?

[bryan]

Sure, I'll cite some of this "research" (good thing you've quoted it, sure tells me what you think of it before even reading it)

This one determines the connection between rates of sampling and replacement
http://www.springerlink.com/content/ut32254520970266/

Yes, and I have copies of even better studies than that one, having to do with apparent changes in the rate of measured sebum on the skin, depending on how many times and how often it's sampled. For your information, even Kligman and Shelley talk about that in their seminal 1958 paper about the "feedback theory"! Kligman's explanation for the fact that the measured amount of sebum on the skin tends to decline over time with repeated measurements is that the skin contains a repository or depot of sebum, which makes the first few measurements a little larger than they should be. But after enough time goes by, those storage areas are eventually depleted, and subsequent measurements of sebum are showing the true sustainable level of subum production by the sebaceous glands.

So while the above study that you quoted is interesting, it's only very indirectly related to the "feedback theory". I'm not sure why you bothered to post it here.

This one as well, citing multiple sources
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q271020707h55g98/

Out of all the links you posted, this is probably the only relevant one. I'll try to get by the medical library in the next day or two, and pick up a copy of it. It'll be interesting to see what it has to say.

This one debunks Sebutapes and mentions external factors as having a role in sebum formation
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...=1&SRETRY=0

The link doesn't work. It returns a "Session Cookie Error". Don't you even bother to check your work??

This one as well
http://www.cuderm.com/bionet/Sebutapemethodplusindicator.pdf

That one's only about how Sebutape works. Why did you bother to post it?

This one mentions sebum regulation levels can be controlled by follicular ostia
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u101807602135n84/

That one has to do with the skin resorption of sebum. Again, WHY DID YOU POST THAT?? What's your point?

An experiment done on cattle about temperature's influence on sebum
http://www.springerlink.com/content/h26m5337pq0h5056/

Yeah, it's about how temperature affects the chemical composition of sebum. What the hell does THAT have to do with the "feedback theory"??

I could go on like this all day, citing various biochemistry and biology books we have here at my job.

Yeah, I bet you could, too. Absolutely ANYBODY could go on all day long, citing irrelevant studies (with that one exception which I hope to be reading in a day or two).

No, you're the one that should start learning. Just because you're sixty, you think you know it all. I'll ask you a few questions, you don't have to answer. Just something to think about.
Have you ever even been in a biochemistry laboratory? Worked there? Do you have a degree in biology or chemistry? Do you even know what sebum is and what role does it play?

The answers to your questions are yes, no, no, yes, and yes. Now why dont you start answering MY questions?

Why wouldn't you resort to washing your skin with only water?

I already told you: I _might_ do that, if I had to. Like if I were stranded on a desert island, or whatever.

Who told you alcohol was good for skin's health?

Nobody ever told me such a thing, Junior. I've never recommended washing skin with alcohol, except as part of a SCIENTIFIC TEST.

Would you opt for a daily swim in a pool of alcohol? Have you ever met or spoken with someone who doesn't rely on western world hair and skin care products? Your grandmother or grandfather perhaps? Have you seen how their skin looks in person? Do you even know anything about how people went by before those products existed? Have you ever heard of a condition called seborrhea (not dermatitis)? Can you accept that there is more to skin and sebum than you think there is? Can you accept that there only exists one type of oily skin but with multiple causes?

No, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. Now answer MY question: have you read those threads I cited for you earlier?

[arturX]

Something else concerning your sebutape test... You did the test on yourself, but didn't tell the audience what the cause of your oiliness is? Androgens, cosmetics, something third? If from androgens, no wonder you got the results you did.

If you're a guy that has androgen-induced oiliness, what's the purpose of doing a "feedback theory" test which is at the root of cosmetic-induced oiliness?

Yes, and I have copies of even better studies than that one

Sure, "better" in terms of not supporting the "feedback theory". Very objective of you, Mr. Scientist.

The link doesn't work. It returns a "Session Cookie Error". Don't you even bother to check your work??

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...355033/abstract

Here you go, it's not my fault you got that error and didn't solve the problem yourself. Next time read the error message you got. You will find it most informative.

Now answer MY question: have you read those threads I cited for you earlier?

Yes and no. I stopped paying attention somewhere halfway after I read your post on how sebaceous glands and sebum are leftovers from evolution. You sort of lost all credibility there for me.
Don't blame me if I don't believe you have a degree in biology. I have nothing more to add to our discussion.

[bryan]

Something else concerning your sebutape test... You did the test on yourself, but didn't tell the audience what the cause of your oiliness is? Androgens, cosmetics, something third? If from androgens, no wonder you got the results you did.

The "cause" of my oiliness? "Cosmetics"? What the hell are you talking about?

If you're a guy that has androgen-induced oiliness, what's the purpose of doing a "feedback theory" test which is at the root of cosmetic-induced oiliness?

I have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think YOU do, either.

Now answer MY question: have you read those threads I cited for you earlier?

Yes and no. I stopped paying attention somewhere halfway after I read your post on how sebaceous glands and sebum are leftovers from evolution. You sort of lost all credibility there for me.

I'm really glad to hear that, because you're not only disagreeing with ME, but also some big names in the field of dermatology, including Albert M. Kligman MD, PhD, probably the most famous dermatologist in history. You're putting me in some very good company!

Don't blame me if I don't believe you have a degree in biology. I have nothing more to add to our discussion.

I never said that I have a degree in biology, Junior. You must have some _serious_ problems with reading comprehension. You've completely misunderstood things I've told you in plain English, and you've posted several studies which had nothing at all to do with the subject at hand. Now you're making up shit about how the "feedback theory" has to do with "cosmetics". You are one very confused young man. Good luck to you, you're going to need it.

[swimming]

oh.. my god. Your both idiots.

[bryan]

oh.. my god. Your both idiots.

Nice grammar, dude!

So WHO is the idiot?

[swimming]

Right, you've stooped so low that you're now being pedantic?

Enough said.