Acne.org Products
wait, so you don't think jojoba oil would be better then EVOO? Is there any specific oil that is better than EVOO? I'd really rather just avoid the risk of breaking out from it.
eeps, I'm not sure if I did this quote thing right... I think lots of people have had good results with both, but I, myself, had better results with the jojoba... I read that if you have oily skin, then evoo could makes things worse (which it did for me), but the jojoba oil is working well so far....
wait, so you don't think jojoba oil would be better then EVOO? Is there any specific oil that is better than EVOO? I'd really rather just avoid the risk of breaking out from it.
It depends on your skin. EVO is positively wonderful for me while it irritates other people's skin. Most people seem to love jojoba oil while it breaks me out. I think that most people would do okay with either oil. Both are less comedogenic than your own sebum, so the internet tells me.
I have no idea whatsoever whether or not jojoba oil would be better than evoo for any particular purpose. I was specifically referring to the goofy idea that ANY oil would "trick" the skin into making less sebum. That idea is pure poppycock.
gotcha. Well, no harm in trying. But just out of curiosity, if you don't believe in this theory, then why are you posting here?
You think just because I know better than to believe in some specific theory, I wouldn't bother to post in a thread about it at all?
.
K, well whatever you beleive or know to be true, you don't need to call me stupid. The whole theory behind the oil cleansing method is to not strip your skin of all oils, in hopes of making it healthier. We all agree at least that when you use chemicals designed for oily skin, they generally make matters worse because they strip your skins natural oils and just make it create more oil.
But I DON'T believe that, not by a long-shot, and I hope nobody else on this board believes it, either. At least not the old-timers! It's the newbies who are more likely to believe it! 
So it would make sense that an oil that closely resembles our own natural oils (and it does, I looked it up on wikipedia lol), would maybe make our skin not feel the need to produce more oil if washed/moisturized with this oil. But you're right, I don't know much about sebaceous gland physiology so would you care to explain your reasons behind your idea that using oil on your skin would not make you produce less oil?
The old idea that sebaceous glands adjust their production of oil based on how much oil is sitting on the surface of the skin has been called the "feedback theory", and it's been thoroughly tested and disproved by some outstanding doctors and scientists in the field of dermatology. It's too involved to go into the whole thing here, but I've already done that in the past in previous threads over on the Acne Research forum. You can easily find them yourself using the Search function, and you can read all the medical citations and references that I provided. Here are the relevant threads, along with the dates that I started them:
The myth of skin washing and sebum production. Acne Research forum, Nov. 18, 2004.
FINALLY: a more direct test of the "feedback theory". Acne Research forum, Jan. 23, 2006.
Still more evidence against the "feedback theory". Acne Research forum, Oct. 23, 2005.
.
K, well I read part of those posts. They are relevant but the parts that I read are more about over washing as opposed to not washing. I'm not going to argue with whatever scientific data he's come up with, but I'm also not gonna argue with how good my face looks since I've been doing this method. Ha ha, the only reason I argued back in the first place was because I didn't like being called stupid. But honestly, my face has done a complete turnaround since using this over facial cleansers, and I recommend that you all keep using it. 
One thing we can all agree on (at least the people who are using the oil cleansing method), is that we don't wanna cleanse our delicate facial skin with harsh cleaners anymore...
K, well I read part of those posts. They are relevant but the parts that I read are more about over washing as opposed to not washing.
It doesn't make any difference. Washing of any kind (over-washing, under-washing, or not washing at all) doesn't influence sebum production.
.
K, well I read part of those posts. They are relevant but the parts that I read are more about over washing as opposed to not washing.
It doesn't make any difference. Washing of any kind (over-washing, under-washing, or not washing at all) doesn't influence sebum production.
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. If skin ALWAYS produces the same amount of oil, then why is my skin oily to the extreme after I've dried it out with a clay mask and a harsh cleanser?
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. If skin ALWAYS produces the same amount of oil, then why is my skin oily to the extreme after I've dried it out with a clay mask and a harsh cleanser?
I really doubt that it IS "oily to the extreme" when you do that. At least, it's not any more oily than it would be under any other circumstances. If you test it scientifically, like with Sebutape test-strips, I'd think you'd realize that. There are subtle issues which can affect your perception of oil on the skin (I've discussed some of those in the past) which can fool you into thinking that it's more oily than it really is. But those subtle issues don't fool Sebumeters or Sebutape test-strips!
If you look at the test I did on my owh forehead in the thread titled "FINALLY: a more direct test of the 'feedback theory' ", you'll see that even severe washing 5-6 times a day with Ivory soap (it made my skin so dry that it actually got PAINFUL) had no effect on sebum production, compared to when I didn't wash at all. I used Sebutape test-strips for a reliable measurement of sebum production.
.
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make sense to me. If skin ALWAYS produces the same amount of oil, then why is my skin oily to the extreme after I've dried it out with a clay mask and a harsh cleanser?
I really doubt that it IS "oily to the extreme" when you do that. At least, it's not any more oily than it would be under any other circumstances. If you test it scientifically, like with Sebutape test-strips, I'd think you'd realize that. There are subtle issues which can affect your perception of oil on the skin (I've discussed some of those in the past) which can fool you into thinking that it's more oily than it really is. But those subtle issues don't fool Sebumeters or Sebutape test-strips!
Eh, subtleties or not, I swear I still notice a difference. But whatever. Maybe I'll have to try these "sebumeters" or "sebustrips" you're talking about.
Do you plan on putting your knowledge to work? Because right now, all that your theory is doing is proving people wrong, it's not really helping treat anything, lol. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I'm actually curious if you plan on researching a cure or something in the future.
Right. I still have a hard time believing you. When I'm very gentle on my skin, my skin is only usually slightly oily, like when I touch my skin it doesn't feel that bad. But when I overwork it, my skin feels very very wet and slimy to the touch. Are you telling me that my fingers don't work right? That I can't tell when there's a difference in my own skin?
That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you. When attempting to estimate tiny, microscopic levels of lipid on your skin, simple tactile sensations that you get by drawing a finger over your skin aren't trustworthy. I strongly suspect that a lot of it has to do with the fact that when you wash your skin with harsh cleansers, you can't help but exfoliate some of the old, dead skin cells from the surface. When you do that, you eliminate some of the natural roughness from the surface, making it SEEM slicker and oilier than it really is a little while later when you start to get the first new accumulations of fresh sebum. Again, you have to test these things scientifically. There are just too many hazards and pitfalls which can FOOL you when you make these casual observations. You have to be just as rigorous and careful as doctors and scientists are when they test these theories.
.
Eh, subtleties or not, I swear I still notice a difference. But whatever. Maybe I'll have to try these "sebumeters" or "sebustrips" you're talking about.
In the entire time I've been attacking the "feedback theory" on this site, I've always told people that they didn't have to take MY word for it (or the doctors and scientists who have examined the issue, for that matter). If they still couldn't believe me even after all the scientific evidence I've posted, I've always invited them to do their OWN testing. If you wish, I can give you the toll-free phone number for CuDerm in Dallas, which is the company that makes Sebutape test-strips. If I remember correctly, you can get a roll of 50 of the same test-strips that I use for my testing for about 20 bucks or so. I invite you to do a test using the same protocol that I described in my thread "FINALLY: a more direct test of the 'feedback theory' ", and then post your results here. I think you'll get the same results that I did, which is right in line with what Kligman and his colleagues found.
Do you plan on putting your knowledge to work? Because right now, all that your theory is doing is proving people wrong, it's not really helping treat anything, lol. And I don't mean that in a sarcastic way, I'm actually curious if you plan on researching a cure or something in the future.
I really don't think that the truth or falsity of the "feedback theory" has any direct bearing on the treatment of acne, although it might obviously alter someone's personal hygiene if he or she is convinced that it's useless to wash because oil will supposedly come right back again rapidly. What really drives me is the simple astonishment that so many people would keep repeating an Urban Myth that was first laid to a merciful rest (or so I thought) a half-century ago! I just can't let it go by unchallenged when people bring it up.
.
Razor, your problems could be stemming from the fact that you are using JUST castor oil. It's pretty harsh by itself. I would try a carrier oil with it. If your skin doesn't like EVOO try Jojoba, Grapeseed, or Sunflower or a combo of different oils. Also make sure your castor oil doesn't have a bunch of other stuff in it. You want the pure cold pressed stuff. Adding a tad of TTO may help too.
Oh yeah, be sure you are using a CLEAN towel to remove the oil from your skin. Washing the oiled towels in the washing machine isn't enough. You seriously need to let the towels soak in a grease/oil cleaning detergent (like Dawn dish liquid). The build up of oil on towels takes awhile but it will build up. Cleaning you face with with old oily towels can't be good for your skin.
That's EXACTLY what I'm telling you. When attempting to estimate tiny, microscopic levels of lipid on your skin, simple tactile sensations that you get by drawing a finger over your skin aren't trustworthy. I strongly suspect that a lot of it has to do with the fact that when you wash your skin with harsh cleansers, you can't help but exfoliate some of the old, dead skin cells from the surface. When you do that, you eliminate some of the natural roughness from the surface, making it SEEM slicker and oilier than it really is a little while later when you start to get the first new accumulations of fresh sebum. Again, you have to test these things scientifically. There are just too many hazards and pitfalls which can FOOL you when you make these casual observations. You have to be just as rigorous and careful as doctors and scientists are when they test these theories.
.
Are you a dermatologist?
What's "sebum"?
it's the natural oil your sebaceous glands create to keep skin from over drying.
Sebum doesn't play any role in keeping your skin from over-drying. See my thread titled Does sebum help "moisturize" the skin??, in the General Acne and Oily Skin Issues forum. It was started Nov. 29, 2005.
Are you a dermatologist?
No.
.
What's "sebum"?
it's the natural oil your sebaceous glands create to keep skin from over drying.
Sebum doesn't play any role in keeping your skin from over-drying. See my thread titled Does sebum help "moisturize" the skin??, in the General Acne and Oily Skin Issues forum. It was started Nov. 29, 2005.
Are you a dermatologist?
No.
.
Then what exactly do you think the purpose of sebum is?
"Sebum acts to protect and waterproof hair and skin, and keep them from becoming dry, brittle, and cracked. It can also inhibit the growth of microorganisms on skin. This is what makes the face oily." < That's from wikipedia... Ok, I didn't state it's whole purpose, but keeping it from over drying is part of it.
Then what exactly do you think the purpose of sebum is?
I think Kligman is correct (see excerpt below): I don't think there IS a purpose for sebum. Earlier in our evolutionary history there was, but not any longer.
"Sebum acts to protect and waterproof hair and skin, and keep them from becoming dry, brittle, and cracked. It can also inhibit the growth of microorganisms on skin. This is what makes the face oily." < That's from wikipedia... Ok, I didn't state it's whole purpose, but keeping it from over drying is part of it.
I think that's a very good example of why you shouldn't always trust everything you find in wikepedia! Here's an excerpt from a medical journal article which in turn references material written by the renowned Dr. Albert M. Kligman, MD PhD, who is probably the most famous name in the history of dermatology:
"Sebum Secretion and Sebaceous Lipids", Stewart et al, Dermatologic Clinics -- Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1983.
"Sebum is an oily substance that is secreted onto the skin surface from glands located in the dermis. Although a number of useful functions have been proposed for sebum, proof that sebum performs any of them is lacking. In furred mammals an essential function of sebum is to supply 7-dehydrocholesterol, which is converted to vitamin D by the action of sunlight and then ingested by the animal as it grooms itself. In man, however, the location of 7-dehydrocholesterol has been shown to be the epidermis rather than sebum. Sebum may act as a waterproofing agent for fur, but humans obviously have little need for this function. Kligman has specifically disproved the notions that sebum improves the barrier function of skin, that sebum helps to regulate the water content of the horny layer by forming emulsions with sweat, or that sebum on the skin surface is fungistatic or antibacterial.(21) Kligman regards the human sebaceous glands as 'living fossils' that lost their usefulness to our species as we lost our fur.(21)
(21) Kligman, A. M.: The uses of sebum? In Montagna, W., Ellis, R. A., and Silver, A. F. (eds.): Advances in the Biology of Skin. Volume 4. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1963."
I found this: [Edited link out]
Regarding oil and it's purposes/functions. I'm not using this as any kind of proof, just more food for discussion. Most of what I know is either speculation or my own personal experiences (in which case I can only speak for myself), but I didn't see anything that seemed unreasonable or impossible. I didn't see anything in the excerpt from Kligman that looked impossible or unreasonable either. This is just the first I've thought any more about it than I usually do.
This was the closest thing I found to the discussions that have been had over and over:
QuoteCertain hormonal medications that are androgenic in nature may aggravate acne by increasing oil production and pore blockage. Examples include anabolic steroids, and a component of birth control pills called progestin.
Only because it talks about increasing oil production do I mention it, but it's talking about a hormonal imbalance.
Maybe someone else wants to pick it apart (*coughBRYANcough*)?
kelsie123 said:If it serves no purpose then it should stop ruining my face!!!
lol Amen to that.
EDIT: After viewing more of the site: [Edited link out]
QuoteBecause acne is not caused by dirt, excessive washing won't fix the problem. Harsh exfoliants using small dense particles can actually irritate or tear the skin, increasing the chances of infection acne breakout. In addition, alcohol-based toners can strip the skin of necessary oils, leaving it dry and irritated. This in turn can cause the skin to produce more sebum oil, which in turn can lead to more acne.
Uh oh! 
You should send them a letter, Bryan lol.
[Edited link out]
QuoteAlthough stress is not a direct cause of acne, this myth does have some basis in truth. When we become stressed, our body increases production of cortisol, which in turn causes the sebaceous glands to produce more oil.
Silly sensitive sebaceous glands.
Faydra Lune said:EDIT: After viewing more of the site: [Edited link out]
QuoteBecause acne is not caused by dirt, excessive washing won't fix the problem. Harsh exfoliants using small dense particles can actually irritate or tear the skin, increasing the chances of infection acne breakout. In addition, alcohol-based toners can strip the skin of necessary oils, leaving it dry and irritated. This in turn can cause the skin to produce more sebum oil, which in turn can lead to more acne.Uh oh!
In the past, people have cited such statements for me from various Web sites. A couple of times I _did_ email the sites, chastising them for what they said and citing the appropriate medical literature, but it doesn't do any good. They refuse to be held accountable for what they say.
.
bryan said:Faydra Lune said:EDIT: After viewing more of the site: [Edited link out]QuoteBecause acne is not caused by dirt, excessive washing won't fix the problem. Harsh exfoliants using small dense particles can actually irritate or tear the skin, increasing the chances of infection acne breakout. In addition, alcohol-based toners can strip the skin of necessary oils, leaving it dry and irritated. This in turn can cause the skin to produce more sebum oil, which in turn can lead to more acne.Uh oh!
In the past, people have cited such statements for me from various Web sites. A couple of times I _did_ email the sites, chastising them for what they said and citing the appropriate medical literature, but it doesn't do any good. They refuse to be held accountable for what they say.
.
That's a shame. I don't see why a site can't at least say, "Here are the two sides: Yes it does, no it doesn't. Here is what they're saying to back themselves up."
I just don't see why people who seem like they would be reasonable scientists would just brush that off. Scientists are normally the best at being able to admit when they may be wrong, in general. It's one thing if they've just been given the wrong information or they've come to an incorrect conclusion by misreading the evidence, but it's another to be presented with another argument and just dismissing it completely.
I'm really not all that surprised when they don't respond to direct challenges like that. For all I know, sites like that might get a hundred emails a day from worried teenagers with acne. They'd probably glance at what I wrote for a couple of seconds and then delete it, saying to themselves "Who the hell is THIS clown who dares to challenge us??" A great many sites like that are probably just mainly interested in selling their own acne products.
But in any event, now you know why I'm so fond of quoting the medical literature, generally citing the full references for various studies that were done be real doctors and scientists. You just can't TRUST a lot of this garbage that you find on Web sites. You don't know for sure who wrote it, and there usually aren't any specific medical references for what they say or claim. Caveat emptor!
.