Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Guest

Yes, Sebum Is Affected By The State Of Your Skin... (Likely Product Use)

Recommended Posts

...That's not the same as the feedback theory, but we're not just discussing that theory (as I too believe it's nonsense), we're also discussing the possibility of products -whether or not combined with washing once, twice, three times a day- that have no anti-androgenic properties, to reduce SER. I for one would love to see a study on jojoba oil, for example.

I have no problem at all with the possibility that certain topical drugs (like that study with niacinamide, and the other two you mentioned that I don't remember) could have some effect at reducing sebum, even though those drugs don't seem to have antiandrogenic properties. Even though sebaceous glands are notoriously sensitive to androgenic (or ANTI-androgenic) stimulation, that certainly doesn't mean that there's nothing else within the wide range of biological metabolism which could have _some_ effect on how much sebum they produce! Furthermore, I don't consider the action of drugs on sebaceous glands to have anything to do with the "feedback" theory. I'm a little puzzled why you've now mentioned those other studies (the ones with niacinimide, and the other two items) more than once now.

Theories always make sense, whether or not they're true. The fact that you ridicule everything that's not written in the Kligman/Shelley study, is quite disappointing, to be honest (and a sarcastic smiley doesn't help either).

Oh, trust me on this: on the Web sites where I post the most, I very SELDOM (almost NEVER) have ever mentioned Kligman. I've mentioned the work by a bunch of other doctors, but almost never Kligman. I mention Kligman here on acne.org, because the work he's done on the "feedback" theory is PROFOUND.

However, what you posted is very interesting. Though in my opinion of little value. I found it disappointing to see that only 4 subjects were involved in the glass cup experiment, I bet they were all Caucasians, too. Do you know of similar studies, with larger groups of people? Same for the foot guy, it's only one person. It doesn't prove or disprove any theory, it has nothing much to do with science even, it's an indication at best. Who tells me it wasn't the stress? wink.png

It doesn't impress you that all six of those individuals who went for long periods of time (one month, to multiple years) without washing their skin or removing their sebum in some other manner, had ENORMOUS quantities of nasty sebum piling-up on their skin?? If you don't think that has much to do with the other poster's wild theory (that tons of people have supposedly claimed that their skin "normalized" after six months to a year of not washing), then there's just not much I can say in response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problem at all with the possibility that certain topical drugs (like that study with niacinamide, and the other two you mentioned that I don't remember) could have some effect at reducing sebum, even though those drugs don't seem to have antiandrogenic properties. Even though sebaceous glands are notoriously sensitive to androgenic (or ANTI-androgenic) stimulation, that certainly doesn't mean that there's nothing else within the wide range of biological metabolism which could have _some_ effect on how much sebum they produce! Furthermore, I don't consider the action of drugs on sebaceous glands to have anything to do with the "feedback" theory. I'm a little puzzled why you've now mentioned those other studies (the ones with niacinimide, and the other two items) more than once now.

I think you've misread me, since I said that using products has nothing to do with the feedback theory, but it's not just the feedback theory we're discussing. My mentioning of those studies was in reply to ModestM, since he posted a theory in response to one study, but forgot about the other ones. And they didn't just have some effect, the effect was pretty amazing imo.

Oh, trust me on this: on the Web sites where I post the most, I very SELDOM (almost NEVER) have ever mentioned Kligman. I've mentioned the work by a bunch of other doctors, but almost never Kligman. I mention Kligman here on acne.org, because the work he's done on the "feedback" theory is PROFOUND.

Yes, but as I said, it's mostly a matter of semantics. People posting that you can trick your skin by applying topicals are wrong imo, I've said so myself more than once. However, if you post something like "it doesn't work that way, your sebaceous glands will not produce less sebum", you are referring to the feedback theory, while they may think their product is useless and it's all in their minds. But that's far from certain.

It doesn't impress you that all six of those individuals who went for long periods of time (one month, to multiple years) without washing their skin or removing their sebum in some other manner, had ENORMOUS quantities of nasty sebum piling-up on their skin?? If you don't think that has much to do with the other poster's wild theory (that tons of people have supposedly claimed that their skin "normalized" after six months to a year of not washing), then there's just not much I can say in response.

Five persons, if I counted correctly. I think it's very interesting, but no, it doesn't impress me one bit. You can't base an entire theory on 5 persons (I know I'm exaggerating, but you get the gist). That's why I'd like more and better studies. To me this isn't of much more importance than all those people claiming to have success with certain treatments (or lack thereof), until it's been studied properly. I do agree that not washing at all is, well, stupid. I can't imagine lots of people actually don't wash at all, and if they do, I hope they stay as far away from me as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Five persons, if I counted correctly.

There were the four individuals who had glass cups taped to their foreheads for a month; then there was the individual with the cardiac neurosis about the area of skin he thought was over his heart; then there was the individual who had the involved skin over his lateral malleolus (his foot). That's a total of six people.

I think it's very interesting, but no, it doesn't impress me one bit. You can't base an entire theory on 5 persons (I know I'm exaggerating, but you get the gist). That's why I'd like more and better studies.

Maybe the poster "awakeodin" will be more impressed with it, since he's the one who thinks so many people have acquired "healed" and "normal" skin, by not washing for six months to a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Modestm

AKL: I think you have managed to confuse many of the proponents of the "feedback" theory on this site, who are on shaky ground to begin with. I have noticed that you contradict yourself often, and you tend to debate without a central thesis, perhaps in an attempt to be elusive. The crux of the debate is that people have managed to normalize their sebaceous gland function by not washing for extended periods of time. You keep arguing that some topicals and supplements can normalize sebum output (and neither Bryan nor I are disputing this) whilst simultaneously positing that the exact mechanism has not been elucidated.

You misappropriate the ambiguity shrouding the mode of action of these sebum suppressive agents to open up the possibility that scientific experimental observations can theoretically be usurped by a conspicuous lack of scientific empirical evidence, whilst relying on empirical data.

You argue implicitly that given the failure to identify the mode of action of sebum inhibitors we could extrapolate from this lack of knowledge, that the exact mechanism impelling the “feedback” mode of action is similarly veiled, and therefore, perhaps an entity which could be effecting change.

You called me up for "purportedly" missing the point vis-à-vis the silicol and niacinimide studies when there was no point to be garnered in the context of our discussions. You referred to a hitherto poorly understood discrepancy between SER and CSL which is not relevant. Your strategy is to pervade these discussion with an "anything is possible" chant to underscore your subtext that the "feedback" mechanism may very well be at work despite a modicum of hard evidence, thus far.

The results of the Japanese study demonstrated that the SER of the two groups was not significantly different at baseline, but the 2% niacinamide treated group demonstrated significantly lowered SER after 2 and 4 weeks of application. The results were somewhat different in the Caucasian study. After 6 weeks of treatment, the CSL was significantly reduced, but the SER was not significantly reduced.

*SER=Sebum Excretion Rate, CSL=Casual Sebum Levels

Why does this happen?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were the four individuals who had glass cups taped to their foreheads for a month; then there was the individual with the cardiac neurosis about the area of skin he thought was over his heart; then there was the individual who had the involved skin over his lateral malleolus (his foot). That's a total of six people.

Oops... redface.gif

AKL: I think you have managed to confuse many of the proponents of the "feedback" theory on this site, who are on shaky ground to begin with. I have noticed that you contradict yourself often, and you tend to debate without a central thesis, perhaps in an attempt to be elusive. The crux of the debate is that people have managed to normalize their sebaceous gland function by not washing for extended periods of time. You keep arguing that some topicals and supplements can normalize sebum output (and neither Bryan nor I are disputing this) whilst simultaneously positing that the exact mechanism has not been elucidated.

You misappropriate the ambiguity shrouding the mode of action of these sebum suppressive agents to open up the possibility that scientific experimental observations can theoretically be usurped by a conspicuous lack of scientific empirical evidence, whilst relying on empirical data.

You argue implicitly that given the failure to identify the mode of action of sebum inhibitors we could extrapolate from this lack of knowledge, that the exact mechanism impelling the “feedback” mode of action is similarly veiled, and therefore, perhaps an entity which could be effecting change.

You called me up for "purportedly" missing the point vis-à-vis the silicol and niacinimide studies when there was no point to be garnered in the context of our discussions. You referred to a hitherto poorly understood discrepancy between SER and CSL which is not relevant. Your strategy is to pervade these discussion with an "anything is possible" chant to underscore your subtext that the "feedback" mechanism may very well be at work despite a modicum of hard evidence, thus far.

Modestm, grand verbosity doesn't make your arguments any stronger. If you can show me one example of where I contradicted myself, that would be great. Since my first post I've talked about the possibility of reducing sebum excretion with the use of products, and I posted some studies, something you haven't done so far. In fact, you don't address them, nor have you been able to explain why things work the way they do, except some theory on dead skin cells. Which is fine, for I don't understand it myself, just don't call me out on it. I'm not the one claiming to know it all, you are, so explain it.

The crux of the debate is not only that people have managed to normalize their sebaceous gland function by not washing for extended periods of time. That would be talking about the feedback theory. I don't believe that theory to be true, although I can't be certain because of the lack of long-term studies (except 2 people who haven't washed part of their bodies for a year or more, but that's no base for drawing conclusions). The crux of the discussion is, that people claim to have success, either with or without the use of topicals, saying they noticed that their skin is (much) less oily. That includes people saying washing too much will cause the skin to produce more sebum, or that jojoba oil tricks the skin into thinking it has already produced enough sebum, or people claiming that not washing or washing with water alone has resulted in decreased sebum rates. Bryan posts in those threads with "oh no, not again" or similar expressions, making these members feel like fools, and basically giving the message (or so it appears) that it's useless to continue the road they're on, because it won't matter. 4 people with a glass cup for 1 month, 2 people not washing an area of their skin for a year or more, and that's supposed to be enough evidence to rule everything out? While at the same time dismissing the success lots of people claim to have with whatever treatment they use? That's the crux of this discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Modestm

If you read the following excerpts you will notice that you are being quite contradictory.

The crux of the debate is NOT that people have managed to normalize their sebaceous gland function by not washing for extended periods of time. That would be talking about the feedback theory. I believe that theory to be true, although I can't be certain because of the lack of long-term studies (except 2 people who haven't washed part of their bodies for a year or more, but that's no base for drawing conclusions).

That's not the same as the feedback theory, but we're not just discussing that theory (as I too believe it's nonsense), we're discussing the possibility of products -whether or not combined with washing once, twice, three times a day- that have no anti-androgenic properties, to reduce SER. I for one would love to see a study on jojoba oil, for example.

And, on the matter of topicals inhibiting sebum: I think it is very possible just as you have stated, so I see no reason to provide research.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you read the following excerpts you will notice that you are being quite contradictory.

The crux of the debate is NOT that people have managed to normalize their sebaceous gland function by not washing for extended periods of time. That would be talking about the feedback theory. I believe that theory to be true, although I can't be certain because of the lack of long-term studies (except 2 people who haven't washed part of their bodies for a year or more, but that's no base for drawing conclusions).

That's not the same as the feedback theory, but we're not just discussing that theory (as I too believe it's nonsense), we're discussing the possibility of products -whether or not combined with washing once, twice, three times a day- that have no anti-androgenic properties, to reduce SER. I for one would love to see a study on jojoba oil, for example.

I see, that should have been "I don't believe that theory to be true" in my last post (and the first post you quoted), I fixed it. But it was posted after you said I contradicted myself often, there has to be more. If this is where the discussion has gone, then I agree with Bryan, it's the end of a potentially useful discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Modestm

If you read the following excerpts you will notice that you are being quite contradictory.

The crux of the debate is NOT that people have managed to normalize their sebaceous gland function by not washing for extended periods of time. That would be talking about the feedback theory. I believe that theory to be true, although I can't be certain because of the lack of long-term studies (except 2 people who haven't washed part of their bodies for a year or more, but that's no base for drawing conclusions).

That's not the same as the feedback theory, but we're not just discussing that theory (as I too believe it's nonsense), we're discussing the possibility of products -whether or not combined with washing once, twice, three times a day- that have no anti-androgenic properties, to reduce SER. I for one would love to see a study on jojoba oil, for example.

I see, that should have been "I don't believe that theory to be true" in my last post (and the first post you quoted), I fixed it. But it was posted after you said I contradicted myself, there has to be more. If this is where the discussion has gone, then I agree with Bryan, it's the end of a potentially useful discussion.

Hey, don't blame me for your grammar. The point is you have done a whole lot of debating to very little effect. You felt compelled to try and undermine Bryan when there was really no need. The "feedback" theory is not plausibly at work in any of the scenarios you have mentioned: THAT IS THE CRUX OF THIS DEBATE. Bryan has no trouble conceding that some topicals may interfere with sebum production, but it is not occuring as a result of a "feedback" mechanism. You seem to keep harping on this point, because you have nothing else to say. Also see post no. 29 for a further breakdown. You have categorically stated that you do NOT agree with the "feedback" theory and that it is nonsense. Given the aforementioned, I see no reason why you should take umbrage with Bryan, because philosophically speaking large scale, long term studies (extremely unlikely) could overturn the current medical consensus. The onus is on the "feedback" theory proponents to come up with a shred of evidence. The only other option is to contend with more rolleyes.gif .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, don't blame me for your grammar. The point is you have done a whole lot of debating to very little effect. You felt compelled to try and undermine Bryan when there was really no need. The "feedback" theory is not plausibly at work in any of the scenarios you have mentioned: THAT IS THE CRUX OF THIS DEBATE. Bryan has no trouble conceding that some topicals may interfere with sebum production, but it is not occuring as a result of a "feedback" mechanism. You seem to keep harping on this point, because you have nothing else to say. Also see post no. 29 for a further breakdown. You have categorically stated that you do NOT agree with the "feedback" theory and that it is nonsense. Given the aforementioned, I see no reason why you should take umbrage with Bryan, because philosophically speaking large scale, long term studies (extremely unlikely) could overturn the current medical consensus. The onus is on the "feedback" theory proponents to come up with a shred of evidence. The only other option is to contend with more rolleyes.gif .

Yes, I do think that theory makes little sense, I'm just not 100% convinced because there are no long-term studies). You said I contradicted myself often, yet you come up with only one example that was posted after your accusation, and it was clearly a typo. Good job! And why would people need to prove anything to you? You're the one holding on to a short-term study (basically 4 people) as if it was written in stone, could it be possible that large scale, long-term studies have a different outcome? You claim to know, but in fact you don't. So it's not like your contributions have a major impact either, it's a record on repeat. You made it apparent again that there's no use in discussing the feedback theory, it's a yes/no game. No matter how bold/capitalized you make it, you missed the point again, but alright. Whatever you think. At least, if no one has a problem conceding that topicals without anti-androgenic properties could reduce SER, then I assume there's no reason anymore to hijack people's threads and battle them over semantics. These people are looking for support, don't make them look like idiots.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Five persons, if I counted correctly.

There were the four individuals who had glass cups taped to their foreheads for a month; then there was the individual with the cardiac neurosis about the area of skin he thought was over his heart; then there was the individual who had the involved skin over his lateral malleolus (his foot). That's a total of six people.

I think it's very interesting, but no, it doesn't impress me one bit. You can't base an entire theory on 5 persons (I know I'm exaggerating, but you get the gist). That's why I'd like more and better studies.

Maybe the poster "awakeodin" will be more impressed with it, since he's the one who thinks so many people have acquired "healed" and "normal" skin, by not washing for six months to a year.

Not really, considering these are only two people who had either their foot, or the area "around the heart" monitored. These are not people with equivalent issues to the ones people on this board face such as the combination of both dry and extremely oily skin, or acne that has increased since they began their never ending search for the perfect product.

Seriously, I hate to bring it up again, but I have to wonder what your devotion to "informing" teens and young adults that there is basically no hope regarding the state of their skin (besides, perhaps, using an irritating shampoo the likes of "Nizoral" on it). I can only assume that you yourself have had issues with your skin for much of your life, and to suddenly witness the possibility that you might have solved much of your issues by merely not washing at all would be a slap in the face. So you hold onto these few studies which either feature people whom likely do not share anything in common with the people on this board regarding their skin issues, are extremely short term, do not involve the face, along with the fact that these do not take place in a time where we bombard our skins with benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, glycolic acid, etc. and you hold onto all this as a form of security so that you can feel as though you've been doing the right thing all along, while nothing else could have been done. I can only assume all this, and maybe it's a little inappropriate to delve into another members personal issues, but this is a website mainly centered around our personal issues involving our skin, we can share these things or not, and I can only wonder why you have such dedication to appearing in practically any thread involving oil for the past while and feel the need to put a stop to them if anyone even comments that maybe they could have an oil slick free life absent of numerous products. Anyways, in all this time you could have done the 6 month long experiment yourself, created a log, and posted your personal results.

Also, I have to ask; Accutane is responsible for temporarily ridding users of sebum, and in that time they experience severely dry skins, some to the point of cracking. If it is not the absence of oil that is responsible for this dryness, then what is it? (and do you have a link for it)

I have not seen a single person who's yet to have claimed they have not had success with these methods, the amount of people who've claimed success reverting back to being simply gently with their skins can't be ignored. and I highly doubt their all under a simple "illusion", for these are people who are extremely sensitive over their appearance; they would stop this method unless they saw a sure improvement in the state of their skin.

Anyways, Kilgman's studies where likely all towards and in favor of his eventual patented product "Retin-A"; developing studies and stories in benefit to your prestige and wealth isn't unheard of, while of course it doesn't always surely discredit anything, I would consider a selection bias is possible. Not that it would matter, because these studies still aren't completely relevant to the users on this site. On a seemingly unrelated issue regarding bias and research, the US was on the verge of legalizing marijuana, however William Randolph Hearst owned all these paper mills, while it was going to cost him millions of dollars to convert to hemp paper, so to benefit himself he began producing all these stories concerning the new drug "weed", claiming absurd things like minorities are smoking it and raping white women; so of course congress outlawed this at the uproar of newspaper readers/voters, and the rest is history. The moral to this story? I would be weary of secluded prison research from the 50's, and not simply accept it as the be all to end all.

I can picture you smirking throughout this thread, but what exactly is the harm of encouraging people to give this natural approach a try? It's no different than them just giving another product line a try, which might actually just be making things worse, in their never ending search for the perfect regimen they may never find. You're not a revolutionary bearing factual information among anecdotal members; you're a poster full of discouraging sarcasm, and studies that frankly don't put an end to anything regarding sebum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really, considering these are only two people who had either their foot, or the area "around the heart" monitored. These are not people with equivalent issues to the ones people on this board face such as the combination of both dry and extremely oily skin, or acne that has increased since they began their never ending search for the perfect product.

And what about the four individuals who had glass cups taped to their foreheads, showing that (in the words of Kligman and Shelley) "...both keratin and sebum will pile up if steps are taken to prevent normal loss"? Is it just a coincidence that you're forgetting to mention THAT part of their experimentation? wink.png

Seriously, I hate to bring it up again, but I have to wonder what your devotion to "informing" teens and young adults that there is basically no hope regarding the state of their skin (besides, perhaps, using an irritating shampoo the likes of "Nizoral" on it). I can only assume that you yourself have had issues with your skin for much of your life, and to suddenly witness the possibility that you might have solved much of your issues by merely not washing at all would be a slap in the face. So you hold onto these few studies which either feature people whom likely do not share anything in common with the people on this board regarding their skin issues, are extremely short term, do not involve the face, along with the fact that these do not take place in a time where we bombard our skins with benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, glycolic acid, etc. and you hold onto all this as a form of security so that you can feel as though you've been doing the right thing all along, while nothing else could have been done. I can only assume all this, and maybe it's a little inappropriate to delve into another members personal issues, but this is a website mainly centered around our personal issues involving our skin, we can share these things or not, and I can only wonder why you have such dedication to appearing in practically any thread involving oil for the past while and feel the need to put a stop to them if anyone even comments that maybe they could have an oil slick free life absent of numerous products. Anyways, in all this time you could have done the 6 month long experiment yourself, created a log, and posted your personal results.

I had bad acne as a teenager (I don't even remember having particularly oily skin), but that cleared-up at the end of my teens (which was a LOOONG time ago). Since then, my efforts on acne.org have been to introduce people on this site to the scientific approach, and not have them keep repeating mindlessly the things that their friends and family have been telling them about how sebaceous glands supposedly work.

I'm personally just not interested enough in your own "6 month long experiment" to consider testing it myself. If you want to try it yourself, I strongly recommend using Sebutape Test Strips for it.

Also, I have to ask; Accutane is responsible for temporarily ridding users of sebum, and in that time they experience severely dry skins, some to the point of cracking. If it is not the absence of oil that is responsible for this dryness, then what is it? (and do you have a link for it)

The reduction in sebum output that you get with Accutane has nothing to do with the dry skin that you get with its use. That's another common fallacy which is repeated all the time on this site.

I have not seen a single person who's yet to have claimed they have not had success with these methods, the amount of people who've claimed success reverting back to being simply gently with their skins can't be ignored. and I highly doubt their all under a simple "illusion", for these are people who are extremely sensitive over their appearance; they would stop this method unless they saw a sure improvement in the state of their skin.

How many people do you claim to have seen who talked about using such a method?

Anyways, Kilgman's studies where likely all towards and in favor of his eventual patented product "Retin-A";

Huh? You're claiming that Kligman has a patent on Retin-A?

[snip] The moral to this story? I would be weary of secluded prison research from the 50's, and not simply accept it as the be all to end all.

I've already told you that it's been verified in other ways, too. The experimentation done at LabGirl81's cosmetics company, other studies published by Kligman, and my OWN experiments, too. You could even test it yourself, IF YOU SIMPLY BUY SOME OF YOUR OWN SEBUTAPE SKIN INDICATORS!! Don't depend on OTHER people to tell you what doctors and scientists have found, get off your butt, and TEST IT YOURSELF!! smile.png

I can picture you smirking throughout this thread, but what exactly is the harm of encouraging people to give this natural approach a try? It's no different than them just giving another product line a try, which might actually just be making things worse, in their never ending search for the perfect regimen they may never find. You're not a revolutionary bearing factual information among anecdotal members; you're a poster full of discouraging sarcasm, and studies that frankly don't put an end to anything regarding sebum.

I'm not interested enough in it, just like I'm not interested enough to test somebody's weird idea that the earth actually is flat. You yourself are certainly welcome to try it, but (once again) I strongly urge you to use Sebutape Skin Indicators. Don't simply trust what people on this site tell you about how it (supposedly) works.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I gave up trying to convince people a long time ago. I shared my story, recommended sea salt water and moved on. You can't force people to listen, especially when your voice is so small compared to those of the corporate giants.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Not really, considering these are only two people who had either their foot, or the area "around the heart" monitored. These are not people with equivalent issues to the ones people on this board face such as the combination of both dry and extremely oily skin, or acne that has increased since they began their never ending search for the perfect product.

And what about the four individuals who had glass cups taped to their foreheads, showing that (in the words of Kligman and Shelley) "...both keratin and sebum will pile up if steps are taken to prevent normal loss"? Is it just a coincidence that you're forgetting to mention THAT part of their experimentation? wink.png

Seriously, I hate to bring it up again, but I have to wonder what your devotion to "informing" teens and young adults that there is basically no hope regarding the state of their skin (besides, perhaps, using an irritating shampoo the likes of "Nizoral" on it). I can only assume that you yourself have had issues with your skin for much of your life, and to suddenly witness the possibility that you might have solved much of your issues by merely not washing at all would be a slap in the face. So you hold onto these few studies which either feature people whom likely do not share anything in common with the people on this board regarding their skin issues, are extremely short term, do not involve the face, along with the fact that these do not take place in a time where we bombard our skins with benzoyl peroxide, salicylic acid, glycolic acid, etc. and you hold onto all this as a form of security so that you can feel as though you've been doing the right thing all along, while nothing else could have been done. I can only assume all this, and maybe it's a little inappropriate to delve into another members personal issues, but this is a website mainly centered around our personal issues involving our skin, we can share these things or not, and I can only wonder why you have such dedication to appearing in practically any thread involving oil for the past while and feel the need to put a stop to them if anyone even comments that maybe they could have an oil slick free life absent of numerous products. Anyways, in all this time you could have done the 6 month long experiment yourself, created a log, and posted your personal results.

I had bad acne as a teenager (I don't even remember having particularly oily skin), but that cleared-up at the end of my teens (which was a LOOONG time ago). Since then, my efforts on acne.org have been to introduce people on this site to the scientific approach, and not have them keep repeating mindlessly the things that their friends and family have been telling them about how sebaceous glands supposedly work.

I'm personally just not interested enough in your own "6 month long experiment" to consider testing it myself. If you want to try it yourself, I strongly recommend using Sebutape Test Strips for it.

Also, I have to ask; Accutane is responsible for temporarily ridding users of sebum, and in that time they experience severely dry skins, some to the point of cracking. If it is not the absence of oil that is responsible for this dryness, then what is it? (and do you have a link for it)

The reduction in sebum output that you get with Accutane has nothing to do with the dry skin that you get with its use. That's another common fallacy which is repeated all the time on this site.

I have not seen a single person who's yet to have claimed they have not had success with these methods, the amount of people who've claimed success reverting back to being simply gently with their skins can't be ignored. and I highly doubt their all under a simple "illusion", for these are people who are extremely sensitive over their appearance; they would stop this method unless they saw a sure improvement in the state of their skin.

How many people do you claim to have seen who talked about using such a method?

Anyways, Kilgman's studies where likely all towards and in favor of his eventual patented product "Retin-A";

Huh? You're claiming that Kligman has a patent on Retin-A?

[snip] The moral to this story? I would be weary of secluded prison research from the 50's, and not simply accept it as the be all to end all.

I've already told you that it's been verified in other ways, too. The experimentation done at LabGirl81's cosmetics company, other studies published by Kligman, and my OWN experiments, too. You could even test it yourself, IF YOU SIMPLY BUY SOME OF YOUR OWN SEBUTAPE SKIN INDICATORS!! Don't depend on OTHER people to tell you what doctors and scientists have found, get off your butt, and TEST IT YOURSELF!! smile.png

I can picture you smirking throughout this thread, but what exactly is the harm of encouraging people to give this natural approach a try? It's no different than them just giving another product line a try, which might actually just be making things worse, in their never ending search for the perfect regimen they may never find. You're not a revolutionary bearing factual information among anecdotal members; you're a poster full of discouraging sarcasm, and studies that frankly don't put an end to anything regarding sebum.

I'm not interested enough in it, just like I'm not interested enough to test somebody's weird idea that the earth actually is flat. You yourself are certainly welcome to try it, but (once again) I strongly urge you to use Sebutape Skin Indicators. Don't simply trust what people on this site tell you about how it (supposedly) works.

The part involving the glass cups to the forehead was not done over a period of 6 months to a year, and I was only replying to you saying I might be interested in that particular 6 month long study.

You're interested enough in the whole subject of sebum to pop up in each thread involving a user asking if the products they use affect their skin's production, so if you're currently facing oily skin and would like to put an end to it, then I don't see how either disproving this theory or solving your dilemma once and for all wouldn't be worth it. If you're satisfied with the state of your skin, and aren't having issues involving dry skin along with an excessive amount of oil - then I can understand, it's fine, someone like myself should take the initiative, although I'm not purchasing sebutape, I'll try to document it with pictures (seeing as how the oil should be visible as a shine anyways). I wouldn't be aiming to change dermatology as we know it, for that I'd need a large control group.

Do you have a link to this issue involving Accutane? I believe you, I just want to see what else might affect the state of skins moisture.

Apparently Kilgman did patent it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/21/AR2010022104116.html

Perhaps you can understand my mild suspicion.

I'm sorry, but the fact is none of these studies are under all of the following: a year long, under a decent sized control group, in modern day with more recent products like BP & Salicylic Acid, or Glycolic Acid, etc., nor do they state the condition of the test subject's skin in relation to ours on this site (like dehydrated oily combination, or acne). It's a long list of specifics, but it has to be in order to be completely relevant enough to benefit us.

It's fine if you're not convinced enough, or perhaps you're skins in fine enough condition to even consider an interest in trying this out, it's nothing like testing "somebody's weird idea that the earth is flat." The feedback theory isn't in stone like that, I was just saying what exactly is the harm of encouraging people to give this natural approach a try? It's no different than them just giving another product line a try. Perhaps it may even end their issues for good without having to spend another penny.

I honestly respect your approach to get people more involved in actual research rather than the usual, "Hey! I found the cure to acne, all I did was stop breathing : )" type threads that make up much of the site that pretty much go nowhere. It's much better to have control group's, or photo logs of people to document their change so that it may be of actual help and encouragement to others. I agree with you on that, it's just that posting negative sarcastic responses to every thread, or claiming such and such is written in stone, when it really isn't, isn't really helpful either. BUT I saw a recent post of yours, and you responded with the actual study, and said something along the lines of "Here's a study that demonstrates it, I don't think there's another way; at least that I know of...", so that's much better, and it's in a better direction. So can we shake hands, because I don't think this thread is really going anywhere in terms of debating, because more factual evidence I'll agree needs to be done on behalf of what I'm arguing for, and while what you're arguing for has some documentation, it's not in stone and possibly needs to have more recent work done to disprove the caveman approach.

I'll try to gather up as many links or posts that I can of people who've had success with the caveman approach, and although it doesn't prove anything completely, it might help others read up a little more on the subject.

*hugs Bryan*

Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

11Just buy <a href="http://www.asianescortsedmonton.com">Edmonton Escort</a> a smaller <a href="http://www.asianescortsedmonton.com">Edmonton Asian Escort</a> vibrator as to not cause <a href="http://www.asianescortsedmonton.com">Edmonton Escorts</a> discomfort. It can go in as far as you want it to. I find immense pleasure with smaller vibrators. I used to have <a href="http://www.asianescortsedmonton.com">Edmonton Asian Escortst</a> this huge one that did everything I found it was just too intense for me, and too big!

Edited by julin
Link to post
Share on other sites

... but what exactly is the harm of encouraging people to give this natural approach a try? ...

Honestly you have no idea what you're talking about. You've come into this forum and said "I don't care what scientific evidence there is to the contrary; I've read all the forum posts and here are the answers". You perpetuate the widespread ignorance on this topic.

Every few weeks some newby comes into this forum and makes some ridiculous claim. It's kinda frustrating. Maybe Brian should make a sticky thread that answers all the newby questions. That should cut down on the noise.

Ignorance is exactly what pharmaceutical companies love to take advantage of. They can sell products that do absolutely nothing to help - because they know customers know very little. Forum topics like yours help them.

I've got no problem with "I'm sick of product XYZ - it did nothing for me - I'm gonna try ABC and I'll report the results". I've done this myself.

It's time to stop this thread and move on to something more useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

... but what exactly is the harm of encouraging people to give this natural approach a try? ...

Honestly you have no idea what you're talking about. You've come into this forum and said "I don't care what scientific evidence there is to the contrary; I've read all the forum posts and here are the answers". You perpetuate the widespread ignorance on this topic.

Every few weeks some newby comes into this forum and makes some ridiculous claim. It's kinda frustrating. Maybe Brian should make a sticky thread that answers all the newby questions. That should cut down on the noise.

Ignorance is exactly what pharmaceutical companies love to take advantage of. They can sell products that do absolutely nothing to help - because they know customers know very little. Forum topics like yours help them.

I've got no problem with "I'm sick of product XYZ - it did nothing for me - I'm gonna try ABC and I'll report the results". I've done this myself.

It's time to stop this thread and move on to something more useful.

Seriously? This thread was "stopped", and we have moved on. You're late.

We came to the conclusion that it was pretty much going nowhere, and that this approach has neither been proved nor disproved - so I was merely asking Brian to not act as though this is all written in stone to discourage others from at least trying this out, as it's honestly no different than basically attempting another round at another product in a long line of crap at our local drug stores.

And helping pharmaceutical companies? Please actually read this topic before making assumptions, because once again; I've explained why Brian needs more recent information and such to completely justify his attitude towards users asking "is there any hope for my oil production?", instead of negatively snubbing them of with sarcastic remarks, he's free to post his findings, and say something like "here's information I have come across, it's not complete proof, but take it or leave it" (which he did seem to do in his last reply to another thread, so I'm glad he's done that much at least).

Your topics are more supportive of these "pharmaceutical companies" than anything offered in this thread. "I'm sick of product XYZ - it did nothing for me - I'm gonna try ABC and I'll report the results", in which involves specific products, which you may report success with - giving others incentive to go out and purchase this product with an extremely slim chance that they may have success themselves with it, putting just another dollar in the pants of what you're against. The method I support, I have seen many many people online, and especially in threads on this site who have various skin issues, and these issues have only gotten worse with the use of products, claiming they've sorted it out by simply not washing, or washing with water only, and have not seen a single person yet fail at this who have given it a good long time (such as several months, to a year), not much different than people who are suppose to give products a good long time before they are sure they work, and even then - many products seem to simply stop working along the line, then they're just back to square one (like I've said in this thread, admittedly I can not prove through medical literature as control/test groups take a lot of money and support to fund - usually from a pharmaceutical company or person with incentive to sell a certain product with the results, which a "do nothing approach" would put not a dime in a single persons pocket).

I'm not going to pointlessly bicker back and forth with you, read the thread, and you'll see it's come to a conclusion.

Peace.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×