Actually. I think that it has to do with luck(that also includes genetics). Think about your family members, some of them don't have such symptoms. So.. the solution can be more than meets the eye. First, solve your luck.

There are some people with extremely oily skin that do not have acne and some people with extremely dry skin that do.

There are some people with extremely oily skin that do not have acne and some people with extremely dry skin that do.

In order for acne to occur, the sebum needs to be trapped in the pore, that is all acne is

So, they are either producing too much sebum, or they produce normal sebum, but their skin regenerates too fast, so their pores tend to get blocked more often due to dead skin cells, leading to acne

again, skin regeneration rate is dictated by your genetic makeup

The ability to get acne has a genetic component, but there are likely epigenetic factors as well. For all intensive purposes, genetic and epigenetic factors are the same when we consider an individual.

However, triggering acne is environmental. Acne incidence varies with environment. It has often been called a disease of civilization for this reason. And the incidence fluctuates as the environment changes; acne incidence in the US, for example, is on the rise, and has been for some time.

I think it's important to understand that just because changing diet didn't work for certain people, doesn't mean that it won't work for everyone. Many, many people have cleared their acne through lifestyle changes. No gene therapy required.

It's also interesting that acne genes have been searched for. Nothing much has been found. Of course, this doesn't mean that the ability to get acne isn't genetic; it simply means that it's probably more an issue of gene regulation - EVERYONE can get acne, but people only get it under certain conditions. This is why I mentioned epigenetics.

In respect to sebum, it is true that sebum is likely a necessary condition for acne, but it is not a sufficient condition. That is to say, simply having oily skin will not cause acne. But changes to sebum composition and quantity may well be required for acne to form. This is why teens most often get acne - before puberty, the necessary condition isn't there; underlying conditions that are the root cause of acne, however, may still be present (just not visible until sebum production increases).

You should know that the current state of acne research - and I'm talking about papers published in mainstream peer reviewed journals - is now suggesting that the formation of the microcomedone (which then becomes an acne lesion) occurs before colonization with P. acnes, and is an immune response. Researchers don't yet know the source of the immune response - this is still being investigated. There are two main lines of thought here; one is that the immune response occurs due to contact with external antigens, which is heightened due to changes in sebum composition. The second is that acne the immune response occurs due to differences in skin microbiome (different strains of P. acnes have been found on the skin of acne and normal patients). I very much doubt both of these hypotheses. I doubt the first because it does not provide a causative process for acne - why is sebum altered in the first place, and why would overproduction of sebum lead to less protection, instead of the other way around? The second I doubt because it's already been demonstrated that P. acnes has no role in the initiation of acne lesions, and I doubt a microbial transplant of acne-associated P. acnes strains would result in acne developing on the disinfected skin of those with clear skin (mostly because acne is not contagious).

I think it's more likely that the immune response occurs due to food (or microbial) antigens that cross into the bloodstream from a damaged instestinal mucosa. This hypothesis gives an explanation of causation and logically follows from the many, many observations that have been made on the association between environment and acne. Furthermore, it provides a reason for the anti-acne effects of many antibiotics and dietary alterations.

But all that aside, you made too many assumptions in your post, and even those with perfect skin get one or two pimples here and there at some point in their lives.

 

There are some people with extremely oily skin that do not have acne and some people with extremely dry skin that do.

In order for acne to occur, the sebum needs to be trapped in the pore, that is all acne is

So, they are either producing too much sebum, or they produce normal sebum, but their skin regenerates too fast, so their pores tend to get blocked more often due to dead skin cells, leading to acne

again, skin regeneration rate is dictated by your genetic makeup

For me its both genetic and the foods i consume. Anyways sometimes as a really young baby you will get acne (like both me and my brother did) and we both had problems when we were older and both went on accutane. But my older brother never had acne as a baby and never had an issue. I thought this was a possible warning sign.

In other words, there will never be a cure for acne lol

what do you think about the copper toxicity as being a major factor?

i've been reading a bit on this topic, and it has some sense. this is what resonates to me:

- many girls after inserting copper IUDs get horrible acne, which goes away after removal

- i searched and i found this guy: http://www.healthboards.com/boards/acne/179161-solved-my-acne-problem-copper-toxicity.html (but i don't see other posts like this)

- it could explain why the liver&adrenals get "stuck", and why further damage to these organs increse acne (like alcohol for example which gives me acne)

- it explains why taking zinc/vit C/magnesiun work for acne (they're also copper antagonists)

- why some foods are bad for acne, (they're high in copper, or block copper elimination) like: chocolate, wheat, flower - sugar, soy, coffee, cashews, avocados. also on this topic there are some curiosities like many people say a "healthy" diet made acne worst (if they think more plants vs animal = more copper vs zinc), also why we could eat chickpeas, sesame seed, sunflower seeds (or oil i assume), liver, and have acne, because they too are high in copper.

but the adrenal fatigue/ or bad liver/adrenals connection to copper is what interests me the most.

i don't have copper pipes but who knows.. and i too noticed that eggs,beef,chicken(non hormonal),pumpkin seeds are great for acne, because they're zinc rich, but this also means copper antagonists..(copper being a zinc antagonist..)

any thoughts on this?

what do you think about the copper toxicity as being a major factor?

i've been reading a bit on this topic, and it has some sense. this is what resonates to me:

- many girls after inserting copper IUDs get horrible acne, which goes away after removal

- i searched and i found this guy: http://www.healthboards.com/boards/acne/179161-solved-my-acne-problem-copper-toxicity.html (but i don't see other posts like this)

- it could explain why the liver&adrenals get "stuck", and why further damage to these organs increse acne (like alcohol for example which gives me acne)

- it explains why taking zinc/vit C/magnesiun work for acne (they're also copper antagonists)

- why some foods are bad for acne, (they're high in copper, or block copper elimination) like: chocolate, wheat, flower - sugar, soy, coffee, cashews, avocados. also on this topic there are some curiosities like many people say a "healthy" diet made acne worst (if they think more plants vs animal = more copper vs zinc), also why we could eat chickpeas, sesame seed, sunflower seeds (or oil i assume), liver, and have acne, because they too are high in copper.

but the adrenal fatigue/ or bad liver/adrenals connection to copper is what interests me the most.

i don't have copper pipes but who knows.. and i too noticed that eggs,beef,chicken(non hormonal),pumpkin seeds are great for acne, because they're zinc rich, but this also means copper antagonists..(copper being a zinc antagonist..)

any thoughts on this?

Hmm it's possible. Some foods high in copper tend to be good for acne though - avocados, kale, seafood, etc. But it does seem reasonable that excess copper intake can lead to deficiencies in other vitamins, and vitamin deficiencies can lead to acne, so yeah that's a possibility. Although I have a feeling that in most cases, copper would not be to blame.

Both my parents had pretty bad acne and so did my brother, so makes sense to me. They all cleared up so I hope I will too.

The ability to get acne has a genetic component, but there are likely epigenetic factors as well. For all intensive purposes, genetic and epigenetic factors are the same when we consider an individual.

However, triggering acne is environmental. Acne incidence varies with environment. It has often been called a disease of civilization for this reason. And the incidence fluctuates as the environment changes; acne incidence in the US, for example, is on the rise, and has been for some time.

I think it's important to understand that just because changing diet didn't work for certain people, doesn't mean that it won't work for everyone. Many, many people have cleared their acne through lifestyle changes. No gene therapy required.

It's also interesting that acne genes have been searched for. Nothing much has been found. Of course, this doesn't mean that the ability to get acne isn't genetic; it simply means that it's probably more an issue of gene regulation - EVERYONE can get acne, but people only get it under certain conditions. This is why I mentioned epigenetics.

In respect to sebum, it is true that sebum is likely a necessary condition for acne, but it is not a sufficient condition. That is to say, simply having oily skin will not cause acne. But changes to sebum composition and quantity may well be required for acne to form. This is why teens most often get acne - before puberty, the necessary condition isn't there; underlying conditions that are the root cause of acne, however, may still be present (just not visible until sebum production increases).

You should know that the current state of acne research - and I'm talking about papers published in mainstream peer reviewed journals - is now suggesting that the formation of the microcomedone (which then becomes an acne lesion) occurs before colonization with P. acnes, and is an immune response. Researchers don't yet know the source of the immune response - this is still being investigated. There are two main lines of thought here; one is that the immune response occurs due to contact with external antigens, which is heightened due to changes in sebum composition. The second is that acne the immune response occurs due to differences in skin microbiome (different strains of P. acnes have been found on the skin of acne and normal patients). I very much doubt both of these hypotheses. I doubt the first because it does not provide a causative process for acne - why is sebum altered in the first place, and why would overproduction of sebum lead to less protection, instead of the other way around? The second I doubt because it's already been demonstrated that P. acnes has no role in the initiation of acne lesions, and I doubt a microbial transplant of acne-associated P. acnes strains would result in acne developing on the disinfected skin of those with clear skin (mostly because acne is not contagious).

I think it's more likely that the immune response occurs due to food (or microbial) antigens that cross into the bloodstream from a damaged instestinal mucosa. This hypothesis gives an explanation of causation and logically follows from the many, many observations that have been made on the association between environment and acne. Furthermore, it provides a reason for the anti-acne effects of many antibiotics and dietary alterations.

But all that aside, you made too many assumptions in your post, and even those with perfect skin get one or two pimples here and there at some point in their lives.

There are some people with extremely oily skin that do not have acne and some people with extremely dry skin that do.

In order for acne to occur, the sebum needs to be trapped in the pore, that is all acne is

So, they are either producing too much sebum, or they produce normal sebum, but their skin regenerates too fast, so their pores tend to get blocked more often due to dead skin cells, leading to acne

again, skin regeneration rate is dictated by your genetic makeup

Unfortunately this is not true. Acne 'forms' due to the recruitment of leukocytes that are responding to inflammatory signals released by epithelial cells. Once the leukocytes get there, they release their own inflammatory signals, which leads to hyperproliferation of keratinocytes. This hyperproliferation results in inadequate desquamation (desquamation = breakup of cells as they shed), which then can lead to a blocked pore, which can then lead to colonization by P. acnes (due to the anaerobic environment).

Acne isn't caused by sebum getting 'stuck' in the pore.

But you can see here that the question scientists are now asking is: what causes the initial inflammatory event?

That bit about the inflammatory process stimulating hyperproliferation is very well written. But many genetic/enzyme mutations have been found in acne prone skin. I have a list of the differences I've found in acne prone skin that includes several examples.

Especially moderate to severe acne, is 100% due to genetics, and has very little to do with what you eat and do.

Wrong. And that is true about most diseases. Many people are genetically prone to developing type II diabetes. In fact whole ethnic groups are. But it's still their diet & lifestyle that makes it happen. And can prevent it from happening and even reverse the condition. Just like with acne.

The ability to get acne has a genetic component, but there are likely epigenetic factors as well. For all intensive purposes, genetic and epigenetic factors are the same when we consider an individual.

However, triggering acne is environmental. Acne incidence varies with environment. It has often been called a disease of civilization for this reason. And the incidence fluctuates as the environment changes; acne incidence in the US, for example, is on the rise, and has been for some time.

I think it's important to understand that just because changing diet didn't work for certain people, doesn't mean that it won't work for everyone. Many, many people have cleared their acne through lifestyle changes. No gene therapy required.

It's also interesting that acne genes have been searched for. Nothing much has been found. Of course, this doesn't mean that the ability to get acne isn't genetic; it simply means that it's probably more an issue of gene regulation - EVERYONE can get acne, but people only get it under certain conditions. This is why I mentioned epigenetics.

In respect to sebum, it is true that sebum is likely a necessary condition for acne, but it is not a sufficient condition. That is to say, simply having oily skin will not cause acne. But changes to sebum composition and quantity may well be required for acne to form. This is why teens most often get acne - before puberty, the necessary condition isn't there; underlying conditions that are the root cause of acne, however, may still be present (just not visible until sebum production increases).

You should know that the current state of acne research - and I'm talking about papers published in mainstream peer reviewed journals - is now suggesting that the formation of the microcomedone (which then becomes an acne lesion) occurs before colonization with P. acnes, and is an immune response. Researchers don't yet know the source of the immune response - this is still being investigated. There are two main lines of thought here; one is that the immune response occurs due to contact with external antigens, which is heightened due to changes in sebum composition. The second is that acne the immune response occurs due to differences in skin microbiome (different strains of P. acnes have been found on the skin of acne and normal patients). I very much doubt both of these hypotheses. I doubt the first because it does not provide a causative process for acne - why is sebum altered in the first place, and why would overproduction of sebum lead to less protection, instead of the other way around? The second I doubt because it's already been demonstrated that P. acnes has no role in the initiation of acne lesions, and I doubt a microbial transplant of acne-associated P. acnes strains would result in acne developing on the disinfected skin of those with clear skin (mostly because acne is not contagious).

I think it's more likely that the immune response occurs due to food (or microbial) antigens that cross into the bloodstream from a damaged instestinal mucosa. This hypothesis gives an explanation of causation and logically follows from the many, many observations that have been made on the association between environment and acne. Furthermore, it provides a reason for the anti-acne effects of many antibiotics and dietary alterations.

But all that aside, you made too many assumptions in your post, and even those with perfect skin get one or two pimples here and there at some point in their lives.

There are some people with extremely oily skin that do not have acne and some people with extremely dry skin that do.

In order for acne to occur, the sebum needs to be trapped in the pore, that is all acne is

So, they are either producing too much sebum, or they produce normal sebum, but their skin regenerates too fast, so their pores tend to get blocked more often due to dead skin cells, leading to acne

again, skin regeneration rate is dictated by your genetic makeup

Unfortunately this is not true. Acne 'forms' due to the recruitment of leukocytes that are responding to inflammatory signals released by epithelial cells. Once the leukocytes get there, they release their own inflammatory signals, which leads to hyperproliferation of keratinocytes. This hyperproliferation results in inadequate desquamation (desquamation = breakup of cells as they shed), which then can lead to a blocked pore, which can then lead to colonization by P. acnes (due to the anaerobic environment).

Acne isn't caused by sebum getting 'stuck' in the pore.

But you can see here that the question scientists are now asking is: what causes the initial inflammatory event?

That bit about the inflammatory process stimulating hyperproliferation is very well written. But many genetic/enzyme mutations have been found in acne prone skin. I have a list of the differences I've found in acne prone skin that includes several examples.

>Especially moderate to severe acne, is 100% due to genetics, and has very little to do with what you eat and do.

Wrong. And that is true about most diseases. Many people are genetically prone to developing type II diabetes. In fact whole ethnic groups are. But it's still their diet & lifestyle that makes it happen. And can prevent it from happening and even reverse the condition. Just like with acne.

This is going back to the "nature versus nurture" debate. The scientific community generally accepts that diseases and traits fall along a gradient, but some are influenced more by the environment than others.

For example, mutations in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 greatly increases the likelihood of breast cancer. That doesn't mean one will get it. A woman with that mutation could smoke and drink heavily and still not get it. Likewise, a woman who did "everything right" could still get breast cancer. The interplay of genes and environment is complicated, even with cancer alone.

Some forms of severe acne are linked to specific mutations. For general acne there is a genetic component, but diet itself hasn't been conclusively proven to alter or reverse acne. Personally, I'd like to see more research on how P. acne mutations play a role.

People will always refuse to accept they were given bad genes, so it doesn't really surprise me

You could fix everything in your life, diet, exercise, stress, creams, treatment, and still have acne, simply because, is in your genes, you can blame mother nature for that

The ability to get acne has a genetic component, but there are likely epigenetic factors as well. For all intensive purposes, genetic and epigenetic factors are the same when we consider an individual.

However, triggering acne is environmental. Acne incidence varies with environment. It has often been called a disease of civilization for this reason. And the incidence fluctuates as the environment changes; acne incidence in the US, for example, is on the rise, and has been for some time.

I think it's important to understand that just because changing diet didn't work for certain people, doesn't mean that it won't work for everyone. Many, many people have cleared their acne through lifestyle changes. No gene therapy required.

It's also interesting that acne genes have been searched for. Nothing much has been found. Of course, this doesn't mean that the ability to get acne isn't genetic; it simply means that it's probably more an issue of gene regulation - EVERYONE can get acne, but people only get it under certain conditions. This is why I mentioned epigenetics.

There are some people with extremely oily skin that do not have acne and some people with extremely dry skin that do.

In order for acne to occur, the sebum needs to be trapped in the pore, that is all acne is

So, they are either producing too much sebum, or they produce normal sebum, but their skin regenerates too fast, so their pores tend to get blocked more often due to dead skin cells, leading to acne

again, skin regeneration rate is dictated by your genetic makeup

Unfortunately this is not true. Acne 'forms' due to the recruitment of leukocytes that are responding to inflammatory signals released by epithelial cells. Once the leukocytes get there, they release their own inflammatory signals, which leads to hyperproliferation of keratinocytes. This hyperproliferation results in inadequate desquamation (desquamation = breakup of cells as they shed), which then can lead to a blocked pore, which can then lead to colonization by P. acnes (due to the anaerobic environment).

Acne isn't caused by sebum getting 'stuck' in the pore.

But you can see here that the question scientists are now asking is: what causes the initial inflammatory event?

That bit about the inflammatory process stimulating hyperproliferation is very well written. But many genetic/enzyme mutations have been found in acne prone skin. I have a list of the differences I've found in acne prone skin that includes several examples.

>

>Especially moderate to severe acne, is 100% due to genetics, and has very little to do with what you eat and do.

>ockquote>

Wrong. And that is true about most diseases. Many people are genetically prone to developing type II diabetes. In fact whole ethnic groups are. But it's still their diet & lifestyle that makes it happen. And can prevent it from happening and even reverse the condition. Just like with acne.

It's funny how you think that diet and lifestyle changes will work for everyone just because it worked for you.

 

Wrong again. I certainly don't think it will work for everyone JUST because it worked for me. For one thing there's the hundreds of others I've had contact with here that it worked for. And the thousands involved in the clinical studies, etc. and the fact that It's simply not possible for diet to not affect acne.

That is not a "fact" that doctors and science agrees with. Can you prove that "fact"? Why does diet not work for thousands of other people? Why do some people have horrible diets and no acne?

Genetic differences. No one disputes this - different people have different susceptibilities to developing acne. However, that doesn't mean that these genetic differences are the cause of acne.

What people are saying is that environmental factors can trigger genetic predispositions.

As for diet changes not working for everyone - sometimes damage takes a long time to heal. And there is no one size fits all diet that will simply cure acne. These two factors combined make it very hard to solve the problem. You can think that you're doing everything right because it worked for someone else, when in reality you're doing the opposite of what's right for you.

I think it's also important to note that acne is a multifactorial disease; simply 'improving' one's diet (which can mean anything from veganism to paleo) is often not enough, in part because food sensitivities are many times caused by some unknown underlying factor which can again be very difficult to identify (bacterial dysbiosis, specific food intolerance that results in damage, vitamin deficiency, parasites etc).

Finally, you should understand that people usually only turn to the 'natural' solutions when conventional medicine fails. There is an inherent population bias within this group; these people often have more severe cases of acne that may be caused by underlying conditions that are more difficult to treat. This can make treating acne with lifestyle changes more difficult. Alternatively it can make it more simple, depending on which way the bias swings (this group of people might share a common cause of their acne, which is why it might not have responded as well to conventional treatments). But either way, lifestyle changes often help where conventional treatments have not, and lack of evidence for the success of lifestyle changes in mainstream literature is not evidence against.

(Although the pool of evidence continues to grow)

I think it's a combination of genetics and luck like someone else said .. I got a nasty little bout of acne at 18 while my brothers never suffered anything like that .. and now in my 30s I'm starting to get some here and there after pretty much getting no acne at all throughout my 20s .. it's really annoying .. I feel like I'm a teen again having to deal with this stuff when I feel I should be past all this already .. I have a suspicion I just developed allergies or have screwed with my hormones from eating horribly .. not sure though .. but yeah .. I think it's a combo of genetics and some luck

its just how the society has evolved and changed the perspectives of the way everyone looks at things from years ago until now

Wrong again. I certainly don't think it will work for everyone JUST because it worked for me. For one thing there's the hundreds of others I've had contact with here that it worked for. And the thousands involved in the clinical studies, etc. and the fact that It's simply not possible for diet to not affect acne.

 

That is not a "fact" that doctors and science agrees with. Can you prove that "fact"? Why does diet not work for thousands of other people? Why do some people have horrible diets and no acne?

Doctors & scientists do agree with it. It just hasn't made it into the textbooks used to train the average western doctor which is all most of us have access to. But if those dermatologists would read the journals that are published for them and thus the many studies that demonstrate the nutrients and the diet habits that affect acne, they would be much better doctors. Same with the general practitioners. This wouldn't be such a sickly, drugged up culture.

That is not a "fact" that doctors and science agrees with. Can you prove that "fact"? Why does diet not work for thousands of other people? Why do some people have horrible diets and no acne?

Genetic differences. No one disputes this - different people have different susceptibilities to developing acne. However, that doesn't mean that these genetic differences are the cause of acne.

What people are saying is that environmental factors can trigger genetic predispositions.

As for diet changes not working for everyone - sometimes damage takes a long time to heal. And there is no one size fits all diet that will simply cure acne. These two factors combined make it very hard to solve the problem. You can think that you're doing everything right because it worked for someone else, when in reality you're doing the opposite of what's right for you.

I think it's also important to note that acne is a multifactorial disease; simply 'improving' one's diet (which can mean anything from veganism to paleo) is often not enough, in part because food sensitivities are many times caused by some unknown underlying factor which can again be very difficult to identify (bacterial dysbiosis, specific food intolerance that results in damage, vitamin deficiency, parasites etc).

Finally, you should understand that people usually only turn to the 'natural' solutions when conventional medicine fails. There is an inherent population bias within this group; these people often have more severe cases of acne that may be caused by underlying conditions that are more difficult to treat. This can make treating acne with lifestyle changes more difficult. Alternatively it can make it more simple, depending on which way the bias swings (this group of people might share a common cause of their acne, which is why it might not have responded as well to conventional treatments). But either way, lifestyle changes often help where conventional treatments have not, and lack of evidence for the success of lifestyle changes in mainstream literature is not evidence against.

(Although the pool of evidence continues to grow)

And a great many people have told me how they eat very healthy and have tried everything and proceed to list very unhealthy things as their examples. I swear, our society has become completely clueless about what real food is and how to eat healthy. It doesn't help that conventional nutritionists are always giving bad advice as their main concern is calories so they tell people to discard the best part of the egg and and advise people to eat super processed low & nonfat dairy. And all kinds of refined carb crap.

Look at how many think eggs are dairy. That's just insane. Even if you know absolutely nothing about biology, the difference between birds & mammals, etc. There's still the fact that they've always been lumped together in the food group called Eggs AND Dairy. Or placed in the Eggs And Dairy section of the supermarket. The conjunction AND indicating that you are listing two DIFFERENT things.

I think it's a combination of genetics and luck like someone else said .. I got a nasty little bout of acne at 18 while my brothers never suffered anything like that .. and now in my 30s I'm starting to get some here and there after pretty much getting no acne at all throughout my 20s .. it's really annoying .. I feel like I'm a teen again having to deal with this stuff when I feel I should be past all this already .. I have a suspicion I just developed allergies or have screwed with my hormones from eating horribly .. not sure though .. but yeah .. I think it's a combo of genetics and some luck

It is a combination of genetics and environment. Environment meaning what you are exposed to and what you do to yourself. Such as your diet and lifestyle. Same with most of the other health conditions people suffer from these days.

Doctors & scientists do agree with it. It just hasn't made it into the textbooks used to train the average western doctor which is all most of us have access to. But if those dermatologists would read the journals that are published for them and thus the many studies that demonstrate the nutrients and the diet habits that affect acne, they would be much better doctors. Same with the general practitioners. This wouldn't be such a sickly, drugged up culture. </blockquote>

The problem is there have yet to be high-quality studies with diet and acne. A lot of them are surveys, and the few other trials weren't controlled.

And a great many people have told me how they eat very healthy and have tried everything and proceed to list very unhealthy things as their examples. I swear, our society has become completely clueless about what real food is and how to eat healthy. It doesn't help that conventional nutritionists are always giving bad advice as their main concern is calories so they tell people to discard the best part of the egg and and advise people to eat super processed low & nonfat dairy. And all kinds of refined carb crap.

Not quite true with the calories* part. The concerns are the risk factors you have, like cardiovascular disease, diabetes (depends on the type), and obesity, and mortality to one or multiple of them, as well as how well you can adhere to a diet/lifestyle.

*Edit: Calories still technically matter, since they are units of energy in food. How you get those calories also matter. If you look at all the successful diets across the board, a lot of them are low(er) calorie--combined with exercise for the best results, of course.

It is a combination of genetics and environment. Environment meaning what you are exposed to and what you do to yourself. Such as your diet and lifestyle. Same with most of the other health conditions people suffer from these days.

I agree but I think the genes are the catalyst for or against as others have mentioned in this thread already ..

how many people are there out there that like to party hard, eat junk, don't get enough sleep yet don't have an acne problem .. kind of like the issue with hairloss .. you see homeless guys with full heads of hair while there are guys who supposedly lead the healthiest life you could possibly lead and are still bald/ing ..

if your genes predispose you to not get acne, you probably won't develop any problem unless maybe you abuse youself in an extraordinary way .. then of course you have those(like myself) that are predisposed to getting acne/skin issues if we don't take care of ourselves and miminize stress and do everything else right(and even then some still have issues) .. genes are a big factor imo ..

of course, environment can be a cause on its own .. being exposed to certain elements, chemicals etc or developing allergies can trigger outbreaks on their own .. but for the most, I think it's a case of predisposition for or against

It's the environment that's the catalyst, not the genes. Just like with diabetes. I don't understand why you are rehashing the rest again. That there is a genetic tendency is fact and has been stated several times here with no one arguing against it. That's why I didn't

 

It is a combination of genetics and environment. Environment meaning what you are exposed to and what you do to yourself. Such as your diet and lifestyle. Same with most of the other health conditions people suffer from these days.

I agree but I think the genes are the catalyst for or against as others have mentioned in this thread already ..

how many people are there out there that like to party hard, eat junk, don't get enough sleep yet don't have an acne problem .. kind of like the issue with hairloss .. you see homeless guys with full heads of hair while there are guys who supposedly lead the healthiest life you could possibly lead and are still bald/ing ..

if your genes predispose you to not get acne, you probably won't develop any problem unless maybe you abuse youself in an extraordinary way .. then of course you have those(like myself) that are predisposed to getting acne/skin issues if we don't take care of ourselves and miminize stress and do everything else right(and even then some still have issues) .. genes are a big factor imo ..

of course, environment can be a cause on its own .. being exposed to certain elements, chemicals etc or developing allergies can trigger outbreaks on their own .. but for the most, I think it's a case of predisposition for or against

It's the environment that's the catalyst, not the genes. Just like with diabetes. I don't understand why you are rehashing the rest again. That there is a genetic tendency is fact and has been stated several times here with no one arguing against it. That's why I didn't

It is a combination of genetics and environment. Environment meaning what you are exposed to and what you do to yourself. Such as your diet and lifestyle. Same with most of the other health conditions people suffer from these days.

I agree but I think the genes are the catalyst for or against as others have mentioned in this thread already ..

how many people are there out there that like to party hard, eat junk, don't get enough sleep yet don't have an acne problem .. kind of like the issue with hairloss .. you see homeless guys with full heads of hair while there are guys who supposedly lead the healthiest life you could possibly lead and are still bald/ing ..

if your genes predispose you to not get acne, you probably won't develop any problem unless maybe you abuse youself in an extraordinary way .. then of course you have those(like myself) that are predisposed to getting acne/skin issues if we don't take care of ourselves and miminize stress and do everything else right(and even then some still have issues) .. genes are a big factor imo ..

of course, environment can be a cause on its own .. being exposed to certain elements, chemicals etc or developing allergies can trigger outbreaks on their own .. but for the most, I think it's a case of predisposition for or against

>

Wrong again. I certainly don't think it will work for everyone JUST because it worked for me. For one thing there's the hundreds of others I've had contact with here that it worked for. And the thousands involved in the clinical studies, etc. and the fact that It's simply not possible for diet to not affect acne.

 

That is not a "fact" that doctors and science agrees with. Can you prove that "fact"? Why does diet not work for thousands of other people? Why do some people have horrible diets and no acne?

Doctors & scientists do agree with it. It just hasn't made it into the textbooks used to train the average western doctor which is all most of us have access to. But if those dermatologists would read the journals that are published for them and thus the many studies that demonstrate the nutrients and the diet habits that affect acne, they would be much better doctors. Same with the general practitioners. This wouldn't be such a sickly, drugged up culture.

Homeopathy is not science. That's why it's not in the textbooks. There's also no proof to your last statement. I

I have no idea why you are telling me that. I said nothing about homeopathy. I was talking about scientists and their studies published in peer reviewed dermatological & medical journals. Abstracts of these studies are easily found on sites such as pub med. And we have a list of hundreds of some of the most famous ones pinned on the Nutrition & Holistic health board.

And the proof to my last statement is all around you. Probably in someone next to you right now. Maybe you.

Doctors & scientists do agree with it. It just hasn't made it into the textbooks used to train the average western doctor which is all most of us have access to. But if those dermatologists would read the journals that are published for them and thus the many studies that demonstrate the nutrients and the diet habits that affect acne, they would be much better doctors. Same with the general practitioners. This wouldn't be such a sickly, drugged up culture. </blockquote>

The problem is there have yet to be high-quality studies with diet and acne. A lot of them are surveys, and the few other trials weren't controlled.

>>And a great many people have told me how they eat very healthy and have tried everything and proceed to list very unhealthy things as their examples. I swear, our society has become completely clueless about what real food is and how to eat healthy. It doesn't help that conventional nutritionists are always giving bad advice as their main concern is calories so they tell people to discard the best part of the egg and and advise people to eat super processed low & nonfat dairy. And all kinds of refined carb crap.

Not quite true with the calories* part. The concerns are the risk factors you have, like cardiovascular disease, diabetes (depends on the type), and obesity, and mortality to one or multiple of them, as well as how well you can adhere to a diet/lifestyle.

*Edit: Calories still technically matter, since they are units of energy in food. How you get those calories also matter. If you look at all the successful diets across the board, a lot of them are low(er) calorie--combined with exercise for the best results, of course.

Very few of the studies I am referring to are surveys. The only one I can think of is the South Beach Diet survey in which 85% of dieters reported clearing skin.

The study done years ago that 'proved' diet didn't affect acne was extremely flawed lacking adequate controls. And yet, that's they go with that despite the fact that it's absolutely insane to believe that diet doesn't affect acne. IT affects everything and to believe otherwise is idiotic.

And the diet advice for diabetes & cardiovascular disease has been bad as well, and thus they have become the fastest spreading diseases in history.

Look very carefully at the studies. A lot of them are flawed to the point where they don't really prove anything.

The first and perhaps most famous study is this one: http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/1/107.abstract. I assume you have or can get the free text/PDF. That one is actually the same study here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18178063/

Now, the major problem with that one is it didn't adjust for confounding factors, like protein and fat intake. That would easily skew the course of a disease and its analysis.

Another trial that had problems was this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18496812 . It wasn't randomized, the acne or its history wasn't evaluated, too short in duration, and too small a sample size. The trial after that one http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18178063 was a little better, but still had the same pitfalls as the first study I mentioned.

I'm not saying or implying that diet does not affect acne--I'm saying that there's not enough evidence to conclusively prove that diet, or a certain diet, can treat or prevent acne.

Diabetes and CVD are diseases of affluence. When there's plenty of food and a high aging population, chances are you'll see an uptick of that.

@TemperateCent: Are you replying to me or alternativista? I think you're replying to her, but I want to make sure because I received a notification that you quoted me. The quoting thing is a little screwed up at the moment.

I wasn't going to come back to this thread of stupidity, but I wish to make a correction to the basic premise.

Not only is acne not 100% genetic. It's likely that its not actually your Genes at all. The genome has been mapped and it turns out we do not have that many genes. Not enough to dictate every single thing happening in your body.

We should be talking about epigenetics and phenotype. Both of which change according to your environment and things you do to yourself. Like diet. Epigenetics are changes that can be passed on to your offspring. And in fact the adaptions i mentioned before that help people survive famine but make them vulnerable to diabetes are epigenetic change. Studies on some populations found it can go away in a few generations.

And temperatcent, I directed you to tons of studies demonstrating that diet changes improve acne.

The ability to get acne has a genetic component, but there are likely epigenetic factors as well. For all intensive purposes, genetic and epigenetic factors are the same when we consider an individual.

However, triggering acne is environmental. Acne incidence varies with environment. It has often been called a disease of civilization for this reason. And the incidence fluctuates as the environment changes; acne incidence in the US, for example, is on the rise, and has been for some time.

I think it's important to understand that just because changing diet didn't work for certain people, doesn't mean that it won't work for everyone. Many, many people have cleared their acne through lifestyle changes. No gene therapy required.

It's also interesting that acne genes have been searched for. Nothing much has been found. Of course, this doesn't mean that the ability to get acne isn't genetic; it simply means that it's probably more an issue of gene regulation - EVERYONE can get acne, but people only get it under certain conditions. This is why I mentioned epigenetics.

In respect to sebum, it is true that sebum is likely a necessary condition for acne, but it is not a sufficient condition. That is to say, simply having oily skin will not cause acne. But changes to sebum composition and quantity may well be required for acne to form. This is why teens most often get acne - before puberty, the necessary condition isn't there; underlying conditions that are the root cause of acne, however, may still be present (just not visible until sebum production increases).

You should know that the current state of acne research - and I'm talking about papers published in mainstream peer reviewed journals - is now suggesting that the formation of the microcomedone (which then becomes an acne lesion) occurs before colonization with P. acnes, and is an immune response. Researchers don't yet know the source of the immune response - this is still being investigated. There are two main lines of thought here; one is that the immune response occurs due to contact with external antigens, which is heightened due to changes in sebum composition. The second is that acne the immune response occurs due to differences in skin microbiome (different strains of P. acnes have been found on the skin of acne and normal patients). I very much doubt both of these hypotheses. I doubt the first because it does not provide a causative process for acne - why is sebum altered in the first place, and why would overproduction of sebum lead to less protection, instead of the other way around? The second I doubt because it's already been demonstrated that P. acnes has no role in the initiation of acne lesions, and I doubt a microbial transplant of acne-associated P. acnes strains would result in acne developing on the disinfected skin of those with clear skin (mostly because acne is not contagious).

I think it's more likely that the immune response occurs due to food (or microbial) antigens that cross into the bloodstream from a damaged instestinal mucosa. This hypothesis gives an explanation of causation and logically follows from the many, many observations that have been made on the association between environment and acne. Furthermore, it provides a reason for the anti-acne effects of many antibiotics and dietary alterations.

But all that aside, you made too many assumptions in your post, and even those with perfect skin get one or two pimples here and there at some point in their lives.

There are some people with extremely oily skin that do not have acne and some people with extremely dry skin that do.

In order for acne to occur, the sebum needs to be trapped in the pore, that is all acne is

So, they are either producing too much sebum, or they produce normal sebum, but their skin regenerates too fast, so their pores tend to get blocked more often due to dead skin cells, leading to acne

again, skin regeneration rate is dictated by your genetic makeup

Unfortunately this is not true. Acne 'forms' due to the recruitment of leukocytes that are responding to inflammatory signals released by epithelial cells. Once the leukocytes get there, they release their own inflammatory signals, which leads to hyperproliferation of keratinocytes. This hyperproliferation results in inadequate desquamation (desquamation = breakup of cells as they shed), which then can lead to a blocked pore, which can then lead to colonization by P. acnes (due to the anaerobic environment).

Acne isn't caused by sebum getting 'stuck' in the pore.

But you can see here that the question scientists are now asking is: what causes the initial inflammatory event?

Genes. People that get acne conglobata, or really bad cystic acne are found to carry several genetic defects that cause a massive incorrect inflammatory response from what I read. Kind of like Lupus erythematosus.