I like you, WishClean, but I don't think I agree.
I can maybe get on board with some of the semantic issues - "largely ineffective" is a pretty damning statement. However, there really just isn't as much good research showing the efficacy of natural options compared with pharmaceutical ones. Maybe that day will come, and it is looking good considering some recent studies on milk and refined sugars. But we're just not there yet, and I think that it is misleading (at this point in history) to state that natural remedies are as effective as pharmaceutical ones. Perhaps there is a better way to phrase it on this site so that more people see it as a potential and reasonable option.
Slightly outside of the thread topic:
I think there are a lot of misconceptions regarding the word 'natural'. Many of the supplements and whatnot that people are taking on here, and claiming they are alternatives, are chemically derived. I assure you there is no vitamin e tree out there from which my supplements are harvested. As well, there are plenty of compounds that occur naturally in the world that are highly complex and not very safe. Science is good, and there is nothing in this world that didn't exist in the first place. Accutane didn't come from outer space. It came from the manipulation of things that exist. People have been combining things and separating things for a long time, and the evolution of our tools and methods is nothing to take for granted.
I find the natural vs. Accutane debate quite troubling. Why can they not be friends? I have been on Accutane (twice!), and it has really helped, but eating and living in a healthy way is still important. It's not like because I have taken Accutane I should go forth and eat junk food all the time. For me, finding a balance between pharmaceuticals and lifestyle changes is important, and it makes me sad that it always has to be one or the other.
I think the 'natural' people do a good job of excluding a lot of viable options, and that is where the issue lies. Accutane has saved my life more than once, and you (in general) would have me believe it is the fucking devil. On the other hand, I, who have been on Accutane and used other pharmaceuticals, am completely open to what the natural world has to offer. How am I supposed to reconcile that?
So I bid you well in your journey to change the wording and ergo the conception of the possibilities of natural remedies, but I wish that someday I could change your conception of the possibilities of damn good science.
I think it's hard to get behind this when some of the most vocal supporters are saying things like "They are the best treatment with nothing but benefits, unlike everything from the pharmaceutical industry" and "healthy bodies don't get acne" (from the other thread related to this one). Those are just such incredibly large, blanket statements that make people feel guilty and shut them out.
I think it's hard to get behind this when some of the most vocal supporters are saying things like "They are the best treatment with nothing but benefits, unlike everything from the pharmaceutical industry" and "healthy bodies don't get acne" (from the other thread related to this one). Those are just such incredibly large, blanket statements that make people feel guilty and shut them out.
I never made absolute statements, and I think alternativista meant what she said based on the fact that she actually tried accutane and other mainstream treatments. Most people who post on this forum have actually tried those treatments, saw that they didn't work and/or caused unwanted side effects, and want a different approach. A few others want to be healthier while on mainstream treatments to minimize side effects. I don't think there's anything wrong with an integrative approach to acne, but I think that it's obvious that the site - as a brand and a business - favors 2 treatments only, and one of which has hardly been updated since the 1980s.
But it seems that some strong pro-diet/exercise/nutrition/holistic statements are the only thing that gets the point across, since there is so much support for the "other" side. And I do agree with what ketchup posted on the other thread about many acne sufferers being uneducated and simply taking what they are prescribed. The holistic forum, especially a few years back, was the most intellectually active part of acne.org...people were actually getting together and inquiring about the causes of acne not just the symptom itself, and some interesting insights were produced. Just because noone could put a $$ on those ideas, doesn't mean they are not valid.
It's plain as day for everyone who has even tried a natural lifestyle. People without the self-control to make a lifestyle change are going to debate around in circles all day because it's the only thing they're good at. Not even worth arguing anymore, I don't even visit the other forums (except The Lounge) because there's no real information there.
As for the bias, I think it's obvious and necessary. I don't have a problem with Dan saying what he wants because it's his site, and in the long-term it's created a community of people who can discuss it.
I think it's hard to get behind this when some of the most vocal supporters are saying things like "They are the best treatment with nothing but benefits, unlike everything from the pharmaceutical industry" and "healthy bodies don't get acne" (from the other thread related to this one). Those are just such incredibly large, blanket statements that make people feel guilty and shut them out.
???? It's hard to get behind this comment. Guilt? It's fact that truly healthy lifestyle & diet are the best treatments & prevention for everything. And has nothing but benefits. I know of nothing from the pharmaceutical industry with out negative side effects. Drug Advertisements on TV have long lists of side effects. Why don't people feel guilty about that?
I do agree with uncle buck about the lack of self control. We live in a culture where we want a quick, short-term fix, not a long term solution. It's a culture of standardization and mass production, and everyone is expected to make standardized treatments fit their individual bodies.
Even with lifestyle and diet changes, every person has to customize their regimen to their body's needs. But most people do not want to take the time to investigate their own bodies and to learn more about how the body works, how inflammation works, how the gut works, and why we should look at things holistically. Acne doesn't happen in a vacuum, it is part of the body. Healthy bodies don't get acne.
I also noticed there are a lot of people on various medications and harsh topicals who troll the diet forum because they are secretly hoping for a healthier treatment but they are just not committed or informed enough to make it happen. Why else would there be so much contradiction and negativity on the Holistic forum? Why would people opposed to holistic methods even bother reading this forum, and why would they bother post anything?
Anyway, we should also clarify what reliable and "good" research means. If you show me a research paper, I can poke holes in it and find flaws with the methodology, the standard samples they use, the cross-section qualifications, and a lot of other areas. No research is perfect.
However, whenever I propose something new to people such as inositol for PCOS, I cite small-scale research experiments to show that there is potential. But I do not in any way imply that those results will be typical for everyone.
The diet and acne connection is also included in the list of acne myths.
Meanwhile, on the so-called Diet and Acne: The Full Story page, it says
"Based on what we are seeing in clinical research, it seems prudent to eat a relatively low-glycemic diet rich in colorful fruits and vegetables and omega-3 fats and to perhaps supplement with 30mg of zinc gluconate per day. However, due to our modern diets and Western style of living, achieving sustainable relief of acne from changes in diet alone remains an elusive goal."
Nonsense. Elusive goal? So forget about it? Don't bother trying? Look at the results of that. Obesity, heart disease, diabetes what should be a rare condition of the elderly now occurs in children and is the fastest growing disease in history.
Look at how many of us on this forum have achieved that goal and got clear skin. And I associate in person with hundreds of people people that eat that way.
(BTW, Food Revolution Day is May 16th. There will be a big potluck at the urban farm I'm involved with. Last year it was spectacular and attended by hundreds. Find or organize an event in your area. Go to their website. http://www.foodrevolutionday.com )
Looky here, under Stress and Acne: http://www.acne.org/stress-and-acne.html
"Are stress and acne related?
A Yes. Stress can aggravate symptoms, but we can almost always overcome moderate or light stress with proper topical treatment."
How backwards is that thinking? Proper topical treatment. Proper.
Wish Clean, it's not even worth your time to try to change peoples minds. When people are set in their way, they are set in their way. The most we can ask is for people to be is more open to other possibilities and for people to not be so catty with their comments. I have seen this on the website from both sides of the fence. My opinion is that natural is always best but when things are not working, people should not be crucified or made to feel stupid, guilty, shamed, called lazy or gullible for trying modern medicine. People should still make every effort to eat healthy, get sleep and do exercise even if it doesn't help their acne.
That's just my two cents
Yes, sasch you are right. There is extremism on both sides. I feel I have a right to critique mainstream methods because I have taken most of them for over 10 years of my life, and now my body is paying for it. I wanted to warn people about what happens 10 years after those "quick fixes" and magic pills, to make them think about the aftermath and the possible long term consequences to their health. If someone had warned me 10 years ago, I would have ignored them and criticized them too.
If someone had told me about the negative effects of drinking sugar and high glycemic meal habits, I think I would listen and look into it myself. All those years I thought it was just calories. And that's pretty much all people hear from mainstream nutritionists. All that matters is fat, calories and salt.
You know, I told some women at a company I consult for about how sugar was aging. & the next time I wanted some chocolate or whatever after lunch I went looking for the goodies they always had on hand and they didn't have any. Because I said it was aging.
I think clear and youthful skin is one of the best incentives to get people to eat well. Our medical establishment is missing the boat here. But what else is new.
Fully agree with you Wishclean! A 'healthy' nutrient dense diet should be a must for everybody regardless of skin condition! However like you said, this sites goal is pushing it's products so it's obviously not in their interests to acknowledge hollistic approaches, unfortunately 
If someone had told me about the negative effects of drinking sugar and high glycemic meal habits, I think I would listen and look into it myself. All those years I thought it was just calories. And that's pretty much all people hear from mainstream nutritionists. All that matters is fat, calories and salt.
You know, I told some women at a company I consult for about how sugar was aging. & the next time I wanted some chocolate or whatever after lunch I went looking for the goodies they always had on hand and they didn't have any. Because I said it was aging.
I think clear and youthful skin is one of the best incentives to get people to eat well. Our medical establishment is missing the boat here. But what else is new.
How much sugar is in those Dove chocolates that you eat?
Ate, you mean. Past Tense. And Singular. Not plural. As stated in the post I made in my profile feed that you are for some reason perusing.
Probably some where between 5-10 grams. Why do you ask? Whatever point you think you are making, you are very likely mistaken. As is usual. If you would stop attacking and start discussing, you would learn something. I have told no one to eat zero sugar. What they, and you, and every other human needs to do, is avoid high glycemic load meals/drinks/snacks. And of course, not eat a lot of added sugar. A small piece of chocolate after a good lunch has very little impact.
Also I don't eat dove or any other junk chocolates as any kind of habit. I eat much better quality chocolate. All the time. My diet is not restrictive. What it is, is very good.
Which reminds me of Dan's claims that acne clearing due to diet improvement is due to weightloss and that acne comes back when your weight stabilizes. And the ridiculous idea that science still needs to find a diet that maintains clear skin without weight loss. I've maintained my diet for several years now. My weight has fluctuated a bit during that time. Sometimes I gain a little and then I lose it. Yet, my skin has remained clear. In fact, I've gained enough weight over the past several months that my summer pants are too tight. Still clear.
Edit: Ok, I looked it up. Looks like a serving size is 5 pieces which has 18 grams of sugar. Which means each has 3.6 grams of sugar? varies a little between type and i don't recall what flavor it was that I ate that day over a year ago. But I had one, maybe two. So, 7 grams?
7 grams of sugar is nothing compared to what the average American eats every day. Plus, those type of chocolates have antioxidants, so they are not that bad.
TemperateCent, like many others, has the impression that to be healthy you have to be extreme, which is not true. In my case, I had to be extreme until I figured out the problem. Now I can loosen up if I want to, but I don't use that as an excuse to eat junk all the time.
Which reminds me of Dan's claims that acne clearing due to diet improvement is due to weightloss and that acne comes back when your weight stabilizes. And the ridiculous idea that science still needs to find a diet that maintains clear skin without weight loss. I've maintained my diet for several years now. My weight has fluctuated a bit during that time. Sometimes I gain a little and then I lose it. Yet, my skin has remained clear. In fact, I've gained enough weight over the past several months that my summer pants are too tight. Still clear.