I understand laser isn’t permanant for many which i understand. I’m just wondering if it would at least lessen my 5 'o clock shadow? I have one all the time and I’d rather not have one at all if possible. Will laser thin out the dark thick hairs? I’m fine if it won’t get rid of them permanantly.
Well, a couple of things:
You may want to read through a thread I just started on how/why laser does/does not work: http://www.hairtell.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/34487/an/0/page/0#34487
LHR is generally considered to be permanent, but there are plenty of things that can go wrong with it. With too low of an intensity (fluence) on the laser, you burn out the hair but leave the follicle undamaged…basically amounting to a very expensive waxing. With too high of a setting, you burn the surrounding skin in addition to (perhaps instead of) the follicle. This takes a long time to recover from as the burns occur beneath the surface of the skin.
I’m increasingly of the belief that (assuming proper skin type/hair color for the laser in question) how well a laser is capable of working on an individual is largely a matter of how deep their hair follicles are (and, obviously, how competent of a technician they have). This is where you’re likely to run into problems: whiskers seem to run very deep. I know that trying to pluck the buggers is a pain (as opposed to other areas). You may be better looking into electrolysis. Long and involved, but the depth doesn’t matter and they can go for a thinning effect rather than full removal of all hair.
- LHR is generally considered to be permanent
ERROR. No. This is not true. This you typing this on a forum. Laser produces mixed results, that we know. No unbiased general study whether statistical from client experience, or with controlled conditions has ever been done to even imply this.
ERROR - your statement is patently incorrect.
LHR has been shown (by the FDA) to produce permanent hair removal. Not all hair is removed, but it does destroy the follicle’s ability to produce hair, much the same as electrolysis.
Do some reading, please, before you try to counter with random statements and propoganda.
Please point out your factual source.
Please produce this.
Please show me proof of statement #2 quoted above.
Show it to me in quotes.
This is exactly what I mean. Please, show me, an FDA or NIH study.
Let’s start with:
basic common sense.
talking with people for whom it has worked
understanding of human biology
any number of other scientific papers you care to find for yourself.
Tell me, since you seem dead set on the statement that LHR does not produce permanent hair removal: what is the physical mechanism by which the hair can be made to stop growing with LHR for periods of years (as many will report and have experienced first hand) and then suddenly start growing again?
Are you insinuating that LHR actually generates new follicles? 'Cuz, if so, you need to patent it QUICKLY – there’s a lot of balding men that will be your new best friend.
Perhaps you’re insinuating that LHR somehow makes a follicle go dormant and removes it from the normal cycle of hair growth for a time. I’d be very curious to hear what your thoughts are on how that would be accomplished, as you could (once again) patent a much less invasive/damaging technology to do the same thing.
Or maybe you just like to deride lasers because they didn’t work for you. We can talk about that as well if you like, but there’s a different thread running for that.
Note that the link I posted in (4) above was from your requested NIH source. There’s a veritable TON of other articles and studies there…have at it.
This came from the paper you posted the link to:
In the future, small, low-cost laser-razors may replace all other means of hair removal.
They simply say 'removing akin to shaving. Thus, the word razor. …NOT generally permanent. Read the paper.
Produce what I have asked. I’m waiting.
Support what you have said. Don’t list generalities, and please don’t insult others that are just trying to get you to prove the generalities that you post.
Sigh. Such bitterness. You must have been extremely foolish in your quest for hair removal and just rushed on into LHR without any research at all. No wonder it didn’t work for you.
Also from the article (did you actually read the paper?):
An ever-increasing number of published studies have confirmed the long-term efficacy of laser and flash-lamp treatment.
Now, before you bring it up, the next sentence goes over how this is generally on individuals with light skin and dark hair…but that’s not really what we’re talking about.
Do your own research. Try to do it with an open mind (I don’t see this happening, given what I’ve seen of you on these forums, but one can always hope).
Is LHR the be-all-end-all of hair removal methods? Dear lord, no! But it does result in permanent hair removal for many folks out there. Do your research, ask questions, look into the technology, and you can generally get a good feel for whether you will be one of them.
I should also point out that you still haven’t answered any of my questions. Go ahead. I’m waiting <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
I asked you to produce. Do so.
…I’m waiting. You came here and stated something. I called you on it. You have failed. Anyone following this thread knows you said something you couldn’t back up.
I asked you to answer. Do so.
Perhaps “long term efficacy” is a bit too advanced of a phrase for you…?
Thank you. I just wanted to see how you would weasel out of your statement.
Yay! Look at me weaseling away!
the problem with Mantaray is that he refuses to accept that laser does work permanently for some despite any personal accounts or studies he reads about. i’ve posted studies before. Gryffin, he did minimal research, chose to use the Comet which been approved by the FDA and to date have not shown any results from any consumers on here, and had 5 treatments spaced only 6 weeks apart. you can find his story on the forum. he used to talk in this obnoxious manner ADVOCATING laser before.
and they called it “laser razor” pinpointing the convenience of using it like razors are currently being used in the future. they are not implying anything about permanency one way or the other. that’s your personal biased interpretation.
Justify your comment. If there’s ‘Tons’ then what’s the problem?
Notice: You haven’t justified the comment.
Oh no. Now I’m terribly confused. lol
That study’s conclusion only talked about, and I am quoting: “long term hair removal efficacy beyond 6 months”.