Then your ego should be humble enough to understand why I cannot take hearsay as evidence.
EVERYONE is and should feel welcome here. If participants feel they are being attacked personally, please send me links or use the NOTIFY option at the bottom of each post, and I will start deleting posts and banning people if needed.
There are NO PERSONAL ATTACKS allowed. Let’s keep the tone respectful even if we disagree.
An honest professional doesn’t just parrot what consumers want to hear. More often than not, an honest professional comes wielding information that may not satisfy consumers. For example, I wouldn’t say “the hair on x area is too fine to respond well to laser”- I would say “the hair on this area would respond best to this laser, or that one.”
An honest professional wouldn’t warn of induced hair growth- an honest professional knows how to prevent sublethal damage to the periphery of the treated area so as not to cause vellus hair to shock, and go anagen. It is completely contradictory to say, on the one hand- this hair is too fine to respond to laser hair removal, yet on the other hand- this hair may become anagen after laser hair removal causing thicker and darker growth.
These are, honestly, not issues that rise up in every day conversation among laser professionals- it is a conversation that begins with uninformed consumers, and takes life on a forum like this one, where the majority of professionals profit from skepticism with regard to laser hair removal.
[/quote]
The clinic (London, UK), at which I did have successful treatments, warned me of Laser induced growth as a possibility in some areas (i.e. the female face) during my consultation.
Then your ego should be humble enough to understand why I cannot take hearsay as evidence. [/quote]
CRC Biomedical, since you service Laser equipment, I’m interested how much first hand patient interaction do you have? Do you follow patient results from start to finish and then ensure results are permanent post-treatment?
This does not mean their information was reliable. There is no scientific basis for the notion of laser induced growth.
I follow this information more closely than my own customers. I service equipment based on how I know the equipment works physically. Feedback from practitioners, and patients gives me an insight into what’s going on with the machine itself- with that said, if no specific equipment is singled out, then reports of inefficiency are moot. That’s because the machine is not so much a variable, while the patients are. Most problems related to deficiencies in laser hair removal have to do with variables other than the laser itself.
Stoppit, I already asked Mickey that question on the other thread. He said he has no experience treating patients.
So, Mickey, why do you think some? many? consumers report here on Hairtell that they have more hair after they went through laser hair reduction? There are medical articles about this as well (remember the ones I posted?).
I don’t think patients are reporting this to the laser specialists, but they are to this site and to electrologists like myself as they seek more treatment. Why would there be medical articles in peer -reviewed journals entitled ‘paradoxical laser hair stimulation’ if it doesn’t happen or there is no such thing? Those are not made up words coming from the electrolysis community. These are dermatologists writing the articles.
Can you simplify this again? I think it is time to go back to the core or this discussion.
Yes, this site is heavy with electrologist input. I will stress to you again that I refer clients to laser specialists if they are good candidates for laser , for certain body areas like the underarms, bikini and lower legs. I am a bit insulted by your terse words about the electrologists that post on Hairtell. You haven’t been here long enough to know enough about what we advise on a regular basis. If you apologize , I will forgive you :).
Laser hair stimulation is observable. It’s up to the genius’s to discover why it happens and how to prevent it. There has been so much written, maybe you have commented in this already. If you have, forgive me for asking again.
Unfortunately, the scientific literature tells something different.
So If You think that is wrong, the proof is up to You. At least You should give references into the literature, where the mechanism You suggested has been tested systematically. I would only accept articles which had undergone a peer review according to well established international scientific standards.
A while above You stated it contradictory that some people here claimed laser induced hypertrichosis existed and on the other hand there were hairs too fine for efficient laser treatment.
At least the latter is not surprising at all: if hairs are fine, their volume is small, and it goes down with the third power of the dimensions of a hair, i.e. very quickly. Hence fine hairs cannot absorb enough photons to heat up sufficiently. Even worse if they are in late anagen or telogen, because the hair gets lighter in these stages of growth - often a lot.
So If You want to diskcuss this, it is up to You to come up with proofs. If You do not, You should not be overly surprised on some of the reactions here.
BTW: some of the electrologists here, especially Michael Bono and to some degree i as well, are not at all against photoepiplation - just yesterday i suggested to a client to do parts of the planned job by laser (while i was writing my critical contributions to You…).
We would rather like to see a coexistence where the pros and cons of both approaches are accepted by both sides. And that is mostly a problem of the laser- and IPL-people. Too often we have to notice that the limitations to photoepilation caused by its underlying physical priciples are plainly ignored and that people are being treated whose hair is not appropriate for photoepilation (too light, too fine, too sparse, too close to the eyes (eyebrows))
As I have stated, this website is welcoming to those who have had bad experiences with laser hair removal, and pretty hostile towards those who suggest an alternative picture. This would, naturally, attract those with complaints specifically to this site. I would say, however, that with many sites on the internet concerning laser hair removal, and other laser treatments- I have no seen a fraction of as many complaints on all other sites combined, in addition to feedback from my own customers, as I have seen in just a few threads on this site.
Just because an article quotes medical personnel doesn’t make it a “medical article.” Also, I read at least one article posted here thoroughly. It cited an Air Force study on lasers and their impact at the cellular level. That article was severely flawed, cited information not supported by the study itself (which I read thoroughly as well), and is completely at odds with how the Air Force has applied that information itself.
When someone goes to a Honda dealership, and turns in a Toyota, and says to the salesman: “Toyotas are complete crap!”, How do you think the Honda dealer responds? “Toyotas are well built vehicles with a solid record of reliability, safety, and affordability?”
When you are an electrologist already receptive to negative feedback on your competition- how objective can you possibly be?
Show me more of these articles. I’ve only seen two, and neither was written by a dermatologist. I’ve read up on three studies cited by you and others, and have found a lack of scientific bases for the studies. I’m curious to read these other articles.
Do you perform hair removal? What standard do you use for referring clients to a laser specialist, and why do you refer them to that specialist in particular? What type of laser do they use? How do you know you are offering good advice all the time?
I have not addressed you personally at all with any insults, I have not intentionally insulted anybody, I have not been disrespectful or untruthful, and I don’t think your request is anything less than hostile and belittling.
Then it should be appropriately documented- not speculated about. Up to this point you have offered no scientific explanation, while I have. How is it rational to dismiss my explanation without an alternative, unless it is to point out the scientific invalidity of my theory?
I have commented on it. According to all I have questioned, heard from, or spoken to in this regard that can be considered experts on lasers- we all agree. The only possible sort of stimulation would be from sublethal damage to the bulb causing vellus hair to go anagen. Telogen hair goes anagen, and grows back as well- vellus hair going anagen would make perfect sense with regard to the physics of laser hair removal, as well as the natural cycle of hair growth.
I believe in rational discourse, and in rational discourse, the burden of proof is upon the extraordinary claim. In this case I am making a claim based on science. Hair growth after laser hair removal is related to the natural hair growth cycle in combination with some level of sublethal reaction to the laser itself. This is not something that requires further proof on my end because it is only an explanation of how lasers work, which is already established as common knowledge among our peers.
Basically, you are fomenting a conspiracy theory- or a notion that requires proofs like a conspiracy theory. If there are lights seen in the sky at night, and one person says “It was an airplane” and the other person says “It was an alien spacecraft”- in the absence of any evidence other than subjective observation, the simplest answer is the correct one- or at least the one that doesn’t DEMAND evidence. It was an airplane.
Ok- so let’s try to follow as simply as possible where our disagreement comes from (and when I say “our” I don’t mean you specifically as this is the first time we’ve actually had an exchange).
People are making claims on the site that “paradoxical” hair growth is occurring. By definition, paradoxical hair growth implies it is unnatural, or unexplained.
The way this hair growth has been described is (and correct me if I’m wrong) “light, fine hair” grows “darker, thicker, and longer.”
By my observation of these statements, and my knowledge of hair removal, the physics of laser light, and it’s effect on hair, I surmise the following which you would HAVE to be in agreement with in order to believe in “paradoxical hair growth.”
The laser is causing vellus hair to go terminal and anagen (forgive me if I get my terms wrong, but by ‘terminal’ I mean hair that follows a regular cycle, as in adult hair, versus vellus hair which is surrounded by less epidermal tissue, and does not follow a natural growth and replacement cycle).
If you agree with the above paragraph, then there is no reason why this process should be mind boggling.
If you don’t agree with the above paragraph, then you can’t possibly believe in paradoxical hair growth to begin with.
Where am I losing you all at?
Why do Yo then avoid giving us the references to the underlying studies?
Here is a review on the existin literature. A scientific one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20100274
No if You propose a mechanism different from the scientific literatur, it is up to You to give us references to scientific papers.
which is already established as common knowledge among our peers.
Easily to be said. If it was more than unproven common believe there have to be studies proving this. I am still waiting for the respective references.
Where am I losing you all at?
I have been talking on fine hairs which are already anagen and which are too fine for successul laser treatments. This is something completely different than paradoxical hypertrichosios You were speaking about. Please do not mix things up.
It makes sense. It is also why I personally never use the term ‘paradoxical’ for what I’m talking about. You don’t agree with ‘Laser induced growth’, perhaps as other clinics like to call it, ‘reactive growth’ may fit better for you? Whatever it’s being called, we are referring to the same phenomenon whereby a client develops thicker, darker or longer hair as a result of Laser treatments instead of hair removal.
Anyone who has spent a prolonged amount of time involved in LHR on any level or permanent hair in general knows that this phenomenon is more likely to occur on some body areas than others. For example the female beard area (chin and neck) seems to be susceptible as do the male shoulders and upper back and female upper thighs. Perhaps it is because these areas have a high density of velus hairs that have the potential to go terminal.
Question: Is it possible to cause lethal damage to these follicles so that they don’t “change”, without putting the patient at risk of burns?
Next question, which I believe Michael Bono tried to raise: What is the biological mechanism that is causing these vellus hairs to go terminal? What is happening within the follicle?
I also take exception to comments about the bias of the forums. Yes, there are more electrolysis professionals regularly posting but the Laser part of the forum exists for help and advice. My signature contains a link to my LHR diary of successful treatments which includes photos and settings.
I am copying from the paper beate linked:
Etiopathogenesis
Terminal hair has been observed to appear in various areas where it was not present before laser therapy, especially in areas of vellus hair growth. Marayiannis and colleagues showed that hair induction occurred several months after the onset of laser hair removal treatments and after at least three treatments had been performed.39 This indicates that hair induction is a process that develops over time and that some type of local activation is necessary. It most often occurs with the treatment of vellus hair on the face and neck, and even though the overall hair count in the treated area is reduced, thicker, longer, and more pigmented hairs grow where the vellus hair previously existed. Moreno-Arias and colleagues also defined paradoxical hypertrichosis as the growth of hair in untreated areas in close proximity to treated areas.34Several transient etiophysiological mechanisms such as inflammation, hyperemia, immobilization, and reflex sympathetic stimulation can explain the appearance of terminal hairs and its spontaneous regression after treatment or resolution of the underlying condition. Reversible eyelid hypertrichosis in patients using prostaglandins for treatment of glaucoma suggested the relationship to inflammatory mediators.9 The polypeptide thymosin b4, which promotes angiogenesis and wound healing, was also found to directly stimulate increased hair growth in normal rats and mice. This may also explain increased hair growth in humans.
In general, an increase in follicular vascularization that is accompanied by the upregulation of vascular endothelial growth factor in outer root sheath keratinocytes occurs during anagen, followed by a rapid regression in perifollicular vessels during catagen. Growing follicles have much higher perfusion requirements than resting follicles. These factors taken together raise the possibility that subtherapeutic thermal injury to the follicular vasculature may affect follicular cycling in such a way that terminal hair growth rather than miniaturization is induced. Alajlan and colleagues partially support this hypothesis, because the average fluence used on their patients (27.5 J/cm2) was at the lower effective standard range for an alexandrite wavelength in the literature.3 The heat-induced inflammatory reaction that occurs in the follicular papilla, with an increase in the blood flow supply and growth factors for the follicle, might also play a role. Bouzari and Firooz hypothesized that heat produced by the laser is less than the temperature necessary for thermolysis of hair follicle.40 However, the heat shock may induce follicular stem cell differentiation and growth by increasing the level of heat shock proteins (HSPs) such as HSP 27 in the tissue involved in the regulation of cell growth and differentiation. They believed that a better understanding of paradoxical hypertrichosis may also be useful in the treatment of alopecia.
Subtherapeutic injury to the follicle may also result in the release of factors that alter follicular angiogenesis and influence hair cycling.41,42 Ultrastructural and light microscopy studies have demonstrated uniform induction of perifollicular inflammation associated with photoepilation that persists for up to 2 weeks. Although feasible, this idea does not explain why some follicles react in this way and others do not, because inflammation is not selective and thus is not limited to less thermally injured areas. Another hypothesis is that the process of laser epilation may serve to synchronize the cycling of hairs growing within the laser treatment sites.42 For example, if all hairs within a given area are simultaneously in anagen, the overall hair density may appear to be greater than when hair cycling is asynchronous.
Which means that the effect itself is well established (as i stated) and ideas on the underlying mechanisms are still hypothetical. And that was may point against CRC - he/she took these hypothesis as proven knowledge.
Which by no means is a statement on the plausibility of these hypothesis. For the latter we would have to follow the original literature.
References to what?
You are using a source for which all the information is not readily available. If you are to cite a study, and link to it, shouldn’t we be able to read the study? FURTHERMORE, the findings of the study agree with me in everything except for the underlying cause- vellus hair becomes terminal.
This is NATURAL if the vellus hair is reacting to the laser. The contradiction I’ve been pointing out is electrologists’ insistance that vellus hairs do not respond to laser. It’s a complete contradiction to make both arguments.
The scientific paper DOES NOT PROPOSE A MECHANISM- hence their terming it PARADOXICAL. I am not just proposing a mechanism- I am EXPOSING THE mechanism which is WELL KNOWN in laser hair removal. FURTHERMORE, it is completely hypocritical to cite a scientific paper which puts the number at 10% at best, and as low as 0.6%, while every manufacturer claims hair removal is effective as expected on 80% of clients, 10% react exceptionally well, and about 10% react negatively, and yet turn around and claim these numbers are much higher because anecdotal evidence suggests it is much higher.
I haven’t the slightest idea what it is you are requesting.
Fine hairs which are anagen are not too fine for successful laser treatments. Vellus hair is too fine- anagen hair is not. There are other factors which make anagen hair more attractive to laser than vellus hair- the epidermal mass is greater, and so the bulb of the follicle is bigger- this is what makes the hair thicker and longer than vellus hair.
Now, if you are making up your own standards for what is vellus hair vs. what is anagen- that’s a whole new ballgame you are proposing, but don’t take the common sense answer of vellus hair becoming terminal- which is the same result witnessed in the studies you cite- ALL OF THEM- and manipulate it to suit your views on the issue.
The studies you cite agree with me- vellus hair becoming terminal is what they are perceiving as “paradoxical” laser hair stimulation.
Given the common sense mechanism of hair removal, that is, lethal or sublethal injury to the bulb and bulge of the hair follicle, a vellus hair receiving sublethal injury COULD- like ALL other states of hair- be stimulated into anagen.
The fact that sublethal injury “COULD” cause vellus hair to become terminal, and the scientists ONLY noted vellus hair became terminal- the only common sense answer is that which has evidence- the natural mechanism of lasers causing lethal and/or sublethal injury to hair follicles is causing hairs which are NOT anagen to go anagen.
CRC, I think you are getting your wording confused.
Anagen is the growth phase of a hair. A vellus hair will go through anagen(growing)-catagen-telogen(resting) as does any other hair. The differences are, for example, how long different hairs spend in a particular phase.
So what is being discussed is the stimulation of these vellus hairs to become thicker/darker/longer hairs… i.e. terminal.
I noted you may have misunderstood Michael’s post in the PLHS thread due to the same confusion.
Well… no. All Michael was saying is that whatever hair a young man has on the back, thick/thin/dark/light, approximately 70% of the hairs will be in the growing phase and the rest will be resting (telogen) or the follicles in exogen. Contrast this to a woman’s established arm hair (providing she doesn’t wax etc)… as far as I know upwards of 80% of the hairs will be the telogen (resting phase) at any one time.
From my understanding for LHR to be effective, the hair needs to be in anagen phase. If a client presents with a shaved leg, the terminal hairs will be in different phases… a great many will be in telogen. The first Laser treatment will cause ‘injury’ with only the anagen hairs having a chance to be permanently destroyed, the telogen phase hairs will still undergo enough injury to shed, therefore ‘resetting’ the growth cycle and these follicles will then produce anagen hairs which are targeted in the next treatment. This is the same thing that happens when you pluck a hair from the follicle… the cycle restarts.
Therefore, as far as I understand from what you write, an anagen vellus hair should be able to receive lethal damage to the follicle and be destroyed. I don’t believe it can be safely done.
I’m not hostile towards laser . I refer my electrolysis clients to three practitioners in my locale when I see that they are perfect candidates for LHR. This shows me that you do not have enough experience on this site or you would not have made such a spurious statement. What other hair blogs are as big as HairTell on the Internet that are not paid for by the laser industry? I AM PRO- LASER WHEN IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE CONSUMER. Why don’t you accept my words?
The articles I cited were from PuBMed and I’m pretty sure those names referenced at the end weren’t lingerie sales people. Of course, you are going to disagree with anything that throws a negative light on laser.
Men and their cars :crazy: I have asked a consumer who emailed me tonight for help with his failed laser attempt to post here. He is asking if electrolysis can take care of the increased hair growth he received after 7 sessions. This happens frequently, but you refuse to believe me.
LASER IS NOT MY COMPETITION. Being that you are a man, I can see you use the word competition, but you are absolutely wrong. LASER AND ELECTROLYSIS compliment each other. How can an electrologist like me, working six days a week, mostly into the evening hours and Saturdays, be afraid of laser? Can you hear me laughing everybody!? You just don’t get it. We electrologists are very busy cramming in more people than we can handle, working on hair that laser can’t see! Just today alone, I did 5,000 plus insertions on fine upper lip hair, cheek hair, neck hair, arm hair, abdominal hair, well that was thick strawberry blond hair, dark hair on a nose case and one butt crack! Laser is not my competition , laser is my FRIEND! The people that consulted with me last week for their underarm hair, I sent them the links to the laser specialists in my locale so they could book appointments with them! Thank God for laser. It free’s up my time to work on hair that laser can’t begin to touch and it free’s me to work on previous laser clients that are not pleased. If you were more than a passing viewer here on Hairtell, you would understand that we are the net that people fall in where there is no where to go.
No, I gave you enough.
I perform permanent hair removal, which would be called electrolysis. I did over 1,000,000,000 insertions last year via an Apilus Platinum, utilizing Synchro thermolysis, PicoFlash thermolysis and MultiPlex thermolysis. Sometimes I choose to do The Blend. What I do is precise and it is deadly for ALL HAIR STRUCTURES, ALL COLORS IF HAIR IN ALL COLORS OF SKIN. Nothing can match the preciseness of electrolysis on the eyebrows. What I do requires extreme patience, steady hands and good eyesight. People get results in 9- 18 months in general. Some cases have taken longer, like the peach fuzz cases, but the outcome is predictable. The client will be satisfied. I refer my clients to laser specialists that have the proper laser for their problem. GentleLase and Gentle Yags are my biggest recommendations. One specialist uses a diode and she gets pretty decent results, but I like the Candela’s much more.
I still like you.
It has been, but you refuse to acknowledge the information because you are far too intelligent to hear the angst of the consumer who come here with their stories. We will welcome them and try to advise them as best we can on how to resolve their hair problem.
To divert this thread back, I’m still interested in hearing an answer: How long would hair stay in telogen before one would hypothesize “L.I.T.”?
Everything in this world is about sales, noone should forget that.
The only thing Ive ever missed no matter how many Laser clinics Ive visited is some documentation about succesfull cases. This was not even possible for me to find wia internet and it was quite a long search (2-3 years).
For people like Josefa it was no problem not just to show the readers here in Hairtell the results that can be archevied with electrolysis, but she was so kind and I could meet some of theyr clients in real life.
So I understand there are many different papers about lasers, but were not kinds and we all (or many of us) know, how it all works.
I wellcome all LASER PRACTITIONERS OR SALESMANS here in this forum, and I would be happy to see a real contribution to the field here. Not just words, I think there was allready enough of them. I would like to see some cases (on different parts of body, different hairtypes/color/thickness), pictures of them month by month, session by session, and some follow up a year or two after. And I think I wouldnt be alone. It should all go this way.
Without this the words are just written text. And customers doesnt need text, they want real results.
I now realize that. While I’m debating three different people- you are not all making the same suppositions. For example, you are arguing vellus hair becomes terminal regardless of growth cycle after laser hair removal. Beate_r is arguing that anagen hair which is too thin to react to laser hair removal (not vellus hair) is growing back thicker. She made clear she is not referring to vellus hair going terminal. I am arguing that vellus hair, while telogen the vast majority of it’s life, is shocked into anagen, like hair removal should do for most telogen hair- but it also shocks it into terminal. Of course, there are other factors which can affect this transformation, and it makes perfect sense that laser would be able to cause this as well.
Exactly my point. This is the point beate_r seems to disagree with.
Well… no. All Michael was saying is that whatever hair a young man has on the back, thick/thin/dark/light, approximately 70% of the hairs will be in the growing phase and the rest will be resting (telogen) or the follicles in exogen.[/quote]
I didn’t misunderstand him- you misunderstood ME. First of all he is wrong- the male back has a low percentage anagen, and a very long telogen phase. If back hair was mostly anagen, because it is androgenic- most males WOULD have hairy backs. The mere fact that less than 30% of white males have back hair suggests most back hair is vellus, and also telogen. Correct me if I’m wrong…
This is not necessarily true. A telogen follicle, as with any follicle, CAN receive lethal injury. After the first treatment, however, more hairs will enter anagen synchronously. It is, of course, the anagen follicle you intend to deliver lethal injury to, and sublethal injury is the most common response with telogen hair- including vellus hair in telogen.
“Should be able to” isn’t quite how I would word it- it is possible that vellus hair receives sublethal or lethal injury to the follicle. With regard to paradoxical hair growth, the vellus hairs HAVE to be receiving sublethal injury.