Licorice extract interesting!!

Controversial & Unproven Methods Restricted: Genetic Therapy, X-Ray, Photodynamic
#21

Quotes from the article and my comments:

>Article: “Interestingly, long-term treatment reduced the regrowth of hair of about 20%.”

QUESTION: “Long term” is used to describe the TREATMENT; not the “long term RESULTS.” A quick read, and you get the wrong idea.

So, for how long did they maintain the 20% reduction? Six months, 2-years? I suppose they are saying you have to continue using the solution ceaselessly? What happens once you stop? (Oh, I know … it all grows back!)

>Article: “Examination by scanning electron microscopy showed a smoothed hair cuticle that might facilitate detachment of the hair shaft from the follicular wall.”

COMMENT: Detachment of the hair shaft has nothing to do with any effect on the follicle. It’s the follicle that grows the hair. The hair is essentially dead tissue.

If you are looking for permanent hair removal (or reduction) this ain’t gonna do it. There are specific reasons why no rub-on is ever going to remove a hair permanently. Not happening … Stop looking for the “easy fix!” (Unless, of course, you want to buy it from me.)

Recommendation: EAT the licorice (a “Droopja” if you can find it. Yum …)

#22

That might help, because eating relatively small amounts of licorice can almost half the serum testosterone in men. It can also raise blood pressure substantially and is thought to effect estrogen receptors more strongly than estradiol. Not a good food to consume for most men.

#23

Good for you … Bad for you

If you’ve “been around” long enough, like me, you realize (if you wait long enough) that the foods and supplements that were “bad for you” suddenly become “good for you” … but then might become “bad for you again!” It can drive you crazy.

Vitamin E … good for you, now bad for you. Vitamin D … bad for you, now good again. EGGS … very bad; but now okay and good. Red Meat … the worst ever … but now (good in appropriate doses). Vitamin C … in mega-doses? Same deal.

Butter … BAD … margarine better. Oooops, now just the reverse. Eat more tuna and salmon (for low-T), but watch out for the mercury; bad. Coffee … BAD … now good to prevent Alzheimer’s … but, wait … maybe not so good again (other problems).

What the hell am I saying?

Bottom line: if you are looking for a FOOD to remove (or reduce your hair growth) it’s probably not going to happen. Eating licorice is “lovely” … but chances are it will do ZIP for your hair problems.

Same with any lotion … NOT happening. (Add in here the ridiculous “home devices.”) Still, people will try the quick (inexpensive) fixes in a futile attempt that “food or supplements” … or some lotion or “painless home unit” … will help. It won’t!

You’re just wasting your time; just “pissing in the wind.” Get to the REAL procedures that actually work.

#24

Natural black licorice is what I eat love the stuff lol I read a long time ago licorice is good at reducing facial hair, stop taking it though and the effects wear off.

I eat it because I enjoy it, however not in large amounts just as a treat. Too much Licorice is not good and can thin you blood do not start taking licorice in large amounts if bad for anyone in large quantities and especially if you have a heart issue or close family members who have.

Licorice may help but any effects from it will only be minimal so don’t hold it out to be the ultimate cure.

#25

Found the whole article (w/ pics) here:
Topically applied glycyrrhizic acid causes hair removal in rats

The electron microscope pictures of the control and experiment hair cuticle is very interesting, and the epilation effect on the rats is pretty impressive. The article’s authors speculate that the epilation effect could be caused either by β-1 integrin metabolism changes in the presence of glycyrrhizic acid or by an anti-steroid effect in follicle cells which are known to be sensitive to sex steroids.

#26

Would it be better to just read around on the web than try on yourself or - even worse - try on your pet? It’s a fairly new study so do you really want to be test subject? What if it makes you feel bad? Or else, what is it burns you? Is it really worth it? I suggest waiting and let more tests to be conducted.

#27

I’ve read many studies like this one (and participated in writing them too) and this was interesting albeit not stunningly remarkable … and, I’m not planning on selling my electrolysis machine just yet.

This report was timid by most standards. If you have time, you should read the scientific papers that spoke volumes in ABSOLUTES about the “electronic tweezers,” that were going to revolutionize permanent hair removal (and now virtually gone because they were a scam.) TOP dermatologists at the time wrote the studies! Ended up utter BS!

The key in this "short communication, from “Goethe U.,” centers on the word “EPILATORY.”

The writers use this term and don’t classify it’s meaning. Does “epilatory” mean, “the hair was ‘epilated’ … as when it’s pulled out of the follicle?” Or does the term mean something else? Indeed, there is only a “hint” of something, perhaps, happening in the follicle at a hormone-level (read the last few sentences). An unsophisticated reader might jump to the conclusion that is intentionally implied. This “leap of faith” was calculated (just my opinion. Remember, I have helped write this sort of stuff.)

One is pointed in the direction of “getting excited about this new hair ‘removal’ method,” and then the final “catcher” statement:

“Thus, further studies are needed to address the aforementioned aspects.”

So, what does “ASPECT” mean? “Conjecture” would be a better term … but would not be as effective. There is a big difference between “aspect” and “conjecture.”

You can bet your last “Euro” that a product is in-the-works that synthesizes the active components being talked about here. Notice the opening statements are ALL about hair removal in HUMANS, followed up by listing ONLY the negative effects of laser and electrolysis, etc. (Where are the human studies?) Did you leap to a conclusion? I didn’t!

OMG can “scientists” … and Germans even(!) … possibly be involved in a potential commercial venture? If you like, I can give you some prime examples. Probably none of you remembers (European/German) “Devepil,” a rub-on permanent hair removal cream. Many scientific papers and lots of product sold … didn’t do “shit!” (Or in this case “Scheiß!”)

>>>Note from my withered brain: Culturally, scientists and physicians have become our “high priests,” and we are always in awe of them and believe everything they tell us. While I try to follow/understand the scientific METHOD, I do NOT accept science as my religion (on “blind faith”)! Because something is stated in “scientific terms” or explained by a famous doctor does not therefore make it fact.

Sometimes the “Catholics” have it right and the scientists have it wrong.

#28

I’ve read many studies like this one (and participated in writing them too) and this was interesting albeit not stunningly remarkable … and, I’m not planning on selling my electrolysis machine just yet.

This report was timid by most standards. If you have time, you should read the scientific papers that spoke volumes in ABSOLUTES about the “electronic tweezers,” that were going to revolutionize permanent hair removal (and now virtually gone because they were a scam.) TOP dermatologists at the time wrote the studies! Ended up utter BS!

The key in this "short communication, from “Goethe U.,” centers on the word “EPILATORY.”

The writers use this term and don’t classify it’s meaning. Does “epilatory” mean, “the hair was ‘epilated’ … as when it’s pulled out of the follicle?” Or does the term mean something else? Indeed, there is only a “hint” of something, perhaps, happening in the follicle at a hormone-level (read the last few sentences). An unsophisticated reader might jump to the conclusion that is intentionally implied. This “leap of faith” was calculated (just my opinion. Remember, I have helped write this sort of stuff.)

One is pointed in the direction of “getting excited about this new hair ‘removal’ method,” and then the final “catcher” statement:

“Thus, further studies are needed to address the aforementioned aspects.”

So, what does “ASPECT” mean? “Conjecture” would be a better term … but would not be as effective. There is a big difference between “aspect” and “conjecture.”

You can bet your last “Euro” that a product is in-the-works that synthesizes the active components being talked about here. Notice the opening statements are ALL about hair removal in HUMANS, followed up by listing ONLY the negative effects of laser and electrolysis, etc. (Where are the human studies?) Did you leap to a conclusion? I didn’t!

OMG can “scientists” … and Germans even(!) … possibly be involved in a potential commercial venture? If you like, I can give you some prime examples. Probably none of you remembers (European/German) “Devepil,” a rub-on permanent hair removal cream. Many scientific papers and lots of product sold … didn’t do “shit!” (Or in this case “Scheiß!”)

>>>Note from my withered brain: Culturally, scientists and physicians have become our “high priests,” and we are always in awe of them and believe everything they tell us. While I try to follow/understand the scientific METHOD, I do NOT accept science as my religion (on “blind faith”)! Because something is stated in “scientific terms” or explained by a famous doctor does not therefore make it fact.

Sometimes the “Catholics” have it right and the scientists have it wrong.

#29

DAMN HAIRTELL!

#30

I’ve read many studies like this one (and participated in writing them too) and this was interesting albeit not stunningly remarkable … and, I’m not planning on selling my electrolysis machine just yet.

This report was timid by most standards. If you have time, you should read the scientific papers that spoke volumes in ABSOLUTES about the “electronic tweezers,” that were going to revolutionize permanent hair removal (and now virtually gone because they were a scam.) TOP dermatologists at the time wrote the studies! Ended up utter BS!

The key in this "short communication, from “Goethe U.,” centers on the word “EPILATORY.”

The writers use this term and don’t classify it’s meaning. Does “epilatory” mean, “the hair was ‘epilated’ … as when it’s pulled out of the follicle?” Or does the term mean something else? Indeed, there is only a “hint” of something, perhaps, happening in the follicle at a hormone-level (read the last few sentences). An unsophisticated reader might jump to the conclusion that is intentionally implied. This “leap of faith” was calculated (just my opinion. Remember, I have helped write this sort of stuff.)

One is pointed in the direction of “getting excited about this new hair ‘removal’ method,” and then the final “catcher” statement:

“Thus, further studies are needed to address the aforementioned aspects.”

So, what does “ASPECT” mean? “Conjecture” would be a better term … but would not be as effective. There is a big difference between “aspect” and “conjecture.”

You can bet your last “Euro” that a product is in-the-works that synthesizes the active components being talked about here. Notice the opening statements are ALL about hair removal in HUMANS, followed up by listing ONLY the negative effects of laser and electrolysis, etc. (Where are the human studies?) Did you leap to a conclusion? I didn’t!

OMG can “scientists” … and Germans even(!) … possibly be involved in a potential commercial venture? If you like, I can give you some prime examples. Probably none of you remembers (European/German) “Devepil,” a rub-on permanent hair removal cream. Many scientific papers and lots of product sold … didn’t do “shit!” (Or in this case “Scheiß!”)

>>>Note from my withered brain: Culturally, scientists and physicians have become our “high priests,” and we are always in awe of them and believe everything they tell us. While I try to follow/understand the scientific METHOD, I do NOT accept science as my religion (on “blind faith”)! Because something is stated in “scientific terms” or explained by a famous doctor does not therefore make it fact.

Sometimes the “Catholics” have it right and the scientists have it wrong.

#31

I’ve read many studies like this one (and participated in writing them too) and this was interesting albeit not stunningly remarkable … and, I’m not planning on selling my electrolysis machine just yet.

This report was timid by most standards. If you have time, you should read the scientific papers that spoke volumes in ABSOLUTES about the “electronic tweezers,” that were going to revolutionize permanent hair removal (and now virtually gone because they were a scam.) TOP dermatologists at the time wrote the studies! Ended up utter BS!

The key in this "short communication, from “Goethe U.,” centers on the word “EPILATORY.”

The writers use this term and don’t classify it’s meaning. Does “epilatory” mean, “the hair was ‘epilated’ … as when it’s pulled out of the follicle?” Or does the term mean something else? Indeed, there is only a “hint” of something, perhaps, happening in the follicle at a hormone-level (read the last few sentences). An unsophisticated reader might jump to the conclusion that is intentionally implied. This “leap of faith” was calculated (just my opinion. Remember, I have helped write this sort of stuff.)

One is pointed in the direction of “getting excited about this new hair ‘removal’ method,” and then the final “catcher” statement:

“Thus, further studies are needed to address the aforementioned aspects.”

So, what does “ASPECT” mean? “Conjecture” would be a better term … but would not be as effective. There is a big difference between “aspect” and “conjecture.”

You can bet your last “Euro” that a product is in-the-works that synthesizes the active components being talked about here. Notice the opening statements are ALL about hair removal in HUMANS, followed up by listing ONLY the negative effects of laser and electrolysis, etc. (Where are the human studies?) Did you leap to a conclusion? I didn’t!

OMG can “scientists” … and Germans even(!) … possibly be involved in a potential commercial venture? If you like, I can give you some prime examples. Probably none of you remembers (European/German) “Devepil,” a rub-on permanent hair removal cream. Many scientific papers and lots of product sold … didn’t do “shit!” (Or in this case “Scheiß!”)

>>>Note from my withered brain: Culturally, scientists and physicians have become our “high priests,” and we are always in awe of them and believe everything they tell us. While I try to follow/understand the scientific METHOD, I do NOT accept science as my religion (on “blind faith”)! Because something is stated in “scientific terms” or explained by a famous doctor does not therefore make it fact.

Sometimes the “Catholics” have it right and the scientists have it wrong.

#32

Time to just GIVE UP!

#33

It’s interesting research that’s all. I’m not proposing that anyone try it on themselves or their pet. Certainly, there are major differences in hair growth cycles between humans and rats, but I thought the point of this place was to discuss new or promising developments.

#34

Okay, one last try at this!

#35

I’ve read many studies like this one (and participated in writing them too) and this was interesting albeit not stunningly remarkable … and, I’m not planning on selling my electrolysis machine just yet.

This report was timid by most standards. If you have time, you should read the scientific papers that spoke volumes in ABSOLUTES about the “electronic tweezers,” that were going to revolutionize permanent hair removal (and now virtually gone because they were a scam.) TOP dermatologists at the time wrote the studies! Ended up utter BS!

The key in this "short communication, from “Goethe U.,” centers on the word “EPILATORY.”

The writers use this term and don’t classify it’s meaning. Does “epilatory” mean, “the hair was ‘epilated’ … as when it’s pulled out of the follicle?” Or does the term mean something else? Indeed, there is only a “hint” of something, perhaps, happening in the follicle at a hormone-level (read the last few sentences). An unsophisticated reader might jump to the conclusion that is intentionally (?) implied. This “leap of faith” was calculated (just my opinion. Remember, I have helped write this sort of stuff.)

One is pointed in the direction of “getting excited about this new hair ‘removal’ method,” and then the final “catcher” statement:

“Thus, further studies are needed to address the aforementioned aspects.”

So, what does “ASPECT” mean? “Conjecture” would be a better term … but would not be as effective. There is a big difference between “aspect” and “conjecture.”

You can bet your last “Euro” that a product is in-the-works that synthesizes the active components being talked about here. Notice the opening statements are ALL about hair removal in HUMANS, followed up by listing ONLY the negative effects of laser and electrolysis, etc. (Where are the human studies?) Did you leap to a conclusion? I didn’t!

OMG can “scientists” … and Germans even(!) … possibly be involved in a potential commercial venture? If you like, I can give you some prime examples. Probably none of you remembers (European/German) “Devepil,” a rub-on permanent hair removal cream. Many scientific papers and lots of product sold … didn’t do “shit!” (Or in this case “Scheiß!”)

>>>Note from my withered brain: Culturally, scientists and physicians have become our “high priests,” and we are always in awe of them and believe everything they tell us. While I try to follow/understand the scientific METHOD, I do NOT accept science as my religion (on “blind faith”)! Because something is stated in “scientific terms” or explained by a famous doctor does not therefore make it fact.

Sometimes the “Catholics” have it right and the scientists have it wrong.

#36

Perfect … just perfect!

#37

I’ve read many studies like this one (and participated in writing them too) and this was interesting albeit not stunningly remarkable … and, I’m not planning on selling my electrolysis machine just yet.

This report was timid by most standards. If you have time, you should read the scientific papers that spoke volumes in ABSOLUTES about the “electronic tweezers,” that were going to revolutionize permanent hair removal (and now virtually gone because they were a scam.) TOP dermatologists at the time wrote the studies! Ended up utter BS!

The key in this "short communication, from “Goethe U.,” centers on the word “EPILATORY.”

The writers use this term and don’t classify it’s meaning. Does “epilatory” mean, “the hair was ‘epilated’ … as when it’s pulled out of the follicle?” Or does the term mean something else? Indeed, there is only a “hint” of something, perhaps, happening in the follicle at a hormone-level (read the last few sentences). An unsophisticated reader might jump to the conclusion that is intentionally (?) implied. This “leap of faith” was calculated (just my opinion. Remember, I have helped write this sort of stuff.)

One is pointed in the direction of “getting excited about this new hair ‘removal’ method,” and then the final “catcher” statement:

“Thus, further studies are needed to address the aforementioned aspects.”

So, what does “ASPECT” mean? “Conjecture” would be a better term … but would not be as effective. There is a big difference between “aspect” and “conjecture.”

You can bet your last “Euro” that a product is in-the-works that synthesizes the active components being talked about here. Notice the opening statements are ALL about hair removal in HUMANS, followed up by listing ONLY the negative effects of laser and electrolysis, etc. (Where are the human studies?) Did you leap to a conclusion? I didn’t!

OMG can “scientists” … and Germans even(!) … possibly be involved in a potential commercial venture? If you like, I can give you some prime examples. Probably none of you remembers (European/German) “Devepil,” a rub-on permanent hair removal cream. Many scientific papers and lots of product sold … didn’t do “shit!” (Or in this case “Scheiß!”)

>>>Note from my withered brain: Culturally, scientists and physicians have become our “high priests,” and we are always in awe of them and believe everything they tell us. While I try to follow/understand the scientific METHOD, I do NOT accept science as my religion (on “blind faith”)! Because something is stated in “scientific terms” or explained by a famous doctor does not therefore make it fact.

Sometimes the “Catholics” have it right and the scientists have it wrong.

#38

just not happening … tried everything. Gave up. Y’all need to fix this site or just be limited to a sentence here and there.

#39

You shouldn’t just apply it on it. Maybe you can rub it or wax it first, and then open the pores with a warm towel.

#40

Never before have I encountered such a testament to Michaels battles with Hairtell’s often…mischievious software …oh my goodness this thread takes me back .
Thanks for the very humourous walk down memory lane Zhouzidong681.
Seana