can electrolysis make the hair thicker, or induce more facial hair, like some people have experienced with the laser? i’m still debating whether or not to do it, and i’ve been researching all the side effects. i went in for a consult with a well recommended clinic, and i forgot to ask the electrolygist. another question…the lady was saying that waxing and plucking will induce more hair because it will activate other hair follicles around the one you remove the hair from. but then how come some people see less hair with waxing over long periods of time? and she recommended simply trimming the hair with a scissor as a quick fix…but won’t this make the hair grow more, and possibly thicker? similar to how it is when a person trims the hair on their head? thanks!
The reason why you have a healthier head of hair once you get a hair cut is because the split ends are gone. Shorter hair appears fuller because the weight of the long hair isn’t dragging it down.
Trimming hair will not make the actual hairs thicker; they might feel sharper because of the blunt end; instead of tapered and feathery when hair hasn’t been cut in several months.
If you want permanent hair removal, and you want treatment on your face, your best option is electrolysis.
If you have waxing or laser done on your face, no telling what will result. Remember, electrolysis is targeting each hair follicle that is presenting the obvious hairs. Laser and waxing targets all follicles. Follicles that grow the finer hairs might be stimulated and no telling what will happen to those hairs.
Not everyone will react the same with laser and waxing however one thing is for sure, electrolysis is the only sure thing.
Those folks you met with… invite them here and we can all brainstorm together.
The best way for quick fix is shaving or waxing. It’s cheap, and you won’t grow any more hair or any faster.
If you want hair reduction… laser is a great choice, but be careful, as it might go wrong, and laser does not work everyone.
Electrolysis seems to be the best option (in terms of getting the wanted result), however, I have friends who had very bad results from electrolysis, in plain word, it did not work.
Just from my personal experience (both Laser and electrolysis) and degree on laser, if you decide to go for electrolysis, my suggestion is to go for Galvanic. I am well aware this suggest against many regular posters here, and Galvanic electrolysis is a lot harder to find as it’s a lot slower (as it appears), but thermolysis is pretty much working on the same principle as Laser… heating up the hair follicle (bulb). You will need far less repeated treatments with Galvanic electrolysis than thermolysis.
For more information, please refer to Hairfacts’ detail on electrolysis.
Hi Ants,
Yes, in theroy, Galvanic makes the most sense to me however, in application I have found that most often it does not enable the electrologist to be the most productive.
I do thermolysis, blend and multiple needle galvanic and have had all done on me.
I have done IPL/laser and had different lasers/IPL used on me.
I wax clients using all types of waxes and have had all types of waxing done on me.
Since I have extensive hair removal experience as a practitioner and as a guinea pig and client, I feel that galvanic is impractical for most people as it is so slow.
For starters, I always suggest electrolysis using a version of thermolysis referred to as microflash or picoflash or even superflash and of course, the skill of the practitioner takes precedence over the equipment but it is ideal to have a skilled operator and great equipment however, we are not able to be everywhere.
Maybe James will explore your continent soon! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Ants and I have had this conversation at length already. I don’t think he is changing his mind any time soon. (although I seem to detect some movement on his LASER stance)
We also had one where I attempted to explain the fact that thermolysis via probe electrolysis is so localized, and utilizes such a low level wave that when compared to LASER, it is not exactly the same thing, and they can’t be lumped in together. After all, LASER is closer to Microwave than Diathermy is to LASER. We agreed to disagree on that too.
As for me spending some time down under… don’t laugh, I do get offers… If an offer I can’t refuse came up, or a combination of offers that equaled one I can’t refuse came up, I would take that trip to the opera house. After all, I already have friends there. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" />
Electrolysis seems to be the best option (in terms of getting the wanted result), however, I have friends who had very bad results from electrolysis, in plain word, it did not work.
When I hear statements like "very bad results …“it did not work” in regard to electrolysis, a thousands questions flash through my mind. There are lots of variables to this business of performing electrolysis and there are a lot of client and practitioner behaviors that set one up for either failure or success.
The pure science and art of electrolysis DOES work and if your friends were my neighbors, I would prove it to them for free. Now, how is that for conviction and convincing???
To give you just one example of where statements like this come from, a woman who saw me a total of six times and who got cleared three of those times,on her face, hasn’t shown up since March. She has been busy. Her daughter tells me she is back to shaving and can’t understand where all the hair is coming from. SIX TREATMENTS?!!! and POOF we’re finished? Not in this world.
I say it ad nauseaum. I put it in writing. I draw pictures in that first consult. I ask the client to repeat what I said. I invite them to ask questions. Heck, I would even get the pom poms out and do a cheer if I had to in order to get the client to understand the importance of actually showing up for regularly spaced appointments during a 9-12 month period. Nine to twelve months is actually how long it takes for most clients getting work done on one area, but it can and is frequently two areas worth! This is the least amount of time one has to get finished, generally speaking. It may be more time, depending again on VARIABLES.
There are many obstacles to overcome. Several behaviors and biological circumstances do make this permanent process for removing hair more difficult. When all sides are clicking and there is determination and intelligence thrown into the mix, the little electrolysis probe will always win in the end.
This very nice lady e-mailed me today asking for an appointment. Her daughter called her after I repeated issues about consistent appointments. We start up again and we will be successful, I’m sure. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
Onward!
Dee
thermolysis is pretty much working on the same principle as Laser… heating up the hair follicle (bulb).
This statement is kind of like saying ‘Bird Flu and 30.06 caliber rifles both work the same, they both kill birds’…Laser and Thermolysis work on some very different priciples, see some very different results, leave the skin in very different conditions, and one is very much older and a refined technology. Laser is a very bombarding type of application, and it only has a chance to be effective when the hair shaft is in direct contact with the dermal papilla, in complete intact anagen stage. That is the only way it can conduct it’s energy to it’s target.
Electrolysis, can knock out a hair in any stage, all you need to do is sink that sucker to anagen depth and viola, dead papilla, dead bulge, and dead sebaceous sweat gland. And it all takes place under the surface, unseen if done well. Electrolysis is sharpshooting with skill and refined, computer controlled machines.
As for galvanic being better, there are times to use galvanic, and times to use other modalities, or mixing up the modalities. Me, personally, see no reason to use galvanic to start first clearance. It only takes seconds to extract a hair with flash, and that could fill the bill. Blend comes in next with the stubborn hairs, if it’s really needed. Galvanic? Maybe if the person was really sensitive to AC bursts, but me personally, I’ve never seen where pure galvanic succeeds where flash and blend have failed.
Mantaray
Mantaray wrote: “…and dead sebaceous sweat gland.”
Just a little technicality, and maybe I’m taking this too literally. Sebaceous and sweat glands are not the same. Sebaceous glands can be found attached to the hair follicle. They contain sebum, which is an oily substance, controlled by hormones. Sweat glands might be nearby, but secrete a watery substance and they are under thermal and psychological control.
has anyone followed timely procedures for electrolysis for a long period of time, and still found hair growth?
or have most people had successful result with it?
i realize it takes a lot of time, and i can commit the time, but i’m just worried that the hair will just keep coming back even after like 2 years…
Hi:
I have had positive results with electrolysis.
If you stick with a regular schedule it really does work.
Alicia
has anyone followed timely procedures for electrolysis for a long period of time, and still found hair growth?
or have most people had successful result with it?
i realize it takes a lot of time, and i can commit the time, but i’m just worried that the hair will just keep coming back even after like 2 years…
To answer your original questions:
no, electrolysis can’t stimulate more hair to grow. It only targets one follicle with a growing hair at a time.
no, shaving or trimming doesn’t cause anything to happen to the root. It’s been scientifically proven that it doesn’t affect the hair in anyway. Waxing etc however does. And people do not see less hair after doing it. Hair actually becomes stronger and tougher to remove because it gets accustomed to growing back and repairing itself. People who say that are those who are passing on wrong information, and same ones who say that shaving makes hair thicker. Hair professionals know that both are not true.
electrolysis is a proven method. you will get results if you find someone experienced and knows what they’re doing. that takes a bit to research and that’s what you need to concentrate on. I believe I told you to look into electrolysis in the first place because your hair on your face is fine, which is not good for laser, and that’s what you were looking into. There are also several people here from SD who can give you recommendations.
Even the modality is not that important (galvanic, blend, thermolysis), as long as you get someone who is good at what they do, you will see results and hopefully under 2 yrs if you are committed to stay on schedule and get treatments more often in the beginning so you can get to your first clearance first.
If you want first hand experience, there are many on here. Just run a search. I personally have done both electrolysis and laser, and am having great results with both. Electrolysis is what I’m doing on all areas with fine hair. I’m done with nipple area and upper lip, and it actually took a year or less for both.
Hi Ants,
Yes, in theroy, Galvanic makes the most sense to me however, in application I have found that most often it does not enable the electrologist to be the most productive.
…
Since I have extensive hair removal experience as a practitioner and as a guinea pig and client, I feel that galvanic is impractical for most people as it is so slow.
Most people are impatient, and theromolysis does give instant gratification when compared to Galvanic.
Ants and I have had this conversation at length already. I don’t think he is changing his mind any time soon. (although I seem to detect some movement on his LASER stance)
James, you have good memory <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
Well, in the past, some certain practitioner intentionally suggested Laser is similar to X-ray or radioactivity (mentioned indirectly). All other practitioners said nothing.
When I pointed out some disadvantages of theromolysis, most partitioners came to defend.
James,
Do you agree that thermolysis is based on “heating” things up?
Galvanic electrolysis works well, although it does not give instant gratification, the result is long lasting.
In the time that you have been away, I have had the pleasure of discussing the things that you and I debated with several scientific educators, and they gave me long winded (and in a case or two long typed) explanations of why thermolysis would be considered safer and their personal choice for this purpose, if they themselves were going to get hair removal done. (Thanks to you, I have at least one client I would not have had otherwise.)
Although both heat stuff up, what they heat, is different, and the way that each goes about heating is not the same.
The low level radio wave used in thermolysis, I was told, is very near the bottom of the frequency/wave length table, and effects hair removal by causing vibrations that lead to changing water from liquid to vapor, the escaping water vapor flash cooks the proteins in the follicle leading to a collapsed follicle, with a solid protein mass that is easily lifted out, and discarded, followed by the sealing of the area with a small callous beneath the skin’s surface. This is one of the reasons why client hydration levels are so important in electrolysis.
LASER effects heat in the area using a light wave that is much farther up the scale with a much higher frequency, coupled with longer wave lengths and causes solids to heat up, therefore heating up the tissues around them via radiated heat. Anything with the keyed upon color will heat up, and anything either touching the keyed upon tissue, or close enough to receive radiant heat from anything in this reaction will take on heat. That heat is also happening over an exponentially larger area than the probe size utilized in electrolysis.
Since the amount of tissue involved is different, and the methods of heat creation are different, the two can’t be considered interchangeable. The healing, and side effects for each have their own special foibles and risks.
There are many things we don’t know about LASER that time will tell us, but what we do know is that it is treating larger amounts of skin in a different way, with less selectivity.
If you don’t want to accept diathermy/thermolysis, you should at least embrace blend, as it is only speeded up galvanic. The treatment action is lye production, and the thermolysis is only used to catalyze the chemical reaction.
In other news, you might be interested to know that the certain person you had some of your arguments about radioactivity with is now with the invisible rabbit in the place where the olives grow <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> That is, he retired.
thanks la girl and everyone else for your responses :-). this forum is a blessing! i think i will begin electrolysis after my experiences with laser. i just need to save up some money so i can make sure i devote the consistent timing to my sessions. thanks again…i will post my experiences with that once i begin.
Hi Ants,
I thought that I would hop in with my 2 cents worth. I am not a good candidate for laser and have to pretty much stick with electrolysis. I am also experienced from both sides of the probe.
Right now I am in the process of having work done on my upper lip by another professional. I am, however doing my upper torso, front side of course! So far I have cleared both areas and am going back over the areas that I have cleared on a weekly basis. The modality? Thermolysis (primarily microflash).
One thing that has come up in this thread is that a regular schedule needs to be maintained with this. Thermolysis does have a smaller heat pattern than blend, but if good insertions are made, and you keep up on the cleared areas until regrowth stops, it is very effective.
The main reason for staying on a strict schedule is that the electrologist wants to keep working the early anagen hairs as they appear. They are smaller, shallower, and require less power to effectively treat. This makes the number of hairs that can be treated in a single session at the maximum, and will give you total clearance in the minimum amount of time for the regrowth cycle of the area being worked.
BTW…“Regrowth” is a slippery term. While it is true that not all of the hairs treated will be permanantly eliminated on the first pass (even with galvanic and blend), the majority of hairs treated in subsequent passes will be hairs that were either in the shedding stage or the resting stage between regrowth after naturally shedding. Keeping up with your schedule will allow the electrologist to get them before they go deep!
Also, with regards to laser and thermolysis being the same; in a word, “NOT”. If a hair is properly treated by thermolysis, the heating pattern stays pretty much inside the follicle. When the hair is epilated, the bulb and the inner root sheath come out with the hair shaft. As the outer sheath, with it’s surrounding tissues is not significantly disturbed, the body only has to make very minor repairs, within the existing blood flow. As the triggering new blood vessel growth does not occur, the level of androgen in the area will not be significantly increased, preventing surrounding vellus hairs from accelerating to anagen growth.
Laser works on all of the tissues in the area being treated. As a result, the body has a lot of tissues to heal. As this will outstrip the supply from the existing blood vessels in the area, new ones will grow in order to meet the demand. This has the effect of bringing more androgen into the area. This will result in more hair growth.
Joanie <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
(Thanks to you, I have at least one client I would not have had otherwise.)
My pleasure.
Although both heat stuff up, what they heat, is different, and the way that each goes about heating is not the same.
The low level radio wave used in thermolysis, I was told, is very near the bottom of the frequency/wave length table, and effects hair removal by causing vibrations that lead to changing water from liquid to vapor, the escaping water vapor flash cooks the proteins in the follicle leading to a collapsed follicle, with a solid protein mass that is easily lifted out, and discarded, followed by the sealing of the area with a small callous beneath the skin’s surface. This is one of the reasons why client hydration levels are so important in electrolysis.
LASER effects heat in the area using a light wave that is much farther up the scale with a much higher frequency, coupled with longer wave lengths and causes solids to heat up, therefore heating up the tissues around them via radiated heat. Anything with the keyed upon color will heat up, and anything either touching the keyed upon tissue, or close enough to receive radiant heat from anything in this reaction will take on heat. That heat is also happening over an exponentially larger area than the probe size utilized in electrolysis.
So, are you saying thermolysis vibrates at low frequency and such “low frequency” causes water (molecule) to vapour?
From primary school science, that’s heating up to 100 degrees Celsius inside your skin. From high school physics, we have to take the pressure of atmosphere into account, and I would reckon the temperature is not much different.
Further, your explanation of thermolysis just contradicted your statement earlier in this very thread.
Earlier you said,
After all, LASER is closer to Microwave than Diathermy is to LASER.
Microwave (oven) works on the frequency of water molecule (that 2.45 GHz). Just in case you can’t recall some basic science, high school physics told us something called “coherent”, in plain words, microwave oven works on using the same frequency as water molecule, and water molecules vibrate hence heats up food.
Next, the statement you made on LASER is completely wrong! (If you remember well, I mentioned that I have background in Laser in the past. You’d be careful when you describe laser.)
You said,
LASER effects heat in the area using a light wave that is much farther up the scale with a much higher frequency, coupled with longer wave lengths and causes solids to heat up, therefore heating up the tissues around them via radiated heat.
How could laser have higher frequency and have longer wavelength at same time to whatever electromagnetic wave you compared to?
c = (lambda) f
(speed of light = wavelength x frequency)
Since the amount of tissue involved is different, and the methods of heat creation are different, the two can’t be considered interchangeable.
The method of heating source is different between thermolysis and laser, but the principle is identical… heat things up.
There are many things we don’t know about LASER that time will tell us, …
The research of Laser is still going on, and for the hair removal part, it’s pretty safe. (It won’t kill you, not the laser used in James Bond movies.)
If you don’t want to accept diathermy/thermolysis, you should at least embrace blend, as it is only speeded up galvanic.
You forgot to point out that blend (a mixture of thermolysis and Galvanic) is the more painful electrolysis of all three, do you agree on that?
In other news, you might be interested to know that the certain person you had some of your arguments about radioactivity with is now with the invisible rabbit in the place where the olives grow <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> That is, he retired.
That’s good to know, thanks. That certain person did spread misconception on Laser intentionally.
Also, with regards to laser and thermolysis being the same; in a word, “NOT”.
Are you saying laser does not heat up things or thermolysis does not heat up things? I was talking about the key thing on both Laser and thermolysis… they kill the hair by “heat”
Laser works on all of the tissues in the area being treated. As a result, the body has a lot of tissues to heal. As this will outstrip the supply from the existing blood vessels in the area, new ones will grow in order to meet the demand. This has the effect of bringing more androgen into the area. This will result in more hair growth.
So you are saying Laser will increase hair growth? May I ask for some supporting research articles?
I tell you what old friend. Since you are back, I will take some time to co-ordinate the stuff people sent me, told me, and otherwise, and try to put it all together (can’t say when I will have that done) and we can put together a more comprehensive and fact checked explanation. It would have seemed like just getting the last word had I done that while you were gone.
Sensation during treatment has so many variables that I can not say that any one treatment modality is the most painful. There are combinations of technique plus equipment plus client conditions that add up to more pain than others, but that is not to say that one could not give excruciating galvanic treatments, and that is not to say that one could not give blend work a person could fall asleep on.
I hope that you realize that a client who drinks 4 cups of coffee a day, or 2 liters of coke (diet or regular), or 2 bottles of beer would be setting up the electrologist for a treatment situation where making it comfortable is much harder to do than it would be for someone who was well hydrated, well rested, and well fed. (Of course, I have to point out that well fed doesn’t mean pigging out on the Faux-Food favored by American masses, I mean real organic unchemicalized, breaks down in your body so it can be utilzied food.)
Even though it seems that your return has reincarnated the same discussion (I tried to stop it) I hope you don’t think you are being ganged up on and kicked. We like you, we really do. (Ok, I know I do, and I am sure others here on the forum missed you in your absence.
This post can be found here but I am moving it into here, as it goes with this discussion.
JoanieH
Thermocoagulation and the electromagnetic spectrumIn reading through the posts, I have come upon some misconceptions and mis-statements concerning both thermocoagulation and the electromatic spectrum. Maybe these points are what leads people to both underestimate thermolysis and, even among some pro’s lead to over-treatment.
First off, let’s take a look at 2 related terms.
Thermocoagulation vs. thermodessication;Thermocoagulation refers to the process of inducing the coagulation of proteins in living tissue. Thermodessication refers to driving any moisture out of tissues.
In human tissues, thermocoagulation occurs at 127 deg. F (53 deg. C). Thermodessication requires a temperature of at least 212 deg. F (100 deg. C). As water boils at 212 deg. F., thermocoagulation occurs at a much lower temperature.
In order to be effective, and not cause damage to the skin, the temperature of the heating pattern during thermolysis must be maintained at a temperature much lower than 212 deg.F. An effective heating pattern will not exceed 160 deg F. adjacent to the probe (the hottest portion of the heating pattern) and the size of the heating pattern will be the point where the heating pattern is at the 127 deg. F point.
If there is a discernable “pop” when the H.F. energy is released into the follicle, too much energy is being used and the moisture is being driven out of the treatment area and the size of the heating pattern is significantly reduced - as steam is being produced, causing thermolysis blow out. This has the effect of taking the heat away from the follicle and significantly narrowing the heating pattern - not doing a good job of treating the entire follicle.
Frequency Vs. Wavelength
Simply stated, the wavelength of an electro-magnetic wave is expressed by the following formula:
300/f
Where 300 is the number of million meters per second of the velocity of an electromagnetic wave in free space and f is expressed as the number of Mega Hertz of the signal. For a 12.56MHz signal, the wave length would be 22.12 meters (300/12.56=22.13M).
The electromagnetic spectrum basically goes from .1 KHz to 20KHz as Very Low Frequency, 20.1KHz to 3MHz as low frequency, 3MHZ to 30MHz as High Frequency, 30MHz to 200MHz as Very High Frequency, and so on thrugh microwaves, infra-red light, visible light, ultraviolet light, x-rays, etc. The point being that the higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. As light waves are extremely high frequengy, the wavelengths are measured in Angstroms (millionths of a meter) as the number of insignificant zeros becomes too much for conventional communication.
The point to all of this is that the reason that things like microwave ovens and lasers work is that their wavelengths are in the quarter-wavelength to to one-wavelength to some aspect of the molecules and atoms that they stimulate into motion.
2 basic conclusions here:
Too much thermolysis energy causes thermodessication - not thermocoagulation, reducing the width of the heating pattern and the net effectiveness of treatment with thermolysis. For this reason, the effectiveness of treatment with thermolysis requires both the proper application of power and accurate insertions to achieve maximum effectiveness.
The higher the frequency of an electromagnetic wave, the shorter the wavelength. Laser wavelengths are so short they are referred to in terms of Angstroms.
With regard to item number 2, there is still some open room for debate as far as the long-tern effects from laser treatment goes. I am not taking a stand on either side of this issus as the empiracle data is not in yet. It will take years to develop the statistical domain to see if skin cancer, permanent hyperpigmentation, spontanious human combustion or any other long-term effect will result from laser therapy.
I have read articles where the Air Force has made the determination that laser enegies do have the ability to deactivate the P53 gene, wich controls human cell division, increasing the liklihood of skin cancers. However, these tests were run at laser targeting frequencies, not at the frequencies used for laser therapy. Again we are at the point of talking apples and oranges.
My best to all!
Joanie
It is never too late to effect change. Never give up! You never know how far you can go until you try.
Hi James,
Let me preface this with a couple of quotes:
“Judas … Then he went away and hanged himself.” Matt: 27:5, N.I.V.
Jesus said; “…Do this in rememberence of me.”, Luke 22:19, N.I.V.
The problem with taking excerpts from pieces of writing is that it is often the case that the context becomes negated in the transfer. Thank you for quoting the entire post. You have again demonstrated your integrity and fairness!
Anyone who reads the entire post with comprehension will understand that I am not making specific references to the differences between laser and thermolysis, other than frequency and wavelength.
One thing for certain is that laser and high frequency both cause the acceleration of motion within substances. However, there is a radically different mechanism in play between the two.
High frequency affects an increase in motion by a combination of magnetic and electrical waves that pass through a substance, influencing the motion of both the electrons and (to a much smaller degree) protons in passing. The energy transfer is only a small portion of what was generated and the balance returns to the source of generation, the epilator, or radiates off into space.
Laser, on the other hand, is in the portion of the spectrum where almost all of the energy is absorbed into the substance being targeted. The exception being the miniscule portion that is reflected back into space by substances in the body that are outside the absorbtion spectrum for a specific laser frequency. This results in a much higher level of energy being introduced into living tissues - over a much wider area. This results in the heating of a large amount of tissues above the temperature where some effects will begin to occur.
Also, as there is no such thing as absolutely transparant, just as nothing is absolutely flat, square, straight, or plumb, all substances will absorb some degree of energy according to their refractive index, molecular or atomic size, and other factors. While the effects may not result in heating, to a “significant degree”, we are still dealing with some absorption of laser radiations by complex proteins that include the genetic coding of the individual.
While the effects on the substances effected may not become immediately evident, there are a lot of situations where medical knowlege is showing that the effects of exposure to some types of radiations may take 5 to 30 years to manifest. Melanoma is a good case in point. Most melanomas occur at least 20 years after severe exposure to sunlight. (In other words, a severe sunburn.)
While it is true that some do achieve good results from laser, none of them get completely free from hair growth and will usually finish up with electrolysis. On the other hand, I have girlfriends that used laser and are now dealing with a lot more hair in some of the treatment areas. We are all individuals and our responses will vary.
All the best James - and thank you!,
Joanie <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />