Happy Holidays, everyone!
Just wondering (and apologies if this is posted elsewhere on the site) what the “kill” rate was for blend versus thermolysis. I’ve heard (anecdotally) that blend has a much higher kill rate, but I was wondering if anyone had experience or data that they could post to back that up.
I’ve been having a bad reaction to blend recently, so I’m wondering if switching to thermolysis would be such a bad thing.
Thanks–
The reason one goes to a professional is because they know how to make proper insertions, and make good settings to work on the skin and hair you have.
Perfect electrolysis has no difference in kill rate between Galvanic, Blend and Thermolysis. On the other hand, one is less likely to make mistakes for long in Galvanic, because it is so slow that one would surely make changes before making the same mistake repeatedly. In blend, the same process happens faster, but still not so quickly as to make one miss something bad happening, and the current may help one on a difficult insertion.
Since the chemical reaction created in Galvanic and Blend are what treat the follicle, the follicle ends up treating itself, and insertion skill is less of an issue to a treatment that obtains the desired goal to kill the hair. On the other hand, Thermolysis is so fast that when you make a mistake, you have no way of knowing until you have completed the mistake. There is no lead time. There is no developing problem before your eyes. Lastly, if the insertion is not done correctly, one will mistreat, or undertreat the follicle, causing the hair to not be killed, or scarring.
So in conclusion, Thermolysis only has a lower kill rate when compared to Galvanic and Blend from the standpoint that skill of operator plays a larger role in efficacy of treatment. This is why good thermolysis by a competent practitioner is cheaper than either Blend or Galvanic on areas larger than an upper lip because one can get to first clearance quickly and go directly to maintenance phase.
To chime in on James’s comment: Blend has a theoretically higher effectiveness because there is a residual effect from the lye generated. However, this advantage only exists in the case in which the thermolysis does not completely kill the appropriate tissue. If there is sufficient tissue destruction, the lye does nothing beyond irritating the remaining tissue.
That said, flash (which really ought to be considered a different mode from slow thermolysis, blend, and galvanic) is a violent process, and operators may tend to err on the side of caution - leading to under-treated follicles. Thus blend may tend to be more effective per insertion.
It’s just speculation on my part, but I doubt that the reaction you’re experiencing is due to the lye of blend. The reason I say this is the lye rapidly diffuses into the surrounding tissue. While there is irritation, it’s localized and doesn’t last long.
Thanks Eric.
Try as I may to distill all this stuff into conversational terms, I sometimes get lost in the same jungle as someone writing a book on auto mechanics. It is a book written by an auto mechanic for other auto mechanics, and the average Joe can’t understand it because the writer can’t write from the perspective of someone who doesn’t know what the writer knows.
You shortened up that book nicely, and got the point across.
I guess I could have just said, “Galvanic and Blend are more effective in the case of poor treatment, but not in the case of perfect treatment.” and left it at that… of course, that would not satisfy my urge to cut off the next question of “But why is that true?”, from those whose eyes have not glazed over from reading that far. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />