Although shorter women can’t be runway supermodels, they may have one advantage: women who stand below 5 foot 6 inches tall are 30 percent less likely to develop skin melanoma than their taller counterparts, according to research from the Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, reported in the August 2008 issue of Self. There are several reasons why taller women may be more susceptible to skin cancer. The first is that height may be linked with the production of higher levels of hormones that increase skin cancer risk. The second is that height may cause for taller women to absorb greater levels of damaging UV rays. Although shorter women receive more indirect UV light reflection from the ground, taller women have greater contact with UV rays. The third and final possibility is that taller women may just spend more time in the sun. (And really now, if you have legs like Gabrielle Reece, who wouldn’t live on the beach, lol).
Interesting study, indeed. :-) No matter what your height, avoid the sun between peak hours of 10 A.M. and 4 P.M. (except for 15 minutes/week, to avoid vitamin D deficiency); wear an SPF of at least 30 every day; and wear a wide-brimmed hat and sunglasses when you must be in the sun.
Come back tomorrow for a review of Priori Radical Defense! 
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
July 17th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy |
4 comments
A good question. According to reports by the FDA issued in February 2008, 12682 applicator tubes of the original formulation of Jan Marini Intervention Eyelash (about $2 million in product) was seized due to the product’s inclusion of bimatoprost. According to the FDA, exposure to bimatoprost increases pressure within the eye (intraocular pressure) in some patients, and may result in macular edema (swelling of the retina) and uveitis (inflammation in the eye), which may lead to decreased vision. Not good, to say the least. However, Jan Marini Cosmetics maintains that the new formulation of its eyelash conditioner, started in 2007. does not contain bimatoprost.
I personally used the original formulation of Jan Marini Intervention Eyelash back in the day, and it made a tremendous difference. (I have also used the new bimatoprost-free version, and unfortunately found it not to be nearly as effective.) Luckily for me and other short-lashed sistas, Botox manufacturer and pharmaceutical giant Allergan announced on June 4 that it is seeking FDA approval of bimatoprost for a new by-prescription only drug. If the product is FDA approved, your dermatologist could issue you a prescription for the new drug as early as the end of the third quarter of this year. Pretty exciting stuff, although I do not know how Allergan plans to get around the FDA with the known disastrous side effects of bimatoprost. I will keep definitely you posted on new updates!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
July 3rd, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy, Cosmetic Dermatology News |
one comment
According to VH1, diamond facials are a favorite of beauty Kate Winslet. Praised by Ayurvedic principles for their ability to “oxygenate and purify the skin,” the diamond facial supposedly gives a glow to skin, although it may be too harsh for those with sensitive skin.
In a diamond facial, a licensed dermatologist or aesthetician uses a wand to deliver a stream of fine crystals that polish the skin. And no, diamond facials do not contain diamonds; according to Katy Slater, 42, a licensed aesthetician who owns Palma Ceia Facials, ”It’s called a diamond facial because of the machine, but also the combination of ingredients, the procedure involved in delivering them, and how it leaves your face looking radiant, like a diamond,” Slater says. ”The business of beauty has a lot to do with how something is marketed.”
Unfortunately, the effects of diamond facials have not been compared in any independent, double-blind, multi-center, peer-reviewed published study to microdermabrasion or light chemical peels [at least, not in any study that I can find.] However, some women have noted softer, more glowing skin after the facial, including Cloe Cabrera, a reporter for the Tampa Bay Tribune.
Check with your dermatologist or physician before this procedure, which is not recommended for those with sensitive skin. At any rate, it seems to be promising!
A special “thank you” for this post goes to sponsor Abazias.com, an awesome website that specializes in diamonds. (So awesome, in fact, that I allowed them to be the first non-skin care sponsor on FutureDerm.com!) Abazias.com is a reputable company that sells over 120,000 certified diamonds and settings at a discount of up to 50% less than traditional jewelry stores and up to 25% less than other online companies. One of the most unique features of the site, however, is its specialized ring builder that lets you customize and build a ring by color, clarity, carat, and, of course, price. Definitely fun to use, and perfect you are planning a special occasion!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
June 29th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy |
no comments
Yes, this is a serious post! According to the July 2008 issue of Oprah magazine, a recent study found that dermatologists’ median wait time for the evaluation of a mole is about 25 days, while the wait for Botox injections is 8 days. In other words, if you need a dermatologist to look at your mole, book that cosmetic procedure you’ve always wanted, and then ask when you’re there (kind of like a two-for-one deal)! Sad that this kind of thing happens, but so long as physicians are better compensated for cosmetic procedures than skin cancer screenings, this will inevitably occur. Luckily, you now have knowledge on your side.
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
June 18th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy, Cosmetic Dermatology News |
6 comments
Botox™ is an increasingly common phenomenon in American society. From celebrities to CEOs, supermodels to soccer moms, women to men, everybody is looking, well, a little less crinkly and a lot more smooth lately.
Thankfully, lots of great information is available on Botox. Here, I share everything I believe the savvy patient would want to know:
There are seven different serotypes of Botox™.
They are lettered A to G, with A being the most commonly used serotype as Botox (by Allergan), and B being used as Myobloc (by Ipsen Products). For more on the differences between the serotypes, please click here.
…But the person behind the needle ultimately matters as much as the chemical itself.
According to some records, Miami and New York City derm and “Baron of Botox™” Dr. Frederic Brandt™ administers more procedures per year than any other. But the reason for his popularity isn’t just the fact he reportedly has Madonna as a client: Brandt pioneered “the Botox™ Face Lift,” a series of injections that result in a face so lifted, it looks like a face lift. Botox is truly an art, so leave your face in the hands of a true master: according to DocShop.com, find a board-certified, fully licensed cosmetic dermatologist, cosmetic surgeon, or facial plastic surgeon who has conducted the procedure extensively, and do not be afraid to ask for photographs of other patients. However, do be wary of over-instructing the physician; for instance, some patients instruct the physician which part of the muscle to inject or how much injectable to use, and even though the patient may be very savvy, sometimes, the doctor really just does know best! In other words, once you find a trustworthy physician, let him/her do his/her job!
How Botox™ works:
According to Dr. Leslie Baumann’s Cosmetic Dermatology textbook, the most commonly used type of Botox™ is serotype A. When Botox™ serotype A is injected, it cleaves a protein that is necessary for a neurotransmitter release, effectively preventing the neurotransmitter from binding to cellular membranes to cause muscle contractions. (Hence your relaxed appearance afterwards!) And, for you science geeks, the exact protein that is cleaved is SNAP-25, the complex is the soluble N-ethylmaleimide sensitive factor attachment protein receptor, and the neurotransmitter is none other than acetylcholine.
Results are not instant.
Results generally take between 12 to 96 hours to fully appear, with the optimal effect occurring 7 days after the procedure.
The price may vary by physician and by patient.
According to Baumann, “the amount of botulism toxin needed per site depends on the musculature of the individual patient. Therefore, Botox™ and Myobloc should be priced by the number of units used, and not by the area treated…The price also varies according to the area of the country one lives in.” So don’t always expect to pay the same price as a friend or family member, and definitely don’t expect to cough over the same amount in, say, Cleveland and New York City.
The recent Botox™ scare is nothing to raise your brow over.
(Pun alert!) But seriously, no deaths in adults undergoing a cosmetic procedure have ever occurred from Botox™. A 2008 FDA investigation questioning the safety of Botox™ found that all of the serious events were in children exposed to extremely high doses of botulism toxin. The doses ranged from 6.25 to 32 units per kilogram of bodyweight — that is the equivalent of 460 to 2,400 units for an adult — a huge dose. The approved dose of Botox for cosmetic purposes is 20 units. Put simply, you would need to have a dermatologist inject you with 23 to 120 times the normal dose for toxic effects to occur. Not only is that about as likely as it to start raining elephants, but it has never happened to date - a sign you can surely rest assured of the procedure’s safety.
But there are documented side effects in some individuals…
According to the Botox™ Cosmetic website, patients with certain neuromuscular disorders such as ALS, myasthenia gravis, or Lambert-Eaton syndrome may be at increased risk of serious side effects from Botox. Aside from those patients, the most common side effects following injection include temporary eyelid droop and nausea. In addition, localized pain, infection, inflammation, tenderness, swelling, redness, and/or bleeding/bruising may be associated with the injection. Dr. Leslie Baumann recommends avoiding aspirin, green tea, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and vitamin E 10 days prior to treatment, and topical vitamin K (as in one of my favorite formulations, Peter Thomas Roth Power K eye cream) afterwards. Ice packs may also help.
…including addiction to Botox!
Believe it or not, according to über dermatologist Dr. Patricia Wexler, “People with addictive personalities can get addicted to anything, and it’s up to the doctor to say ‘no’. That word should be in their vocabulary.”
…and there is the remote possibility that Botox use may change your brain structure.
This Italian study in the Journal of Neuroscience found that Botox™ injected into rats is not localized in the rats’ skin, but rather, travels to the rats’ brains, shutting off nerves there. My retort to this matches that of dermatologist Dr. Benabio, of the Derm Blog: “The study was done in rats, not people. We do not know if it would do the same thing in humans. Even if some botox did get into the brain, there is no evidence at all that it has any meaningful effect, good or bad.“ Still, if the idea of Botox™ potentially altering your brain structure freaks you out too much to keep using the stuff, Dr. Benabio recommends retinoids as tretinoin, and I particularly love non-prescription retinol formulations.
And you should NEVER make your own Botox™.
I got this one from The Derm Blog as well: don’t try to make your own homemade Botox from WikiHow, as this only leads to trouble. Remember, Botox is a prescription drug, and must be administered by a responsible physician!
No creams that are “better than Botox™” work quite as well as Botox™.
For instance, a 2006 study compared the efficacy of botulinum toxin type A (Botox™), placebo injection, StriVectin-SD®, Wrinkle Relax™, and HydroDerm™ (with palmitoyl oligopeptide), and found that none of the topical preparations were better than Botox in efficacy and overall patient satisfaction. This is most likely due to the fact that topical preparations of peptides increase collagen production over time, whereas Botox relaxes muscles and makes wrinkles very much less apparent within 1-7 days and stimulates collagen production over time. Another type of cream contains a GABA (inhibitory) neurotransmitter. Although companies claim that “100% of women” in their study experienced the 50-90% reduction in fine lines and wrinkles, the main ingredient, gamma aminobutyric acid, does not always have these types of results. GABA, an inhibitory neurotransmitter, may temporarily inhibit nerves and reduce the appearance of wrinkles when applied topically, but this effect varies from woman to woman, and is not usually anywhere comparable to Botox or other professionally-administered wrinkle reducers, particularly because topically applied GABA cannot affect synaptic transmission at the cellular level, whereas injected Botox certainly can.
Botox™ is only getting more popular…
According to Science, it’s one of the fastest growing cosmetic procedures in the world in 2008, with an estimated 1 million Americans undergoing the procedure. Before making the decision, find an experienced board-certified, licensed dermatologist or plastic surgeon or cosmetic surgeon, and, of course, stay informed with the latest news on FutureDerm.com, ;-) (Shameless, I know…)
COMMENT!
Remember, 1 comment = 1 entry in the first big FutureDerm.com and Skinmedix.com giveaway, to be held this Friday, June 19, 2008! (And 1 link to the blog on another site = 5 entries!)
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
June 17th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy, Cosmetic Dermatology News, General Cosmetic Dermatology |
13 comments
Recently, I have been receiving a lot of e-mails from women who are dedicated to only using products that are all-natural or completely free of chemical preservatives. From my reading, while I acknowledge that some ingredients, like sodium lauryl sulfate, are known to cause skin irritation in many patients, other ingredients, like parabens, have only been found to raise health concerns in the majority of patients only when used in concentrations much higher than normally found in skin care products. Many chemicals that are reported in databases to have been found to raise health concerns were used in exceptionally high concentrations in scientific studies as “extreme dose” cases, not in testing actual skin care products. Some websites even report that chemical skin care ingredients, like parabens, build up in the skin over time, which has been found not to be the case.
My concern with the “natural not chemical” skin care movement is two-fold. One is that many consumers are believing that “natural = safe,” which is not always the case. Take, for example, the all-natural ingredient chamomile, which is known to be soothing for the skin. Repeated exposure to chamomile has been known to induce a very irritating rash resulting from a ragweed allergy, according to the nutritional guide The Prescription for Nutritional Healing (and yours truly, who experienced the said effect after using chamomile for two months). Many other “natural” ingredients, such as the arnica montana used to treat bruises, are also able to induce detrimental effects after repeated exposure. In fact, according to Dr. Leslie Baumann’s Cosmetic Dermatology, “Prolonged treatment of damaged skin [with arnica] often causes edematous dermatitis with the formation of pustules; long-term use can also give rise to eczema.”
My second problem with the “natural not chemical” movement is simply that consumers are often ignoring the numerous double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center studies backing certain chemical ingredients in favor of clever marketing giving the impression that natural is always better. And that is a problem, because there is no research to date demonstrating that all-natural skin care products are always better, while there is substantiative research indicating that certain chemical ingredients - retinol, niacinamide, vitamins C & E, and chemical sunscreens, to name a few - have proven long-term benefits for the skin.
Of course, this is not to say that chemical always trumps natural either. Based on what I have learned thus far, there are good and bad chemical ingredients, just like there are good and bad natural ones. And while you may catch me pitching my beloved chemical Bath and Body Works bubble bath for its very high concentration of sodium lauryl sulfate and avoiding certain chemical ingredients when I am pregnant someday, you won’t see me trading in my awesome (chemical) Skinceuticals CE Ferulic (with vitamins C and E), Phloretin CF (with phloretin and vitamin C), Olay Regenerist (with niacinamide), Green Cream (with retinol), or Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry Touch SPF 85 (with avobenzone/oxybenzone) any time soon. My point is, don’t be dragged into “natural” products like they’re matte makeup products and leg warmers in the 80’s. Although natural sounds healthier and more beneficial now, natural ingredients can hurt your skin too. Be careful - check with your dermatologist before starting a new skin regime, consult actual scientific research journals (not cautionary databases that make the FDA seem like a sitting duck) about your skin care ingredients, and be aware that natural skin care companies are no different than regular skin care companies, selling you products. Some are great, sure, but just like with the chemical products, some aren’t. Be aware. Balance chemical and natural, and go with what your dermatologist recommends and what makes your skin look and feel its best!
I am going to take extra care to address this particular issue more on this blog in the future. Until then, please let me know your thoughts! Just one more week until the FutureDerm giveaway!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
June 12th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy |
23 comments
Although this is predominantly a blog about skin care and dermatology, I know from comments and e-mails that my readers also tend to be money-savvy and ingredient-aware. With that said, certain toothpastes from discount stores, such as select dollar stores, are actually toxic, according to the April 2008 issue of Self magazine. These toothpastes (which are usually imported from China) may contain diethylene glycol, a chemical that can cause kidney failure. Although diethylene glycol has an LD50 that demonstrates it is much less toxic than ethylene glycol, it is still inappropriate for even minor consumption. With that said, stick to drugstore brand toothpaste, and find another way to save money!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
June 3rd, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy, Cosmetic Dermatology News |
9 comments
Image source: Germes-Online.com
Besides, of course, the fact that carbs are yummy. :-) According to a 2005 study by Beisswenger, the collagen of patients who were put on the Atkins diet aged faster than the collagen of patients who were not on the diet. Specifically, it was found that the rate of advanced glycation endproduct (AGE) formation, responsible in part for the hardened aged state of collagen, was actually doubled in patients who were following the Atkins diet from those who were not. (It was verified the patients in the diet group were following the Atkins diet by the presence of ketones in their urine.) It seems that ketosis doubles the presence of methylglyoxal in the body, which reacts with Amadori products, forming twice the collagen-aging AGE products that would normally be present. It is further notable that methylglyoxal is 40000 times more reactive than blood sugar itself, so it seems that avoiding sugar in hopes of decreasing AGE formation is incredibly counterproductive!
So what is a body-conscious, skin-savvy patient to do? According to über nutritionist Joy Bauer, MS, RD, CDN and author of Food Cures, the best bet is to consume high-quality carbohydrates, such as vegetables, fruits, beans, peas, lentils, brown and wild rice, barley, oatmeal, whole grain cereals, whole grain breads, whole grain crackers, quinoa, amaranth, wheat berries, and millet, rather than eliminating carbohydrates. These carbohydrates allow blood sugars to rise gently, stay even over a longer period of time than their simple carb counterparts, and then fall off slowly.
So don’t age your skin to make your body leaner - simply cut out only the simple carbs, switch to all complex carbs, and get healthier, leaner, and still have younger skin as a result.
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
May 26th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy |
20 comments
There are certain rumors about skin care that sound so logical, people assume they must be true. Unfortunately, sometimes the right answer is the one that combats common sense! Here are five of the most common myths about summer skin care I have recently heard:
1. SPF 100 means 100% protection.
Errrt, wrong! An SPF of 100 means that the sunscreen blocks 99.0% of UV rays. And yes, that means an SPF of 200 is not only possible, but also would theoretically only block 99.5% of UV rays. How did I get these numbers? The amount of UVB an SPF is effective at blocking can be estimated using the following algorithm from dermatologist Dr. Rachel Herschenfeld: SPF means that 1/(SPF number) of rays goes through. That means that SPF 30 allows 1/30 UVB rays, or 3.3% through, blocking about 96.6% of UVB rays, and SPF 50 allows 1/50 UVB rays, or 2.0% through, blocking about 98.0% of UVB rays. According to Dr. Leslie Baumann, über-derm and author of Cosmetic Dermatology, the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) commonly listed on products refers to the amount of UVB protection, measured by the time it takes for a person without sunscreen versus a person with sunscreen to show a erythemal skin reaction (i.e., to show redness).
2. A base tan protects you from future sun damage.
Yes, it is true that darker-skinned women naturally have a slight SPF built-in to their skin (as if Halle Berry and Iman weren’t enough to make me jealous already, *sighs*). However, women who are lighter-skinned should not get a “base tan” to prevent future damage. For one, you will incur free radical and structural damage while trying to achieve the build-up of melanin that yields the bit of sun protection. And two, let’s not forget that everyone — of all skin tones — still needs sun protection: “[Melanin build-up provides an umbrella of sun protection], but the umbrella is porous - you’re still getting DNA damage, which can lead to wrinkles and skin cancer,” says NYC dermatologist Dr. Doris Day in the June issue of Allure. In other words, everyone needs sunscreen, and while dark skin naturally provides a bit of beneficial SPF, tanning lighter skin to get there isn’t benefiting you in the long run.
3. Self-tanner saves you from free radical damage.
Yes and no on this one. Yes, there is nothing proven to naturally age your faster UV light, which does pretty much everything from depleting collagen levels to inducing free radical production at monstrous levels. And if you use self-tanner and stay out of the sun as a result, then you are saving your skin. However, if you use self-tanner and then go out into the sun, you could be causing more damage: According to a 2007 study published in Germany (and cited in Allure), for 24 hours after applying a self-tanner, the skin is more susceptible to free-radical damage once being exposed to the sun.
In other words, best case scenario: avoid self-tanner, wear sunscreen, and avoid the sun between 10-4 P.M. except for 15 minutes/week (for adequate vitamin D production). Next best scenario: use self-tanner, wear sunscreen, and avoid the sun between 10-4 P.M. except for 15 minutes/week. Worst case scenario: use self-tanner, don’t wear sunscreen, and go out into the sun. Eeeeek!
4. “If my powder contains SPF, that’s enough protection.”
Oh dear. If you want to know how much SPF you are really getting from a product, divide the SPF number by 14, according to Dr. Leslie Baumann, über-dermatologist from the University of Miami. According to Baumann, scientists estimate the SPF of a facial powder assuming 1200 mg of product is used with each application, but the average woman only applies 85 mg of powder at a time, 14 times less than the estimated amount. In other words, if you want adequate sun protection, wear a moisturizer or sunscreen with SPF under your powder, even if your powder contains sunscreen.
5. SPF = UPF.
UPF, the rating system for sun protective clothing, has been getting a lot of press recently because sun protective clothing is currently popular and - dare I say it - increasingly stylish. However, unlike SPF, which quantifies only UVB protection, UPF is a number that incorporates both UVA and UVB (broad-spectrum) protection.
In general, according to Baumann’s Cosmetic Dermatology textbook, a UPF of 10 equals protection of about SPF 30, so a UPF of 50 equals protection of about SPF 150 (i.e., lets 1/150 rays through, providing 99.25% protection). Pretty cool, huh?
****
In short, rumors were made to be about Hollywood celebrity scandals, not your skin. Let’s put an end to these 5 skin care myths, shall we? 
Let me know your thoughts! After all, until June 19, 2008, every comment on FutureDerm.com counts as 1 entry in the $500 skin care giveaway from Skinmedix.com!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
May 22nd, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary, Controversy, Cosmetic Dermatology News, General Cosmetic Dermatology, Sunblocks, The Worst Things For Your Skin, sunscreen |
20 comments
In the June 2008 issue of Allure magazine, Kristin Sainani reports that researchers at Procter and Gamble have recently cracked the genetic code of the fungus that causes dandruff (all 4285 genes)! According to Thomas L. Dawson, Jr., a researcher at Procter and Gamble Beauty, “The [fungus] lives on every person’s scalp, [and] eats oil from the scalp and releases by-products that irritate the skin and cause flaking in susceptible individuals.” This is very exciting news, because understanding the fungus is the key to finding a cure. In fact, according to the article, current dandruff treatments (like pyrithione zinc in Head and Shoulders) only work because they reduce the number of fungi. New treatments will actually control the growth of the fungus. I say, this is dermatology and the beauty business at their best. Major kudos! I’ll keep you posted when new treatments are developed from the findings.
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
May 17th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Controversy, Cosmetic Dermatology News, General Cosmetic Dermatology |
4 comments
Earlier Posts »
