Here’s the deal:  Most people apply skin care products by applying them to their cheeks first, then rubbing in circular motions outward.  However, the majority of sun damage becomes visible on the center of the face — most particularly the nose, lower forehead, and cheeks — as one ages.  With that said, you’d be doing yourself a favor to rub moisturizer on your cheeks, then inward towards your nose, and then towards your forehead, chin, and lastly the outer portions of your cheeks.

One last note:  Avoid uneven application altogether by applying a small dot of moisturizer on your nose, forehead, chin, and on each cheek, to ensure even application!

I was surprised when I discovered that I too was guilty of doing this.  But it makes sense that the center of the face receives the most UV light and therefore ages the fastest – and would therefore benefit from more beneficial ingredient-concentrated moisturizer application!  :-)

Photo credits:
Girl sitting reading book looking surprised.

Originally uploaded by vinyl_word

Like most skin care “technologies,” Stratys-3™ technology comes down nothing more than a clever meld of ingredients.  Unlike many of its so-called innovative predecessors, however, Stratys-3™ is actually revolutionary, consisting primarily of glycerol quat (GQ) and hydroxyethyl urea (HEU) that hydrate the skin down to the deepest part of the stratum corneum.  According to the official website, GQ is a humectant, a quaternized glycerol derivative that is able to bind more than 4 times the water than glycerol alone.  Furthermore, GQ is not very lipophilic, so that it does not bind to the upper membranes like many other ingredients.  Combined with the fact that HEU is able to penetrate through to the stratum basale (the deepest portion of the uppermost layer of skin, the stratum corneum), Vaseline Sheer Infusion is truly revolutionary, as most lotions stay within the first two layers of skin.

The clinical data support the idea that Vaseline Sheer Infusion delivers superior hydration to deeper layers of the skin as well.  In the most convincing Unilever-affiliated study, 168 subjects were split into 12 different groups, each with a different leading body lotion applied by a trained clinician on a 2-square-centimeter surface of the subjects’ legs.  Another trained clinician measured the skin hydration levels with a 2ooEX Skin Hydrometer, and the results were astounding:  Vaseline Sheer Infusion resulted in a score of 1150; the next leading body lotion was a mere 800, with the lowest-scoring leading formula falling in at a meager score of ~180.

Although, I must admit, the studies have all been in-house (very professionally conducted, but still, all associated in some way with the founding company), I am still a fan of Vaseline Sheer Infusion.  Furthermore, some organic skin care fans may give this one a thumbs down, particularly because it contains parabens that many do not want on their skin, much less penetrating down to deeper portions of their stratum corneum.  Granted, these are the last two ingredients on the list, suggesting (with my best guess) concentrations of less than 0.05%, but still, I too would feel even more comfortable using Vaseline Sheer Infusion if they would take out the parabens altogether.

With that said, I have been using Vaseline Sheer Infusion, and I love the way that it makes my skin feel – very hydrated and actually plump, as though being filled up from the inside out.  (Crazy-sounding, I know, but when you’ve tried as many products as I have, this is actually a noticeable difference.  Either that or all the video demonstrations went to my head…)  I also love the way that the Vaseline Sheer Infusion Botanical Blend smells, so much that I even passed up the ultra-beneficial vitamin E extra in the Vitamin Burst version.  (What can I say, I’m a scientist in my head but still a girl in my heart…at the end of the day, I just want my boyfriend to think I smell pretty!)

Bottom line:  This product line truly is revolutionary, and I love it.  My only suggestion to Unilever: take out the parabens if you can, and I guarantee your sales will soar even higher amongst the well-informed, skin care-savvy crowd.  Product rating:  8.5/10. Unique formulation or new technology: 3/3.  High concentration of proven effective ingredients: 2.5/3.  Value for the money: 3/3.  Sunscreen: 0/1.

P.S. – When choosing a formula, Botanical Blend smells incredible to me, Vitamin Burst is the most skin-beneficial [with antioxidant vitamin E], and I’m not really sure why Mineral Renewal even exists, except maybe to provide a third option.  Happy shopping!  :-)

I am currently in the midst of preparing for the USMLE Step I examination, a.k.a. part one of the infamous “medical boards”.  It’s a pretty stressful process – medical students are generally recommended to study 8-10 hours per day in the 6-8 weeks preceding the exam, not including the time spent in classes (or, in my case, commuting).

I’ve found that I study with the clearest mind in the early morning hours (from 6 am till noon) and then hit another peak in the evening hours (usually starting around 5 to 7 pm, lasting for about 3-4 additional hours).   During the hours in-between, I like to see my mom or my friends, talk to my boyfriend (or see him if he’s around), go for a run, read some magazines or a book, take a nap, walk my dogs, get something to eat, i.e., have a life.

Which all sounds pretty normal to most people, but when I mention my “two study peak” system to my medical school colleagues, let’s just say it doesn’t sit well with them.  The resounding effects, then, tend to be stress and guilt.  

But isn’t 6-10 hours a day everyday, even split into two 3-5 hour sessions, enough?!  When is enough “enough”?   The life expert T. Harv Ecker claims that work should never be measured in terms of time, only progress, because time is a very limited resource, but your productivity theoretically has no limit.  That may be true, but when you are surrounded by 140 other medical students who seem to have no problem sitting in a library for 10-12 hours straight, testing those limits can be a bit intimidating.  Sometimes I feel like we’re on a challenge on Survivor: Geek - who can sit on the wooden chair the longest?   Every person that gets up concedes victory to another.  He’s zipping his backpack?  I’m still in the game.  She went to get a soda?   Weak.  I haven’t gotten up for 3 hours…and I have to pee.  Of course, petty comparisons such as these are exactly the reason I study elsewhere, and truth be told, most academic triathletes (reading-highlighting-reviewing) are too focused to even notice their listless competitors.  

Which brings me to my point:  Today’s lesson for success is not to compare myself to anyone else.  It may sound like something straight out of an old Barney episode, but it’s a childhood adage that’s true, whether with our grades or our bodies, our men or our shoes:  No matter what it is that it seems like someone else has or is doing, there is a limit to how amazing it truly is.  As Joel Osteen says, there’s an 80 percent rule:  no matter what we have, if we are critical enough, we can find that 20 percent we are somehow missing.  It’s best to focus on our great 80 percent and not to look for the other 20 percent, especially not in other people’s “plus” column.   I may not be comfortable studying 8 hours straight in a library everyday, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t one day become a great physician.  Who knows?  Maybe someone else wishes she could focus 8 hours a day and still have lunch with her mom or see her friends regularly.  It’s not up to me to judge.  All I can do is be myself, do my best within my own limits, and be happy.

********

Like this post?  Or would you rather have me stick with skincare-haircare analyses?  Let me know your thoughts in Comments below!  :-)

Photo source:
Doctor Cupcakes

Originally uploaded by jdesmeules (Blue Cupcake)

Every once in a while in the beauty industry, a trend emerges that is so great, everyone you know starts to look different – and never looks back.  Such was the case in the 1980’s with cool-toned makeup, in the 90’s with primer, and today with eyelashes.  Whether through Latisse, over-the-counter eyelash growth treatments or false lashes, it seems hardly anyone is walking around with stubby lashes – and certainly no one is getting married or celebrating a huge photographed event without batting a full 1000.  

That said, I recently emerged from Snowmageddon 2010 and headed on over to Allison Roth Studio, the only studio in Pittsburgh currently officially certified to feature XTreme Lashes, false eyelashes that stay on indefinitely, even through showering, swimming – you name it.  The secret to XTreme Lashes seems to be its XL Fusion Eyelash Adhesive, which is a waterproof acrylate polymer also used in medical processes for wound closure.  The creator of XTreme Lashes, Jo Mousselli, is a former registered nurse who seems to have gone through great lengths to ensure the safety of XL Fusion Eyelash Adhesive, as well as for the procedure itself – all Lash Stylists must take an XTreme Lashes training course to become licensed through XTreme Lashes.

Procedure

The entire procedure takes about 60-120 minutes.  During the procedure, the lash stylist will apply each lash extension meticulously, one by one, for a total of 25 to 100 eyelash extensions per eye.  Allison, my certified Lash Stylist, was extremely warm and accommodating, even going so far as to offer a drink, my choice of music, and a warm blanket.  She also has a very warm and fun personality, which makes it so easy to ask questions and to tell her exactly what you want (or don’t want)!  The process was easy – lay down, have eyelid taped, have eyelashes attached, fall asleep (optional) – and I opened my eyes to see a brand-new set of lashes!  More information about the procedure is available through the XTreme Lashes website.

Cost

Perhaps the only reservation about XTreme Lashes is the cost, which costs slightly more than Latisse (currently $100/month).  Because lashes grow (approximately 0.2 mm/month for most healthy individuals), the lash extensions must be “filled” every 2 to 3 weeks.  At the Allison Roth Studio, the initial set is currently $225-400, with the lower price for 25-35 extensions (a “mini set”), and the higher, more impressive version as 75-100 extensions.  Fills cost $45-95 after 2 weeks, and $85-175 after 3 weeks.  (The lashes must be filled within 3 weeks, or else you end up having to purchase a whole new set.)   Getting right down to it, filling your eyelashes every 2 weeks amounts to $121-144/month over the course of 1 year (filling every 3 weeks amounts to $115-138/month), which is pretty reasonable, particularly if you consider that Latisse ($100/month) takes 2-3 months to see the result, and that not everyone is a suitable candidate for Latisse to begin with (light eye color, history of glaucoma, etc.) 

Surprising…

The greatest lesson I think I learned through the process was that regular eyelash extensions can damage your eyelashes.  It turns out that not only can regular eyelash adhesive cause allergic reactions on the eyelids of some individuals, but the adhesive glue can also cause your eyelashes to break, as your eyelashes clump together and fall out when you try to separate them (with mascara or otherwise).  I personally had tried regular store brand eyelash extensions a few weeks before visiting the Allison Roth Studio, and was promptly informed that some of my eyelashes were too broken and damaged for eyelash extensions (no full set for me)!   Still, I hope that some of my readers are forewarned about what regular false eyelash use can do to your lashes.   

Overall Opinions

It isn’t cheap, but XTreme Lashes has really made a huge difference in my look, and I feel it was well-worth the cost!  The XTreme lash extensions are near-instant, do not seem to pose any risks, and are completely waterproof – a dream come true!  Overall, I’m an enthusiastic new fan of XTreme Lashes, and I look forward to sticking with them for many years into the future.  P.S. – I will post pictures after my damaged lashes grow in and I can upgrade!

With that said, I did manage to get out recently, and off to the cosmetics counter I went!  (I am nothing if not predictable).  There, this Snow White fell in love with an amazing little dwarf: Clarins SPF 40 Plus Day Screen High Protection SPF 40 ($42.00, Amazon.com).  The product’s active ingredient is micronized Titanium dioxide, which is an amazing ingredient I happen to love: the titanium dioxide provides an excellent physical barrier between your skin and harmful UV rays, while the fact that it is micronized makes it absorb easily into the skin, without any telltale white streaks.  While some experts do not like micronized oxides, believing that they can traverse into the skin and cause oxidative damage, the fact that Clarins SPF 40 Plus Day Screen High Protection SPF 40 contains a high concentration of a silicone-based ingredient (cyclopentasiloxane) is likely to prevent oxidation from occurring.  This theory, using cyclopentasiloxanes to protect the skin from oxidation, is backed up by a 1997 study by Gillies et. al.

Personal Use

I have been using Clarins SPF 40 Plus Day Screen High Protection SPF 40 for the past 3 days, and I must say, I love it.  It absorbs into the skin quickly, leaving your skin ready for primer, foundation, or concealer.  It also is light enough to be used over your daily moisturizer, which is an idea that I love!  (One note:  If your daily moisturizer has an SPF of 15, and you apply this SPF 40 over it, you will only still get a net SPF of about 40, not 55.  Despite popular belief, sunscreen effects are not additive).

Overall Opinions

I’m adding this one to my beauty regimen!  I love the ingredients, as well as the texture of the product.  My only qualm about it is the fact that the company claims the product protects you from “environmental stressors” like electromagnetic rays.  While Clarins SPF 40 Plus Day Screen High Protection SPF 40 certainly protects you from UV rays – perhaps the worst environmental stressor of all for skin – the truth of the matter is that the degree to which it could protect you from electromagnetism, or how much E&M affects your skin to begin with, is still up for debate.  I personally would not buy a product on the basis of “electromagnetic protection,” nor would I normally trust a company that made such a claim.  However, despite the lack of science currently behind the electromagnetism claims, Clarins SPF 40 Plus Day Screen High Protection SPF 40 is still a high-quality product, and I love it.  Product Rating: 9/10  (High concentration of proven ingredients: 3/3.  New technology or unique formulation: 3/3.  Value for the money: 2/3.  Sunscreen: 1/1).  

Ingredients in Clarins SPF 40 Plus Day Screen High Protection SPF 40:  Active Ingredients – Micronized titanium dioxide;  Inactive ingredients - Cyclopentasiloxane, Aqua, Aluminum Starch Octenylsuccinate, Polyglyceryl-3 Polydimethylsiloxyethyl Dimethicone, Alcohol, Aluminum Hydroxide, Stearic Acid, Sodium Chloride, PEG/PPG-18/18 Dimethicone, PEG/PPG-20/15 Dimethicone, Tocopheryl Acetate, Fragrance, Disodium EDTA, Butylene Glycol, Glycerin, Pentylene Glycol, Biosaccharide Gum-4, Thermus Thermophillus Ferment, Lapsana Communis Flower/Leaf/Stem Extract, Camellia Sinensis Leaf Extract, Rhodiola Rosea Root Extract, Phenoxyethanol, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate.

Plastic surgery and your city

MSNBC explores why women in the Northeast are more likely to get a nose job, while women in the West Coast get breast implants and butt lifts.

How Nicole Kidman, Madonna, Andie McDowell, Jack Nicholson, & 24 Other Stars are Aging

A fascinating slideshow (featuring a plastic surgeon) of how 28 famous celebrities are aging -with or without going under the knife.

Heidi Montag – Before and After Photos (Huffington Post)

After 10 plastic surgery procedures, The Hills star is getting more publicity than ever – but is it the good or the bad kind?

Cankle Lipo, Earlobe Lifts – The 7 Strangest Plastic Surgery Procedures in America Today (MSNBC)

Look at the bright side:  even though “recession” is on everyone’s mind, some people still have enough income to get their ankles Botoxed…

Recent study:  The most beautiful women have eyes 46 percent of the face’s width and the distance from eyes to mouth was 36 percent of the face’s length.

I guess “golden ratio” isn’t limited just to mathematics anymore…

The Dangers of Silicone Injections

Until these become FDA approved, stay far, far away.  In fact, run!

Have a link you’d like to share?  Please share in Comments below, or sign up for the new FutureDerm.com forum!

And then there’s Chanel skin care.  Sadly, adding a luxurious ingredient to a moisturizer does not necessarily add the same oomph of 2 extra C’s on a handbag.  In the case of Chanel Precision Sublimage Essential Moisturizer ($364.88, Amazon.com), that special ingredient is vanilla planifolia.  Also known as “flat-leaved,” “Tahitian,” or “West Indian vanilla,” vanilla planifolia is the plant from which vanilla extract is most commonly derived.  It is also, according to Chanel, “an ethnobotanist’s paradise…filled with polyketones – the most powerful anti-aging molecules.”

Um.  For the sake of being polite, I will simply make this statement:  If you believe this statement, please consult a dermatologist, look her square in the face, stare into her eyes, and tell her that you believe polyketones are the most powerful anti-aging molecule known to man.  I am pretty sure that you will either be gently laughed at or politely corrected.

However, maybe all is not lost here.  Polyketones are thermoplastic polymers which are known to have excellent mechanical strength and temperature-resistant properties.  In the case of Chanel, the C.E.R.I.E.S. lab in Paris was attempting to find a polyketone that would send messages to the cells that stimulate growth factors in older women’s skin, boosting moisture, evening the complexion and spurring regeneration in the epidermis.  The company believed that Xavier Ormancey, the head of Chanel’s Cosmetic Research Center, had found this polyketone – in the wilderness!

And perhaps Ormancey has found this polyketone – I will attempt to be open-minded.  However, where the company fails is in establishing this polyketone in peer-reviewed, published scientific research.  Certainly, if the polyketone does in fact stimulate growth factors, moisturize, even the complexion, and spur regeneration in the epidermis, this would be a new retinoid-grade ingredient, and I am sure dermatological experts would love to hear about it.  Furthermore, if this polyketone is as promising as it seems, its performance needs to be compared in independent peer-reviewed research to other skin care ingredients, like retinoids, niacinamide, etc.

The bottom line:  It’s a hard world in skin care.  In the twenty-first century, you can’t get away with introducing a new ingredient unless you have the research to back it up.  From established research, the big 5 in anti-aging skin care right now are sunscreen, retinoids, antioxidants, peptides, and niacinamide – and until vanilla planifolia is proven effective in even one peer-reviewed, controlled, non company-affiliated study in a reputable scientific journal, I’m sticking to the other ingredients.  Product Rating: 3/10 (High concentration of proven effective ingredients: 1/3.  Unique formulation or new technology: 2/3.  Value for the money: 0/3.  Sunscreen: 0/1).

One of my favorite dermatologists, Dr. Leslie Baumann, M.D., was recently reported by The New York Times to have been warned by the F.D.A. for giving her approval of Dysport, a muscle relaxant similar in function to Botox, in magazines and TV appearances before F.D.A. approval in April 2009.   This is apparently a violation, as Thomas W. Abrams, director of the F.D.A.’s Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications, stated: “You can’t promote a prescription drug before it is approved, whether they are diabetes drugs or heart drugs or for cosmetic uses.”  As Abrams further told The New York Times, investigators are free to have scientific conversations about investigational drugs with their peers and with journalists. But an investigator should not promote any unapproved prescription drug — or an unapproved use of an already approved drug — as being safe or effective if the agency has not yet deemed it to be so.

With that said, Dr. Leslie Baumann, M.D., is not only one of the most widely cited dermatologists in the media, she is also a personal favorite.  Dr. Baumann’s Cosmetic Dermatology textbook inspired me to pursue a career in dermatology, as her insightful, well-documented writings ensured me that dermatology was the perfect way to meld my loves of interacting with people and scientific research.  Dr. Baumann is also a pioneer in my mind, not only founding the Division of Cosmetic Dermatology at the University of Miami School of Medicine (and more recently her own medical spa), but also through her unprecedented ability to bring high-quality, peer-reviewed research to the table.  She is not a “because I said so” type of dermatologist; rather, every product, idea, or technique I have ever heard her recommend for the skin is backed by substantiated research.  For all of these reasons, I view Dr. Baumann as a true pioneer for dermatology in the 21st century, as well as a role model for my own emerging dermatology career.

I am curious as to how the F.D.A.’s recent action will affect dermatologists’ interactions with the media in the future.  Hopefully, dermatologists will still continue to provide their well-informed insights with the public, as many well-renowned board-certified dermatologists like Dr. Frederic S. Brandt, Dr. David E. Bank, Dr. Jeannette Graf, Dr. Jeffrey Benabio, and Dr. Jeannine Downie often are cited in major media publications, and Dr. Jeffrey Benabio and Dr. Baumann even have their own popular blogs.  To that end, I hope that all current and emerging medical professionals can learn from this unfortunate case, and that everyone will still benefit from the sharing of their expertise in the mainstream media of the future.

A special thanks to one of my favorite fellow bloggers, Nancy of Beauty411, for forwarding me the original New York Times article.  Visit her blog here!

This 2010 Newsweek slideshow of the greatest airbrushing scandals of the past decade really astonished me.  Although I am not one to blame the media for most behaviors, I do think that exposure to perfectly retouched images of celebrities puts unnatural standards on American women.  For instance, take the pictures of Jessica Alba from Newsweek, shown above.  She is certainly beautiful before, toned and healthy, realistic. After, she is almost unattainably stunning: a perfect meld of runway-skinny model legs and torso, blessed with pinup curves in exactly – and only – the right places.

Another photo that really shocked me from Newsweek was the photo of Madonna above.   Before, the 51-year-old mother of three is beautiful, elegant, and stunning.  But after, the woman is positively ageless, and couldn’t pass for more than 30.

If Hollywood celebrities, blessed with access to the best nutritionists, chefs, trainers, dermatologists, plastic surgeons, and stylists, cannot even look as good as themselves in photos, then how can we expect to do so?   While true beauty comes from within, we are tend to seek out beautiful role models.  With that said, it is a lot healthier – and more attainable – to look at beautiful women we know in person or at old photos of models/actresses from before the airbrushing days (like Sophia Loren, Marilyn Monroe, or Carole Lombard) for inspiration, rather than airbrushed perfection.  Because, truth be told, if we all achieved the ability to look like celebrities in airbrushed photos all the time, we would look like Heidi Montag (before and after shots here).

Truth be told, although this post is not in my usual style, I am simply appalled by the extent to which celebrities are airbrushed and the unrealistic expectations many patients now have as a result.  I hope sharing this Newsweek slideshow encourages other women to be kinder to their faces and bodies – and to look to more realistic role models in the future.

Unfortunately, the similarities between the two are not pleasant.  While Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Protective Recovery Serum with Synchronized Recovery Complex and Lancome Genifique both claim to be able to change your genes – Estee through regulating “clock” genes to turn on normally sleeping genes, Lancome through continuously “boosting gene activity” – these claims are entirely based on in vitro studies, meaning the studies are conducted on cells in petri dishes.  And while certain ingredients elicit the same response in vivo (within the skin) as in vitro, it is difficult to conclude a blanketing function when it comes to gene function.  For one, genes (DNA) are subject to undergoing transcription (to RNA) and translation (to protein), a process that is highly regulated by a number of enzymes.  Is it fair to say that increased gene expression automatically correlates to increased – and improved – proteins within the skin?  Not necessarily.

A second similarity between Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Protective Recovery Serum and Lancome Genifique is the fact that both include probiotic bacteria.  In particular, Lancome Genifique contains a very high concentration of Bifida Ferment Lysate.  Cosmetic companies have proposed that Bifida ferment lysate acts as a DNA repairing agent, such as in this 2009 patent, and skin care experts (and marketers) at Sephora.com claim that Bifida “helps maintain and support skin’s natural microflora.”  And indeed, Bifida does help to maintain microflora, but that is only supported by substantiated research to do so within the GI tract.   Unfortunately, neither of these Bifida claims for the skin have been supported in any published, non-company affiliated, peer-reviewed research journal, at least none that I could find.  To that end, I’ll keep my eyes open for new research, but in the meantime, I won’t buy a product for its inclusion of Bifida.

As for the other ingredients, I’m not that impressed.  Hydroxyethylpiperazine ethane sulfonic acid (HEPES) is traditionally used as a buffer, i.e., to maintain a steady pH in solutions.  In Lancome Genifique, it is proposed as another product for maintaining skin’s microflora, but I’m not convinced that microflora is a concern for patients without acne, infections, or other forms of inflammation due to bacteria.  Furthermore, this product does contain sodium hyaluronate, an ingredient capable of holding 10000 times its weight in water, so it will be hydrating.  But even that does not make up for a rather lackluster ingredients list, at least in my opinion.

From reading reviews of other bloggers and product users, Lancome Genifique is “thick, unscented, taking a minute or two or absorb”.  It seems that its high dimethicone content immediately (and temporarily) fills in fine lines, while its sodium hyaluronate is hydrating enough so that women find it best to apply this after lighter creams, such as Retin-A.

I personally do not like this product, and will not be buying it.  However, given that I do like Lancome in general (mascara, hellloooo!), I’ll keep my eyes (and ears) open to redeeming myself with a positive review of some other Lancome skin care product in the future.  Any ideas?

Product Rating: 3/10 (High concentration of proven-effective ingredients: 1/3, for sodium hyaluronate.  Unique formulation or new technology: 1/3.  Value for the money: 1/3.  Sunscreen: 0/1).

Ingredients:

Ingredients: Aqua/Water/Eau, Bifida Ferment Lysate, Glycerin, Alcohol Denat., Dimethicone, Hydroxyethylpiperazine Ethane Sulfonic Acid, Sodium Hyaluronate, Phenoxyethanol, PEG-20 Methyl Glucose Sesquistearate, PEG-60 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Salicyloyl Phytosphingosine, Amonium Polyacryldimethyltauramide/Amonium Polyacryloyldimethyl Taurate, Limonene, Xathan Gum, Caprylyl Glycol, Disodium EDTA, Octyldodcanol, Citric Acid, Citronellol, Parfum/Fragrance.