The only skin care that works? science video response (2020) | Hacker News Reader

The only skin care that works? science video response (2020)

labmuffin.com

220 pointsolalonde113 comments

The most proven anti-aging for skin, that I'm aware of, is prevention of UV rays damaging the skin.

Sunscreens are amazing "anti-aging" formulas.

Interesting fact: sunscreens are not proven to prevent melanoma; only basal cell carcinoma and other skin cancers. Beware I said "proven". They may, but evidence is not there yet, as of last time I checked.

Especially sunscreen on overcast days. UVA doesn't cause tanning or sunburn, but it does pass through clouds and damages the skin.

+1. Some of the worse burns I had were during overcast days.

I hear this a lot but do not remember a single sunburn on an overcast day despite having very light skin. Is this a southern latitude thing?

As I understand it (and this seems too pat) UV-B "burns" and UV-A does the cancerous damage. I believe it's to do with depth of penetration.

So you can get skin damage without burn.

Latitude makes a huge difference. The UV index is 13 in Mexico City today vs 5 in London. Depending on your skin type, you would burn in 10 minutes in Mexico City vs 30-45 minutes in London.

This is because sunlight hits the Earth at more of an angle the farther north and south you get, so it passes through the atmosphere for a longer time and more UV gets absorbed before hitting you. This is the same reason you don't burn as much in the early morning and late afternoon.

I’ve never had a sunburn from a cloudy day in Australia.

Mexico City is near the equator (1,342.38 mi). London (3,558.31 mi) and Australia (Sydney: 2,339.14 mi) aren't? Though Darwin is closer (860.93 mi) to the equator than Mexico City. So I guess you could be right but if you're like most people and live in NSW or Perth, you probably live a lot further away.

The altitude of Mexico City would also have an effect, compared to a location like Singapore at sea-level.

Time-of-day would have far more bearing than latitude, since most human population is within ±45.

I was of the mindset that elevation was more of a factor in UV index than latitude, but I just learned differently. Thank you.

I found a nice discussion of the calculation: https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/calculating-uv-index-0 It hand waves a bit on how latitude is factored in but states clearly that every km of elevation increases exposure by about 6%.

Mexico City: 2,240 m London: 25 m

So 12% more UV for Mexico City based on elevation. The elevation is important but not the primary factor.

Anecdotally, I have been in Mexico City. I did most of my walking in the mornings and still would sunburn on an sixty minute walk. I did not use any protection.

Clouds do tend to diminish UV, but not significantly so as to make you UV-invulnerable.

In the UV tracking app I use, the largest cloud-effects I’ve seen are in the range of 1-3 points decrease. So, UV index of 5-7 instead of 8.

Depending on the baseline UV level during exposure, that difference could be significant (5 index down to 2) or not that significant (14 down to 11), in terms of expected minutes until sunburn.

agreed. I live in Canada and can't recall ever getting a burn on an overcast day.

The max UV index in Toronto tomorrow is a 6. On a sufficiently overcast day, that may become a 3, maybe even lower. That would have a very significant effect on odds of sunburn.

Equally overcast on a high UV day in Bangkok on the other hand...

I'm black, and thought I couldn't burn.

Then I visited Panama.

You learn something new everyday, whether you want to or not. :P

I got sunburned on an overcast day in Ireland, of all places.

Walking around a whole day outside without anything covering my head turned out to be a bad idea.

I've had a few living at 49degrees north and it happens in spring with temperatures around 20. You feel comfortable, light cloud cover makes the sun unnoticeable and you're playing tennis for four hours around noon. Right around dinner time you notice that you've got a pretty solid burn that just crept up on you.

How do you balance wearing sunscreen with getting the necessary vitamin d exposure from the sun?

Everyone is vitamin deficient in one way or another. We all should supplement anyway, so just supplement vitamin D.

Supplementing vitamin D is unlikely to hurt in most cases (if you're taking a useful form like D3 and if you're not acutely deficient in vitamin A and K2), but it both isn't that effective on its own—oral supplementation tends to take a long time to fix deficiency and may work particularly poorly for people with absorption issues—and doesn't provide the full benefits of sun exposure (nitric oxide being a big one, but there are other immune, blood pressure, and inflammation benefits, as well as stuff related to how vitamin D is produced through sun exposure to the skin).

For me, better mental, cardiovascular, immune, and bone health is more important than apparent skin aging and a marginally increased risk of skin cancer, but everybody has to make their own trade-off decisions. A moderate amount of sun exposure is beneficial to most people. Avoid burning—especially severe burns with kids, which seem to be a big factor in eventual skin cancer risk—by controlling length of exposure and by wearing clothes to cover your skin if you can't control length of exposure.

I put sunscreen on my face and neck let my arms and legs soak up vitamin D.

Our skin needs a moderate exposure to the sun, like 3-4 times a week for 15 minutes in summertime.

If it were that simple…

Parameters that affect exposure time to produce a certain amount of vitamin D:

* Date, time

* Location

* Skin type

* Body exposure

* Clouds

* Ozone

* Elevation

* Surface

Here is a calculator from the Norwegian Institute for Air Research:

https://fastrt.nilu.no/VitD_quartMEDandMED_v2.html

https://fastrt.nilu.no/README_VitD_quartMEDandMED_v2.html

In addition, vitamin D requirements and synthesis might vary between people and health status.

Thank you for sharing the calculator. I see there are many external parameters to consider, and variety between people and health status adds to the compexity.

I think it renders the approach to calculate sun expose time unreliable and, probably, useless for most people. Are there other ways? Can I reliably measure my current and required levels of vitamin D, ideally without going to the doctor every week? Or could I just rely on common sense - make sure I spend time outside, but avoid exposing my skin for longer than 30 mins on sunny summer days?

I don’t know of any way that is more reliable or less risky. There are more accessible ways (e.g. maximize time outside without burning), but I wouldn’t think of them as reliable, safe or time-efficient.

Determining vitamin D levels will vary by country. You’d have to research how it works.

I’m not aware that healthy people can get too much vitamin D from the sun. In combination with the many beneficial effects of natural light (see melatonin, circadian rhythm, mood, etc.), maximizing time outside without burning seems like the best strategy to me. I just find it easier to avoid getting sunburn with the above calculator. Day-by-day variations are small enough that you might be able to make educated guesses most of the time and not check every time you go outside.

If this collides with one’s life (e.g. work-hours), supplements could be considered, but those come without the other effects of natural light.

To check the current UV index and ozone column:

https://www.temis.nl/uvradiation/nrt/uvindex.php

Speaking of UV-A, I’m not a conspiracy theorist on this, but it reminded me that a common retort I’ve read given to “RF, routers, etc cause cancer” theories is that those are non-ionizing radiation and therefore are safe.

Yet, UV-A is non-ionizing and definitely does cause cancer. Just a random brain connection that was made.

UV-A mainly causes cancer by denaturing proteins such as collagen and vitamin A, which indirectly can cause cancer. That's still heavily dependent on the energy of the photon, so real low frequency radiation like that used in telecoms can't use similar mechanisms.

UV-A is generally non-ionizing, but that doesn’t mean it can’t cause electronic transitions that lead to chemical reactions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_electronic_transitio...

UV-A can create Thymine diners in your DNA, for example. No ionization required. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrimidine_dimer

Why do people feel the need to deny being “conspiracy theorists?” Many conspiracy theories have been proven true: they were spying on all of your phone calls, they did know that cigarettes cause cancer, etc.

Would it be so surprising to find out that consumer RF was giving us cancer but the tech industry was making too much money off it to tell us?

Because one of those successful conspiracies was to brand the natural word “conspiracy” to imply craziness.

To me “a conspiracy theorist” is a person with a specific mindset: they dedicate their time to learning about and sharing conspiracy theories - usually they believe in several ones - with an unconscious intention not to find real answers, but to prove their beliefs.

Cautiously suggesting that some unproved assumption may be true and needs more research or using scientific methods to validate it does not make a person “conspiracy theorist” or “freak”, though ,unfortunately, they are often labelled as such in our society.

>Sunscreens are amazing "anti-aging" formulas.

Cosmetically as well, or only for skin cancer related stuff?

I'm in my mid/late 50s, and had grandparents from Ireland, that is, I'm light skinned. As a kid my brothers and I would compete who could peel off the longest continuous strip of skin a day or two after going to the beach.

Anyway, the skin on my exposed arms looks like "old man" skin -- lots of blotches, and more importantly not elastic. However, the skin that lives under my short sleeves is not only unblemished, it is as elastic as when I was a teenager.

In short: yes, it will help against cosmetic damage as well as skin cancer.

Bonus: the youtube channel veritasium did a video a few years ago where they use a UV filter on a camera to show (a) the effectiveness of sunscreen and (b) the damage which is visible in the UV years before it shows up in visible light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9K6gjR07Po

Sun exposure ages your skin, it's not just about skin cancer.

Here's a famous example: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage...

Trust me on the sunscreen.

> One group of ingredient that ASAP Science does recommend, alongside antioxidants and retinol, are palmitoyl polypeptides – if you use all three then you’re checking all the boxes for science-backed anti-aging skincare.

That paragraph sums it up but according to the article not all retinoids are the same. Read on for more scientific information on what's out there for your specific skin care needs.

I wish they made some recommendations and application schedule. That statement alone makes is very hard to figure out which products are legit and which are not.

The average reader (me) just wants to buy 3 products, use them nightly, and move on, without doing hours of research.

From what I remember from Labmuffin's past articles, she doesn't give a specific nightcare routine because it varies based on the individual, so some trial and error is required.

Maybe that's a bit of a cop out, but if there were a perfect combination then there wouldn't need to be so many different products (marketing aside, even the same formulations of active ingredients are available as washes, creams, lotions, serums, peels, etc).

I recommend The Ordinary skincare company [1] which makes everything on the list. For example, this what I use for retinol [2] and the polypeptides [3]. Just read and follow their directions carefully because they sell some concentrated stuff that can do some harm in inexperienced hands (you don't need those products so just read the product page carefully to avoid them).

Source: family member is a biophysicist and looks a good 10/20 years younger so I just follow their lead. As an engineer the no nonsense product lineup appeals to me (no affiliation).

[1] https://theordinary.deciem.com/us/theordinary_regimenguide.h...

[2] https://theordinary.deciem.com/us/rdn-granactive-retinoid-2p...

[3] https://theordinary.deciem.com/us/rdn-buffet-30ml.html

There are other non-ingredient things that matter: limiting sun exposure, cleaning the oil/dirt, and using something to maintain hydration (glycerin, aqueous cream, ... petroleum jelly in extreme cases).

I need something to reasonably explain to my wife that all these things don't work, the brand indoctrination is profound and the credit card bills hefty. Any good study on all the things that don't work?

I second this.

I think if you're coming at it from an angle where you're going to sit your wife down on the couch, show her some studies, and then wait for the "thank you for clarifying my thinking!" to roll in, you're doomed to fail / upset your SO.

I think the personality types you generally find in tech, which are so focused on what we can produce / output, don't understand that consumption is a perfectly valid hobby or interest for people to have.

I'd wager very few people actually buy the miracle claims on the products. I think they instead just find it fun. I gave my SO a lot of crap before realizing that some people just find stewardship of an object enjoyable. There's a whole subculture related to it. The ownership, displaying, and usage _is_ the hobby.

I doubt the majority of people using expensive skin care creams are actually doing it just for fun and not for any actual benefit.

It's more common to hear people say, "it probably isn't doing much, but you never know." This is similar to people buying lottery tickets, "I doubt I'll win, but you never know."

"I just enjoy it, ok?" is probably what someone would say to get rid of a pestering husband. :)

An alternative is that bringing up this type of topic ends up sounding like some form of:

"Hey, you know all that stuff that stresses you out everyday? Well, regarding one of the less important ones, you are doing it totally wrong and I want you to correct yourself."

Even you are technically right, there is very little upside to bringing it up, especially out of nowhere. Assuming, of course, they aren't doing anything wildly dangerous.

Additionally, most products contain water and glycerin which has evidence regarding skin hydration.

So most product will produce a small effect.

On top of that they smell good (rich), which is probably also an important part of the experience.

> consumption is a perfectly valid hobby

No it is not.

I agree with you but perhaps explain why. Taking pleasure in things we use seems healthy, but fast fashion etc and general consumer culture in the west seem psychologically suboptimal and are environmentally disastrous.

This comment is a wonderful template to consider. In my personal context, this would be about leaving a certain very-American religion and being the more-or-less first to take plunge: you really wanna share your "greater truth" and help those close to you unburden themselves by letting go of something so obviously false.

You really can't "red pill" people, and the closer they are to you the lower the chances of success.

You can, however, ask (non leading) questions and listen. If you can't start by being curious, don't expect them to make that leap first... and thats really where you have to start before you can change your mind.

More than a hobby, it's like a gender roleplaying ritual for identity construction. ( And class I guess if it's expensive. Same reason me think golf is fun)

More like, people want the illusion that they can make themselves more attractive. If you say the truth, "Well dear, your skin's current appearance is a combination of genetics and avoiding the sun," then you've basically said, "You can't undo the past, therefore all hope is lost. Also, you're stupid for thinking this cream can help you."

consumption is a perfectly valid hobby or interest for people to have.

Not if there are negative externalities associated with this hobby (i.e. fast fashion) which leads to ecological collapse and depletion of resources.

fully agree on this

its a completely emotional topic too, logic flew out the window already

theres a reason why marketers make huge bucks on cosmetics and diet pills.

Because the science is so hard to do, the products are basically entertainment. If you think of it that way it's hard for me to get too upset -- when it's affordable.

Some products are flat out dangerous though, and regulation is scant.

When my MIL was dying of cancer eventually then sent her home and "prescribed" various homeopathic concoctions (German insurance covered all this). At first I was appalled but eventually realized that as there was nothing left to do for her, the homeopathic bottles of water were a form of palliative care: giving her a sense of agency. I came to realize that it was a kindness.

Wearing makeup is often less critical, but given how important appearance is in culture, literature, and stereotyping, providing a sense of agency can be of enormous psychological value.

Check out Examine, they also cover skin care topics.

https://examine.com/topics/wrinkles/

https://examine.com/topics/skin-quality/

https://examine.com/topics/skin-elasticity/

... among others.

Unfortunately there's not a lot of great science out there, which is crazy given that the cosmetics industry is nearing $0.5T annually.

I guess... Because the results would be devastating...

I guess it depends on what type of skincare they are doing. My ex (Korean), had a 7 or 8 step routine each night. This is fairly normal for young women in Korea.

She explained it to me as such: it wasn't so much an anti-aging regime, as a protection from the elements regime -- in particular pollution, as South Korea has some trouble with seasonal fine dust. I suppose it makes sense. And for what its worth, her skin did have a healthy, shiny, glow after applying all the layers -- which is also part of the appeal.

I've only seen one person venture into this battlefield, and it was a comedian doing a bit.

The guy is a very funny Aussie. It's Jim Jeffries. His bit went my girl comes to bed with oily skin from those pricy creams.

I tell her look at my face. Not a wrinkle, and I just use soap.

Anyway, when I saw a dermatologist in high school, for years it seemed? He would only recommend glycerin soap, and Certaphil if you have very dry skin. Benzoyl peroxide, erythromycin roll on lotion, and I was on erythromycin pills for bad acne. Think most pores blocked up. He detested dermatologists who sold out, and developed their own phony beauty creams.

This was when some doctors had integrity--80's? And it was starting to change.

My experience with dermatologists has been the opposite. Over the last 2 decades, the dermatologists I've seen mostly just recommended pretty basic stuff like gentler unscented soaps, moisturizers in general, or Vaseline/Aquaphor. That's not including actual prescription drugs of course.

Look at it this way: if it really had the long lasting effects that the ads wants you to believe it has, then it would be a medicine and wouldn’t be sold OTC.

Because it barely does anything at all and certainly won’t change your skin overtime, it doesn’t need FDA approval, isn’t prescription only, and isn’t a medicine.

It’s all marketing that makes you think it’s medical, but they never say it. They just advertise it with white lab coats, sciency sounding weasel words, mathematical looking curves and graphs… but it’s just overpriced and over marketed cream. Your brain is tricked into connecting the dots and concluding it’s medicine but they’ll never say it outright because they can’t because it’s not.

> Look at it this way: if it really had the long lasting effects that the ads wants you to believe it has, then it would be a medicine and wouldn’t be sold OTC.

I think this is a little simplistic. The FDA isn't inherently interested in anything effective being deemed a drug, even when it comes to oral supplementation.

Plenty of non-medicine, non-FDA-regulated substances that work like medicines in some situations and do have real, repeatable effects are sold OTC.

Plenty of actual medicines that are FDA-regulated are sold OTC.

There are plenty of effective skin care products with active FDA approved ingredients that are also OTC. Salicylic acid and benzoyl peroxide are two of them.

If it's not causing harm, I'd just leave it. They probably like using the products and studies aren't going to change that.

Speaking as a wife who never understood the attraction of expensive beauty products but has friends who love some irrational things, you might want to let that one go, unless your spare time is dedicated to home improvement, caring for the less fortunate, and/or managing your investments, because you don’t own hardware suitable for gaming, a motorcycle or a high-performance car.

And even then, you probably still want to let that one go. You likely also spend/waste money and time in ways that your wife finds less than rational. We are socialized to nag you a bit about it, but ultimately, not to take action against our men’s “harmless” wastes of money and time.

Separate checking accounts are underrated. My grandfather kept one paycheck a month, out of which he paid the mortgage, and gave the other to my grandmother, who paid all the other household expenses. What happened to the rest in each of their accounts was pretty much their own business.

* if her brand loyalty is to something sold by an MLM, then you do have cause for intervention - “I can get a fantastic discount by becoming a seller!” is the trap that catches a lot of women.

Open Beauty Facts : https://world.openbeautyfacts.org/

This database of products is a sister project of Open Food Facts : https://world.openfoodfacts.org/

Many apps are based on these two DB.

I searched for a ton of products I use on this site and found no results–I find EWG[0] to have a much better dataset.

[0]: https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/

EWG is a source of misinformation: https://www.theecowell.com/blog/a-case-against-the-ewg

This article cherry-picks a few items and discussed how EWG interprets the ingredient safety. It does not follow that all of EWG is misinformation; dismissing the useful database of ingredients, animal testing statuses, and other data is itself misinformation.

There's plenty more criticism out there:

https://www.acsh.org/news/2017/05/25/dear-ewg-why-real-scien... https://chemistscorner.com/3-reasons-the-ewg-is-dubious-reso...

Again, disagreeing with their risk assessment is one thing, but pretending the database itself is misinformation is dishonest.

Thank you, I did not know EWG.

It looks like the US part of Open Beauty Facts is still lacking (618 products in the USA, whereas there are 16500 products in France). Here visitors add products infos and images which are then free for all to use (open licence). I guess in the long run it can make a difference. This project is quite young.

https://world.openbeautyfacts.org/who-we-are

https://world.openbeautyfacts.org/faq

The author does have a simple recommendation list https://labmuffin.com/basic-skincare-guide-product-recommend...

simple? that has like 25 products on it.

And the first dozen or so all belong in the same category - cleanser.

She just lists out different options for different sub-categories. Dry skin might prefer a different medium than oily skin.

Overall there were 3 categories in that list - cleanser, moisturizer, and sunscreen. Pick one from each of the category that suits you.

I'm at the age where I should start taking better care of my skin, but when it comes to reading up on the science and then translating that into deciding on products to buy, my eyes just glaze over. Did anyone put together a simple list of scientifically supported products that I can smear on my face?

Good diet and keeping hydrated are probably more important

Science supports that the sun really damages your skin, so you should absolutely use a sunscreen or SPF 30 moisturizer every morning.

Digging deeper into types of ingredients that block sun, things get a bit more tricky. In general I’ve read dermatologists say “physical” sun screen ingredients are best, like zinc oxide, because they aren’t absorbed through your skin like a “chemical” ingredient. But they also leave your skin looking more white.

And beyond that, just wash your face in the morning and night with a face wash product, not bar soap. Something simple from Neutrogena (Liquid Neutrogena).

If you really are using sunscreen every day, you might want to have your vitamin d levels checked. Low vitamin d is associated with all sorts of adverse health outcomes.

I used to think it was a simple as using the sunscreens with metals in them to reflect the sun and the whiter you look, the more effective, but it looks pretty complicated when I did more research on how UVA and UVB are blocked.

https://www.healthline.com/health/beauty-skin-care/best-suns...

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phpp.12214

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3781714/

For one, it seems legislation to study the ingredients in the US was only passed Nov 2019. Even the size of the titanium and zinc particles affects the effectiveness.

The Mayo Clinic link is probably the best summary, to just use something and avoid peak sun hours. But it seems the non metal sunscreen ingredients are also important to project via absorption.

I haven't found anything other than anecdotal accounts but I would love to see a study/more detailed article about Mother Dirt products[0] - I found them super interesting because of the different approach.

[0]: https://motherdirt.com/

It is unfortunate that the most clinically backed skincare treatment, retinols, cause so many problems for rosacea sufferers. Not to mention, the 1-month of breakouts people experience when they begin using them.

From what I've research the best way to improve your skin quality is from the cells out; surface creams are just treating the top most layer of your skin and feel nice but don't generally do all that much.

If you want to improve your skin from the cells out you can take something like this, which is what I take(Collagen Powder Protein): https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01LXADO9Z/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...

Here is a doctor I follow that did a thorough breakdown of the research available about a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iydUMEoO-6w

Does the wearing of sunscreen inhibit the creation/uptake of vitamin D?

The sun isn't actually a good source for vitamin D: even hawaiian surfers and people with tropical outdoor jobs can develop a deficiency:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17426097/

I suspect that at least part of the reason that it's not as effective as expected is that the current US RDA is over an order of magnitude too low, due ancient arithmetic error we discovered in 2014:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25333201/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5541280/

9k is what the science suggests, if you correct for this error, though, given that vitamin D absorption is highly variable, it's best to have your levels tested repeatedly until you know how much you need to take. (I am currently taking 15k daily, and only recently got my levels to stop bouncing around the bottom end of normal.)

IMHO, this huge discrepancy between our previous understanding and the actually needed amount is also likely why so much vitamin D science is often conflicted: the differences between supplementing 2k iu (a number I've seen a bunch of times in the literature) and not supplementing aren't all that great if you needed 9k to begin with.

I should also mention that concerns about vitamin d overdose are also misguided: while serious, it takes heroic doses on a daily basis - for years:

The evidence is clear that vitamin D toxicity is one of the rarest medical conditions and is typically due to intentional or inadvertent intake of extremely high doses of vitamin D (usually in the range of 50,000-100,000 IU/d for months to years)

https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(15)...

Addtionaly, one may want to be conscious of one's magnesium intake as well: it is consumed during vitamin d metabolism, and our widespread misunderstanding of vitamin D requirements means that research into appropriate magnesium intake concurrent to increased (ie appropriate) vitamin D has not been done.

Lanolin plus retinol was what one youthful looking expert in the field used. They looked decades younger than they were.

how one individual looks means literally nothing. do they have research / guarantees on large samples for the individual products / delivery methods, etc, is what matters.

Like others have said, I would like to know products OP actually does recommend, as they seem to have proper reasoning

As a pharmacist, I know this well. However, seeing what an expert who has seen that evidence uses—including the unpublished studies of one unnamed large skin care pharma company—carries some weight, at least for me. Alpha-hydroxy acids and retinol have the best evidence overall.

I still don't know how to balance avoiding sun damage, vs vitamin D deficiency (more sun). LMAO.

Let the sun hit your chest, upper legs, butt, etc. Places that have suffered less skin damage over the years. And that you wouldn't mind getting a bit of sun damage since they are always covered in clothing.

It's a pity wide-brim hats went out of fashion in most places.

So are there OTC retinol products that work better than others?

I just recently adapted a skincare routine but I've been happy with The Ordinary. Retinols can be very irritating so the general recommendation I've heard is to start at a smaller % and use maybe once a week to start, working your way up in frequency then concentration.

This isn't a particularly scientific review, but Amber A'Lee Frost wrote an amusing bit about the retinoid A313 Pommade. "skincare is what the French have instead of a space program." I picked up a tube, it seems pretty great.

https://theoutline.com/post/8395/french-skincare-is-the-futu...

After a decade of struggle with skin conditions, what works for me:

- Eliminate all foods that contain added sugar, including milk (lactose)

- Have cold/lukewarm showers, every 2nd day

- Use a rough washcloth and Nivea Sensitive Men's facewash

- Occasionally use anti-dandruff Ketaconazole shampoo, but otherwise a 'natural' shampoo and conditioner without Sodium Lauryl Sulfate

- Wash face each night before bed with warm water. Use the washcloth once, then wash in 95c water

- Change bedsheets every 5 days, wash pillows and quilts every ~2 months (all on hot)

- Moisturise face after shower with beard oil. Water-based moisturisers don't last.

- Minimise ejaculation instances, to conserve zinc and other minerals

Thank you for this. A well thought out response.

You had me until the last one ;)

Does anyone have science on specifically sugar? I find that correlation too (only with lots of cheap candy/bad greasy food), but feels kind of Goop-like bs. what is the mechanism for that to affect bacteria on the face?

I believe that the authority in sugar is DR. Robert Lustig. He has a great book called Fat Chance, there he explains in details how sugar is a toxin and correlates with a plethora of diseases. Great read from a true hero that saved many obese kids during his practice.

Sugar is more than that, it's also an addictive drug. Try quitting sugar and see how far you get.

I present to you honey. Honey never goes bad, it has anti-fungal and anti-bacterial properties and for this reason is why it also helps with wound healing.

and i've read allergies too! I buy like a couple pounds of these every few months it's so good: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B006MWDFUC/

I like raw honey, but I don't think it does much for allergies. However, I can tell you that bee pollen does do something. If you try pollen you have to start very early in the season (like Feb-Mar early) with 1 grain and then increasing the count from there.

Whether honey or bee pollen, if being used for allergies, you should be using product from your local area, not imported from far away and especially not another country with completely different flora.

Anecdotal, but switching the honey I used in my morning oatmeal to a locally-farmed raw variety really did seem to help quite a bit with my seasonal allergies.

A qualifier on that statement is that the seasonal allergies started when I moved 1000 miles to a very different part of the country. It may just have been acclimation, but I don't plan on switching back to the other types of honey to test if the symptoms return.

It's not entirely gone, some years are nothing and some are light. Nothing is ever are terrible as the first few years were, though.

With so many solutions, how could you be sure each one has an important role?

Basically all these things keep the oil off your face, your skin healthy, and your pores closed.

Fucking brilliant.

Ketoconazole blocks hormone steroid synthesis and reduces testosterone levels.

When used externally?

"Ketoconazole is not absorbed systemically after topical administration..." [1]

It does not mean that it's not absorbed.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3280211/

Not sure about the ejaculation point. Especially with zinc, the amounts released from ejaculation are far less than the rda and the same is also true with the other trace minerals present in semen. Even if we account for multiple ejaculations per day, diet contributes much more to any possible mineral imbalances than ejaculation could. You really can't out ejaculate even just a single day worth of zinc rda food intake. At ~3% of the rda per ejaculation that's ~33 ejaculations.

It's about the overall system. If the man has a full sack, his body won't be utilizing its top-notch resources to replenish itself, making sure it is always at-the-ready. Once restocked, the resources devoted to that unique assembly line can be applied to repair and enhance operations.

Having to arm that legion of competitive swimmers is an energetic undertaking of no small measure and no small importance -- quite the opposite, actually. That is why fasting and exercise are effective ways to tamp down one's sexual impulses. Well, avoiding stimulation (visual and otherwise) can also help tame our more primal energies.

[[[ Also, the GP failed to mention exercising and avoiding the consumption of refined oils as other ways to keep the skin less clogged and infected. ]]]

Regardless, semen retention is a way for a man to keep his body burning less quickly through our molecular environment, both internally and externally. The old Taoist texts (IIRC) teach 60 or 80 drops of blood are required to produce a drop of semen, and some significant amount of food to create a drop of blood. Stem the loss and the pipeline backs up, in a good way, so long as the man doesn't become an unbearable ahole, but that's related to self-control via self-evolution of the ego combined with the amount of stimulation they must/choose-to endure.

From what I can tell there's no evidence that the testicles produce any faster when emptied compared to full. Is that a thing?

I found that switching to simply using water for bathing most of my body did wonders. Skin feels clean, rarely if ever is it dry or oily. Took a couple weeks to adjust. everyone is different though, YMMV.

Retinol!

available at dollar tree for one dollar!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com