logo

Help SUPPORT Miss J's Forum by shopping through: Miss J's AMAZON PORTAL

Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login.
Registrations are CLOSED. Please see this topic for more information.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Offline MissJ  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, November 13, 2019 1:25:16 PM(UTC)
Rank: Administration

Joined: 5/14/2008(UTC)
Posts: 26,649
THAT'S exactly what the device manufactures WANT you to think. The don't want you to think in terms of a tightening effect would be a matter of contractile forces that shrink in all directions. That IMO explains why people think the devices THICKEN skin in one selective direction in a device that effects shrinkage in all directions which is what kicks up it's tightening effect.

I think a cross section of tissues/skin sample, if looked at under microscope, would not only reveal a layer of subcutaneous fat but also the matrix where there's a lot of stuff in there like collagen, elastin, glycoaminoglycans, some fat and so on. A matrix with a LOT of 'stuff' networked together. A matrix of older skin sample would differ from a younger one. We could say a younger matrix is plumper or 'juicier' and an older one is thinner or dried up.

Collagen is just one thing in a matrix with a LOT of inter-networked other things in it. 'Building new collagen' could mean destroying old collagen that's replaced with 'new collagen' where this new building arrangement is one of CONTRACTILE FORCES. Overall contractile forces are a SHRINKAGE effect and hence a TIGHTENING effect.

The device manufactures want people to think in terms of this tightening effect as a very positive thing. But don't want you thinking in terms of ; tightening = contractile forces = SHRINKAGE and shrinkage is in ALL DIRECTIONS where one of the directions would be in the THICKNESS direction.

A cross section of anything is going to have 3 dimensions: Length, width and thickness.



Originally Posted by: Greg Go to Quoted Post
Any thoughts on why fractional CO2 would make thin areas of skin worse? I had been thinking that laser treatments that stimulate collagen might somewhat thicken skin in areas where it's thin, like the neck; maybe that doesn't pan out.

It seems like neck skin, or a tissue layer beneath it, becomes more transparent with age such that the muscles/tendons beneath show through more--frustrating.


Miss J. Seeing eye companion to the aesthetically blind since 1998.


If reading these posts has been helpful to you, consider helping out the board by purchasing via my AMAZON PORTAL seen at the top of each page.

Sales DIRECTLY from here help defray costs of this board. (Works for US residents only.)
Offline Greg  
#17 Posted : Friday, November 15, 2019 9:09:46 AM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 9/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 328
Man
United Kingdom
Excellent thoughts above about thinking of skin in terms of a cross sectional mix. Nature's delicate, intricate mix of skin components will be difficult for lasers to approximate.

I've embarked on the laser approach for my neck and hope it will succeed as well as it did for my face.

Offline Anya77  
#18 Posted : Friday, November 15, 2019 11:27:49 PM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/19/2008(UTC)
Posts: 693
Location: West Coast
Miss J that’s so dead on; like don’t health books/ text books always show a cross section of the skins layers and it really is a matrix of components.
Offline Anya77  
#19 Posted : Friday, November 15, 2019 11:28:29 PM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 10/19/2008(UTC)
Posts: 693
Location: West Coast
Originally Posted by: Greg Go to Quoted Post
Excellent thoughts above about thinking of skin in terms of a cross sectional mix. Nature's delicate, intricate mix of skin components will be difficult for lasers to approximate.

I've embarked on the laser approach for my neck and hope it will succeed as well as it did for my face.



Keep us in the loop; sounds promising!
Offline Beholder  
#20 Posted : Friday, November 15, 2019 11:53:15 PM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 6/2/2014(UTC)
Posts: 152
What I find interesting about that photo is how low the tail of her eyebrow is. You always hear about brow lifts and how the tail should be at the same level as the start of the brow. This makes her look slightly sad maybe but still very pretty. Thoughts?
Offline Greg  
#21 Posted : Saturday, November 16, 2019 6:15:24 AM(UTC)
Rank: Member

Joined: 9/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 328
Man
United Kingdom
Originally Posted by: Beholder Go to Quoted Post
What I find interesting about that photo is how low the tail of her eyebrow is. You always hear about brow lifts and how the tail should be at the same level as the start of the brow. This makes her look slightly sad maybe but still very pretty. Thoughts?


I think some plastic surgeons would unfortunately be inclined (especially in the early 2000s) to recommend a subtle lift to the tail of her brow. But IMO, I think her brow shape is fine as-is, it has a certain 'sweetness'. If anything, her brow could be better helped by some upper eye filler to support her brow from underneath--it's sliding down a little from age-related upper-eye soft tissue loss. Better to push the brow upward then to pull it upward.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
Previous Topic Next Topic
2 Pages<12
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.