5 replies to this topic

[ironfistx]

So there have been a few posts here wondering about this and talking about this.

 

Most of the sites online seem to be offering it, selling it, or promoting it.

 

I found these papers, which LOOK legit, and basically say no way, don't do it.

 

If you read this one, it has a CREEPY looking magnified pic of your skin after rolling:

 

https://www.oumere.com/blogs/news/how-dermarolling-causes-collagen-breakdown-premature-aging-and-possibly-cancer

 

https://thenakedchemist.com/microneedling-beware-it-can-seriously-mess-with-your-skin/

 

Putting derma rolling here, too, for search.

 

 

[Mind]

It would be interesting to hear from someone here in the community that tried the derma-rolling. I am sure a few have. Did it help? Did your skin get worse over time?

 

The authors of those articles you linked, posit several mechanisms by which micro-needling could cause long term harm, arguments which are rational and persuasive, however, they do not share any RCT studies regarding the issue, probably because there are none.

[ironfistx]

I have derma stamped.  I made a thread.

 

https://www.longecit...amp-experiment/

 

At the end of the thread I made pictures explaining the reason I think only single needle piercings will work, and dermastamp and derma rolling will result in deeper wrinkles.

[illerrre]

I've done dermarolling 56 times over the course of 3 years, which is probably a bit too often on average. I started with it because I saw some study of it effectiveness that seemed legit and then a heap of other, less reliable sites also promote it.

 

I have no idea what effect it has had on my skin. I can't really tell if wrinkles have become worse or better. I do collagen supplements and retinol as well which makes it even harder to tell.

 

The only thing I know is that I had a small scar or discoloring on my forehead which eventually went away, which I believe is due to dermarolling. I couldn't care less about that scar though but I am only concerned about wrinkles.

 

I haven't done dermarolling for a while since I also came across the link posted by OP, which kind of freaked me out. 

 

If anyone can shed some light whether micro needling is a good or bad routine, I'd appreciate it. 

[ironfistx]

I've done dermarolling 56 times over the course of 3 years, which is probably a bit too often on average. I started with it because I saw some study of it effectiveness that seemed legit and then a heap of other, less reliable sites also promote it.

 

I have no idea what effect it has had on my skin. I can't really tell if wrinkles have become worse or better. I do collagen supplements and retinol as well which makes it even harder to tell.

 

The only thing I know is that I had a small scar or discoloring on my forehead which eventually went away, which I believe is due to dermarolling. I couldn't care less about that scar though but I am only concerned about wrinkles.

 

I haven't done dermarolling for a while since I also came across the link posted by OP, which kind of freaked me out. 

 

If anyone can shed some light whether micro needling is a good or bad routine, I'd appreciate it. 

I recently found a post on reddit discrediting this article (or another article close to it).  I'll see if I can find it and post it.

 

I don't know if it's right, but it was mostly saying everything that was wrong with the post.

Here is the comment:

 

https://www.reddit.c...utm_name=iossmf

[ironfistx]

Here is the post in case it gets removed:

 

It amazes me how this person has no idea what on earth they're talking about.

Mechanical damage is any damage done to collagen as a result of a physical stressor. Examples of physical stressors include the degradation of knee collagen as a result of long distance running, skin scraping that results in a wound, and the puncturing of skin from needles.

Degradation of KNEE COLLAGEN as a result of long distance running? Do they mean CARTILAGE? Oh but they can't say cartilage because they're trying to push this nonsense of mechanical damage damages collagen~

Do they not realize that skin scraping results in a wound that heals with scar tissue which is LITERALLY LARGELY COMPRISED OF COLLAGEN? Agh. My irritation with this person's bullshit is showing, but I don't care. I hate people like this who spread blatant misinformation.

Mechanical damage occurs when you puncture your skin with a needle. The needle tears down the collagen fibers, causing degradation.

Uh huh. It also increases collagen types I, III, and VII. There's tons of studies on it. I only linked one review. And microneedling is actually commonly called collagen induction therapy because... it induces collagen production.

The whole theory behind microneedling is that it causes small wounds, which, as we know with big wounds like skin scraping, induces collagen. This is also why chemical peels work, why lasers work, yada yada.

The reason why collagen synthesis will cease sooner in those who dermaroll is because you are going to desensitize the receptors responsible for the signaling of collagen synthesis.

I want to just stare at this person and say "source?"

It is also paramount to understand that any collagen made from dermarolling is a stress response by the body, and collagen made as a result of a stress response is not healthy.

Fear mongering claim, never says WHY apparently collagen from microneedling is unhealthy. Not surprised of course.

The other reason why collagen synthesis will cease prematurely is because dermarolling causes damage to the extracellular matrix in the form of scarring. Scarring occurs because dermarolling destroys the scaffolding in which collagen adheres, which means that even if collagen is being made, it will not be able to maintain its place in the extracellular matrix, and instead of being held in the skin, will be metabolized and destroyed by the body.

Bullllllshit. Scarring is literally what the collagen is. Anyone who actually reads scientific research will roll their eyes at this person using buzzwords like "scaffolding" incorrectly. Scarring (which is collagen) is the scaffolding. And scaffolding is just a synonym for the extracellular matrix. There is nothing which our collagen, elastin, fibronectin, hyaluronic acid has to "sit on" or whatever. Collagen metabolized and destroyed by the body? LOL. Like how our bodies do every single day because we naturally make the enzyme collagenase (such as matrix mellaproteinase 1) which breaks down collagen? Microneedling doesn't cause increased collagenase expression whatsoever! UGH. I hate people who pretend they know their shit and they don't. They throw around words to scare the uninformed people and this is why it irritates me so fucking much because people believe this crap.

When you kill a live skin cell, you accelerate the aging process because a live skin cell must be replaced by another live skin cell via cellular division. When you replace a live cell via cellular division, you cut a bit of the ends of the chromosome within the nucleus, called the telomere. After around 50 divisions, the telomere gets cut off completely and aging sets in. When you dermaroll, you accelerate the rate in which cellular division must occur, and therefore you accelerate the rate in which telomere depletion and, ipso facto, aging occurs at a faster rate.

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!

Okay, sorry. I'm just angry at this person going on and on about bullshit when I know it's bullshit.

This whole paragraph? Totally untrue.

Copy pasted from my writeup here:

I've spent the last few hours reading the research on this topic, which was largely going through the studies of interest cited in this review of Hayflick limit research.

Terms to understand:

Cumulative Population Doublings (CPD): Hayflick claimed that a cell could divide 250 times, which is "more than enough cells for several lifetimes."

Replicative senescence (RS): The point at which a cell can no longer divide and does not respond to growth factor stimulation to divide.

In vitro: Research done in a petri dish using cell cultures like fibroblasts.

In vivo: Research done on living human subjects.

Basic concepts for the reader to understand:

1. RS does not mean cell death. Cells do not die when they reach senescence. They merely stop dividing. They are still metabolically active.

2. Do not conflate in vitro findings with in vivo findings. We are living human beings. We are not cell cultures in a petri dish. Do not equate what in vitro research finds to what actually happens in our bodies.

So you have to understand that Hayflick limit research is done in vitro. You also have to understand that RS was observed after a period of months. So do you see the disconnect here? Clearly we know our skin cells divide for far longer than a period of months that the in vitro Hayflick limit research has found. This is to say to not take in vitro research so literally. This is why our gold standard with anti aging studies are in vivo, so we know what actually happens in living humans, which is what we are, because again, we're not cell culture petri dishes.

A main takeaway here is that RS is often reached by many other means other than cellular division. Cytotoxic factors such as alcohol and radiation cause stress-induced premature senescence (SIPS). And of note here is that Hayflick's research used cell cultures with 20% oxygen to come up with that 250 figure. Actual physiological conditions in the human body are ~3% oxygen, which in vitro research using this parameter has reported a limit of 270. This demonstrates oxidative stress induces RS.

When we have RS due to cellular division, we see telomere shortening. But our gold standard of in vivo research on human subjects has shown that "studies in centenarians have raised doubts on whether telomere shortening occurs in vivo and whether senescence-associated genes in vitro are also differentially expressed in vivo." So basically, we see RS occurring not because of cellular division limits but because of stress inducers, such as oxidative stress. And oxidative stress is the whole concept of why UVA rays are bad: UVA rays generate reactive oxygen species (i.e. free radicals) and cause a negative chain reaction of cellular and DNA damage, thus the signs of premature aging which we call photoaging or sun damage.

The fact is that we're finding environmental stressors to be the cause of RS, not cellular division rates. So as a layperson who is merely a skincare research hobbyist and who constantly seeks out the knowledge to curate an optimized anti aging routine for fun, I'll absolutely keep on using retinoids and chemical exfoliants which we know increases the rate of skin cell turnover. And I'll certainly keep using an SPF 50+ PA++++ sunscreen to prevent the deleterious effects of UVA damage and its key role in oxidative stress.

I'll end this writeup quoting the review: "while there is little evidence to suggest that cells running out of divisions are a major factor in aging, it is possible that stress and various insults trigger cell senescence in vivo."

End copy paste.

So TLDR, microneedling is awesome, well researched, well proven. This person is full of shit, they have no idea what they're talking about, and they use scientific terms in completely wrong ways to promote completely wrong ideas to fear monger people and it's disgusting. They don't know their shit, but I am very confident I know mine. I wish I could just sit with them face to face and show them all the studies and see their face as they try to do mental gymnastics.

I think their claim that a cell can only reproduce 50 times (instead of 250 which was what Hayflick originally claimed) is the crown jewel in showing their utter idiocy. How crazy if our cells could only divide 50 times in our lifetimes LOL. Stupid.

Edit: Ahaha, just saw their four references. Three about tumors, mind you. The fourth is this one! Which is just about connective tissue composition. NONE of this substantiates their fear mongering microneedling claims. What a bunch of horseshit that article is. Classic example of people misusing science to buttress absolutely unscientific claims. Genuinely makes me mad, but makes me also realize why putting in so much of my own time and effort to dispelling these myths is important. Because otherwise, people might actually buy into the nonsense they read.

 

 

 

My comments: If you read more on their comments they mention owndoc as being a source of information for derma stamping.  IIRC that site seemed pretty shady and was very pro-derma stamping, and sold them, and if you posted a comment on their forum about another brand you got banned.  Unaware how much of an authority they are.

 

He(?) also mentions RealSelf, a site that is probably somewhat truthful.

Edited by ironfistx, 22 March 2023 - 08:33 PM.