2475 replies to this topic

[Boopy!]

haha again with the poster child for desperate older models trying to look young,   Christie Brinkley.   Jeez people are deluded.....eh i will just say it like it is,   DUMB.

[mustardseed41]

haha again with the poster child for desperate older models trying to look young,   Christie Brinkley.   Jeez people are deluded.....eh i will just say it like it is,   DUMB.

 

You are the deluded one. Christie Brinkley, regardless of what work she has had done, and some damn fine work at that, looks better/younger than basically any woman on the planet for her age. I suggest a trip to your Opthamologist.

Edited by mustardseed41, 13 September 2014 - 09:29 PM.

[TheFountain]

We know that most of premature aging is caused by photoaging. If vegetarianism has an influence then most likely not because of the existence of meat in the diet but because of a decent amount of antioxidants through vegetables etc... But this influence is probably not as high as topically applying antioxidants and using sunscreen. Photoaging is adapting of the skin tor sun damage IMO like our muscles adapting to a workout, I don't think actually being young or having longer telomeres is related to these adaptions - though some time is needed so you can photoage.

Can you show me the studies related to these topically applied antioxidants? 

[mikey]

We know that most of premature aging is caused by photoaging. If vegetarianism has an influence then most likely not because of the existence of meat in the diet but because of a decent amount of antioxidants through vegetables etc... But this influence is probably not as high as topically applying antioxidants and using sunscreen. Photoaging is adapting of the skin tor sun damage IMO like our muscles adapting to a workout, I don't think actually being young or having longer telomeres is related to these adaptions - though some time is needed so you can photoage.

 

Every anti-aging professional that I know agrees that it's what you put in rather than what you put on that has the most effect. It's the garbage in, garbage out thing.

 

One can try to apply topical hair growth products endlessly and find that what you take/consume has a stronger effect. At least that's my experience and is agreed with by the professionals that focus on anti-aging techniques that I've known over the last 3 dozen+ years of studying anti-aging techniques.

 

I used Systeme 41, the most science-based anti-aging cream I've seen around my eyes for a year or so.

 

While it might be the best of its kind the effect of taking C60oo fullerene produced a much more potent reduction in wrinkles on my face than Systeme 41 or any topical.

 

So, we can bet that the Madonna's of the world are quite particular about what the consume, knowing that careful food/supplement/etc... intake is the most potent factor in anti-aging biochemistry.

 

I bumped my forehead and suffered quite a gash. Because of C60 it faded and pretty much disappeared rather quickly. This same reduction in skin scarring was noted by Turnbuckle, one of the most critical thinkers on this site.

[Heyman]

 

Can you show me the studies related to these topically applied antioxidants? 

 

 

http://lpi.oregonsta...minC/index.html there are the same kind of articles in "Skin health" for other vitamins etc... Pretty good summary of the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Every anti-aging professional that I know agrees that it's what you put in rather than what you put on that has the most effect. It's the garbage in, garbage out thing.

 

One can try to apply topical hair growth products endlessly and find that what you take/consume has a stronger effect. At least that's my experience and is agreed with by the professionals that focus on anti-aging techniques that I've known over the last 3 dozen+ years of studying anti-aging techniques.

 

I used Systeme 41, the most science-based anti-aging cream I've seen around my eyes for a year or so.

 

While it might be the best of its kind the effect of taking C60oo fullerene produced a much more potent reduction in wrinkles on my face than Systeme 41 or any topical.

 

So, we can bet that the Madonna's of the world are quite particular about what the consume, knowing that careful food/supplement/etc... intake is the most potent factor in anti-aging biochemistry.

 

I bumped my forehead and suffered quite a gash. Because of C60 it faded and pretty much disappeared rather quickly. This same reduction in skin scarring was noted by Turnbuckle, one of the most critical thinkers on this site.

 

 

What you say may be correct for the vast majority of your body, but it is not for your skin. Your skin is different in that it is exposed to environmental factors like radiation and so on, its basically what shields your body from the outside world. The best thing is to prevent adaptions to sun exposure from occuring in the first place, and the chain for what we perceive as skin aging starts mostly through UV radiation. How do we know that? Compare skin that is exposed to the sun (e.g. the arms) to skin that is not exposed (e.g. the buttocks) and notice that in e.g. 70-year old people the effect of aging is far lower than the effect of sun exposure. This has been researched. The unexposed skin of 70-year olds looks relatively similar to young people, the sun exposed skin looks very very different in comparison. This paper is a good start: http://libgen.org/sc...tas.2011.04.011

 

As it is about skin, topical application of actives makes sense. There is actual research done comparing oral and topical administration of vitamin c as an example, and topical application was way superior in increasing vitamin c content in the skin. This might not be true for every active, some are difficult to deliver into the skin, but oftentimes it is through the oral route as well. Opposed to research on general aging and vitamin c, topical vitamin c has convincing research showing its benefits when it comes to the skin. So what works for anti-aging (like increasing life span) can be very different when it comes to skin and visible aging. Topicals like retin-a work very well and have been researched since a long time. Nothing you take orally can protect your skin from e.g. UVB as well as a good sunscreen or staying out of the sun.

 

Edit: I would be very interested in some research on C60 and skin aging, do you have any?

Edited by Heyman, 14 September 2014 - 12:01 PM.

[mustardseed41]

 

Every anti-aging professional that I know agrees that it's what you put in rather than what you put on that has the most effect. It's the garbage in, garbage out thing.

 

One can try to apply topical hair growth products endlessly and find that what you take/consume has a stronger effect. At least that's my experience and is agreed with by the professionals that focus on anti-aging techniques that I've known over the last 3 dozen+ years of studying anti-aging techniques.

 

I used Systeme 41, the most science-based anti-aging cream I've seen around my eyes for a year or so.

 

While it might be the best of its kind the effect of taking C60oo fullerene produced a much more potent reduction in wrinkles on my face than Systeme 41 or any topical.

 

So, we can bet that the Madonna's of the world are quite particular about what the consume, knowing that careful food/supplement/etc... intake is the most potent factor in anti-aging biochemistry.

 

I bumped my forehead and suffered quite a gash. Because of C60 it faded and pretty much disappeared rather quickly. This same reduction in skin scarring was noted by Turnbuckle, one of the most critical thinkers on this site.

 

 

Do you buy your C60 or make your own? Anyone know the best directions/guidelines to make their own?

[mikey]

 

 

Can you show me the studies related to these topically applied antioxidants? 

 

 

http://lpi.oregonsta...minC/index.html there are the same kind of articles in "Skin health" for other vitamins etc... Pretty good summary of the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Every anti-aging professional that I know agrees that it's what you put in rather than what you put on that has the most effect. It's the garbage in, garbage out thing.

 

One can try to apply topical hair growth products endlessly and find that what you take/consume has a stronger effect. At least that's my experience and is agreed with by the professionals that focus on anti-aging techniques that I've known over the last 3 dozen+ years of studying anti-aging techniques.

 

I used Systeme 41, the most science-based anti-aging cream I've seen around my eyes for a year or so.

 

While it might be the best of its kind the effect of taking C60oo fullerene produced a much more potent reduction in wrinkles on my face than Systeme 41 or any topical.

 

So, we can bet that the Madonna's of the world are quite particular about what the consume, knowing that careful food/supplement/etc... intake is the most potent factor in anti-aging biochemistry.

 

I bumped my forehead and suffered quite a gash. Because of C60 it faded and pretty much disappeared rather quickly. This same reduction in skin scarring was noted by Turnbuckle, one of the most critical thinkers on this site.

 

 

What you say may be correct for the vast majority of your body, but it is not for your skin. Your skin is different in that it is exposed to environmental factors like radiation and so on, its basically what shields your body from the outside world. The best thing is to prevent adaptions to sun exposure from occuring in the first place, and the chain for what we perceive as skin aging starts mostly through UV radiation. How do we know that? Compare skin that is exposed to the sun (e.g. the arms) to skin that is not exposed (e.g. the buttocks) and notice that in e.g. 70-year old people the effect of aging is far lower than the effect of sun exposure. This has been researched. The unexposed skin of 70-year olds looks relatively similar to young people, the sun exposed skin looks very very different in comparison. This paper is a good start: http://libgen.org/sc...tas.2011.04.011

 

As it is about skin, topical application of actives makes sense. There is actual research done comparing oral and topical administration of vitamin c as an example, and topical application was way superior in increasing vitamin c content in the skin. This might not be true for every active, some are difficult to deliver into the skin, but oftentimes it is through the oral route as well. Opposed to research on general aging and vitamin c, topical vitamin c has convincing research showing its benefits when it comes to the skin. So what works for anti-aging (like increasing life span) can be very different when it comes to skin and visible aging. Topicals like retin-a work very well and have been researched since a long time. Nothing you take orally can protect your skin from e.g. UVB as well as a good sunscreen or staying out of the sun.

 

Edit: I would be very interested in some research on C60 and skin aging, do you have any?

 

 

I am simply reporting on my personal experience, having quit using skin creams because the oral C60oo has had a much more dramatic effect on my skin's decreased wrinkling and scars fading than any of the "anti-aging" creams.

 

The scientific background paper I read on Systeme 41 was written by a really smart MD. Somehow I didn't retain it or I'd scan it and put it up here. You might find it with searches, but I'm not that interested in topicals anymore.

 

But there are plenty of studies on topical tocotrienols, vitamin C, DMAE, PrevAge (idebenone).

 

SkinActives has plenty of data on their site, if you want to dig into it.

 

Pericone has some, too.

 

Like I said, taking C60 has done more to protect my face from photoaging than any topical. As well it has reversed a considerable amount of aging, likely because it's such a potent antioxidant that it improves the ability of elastin and collagen to re-grow healthy skin by keeping free radicals from interrupting them as they function.

[mikey]

 

 

 

Can you show me the studies related to these topically applied antioxidants? 

 

 

http://lpi.oregonsta...minC/index.html there are the same kind of articles in "Skin health" for other vitamins etc... Pretty good summary of the evidence.

 

 

 

 

Every anti-aging professional that I know agrees that it's what you put in rather than what you put on that has the most effect. It's the garbage in, garbage out thing.

 

One can try to apply topical hair growth products endlessly and find that what you take/consume has a stronger effect. At least that's my experience and is agreed with by the professionals that focus on anti-aging techniques that I've known over the last 3 dozen+ years of studying anti-aging techniques.

 

I used Systeme 41, the most science-based anti-aging cream I've seen around my eyes for a year or so.

 

While it might be the best of its kind the effect of taking C60oo fullerene produced a much more potent reduction in wrinkles on my face than Systeme 41 or any topical.

 

So, we can bet that the Madonna's of the world are quite particular about what the consume, knowing that careful food/supplement/etc... intake is the most potent factor in anti-aging biochemistry.

 

I bumped my forehead and suffered quite a gash. Because of C60 it faded and pretty much disappeared rather quickly. This same reduction in skin scarring was noted by Turnbuckle, one of the most critical thinkers on this site.

 

 

What you say may be correct for the vast majority of your body, but it is not for your skin. Your skin is different in that it is exposed to environmental factors like radiation and so on, its basically what shields your body from the outside world. The best thing is to prevent adaptions to sun exposure from occuring in the first place, and the chain for what we perceive as skin aging starts mostly through UV radiation. How do we know that? Compare skin that is exposed to the sun (e.g. the arms) to skin that is not exposed (e.g. the buttocks) and notice that in e.g. 70-year old people the effect of aging is far lower than the effect of sun exposure. This has been researched. The unexposed skin of 70-year olds looks relatively similar to young people, the sun exposed skin looks very very different in comparison. This paper is a good start: http://libgen.org/sc...tas.2011.04.011

 

As it is about skin, topical application of actives makes sense. There is actual research done comparing oral and topical administration of vitamin c as an example, and topical application was way superior in increasing vitamin c content in the skin. This might not be true for every active, some are difficult to deliver into the skin, but oftentimes it is through the oral route as well. Opposed to research on general aging and vitamin c, topical vitamin c has convincing research showing its benefits when it comes to the skin. So what works for anti-aging (like increasing life span) can be very different when it comes to skin and visible aging. Topicals like retin-a work very well and have been researched since a long time. Nothing you take orally can protect your skin from e.g. UVB as well as a good sunscreen or staying out of the sun.

 

Edit: I would be very interested in some research on C60 and skin aging, do you have any?

 

 

I am simply reporting on my personal experience, having quit using skin creams because the oral C60oo has had a much more dramatic effect on my skin's decreased wrinkling and scars fading than any of the "anti-aging" creams.

 

The scientific background paper I read on Systeme 41 was written by a really smart MD. Somehow I didn't retain it or I'd scan it and put it up here. You might find it with searches, but I'm not that interested in topicals anymore.

 

But there are plenty of studies on topical tocotrienols, vitamin C, DMAE, PrevAge (idebenone).

 

SkinActives has plenty of data on their site, if you want to dig into it.

 

Pericone has some, too.

 

Like I said, taking C60 has done more to protect my face from photoaging than any topical. As well it has reversed a considerable amount of aging, likely because it's such a potent antioxidant that it improves the ability of elastin and collagen to re-grow healthy skin by keeping free radicals from interrupting them as they function.

 

 

As to C60 being used topically, I don't do that but a quick search showed some publication pointing at that.

http://www.nature.co...l/5600874a.html

 

2.9. Fullerene  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055113/ Other nanoscale materials such as carbon fullerene have been used in some cosmetic products because of their antioxidative properties. They display potent scavenging capacities against radical oxygen species and they have been considered for their use in the preparation of skin rejuvenation cosmeceutical formulations [41]. These structures are comprised of carbon rings and contain odd-numbered (like Pentagon and heptagon) carbon rings, conferring a three dimensional spherical shape [42]. These structures have thus been called fullerenes or “Bucky Balls” (Figure 2). Fullerenes are highly hydrophobic and thus are not soluble in aqueous solutions, which initially limited their applications, but the use of surfactants or surface modifications has increased the ability of fullerenes to solubilize in water and brought more attention to their potential pharmaceutical uses [43].

Perhaps someone else who is more interested can find some other studies. I just take 7 mg every morning and the heck with putting stuff on my face.

[mikey]

 

 

Every anti-aging professional that I know agrees that it's what you put in rather than what you put on that has the most effect. It's the garbage in, garbage out thing.

 

One can try to apply topical hair growth products endlessly and find that what you take/consume has a stronger effect. At least that's my experience and is agreed with by the professionals that focus on anti-aging techniques that I've known over the last 3 dozen+ years of studying anti-aging techniques.

 

I used Systeme 41, the most science-based anti-aging cream I've seen around my eyes for a year or so.

 

While it might be the best of its kind the effect of taking C60oo fullerene produced a much more potent reduction in wrinkles on my face than Systeme 41 or any topical.

 

So, we can bet that the Madonna's of the world are quite particular about what the consume, knowing that careful food/supplement/etc... intake is the most potent factor in anti-aging biochemistry.

 

I bumped my forehead and suffered quite a gash. Because of C60 it faded and pretty much disappeared rather quickly. This same reduction in skin scarring was noted by Turnbuckle, one of the most critical thinkers on this site.

 

 

Do you buy your C60 or make your own? Anyone know the best directions/guidelines to make their own?

 

 

I've been buying it from http://www.carbon60oliveoil.com/ since I started taking it, early August, 2012. I have more money than time, but I might start making it because it is expensive, although I buy ten at a time, for the best discount, so it costs about $150 a month, at the  7 mg/day dosage I take.

[Maecenas]

Pharrell Williams, 41 https://www.google.c...rH2ln8MXjRVG4M:

[JohnD60]

Just some side notes, I know a lot of people will disagree, but I think theres a connection between meat and aging-

 

I am one of the people that disagree with this. There is already a multi year thread on this, and it is usually absent vegan propaganda

[JBForrester]

No plastic surgery can make someone look as young as Jared Leto looks. If there was, all celebrities would look 20 years younger, but Leto is one of the few who does. He is 42 and has a flawless skin, absolutely no wrinkles, his skin is in a better condition than in the most 25 years old celebrities. The fact that he is skinny makes this even more unbelievable, cause skinny people get more wrinkles after a certain age. He also had two very serious weight fluctuations for his roles (gaining 60 pounds for the first role and shedding 40 for another), such rapid changes in weight leave stretch marks and saggy skin but he has none. His older brother Shannon and mother also look almost 10 years younger.

He is a vegan (but he eats lots of grains and praises olive oil),  he strictly avoids sun exposure, he rides a bike daily for half an hour.  I would be glad to hear your opinion and any additional information about this truly ageless man. Here is his latest close up photo: http://celebrityclos...4755/jared-leto

 

Shannon Leto looks like he's had botox beyond belief. He used to have manly brow ridges and now has virtually nothing, which botox "eliminates". His eyebrows were highly arched to begin with, but now they are a bit odd looking. So it makes me wonder if Jared has done just a tiny bit of cosmetic re-adjustments as well. BUT, I do agree - Jared does have an amazingly healthy lifestyle. So who knows! I guess we'll have to see another celeb who follows the same regimen to fully understand if his lifestyle is the fountain of youth - or if it's a matter of genes (or cosmetic fixes).

[Heyman]

 

 

Masako Mizutani - apparently she is 43 years old... She uses sunscreen every day, but no matter what her routine or genetics are like, she looks quite good for 43. Might easily pass as 20 years younger.

[gt35r]

We know that most of premature aging is caused by photoaging. If vegetarianism has an influence then most likely not because of the existence of meat in the diet but because of a decent amount of antioxidants through vegetables etc... But this influence is probably not as high as topically applying antioxidants and using sunscreen. Photoaging is adapting of the skin tor sun damage IMO like our muscles adapting to a workout, I don't think actually being young or having longer telomeres is related to these adaptions - though some time is needed so you can photoage.

 

Photo-aging is not an accommodation against UV.

 

Melanin production accommodates to UV but I don't think that have elastin or collagen cross link helps protect against UV. Melanin can be down regulated in the absence or reduction of UV where as cross linked fibers are permanent. 

 

antioxidants protect against UV damage in a different way, they neutralize radical OH groups formed in solution. Sunscreen works as a general barrier that prevent UV from reaching  the tissue and its surrounding. 

 

As a side note I hear people saying things like 'UV/photo damage is responsible for 70 percent of skin aging'; this is not true. UV/photo damage is responsible for 70% of extrinsic skin damage. There is another category of skin aging/damage due to instrsic properties of our metabolism. 

 

Also, skin aging is not the only factor in looking older. 

[Heyman]

 

We know that most of premature aging is caused by photoaging. If vegetarianism has an influence then most likely not because of the existence of meat in the diet but because of a decent amount of antioxidants through vegetables etc... But this influence is probably not as high as topically applying antioxidants and using sunscreen. Photoaging is adapting of the skin tor sun damage IMO like our muscles adapting to a workout, I don't think actually being young or having longer telomeres is related to these adaptions - though some time is needed so you can photoage.

 

Photo-aging is not an accommodation against UV.

 

Melanin production accommodates to UV but I don't think that have elastin or collagen cross link helps protect against UV. Melanin can be down regulated in the absence or reduction of UV where as cross linked fibers are permanent. 

 

antioxidants protect against UV damage in a different way, they neutralize radical OH groups formed in solution. Sunscreen works as a general barrier that prevent UV from reaching  the tissue and its surrounding. 

 

As a side note I hear people saying things like 'UV/photo damage is responsible for 70 percent of skin aging'; this is not true. UV/photo damage is responsible for 70% of extrinsic skin damage. There is another category of skin aging/damage due to instrsic properties of our metabolism. 

 

Also, skin aging is not the only factor in looking older. 

 

The visible effects of photodamage are not directly the damaged DNA. The visible effects come from your body trying to repair the damage and in the process (e.g. through neutrophil induced elastase) removing some of the elastin / collagen. If your body wouldn't adapt in response to the UV damage, almost nothing would happen visually. Yes the effect you ultimately see isn't reversed the same way that melanin is.

 

You are right that '80% of skin aging' is not something that can be said for everyone. 80% of extrinsic skin aging isn't even true for black people as an example, which usually don't show the same amount of photodamage. Once you are 80 years old, intrinsic factors will also account for a higher visual difference compared to a 40 year old person. Generally however for most people photoaging is simply the biggest factor compared to any other factor, even intrinsic aging when it comes to skin. This is so easy to verify by simply comparing exposed to unexposed skin on the same person, the difference between a totally a wrinkled neck and suddenly smooth back becomes apparent. Many signs of UV damage simply don't appear at all in non-exposed skin, like deep wrinkles. Take a look at the skin on the underside of your underarm and compare it to the skin skin on the upside, I bet until you reach a significant age you wouldn't even be able to tell the former one apart from someone 20 years younger.

 

This is a relatively common sight:

 

 

Now you can argue what is more important, but to me visually the UV damage stands out A LOT more compared to the intrinsic damage.

 

You are right there are more factors to aging like bone loss / subcutaneous fat loss, change in lip / eyebrow color, hair loss and so on... Some of these can be combated (subcutaneous fat loss by the way could well be a sign of photodamage - e.g. "IL-11, IL-1a, IL-6, and TNF-a are induced by solar radiation in vitro and may be involved in facial subcutaneous fat loss in vivo") and some will just happen.

Edited by Heyman, 06 October 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[Maecenas]

I think it's also obvious that some intrinsic factors can aggravate the effects of UV exposure - like weakened immune system, for example. If you are chronically depressed - your immune system isn't working properly and it significantly raises inflammation.

Also skin condition says almost nothing about the overall state of health. It's particularly obvious with those 50-60 year old marathon runners who look a decade or two older as a result of increased life-long sun exposure, but who can run a marathon faster than a majority of the fit 20 year old runners. Those exeteremely wrinkled 60 year old athletes oftentimes have internal organs functioning at the level of 25 year old perfectly healthy people.

[gt35r]

Yeah, idk about marathon runners. Marathons tend to be kinda damage to the heart especially long term. 

[Matt]

I'm 30 years old in 10 days and here's an update: http://www.crvitalit...picture-update/

More pictures on my blog.    I had lots of light coming straight through the windows and haven't yet had chance to mess around with the camera settings. Here's a few pictures I quickly took yesterday. (I now have a logitech C920 camera that I'll be doing videos with also). 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Matt, 12 October 2014 - 04:21 PM.

[Mind]

I'm 30 years old in 10 days and here's an update: http://www.crvitalit...picture-update/

More pictures on my blog.    I had lots of light coming straight through the windows and haven't yet had chance to mess around with the camera settings. Here's a few pictures I quickly took yesterday. (I now have a logitech C920 camera that I'll be doing videos with also). 

 

 

 

 

 

I can tell you have aged, of course, but you are still looking very young, better than most at your age!

[Matt]

Sure, I know I look older than I did in my earlier CR days. I did get a couple people thinking I was only 19 recently, though. Thank you. )

 

This was me when I was 20 years old:

[Adamzski]

This is Miss Universe 1965 @ 67 years old! I don't think there is any very drastic surgery done on her, just the usual fillers etc but I doubt that she has had full face lifts and major eye surgery. My Thai friends mom is older than her and has amazingly good skin at 70 she looks 45.

 

 

 

 

http://bangkok.cocon...orld-recent-pic

[Boopy!]

I ordered buckyballs from Sarah Vaughter a month ago and still haven't received it.    Interesting about the healing thing you refer to.   However,  I don't really like to go by single person accounts --  unless you have an identical twin who got the exact same wound etc.  But I don't think it's horribly priced and I want to do my own kind of experiment.   I won't be able to tell about wrinkles since we don't really wrinkle in my family until seventy or so --  my mom does finally have some forehead wrinkles.   I think one thing people forget to notice is changes in all of the hair (much of it due to thyroid?)   because I always notice eyebrows and it seems like taking away eyebrow hair ages a lot of people although it depends.    I have been examining my dad's and mom's faces a lot this year -- which they LOVE haha --  and particularly since my mom fell off a boat and got an enormous gash in her forehead.   I have never seen anyone heal so quickly from 32 stitches.   One thing though;   a plastic surgeon told me that younger people tend to scar MORE from face lifts than old people or something like that.   They have a harder healing process or something like that;  can anyone explain this?  Why would this happen?   Perhaps I misunderstood him. 

 

Finally,  on the various pictures shown;   it's like the same plastic surgeon told me.   Plastic surgery doesn't always look bad.  I had asked him to give me larger cheekbones and he refused because the human eye loves beauty if it is natural but becomes horrified and repulsed at something that should be beautiful,  but is obviously not natural.   Thus you have the difference between a fake plastic surgery appearance which looks awful and someone who has had flawless,  wonderful work.   It takes tons of money and effort and time and seems almost not worth the effort.   If you look at pictures of someone who has a twenty or thirty year old face like Christie Brinkley after much surgical intervention it looks good until she looks up and the neck of a sixty or seventy year old that does not match appears --  almost as if another head was put on an old person's body.   That's when you realize just how exhausting it must be for people to attack all those signs of aging and match them and not have them look "wrong."     The signs of good plastic surgery?  You have no idea how the person looks so young and you can see nothing that looks unnatural -- and if you knew the person before they have the same shape of eyes (sometimes the person doesn't even look the same but it can still look natural,  but only if you didn't know how they used to look.)    It can be virtually undetectable and certainly not in pictures. It has to look natural seems to be the most important thing.  There are certain telltale scars that hairdressers know about,  so faded in quick healers that they are easily covered up with makeup.  So again,  what I wanna know is,  how do we find out who the surgeon was for some of these folks and are the results guaranteed?   I am not going to delude myself with thinking that someone who was a model or in a beauty pageant HAD NO WORK.   I worked in this world and you are the oddball if you don't get anything done.   Sometimes people would leave during the week and come back it seemed like a week later with new noses that looked no different from the old ones --  they had to point out the scars to me.   I think it's one of those things where even if you don't need something,  you think you do because everyone else does it.   Almost like the new trend or something.  

[JohnD60]

  I had asked him to give me larger cheekbones and he refused because the human eye loves beauty if it is natural but becomes horrified and repulsed at something that should be beautiful,  but is obviously not natural.   Thus you have the difference between a fake plastic surgery appearance which looks awful and someone who has had flawless,  wonderful work.

 

Pete Burns comes to mind with the freaky cheekbones. What you describe is the other side of the coin of "the uncanny valley" (wiki link not working) a phenomenon in robotics where the robot looks very similar to humans, but not exactly human
 

Edited by JohnD60, 16 October 2014 - 04:50 AM.

[Brett Black]

I'm 30 years old in 10 days and here's an update: http://www.crvitalit...picture-update/

More pictures on my blog. I had lots of light coming straight through the windows and haven't yet had chance to mess around with the camera settings. Here's a few pictures I quickly took yesterday. (I now have a logitech C920 camera that I'll be doing videos with also).

There's substantial upward lighting (light source/reflections from below) on your face in this photo (I can see shadows cast above your cheeks and onto your neck from your t-shirt collar), and that tends to be unflattering (it's stereotypically used to give faces a horror/scary movie look.) I reckon you might look younger with shorter hair too, like your old hairstyle.

Edited by Brett Black, 16 October 2014 - 05:04 AM.

[Boopy!]

Yeah -- I was trying to remember that!   I love that expression/theory.  Well I don't think I would ever have actually done it,   I was just kind of musing aloud.  It is kind of an extreme sounding thing but I got the idea because I was watching an interview with a model who had it done and she said she wasn't even put to sleep (!)_  and they put it in THROUGH HER EYES.   Yikes.   She said they shaped them to her own face,   even used a 3D imaging program to make it exact and ideal,  and I honestly could not tell there was anything fake there -- just the tiniest difference that promoted her career  (she claimed.)   She looked better in photographs although that doesn't always apply to real life.   I also know two people in person who had it done  (REALLY pretty girls who are very obsessed with appearance and wanted to be even more pretty.)  My one friend got them removed because she said it made her nose go down a tiny bit and gave her undereye shadows.   She is 25 and already wants a cheek lift.....yeah.   The other girl imo looks like a drag queen after the implants and even before she did.....it tends to give a somewhat "hard"  look which Madonna had for a while when she first got her implants.   You see Pete Burns is just what I was referring to,  but to an EXTREME.  I mean his is literally monstrous and that is not just implants I don't think.    I agreed with him though,   I mean,  unless you have a deficiency,   like an extremely weak chin,   I don't know that adding to bone ever is that great of an idea.   I just hate how I look in pics but there are all kinds of problems that can occur with the implants so while it could make me happier with pictures,   I don't think I would ever do it.

[Brett Black]

I wonder if, in general, cosmetic/plastic surgeons are sufficiently aesthetically perceptive/capable. For instance, I assume it can take years of practice and observation, and maybe just intrinsic talent, for a painter or sculptor to create lifelike images of humans. In fact it seems that even amongst accomplished artists the ability to create truly realistic depictions of humans is far from universal. I assume that the majority of surgeons fall far below the already obviously imperfect level of aesthetic ability/knowledge/perception of the artist. Obviously the surgeon is generally making relatively minor alterations to an already existing face/body, which would seem a much easier task (aesthetically) than creating from scratch, but considering these points, maybe it shouldn't be a shock when the results set off our "uncanny valley" instincts. Should there be more training in the subtleties of the human form for cosmetic surgeons? Should they be trained in sculpture, perhaps? Because in a real way they are performing sculpture - why not make sure they get the fundamentals of the human form correct, using clay, first?

[Brett Black]

Do cosmetic/plastic surgeons have sufficient aesthetic knowledge and understanding of human form? Even many highly accomplished sculptors and painters, who observe, train and practice for years are incapable of reproducing truly realistic images of humans. If many artists can't get human form just right, what should we expect from surgeons? Making relatively minor alterations to an already existing human face or body may seem likely to be aesthetically simpler than creating a human form from scratch, still, the results of plastic surgery are often known to set off our "uncanny valley" instincts. Is training in sculpture, or similar study of human aesthetic form, a part of cometic surgery? Should it be?

[Boopy!]

Brett Black,  I so agree.  I have always thought this.   It seems like so many surgeons write these pamphlets that they call books,  for their careers,  saying that they alone have figured out that one "method"  to define the perfect form,  to recreate it,  etc.  and I have read a few of them out of curiosity.  While some of them say stuff that I agree with  (like Sam Lam in Texas whose stuff I read)  I have to think that it still cannot take into account things like,  when fat is transplanted into a face,  won't it grow differently and act differently in a different area of the body than the place it was taken from?  How can they possibly put fat into every tiny little place (areas like around the eyes,  nose,  etc.)  and not have some areas grow out of proportion?   How can they possibly?   When I see someone who others say has had great surgery,  it doesn't work for me because all I notice is how one area does NOT match up and thus disqualifies the whole purpose of the surgery.   I'm not sure if this is making sense...  I am guessing that even if you know how to pass medical boards and even if your stitchwork and your procedure and so forth is exactly "right,"  you could still not achieve a great result because you don't have an artistic eye.   The best artists are often obsessed with getting the exact word,  the exact brushstroke,  the exact result....and to be BOTH that artist and a surgeon  (although many claim that they are)  seems as if it would have to be as rare as Davinci.  I mean,  how often does one meet someone who is that good in both medical and artistic fields?   And I very much agree --  you SHOULD have to train in sculpture but I don't think that they do?   I bet it would help...

 

It reminds me of how one time I was watching a movie with some actress who had had a lot of surgery,  who had all the things that "typical"  pretty lady in movie or magazine has to be considered pretty,  all the angles and colors made just so.   You know -- like,  fake white blonde hair,  fake contacts,  fake skin color,  fake fake fake.    Nose,  breasts,  eyes,  etc.,  all made to look right,  yet she was still....unattractive.   I remember saying to my sister I would have preferred to stay as the original and somehow make that the "new"  socially acceptable attractive than to go through all the pain and trauma of multiple surgeries,  only to look forgettable and still "wrong."    It's sad.

[Matt]

Thank you for your feedback Brett. I literally just got the camera that day and quickly took a few photos without adjusting any of the settings or getting proper lighting that wasn't really harsh. The sun was literally shining directly at me through the window. I'll try to take a more flattering photo next time. I need proper lighting for the evening as this is when I would mostly make videos and chat. Do you think warm LED lights would be okay?

Every time that I had a hair cut and had my old hair style, my friends at work used to tell me it took *years* off me. So perhaps you're right. On the other hand, I am getting girls coming up to me a lot and liking the hair. So idk xD lol

Edited by Matt, 16 October 2014 - 09:18 PM.

[marcobjj]

So basically heres a bunch of celeberties that I found that look really young

with my research into aging- and these are pretty significant in my opinion. 

You can look them up and research them, i'm just throwing these out there. 

 

- Noel Fielding

- Jared Leto

- Billie Joe Armstrong

- Paul Mccartney 

- Christie brinkley

 

 

 

Paul Looks every bit his age, come on man. I just hope that he and Ringo are treating their telomeres, it will suck when/if they die.