34 replies to this topic

[HOTCells]

I'm now 35 years old and have noticed my skin starting to sag.. I use CE Ferulic in the morning and GHK-CU copper peptides in the evening.  I was wondering if there is more I can do. I have tried retin-A, but it seemed to make my skin even more thin and make it more sensitive to the sun.. I know that as we age our facial bones lose density/mass, perhaps giving our skin less surface area to cover (thus, exacerbating sag). Is there anything that we can do to stimulate bone formation in the facial area to keep skin from sagging around it?  I know that working out/trauma stimulates osteoblasts to keep our body's bone structure in tact, but is there something we can do for our facial bones?  I keep thinking that a swift punch in the jaw will help facial bone formation from deteriorating by stimulation of osteoblasts in this area, but of course this is just a theory (perhaps a poor one).. Any ideas?

Edited by HOTCells, 27 June 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[mustardseed41]

You could go to local bars and hit on other guy's ladies. This might be the answer your looking for.

 

How long did you use retin-a? What schedule did you start out using it? Have you considered an OTC retinol product?

Facial bone loss is an interesting topic to me as well. Do you take vitamin K2? Specifically, the MK7 form? In theory, it should help your facial/skull bones to maintain shape just as it does in other parts of the body. Along with D3, magnesium, boron, etc. The popular facial exercise program called "Flexeffect" has an exercise called "jolting reps" or something like that that is thought to maybe help. You could do a google search about this. I do facial exercises myself. I highly doubt at your age the cause of the sagging is bone loss but prevention pays off later of course. Dermarolling is another option. You using a good sunscreen?

[HOTCells]

You could go to local bars and hit on other guy's ladies. This might be the answer your looking for.

 

How long did you use retin-a? What schedule did you start out using it? Have you considered an OTC retinol product?

Facial bone loss is an interesting topic to me as well. Do you take vitamin K2? Specifically, the MK7 form? In theory, it should help your facial/skull bones to maintain shape just as it does in other parts of the body. Along with D3, magnesium, boron, etc. The popular facial exercise program called "Flexeffect" has an exercise called "jolting reps" or something like that that is thought to maybe help. You could do a google search about this. I do facial exercises myself. I highly doubt at your age the cause of the sagging is bone loss but prevention pays off later of course. Dermarolling is another option. You using a good sunscreen?

 

Ha.. I wonder if professional boxers have better facial bones than their non-boxing counterparts.  I used Retin-A for 3-4 years (varying strengths).. before retin-A I was using an OTC retinol product (ROC). I have been taking vitamin K2 for about 8 years along with D3 for over 12 years. I also did the facersize program by carole Maggio, but didn't notice any effect after a few months .. I'll have to check out flexeffect.  I don't use a good sunscreen anymore, but don't spend much time in the sun these days. .As a kid, however, I was in the sun all day with frequent burns. I recently had a conservative upper eyelid lift because my eye skin was just so saggy, which I attribute to sun exposure, as my lids were always burnt the worst.   It looks like I'm probably going to be doing a mid-face lift (conservative) sometime in the near future, but would like to exhaust all my options first.  Do you know of any good dermarollers? I tried using one off of eBay once and my face was a bloody mess.. ha

[mustardseed41]

I buy all my dermarollers very cheaply off of ebay for the last 3 years. I pay around $5-$9 total. Including shipping. Alway's had quality rollers. What size roller were you using? No need at all to have a bloody mess of a face. Some pinpoint bleeding is common.

[HOTCells]

I buy all my dermarollers very cheaply off of ebay for the last 3 years. I pay around $5-$9 total. Including shipping. Alway's had quality rollers. What size roller were you using? No need at all to have a bloody mess of a face. Some pinpoint bleeding is common.

 

It was a 0.5mm... I think they might have sent me a 1.5 because it seemed to penatrate the skin much deeper than what a 0.5 is supposed to do.

[aconita]

DMAE topical seems to be the only thing working for skin sagging but don't expect miracles.

 

I doubt dermarolling is going to do any difference in skin sagging and actually in order to correct skin imperfections (scars and wrinkles) it is much better once or twice a year deep dermarolling causing petechiae (bleeding) than daily light passes.

 

Yes, professional boxers whom are not very good in defense, therefore taking many punches to the face, do develop thicker bones, easily twice as thick as normal, unfortunately they tend to develop Parkinson too.

 

Skin sagging however is usually due to diminished fat deposit, take a look at a baby's face and note how much more fatty it is.

 

It is not a lifting procedure what will fix the issue but a "filling up" procedure as autologous fat transplant, cross linked hyaluronic acid, etc...

 

[TheFountain]

 

 

 I don't use a good sunscreen anymore

 

AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME, OH!

 

That's the problem right there. Regardless of you not being in the sun much, there is still ambient UV light coming from other places and even if you spend the majority of your time in doors you should wear a good, fully protective sunscreen. 

^^^ ESPECIALLY if you are using acidic products on your face!

[nowayout]

 

 

 

 I don't use a good sunscreen anymore

 

AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME, OH!

 

That's the problem right there. Regardless of you not being in the sun much, there is still ambient UV light coming from other places and even if you spend the majority of your time in doors you should wear a good, fully protective sunscreen. 

^^^ ESPECIALLY if you are using acidic products on your face!

 

 

Sunscreens are absorbed systemically and may cause their own set of problems as a result.

 

The kind of sagging that occurs in early middle age is mainy due to facial fat loss/rearrangement (not bone loss as far as I know, OP, especially not in eugonadal men).  It is hard to see how indoor UV exposure would have much effect on fat loss in the facial substructure - for me personally I don't see much point in living if I am going to be so fragile as to need a sunscreen even to be inside   In any case, conservative use of H.A. fillers is quite effective (and reversible if you don't like the result).

Edited by nowayout, 30 November 2015 - 09:53 PM.

[aconita]

Probably the sunscreen thing is referred to the use of retin A or acid peelings.

 

Indoor UV are very unlikely to be an issue, retin A use is better done in winter time and if time is spent outdoor it will be better to provide a sunscreen, with acid peels the surface peelings are not to worry too much about, the medium and deep peeling as TCA or Jessner are better performed only once a year in winter and a sunscreen for a while when outdoor is a good idea.

 

But both, peelings and retin A, are not going to make a dent in facial sagging, they do work on other issues as skin imperfections, scars, wrinkles, age spots, pimples, enlarged pores, etc...but not for facial fat loss.

[TheFountain]

 

 

 

 

 I don't use a good sunscreen anymore

 

AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME, OH!

 

That's the problem right there. Regardless of you not being in the sun much, there is still ambient UV light coming from other places and even if you spend the majority of your time in doors you should wear a good, fully protective sunscreen. 

^^^ ESPECIALLY if you are using acidic products on your face!

 

 

Sunscreens are absorbed systemically and may cause their own set of problems as a result.

 

The kind of sagging that occurs in early middle age is mainy due to facial fat loss/rearrangement (not bone loss as far as I know, OP, especially not in eugonadal men).  It is hard to see how indoor UV exposure would have much effect on fat loss in the facial substructure - for me personally I don't see much point in living if I am going to be so fragile as to need a sunscreen even to be inside   In any case, conservative use of H.A. fillers is quite effective (and reversible if you don't like the result).

 

A physical sunscreen should not have any problems since it sits at the surface and reflects light outwardly. Don't undermine the role the sun plays in sagging! 

[Epitopia]

I highly doubt that bone loss could to significant changes/ sagging of the face. Bones do not lose their shape when we age, they rather lose density and inner architechture. I attribuate the changes you realize to a loss of subcutaneous fat, muscle and skin elasticity. Do your research on Retin-A. The skin gets thinner first but becomes thicker with time of use (maxium effects after a year!). Muscle can be built by good nutrition. Protein is critical. Too much leads to accelerated muscle mass in aging indiviuals too. Tomatidine is known to prevent muscle loss. The loss of facial fat is probably the most stubborn problem. Can be adressed by using fillers such as hyaluronic acid which is expensive because it has to be repeated every few months. Sun screen also prevents loss of subcutaneous fat to a certain degree.

[aconita]

Facial sagging is due to fat loss, I think everybody agree on this.

 

Skin thickness and bone reabsorbtion play an irrelevant role in this regard, muscle loss maybe a bit more relevant but I doubt and anyway it will be not easy to obtain facial muscle hypertrophy.  

 

Some research has been done in regard to hormonal balance and site of fat deposits, it seems like different hormonal profiles determine different subcutaneous fat deposits in different sites of the body to the extent that it may be possible, to a certain degree, to determine an hormonal unbalance by measuring thickness of fat (by a fat caliper) in different body areas.

 

I may suggest that the hormonal changes taking place with aging are responsible for the loss of facial fat, if this is true returning the hormonal balance as that of a younger age will probably be the best solution, I say the best, not the easiest.

 

Anyway moving in that direction can't be overlooked.

[nowayout]

 

 

 

 

 

 I don't use a good sunscreen anymore

 

AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME, OH!

 

That's the problem right there. Regardless of you not being in the sun much, there is still ambient UV light coming from other places and even if you spend the majority of your time in doors you should wear a good, fully protective sunscreen. 

^^^ ESPECIALLY if you are using acidic products on your face!

 

 

Sunscreens are absorbed systemically and may cause their own set of problems as a result.

 

The kind of sagging that occurs in early middle age is mainy due to facial fat loss/rearrangement (not bone loss as far as I know, OP, especially not in eugonadal men).  It is hard to see how indoor UV exposure would have much effect on fat loss in the facial substructure - for me personally I don't see much point in living if I am going to be so fragile as to need a sunscreen even to be inside   In any case, conservative use of H.A. fillers is quite effective (and reversible if you don't like the result).

 

A physical sunscreen should not have any problems since it sits at the surface and reflects light outwardly. Don't undermine the role the sun plays in sagging! 

 

 

If by physical sunscreen you mean a hat or clothing, yes, but topical creams almost all contain small molecules that are absorbed through the skin into the circulation and are in fact detectable in urine, as was demostrated in a famous study a decade or two ago.  In fact, the fact that topically applied small molecules can be absorbed systemically is useful in pharmacology: creams, gels, or patches are very effective ways of delivering many systemic drugs, and are commonly used for administering hormone replacement therapies, opioid painkillers, etc.

 

Many of these absorbed substances' potential effects on the body are not known.  The "Skin Deep" cosmetics database makes an attempt at determining safety of cosmetics incuding sunscreens and is a good first approximation, but they have only limited information to work with.

Edited by nowayout, 01 December 2015 - 07:54 PM.

[TheFountain]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I don't use a good sunscreen anymore

 

AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME, OH!

 

That's the problem right there. Regardless of you not being in the sun much, there is still ambient UV light coming from other places and even if you spend the majority of your time in doors you should wear a good, fully protective sunscreen. 

^^^ ESPECIALLY if you are using acidic products on your face!

 

 

Sunscreens are absorbed systemically and may cause their own set of problems as a result.

 

The kind of sagging that occurs in early middle age is mainy due to facial fat loss/rearrangement (not bone loss as far as I know, OP, especially not in eugonadal men).  It is hard to see how indoor UV exposure would have much effect on fat loss in the facial substructure - for me personally I don't see much point in living if I am going to be so fragile as to need a sunscreen even to be inside   In any case, conservative use of H.A. fillers is quite effective (and reversible if you don't like the result).

 

A physical sunscreen should not have any problems since it sits at the surface and reflects light outwardly. Don't undermine the role the sun plays in sagging! 

 

 

If by physical sunscreen you mean a hat or clothing, yes, but topical creams almost all contain small molecules that are absorbed through the skin into the circulation and are in fact detectable in urine, as was demostrated in a famous study a decade or two ago.  In fact, the fact that topically applied small molecules can be absorbed systemically is useful in pharmacology: creams, gels, or patches are very effective ways of delivering many systemic drugs, and are commonly used for administering hormone replacement therapies, opioid painkillers, etc.

 

Many of these absorbed substances' potential effects on the body are not known.  The "Skin Deep" cosmetics database makes an attempt at determining safety of cosmetics incuding sunscreens and is a good first approximation, but they have only limited information to work with.

 

Nope. Zinc based sunscreens that are non-nano particle sized sit on the surface of the skin and in high concentrations do not need to be re-applied as chemical sunscreens do (since they interact with the UV spectrum to create the effect). 

 

The other comparisons are just silly. 

[nowayout]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 I don't use a good sunscreen anymore

 

AND BINGO WAS HIS NAME, OH!

 

That's the problem right there. Regardless of you not being in the sun much, there is still ambient UV light coming from other places and even if you spend the majority of your time in doors you should wear a good, fully protective sunscreen. 

^^^ ESPECIALLY if you are using acidic products on your face!

 

 

Sunscreens are absorbed systemically and may cause their own set of problems as a result.

 

The kind of sagging that occurs in early middle age is mainy due to facial fat loss/rearrangement (not bone loss as far as I know, OP, especially not in eugonadal men).  It is hard to see how indoor UV exposure would have much effect on fat loss in the facial substructure - for me personally I don't see much point in living if I am going to be so fragile as to need a sunscreen even to be inside   In any case, conservative use of H.A. fillers is quite effective (and reversible if you don't like the result).

 

A physical sunscreen should not have any problems since it sits at the surface and reflects light outwardly. Don't undermine the role the sun plays in sagging! 

 

 

If by physical sunscreen you mean a hat or clothing, yes, but topical creams almost all contain small molecules that are absorbed through the skin into the circulation and are in fact detectable in urine, as was demostrated in a famous study a decade or two ago.  In fact, the fact that topically applied small molecules can be absorbed systemically is useful in pharmacology: creams, gels, or patches are very effective ways of delivering many systemic drugs, and are commonly used for administering hormone replacement therapies, opioid painkillers, etc.

 

Many of these absorbed substances' potential effects on the body are not known.  The "Skin Deep" cosmetics database makes an attempt at determining safety of cosmetics incuding sunscreens and is a good first approximation, but they have only limited information to work with.

 

Nope. Zinc based sunscreens that are non-nano particle sized sit on the surface of the skin and in high concentrations do not need to be re-applied as chemical sunscreens do (since they interact with the UV spectrum to create the effect). 

 

The other comparisons are just silly. 

 

Your non-nano sunscreen label is probably really nano and therefore misleading.  See below.  But good luck finding a sunscreen with just zinc.  For example, besides zinc, Walgreens Clear Zinc Sunscreen contains:

 

• Methylparaben, an endocrine disruptor and immunotoxicant inplicated in hormone-dependent cancers among other endocrine effects, which is absorbed through the skin and detectable in blood after topical application: http://ec.europa.eu/.../sccs_o_041.pdf
• Propylparaben, endocrine disruptor and immunotoxicant, also absorbed through the skin into the systemic circulation.
• Octocrylene, which absorbs through the skin, is bioaccumulative, mutagenic, produces reactive oxygen species in the body, and can possibly contribute to cardiovascular disease (Hanson KM, Gratton E, Bardeen CJ).
• Phenoxyethanol, classified as toxic or harmful by European regulators when used in the vicinity of the mouth or on lips.

 

Nearly all so-called non-nano zinc/titanium sunscreens are based on misleading claims.  They nearly all contain nanoparticles under the FDA definition of the term.  To be reasonably transparent on the skin, they basically have to be nanoparticles.  Their environmental effects are largely unknown, but there are stong indications of toxicity of nanoparticles in marine environments. 

 

Lots of sunscreens contain oxybenzone, which is absorbed through the skin into the circulation and is a hormonal disruptor.  A number of them contain retinyl palmitate, a form of vitamin A which may cause skin cancer on sun-exposed skin.  Spray sunscreens are inhaled, which is bad for obvious reasons. 

 

More than half of sunscreen brands sold in the U.S. would not be allowed in Europe because they contain substances not deemed safe by European regulations. 

 

Edited by nowayout, 02 December 2015 - 07:55 PM.

[aconita]

http://news.national...reen-coral.html

[TheFountain]

If you do not wish to start using a sunscreen again, expect the problem to consistently get worse. 

[aconita]

Any evidence that sun exposure causes facial fat loss (or any fat loss for that matter)?

[Boopy!]

It's mostly loss of brown fat,  the kind of fat that is especially found in young children's faces.   ANY TOPICAL CREAM that proclaims it will add volume is a fraud,  and is only allowed because they can claim that hey,  well,  it adds something to the top of your skin,  so in that sense it volumizes  (so would butter if you slapped it on your face,  for far cheaper.)   I agree with many comments on here that suggest looking at how hormones affect the aging process,  and what you should be eating and taking supplement wise rather than looking at creams as helping anything such as volume loss.   Retin-A (tretinoin)  and sunscreen and vitamin C are still WONDERFUL and you should keep trying to use those for the outer layers of skin which are important too.   Protein protein protein,   check on hormone levels,  which I myself am doing now  (but don't go overboard on anything),  get your sleep and exercise,   and then,  if all else fails,  find a GOOD DOCTOR for hyaluronic acid or radiesse  (more like bone than fatty filler) done very conservatively,  as you don't want to overplump yourself either.  Voluma is something newer that seems to work very well for over a year,  so therefore is somewhat more worth it,  and probably would help give you the lift you want.   I have seen results on my nurse friends with it and am considering it myself (although fillers can be iffy,  don't fall for the hype.)

[Heyman]

Any evidence that sun exposure causes facial fat loss (or any fat loss for that matter)?

 

Sun exposure likely causes facial fat loss and sunscreen can prevent this fat loss from happening:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23639700
 

Regarding the whole fearmongering going on in this thread considering nano particles, hormonal activity and so on: In my opinion blown extremely out of proportion. Yes, some substances can be endocrine disruptors in the animal model if you use ridiculous doses, no, you likely won't have any issues with it if you use 2g of sunscreen a day. If you are that worried, just use a sunscreen with a low amount or no endocrine disruptors at all. Can't find it in the US, import it. There is absolutely no issue with nano particles by the way, there are countless reviews on this. The benefits of sunscreen on the other side have a good amount of evidence, even in vivo in actual humans. You'd be a fool to not use it if you care about skin aging.

[nowayout]

 

Any evidence that sun exposure causes facial fat loss (or any fat loss for that matter)?

 

Sun exposure likely causes facial fat loss and sunscreen can prevent this fat loss from happening:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23639700

 

I agree with your hypothesis, that it is likely that UV could be involved in loss of superficial facial fat.  The study that you quote, though, is an in vitro study of cultured cells, from which one can conclude very little.
 

Edited by nowayout, 10 December 2015 - 05:25 PM.

[nowayout]

 

Regarding the whole fearmongering going on in this thread considering nano particles, hormonal activity and so on: In my opinion blown extremely out of proportion. Yes, some substances can be endocrine disruptors in the animal model if you use ridiculous doses, no, you likely won't have any issues with it if you use 2g of sunscreen a day.

 

The problem with this argument is that hormone disruptors (like hormones themselves) have large effects in small amounts - consider all the sexually abnormally developed fish, for example, in rivers wtih extremey low concentrations of various hormone disruptors. And who says 2 g is a small amount - it depends what is in that 2 g?  For example, 2 g of a topical pharmaceutical hormone replacement gel (e.g. Androgel) contains just 1% of the active principle (testosterone).  Only about 10% of that 1% is absorbed systemically, when applied only once a day on a relatively small area.  Yet this will have profound effects on many organs in the body (in the case of testosterone replacement, this absorbed 0.1% is responsible for all the pharmaceutical effect).

 

The hormone disruptor molecules we are talking about are similar in size to steroid molecules and would be expected to be absorbed in similar proportions (and they are indeed detectable in urine in people who apply these sunscreens), except, what percentage of the volume of the sunscreen are they?  Also consider that 2 g of sunscreen will not cover much area, and sunscreens used properly have to be reapplied several times a day, and possibly over large body areas, increasing exposure. 

Edited by nowayout, 10 December 2015 - 05:29 PM.

[Heyman]

 

I agree with your hypothesis, that it is likely that UV could be involved in loss of superficial facial fat.  The study that you quote, though, is an in vitro study of cultured cells, from which one can conclude very little.

 

In the the introduction of the full paper the authors mention that subcutaneous fat is preferentially lost in sunexposed areas, the face and back of the hands. They cite several sources for this, mice studies, identical human twins, review papers and also this study with humans in vivo:
 
http://www.sciencedi...022202X15353859
 

However, we here show that SC fat tissue in chronically sun-damaged skin contains less fat than naturally aged skin, and even a single UV exposure of human skin reduced lipid synthesis in the underlying SC fat tissue

 

 

 

 

 

The problem with this argument is that hormone disruptors (like hormones themselves) have large effects in small amounts - consider all the sexually abnormally developed fish, for example, in rivers wtih extremey low concentrations of various hormone disruptors. And who says 2 g is a small amount - it depends what is in that 2 g?  For example, 2 g of a topical pharmaceutical hormone replacement gel (e.g. Androgel) contains just 1% of the active principle (testosterone).  Only about 10% of that 1% is absorbed systemically, when applied only once a day on a relatively small area.  Yet this will have profound effects on many organs in the body (in the case of testosterone replacement, this absorbed 0.1% is responsible for all the pharmaceutical effect).

 

The hormone disruptor molecules we are talking about are similar in size to steroid molecules and would be expected to be absorbed in similar proportions (and they are indeed detectable in urine in people who apply these sunscreens), except, what percentage of the volume of the sunscreen are they?  Also consider that 2 g of sunscreen will not cover much area, and sunscreens used properly have to be reapplied several times a day, and possibly over large body areas, increasing exposure. 

 

 

2g of sunscreen should be fine for face and neck without reapplication if you talk about a normal day and not going to the beach to expose your body. Different hormone disruptors have been tested already and you can check which doses had an effect and which had no effect at all, there is already plenty of science on the topic. Not sure extrapolating from fish is the most rigorous test to do. I imagine birth control pills are different regarding hormone disruption compared to a sunscreen containing some ingredient which in large doses disrupts hormones. An example: Would you worry about consuming pomegrenate juice? Apparently contains "natural estrogens" but possibly has beneficial effects on men. Clearly not all these chemicals are the same and as such it would make sense to take a closer look at the specific ingredient we are talking about, they are not all the same.

If you want to be careful, get a sunscreen without ingredients that are disrupting - e.g. tinosorb S is not disrupting, Zinc Oxide isn't and I'm sure there are more.

 

 

Edited by Heyman, 10 December 2015 - 06:13 PM.

[Boopy!]

hey I have read the stuff about bad stuff in sunscreens in America  (all on sale now,  at very reduced prices due to pretty new standards re all sunscreens here.)   But I have also heard of great results with just zinc ox. powder and have been meaning to get some,  as it also works like a powder for skin,  so may as well get the added benefit of sun protection,  right?   Colorescience makes its own,  in good shades,   like a bronzer,  and it's all good stuff from what I recall,  but even better you could have your own,  lightly applied to avoid that white glare people don't want,  and it lasts and works.   Just a lil tip for those worried about excess bad ingredients that wouldn't even be necessary with the pure powder.   Maybe skinactives scientist.com has some -- or bulkactives.

[Boopy!]

To avoid all the stuff about sunscreen plus my own incredible laziness -- can barely manage tooth brushing many days --  I just always have major hats and have been known to throw a scarf or sweatshirt around my head when outside for any amount of time longer than twenty minutes,   because let me tell you,  after all the peels I've done and the tretinoin I am not going backwards with freckles and worse.  Just always have something to throw around your face,  is what I mean.    Doesn't matter to me if people think I am crazy for caring about my skin (where I live,  in the south,  no men and few women  I hang with even wear sunscreen -- they think it's silly.)    Better to be outside in the sun,  just protected,   than sedentary,  pale,  and mushy like I  see and fear getting like sooo many people out there.   I always had an image of people playing video games,  pale and white and mushy,   and it does exist.   I have seen it in action,  and with my sedentary job it's always in the back of my mind.

[Nate-2004]

So most of what this volume is that people talk about is the subcutaneous fat tissue that you see in most people under 30. It gives them that look of being definitely under 30. Collagen apparently just improves skin elasticity which is great for wrinkles but not for the young look. I think what people are wanting is to get that fat back. I don't know that this is possible without transplants OR more preferably, determining the cause of the loss in the first place and repairing that damage.

 

What causes the loss of this fat in the face and elsewhere? How do you undo the sunken look of age that begins at 30? That's the question of the *ages*... Like, what causes it, biochemically speaking? Is it a downregulation of some molecule? Is it the destruction of some molecule by the upregulation of another? Like CD38 is to NAD+? Is it inflammation?

 

I know honokiol applied topically is a dermal anti-inflammatory. But I've been applying it topically for a month now using a honokiol / argan oil mix so I haven't seen much yet but can't expect much in such a short time.

 

 

[jeanlzt11]

Hi Nate, I followed Turnbuckles links too.  As of yet I don't know of any way to increase fat loss except for dermal fillers, fat injections or gaining weight.   A sunken look is also because of changes in bone density.  Studies show that as we age the facial bones dissolve, shrink, change contour and leave empty spaces creating a loss of volume. I can't find a biological mechanism for this age related fat loss except reading that It redistributes with age shifting downward towards our middle. 

 

http://isp.netscape....ing/facialaging 

 

[aconita]

It seems that both Volufiline (sarsasapogenin) and macelignan are able to increase fat deposits below skin surface, there is quite a bit of research confirming it but to which degree they will reverse an ageing look is still to be determined.

 

Those are mainly marketed as creams for breast and butt enlargement.

 

Anyway Lifeextension has a product containing both (https://www.lifeexte...nd-therapy-4-oz), to obtain sarsasapogenin and macelignan in order to make your own seems not very feasible because of costs and difficult to get.

 

Volufiline at about 30$/month seems available from Korea (eBay), which to me seems still expensive considering how tiny the sarsasapogenin content actually is.

 

Extracting macelignan from nutmeg is beyond average home making capabilities.

 

It would be rather interesting to hear about personal experiences with those substances since often theory and research are quite different from real life.

 

In other words: would the use of those substances really make a difference in how an ageing person looks? 

 

I am not aware of any other substances claimed to be able to increase fat deposits so far.

[jeanlzt11]

It seems that both Volufiline (sarsasapogenin) and macelignan are able to increase fat deposits below skin surface, there is quite a bit of research confirming it but to which degree they will reverse an ageing look is still to be determined.

 

Those are mainly marketed as creams for breast and butt enlargement.

 

Anyway Lifeextension has a product containing both (https://www.lifeexte...nd-therapy-4-oz), to obtain sarsasapogenin and macelignan in order to make your own seems not very feasible because of costs and difficult to get.

 

Volufiline at about 30$/month seems available from Korea (eBay), which to me seems still expensive considering how tiny the sarsasapogenin content actually is.

 

Extracting macelignan from nutmeg is beyond average home making capabilities.

 

It would be rather interesting to hear about personal experiences with those substances since often theory and research are quite different from real life.

 

In other words: would the use of those substances really make a difference in how an ageing person looks? 

 

I am not aware of any other substances claimed to be able to increase fat deposits so far.

 

This is Interesting, I would like to read any anecdotal reports of people using this product.  

[Nate-2004]

All I know is vitamin K helps improve bone density but probably not in any specific places or enough to add back the bone density that was lost in the face.

 

The Sarsasapogenin and Macelignan are interesting but I wonder why they're marketing it for hands and butts and not faces. Why not the face?

 

There are hints that carnosine helps with suppressing white adipose tissue and innervates brown adipose tissue but this is just a single study with no follow up to my knowledge.

 

There's also beta lapachone being discussed in other threads regarding its positive effects on brown adipose tissue.

 

Someone above said any cream claiming to add that lost volume to the face is a fraud, so I'm wary of trying that Sarsasapogenin and Macelignan cream, but surely there is some sort of mechanism behind the bone and fat loss that can be understood. Seems like there would be a big motive for R&D around that process.