Question for "mature women"

What works for your wrinkles, aside from Botox and other medical procedures?
Any really good "filler" type make–up out there that you would recommend? I've
tried lots of the new "alternative to Botox" products and they do smooth out
your skin, IF you don't crack a smile for the rest of day, they crinkle up your
wrinkles even more noticibly. Anything working for anyone?
Thanks for any info,
Marenah

"EvaMarenah" wrote:
procedures?
I've
out
your
This is what's working for me:
I'm only in my mid forties, and I don't have much wrinkling so far. I avoid
heavy foundations. Lightweights do a better job of staying put, which means
not settling into the cracks, as it were. I don't worry about my smile
lines––why bother? To perk these up and make them look better, I smile!
If the skin around your eyes is getting loose and papery, avoid using
foundation and concealers there. Foundations that claim to make the skin
around the eyes look tighter fail by drying taut then giving out and letting
somethings but not everything fall. Concealers can't cover wrinkles and will
eventually crease. Use UNFROSTED shadows and liners! Skin with even a tiny
bit of sag can look like metallic seersucker when shimmery products are
applied.
The same goes for frosted lipstick. If it migrates into the lines around the
lips.... eeeewww!–– Have you ever seen "There's Something About Mary"? Use a
lipstick and a reliable lip liner in colors you like and that complement
your skin, but avoid '60s shades!
To keep my skin plumped up, I drink water, water and more water. Skin loves
it.
In the long run, we might as well learn to live with it. We can't turn the
clock back, can't spackle it over, and there's a point at which surgery can
do nothing more. Unless we make a deal with Satan or die young, this is our
fate.

ESPECIALLY when we are bombarded with "the youth" orientated mags using models that are what 10yrs old?
i make it my business to subscribe to MORE mag and purchase other mags, when they feature "women of age" on their
covers!
we (40–50–60yrs) women are the majority, and truly being ignored!
try to support each and every retailer who celebrates us!
rosie

Pennyaline wrote:
Tazarotene or tretinoin, mid–strength TCA peels with a solid white
frost (if you can tolerate 2–3 weeks of down time), La Roche Posay
Anthelios XL slathered on liberally every two hours, wide–brimmed hat,
sunglasses.
Any really good "filler" type make–up out there that you would recommend?
Absolutely not.
Not! Nobody would have a wrinkle or sag before the age of
70 if their skin wasn't sun damaged. If you have sun damage,
get rid of it and don't let any more damage take place.

or, live a happy and carefree life and let the wrinkles come as they inevitably
will. i'm not saying wahoo to the fact that i'm looking older, but i can't
imagine what my grandmother would have looked like botoxed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://tinyurl.com/kqlo

Not! Nobody would have a wrinkle or sag before the age of
70 if their skin wasn't sun damaged. If you have sun damage,
get rid of it and don't let any more damage take place.
Not everyone wrinkles, some people just sag. One of the few bonuses of having
oily skin (and avoiding sun of course). Sagging can be remedied with plastic
surgery. Messy, but it does the trick...
DG

"WoN ereH" <wone...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20030827114254.07565.00000...@mb–m27.aol.com...
Not! Nobody would have a wrinkle or sag before the age of
70 if their skin wasn't sun damaged. If you have sun damage,
get rid of it and don't let any more damage take place.
having
plastic
Hi! I use Retin–A every three days or so – every day gives me the red
scalies ; I don't use toner – I find it too drying ; I always wear
sunglasses outside – I have since I was a teenager. I went through a period
of tanning salons a few years ago, but the self–tanners are so improved I'd
rather risk embarassment from some streaking than permanent sun damage from
the fake–and–bake beds. I use Spectroderm cleanser for users of Retin–A –
it's PH balanced and unscented. For moisturizer I use Proactiv repair
lotion – I think it has a great texture and scares away any zits that might
be thinking of popping up. I'm 41, and I really don't have any wrinkles to
speak of – I attribute this entirely not to sunscreen but to having worn
foundation since I was fifteen or so and undereye coverup for dark circles
too.
Huronia

i doubt that this statement is true, but even if it is, WHY THE HELL are we fighting wrinkles?
aging is a natural process, and if i am obsessed (which i can slip into) i am missing today!

forget about loading on more makeup – go very easy on the foundation
and powder and concentrate on just getting some color on those cheeks,
but no clown look, please.
avoid shimmery products and dark lipsticks.
eye shadows are prob. a waste of time and money as we mature – unless
you like to know it's perfectly hidden behind drooping lids.
I am religious in using sunblock and wearing hats –
keeping your teeth up to par is important to your looks.
be sure your hair gets a good trim every six weeks or so ––
if you haven't, invest in 'tweezerman', a magnifying mirror and make
it a habit to watch DAILY for dark facial hair – yes, I mean whiskers–
I was recently in the company of many women in the 70's and whiskers
and mustaches seemed to be the most noticeable grooming problem.
Maybe they just don't care, but I'd rather have my tweezerman over any
beauty tool out there.
there are no miracles in bottles, and botox scares the s––t out of me.
btw, recent photo of melanie griffith on a tabloid I saw todaymakes me
wonder who these gals think they're fooling. Horrendous.
just think of every year added to your age as gravy – so many don't
ever live to see the first line.
val

Yeah, the "hair" is a real problem for someone post–menopausal like me. I'm
actually losing some of my head hair (and yes hair in another very important
place:( then having the little whiskers grow out on the face is awful. Wasn't
having probs like this until I quit my HRT therapy. I guess all one can do is
roll with the punches and make the best of it.
Marenah

evamare...@aol.com (EvaMarenah) wrote in message news:<20030827193232.14261.00000...@mb–m18.aol.com>...
able grooming problem.
having the little whiskers grow out on the face is awful. Wasn't
I can attest to the fact that hrt does NOT prevent the ol' wires
appearance. Maybe you were just lucky. why did you stop the hrt – ot,
I know, but I am "collecting" reasons to quit.
val

Pennyaline wrote:
I didn't say it wouldn't happen at all. I said it wouldn't happen
before 70. Sags are from UVA, wrinkles from UVB. It's also
important to maintain a healthy (and consistent) BMI in the
18–20 range. It is true that nothing can be done to stop the
loss of collagen (and when proper weight is maintained or lost,
subcutaneous fat), but prescription retinoids can help even
intrinsically aging skin. Estrogens also help.
I really wish that people would stop making excuses. They have
nothing and nobody to blame but themselves. It does not take
herculean effort to look 20 at 40, 30 at 50, and 35 at 60. Nor
does it require cutting and stitching.
Compare the skin on your grandmother's rear end to that
on her face. The difference is from the sun. About 90% of what
you see as aging is sun damage. The other 10% can be minimized
by prudent lifestyle.

"giselle" insisted:
What?! Where do you people get this stuff?
Right! Let's not accept the excuse that aging is a normal process. Let's
blame UV light and a bad BMI.
But why look 20 and 40, etc.? Why?
("20 at 40, 30 at 50, and 35 at 60..." Just can't bring yourself to look 40,
eh?)
My grandmothers are long dead, so their skin wouldn't look too good
anywhere. But I've seen plenty of geriatric tuchus and believe me, in terms
of sagging and weakness the backsides I've observed are about equal to their
corresponding faces. Sun exposure had nothing to do with it. It was a matter
of elastin weakness, collagen loss, cutaneous thinning, subcutaneous tissue
loss and muscle atrophy. They just plum wore out, just like faces and
everything else.
BTW, they weren't all menopausal butts. Some of them were on men.
<I can't attest for how prudent the lifestyles of these tushies may or may
not have been>

Hairless mouse skin? What does that have to do with the price of beans? The
butt droops with age/use, and rarely if ever sees a drop of sun. Butt lifts
can reverse the sag, just have to put up with that nasty scar for a year or so.
DG

Pennyaline wrote:
Some of these studies used men as subjects. Not all female subjects
were postmenopausal. Some of the full papers are free online.
Gynecol Endocrinol. 2002 Dec;16(6):431–41.
Arch Dermatol Res. 2002 Jul;294(5):231–6. Epub 2002 Jun 07.
Am J Clin Dermatol. 2001;2(3):143–50.
Clin Exp Dermatol. 2001 Oct;26(7):600–7.
Ann Plast Surg. 2001 Jun;46(6):617–20.
Drugs Aging. 1999 Apr;14(4):289–301.
Am J Pathol. 1999 Oct;155(4):1137–46.
Dermatol Clin. 1997 Oct;15(4):561–7.
Nat Med. 1997 Nov;3(11):1209–15.
Int J Dermatol. 1996 Sep;35(9):669–74
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Dec;102(12):985–9.
J Dermatol Sci. 1995 May;9(3):221–4.
Maturitas. 1994 Nov;20(1):25–30.
Maturitas. 1994 Oct;19(3):211–23.

Pennyaline wrote:
What do you mean by "You people?" You have no idea.
who you are dealing with. Suffice it to say your responses
betray a scope of ignorance that is breathtakingly vast,
not to mention exceedingly rude.
On UVA and sagging:
Bissett DL, Hannon DP, Orr TV.,
Wavelength dependence of histological, physical,
and visible changes in chronically UV–irradiated
hairless mouse skin, Photochem Photobiol. 1989 Dec;50(6):763–9.
See what causes sagging:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/18/10576/F2
Fig 2B The measured *in vivo* action spectrum for the
photosagging of mouse skin taken from Bissett et al.
Most of the visible external signs are from UV. A great deal of
the internal changes can be minimzed by maintaining
a low BMI and optimally nutritious diet. This works
in all animals studied. There is also strong evidence
that it works for people, too. Fewer calories = longer life ,
better health, and a more youthful look at every age.
There are too many publications here to list individually.
Are all the researchers who contributed to them "You people?"
http://www.calorierestriction.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=7
Walter Willet bashed the myth that a little bit of weight
gain with age was ok. See Willett WC, Manson JE, Stampfer
MJ, Colditz GA, Rosner B, Speizer FE, Hennekens CH.
Weight, weight change, and coronary heart disease in
women. Risk within the 'normal' weight range.
JAMA. 1995 Feb 8;273(6):461–5.
PMID: 7654270
Are Walter Willet et al. "You People?"
Why look like an old bag when you don't have to?
Why display such contempt for the idea of wanting
to look good? Why display such contempt for people
who take care of themselves?
Are the people who put this website together "You people?"
http://www.centerforderm.com/articles/aging.html
And Kligman, is he "You people" too?
http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/1997/08_97/kligman.htm

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 22:29:57 GMT, giselle <gise...@atlantic.not>
wrote:
Do you mind awfully if I don't?
––
m a u d i e
Posting stats, a "when I feel like it" service,
at Yahoo! Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/af_geeks/
(latest date: August 11th 2003)

The most recent research indicates that the SPF found in cosmetics provides
no appreciable protection against sun–induced aging. This is because:
1) suncreens don't provide substantial protection against UVA (especially
UVA1) rays, only burning UVB rays –– it is the UVA rays which penetrate and
damage the dermis;
2) a cosmetic SPF of 15–30 applied in a cosmetically elegant manner
(sparingly and once a day) only provides an SPF of around 2.... which is two
hours of bolstered protection. This would mean that by the time the sun's
rays were most damaging (between 11am and 3pm) the sunscreen will have
expired on your face (if you'd applied it first thing in the morning).
Topical Vitamin C at a very low, acidic pH in concentrations of 10–20% has
been shown to have a natural SPF of up to 4 (depending on brand and %
concentration), and lasts in the skin for up to 4 days. It won't wash or
wear off.
White, pasty zinc Oxide is the only sunblock with near comprehensive UVA–UVB
protection.
Gina.
<snip>
In the long run, we might as well learn to live with it. We can't turn
the
clock back, can't spackle it over, and there's a point at which surgery
can
do nothing more. Unless we make a deal with Satan or die young, this is
our
fate.

Gina wrote:
USA cosmetics/sunscreens provide only limited UVA protection,
but some European sunscreens provide very significant UVA
protection.
UVA is also more abundant. But UVB is more powerful and also damaging.
It should not be used alone, but in combination with something from the
E family (tocopherol or tocotrienols), coq10, bioflavonoids, and possibly
polyphenols, too. It's becoming clear that antioxidants work best in
a party. They can cover a wider variety of reactive oxygen species and
recycle eachother, too.
It has the widest absorbance spectrum. But, it isn't very potent.
Even high concentrations do not provide much protection in
UVA. See the FDA dockets using PPD as a search term
for information on how limited zinc oxide's UVA protection
is in practice.

wow, this thread has gone from "laugh lines" and "crows feet" to LEATHERED APPEARANCE?
its not what i'm (the mature women) is talking about at all!
rosie

"rosie readandpost" wrote:
From the article, cut and pasted:
"The deep lines, leathered appearance, and the sagging of the skin
surface
typically associated with "old age" are thought to result from
UV–induced
photodamage to the skin and to occur over the course of a lifetime (3).
APPEARANCE?
Tell me about it! I admit that, as an active part of this thread, my
reactions have become a bit extreme. Time to put things back into
perspective. My laugh lines and smile lines were come by honestly, my
crow's–feet crinkle merrily, and the rest will come as they come. I'm not
weather–beaten, care–worn or ill–used. For this, I am ever grateful.

"giselle" wrote:
in message news:_Cf3b.874$qJ6.636...@monger.newsread.com...
Well, then, who am I dealing with?
Your responses to the posters in this thread betray comtempt. Perhaps you
shouldn't make any accusations.
From the article, cut and pasted:
"The deep lines, leathered appearance, and the sagging of the skin surface
typically associated with "old age" are thought to result from UV–induced
photodamage to the skin and to occur over the course of a lifetime (3).
Although obvious differences between photoaged and chronologically aged skin
exist, the anatomic basis of the visible signs of photoaging is not
understood fully (4, 8). Absorption of UV–A must induce photobiologic
effects within the skin that lead to the visible and histological
differences of photoaged skin, and, although the mechanisms by which
UV–A–induced photodamage occur have not been completely determined, reactive
oxygen species are postulated to play a role (9)."
"Though to...." "Not understood fully...." "Have not been completely
determined...." "Postulated to...."
Sorry. Show me something other than theory.
Explain to me how skin that is not exposed to UV still manages to show signs
of age early in life.
The article describes the differences noted between *photoaged skin* and
*chronologically–aged skin*. It does not attribute the appearance of aging
entirely to UV exposure. Instead, it attempts to examine how skin photoages.
I've already stated that sun exposure causes skin damage early in life. So
why are you arguing with me when we agree?
http://www.calorierestriction.org/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&a
rtid=7
I went to this address and read it through. The question persists: Who are
these people?
This doesn't address aging skin.
Try again.
But why look 20 and 40, etc.? Why?
But I don't look like an old bag. Nor do many 40+ year olds that I know. Why
display such contempt for people who don't maintain an optimal BMI, wall
themselves off from the sun and purchase masses of retinoids?
This site has a service to sell. No authority there. Just commerce.
At last, a reference that might have merit. Sadly, it's the only one you've
managed to provide.

To reply to my own post because I forgot to include
some links.
This pdf file explains more about UVA protection,
how it can be measured, and how protective
certain formulations really are. It's a big file and
takes a long time to download but it's a must for
those who really care. There is a googled html
cache but it doesn't include the figures, which are
indispensible. I actually cried the when I read it.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/mar00/032400/sup0030.pdf
But, I would also suggest going into the dockets
site and downloading and reading *everything* with
UVA and PPD as search terms.
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/default.htm

Could you give some examples of European sunscreens which provide very
significant UVA protection?
My understanding has been that while UVB is burning, it can't enter the
dermis to create oxy–radicals that progressively destroy the fibroblasts
necessary for collagen and elastin production.
I believe vitamin C does help regenerate and protect vitamin E in the skin,
and probably vice versa –– the only successful brand I know of which has
associated C+E together in a serum is made by Primacy.
If any one is interested, they also have a sunscreen which uses a patented
technology called SunCaps to encapsulate sunscreen chemicals, allowing them
to push the SPF up to 45 without significantly increasing the likelihood of
irritation (the sunscreen chemicals are supposedly not absorbed into the
skin in large quantities). They also combine this with zinc which they have
managed to make translucent (more patents!). I have tried it and it has a
white–ish shimmer which isn't at all unattractive.
Unless I am mistaken though, Primacy is only available where a dermatologist
is in attendance.
The zinc oxide I referred to previously was the opaque kind which turns
blueish once wet.
The clinic where I work has an article on the various sunscreen ingredients
and their breadth of coverage at:
http://store.yahoo.com/dryskinsnet/sundasu.html
Gina.


"giselle" <gise...@atlantic.not> wrote in message
news:Xrn3b.886$qJ6.645...@monger.newsread.com...

Gina wrote:
Look for a PPD (persistent pigment darkening) rating of
around 30. Two good ones are La Roche Posay Anthelios XL
SPF 60 (PPD 28–30) and Bioderma Photoderm Max SPF 100
PPD 30. The most protective formulations will combine
a physical screen (typically titanium dioxide, because it's
less reactive with chemical UVA filters than is zinc oxide)
and several chemical UVA filters (mexoryl sx, mexoryl xl,
and avobenzone), or combine a few of the above with
tinosorb s or m.
You can get them here:
http://www.paraformeplus.com/private/quickbuy.pl [France, shipping is about $15]
The secure server does not work, but this site sells the unscented XL lotion (milk)
http://www.beautycenter.co.uk [Shipping is about $15, maybe more]
Sometimes you can find them on Ebay. Some USA derms
sell them in their offices at 3x the price you can get if you
order overseas.
Second best would be the Canadian formulations: Anthelios L
or Ombrelle SPF 60. They are essentially the same, with a
PPD of about 15. You can get them here:
http://www.feelbest.com
Shipping is about $5
Some of the Asian formulations with PA+++ ratings are
nice and light, but the +++ designation guarantees only
a PPD of 8, which is roughly equivalent to the best that
current FDA regulations on formulations allow in the USA.
This would correspond to a formulation with 3% avobenzone
and 10% octocrylene (Ombrelle SPF 40 or 44 and maybe
a handful of other formulations). It's possible that completely
physical formulations with SPF 30+ could approach a PPD 8 but that's
about the extreme upper limit. If you want significantly greater
UVA protection than that, you have to use chemicals in the formula, too.
It does not penetrate as deeply, but it is much more potently
reactive than UVA.
Here is Naylor's comment from the Electronic Textbook
of Dermatology:
http://www.telemedicine.org/sundam/sundam2.4.1.html
"Although UVB makes up only 5% of the ultraviolet photons
reaching the earth's surface, it is the most important component
of sunlight for human skin. It is considered the major action
spectrum for both melanoma and non–melanoma skin cancer
formation. Although it does not penetrate as deeply as
UVA, and does not interact as vigorously with the epidermis as
UVC, UVB combines depth of penetration and reactivity with
macromolecules in such a way that it is the most biologically
potent portion of the UV spectrum in terms of short and long
term consequences."
He doesn't think UVA more potently photoaging than UVB.
It's hard to argue with him because he has conducted
a clinical trial in photoaging. But, many derms feel that UVA
is very significant, if not more significant, in terms of photoaging.
I would not call Primacy successful. There is no guarantee
of stability with the product. It may be oxidized before
you even open the bottle. If it were fresh, it would be
great, but even then, there is no justification for the price.
Dr. Leslie Baumann has challenged all sellers of topical
ascorbic acid to prove stability. None have responded
to her challenge.
Encaspsulation is great, but their prices are not, nor is the level of
UVA protection that their formulations provide. You can ask them
for the absorbance spectrum or for a PPD rating. They probably
have the information on file, but may or may not give it to you.
Also, each different particle size of zinc oxide (or titanium dioxide,
for that matter) will have a different absorbance spectrum. Carriers
also make a difference. So does the size of the clumps of the
particles. Generally, the smaller the particle, the more translucent
the formulation, and the less UVA protection.
Here is some good reading on UVA protection:
http://www.larocheposay.net/page13.html
Click on the bolded titles for a pop–up. These two are great:
– Suncare product photostability: a key parameter for a more realistic in vitro efficacy
evaluation.
Part I: In vitro efficacy assessment
B.L. Diffey, R.P. Stokes, S. Forestier, C. Mazilier, A. Rougier
Note when reading that the FDA has no requirement for
stability.
– Which kind of protection a broad absorption UVA sunscreen provide?
A. Fourtanier, C. Cohen, A. Guéniche, R. Ley, D. Moyal, S. Seité
This is a very great summary of what constitutes excellent
UVA protection.

Thankyou, that's very interesting. I've never come across a PPD sunscreen
here and we could probably do with a few on the market given the strong sun
'down under.' !
Primacy guarantees stability for around a year. They do say that the
products will oxidize on opening but claim that performance will not be
markedly affected and they do offer vitamin C serums in sizes as small as
0.5 oz.. Primacy is well regarded by dermatologists so I'm inclined to have
above average faith in them despite their not meeting a challenge by the
doctor you mention.
I agree that there are many questionable "c" serums. So often I hear of
someone who's bought one from a health food store, and on closer inspection,
seen to not contain a useable form of vitamin c.
Primacy do make available numerous university studies into their products'
actives, including the range of protection offered by their sunscreens, and
these may be downloaded from their website.
More and more there's an emphasis on higher–performing products, even if
imperfect, and price is taking second place to that.
Personally, I never used sunscreens unless I'm going to the beach (which is
maybe once a year); otherwise I'm actually not too bothered about
"incidental" sun exposure –– I have to get my vitamin D for strong bones
somehow!
Gina. :)


"giselle" <gise...@atlantic.not> wrote in message
news:wfv3b.900$qJ6.664...@monger.newsread.com...
about $15]
lotion (milk)
vitro efficacy