# Why you should never use Latisse.



## Golden Glass (Sep 28, 2019)

*Why you should avoid Latisse like the plague*

Latisse is frequently mentioned both here, and in other forums, as a great way to boost eye lash growth, as well as eyebrow growth.

This is a horrible idea. *Latisse burns fat*; this has been demonstrated through numerous studies.

Below, are pictures of before and after a from *articles and clinic websites that are supposed to be PROMOTING Latisse*. It’s crazy to think that these women, and their doctors don’t see the damage being done to their upper eye area, *just look at how hollow and gaunt like it is in the after*. I think it’s criminal how docs get away with promoting those before and afters without highlighting the definite damage latisse will do to most people.



Spoiler



















For those who want to apply Latisse to eyebrows, keep in mind the catastrophic results above were only from applying it to the lashes; *applying Latisse right on the brow itself is a death sentence to ever having a nice upper eye area. *

I personally was not informed enough when I started to use latisse, and after only 2 weeks (seriously), I had lost some fat above my upper eyelid—I used to have permanent hooded “hunter” eyes, and* to this day, I have some minimal upper eyelid exposure, I’d say 90% of the time. It’s been over 6 months since then.*

Had I started latisse before I even knew what hooded eyes were, and that they were a good thing, I would not have even noticed the orbital fat loss, and would have continued on with my latisse use, getting great lashes, but destroying my once decent eye area, just as the women in these pictures have done so—the worst part is, *they don’t even realize the harm latisse did, as they are blinded by the good results it gave their lashes.* Then as the time goes by, they must start to notice it but attribute it to aging, when the real culprit was latisse.

*Don’t ever use this product.*


*Alternatives to Latisse for better eyelashes and eyebrows*

The only “natural” alternative to latisse for eyebrows is minoxidil, as well as the standard things like castor oil.
*Minoxidil is more than good enough for eyebrows—I would even say they are much better than latisse for eyebrow growth*, so it’s no loss to now know that latisse is garbage, just use minoxidil.

The *only “natural” alternative to latisse for lashes are the standard things like Castor oil*. It’s a shame, however, that there’s no other product that can give lash results like Latisse can. There is nothing like a minoxidil for lashes, as there is for eyebrows.

*However; there is something that can be done to get PERMAMENT long lashes. Even better results than Latisse, as the lashes can be as long as you want*; the *only downside is it will require some maintenance, however, it is minimal* compared to how latisse requires you to continue to apply it for as long as you want longer lashes.

What I’m talking about here, are *eyelash transplants*, from scalp hair. These are the results you can expect, keep in mind that the “weirder” looking ones are because the women let the lashes grow VERY LONG:


Spoiler



























These are the *benefits* from Eyelash transplants:
*—Permanent Results 
—Lashes can be added only to add density* (so you keep them the same length as your current lashes) *or can be allowed to grow far longer.*
—If done by a good surgeon, *they look 100% natural*

These are the *possible* *downsides* to Eyelash transplants:
—Have to be *cut about once every 1-2 weeks* once they are at desired length (this is *super low effort*)
—*IF* you are *light haired*, you will need to *taint* your *lashes* *every* *few* *weeks* (this would be true for Latisse and Castor Oil as well)
—*ONCE* your *scalp hair starts to gray*, so will your transplanted lashes, but again, they can *easily be tainted every few weeks *(Virtually every light haired girl taints their lashes, it’s not rocket science)
— *IF you go to a bad surgeon,* they *might* *transplant them in an unnatural position*, and the hairs might then curl inwards instead of outwards, so *you would need to curl your lashes daily* (can be easily avoided by not being cheap)


*CONCLUSION

—No matter what, avoid Latisse; it will likely ruin your upper eye area.
—For eyebrows, use Castor oil, or minoxidil for the best results
—For eyelashes, use Castor oil, or get good quality eyelash transplants for the best results. *

I feel like this thread is worth stickying, but you guys be the judge. I just hate the thought of people still drinking the Latisse Koolaid—it can kill your looks.


----------



## FatJattMofo (Sep 28, 2019)

you fucking genius. i love you.

what other things fuck up hooding?


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 28, 2019)

FatJattMofo said:


> you fucking genius. i love you.
> 
> what other things fuck up hooding?


Based on what I’ve learned, hooding over the upper eyelid is mainly due to:
1. Fat in that area and
2. A prominent brow bone/supraorbital ridge.

Out of these two, the fat is more important to get the hooding effect, but ideally you will want both of these.
Matt Damon and Brad Pitt are an excellent example of a male who lacks a strong brow ridge, but still has hooded eyes, due to having plenty of fat over the upper eyelids.















As far as what else can adversely affect hooding, I’d say the only other things -I currently know about- would be if you are extremely underweight, as well as if you’re not drinking enough water. Some people just won’t have inherited the trait of storing fat above the upper eyelid, so there, the best option would be fillers or fat grafts.


----------



## Joyride (Sep 28, 2019)

I recently bought Pronexa Hairgenics Lavish Lash Eyelash Growth Enhancer Brow Serum 

It's the most popular growth serum on amazon so i really wanna try it. Have you tried it b4?


----------



## Deleted member 2621 (Sep 28, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> *Why you should avoid Latisse like the plague*
> 
> Latisse is frequently mentioned both here, and in other forums, as a great way to boost eye lash growth, as well as eyebrow growth.
> 
> ...


Appreciate your efforts sir


----------



## 2peasinapod (Sep 28, 2019)

this is why i lol at tryhard fraudsters, its always 1 step forweard 2 steps back

we live and learn


----------



## FatJattMofo (Sep 28, 2019)

2peasinapod said:


> this is why i lol at tryhard fraudsters, its always 1 step forweard 2 steps back
> 
> we live and learn


every model is a tryhard


----------



## 2peasinapod (Sep 28, 2019)

FatJattMofo said:


> every model is a tryhard



they just live healthy lifestyles - socialise and exercise with almost 0 stress lifestyles

anything else is cope


----------



## Lorsss (Sep 28, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> Based on what I’ve learned, hooding over the upper eyelid is mainly due to:
> 1. Fat in that area and
> 2. A prominent brow bone/supraorbital ridge.
> 
> ...


HIGH IQ, thanks for enlightening us
minox, castor and vasiline are much bettah


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 28, 2019)

Joyride said:


> I recently bought Pronexa Hairgenics Lavish Lash Eyelash Growth Enhancer Brow Serum
> 
> It's the most popular growth serum on amazon so i really wanna try it. Have you tried it b4?



No I have not used it, if it uses prostaglandin analogs then it will likely cause fat loss. However, I saw these pics on the product page and reviews, and fat loss is obvious















Keep in mind those pictures could have been ripped off from Latisse before and afters, and the actual product could be safe. 


If you feel like using it, just be careful and take pictures daily of your upper eyelid area, preferably around afternoon after any morning swelling has subsided. Keep track of how much upper eyelid exposure you have, and if it gets worse, stop using the product immediately.


----------



## IWantToMax (Sep 28, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> *Why you should avoid Latisse like the plague*
> 
> Latisse is frequently mentioned both here, and in other forums, as a great way to boost eye lash growth, as well as eyebrow growth.
> 
> ...


Was thinking about going with Latisse instead of minox and peppermint oil. You just save me man. Thanks bruh


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 28, 2019)

G


IWantToMax said:


> Was thinking about going with Latisse instead of minox and peppermint oil. You just save me man. Thanks bruh



Glad to have helped! This is why I think this thread should be stickied—who can I message to make that happen?


----------



## IWantToMax (Sep 28, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> G
> 
> 
> Glad to have helped! This is why I think this thread should be stickied—who can I message to make that happen?


Was wondering. Given that it causes not negligible localized fat loss, couldn't it be used to give the appearance of hollow cheeks and to make gonial angle more visible?


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 28, 2019)

IWantToMax said:


> Was wondering. Given that it causes not negligible localized fat loss, couldn't it be used to give the appearance of hollow cheeks and to make gonial angle more visible?


Possibly? I’m no biochemist so I really wouldn’t know if it would only cause fat loss in the Periorbital region


----------



## IWantToMax (Sep 28, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> Possibly? I’m no biochemist so I really wouldn’t know.


If I will find the time I will make a little research and make a post


----------



## make_it_to_the_top (Sep 28, 2019)

Holy fuark, thank you for this man, I will throw my serum to trash.


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 28, 2019)

For what it's worth I have looked into this, it seems like it only happens when used as the glaucoma medication that is applied directly into the eye, I haven't seen any studies that confirm it occurring when applied to eyelashes.

Also, every single study I saw showed that when stopping bimaprotost, all of the fat came back to your eye area after a couple weeks, since it only reduced the amount of fat in the cells, not actually killing the cells.


----------



## FatJattMofo (Sep 28, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> For what it's worth I have looked into this, it seems like it only happens when used as the glaucoma medication that is applied directly into the eye, I haven't seen any studies that confirm it occurring when applied to eyelashes.
> 
> Also, every single study I saw showed that when stopping bimaprotost, all of the fat came back to your eye area after a couple weeks, since it only reduced the amount of fat in the cells, not actually killing the cells.


same thing


----------



## Deleted member 3043 (Sep 28, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> Based on what I’ve learned, hooding over the upper eyelid is mainly due to:
> 1. Fat in that area and
> 2. A prominent brow bone/supraorbital ridge.
> 
> ...


i had kinda hooded eyes younger, ie no UEE, and now i have way more, despite the fact that back then i was lean so i should normally not have fat there.
how is it possible ?


----------



## make_it_to_the_top (Sep 28, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> For what it's worth I have looked into this, it seems like it only happens when used as the glaucoma medication that is applied directly into the eye, I haven't seen any studies that confirm it occurring when applied to eyelashes.
> 
> Also, every single study I saw showed that when stopping bimaprotost, all of the fat came back to your eye area after a couple weeks, since it only reduced the amount of fat in the cells, not actually killing the cells.


Anecdotal reports on RealSelf suggest that it is difficult to regain fat loss completely (after prolonged use of it, like 6 months+, but still). I think it's better to look into alternatives just to be sure


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 28, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> For what it's worth I have looked into this, it seems like it only happens when used as the glaucoma medication that is applied directly into the eye, I haven't seen any studies that confirm it occurring when applied to eyelashes.
> 
> Also, every single study I saw showed that when stopping bimaprotost, all of the fat came back to your eye area after a couple weeks, since it only reduced the amount of fat in the cells, not actually killing the cells.



There are too many complaints online of women who don’t get the fat back, as well as I myself. Those studies could have been backed by people who get paid by the pharma companies, so I’d take them lightly. And to your comment about it only happening when used as eye drops...did you not see ANY of the pictures I posted in the OP? They were from Doctor’s Websites who promote the damn thing, and you can see a night and day difference in the orbital fat. “there haven’t been any studies on it yet” means jack tbh. All you literally need to do is google Latisse orbital fat loss, and you will find plenty of women on reddit complaining about it lmao. Case in point: Until a few years ago, there were no studies regarding minoxidil for facial hair, and yet it was common knowledge that it worked.


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 28, 2019)

FatJattMofo said:


> same thing


But it isn't the method and amount of application is completely different.


make_it_to_the_top said:


> Anecdotal reports on RealSelf suggest that it is difficult to regain fat loss completely (after prolonged use of it, like 6 months+, but still). I think it's better to look into alternatives just to be sure


I don't really care about anecdotes since most of the studies showed even after prolonged use after several years the fat still came back, albeit very very slowly, atlhough I still agree that you probably shouldn't use it, at least not as often as most people do. I don't think eyelashes are that important anyway.


Golden Glass said:


> There are too many complaints online of women who don’t get the fat back, as well as I myself.


I don't care about anecdotes from people who have no idea about controlling variables, hidden and known.


Golden Glass said:


> hose studies could have been backed by people who get paid by the pharma companies


Unless you have any reason to believe that be the case, it's just fear mongering.


Golden Glass said:


> “there haven’t been any studies on it yet” means jack tbh


But anecdotes are so much more valuable roflmao.


Golden Glass said:


> ll you literally need to do is google Latisse orbital fat loss, and you will find plenty of women on reddit complaining about it lmao


I have seen many of those photos that were taken directly from sources on it used as the ophthalmic solution. Someone once linked a photo claiming to prove mewing worked, when in reality the photo was from a doctors office after the patient having braces.

Point being, you can't be sure of the source of the photo, it worthless to point to google images.


Golden Glass said:


> Until a few years ago, there were no studies regarding minoxidil for facial hair, and yet it was common knowledge that it worked.


Except this is false, there were many studies spanning back twenty years, most of them done in India, it's just that they were obscure and not posted on the internet.

Your terrible arguments aside, I still agree with you that you probably shouldn't be using Latisse until more conclusive studies are shown on its effects.


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 28, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> But it isn't the method and amount of application is completely different.
> 
> I don't really care about anecdotes since most of the studies showed even after prolonged use after several years the fat still came back, albeit very very slowly, atlhough I still agree that you probably shouldn't use it, at least not as often as most people do. I don't think eyelashes are that important anyway.
> 
> ...




A few of those pictures were directly from beauty blogs of women using latisse themselves, so there’s that. *ACTUALLY, I forgot to post pics from blogs, but here’s a few:




*






There are countless before and afters from beauty forums and reddit as well, how many of those women do you seriously think just copy and pasted images from people using Latisse for glaucoma lmfao


Going back to the minoxidil example, you provided a distinction without a difference. If there *were* studies about beard growth, but they *weren’t* available online, then they were effectively nonexistent for anyone who would try to find info about it online, while on forums it was common knowledge through anecdotal evidence that minoxidil worked on facial hair. The whole point was that you don’t need a study to confirm something if plenty of anecdotes can clearly demonstrate it. This isn’t some sort of weird phenomena that requires a meta analysis of plenty of rigorous studies, just like knowing whether minoxidil would work on facial hair wouldn’t have required them either, as effectively, any study on the topic was nonexistent, and yet the answer to that question was well established.

Here’s another example that wouldn’t *require* studies to know that It’s true (Whether there are any is beside the point): After a certain amount of lengthening, leg lengthening patients’ Athletic ability will be severely compromised.
This is a well known fact, derived from countless anecdotes of people who have undergone said procedure, as well as any leg lengthening surgeon if you asked him; do any studies need to exist to show this is the case? Of course not, only some idiot who thinks of science the way a middle schooler who watches Bill Nye would think so.







Autistic cuck semantics and failed attempts at gotchas aside, thanks for the input; like you said, nothing changes the conclusion that Latisse is just a bad idea.


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 28, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> The whole point was that you don’t need a study to confirm something if plenty of anecdotes can clearly demonstrate it.


Except you do, because anecdotes don;t control for any variables.


Golden Glass said:


> ACTUALLY, I forgot to post pics from blogs, but here’s a few:


There is literally no fat loss in any of those pictures, you're coping.


Golden Glass said:


> After a certain amount of lengthening, leg lengthening patients’ Athletic ability will be severely compromised.


Yes bro, the surgeons who did the leg lengthening surgery never knew any of those complications before, it was the anecdotes that proved them  



Golden Glass said:


> Autistic cuck semantics and failed attempts at gotchas aside, thanks for the input; like you said, nothing changes the conclusion that Latisse is just a bad idea.


IDK, keep letting your ego make you respond, I already said that I agree with your conclusion is somewhat correct, but you're argument are terrible, I'll wait for the response though .


----------



## Dicklet.4.3 (Sep 28, 2019)

how do i get fat in the upper eyelid without inject fat or becoming fat??


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 28, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> Except you do, because anecdotes don;t control for any variables.
> 
> There is literally no fat loss in any of those pictures, you're coping.
> 
> ...



As to anecdotes not controlling for variables... they most certainly can. That’s not an impossibility or even an improbability, especially if it’s Something as simple as applying Latisse to your lashes. You obviously haven’t read up on that at all.

As to there “being no fat loss in the pictures”, then you’re blind, all you need to do is compare upper eyelid exposure. I guess you need some LASIK, it’s not too expensive anymore.

As to your non point regarding leg lengthening, did they need a study to know this? But how could they control for all the other variables, if not without a study? This should, on its face, show how bad you are at reasoning.

And as to my ego, I’m fine swatting away your dumb points— as you’ve said, you agree with the conclusion, and you’ve also demonstrated you’re visually impaired, as well as logically illiterate. Go post somewhere else about “copes” or “its over” nonsense, I’m only here for serious contributions, no silly ego contests on an online forum with some autistic spaz.










Dicklet.4.3 said:


> how do i get fat in the upper eyelid without inject fat or becoming fat??



With fillers; I’ll post a thread about it later.


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 30, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> As to anecdotes not controlling for variables... they most certainly can. That’s not an impossibility or even an improbability, especially if it’s Something as simple as applying Latisse to your lashes. You obviously haven’t read up on that at all.
> 
> As to there “being no fat loss in the pictures”, then you’re blind, all you need to do is compare upper eyelid exposure. I guess you need some LASIK, it’s not too expensive anymore.
> 
> ...


The upper eyelid expsore is so minimal it might as well be attributed to different angles, since a minuscule change in angle is only needed to change it that amount.

But again, you're argument are terrible and your ego is too big to not let you stop replying.


----------



## bruhcel (Sep 30, 2019)

does castor oil really do anything?


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 30, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> The upper eyelid expsore is so minimal it might as well be attributed to different angles, since a minuscule change in angle is only needed to change it that amount.



•Again, *if you think that those changes are minimal, you’re blind or just desperate to score points.*
•*Plenty of those pictures were the same angle, and change in UEE is evident*, as it would be, with topical application of bimatoprost in that region.





littlesecret said:


> But again, you're argument are terrible and your ego is too big to not let you stop replying.



*Typing all of the following gave me a good laugh lmao: 2-5 minute read (depending on IQ)*

It’s idiots like you who give me an overinflated ego. Do me favor and please, *please stop feeding my ego with your BS*.* 
I’ll demonstrate just how full of it you are, bullet pointing everything so your smoothbrain can understand:*

•*You say my arguments (Plural) are terrible*.

•*My main argument* you had issue with was that *Latisse*, when applied to lashes, *causes orbital fat loss, as well as* the argument *that at least some of this fat loss can be permanent*.


•You state *you’ve never seen a single study that shows the fat loss appear when using Latisse on lashes*
•You also state that *most studies you’ve seen in fat loss due to Bimatoprost, shows it’s temporary*

•*In response* to these two points, *I made two arguments, one you correctly had issue with, the other, you got flat wrong* and played a semantic game, where even there, you were wrong.

• *I’ll provide the single “argument” I mad**e* (in response to your two points above) *that was probably logically flawed *:




*Your response to it was aptly correct; I should provide proof that that’s the case, or else it’s most likely fear mongering.*
•*Since this is such a minor point and my main argument you had issue with doesn’t even rest heavily on this *(more on why later), *I’ll leave it at that.*


•*The other argument of mine, that apparently melted your brain*, as you didn’t seem to get it *was: You don’t require a study to know a phenomenon exists. And this is true for fat loss due to Latisse, as well as this some of this fat loss being permanent.*

•*In defense of this point, I initially brought up the usefulness of anecdotes, as well as the photographs I provided, as well as my own case*.
•*You laughed off my bringing up anecdotes* as “you don’t trust studies but you trust anecdotes lol”
*To this I’d say: I already conceded I have no reason to doubt the results of the studies*—they probably did find their conclusions in an honest way. *And I never claimed to trust all anecdotes *(more on this later)
•*You also said there’s no reason to believe those photos were from Latisse, rather than using bimatoprost as eyedrops* *(**no where here do you demonstrate this to be the case, you just speculate that it’s likely the case due to some irrelevant example of mewing—just like I incorrectly fear mongered about studies without backing it up, you incorrectly disregarded the photographs without backing it up).*
•*Furthermore, I even went ahead and provided first hand photographs from beauty bloggers who used Latisse right on their lashes, and saw orbital fat loss.*
•In response to this, *you initially disregard the pictures, saying you “literally see no fat loss in those pictures”*
•*After i respond, saying the change in UEE is obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes* *you chalk up this difference as being so minimal that different camera angles could be the culprit—this right here, is another example of you making a claim, without backing it up. Do you go on to show that all these pictures are from different angles (out of the beauty bloggers, only one of the before and afters is at a different angle)? No. You just speculate without providing evidence. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.*
•*Keep in mind you also haven’t demonstrated that all my other photographs are just from people using bimatoprost as eyedrops.*
•*To further nail the dumb argument of all the photographs probably just being, as you are quoted saying, from eyedrops for Glaucoma—I guess you don’t know this, but not one of those before pictures looks like the woman has any kind of glaucoma (Another strange coincidence—all the befores are women; I guess all the patients they use for the before and after glaucoma drop pics that just happen to show up when you look up “Latisse before and after” and on clinic websites that promote Latisse, are all coincidentally women—the same demographic that uses Latisse)*.
*But no you’re probably right without backing any of it up—these are all before and afters from Glaucoma eyedrops.


•All of this aside you did nothing to address the fact that anecdotes that back my argument up exist, and just mocked the concept of using anecdotes.*



•*In defense of the usefulness of anecdotes, I also brought up the case of minoxidil* _(this is where your brain really melts btw)_*; since, it was well established that minoxidil can be used to increase facial hair growth, even though as I quote myself, “there were no studies regarding minoxidil for facial hair”*
•*Your response to the minoxidil example is what really makes the state of your mental faculties apparent:*
• *You say, “Except this is false, there were many studies spanning back twenty years, most of them done in India, it's just that they were obscure and not posted on the internet.”*
•*I’m going to repost my argument, then underline the part of your reply that shows how autistic and pointless it was.*
•*My argument: 
“Until a few years ago, there were no studies regarding minoxidil for facial hair, and yet it was common knowledge that it worked.”*
•*The point you made:* *“Except this is false, there were many studies spanning back twenty years, most of them done in India, it's just that they were obscure and not posted on the internet.”*
•*The analysis of this non point of yours is so, so simple to grasp.* But here, I’m going to hold your hand and explain it:
*Effectively speaking *_(since these studies were made in India and weren’t posted online)_*...there still were no studies that showed minoxidil worked on facial hair, and yet it was common knowledge online for years before the first study was published online or any old study was posted on the internet.*
This is only in agreement with my claim, which, need I remind your empty skull, is: *You don’t require a study to know a phenomenon exists, and anecdotes are a useful enough heuristic for something as simple as orbital fat loss and Latisse, or in the case that really melted your brain, minoxidil and facial hair growth.*


•*Another example I bring up in defense of studies not always being necessary to establish the existence of a phenomenon, is the case of loss of athletic ability after excessive cosmetic lengthening of the legs.*
•*You confuse this as being a defense of anecdotes in and of themselves (I never claim it to be)* and try to *mock it by saying “Yes bro, the surgeons who did the leg lengthening surgery never knew any of those complications before, it was the anecdotes that proved them”*
•*I never claimed, nor do I need to claim, that anecdotes were what proved this phenomenon exists. *
*The only thing I claimed in respect to athletic ability loss after excessive LL**,* *which you failed to dispute,* *was that studies would be necessary to establish this phenomenon. 
It’s obvious that what established this phenomenon was medical and bio mechanical reasoning *(similar to how biochemical reasoning would also posit that Latisse applied to lashes which constantly make contact with periorbital region, would likely result in periorbital fat loss for many users, lol)
*I only mention anecdotes to this phenomenon, because there are plenty online—but I never, ever argue that anecdotes were the primary or even necessary thing that led surgeons to the conclusion that the phenomenon exists.*


•*In my most recent response, I pointed out how you misunderstood both the Minoxidil and LL examples, as well as how there was evidently fat loss in the last pics I provided.*

•*All you do to address these three points that leave your arguments without any foundation, is:*
•*Speculate that the pics are from different angles and this is the cause of the fat loss* *(*as stated earlier, *only one of the blogging ones was from a different angle, and you provide no evidence for all the others; as well as no evidence that all the other pictures are not from Latisse)*
•*You, I guess trying to deflect from the obvious brain melt I pointed out during your LL and Minoxidil failures in reasoning, say “ But again, you're argument are terrible and your ego is too big to not let you stop replying.”*
•*This, this right here, is what buries you.*

*Listen man, it’s okay to be low IQ, it’s even okay to be autistic, but it’s not okay to act like you’re some smartass when you’re clearly an idiot, especially when you’re commenting on my thread, where I’m trying to put out value, while you go on and on with your drivel and low IQ reasoning skills.—— This is also my only reason to reply to you——I need to make it clear to anyone who’s reading this thread, that you’re a fucking idiot, for their own sake, so they don’t take your overconfident dumbass seriously*

*•If you’re going to try to reply again, I’ve already made clear the only point where I was mistaken (which did nothing to damage my argument), as well as made clear the countless times your brain melted before my very eyes.*


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 30, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.


I see you like platitudes, the fact is, none of the "evidence" you posted shows any *objective* increased UEE whatsoever, if there is a *perceived* increase in UEE, it is due to a multitude of factors that you, nor the retards running these beauty blogs cannot even possiblly imagine being able to control. Angles, lighting, hydration, even something as simple as being more tired when taking the pictures and having your eyelids drooping even slightly can result in an increase of _*perceived*_ UEE


Golden Glass said:


> Effectively speaking


So your argument relies on technicalities, just because they weren't *widespread* on the internet doesn't mean that they were completely invisible and that no one ever knew about them.

This is about all that imediately stuck out at my since I'm doing homwork rn, but again, let me summarize everything that has happened so far.

1. You are still unable to provide *solid evidence* that Latisse (which uses a *completely different dosage and method of application* of bimatoprost that is used in the glaucoma studies you linked) is enough to increase suborbital fat loss sufficiently enough to result in visual changes,

2. Your ego became damaged since your arguments are dogshit, that you have to fumble around to repair it by typing paragraphs

3. You somehow think that you, or anyone else on the forum, came out looking better, becoming better, or thinking better after posting your original thread or your replies.

I await your response, as you always deliver.


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 30, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> I see you like platitudes.



*What platitude are you referring to? The only “platitude” (I’m usually not a fan of them either, suprisingly, especially self help ones) I can think of having said in the last reply was the evidence one: “That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”

That’s essentially the exact same sentiment of your argument against my being doubtful of studies*







littlesecret said:


> the fact is, none of the "evidence" you posted shows any *objective increased UEE* whatsoever, if there is a perceived increase in UEE, it is due to a multitude of factors that you, nor the retards running these beauty blogs cannot even possiblly imagine being able to control. Angles, lighting, hydration, even something as simple as being more tired when taking the pictures and having your eyelids drooping even slightly can result in an increase of perceived UEE...
> but again, let me summarize everything that has happened so far.
> 
> 1. You are still unable to *provide solid evidence that Latisse* (which uses a completely different dosage and method of application of bimatoprost that is used in the glaucoma studies you linked) *is enough to increase suborbital fat loss sufficiently enough to result in visual changes,*




*If you think these aren’t visually obvious examples of periorbital fat loss due to Latisse (why the closed eye pic to highlight lash growth if not Latisse??)...*










* You’re Done— Go Fuck Yourself*



littlesecret said:


> 2. Your ego became damaged since your arguments are dogshit, that you have to fumble around to repair it by typing paragraphs



*Pure speculative ad hominem without any substance—I had a blast writing my reply, it probably gave my ego a significant boost. Thanks* 



littlesecret said:


> 3. You somehow think that you, or anyone else on the forum, came out looking better, becoming better, or thinking better after posting your original thread or your replies.






















*I couldn’t even fit all the good feedback I got throughout this thread—
But you, autistic, idiotic you, were the only person in this entire thread, to try to argue with me, and in this you humiliated yourself*



littlesecret said:


> This is about all that imediately stuck out at my since I'm doing homwork rn...I await your response, as you always deliver.



*Anytime, baby, but just not anymore tonight—I’ve got to sleep, nor tomorrow—I have work. 
But free to keep dodging all the times I pointed out your brain melting. And please, for your own sake....stay in school.



*


----------



## Deleted member 2205 (Sep 30, 2019)

I've never been greatful for long eyelashes till today jfl


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 30, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> *What platitude are you referring to? The only “platitude” (I’m usually not a fan of them either, suprisingly, especially self help ones) I can think of having said in the last reply was the evidence one: “That which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
> 
> That’s essentially the exact same sentiment of your argument against my being doubtful of studies*
> 
> ...


Keep coping, the differences are straight up due to lighting, if there was any difference in suborbital fat loss she would have lost fat under her eyes as well.

You can even see it in the final picture of her since once again, the angle is off, she is facing directly to the right but the monitor is not in the same position, and she is closer to it, throwing off, once again, the angles and lighting.

This is was suborbital fat loss actually looks like from bimatoprost eye drops for glaucoma









Again, retards like you, and beauty bloggers, are fundamentally incapable of of controlling all of the possible variables that could relate to perceived suborbital fat loss, you can even see in this second picture, her upper eyelid fat actually *increased,* completely contradicting your post. Meaning that there are once again variables that can't be completely controlled for.

Also, again, just fucking lol are linking reactions from retards on this site who will upvote posts on mewing, imagine taking that as self validation, please kill yourself.

Once again, let me reiterate

1. You are still unable to provide *solid evidence* (in the form of empirical studies) that Latisse (which uses a *completely different dosage and method of application* of bimatoprost that is used in the glaucoma studies you linked) is enough to increase suborbital fat loss sufficiently enough to result in visual changes,

2. Your ego became damaged since your arguments are dogshit, that you have to fumble around to repair it by typing paragraphs

3. You somehow think that you, or anyone else on the forum, came out looking better, becoming better, or thinking better after posting your original thread or your replies.

I await your response, as you always deliver.


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 30, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> Keep coping, the differences are straight up due to lighting, if there was any difference in suborbital fat loss she would have lost fat under her eyes as well.
> 
> You can even see it in the final picture of her since once again, the angle is off, she is facing directly to the right but the monitor is not in the same position, and she is closer to it, throwing off, once again, the angles and lighting.
> 
> ...



LMFAO, guess what idiot—Latisse is only applied on the UPPER EYELASHES—hence, Periorbital Fat Loss, and no Supraorbital Fat Loss!

Again, ignore everything else, PLEASE!

That man clearly has glaucoma, I wonder how many of the pics I provided were glaucoma cases????


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 30, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> LMFAO, guess what idiot—Latisse is only applied on the UPPER EYELASHES—hence, Periorbital Fat Loss, and no Supraorbital Fat Loss!


Are you retarded? I literally linked a picture in which *vastly more amounts of bimatoprost* would have been applied *all over the eye* resulting in *greater absorption behind the eye*, resulting in *even greater reduction in the fat surrounding the eye*, and her upper eye lid fat even increased.

I'll put it in even easier words.

The only thing you have ever posted as evidence for your assertion that we shouldn't be using latisse is fundamentally flawed "beauty blogger" pictures, and that is, for the reasons I have already outlined, worthless.


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 30, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> Are you retarded? I literally linked a picture in which *vastly more amounts of bimatoprost* would have been applied *all over the eye* resulting in *greater absorption behind the eye*, resulting in *even greater reduction in the fat surrounding the eye*, and her upper eye lid fat even increased.
> 
> I'll put it in even easier words.
> 
> The only thing you have ever posted as evidence for your assertion that we shouldn't be using latisse is fundamentally flawed "beauty blogger" pictures, and that is, for the reasons I have already outlined, worthless.


All that shows is that in her case, bimatoprost didn’t kill her upper eyelid fat—good for her.

And Nope, absolutely not worthless at all (you even moved the goalposts once obvious My photos weren’t from Glaucoma patients) and my longest reply to you demonstrates this.
Go ahead and read it, then re-read it, then continue to do so until you grasp at least a semblance of it. All of it.
And Then LDAR Incel. I don’t usually throw around Incel as an insult, since I feel bad for you guys. But you deserve it.


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 30, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> All that shows is that in her case, bimatoprost didn’t kill her upper eyelid fat—good for her.
> 
> And Nope, absolutely not worthless at all, and my longest reply to you demonstrates this. Go ahead and read it, then re-read it, then continue to do so until you grasp at least a semblance of it. All of it. Then LDAR Incel. I don’t usually throw around Incel as an insult, since I feel bad for you guys. But you deserve it.


Ad hominem because he has no arguments left, fitting.

Anyway, keep coping, I hope this was a lesson in understanding the different between quality, empirical evidence, and anecdotes from described "beauty bloggers" who are incapable of controlling for externals variables that are so easily accounted for.

I'll write once more for any unfortunate soul who was unlucky enough to view this thread:

1. You are still unable to provide *solid evidence* (in the form of empirical studies) that Latisse (which uses a *completely different dosage and method of application* of bimatoprost that is used in the glaucoma studies you linked) is enough to increase suborbital fat loss sufficiently enough to result in visual changes,

2. Your ego became damaged since your arguments are dogshit, that you have to fumble around to repair it by typing paragraphs

3. You somehow think that you, or anyone else on the forum, came out looking better, becoming better, or thinking better after posting your original thread or your replies.

I await your response, as you always deliver.


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 30, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> Ad hominem because he has no arguments left, fitting.
> 
> Anyway, keep coping, I hope this was a lesson in understanding the different between quality, empirical evidence, and anecdotes from described "beauty bloggers" who are incapable of controlling for externals variables that are so easily accounted for.



I already proved more than enough that you don’t know how to reason properly, please re read all of the long reply again, maybe you’ll get it after a few more tries (hint—especially read the part about your Speculative assertions re: the photos being from glaucoma patients without evidence, as well as the minoxidil and LL parts)

I also already proved that people came out of this thinking better, and looking better in the future by avoiding Latisse (and giving low risk ways to actually get better eyelashes and eyebrows, in case you already forgot—you agreed with me!)

Now LDAR you Incel
Gabish?


----------



## Deleted member 773 (Sep 30, 2019)

You’re never gonna grow hair without sacrificing something else

I wonder if dermarolling eyebrows works.

Anyways, I used Minox on my eyebrows and I can say it did grow new hairs. But most of the time my eyebrows look bushy, sparse, ect. Due to low collagen. After I sunbathe and I get a boost in collagen they look amazing. Dark, Nike-symbol like. They’re thicker and bushier and it’s sick because I used to have gay pencil eyebrows.

Once I get my collagen back on track my eyebrows will mog 24/7. And these results are permanent so far. So I would go for Minox but put a very, very small amount on, 1x a day or even less.


----------



## Deleted member 2275 (Sep 30, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> I already proved more than enough that you don’t know how to reason properly, please re read all of the long reply again, maybe you’ll get it after a few more tries (hint—especially read the part about your Speculative assertions re: the photos being from glaucoma patients without evidence, as well as the minoxidil and LL parts)
> 
> I also already proved that people came out of this thinking better, and looking better in the future by avoiding Latisse (and giving low risk ways to actually get better eyelashes and eyebrows, in case you already forgot—you agreed with me!)
> 
> ...


The only thing you proved was that you're incapable of providing empirical evidence for your claims that have all variables adequately controlled, while also failing to provide any evidence for your claims that is able to survive any sort of scrutiny, even superficial.

All I ever agreed with is that people should be skeptical of going on latisse, not that it's going to produce any of the results you claim (but can't prove) it does.

I'll put it again:

1. You are still unable to provide *solid evidence* (in the form of empirical studies) that Latisse (which uses a *completely different dosage and method of application* of bimatoprost that is used in the glaucoma studies you linked) is enough to increase suborbital fat loss sufficiently enough to result in visual changes,

2. Your ego became damaged since your arguments are dogshit, that you have to fumble around to repair it by typing paragraphs

3. You somehow think that you, or anyone else on the forum, came out looking better, becoming better, or thinking better after posting your original thread or your replies.

I await your response, as you always deliver.


Lifeisgood72 said:


> You’re never gonna grow hair without sacrificing something else
> 
> I wonder if dermarolling eyebrows works.
> 
> ...


It didn't reduce your collagen, stop coping, I've linked numerous studies and even tagged you in more studies.


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 30, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> The only thing you proved was that you're incapable of providing empirical evidence for your claims that have all variables adequately controlled, while also failing to provide any evidence for your claims that is able to survive any sort of scrutiny, even superficial.
> 
> All I ever agreed with is that people should be skeptical of going on latisse, not that it's going to produce any of the results you claim (but can't prove) it does.
> 
> ...



*Keep it coming, my long reply addresses all 3 of your numbered points (Most recent one especially addresses #3, and #2 is a baseless ad hom)—Really, it does. Try re-reading again, maybe 12th time will be the charm.*

*I’m starting to enjoy replying to you, now that it’s evident you’re probably not even autistic, just stupid.*

*To anyone who reads this: if this Incel (Hasn’t denied this btw lmao) just keeps replying with non starters that I’ve already addressed but his smoothbrain just can’t grasp, I’ll reply with the cute blonde winking.

GABISH?*


----------



## CupOfCoffee (Sep 30, 2019)

First pic looks better though...


----------



## Golden Glass (Sep 30, 2019)

*Okay okay I’m sorry gang*, I was just checking to see if this thread got anymore questions or feedback from actually smart users, *but I couldn’t help myself at re-reading @littlesecret ’s replies, to see if maybe, just maybe, he had something worthwhile to say, but I can’t believe I missed how stupid some of his statements here were.*

_(Note for the audience: any emphasis of his quoted statements are mine, *to further the point he’s a smoothbrain all the way home*)_

*Here we go:*


littlesecret said:


> 1. You are still unable to provide solid evidence (in the form of empirical studies) that Latisse (which uses a completely different dosage and method of application of bimatoprost that is used *in the glaucoma studies you linked*) is enough to increase suborbital fat loss sufficiently enough to result in visual changes,



*Nowhere, in the entirety of this thread, do I link a single study on glaucoma—not once: go ahead and look for it—you won’t find it.*

*Fuck—I must have really brainmogged this guy into oblivion, **if** he’s now hallucinating things I never did



And, ladies and gentlemen, this last sequence is the cherry on top:*



littlesecret said:


> 1. *You are still unable to provide solid evidence* (in the form of empirical studies) *that Latisse (which uses a completely different dosage and method of application of bimatoprost that is used in the glaucoma studies you linked) is enough to increase suborbital fat loss sufficiently enough to result in visual changes,*



*I had already pointed out, time and time again, how studies, while clearly being a sufficient condition to prove a phenomenon, are also clearly not a necessary condition to prove a phenomenon (if you doubt this: see the minoxidil facial hair and LL athletic ability examples I made clear in my long reply). 
So now that it’s clear his weird need for a study is baseless and reaching for straws at its purest, on to the second part, about me supposedly providing no evidence with visual changes in orbital fat loss....

Earlier, I had already shared what I’d gladly say are the most apparent results of periorbital fat loss after using Latisse, but he had disregarded these as being potentially(lol) from a Glaucoma case—so I went ahead and provided all images to make it clear this was a Latisse user:*











*He later mocks the quality of these photos, and feels like he is somehow qualified to say the following two statements, which really show how uneducated he is on all of this:*

(Take special note of the last part I put in italics.)



littlesecret said:


> Keep coping,* the differences are straight up due to lighting, if there was any difference in suborbital fat loss she would have lost fat under her eyes as well.*



*Virtually every single person that is ever prescribed Latisse, including presumably the above patient *(assuming her doctor is licensed lmfao), *is told to NEVER apply Latisse to their lower eyelashes *(for anyone who doubts this, visit the Latisse official website or any doctor Q&A regarding Latisse—plenty on RealSelf)*—it’s literally no wonder that you rarely ever see cases of under-eye fat loss from usage of Latisse vs usage of bimatoprost for Glaucoma, *as the latter is an eyedrop that makes contact with the entire region, while the former only makes direct contact with the fat pad above the upper eyelids.

*Fuck is this guy uninformed.*

*But hey, 140 IQ genius makes it clear these pictures are worthless anyways because after all, they’re just from clueless “beauty bloggers”, who would never know to account for things in the before and afters like a doctor would, right?*


littlesecret said:


> *The only thing you have ever posted as evidence for your assertion** that we shouldn't be using latisse is fundamentally flawed "beauty blogger" pictures, and that is, for the reasons I have already outlined, worthless.*



*Except...Incel drumroll please...

🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁



Spoiler



These. Pictures. ARE. From. A. Clinic. Website...NOT. A. Beauty. Blogger.










You Incel.



PLEASE, PLEASE STOP BOOSTING MY EGO, I’M GETTING A HIGH OFF YOUR SMOOTHBRAINNNN—
I wonder, has there ever been a more brutal Brainmog of a PSL moron, than the one in this thread??
Something to think about. 


I will end all of this, with an edited version of my last statement in my previous reply, it’s even more applicable now that it’s evident High IQ Genius here doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about:

Keep it coming, my long reply addresses all 3 of your numbered points (Third to last one especially addresses #3, and #2 is a baseless ad hom (ad homs are fine if they have truth to them, or you at least have arguments on the side), and this final reply post demonstrates even more brain melts of yours)—Really, it does. Try re-reading again, maybe 12th time will be the charm.

I’m starting to enjoy replying to you, now that it’s evident you’re probably not even autistic, just stupid*

_*To anyone who reads this: if this Incel (Hasn’t denied this btw lmao) just keeps replying with non starters that I’ve already addressed but his smoothbrain just can’t grasp, I’ll reply with the GIF of the cute blonde winking.*_




Spoiler



*GABISH???



*


----------



## Stingray (Oct 1, 2019)

Perhaps as bad as the orbital fat loss is the hyperpigmentation of the eyelids where it is applied. This side effect is almost undeniable. I'm going to dump my careprost for now.


----------



## Golden Glass (Oct 1, 2019)

Stingray said:


> Perhaps as bad as the orbital fat loss is the hyperpigmentation of the eyelids where it is applied. This side effect is almost undeniable. I'm going to dump my careprost for now.


Yup. I didn’t even feel the need to mention this, but that’s true as well—it’s the main reason that people are told by doctors to never use Latisse on lower lashes (@littlesecret hope you see this bro), as darkening the lower lid area is far noticeable than darkening the upper lid area.

I just brought up the periorbital fat loss as most guys on this forum wanted both hooded eyes and longer lashes, but using Latisse to get longer lashes would likely compromise a lot of their hooded eyes results.



CupOfCoffee said:


> First pic looks better though...


Unless you’re more specific, I can’t help you.


*Btw, reminder to everyone:
No one, including @littlesecret , demonstrated that the pics I provided in this thread were from eyedrop applications on patients* (all coincidentally women) *for glaucoma *(just lmfao at @littlesecret claiming this is possibly the case). *So I showed how silly him saying this was *_(just compare all the eyes from my pictures; to the ones he posted where there’s obvious glaucoma clouding in the eyes, as well as the fact that my pictures are from a demographic that likely wouldn’t get glaucoma —at that age—and is also the demographic for Latisse)_.
*After I stated in simple English why his suggestion was stupid, he began to move the goalposts and instead claimed:
1.) to require a study showing that Latisse when applied to lashes would cause periorbital fat loss*
*Here, the funny thing is, I had already demonstrated why requiring a study to demonstrate a phenomenon exists is a classic example of excessive Scientism (click that link buddy) but he just decided to totally avoid the criticism * *(Since he’s apparently a student, an intro to Philosophy of Science class would be beneficial) here’s a free 4 week course, @littlesecret
  Have Fun *
*2.) that in the entirety of this thread, I had only posted pictures that were from beauty bloggers (note how in claim 1. he disregards photos altogether in favor of studies, and earlier he was suggesting those pictures would indeed hold value, but they were likely from Glaucoma patients—Again—I already dispelled both these criticisms.)
He said this in blind arrogance and ignorance.
Earlier on, I had posted these images which show obvious fat loss:*










*A). But he claims the difference is all lighting—“You’re just coping, bro”
Go ahead and take visual detail of just how much deeper and vertically taller her upper eyelids are in the frontal afters, as well as how much stronger of a shadow her brow creates on the eyelid in the profile shots—due to less fat holding over the lid.
B.) And he also claims, that this is one of those beauty blogger pictures, likely taken by someone who knows nothing about angles, lighting, etc.
This is the last nail in his coffin because...*


Spoiler



_ these pictures were taken by a clinician, and are from the clinician’s website—they weren’t taken by some “dumb beauty blogger who would take shitty photos”_ *lmfao*



*Conclusion on @littlesecret*
*•He’s moved the goalposts on the pictures
•first claimed they’d probably be from Glaucoma patients,*
*•then argued only studies were enough to prove it (obviously needs to take a Phil of Science course at school)
•then, when shown the last set of pictures that have an obvious difference in fat loss,  he claimed they were all from beauty blogs and the difference was probably just amateur lighting difference (according to him, probably just a classic bimbo beauty blogger mistake)
—except these pictures are from a clinic website.*
*•And he’s failed to come up with a single good argument against any of my responses, let alone in favor of his.*

*He’s done; I wouldn’t take his advice seriously—ever.*

*To anyone who reads this: if this Incel (Hasn’t denied this btw lmao) just keeps replying with non starters that I’ve already addressed but his smoothbrain just can’t grasp, I’ll reply with the GIF of the cute blonde winking.



Spoiler



GABISH???






*


----------



## x30001 (Oct 1, 2019)

Still nobody has mentioned the only actual legit eyelash maxing product


----------



## Usum (Oct 1, 2019)

IWantToMax said:


> Was wondering. Given that it causes not negligible localized fat loss, couldn't it be used to give the appearance of hollow cheeks and to make gonial angle more visible?


Just eat it.


----------



## CupOfCoffee (Oct 1, 2019)

Do you think it's reversible?


----------



## Golden Glass (Oct 1, 2019)

CupOfCoffee said:


> Do you think it's reversible?


What? The orbital fat loss? If Latisse wasn’t used for a long period of time, then at least some of it will likely reverse—maybe all of it. I personally lost enough to have slight UEE most of the time (it’s minimal but I had zero UEE before). Maybe all of it will eventually return, but if not, I’ll just apply fillers.


x30001 said:


> Still nobody has mentioned the only actual legit eyelash maxing product



Which is?


----------



## FatJattMofo (Oct 1, 2019)

little secret sucks big fat cock


----------



## Golden Glass (Oct 1, 2019)

FatJattMofo said:


> little secret sucks big fat cock



Glad we can all agree with on something in this website.
I don’t judge, but it’s obvious to everyone by now:
*It’s a consensus:


Spoiler



@littlesecret sucks big fat cock.


*


----------



## Stingray (Oct 1, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> Glad we can all agree with on something in this website.
> I don’t judge, but it’s obvious to everyone by now:
> *It’s a consensus:
> 
> ...


He lives rent free inside your head 


x30001 said:


> Still nobody has mentioned the only actual legit eyelash maxing product


Enlighten us


----------



## Golden Glass (Oct 1, 2019)

Stingray said:


> He lives rent free inside your head



Only person who lives rent free inside my head is Barry Eppley


----------



## Stingray (Oct 1, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> Only person who lives rent free inside my head is Barry Eppley


This would be even better if you had implants by him.


----------



## HolyShietMAN (Oct 3, 2019)

x30001 said:


> Still nobody has mentioned the only actual legit eyelash maxing product


I'm curious. It's GHK-Cu, isn't it?


----------



## x30001 (Oct 3, 2019)

HolyShietMAN said:


> I'm curious. It's GHK-Cu, isn't it?


No


----------



## CupOfCoffee (Oct 3, 2019)

@Golden Glass I didn't notice any difference and I've been using it for months now. But overall I don't think having longer lashes really adds to my attractiveness. 

Also do you think using it on the beard would fill in a part on my lower jaw?


----------



## x30001 (Oct 3, 2019)

CupOfCoffee said:


> @Golden Glass I didn't notice any difference and I've been using it for months now. But overall I don't think having longer lashes really adds to my attractiveness.
> 
> Also do you think using it on the beard would fill in a part on my lower jaw?








See: lashes


----------



## HolyShietMAN (Oct 3, 2019)

x30001 said:


> View attachment 126853
> 
> See: lashes


So what's then? peppermint oil maybe?


----------



## nastynas (Oct 3, 2019)

this thread by itself raised forum's average iq by 15 points


----------



## Depressed Twink (Oct 6, 2019)

By your logic nosecels should apply latisse on their nose to burn some fat there?

Or just apply it on your cheekbones area to get hollow cheeks?

What y think?


----------



## vHenri (Oct 6, 2019)

IWantToMax said:


> Was wondering. Given that it causes not negligible localized fat loss, couldn't it be used to give the appearance of hollow cheeks and to make gonial angle more visible?


Exactly what I was thinking.


----------



## IWantToMax (Oct 6, 2019)

vHenri said:


> Exactly what I was thinking.


Well, if that worked it would be the next huge thing ngl. 
Latisse + coolsculpting


----------



## vHenri (Oct 6, 2019)

IWantToMax said:


> Well, if that worked it would be the next huge thing ngl.
> Latisse + coolsculpting


+ Topical Aminophylline, Caffeine, Yohimbine, L-Carnitine, and Forskolin. 

Check these studies out:
1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jocd.12801
2. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8697059
3. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/j.1550-8528.1995.tb00228.x
4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17391155
5. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1463-1326.2006.00600.x

I think this has potential, we just need someone to test it out for the cheeks instead of thighs or waist. Nevertheless, topical spot fat reduction on the waist and thighs is still a pretty big thing. I've read that topical caffeine reduces testosterone, however, I haven't been able to find any evidence supporting that.


----------



## IWantToMax (Oct 6, 2019)

vHenri said:


> + Topical Aminophylline, Caffeine, Yohimbine, L-Carnitine, and Forskolin.
> 
> Check these studies out:
> 1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jocd.12801
> ...


Might be because caffeine raises cortisol
Seems good. 
Do you simply spread caffeine powder over the interested area or do you need a gel?


----------



## vHenri (Oct 6, 2019)

IWantToMax said:


> Might be because caffeine raises cortisol
> Seems good.
> Do you simply spread caffeine powder over the interested area or do you need a gel?


One of the studies said that they used a lotion called Lipoxyderm, so I'm guessing it'd have to be a cream or gel.


----------



## IWantToMax (Oct 6, 2019)

vHenri said:


> One of the studies said that they used a lotion called Lipoxyderm, so I'm guessing it'd have to be a cream or gel.


Damn, could have started trying it rn. 
How long did it take for visible results?


----------



## vHenri (Oct 6, 2019)

@Golden Glass and @littlesecret , calm the fuck down. Stop attacking each other and discuss calmly. Call me a cuck all you want, but I'm pretty sure you could get further by working together.


IWantToMax said:


> Damn, could have started trying it rn.
> How long did it take for visible results?


The Lipoxyderm study used it twice a day for 28 days. 

Reduced thigh circumference by 1.2cm vs 0.8 in the control
Reduced thigh skinfold thickness 3.7mm vs 2.0 mm in the control
Reduced thigh fat mass 100.0 g vs 57.3 g in the control
Read the study.


----------



## Deleted member 685 (Nov 13, 2019)

littlesecret said:


> Ad hominem because he has no arguments left, fitting.
> 
> Anyway, keep coping, I hope this was a lesson in understanding the different between quality, empirical evidence, and anecdotes from described "beauty bloggers" who are incapable of controlling for externals variables that are so easily accounted for.
> 
> ...


Literally who gives a fuck if it's anecdotal you dumb cuck it's also about the risk, there's sons of anecdotes reporting fat loss


littlesecret said:


> Ad hominem because he has no arguments left, fitting.
> 
> Anyway, keep coping, I hope this was a lesson in understanding the different between quality, empirical evidence, and anecdotes from described "beauty bloggers" who are incapable of controlling for externals variables that are so easily accounted for.
> 
> ...


Retards always gotta cope with muh studies to realize that maybe you just shouldn't use something. Do you trust people that badly?


----------



## Deleted member 3962 (Dec 22, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> *Why you should avoid Latisse like the plague*
> 
> Latisse is frequently mentioned both here, and in other forums, as a great way to boost eye lash growth, as well as eyebrow growth.
> 
> ...


what if you have curly hair? are you just fucked?


----------



## Golden Glass (Dec 22, 2019)

Fuk said:


> what if you have curly hair? are you just fucked?


What does curly hair have to do with that?


----------



## Deleted member 3962 (Dec 22, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> What does curly hair have to do with that?


for eyelash transplant, you said they take hair from the head right?


----------



## Golden Glass (Dec 22, 2019)

Fuk said:


> for eyelash transplant, you said they take hair from the head right?


Ah yes thanks for clearing it up.

No unless you’re black or have ethnic kinky hair I don’t think you’re fucked regarding eyelash transplants.

I haven’t done enough research on them but it seems like if you don’t cheap out and you get a good surgeon they can correctly place the transplant so hair would curl outwards like natural lashes do, or at least do most of the time (plenty of people, including girls, have to curl their lashes because they curl inwards naturally, so even if your transplants curled inwards, id imagine you could curl them out with a curler...unless you have very tight curly hair?)

Alternatively, I guess you could use eyebrow hairs? But that would just add density to lashes and not so much length.


----------



## Deleted member 3962 (Dec 22, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> Ah yes thanks for clearing it up.
> 
> No unless you’re black or have ethnic kinky hair I don’t think you’re fucked regarding eyelash transplants.
> 
> ...


I have very tight curly hair sadly.

my brother got zac efron lashes


----------



## Golden Glass (Dec 22, 2019)

Fuk said:


> I have very tight curly hair sadly.
> 
> my brother got zac efron lashes



Then your options are to use Latisse and closely monitor your UEE and pray it doesn’t affect it, in which case congrats. Or use Castor oil, or use eyebrow hairs as grafts if you’re willing to do that.

Sorry man.


----------



## Deleted member 3962 (Dec 22, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> Then your options are to use Latisse and closely monitor your UEE and pray it doesn’t affect it, in which case congrats. Or use Castor oil, or use eyebrow hairs as grafts if you’re willing to do that.
> 
> Sorry man.


Gonna try castor oil for a while. My eyelashes are long but invisible and sparce.


----------



## Golden Glass (Dec 22, 2019)

@Fuk If your light haired dye them then


----------



## Deleted member 3962 (Dec 22, 2019)

Golden Glass said:


> @Fuk If your light haired dye them then


im going to. Will hope for good results ngl.


----------



## Almu (Jan 11, 2020)

Golden Glass said:


> Based on what I’ve learned, hooding over the upper eyelid is mainly due to:
> 1. Fat in that area and
> 2. A prominent brow bone/supraorbital ridge.
> 
> ...


What if you loose weight and they go away. Can you achieve them again with gaining weight ?


----------



## Golden Glass (Jan 11, 2020)

Almu said:


> What if you loose weight and they go away. Can you achieve them again with gaining weight ?


Yeah I’d guess so. But are you saying you’d rather be a bit more overweight if that means you’d have less UEE?


----------



## Almu (Jan 12, 2020)

Golden Glass said:


> Yeah I’d guess so. But are you saying you’d rather be a bit more overweight if that means you’d have less UEE?


I actually have no UEE. I was just asking for the knowledge xD


----------



## LostYouth (Feb 3, 2020)

Golden Glass said:


> *Why you should avoid Latisse like the plague*
> 
> Latisse is frequently mentioned both here, and in other forums, as a great way to boost eye lash growth, as well as eyebrow growth.
> 
> ...







Sacrificed your own self for the greater good,highest IQ user


----------



## siliconvalleycel (Feb 3, 2020)

Some people mentioned trying latisse as a minoxidil alternative for growing a beard, with the added bonus of burning fat (buccal, submental).
Sounds like a win/win.
Anyone taking one for the team and trying it out?


----------



## NotTiny (Feb 3, 2020)

So, can I apply latisse to my jaws and buccal area to lose fat there? Would be cool lmao


----------



## Deleted member 616 (Mar 6, 2020)

Bump


----------



## StuffedFrog (Mar 6, 2020)

Golden Glass said:


> *Why you should avoid Latisse like the plague*
> 
> Latisse is frequently mentioned both here, and in other forums, as a great way to boost eye lash growth, as well as eyebrow growth.
> 
> ...


You always make good threads and you are one of the good users who actual provide information


----------



## Chico Chicowski (Mar 17, 2020)

very important: anyone tried burning fat from latisse on other part of the body?


----------



## Deleted member 5632 (Jun 5, 2020)

@Kingkellz @Nosecel @her @Dude420 @BigBiceps @Aesthetic 
Please pin or add this to best of the best pleasw v important


----------



## Worthlesshapa777 (Jun 5, 2020)

Someone use latisse on cheeks and seeing if they hollow


----------



## Chico Chicowski (Jun 5, 2020)

Worthlesshapa777 said:


> Someone use latisse on cheeks and seeing if they hollow


.


----------



## improover (Jun 5, 2020)

Worthlesshapa777 said:


> Someone use latisse on cheeks and seeing if they hollow


please report back


----------



## Jarate (Nov 23, 2022)

FatJattMofo said:


> you fucking genius. i love you.
> 
> what other things fuck up hooding?


was wondering if Tretinoin was burning fat pads as well


----------



## Oberyn (Nov 23, 2022)

Jarate said:


> was wondering if Tretinoin was burning fat pads as well


no


----------



## Jarate (Nov 25, 2022)

Oberyn said:


> no


nice, will buy it when i come back to my home country in 1 1/2 months


----------

