Microneedling is bad

[SEPRAY]

why you cunts never fucking link an article?

 

[Max2809]

I recently started looking into micro-needling to grow denser facial hair. The praise for it is substantial and everyone seems to recommend it.

Everywhere I look, the consensus seems to be that micro-needling is the best thing for hair growth with no negative side effects as microneedling is good for the skin unless used improperly.

But then I came across this...



This article goes over several other reasons why micro-needling is harmful as well. Can someone please validate/refute this article's claims? I am not well versed enough on the subject to fully know for sure...

(The article does try to sell shit at the end which always makes me question their intentions.)

This Article is WRONG
Here are a Redditor's Comments which I verified and deem accurate:

One particular aspect that is absolute BS is the claim that "After around 50 divisions, the telomere gets cut off completely and aging sets in." Anyone who has taken highschool Biology at a higher level knows that this is the absolutely wrong and would've gotten a big fat F in whichever exam that person would have written.

One claim

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

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

Degradation of KNEE COLLAGEN as a result of long distance running? Do they mean CARTILAGE? Oh but they can't say cartilage because they're trying to push this nonsense of mechanical damage damages collagen~
Do they not realize that skin scraping results in a wound that heals with scar tissue which is LITERALLY LARGELY COMPRISED OF COLLAGEN? Agh. My irritation with this person's bullshit is showing, but I don't care. I hate people like this who spread blatant misinformation.

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

Uh huh. It also increases collagen types I, III, and VII. There's tons of studies on it. I only linked one review. And microneedling is actually commonly called collagen induction therapy because... it induces collagen production.
The whole theory behind microneedling is that it causes small wounds, which, as we know with big wounds like skin scraping, induces collagen. This is also why chemical peels work, why lasers work, yada yada.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WRONGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!
Okay, sorry. I'm just angry at this person going on and on about bullshit when I know it's bullshit.
This whole paragraph? Totally untrue.
Copy pasted from my writeup here:
I've spent the last few hours reading the research on this topic, which was largely going through the studies of interest cited in this review of Hayflick limit research.
Terms to understand:
Cumulative Population Doublings (CPD): Hayflick claimed that a cell could divide 250 times, which is "more than enough cells for several lifetimes."
Replicative senescence (RS): The point at which a cell can no longer divide and does not respond to growth factor stimulation to divide.
In vitro: Research done in a petri dish using cell cultures like fibroblasts.
In vivo: Research done on living human subjects.
Basic concepts for the reader to understand:

1. RS does not mean cell death. Cells do not die when they reach senescence. They merely stop dividing. They are still metabolically active.
2. Do not conflate in vitro findings with in vivo findings. We are living human beings. We are not cell cultures in a petri dish. Do not equate what in vitro research finds to what actually happens in our bodies.

So you have to understand that Hayflick limit research is done in vitro. You also have to understand that RS was observed after a period of months. So do you see the disconnect here? Clearly we know our skin cells divide for far longer than a period of months that the in vitro Hayflick limit research has found. This is to say to not take in vitro research so literally. This is why our gold standard with anti aging studies are in vivo, so we know what actually happens in living humans, which is what we are, because again, we're not cell culture petri dishes.
A main takeaway here is that RS is often reached by many other means other than cellular division. Cytotoxic factors such as alcohol and radiation cause stress-induced premature senescence (SIPS). And of note here is that Hayflick's research used cell cultures with 20% oxygen to come up with that 250 figure. Actual physiological conditions in the human body are ~3% oxygen, which in vitro research using this parameter has reported a limit of 270. This demonstrates oxidative stress induces RS.
When we have RS due to cellular division, we see telomere shortening. But our gold standard of in vivo research on human subjects has shown that "studies in centenarians have raised doubts on whether telomere shortening occurs in vivo and whether senescence-associated genes in vitro are also differentially expressed in vivo." So basically, we see RS occurring not because of cellular division limits but because of stress inducers, such as oxidative stress. And oxidative stress is the whole concept of why UVA rays are bad: UVA rays generate reactive oxygen species (i.e. free radicals) and cause a negative chain reaction of cellular and DNA damage, thus the signs of premature aging which we call photoaging or sun damage.
The fact is that we're finding environmental stressors to be the cause of RS, not cellular division rates. So as a layperson who is merely a skincare research hobbyist and who constantly seeks out the knowledge to curate an optimized anti aging routine for fun, I'll absolutely keep on using retinoids and chemical exfoliants which we know increases the rate of skin cell turnover. And I'll certainly keep using an SPF 50+ PA++++ sunscreen to prevent the deleterious effects of UVA damage and its key role in oxidative stress.
I'll end this writeup quoting the review: "while there is little evidence to suggest that cells running out of divisions are a major factor in aging, it is possible that stress and various insults trigger cell senescence in vivo."
End copy paste.
So TLDR, microneedling is awesome, well researched, well proven. This person is full of shit, they have no idea what they're talking about, and they use scientific terms in completely wrong ways to promote completely wrong ideas to fear monger people and it's disgusting. They don't know their shit, but I am very confident I know mine. I wish I could just sit with them face to face and show them all the studies and see their face as they try to do mental gymnastics.
I think their claim that a cell can only reproduce 50 times (instead of 250 which was what Hayflick originally claimed) is the crown jewel in showing their utter idiocy. How crazy if our cells could only divide 50 times in our lifetimes LOL. Stupid.
Edit: Ahaha, just saw their four references. Three about tumors, mind you. The fourth is this one! Which is just about connective tissue composition. NONE of this substantiates their fear mongering microneedling claims. What a bunch of horseshit that article is. Classic example of people misusing science to buttress absolutely unscientific claims. Genuinely makes me mad, but makes me also realize why putting in so much of my own time and effort to dispelling these myths is important. Because otherwise, people might actually buy into the nonsense they read.

 

[Max2809]

Also just ask ChatGPT. It will outline to you why this article is BS in the nicest way possible.

 

[Deleted member 18582]

microneedling is essential

 

[ezio6]

Microneedling ftw

 

[Maalik]

I'm not saying your overall point is wrong, but I think what they are saying is that you can only elicit a stress response a finite number of times- that you can only synthesise a certain amount of collagen in your lifetime and by dermarolling you are effectively enhancing collagen production now but will not be capable of producing as much collagen later in life than you would be if you didn't dermaroll.

we don't know if that's true,

it certainly isn't true for the stress response in muscle building . In fact, the more muscle tissue your body builds, it becomes easier to gain it back if you ever lose it. and People don't "lose their finite ability" to build muscle due to lifting heavy and causing microtears in their muscles at a young age. In fact its always better in people who did it.
It could be the same for skin and collagen, or it might not be.
Problem is the author of that article cites no evidence, just gives us their "finite stress response" theory which is false for most of the body's functions (muscle, tendon, bone building).

 

[GianoMontagne]

I recently started looking into micro-needling to grow denser facial hair. The praise for it is substantial and everyone seems to recommend it.

Everywhere I look, the consensus seems to be that micro-needling is the best thing for hair growth with no negative side effects as microneedling is good for the skin unless used improperly.

But then I came across this...



This article goes over several other reasons why micro-needling is harmful as well. Can someone please validate/refute this article's claims? I am not well versed enough on the subject to fully know for sure...

(The article does try to sell shit at the end which always makes me question their intentions.)

All the "sources" they cite are either their other articles or studies unrelated to the topic. The article is an obvious money grab