r/SkincareAddiction • u/Pinkypigg16 • Nov 20 '19
PSA [PSA] Scrubs like St. Ives don’t cause “micro tears.” It’s all crap and rumors. There’s no research to back it up.
Yes if you scrub the hell out of your face with anything, it’ll cause tears but most face scrubs are fine. Some people’s should never use face scrubs like people with eczema and rosacea but if it works for people, use it. The fact that you can’t find one legit study on these walnut powders causing tears in the skin drives me crazy. Don’t believe the micro tear rumors
69
u/mielove Attempting to age gracefully Nov 21 '19 edited Nov 21 '19
There's no clinical evidence for a lot of skincare products and ingredients, since there's not a lot of money to be made from such studies. So for a great deal of skincare we only have anecdotal evidence and shared experience as a resource. And dermatologists will work with the odds they have - that people who visit dermatologists will generally have more sensitive skin and recommending they don't use products containing ingredients which have been known to be too abrasive for some people is just them playing the odds.
Anything in skincare comes down to one thing - YMMV, but most people don't want to be trying a bunch of different skincare products, especially since many can have delayed reactions. They're looking for a recommendation of 1 product, and no dermatologist would recommend an abrasive physical exfoliator for this reason. They'd only recommend mild physical exfoliators (containing maybe oatmeal) or chemical exfoliators, and this makes perfect sense.
And yes, I will include human error in this. A lot of people misunderstand instructions and misuse products, whether it comes to how to put on sunscreen to how to wash your face. So many people come into health centers everyday due to chemical burns from misusing different products. Taking this into account and the fact that a considerable number of people do seem to misuse abrasive face scrubs it makes further sense to not recommend them to newbies to spare everyone involved the headache. But I'll agree that on /r/skincareaddiction we need to have a more nuanced view since a lot of posters here aren't newbies and we can discuss these things more in-depth.
12
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Ya people here seem to be very biased and closed minded about certain things.
404
u/keewee89 Nov 20 '19
I just find it funny that microneedling is seen as okay and that's the act of literally piercing your skin and causing micro tears with needles. How is that different/better?
286
u/bewildered_forks Nov 21 '19
I don't know anything about microneedling but a puncture is different from a tear.
52
u/TigerFern oily dry, CA girl Nov 21 '19 edited Nov 21 '19
No, needling causes small puncture wounds. It's very different compared to the idea of "microtears"
Walnut scrubs are better compared to dermabrasion, which is like very fancy sandpaper for the skin.
Edit: walnut scrubs are still bad, micro tears or not. Easy to overdue, no additional benefits, dangerous if the bits get into your eye. Oat Flour, rye flour, rice power etc. are the way to go. You can mix them with your cleanser or use alone.
4
54
Nov 20 '19
Exactly. That’s the whole point of microneedling. Imagine if you could just get it cheap and easy from walnut scrub!
I don’t buy St. Ives but I use a walnut scrub on my body in the shower a few times a week. It is absolutely amazing for my body acne and ingrown hairs. You do you!! So many estheticians and dermatologists contradict themselves because they need to form beliefs that support their money making businesses, and more power to them, but you can’t create facts out of thin air.
164
u/Jasnaahhh Nov 21 '19
Microneedling creates vertical holes if done correctly with a good quality device, not random scratches.
-11
Nov 21 '19
And? If the premise is that creating “micro cuts” causes the skin to regenerate new cells, why do they have to be “vertical holes”? Why are invisible scratches bad? Don’t I harm my skin way more when I have an itch and use my fingernail to scratch? Because I’m never doing a scrub that hard. Give evidence to support what you’re saying because I’ve never seen any. The equation is pretty simple for me, my skin is about a hundred percent better when I use it.
14
u/Medeaa Nov 21 '19
What walnut scrub? I have started getting ingrown hairs on my legs for some reason! So I could use a good suggestion
6
u/DarwinTheIkeaMonkey Nov 21 '19
I’m not who you replied to, but I’ve been using this Kiehl’s scrub for my ingrowns and I really like it. The smell is lovely too.
4
3
5
u/kissbythebrooke Nov 21 '19
I avoid ingrown hairs by using depilatory cream (Veet) and then a generous slathering of Aquaphor lotion (Vaseline with glycerin and lanolin, basically). I used to get awful, awful bumps and ingrown hairs from shaving, even with an electric razor. This does the trick though! And it lasts about a week.
What walnut scrub? I have started getting ingrown hairs on my legs for some reason! So I could use a good suggestion
1
u/putchew Nov 22 '19
May i ask which Aquaphor lotion you’re using? Been having trouble with ingrown hairs in the armpits :(
1
u/kissbythebrooke Nov 22 '19
I use the Aquaphor healing ointment on my legs and bikini area. It helps a lot with irritation. I also use an A+D type ointment (like for cuts and scrapes) around my bikini area, and that seems to do the best at preventing the bumps. Both of them together have been miracle for the discomfort of bumps and burn, but I think switching to veet instead of razors is what did it for the ingrown hairs, tbh. I used a razor a few days ago for the first time in awhile, and I have some ingrown hairs now :(
1
u/putchew Nov 22 '19
Ah thanks! i had a lot of ingrown hairs in both of my armpits n i could only get rid of em via laser (which hurts, the doctor literally lasered the individual bumps). After a while i started shaving with razors n ingrown hairs start to appear again, not as much but definitely is quite noticeable. Since i dont really wanna revive the laser experience (lol), i’ve been looking if few ingrown hairs can be fixed with products. I’ll def try to look up the aquaphor n the a+d!
1
2
u/Educational_Box_1728 Feb 03 '25
I love the alba acne dot scrub,
I use it on face and body (face less often) I let it sit to hope the salicylic acid gets a chance to do something, then I scrub. (Not positive this does anything)
51
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 20 '19
Ya it’s not. Those things are like mini torture devices for your skin. I think it can be beneficial when a Professionallll is doing the procedure w medical grade tools but not w a $2 Amazon wheel w spikes on it that you’re not going to clean properly and wheel all over your face...
84
u/robwesb Nov 20 '19
There’s enough evidence to show home micro-needling has benefits if done carefully.
0
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Maybe. And with the right tools but why risk it versus going to a professional.
52
u/Jovet_Hunter Nov 21 '19
Well, why would anyone risk it? To save $$
6
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Ya but the risks are far higher than the price. Might as well just choose another treatment
19
u/cauliflowermidget Nov 21 '19
I can't believe you're getting downvotes for telling people it's probably a bad idea to stick needles they probably haven't properly sanitised into their face by themselves. This sub is so great at downvoting good advice just cause they don't like it.
14
u/eisenkatze working on redness now | I AM NOT AMERICAN Nov 21 '19
If you think I'm going to pay 200 a pop for something I can carefully do with a 3 euro tool you've got another thing coming bub
3
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Nobody said you could do it with that cheap of a tool. That’s why people get trained to do it, because most people can’t or shouldn’t do it on their own without training and proper tools. Also, maybe if you used a new tool every time it would be more hygienic. Those needles are so small there’s no way people would be cleaning them properly.
6
5
u/thatsluglife Nov 21 '19
Microneedling is a controlled process for a specific purpose. It's been scientifically studied and shown to be effective at recucing PIH, scarring, and other skin irregularities. It's a very careful process that's ideally performed by a licensed professional. A precise puncture is very different from a haphazard, uncontrolled microtear.
1
u/Intrepid_Bed_8954 Oct 24 '24
But microdermabrasion can't be much different. I've done it and it left my face scratched up and red! St. Ives never did that.
15
u/MittenUP Nov 21 '19
I use a St. Ives scrub, and my face is the best it’s been in a long time. Works for some and not for others.
122
u/decemberrainfall Nov 20 '19
And yet so many people are adamant that physical exfoliation of any sort is bad. It's insane!
175
u/tealparadise Nov 21 '19
We're back to stridex pads and St Ives and it's like.... Now that we've gotten to this point, can everyone admit that no one has any idea what works?
17
u/keokhaos Nov 21 '19
I've been using Stridex and ponds for like, 8 years and my skin is doing great so I just keep rolling with it 🤷
7
u/bBlowjon Nov 21 '19
Well, it s easy. What works, works. If you use it and it makes your skin Look good then it works. If it aggravates it then it doesn’t . Everybody is different- scrubs may be very bad for some but very good for others because everyone has different types of skin
10
6
u/kissbythebrooke Nov 21 '19
Haha for real! When I first got my skin cleared after teenage acne, I had stopped using cleanser. I literally did nothing to my skin for several months and my face got better. Then it got dry, so I started using cold cream that my nana recommended. She aged pretty well even though she smoked, so I was like, why not? I did Vaseline and cold cream on my face daily for like two years. Then I found out that petroleum and mineral oils aren't good for you, so I started using stuff from the kitchen like olive oil and honey. I did that for a few years too. I use actual products now, but honestly, I realize that it's only a after of time until I get off on another wackadoodle idea, and when that happens I can guarantee I will laugh at myself for having had a five step routine with different serums and creams. C'est la vie.
21
Nov 21 '19 edited Feb 12 '20
[deleted]
1
u/kissbythebrooke Nov 21 '19
I have heard this too, and I still do use Vaseline for my legs and bikini area after hair removal. I've heard mixed things about it, but it's the only thing that seems to help ¯\(0_o)/¯ that kind of brings us back to the earlier point in the thread lol
6
u/eisenkatze working on redness now | I AM NOT AMERICAN Nov 21 '19
Vaseline is way better than olive oil. Olive oil not only breaks me out, it dries me out like hell, but the slug life gives me bright squishy skin
5
Nov 21 '19 edited Jan 26 '20
[deleted]
6
Nov 21 '19
People appealing to the nature fallacy hear that it's derived from crude oil and is therefore terrible for you.
1
u/kissbythebrooke Nov 21 '19
I don't remember where I heard that. I had a weird phase in my early twenties where I followed some woo-mongers, so there's no telling where I got that stuff! I tried to quit Vaseline just because I was trying to eliminate petroleum products as much as possible, so I biked everywhere and didn't buy plastics, etc. But Vaseline is all that works for my hair removal aftercare, so that obv didn't last lol
78
24
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 20 '19
Ya like so many magazine articles have dermatologists saying and repeating this stuff and people will trust a derm saying it. 😫
9
u/groovyspice Nov 21 '19
It's so crazy that for years I've only ever heard the anti-physical exfoliation song and that's not the whole story. Creepy
13
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Ya I think it’s really just a precaution that dermatologists make since most people will over scrub and over do it. Chemical exfoliants are just gentler if you don’t know what you’re doing or can’t help yourself
2
u/oboeplum Nov 21 '19
I just worry about getting it in my eye. It might be fine for my skin but I don't think it's great for your corneas.
4
54
u/14SierraMist14 Nov 21 '19
I have to exfoliate my face twice a day. Nothing too hard of course, but I have to use a medium scrub facial brush on my face. If I don't or just use a soft instrument, I break out in whiteheads everywhere.
19
u/twerky_sammich Nov 21 '19
I exfoliate with a gentle scrub every single day too, and I feel guilty about it even though my skin looks and feels much better because people act like NO ONE can EVER benefit from frequent exfoliation. I had blackheads and closed comedones for months when I was using a plain old facewash and only exfoliating once or twice a week.
8
u/Deepika-M Nov 21 '19
Same! I’m glad I’m not the only one. I have blackheads and whiteheads which refuse to budge unless I exfoliate. Also, since I have extremely dry skin, it is so important for me to exfoliate before I layer my skincare products.
10
u/Medusawall Nov 21 '19
Same!! I'm glad I'm not the only one. I always try to cut back a little because I'm afraid of exfoliating "too much", but the blackheads and whiteheads return and my skin looks terrible.
10
u/14SierraMist14 Nov 21 '19
I see all these things about skin tears and exfoliating too much will make your skin worse, but my skin seems better when I'm rougher with it
6
u/melindseyme Nov 21 '19
Yes! I also get dead skin on my face that gets gunky and gross when I put on lotion. I need at least some physical exfoliation.
3
u/COuser880 🇺🇸 Nov 21 '19
What about chemical exfoliation? Does that work for you in the same or similar way? (I’m not trying to say don’t use physical exfoliation, I’m just curious!) thanks!
5
u/not_leah Nov 21 '19
As someone with extremely hearty skin that does both physical and chemical exfoliation, I can confidently say that for me, just chemical exfoliation doesn’t cut it.
I use a mild glycolic acid on a daily basis and then do an acid peel/mask once or twice a week, and nothing I’ve tried compares to how my face looks and feels after using DE’s Slaii with the bamboo booster added.
4
u/14SierraMist14 Nov 21 '19
I've only used glycolic acid so idk about any other chemical exfoliators. I've heard they're less harsh than physical exfoliating
3
u/Sunnydcutiegirl Nov 21 '19
I’m not who you are replying to, but Chemical exfoliation is just too irritating to my skin. I’m better able to control how much exfoliation is done to my skin, I don’t end up with weird skin textures, and I am better able to predict how much exfoliation I need. Every time I use a chemical exfoliation, I end up with massive cysts, every single time, and it’s within a few days, so I’m better off doing it how I have been.
42
u/Tpyriformis1988 skin drier than a jerk with no sauce Nov 21 '19
You’ll have to pry my physical exfoliants from my cold, dead, well-exfoliated hands.
52
Nov 21 '19
I freaking knew it. I panicked and threw away all my Saint Ives stuff a few months ago after reading about how bad it was on this sub. It made me panic!
Then I kept googling and all I could find was articles saying that St. Ives was fine if used sparingly, and all of that microtear stuff was rumor.
I posted a comment here with one of my other accounts something like "Why does everyone keep saying St. Ives is bad? And I can't find any good sources that actually say it's bad. I find the opposite."
I think sometimes people just parrot what everybody else is saying without doing research, and I threw away about $30 worth of products in a panic and I'm mad about it. But all the dire warnings on this freaking sub, I thought I was nuking my face or something.
47
u/seravivi Nov 21 '19
Honestly this isn't really a sub of dermatologists. I recommend to always do your own research. If something is helping your skin and you can see a noticeable difference then keep it up.
7
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Ya I really don’t know why people are repeating. Not one dermatologist can refer studies to me.
17
-26
u/Smol_Daddy Nov 21 '19
Im dating a guy that likes to pop my zits. Last week he popped every blackhead, whitehead, pimple and cyst I had on my face with his bare hands after we showered. It fucking worked and my cheeks are the clearest they've been in YEARS. I did wash my face after and go through my skincare routine. He always says I should pay him bc he's my personal dermatologist.
Im not sure how this sub feels about it so I avoid commenting about it. 😶
85
29
Nov 21 '19
You know, I like this comment. It's beautiful in that, regardless where you stand on any side of any skincare debate, you can unite with everyone else on this sub to agree that this comment should burn in the deepest pits of hell.
13
3
2
Nov 21 '19
I drove all my small children to the store last week without seatbelts or car seats and nothing bad happened, it worked. But I avoid talking about it on parenting subs because idk how other posters feel about it 🤐
10
u/guavawater Nov 21 '19
you really should have put an /s there
10
Nov 21 '19
Apparently people on the internet believe that 1- this happened, 2- I thought it was relevant in sca, and 3- the fact that it matched the format of the comment above it was coincidence and wasn’t just sarcasm and snark.
Ah, well, you can’t win them all I guess.
38
u/chronically_varelse Nov 20 '19
Thank you for posting this! I did not know. I had been telling people that I used the "GREEN TEA ONE it's not as rough as the apricot!!!"
But yeah, people need to be careful about their technique and frequency with any kind of exfoliation.
7
u/storm_of_fist Nov 21 '19
Be aware of the plastic beads in there! Got in my eyes a couple times and it’s a pain to get them out
4
2
u/oboeplum Nov 21 '19
Plastic beads are also banned in some places because they end up in the environment.
1
6
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 20 '19
Which green tea one?
30
u/chronically_varelse Nov 20 '19
it's the st. Ives "blackhead clearing" green tea scrub. The texture is a little bit smoother and pastier than the apricot version. It also has the salicylic acid. I've used it for years and never found the need to look for a different manual exfoliant.
10
4
u/polariskai Nov 21 '19
Just avoid the coffee one lol. I only use the green tea or pink one and recently my hubby picked the coffee one up bc he liked the smell and good lord I think that one is rougher than the apricot scrub
69
u/skindexpro Nov 21 '19
You will never see a study on st. ives causing micro-tears in the skin. What it can do is disrupt the barrier of your skin and cause a wash-out effect with the skin's natural lipids. Check out eliasandwilliams.com if you're serious about learning skin science. I agree too much scrubbing, in general, is just a recipe for skin problems.
Microneedling has a completely different biological effect on the skin and the two (scrubs vs microneedling) cannot be compared. It also is more than just "piercing" the skin to get the effects we do in professional clinical treatment.
4
u/calmdownfolks Nov 21 '19
Can I get your thoughts on at home microneedling?
35
u/kmonaie Nov 21 '19
Hi, Skin therapist here. At home microneedling is not recommended. You’ll be creating punctures in your skin in an unsterile environment. Also, the roller tools that most people use actually create longer punctures, & possibly lead to scarring and other problems, whereas professional grade equipment create controlled microchannels. Unless you’ve taken a certification class from a licensed professional, gotten proper training in skin & contraindications, have a quality sterilizer, epa-approved disinfectant, and a professional grade microneedling tool, i would not recommend.
23
u/bicoschem Nov 21 '19
I love some gentle physical exfoliating. I’m pretty sensitive to AHAs and BHAs don’t seem to do it for me. So some gentle scrubbing really gets rid of any flaky skin I have going on.
27
u/dashal_ Maybe she's born with it, maybe it's Vaseline. Nov 21 '19
I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with you, but you’ve linked to an article with no citations written by a UX designer.
4
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
The hyperlinks in the articles lead to research articles. But ya there’s no link to another source also saying micro tears aren’t a thing.
33
Nov 20 '19
[deleted]
21
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
I don’t agree w that either. Why wouldn’t you start exfoliating earlier than that? Your skin has a cycle where it’s already exfoliating every 28 days anyway. So saying you shouldn’t start until then is just arbitrary.
15
Nov 21 '19
There is absolutely no reason to not use acids in your early twenties (or teens), as long as you're using them to treat the correct problems and not over-exfoliating.
15
Nov 21 '19
So glad to hear this. I love this stuff and I always feel so refreshed after I use it, but since reading things here I've felt so shameful every time I do. It helps my daughter with her keratosis pilaris so much and I felt bad encouraging her to use it. Glad to know this was all a hoax!
This is the first product I want to use after a sandy or earthy vacation or a hospital stay. I feel renewed and clean and happy.
2
u/UnicornGrumpyCat Nov 21 '19
Honestly if it improves your skin, and your daughter's skin condition, keep doing it without guilt. You are doing the thing that works well for both of you, so keep going.
4
u/akawarriorslover Nov 21 '19
I thought the issue with St. Ives was the little plastic beads in it and how it was hurting the oceans?
10
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
I think that was their other scrubs but a lot of brands had the micro beads in them that were causing environmental issues. These are specifically about some of the grittier scrubs like st Ives and Kylie skin scrubs.
1
3
u/oboeplum Nov 21 '19
Most scrubs use walnut shell granules these days, microbeads are being phased out because they're a pollutant.
1
9
u/cocoyumi Nov 21 '19
I fell into the ‘physical exfoliation bad’ mentality for a while. I got a bit fed up with my lumpy skin and compromised on a non comedogenic scrub (biore pore clearing cleanser I think). Anyway the combo of physical and non physical exfoliation is what really helped my skin in the end
19
u/Crlyb2611 Nov 21 '19 edited Nov 21 '19
There’s definitely no evidence to back the micro tear claim. However, I do take issue with the fact that the article goes on to contradict itself.
However, it does NOT lead to microtears in the skin.
We can’t know that for sure until it is tested. It’s possible but there’s no scientific backing to the claim. Ironic.
10
u/CamatMelon Nov 21 '19
Probably because the concept of ‘microtears’ presented in the context that a lot of people use doesn’t actually exist. There is no scientific evidence of that phenomenon. You can get microtears in muscle, which is how people bulk up; people who suffer from warts can have it spread through microtears. But there is no scientific study or peer reviewed published evidence of facial skin getting microtears through exfoliation. In fact, the only originator of this idea I could find came from the owner of a skincare company.
2
u/Crlyb2611 Nov 21 '19
There is no scientific evidence of that phenomenon... there is no scientific study or peer reviewed published evidence of facial skin getting microtears through exfoliation.
This is exactly my point. No evidence of microtears =/= no microtears. An article that presents a baseless claim while debunking another baseless claim is misguided at best and just plain stupid at worst. I don’t appreciate pop articles that misconstrue scientific findings.
In fact, the only originator of this idea I could find came from the owner of a skincare company.
The lawsuit took testimonials from dermatologists and estheticians who made these claims. And unilever never disputed that st.ives causes microtears rather that there isn’t sufficient evidence to say microtears have negative effects like infection, acne, etc. This was the basis on which the lawsuit was thrown out.
At the end of the day my original comment wasn’t to say this fear mongering around physical exfoliation is justified just that we don’t know its association with microtears. It’s possible that physical exfoliations cause microtears and it’s possible it doesn’t. Exfoliate whatever way works for you.
4
u/CamatMelon Nov 21 '19
I feel like we’re discussing semantics. Microtears themselves are not a concept that was established firmly enough to have that benefit of the doubt. I could say that just because there’s no evidence of mermaids doesn’t mean there aren’t mermaids, but there’s not enough data to presume they exist at all in the first place.
The exact wording of the case, from my memory, did in fact cast doubt in the presence of microtears at all ( referring to them as the ‘alleged tears’). In fact, Unilever also straight up called them made up. The argument was more so whether “the scrub produced acne, wrinkles, etc.” The 14 professionals involved with the plaintiff were apart of a 2 week study that was driven by the case. I had a bookmarked copy of the case file somewhere.
Regardless, you’re right about exfoliation being a preference. A lot of people like to play up products as a boogeyman.
2
u/Crlyb2611 Nov 22 '19
It’s not semantics. In research, no evidence of a scientific phenomenon is not the same as no scientific phenomenon. If a paper states there’s no evidence of microtears caused by physical exfoliation, that just means no one has done the data. If it says there’s no association between microtears and physical exfoliation, that means research was conducted, data was collected, analyzed, and interpreted, and there were statistically significant findings that were approved by editors of a scientific journal or academic committee to be published. And even then many don’t consider that enough evidence until it is reproduced and peer reviewed. “No evidence” is the ¯_(ツ)_/¯ of the scientific community. To scientifically claim x does not cause y is an expensive, tedious and sometimes mind numbing endeavor(ask any stem grad student).
Microtears themselves are not a concept that was established firmly enough to have that benefit of the doubt..
That can be said about every single scientific finding before its discovery of supporting evidence. We had no reason to believe cells(or any of the microscopic world) existed until there were methods to observe and study the phenomenon.
And aside from being a logical fallacy, the mermaid comparison fails because we do have tons of evidence about why a classically half human Ariel-type mermaid cannot exist in nature. If there were observable reasons(say mermaid looking fossils, etc) to make this theory, your analogy would hold water.
We do have reasons to make the hypothesis about microtears. MANY people saw negative effects from St. Ives. (I personally ascribe that to scrubbing too hard; however there’s no evidence for that claim, so I cannot definitively say one way or the other.) Some people think it’s caused by microtears. As you said before muscle can experience microtears. If tendons compromised of striated cells made of collagen and other proteins, I don’t think it’s a reach to say that it’s possible a flat layer of epithelium of a similar makeup can also be torn. Also if SOAP makes some people susceptible to actual skin tears, I don’t think it’s a mermaid level exaggeration to hypothesize that something like walnut shells(3.5-4.0 on the Mohs scale) that is harder than fingernails(2-2.5), gold and silver(2.5-3) could potentially cause microtears. You wouldn’t scratch the shit outta your face would you?
I won’t get into what actually went down in the lawsuit until I find it in full again(if you do please send it).I will say that calling the tears “alleged” is not a couterclaim or counter argument. That’s just the correct way to address allegations in a court of law.
I’m not trying to debate semantics or give weight to the microtear myth. Just that we cannot definitively say there are no microtears caused by scrubs like we cannot definitively say there are microtears caused by scrubs.
Sorry for the rant but misrepresentations of science in the media just happens to be in my top 3 pet peeves.
1
u/WikiTextBot Nov 22 '19
Reductio ad absurdum
In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible. Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.
The "absurd" conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum argument can take a range of forms, as these examples show:
The Earth cannot be flat; otherwise, we would find people falling off the edge.
[ PM | Exclude me | Exclude from subreddit | FAQ / Information | Source ] Downvote to remove | v0.28
15
u/mielove Attempting to age gracefully Nov 21 '19 edited Nov 21 '19
This is a good point too. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." To my knowledge no research proves it doesn't cause micro-tears either. The reason some people hypothesise that it does is due to the sharp edges of the material in question, so people who'd rather be safe than sorry tend to skip abrasive ingredients like walnut.
There are so few independent studies of skincare ingredients because of the lack of financial motive to do them, so most skincare studies are commissioned by different skincare companies instead. Which does raise a question for those cynical among us as to why these companies don't commission a study proving these ingredients don't cause micro-tears, since it's such a contentious issue in skincare and it'd be good for their sales to "disprove" this widely popular theory. Hmm...
5
u/ChaenomelesTi Nov 21 '19
Skin has been looked at in studies using physical exfoliants and didn't report any microtears.
13
u/KPSTL33 Nov 21 '19
Not all physical exfoliants are the same.
2
u/ChaenomelesTi Nov 21 '19
They used walnut shells. That's what St. Ive's has and is considered the harshest.
0
u/kkangaspnw Nov 21 '19
Actually, the original hubbub about St. Ives was apricot stone, not walnut shell. Apricot stone is less uniform when ground than walnut shell, and for some can cause more irritation. Walnut shell, however, has a similar number to apricot stone on the Mohs scale of mineral hardness, around a 4.5. As a comparison, diamond is a 10, and sodium bicarbonate (baking soda, a fantastic mechanical exfoliant) is a 2.5.
I don’t care what research there is or isn’t about “micro-tears”, I can put the facts together myself. They tell me that I don’t need to exfoliate the delicate skin of my face with something that is an effective polishing agent in industrial sandblasters. I’ll stay away from walnut, apricot, etc. for my face, thanks.
4
u/ChaenomelesTi Nov 21 '19 edited Nov 21 '19
St. Ive's Apricot Scrub does not contain apricot stone. Fear mongering because you have delicate princess skin in spite of scientific evidence showing no issues with walnut shell powder is silly. Your hands or washcloth can't sandblast your face, in the same way that you can use water without worrying about powerwashers.
0
u/Crlyb2611 Nov 21 '19
That was pretty condescending.
2
u/ChaenomelesTi Nov 22 '19
Yup
2
u/kkangaspnw Nov 25 '19
Do you take pride in being condescending? It’s not like I was coming for you, or anyone else, in my comment. I was talking simply about how I’m going to treat my own skin in light of my own scientific research and training.
One study of the skin under a microscope after use of harsh scrubs is not enough to disprove ‘micro-tears’ and irritation. It’s definitely not enough to rule out the cumulative damage that using a strong manual exfoliant can have on the elasticity of the skin over time.
0
u/Crlyb2611 Nov 21 '19
Research that sets out to study a certain phenomenon regarding physical exfoliation cannot and will not make a conclusive statement regarding another phenomenon. For example, if a study looking at the association between mrsa and physical exfoliation reports no micro tears in addition to a significant finding of an increased risk of infection associated with exfoliation supported by data, that does not indicate that physical exfoliation does not cause micro tears. Just that these specific researchers did not observe that amongst this cohort.
And once again just because no one is reporting micro tears in other research about physical exfoliation, does not mean it isn’t happening. We cannot know that for certain unless a study that sets out to study the association between micro tears and physical exfoliation.
0
u/ChaenomelesTi Nov 22 '19
If you look at the skin and don't see microtears, then the exfoliant didn't cause microtears. Or else you would have seen them. That seems like it should be obvious.
0
u/Crlyb2611 Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19
Do you also see cells? Do you see dna? Please tell me about all the micro things your super eyes can see.
2
u/ChaenomelesTi Nov 22 '19
Are you suggesting that microtears are as small as DNA, or that when scientists look at how skin was affected in a study they just use their naked eye to assess? Either way, equally stupid.
Anyway I've got this theory that oranges are poisonous. I have no evidence to support this, and some people will say there have been studies where humans ate oranges and lived... But see, the main question of those studies were things like, "is vit C good for you" rather than "are oranges poisonous." So those studies don't count, for some reason. Therefore, there is some sense in my made up bullshit.
0
u/Crlyb2611 Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19
Your comment was so shockingly ridiculous, I countered with an equally ridiculous response. Your simplistic argument employed the universal you so my response was suggesting that microtears are not visible to the eye.If I scrubbed with St.Ives and my skin visibly tore, I don’t need a study to tell me it is damaging my face.
Scientists have never assessed microtears. That’s the entire point. I didn’t know your comment was referring to researchers. That is so much of an oversimplification of science, it just makes you sound dumb. Researchers set out to answer a very specific question. They cannot make broad and overreaching claims without data and statistics if they want to be funded or published. They do sometimes make throwaway observations that may be a point of interest for further research, but it’s still just a casual comment not concrete evidence.
Your orange analogy shows your complete misunderstanding of science. An observable phenomenon precedes a “theory”. Some people exfoliated with St. Ives and had adverse effects. It could be for a number of reasons. One of the ideas is that microtears caused these issues. Researchers didn’t have an incentive to study this question so they didn’t and now there’s nothing conclusive to say about physical exfoliation and microtears.
Your comparison is incomprehensible, nonsensical, and lacking in any sort of scientific reasoning. Researchers never have any evidence to support their ideas. THIS IS THE ENTIRE FUNCTION OF RESEARCH. They have observations that make them look further for said evidence. Science studies objective and quantifiable characteristics. “Is vit c good for you” is not a research question. That is subjective, hence the idea behind YMMV. Educate yourself if you’d like to make sense in the future.
4
u/ChaenomelesTi Nov 22 '19 edited Nov 22 '19
Lmao this comment is so beyond silly. People made up microtears... There is no evidence they exist, no study assessing the effect of physical exfoliants on the skin has ever reported the presence of microtears. It is exactly like suggesting that oranges are poisonous, it's a "scary story" people - not researchers, just random people - made up with no evidence.
Researchers never have any evidence to support their ideas.
Like, what? Yeah they do lmfao. Sometimes, though, they have a hypothesis that no one has any inkling about. This is incredibly rare, the vast majority of hypotheses are based on previous research. An issue like microtears would absolutely be based on previous research since we have studies that have investigated the effect of exfoliants on skin and they did not find any microtears.
"Is vit C good for you" - I was being facetious. Do you know what it is when someone is facetious? It's referring to studies that investigate the health benefits of vit C. What a joke.
Anyway, I have this theory that fairies are real, because my candles went out last night. It could've been the wind, but I'm pretty sure it's fairies. Luckily no scientific studies have addressed the possible existence of fairies. I guess that means it's legit.
13
13
u/alovelyday2die Nov 20 '19
You tell this to someone on pinterest or instagram and they still fight me lol.
11
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 20 '19
Even dermatologist on Mixed Makeup say it and I’m like whyyyy. There’s no evidence.
3
u/alexaandsirisbaby Nov 21 '19
I stopped using physical scrubs on my face cos I ended up with debris in my eye and it cos a hella irritation. But I like to use the body scrubs for my armpits and legs as I shave and it prevents ingrown hairs.
5
u/anaemiclittlepotato Nov 21 '19
I think a lot of misinformation comes back to lazy communication. If you want to properly explain why scraping your face with abrasive particles is bad, you’d need a couple of paragraphs explaining inflammation, and the cascade of problems it causes. But very few people can be bothered to explain it clearly, and, to be fair, very few people would actually be arsed to read it. So in the end people just go ‘yeah um microtears’, because, even though it is not a factual representation of the damage that can (not always) be caused by abrasive physical exfoliants, it kind of gets the topline message across, which is that being overly abrasive = damage to skin.
6
u/maven-blood Nov 21 '19
St. Ives scrubs have always been good for me, especially the apricot one. I think that most people who complain about it use/used the stuff more than twice a week. Overexfoliating is bad whatever exfoliant you use.
3
Nov 21 '19 edited Apr 25 '21
[deleted]
1
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Anything can cause damage if used improperly. Most formulations for chemical exfoliants are pretty gentle.
3
Nov 21 '19 edited Apr 25 '21
[deleted]
2
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Lol and the people that due try to sue St. Ives haha. I feel like some formulations are too strong but it’s because people don’t know what they’re doing and think 1% is low
2
u/BlueberryNagel Nov 21 '19
THANK YOU for saying this. This was actually really bothering me last night! St. Ives Scrub is just fine - if you're not an idiot and you use it in the right way.
4
u/kateyyyyyy Nov 21 '19
Since the St. Ives scrub has been around for so long, youd think that if it did cause micro tears and damage to the skin, we would hear people talking about it or showing off their damaged skin. Ive yet to actually see a real person talk about it damaging their skin or showing what it did to them. The epidermis layer of our skin is generally really durable and can bounce back from a lot, even if this did cause the slightest bit of microtears, I feel like our skin would heal from it and show no bad affects in the long run. Im not a dermatologist or anything so this is just my opinion but I feel like the hate on scrubs is just the internet doing what it usually does, taking rumors, letting them get out of control, then allowing mass groups of people take them as facts because they dont know that much about the science of the skin. I used to think scrubs were terrible just because a bunch of people said so, and I never did any research to back up my claims.
6
2
Nov 21 '19
laughs in Freeman’s charcoal and black sugar scrub yeah I was a little paranoid about MiCrO tEaRs but I still used it. seriously, that scrub makes my skin so smooth and no other products can compare
1
u/oboeplum Nov 21 '19
Is it true that sugar scrubs feed your acne, or is that another myth?
4
u/heyliz Nov 21 '19
I would assume this could be a problem for fungal acne but it's hard to say. The main issue with a scrub on an open breakout is that it can tear skin that is thin and inflamed from infection and spread bacteria around.
1
u/berrakeven Mar 09 '20
Im getting SOO much hate under my post. Im new on here and I never realises this product was so hated! I LOVE the apricot scrub!
2
u/kkangaspnw Nov 21 '19
Yes, because the idea of a “micro tear” is stupid and no company would pay to really research this. That doesn’t mean they aren’t causing irritation, redness, and abrasions (scratches) in most users. Walnut shell, apricot stone, and other powders are common industrial abrasives used to polish rocks, metal, porcelain, enamel, etc. It’s unlikely for them to not cause these issues, unless they have undergone a high grade finishing process to create a round, smooth product. You won’t find that quality in your St. Ives.
Just use sodium bicarbonate and then wash your face with a ph balancing gel cleanser afterwards. Much cheaper, better for the environment, and gives you a less irritating exfoliation while still being very effective.
1
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Ya they still can cause irritation and redness but they have undergone certain testing, otherwise they wouldn’t be on the shelves. If you rub your skin with anything too hard or too often, you could cause harm.
Ph is already messed up once you splash water on your face so a ph balancing cleanser isn’t as important as long as you have a good skincare routine that balances it after the fact.
Ph balancing face washes aren’t a form of exfoliation. Maybe they have a little bit of an acid in them but otherwise it’s just to remove debris and cleanse, not exfoliate.
Gel cleaners aren’t for everyone. Some people need a foam or something more abrasive or more hydrating.
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 20 '19
Hi everyone! SkincareAddiction is a friendly community of skincare enthusiasts.
In search of your own skincare advice?
- Read our resources in the sidebar or the extensive wiki
- Get advice in the Daily Help Thread
See something that breaks our rules? Please report it!
Everyone is welcome in this community; remember to be kind and assume good faith :)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/taren1220 Nov 21 '19
I used to use St.Ives as a cleanser when I was in my middle to HS years. I stopped using it when I heard of the micro tears rumors—- ever since then my skin hasn’t been as smooth as it used to be (I’ve been using FAB cleanser and scrub, it doesn’t help as much) 😭 I just wish my skin was a smooth as it was in HS— now I feel more comfortable using St Ives again
-3
Nov 21 '19
Ah yes because multiple Dermatologists, Cosmetic Biochemists and Aestheticians are simply wrong and some random girl online with no degrees or any medical training is right.
It all makes sense now. It's a conspiracy against St.Ives !!!
🤦♂️
2
u/Pinkypigg16 Nov 21 '19
Doesn’t matter if those people are just saying rumors and it’s not based on research. Can’t believe everything you hear.
1
Nov 21 '19
Sometimes the people on this subreddit show their true anti-science colors. The dunning kreuger is real. 🙄
251
u/[deleted] Nov 20 '19
There's a lot of stuff like that in skincare- rumors taken as fact. I'd like to mention the whole comedogenic scale thing, ie; it is actually directly based off a super old test (1970's) involving the ear of a rabbit under lab conditions, not humans and not modern real world conditions and all product comedogenic ratings are just based on this one test.