The World On My Fingers

Let’s face it. There is no question that organic natural skin care is a far better answer than the chemical laden products that are most frequently sold. If they are so much better, then why aren’t more people buying them? The answer to this question is that most people do not possess the knowledge about various cosmetics ingredients, and what it is that they do.

If more people understood how the ingredients in skin care products worked in order to keep their skin healthy then they would make far better buying decisions. Knowing what to look for in these products would also teach people what it is that they need to avoid. There are plenty of ingredients that are frequently used in the manufacture of cosmetics products that you should steer clear of.

The majority of the cosmetics companies do not develop organic natural skin care products; because they would cost the company far more than if they continued to fill their formulas with chemical agents and low grade synthetics. Natural ingredients have to be processed a certain way in order for them to be usable as ingredients in cosmetics, and this processing adds to the manufacturing expense of the product.

So in order to keep costs down, and profit margins up, most companies use ingredients in their products that are questionable at best. A long list of ingredients commonly used by the cosmetics industry in the United States, and in many areas of the world have been banned under ruling of the European Union. Let me tell you what some of these ingredients could do to you.

The chemicals typically found in cosmetics products have been proven during scientific studies to cause the development of cancer, organ toxicity, and nervous system damage. They have also been shown to have an estrogenic effect on the body. You will run the risk of none of these by using high quality organic natural skin care products.

These formulas are primarily plant based, and these oils, waxes, and extract have a healing effect on the skin. Plant compounds provide the skin with necessary nutrients which help to keep it healthy. They also provide a wealth of antioxidants, which aid in eliminating the UV produced free radicals which attacks the cells of your skin, and causes them to break down.

A truly effective organic natural skin care formula will also put to use various enzymes and proteins, which have been proven to positively affect your skin. One of the best of these types of ingredients is the keratin protein mixture known as Functional Keratin. This ingredient stimulates the production of the cells that are necessary for the growth of new collagen and elastin.

Make no mistake about it. You will never find an ingredient capable of promoting the growth of new connective tissue outside of an organic natural skin care formula. The products that flood the market right now are a waste of time and money, and the chance that you are taking in using them is simply not worth it. Do yourself a favor, and see what wonders natures ingredients can provide you with.

If you'd like to learn more about little known but clinically tested natural ingredients that are used for treating aging skin, visit my website today.

Follicular Unit The follicular unit of the adult human scalp is a naturally occurring entity that consists of 1-4, and occasionally 5, terminal hair follicles, 1, or rarely 2, vellus follicles, the associated sebaceous lobules, the insertions of the arrector pili muscles, its neural and vascular plexuses, and the fine adventitial collagen which surrounds, and defines, the unit (the perifolliculum).

Follicular Unit Graft A graft that is obtained by dissecting out the individual, naturally occurring follicular unit. This is also referred to as a follicular unit implant, a term which implies that (unlike most grafts) the ratio of hair/skin is greater in the follicular unit implant than in the original donor area, since some of the non-hair bearing tissue has been trimmed away in the dissection.

Micrograft A 1-2 hair graft. It may consist of naturally occurring one and two-hair follicular units or be derived from larger units which are subdivided.

Minigraft A 3-6 hair graft derived from either a single follicular unit, multiple follicular units, or multiple, partial follicular units. As suggested by Walter Unger, this may be further classified into small minigrafts of 3-4 hairs, and large minigrafts of 5-6 hairs.

Slit-graft A 3-6 hair graft derived from either multiple follicular units, or multiple, partial follicular units where the dissection technique specifically attempts to produce a linear arrangement of follicles, or follicular units. This may be further classified into small slit-grafts of 3-4 hairs, and large slit-grafts of 5-6 hairs.

Follicular Unit Dissection A technique in which naturally occurring, individual follicular units are dissected from donor tissue that has been removed as a single strip (rather than with a multi-bladed knife of more than two blades) in order to keep the follicular units intact. Some non-hair bearing tissue is removed to decrease the overall bulk of the implant. Stereo-microscopic dissection is required.

Mini-Micrografts or Slit-grafts Cut to Size A dissection technique whereby the donor strip is subdivided to produce grafts of specific sizes as defined by the number of hairs they contain and/or the size of tissue that will fit into a specific recipient site. The removal of excess skin is not required. The dissection can be performed with or without magnification and the donor tissue may be removed as a single strip or with a multi-bladed knife.

Follicular Unit Transplantation A method of hair restoration surgery where hair is transplanted exclusively in its naturally occurring, individual follicular units. Single strip harvesting and stereo-microscopic dissection are required. The grafts must be placed into small recipient incisions.

Mini-Micrografting A method of hair transplantation which uses grafts containing 1-6 hairs, in groups that do not necessarily correspond to the naturally occurring follicular units. The recipient sites may be either incisions, excisions (tissue removed), or both.

Two Terminology Extremes: Science vs. Marketing

Soon after the publication, Seager suggested to add another term, the "Follicular Family Unit." (7) To paraphrase Dr. Seager:

When dissecting follicular units, it is sometimes unclear as to which unit a seemingly "stray" hair belongs. In other words, occasionally it is not completely obvious where one follicular unit ends, and an adjacent one begins. When one is specifically trying to create increased density, a stray hair would be included with an (unusually) close neighboring, larger follicular unit, containing possibly three hairs. This technique would create a four-haired unit, when there may have been no four-haired units there at all. One must find two separate units that look close enough to almost "belong together." If the two contiguous units are chosen correctly, the resulting unit can be very difficult, sometimes impossible, to distinguish from a naturally occurring follicular unit.

The key to success in this endeavor is the concept of the "Follicular Family Unit." If any ("non-family") two-follicular units are randomly doubled up, the resulting graft will be more the size of a minigraft, rather than a micrograft. It would need a larger recipient site, which would preclude dense packing because of both technical planting limitations and impairment of scalp vasculature. If, on the other hand, despite their larger size, they are forced into minute micrograft-sized recipient sites; they would be traumatized during attempts at insertion.

Although the term "follicular family unit" was introduced to account for the variability in the anatomy of the follicular unit and to take advantage of these variations in the surgery, other terms were not necessarily based on purely scientific considerations.

A blatant misrepresentation of the term follicular unit was "Follicular Unit Coupling - The Role of Slot Grafting in Hair Transplantation." (8) In this case, the author attached the new term to the original slot grafting method. This was a technique that used slit grafts harvested with a multi-bladed knife and then cut into thin pieces and placed into large slots of skin removed with a rectangular punch. The term was new and a marketing campaign followed, but the technique was the same as the original one, with no-attempt whatsoever to use, or preserve, follicular units.

Between these extremes, is the ongoing struggle to describe what we do in a clear, precise way - in the face of ever evolving concepts and techniques, and an ever increasing number of terms. The issue at hand is to be able to distinguish which terms are adding to the science and which are just blurring it.

Making Sense of the FU Salad

>From the opening list of acronyms, all used at the recent ISHRS meeting, it seems that we again need to step back and examine the new terms, to see which represent distinct ideas or techniques and which are, perhaps, redundant. What follows is a first-pass attempt at sorting out the six terms that, in our opinion, are the most confusing, and have the most overlap. They come in two groups: The first is FU Coupling, FU pairing, Double FUs (DFUs) and Multiple FUs (MFUs). The second group includes FUE and FIT.

With respect to the first group, we think that there are two distinct situations that doctor's are trying to communicate with these terms. The first is the technique of placing two separately dissected follicular unit grafts into one recipient site. This is distinct from the commonly used term "Doubling-up" which many doctors have used to refer to placing two micrografts in one site. Our suggestion is to use the term FU pairing to refer to the technique of placing two separately isolated follicular units into one recipient site. We suggest discarding the term FU Coupling as it has been incorrectly associated with slit grafting procedures in past literature and its use will be confusing.

The second situation is when a doctor places two (or more) follicular units, that have not been separated in the dissection, into one hole. In our view, this is clearly not follicular unit transplantation. The reason is that a main advantage of FUT was that in isolating FUs one would remove some of the non-hair bearing skin between FUs, to decrease the bulk of the graft. This, in turn, would allow the doctor to use a smaller recipient site, create less wounding, allow for safely transplanting a larger number of grafts in a single session etc, etc. Using multiple non-dissected follicular units, in our view, creates a larger wound and accomplishes none of these goals.

We are not suggesting that doctors should abandon this technique. Some excellent surgeons incorporate these grafts into their procedures. We are merely suggesting that it not be called FUT. Well then what should one call them? Our answer is to call them what they have always been called, namely micro-grafts, mini-grafts and slit grafts. If one argues that they are now different due to the use of the stereo-microscope, then we agree. In this case, the grafts should be called microscopically dissected micro-grafts, mini-grafts and slit grafts, to communicate the fact that follicular transection may be avoided. But these are still not follicular unit grafts any more than a pedicle flap is follicular unit transplantation. To avoid confusion, we suggest eliminating the terms DFUs and MFUs.

So what should we call eyebrow transplants? According to the technique used by most hair restoration surgeons, where they divide up the donor strip into single hairs, it should be called one-hair micrografting. If one uses the contra-lateral eyebrow for donor hair, then this can truly be referred to as FUT.

FUE and FIT

The increased transection rate of FUE harvesting techniques that use a sharp punch (relative to single-strip harvesting and stereomicroscopic dissection) had some doctors immediately question whether this procedure should be classified as a type of follicular unit transplantation. (9) With the introduction of the blunt dissection technique by Harris, that significantly decreased damage to follicles and increased the preservation of follicular units, the argument for classifying FUE as a type of FUT is considerably stronger - but certainly not bullet-proof - since in some cases significant transection remains and in others the entire follicular unit cannot be captured. (10)

The Follicular Isolation Technique (FIT), is a term used by Cole and Rose that refers to an FUE technique that uses a punch with a "stop" to limit the depth of penetration. Although these authors and other physicians question the need for a depth-stop in the extraction technique, FIT is possibly a better term than FUE if the entire unit is not being captured. In our view, when the goal is just to extract hair, rather than intact follicular units, the term FIT is preferable.

Conclusion

In sum, these authors suggest that the following four terms and definitions be added to the original classification.

Follicular Family Unit Two closely contiguous follicular units that are dissected as one graft, so that they can fit into the same size recipient site as the largest naturally occurring follicular unit normally used in the procedure.

FU pairing The technique of placing two separately isolated follicular units into one recipient site.

FUE Direct donor extraction procedures where the intent is to extract the entire follicular unit. If a depth stop is used, this should be indicated.

FIT Direct extraction procedures where the intent is to extract individual or multiple hairs smaller than the entire follicular unit. (In other words, the direct extraction of micro-grafts.) If a depth stop is used, this should be indicated.

Micro-grafts, mini-grafts and slit grafts that have been dissected microscopically to prevent follicular transection should be referred to just that, namely: microscopically dissected micro-grafts, mini-grafts and slit grafts. These authors do not feel that these procedures should be classified as a type of follicular unit transplantation. We also suggest that the terms FU Coupling, DFUs and MFUs are confusing and should be abandoned.

If you are trying to battle the bulge and not succeeding then you are not alone. Despite the diet industry turning over billions each year it still has a poor success rate for its many followers.

So what is going wrong and what can be done to achieve permanent fat loss?

Fat loss has to begin with the individual's lifestyle. The only way to secure complete fat loss is to follow some basic guidelines to help build health within the body and apply some overlooked principles.

Some of these guidelines range from getting a good night sleep to managing stress levels. Both of which can contribute to an over production of fat storing hormones. The truth is you can go to the gym and eat a clean diet but if your hormones are working against what you are trying to achieve then you are fighting a losing battle with the bulge.

That is just one side to the fat loss phenomenon. The other side is nutrition. The secret to eating your way to fat loss is to eat foods with the greatest nutrient value available. That means you need to eat foods that offer the most bang for the buck and the best place to look is organic and natural foods. What I mean by natural foods is anything that hasn't been interfered with by man. Processed foods masked, as a health food needs to go from your diet straight away if you are serious about losing weight and inches.

Once your body begins to digest high amounts of nutrients from natural foods you will require less food to satisfy hunger.

That is just the beginning, once you get your lifestyle in check and introduce plenty of good foods in your diet you can then be concerned about what kind of exercise you choose to do.

The most effective way to exercise is to choose a type that is challenging but short in duration. There is a saying you can train long but not hard and vice versa. The best kind of exercise that will work best for fat loss are the kinds that will leave you sweating and increase your heart rate and breathing. There are different ways to skin a cat and experimenting with what suits you and what you respond best from is the way to go. From my experiences resistance exercises of any kind work the fastest for fat loss results.

I have thousands of hours experience witnessing what works and what doesn't work with different kinds of diets. Those who achieve the best results all have the same things in common and take action.

The top dieters have a clear idea of what they want. This ranges from the way they want to look like to how they want to feel once they have achieved their goal.

The most successful dieters decide how many weeks/months they want to achieve their goal in and set their minds to achieving it.

The dieters that get the quickest results know the exact reasons why they want to achieve their goal and then use the reasons to motivate themselves.

The dieters who seem to effortlessly lose fat are all familiar with the obstacles that could potentially stop them from achieving their goal and set about avoiding them at all costs.

You need to have substance, clarity and a clear-cut plan of action towards your goal. No one is going to get out of this world results plodding along at their own pace without any direction.

Here's how I do it and countless others who have achieved amazing results in the shortest possible time. If you are not seeing results after 10 days then you need to change something. In my opinion if you don't feel or look any different after following a certain approach for 10 days then you must be doing something wrong or not trying hard enough.

Divide your timescale into 10-day cycles and assess your speed of progress every 10 days. The more you do this the more you will become in tune with what works for your body and what works against it. You eventually end up with your very own blueprint for fat loss.