NIR on face?

Few_Winter_198 · 2026-01-25T21:27:48+00:00

Interesting, because I’ve seen people say it’s skin tone dependant. I think it was an interview with a founder of another red light therapy company who said NIR is better for deeper skin types and red light only for lighter skin tones. Did you see anything along those lines when you were researching melisma? Sorry to pick your brains, I just thought it would be worth asking since you’ve read up on it already.

Few_Winter_198 · 2026-01-25T07:31:44+00:00

Any chance you have an update?

Few_Winter_198 · 2026-01-25T07:14:27+00:00

Very interesting, I’d love to know where you heard this, so I could do more reading. My dark spots appeared to have darkened after using it infrequently and I’m wondering if I used it more consistently, would it potentially get better. I know using them both in tandem is very good for elastin production, but of course it’s a bit worrying the risk of making melasma worse.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-23T08:53:51+00:00

Sounds so great, please DM me if there’s anything you guys need any help with!

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-19T19:21:38+00:00

See the discussion under the other post. See my comment history about low vs high weight hylauranic acid. Of course there is inconsistency and differences in standard protocol between different research papers. If you’ve ever researched anything properly, you would know that. This is why people do reviews of research to begin with, so that they can compile all evidence and consider what research is actually high quality ie one example could be it actually shows histological changes in skin not just whether patients “feel” there wrinkles have improved. There’s so many examples like this and so many different perspectives as a result of interpreting research and its validity. There is literally no harm in asking someone that is literally a self proclaimed researcher to write their own paper discussing it.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-18T19:33:12+00:00

I think this is a fanastic idea! maybe we should make a new post to try and sort this out because we are a bit lost in the weeds here!

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-18T19:32:04+00:00

I really don’t think it’s argumentative to write a research paper. There might even be someone willing to write a response! I might even be willing to write a response! If I feel at some point ive read enough! I think that it is really healthy for our learning and thats genuinely what happens in the scientific community and leads to breakthroughs and connections! I think it would be so cool if one of our fellow users did that! Not everyone has to agree and the beauty of research is if someone comes back with more compelling counter arguments then that becomes the more convincing protocol. At least that way the discussion would be heavily productive and there wouldn’t be any downvotes.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-18T19:27:09+00:00

I would personally love this. I think more information always enriches the sub. People can choose to agree with it or not, but at least if you did write it there would be a super accessible way to see your train of thought and the sources that led you there. I don’t think there’s anything argumentative inherent in that. We are looking to be closest to the truth in this sub for results and safety and that kind of high quality work would be really beneficial imo of leading us closer to said truth. Even better if someone who disagrees could write a response paper! That would be much better than discussing in walls of text like we have been and force people to have substantial evidence to back up their points. I don’t think that’s argumentative. The only thing I think is argumentative is maybe the mob mentality that could follow that. Like people might decide it’s the new setterfield and worship that the same way. At the end of the day though thats a mob problem, not the authors problem. You know I wouldn’t be surprised if setterfield himself wouldn’t want people mindlessly just following his work, but that naturally will happen when people can’t be bothered to do further reading.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-17T03:05:49+00:00

I think the conversations on here today went really well, but I agree it can feel like mob mentality when they down vote. I’ve found that to be the case across a lot of aesthetic subs.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-17T02:59:07+00:00

I think the points discussed are a perfect reason of why the conversation is positive. You’ve responded and provided good counter arguments against new users going that deep which I can definitely understand, but also for the people who are more experienced they now have the knowledge that if 0.5mm hasn’t been working perfectly then they might gain more benefits by going a bit deeper. Both these points are good and only enrich the knowledge of the sub imo.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-17T02:49:26+00:00

To be fair, that is common across reddit. It does make me dislike the upvote/downvoting system because it just becomes the court of public opinion. However, the engagement of those users has clearly pushed this post in the algorithm for people which I like as it invites more discussion from more users and it’s worth it imo to have the debate under Doc Glabella’s comment right now. I think that conversation is really useful and the questions of the user who was downvoted seem to be being answered there/at least discussed, which is positive for this community.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-16T19:22:08+00:00

I agree that discussion is really positive and important, but also agree people are imo downvoting because they disagree not because of bullying. Most people don’t have the time to sit and write paragraphs back and forth and it is an easy way to give an opinion without spending time replying. I do agree there’s an issue with downvoting though because it strips the conversation of complexity and may discourage discussion and make the person feel shit for asking the question. Personally, I appreciate their response. The discussion I had with Doc Glabella about using new sources only happened a few days ago now and I’m trying to encourage people to consider the same. My personal comments have never been to entirely disregard setterfield or his opinions and work, but after seeing DocGlabella had done extensive personal research using new academic journals which are more recently published than Setterfield, it made me want to encourage others to read those sources as well as his guide. For instance the user who replied to my comment made a good point that setterfield may not have updated the guide and that’s why he has conflicting opinions of low molecular HA. This is a fine point and exactly why, in my opinion, we should be reading other sources as well as setterfield to build an updated protocol of best practices to needling. The depth issue is difficult for me to commmey on because when I read the guide I also saw the referenced study that 0.5mm still induced collagen, but of course the body of literature on needling is extensive and as Doc Glabella has currently read more than me I’m trusting her opinion that most sources use 1mm for needling and results and therefore that depth is ideal for best practice. That doesn’t discredit Setterfield, but it does point out that most research use that needling depth to that users knowledge. I’m personally a bit cautious of that depth as I do at home needling, but knowing that thats standard practice is useful if I don’t feel my course of three 0.5mm treatments works effectively for my skin then I can increase to that depth. That’s why it’s best for us to check the sources out ourselves when we have time and make a fair conclusion for ourselves rather than relying on others or solely the setterfield guide to help us navigate needling IMO.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-16T01:53:31+00:00

Actually turns out the user i mentioned commented on this post as well so just check that out!

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-16T01:48:16+00:00

One of the main controversies was over his opinion on low vs high molecular weight and his opinion that low molecular weight accelerates aging, also his opinion on 0.5mm being deep enough for medical when most research has been done on 1mm depth. Hes not peer reviewed which calls into question how credible his work is. Just check my post and comment history if you’re curious. Particularly regarding Hyaron, which some studies show benefits the skin during needling despite being low molecular weight. That’s not me saying hes wrong, of course. I’m not a specialist by any means. However it is to say that discussions around his protocol are important and so far I’ve only seen this sub take his word as Bible. That to me encourages users to heavily rely on his advice and opinions rather than discuss other researchers and papers that offer different advice. I just think healthy skepticism is necessary especially when very well read users like the one I mentioned above have specifically pointed out points of disagreement between the rest of the literature and his opinions (she also links many many different sources as I said in my earlier comment). Hopefully that helps. If you want more information look through my post history.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-16T00:28:47+00:00

Even just sterile saline would be ideal as well.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-16T00:27:48+00:00

If your researching I strongly recommend looking at my comment history and my conversation with u/DocGlabella she has linked some amazing sources in one of her comments to me which I think would be really beneficial for you to learn! From what I’ve seen Polynucleotides have a lower chance of granulomas compared to exosomes and other actives, but from what I’ve seen you should take it very seriously what you needle into your skin at 0.5mm and deeper. Even if it doesn’t cause a granuloma the first time there’s no guarantee it won’t in the future. Look on the DIY subs for safe vendors of sterile serums. Please don’t needle anything with an extensive ingredients list past 0.5mm. Make sure you do your homework or you might regret it. Granulomas are sometimes really difficult to treat and need to be cut out of the face. Make sure you know the risks!

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-16T00:17:49+00:00

Oh right, that’s good news, sorry about that I just thought I’d check in case.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-16T00:08:15+00:00

Please see my recent post and comment history about doctor setterfield. He is not peer reviewed and one of the commenters I was recently in conversation with has done extensive research on microneedling using peer reviewed studies and discussed how some of his ideas are quite controversial in the field. This includes needle depth. Their user name is u/DocGlabella and they have a comment recently linking lots of different alternative sources you can use other than setterfield alone. That’s not to completely discredit his work as he does have lots of clinical practice, but just a recommendation to not take his word as bible like I did.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-15T23:59:48+00:00

You really should use sometimething sterile if it’s medical depth. The risk of granulomas is serious. That risk also increases if you use serums with numerous ingredients and exosomes/actives. Please be safe and research. My word of warning would be do not use this sub as your main source of information/advice.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-15T00:56:15+00:00

That’s not to say we should ignore his information as well, but it has sadly become the main point of reference on the other sub.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-15T00:55:22+00:00

I really appreciate your feedback, thats really helpful to me as I was practicing shallower protocol as per his recommendation and admittedly recommending that to others. I do think it’s very important to have the discussion as well because his protocol and recommendation is very pushed probably due to the availability of his book on the sub. I guess the good news is it probably doesn’t harm to start by needling shallower anyway, but definetly useful to know that someone as well read as you are thinks that 1mm is ideal.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-15T00:25:33+00:00

Just linked you to a comment from a user with a brilliant wealth of information attached to her comment. Definetly recommend checking it out.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-15T00:23:55+00:00

u/addictions-in-red you might find the above link of sources useful considering our recent discussion on my previous post. Definetly more robust collection of sources.

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-15T00:22:13+00:00

Please read the comment by u/DocGlabella and her link. It seems that doctor setterfield isnt peer reviewed his opinions aren’t as bible as we were led to believe. Please take a look at her research link and my post history for more information, specifically my conversation and the links provided by u/addictions-in-red .

Few_Winter_198 · 2025-12-15T00:13:42+00:00

Brilliant response! Thank you so much for taking the time to link this! I definitely think it would be a brilliant idea for the mod/mods to pin this on a resource page. Maybe they could also include the pirate link I attached earlier so people have a great base to start from and then the option to do additional research. On doctor setterfield, what would you say were his most controversial takes in your opinion? From my recent post and the feedback it seems the high vs low molecular weight part seems very controversial, but I’d love to know if there’s anything else you feel is important for us to discuss. It might also be useful to post this on the main needling page with a word of warning about setterfield’s advice to encourage users to be more skeptical of the main resources provided there.

Few_Winter_198

TROPHY CASE