Subscribe & Support This Site!
consumer hair removal forum
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
Hop To:
#51091 - 04/17/08 05:39 PM Sephoras No! No!
Form Offline
Contributor

Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 11
Seen the Sephora No!-No! being touted as a good hair removal product that will reduce hair growth permanently. I've read many testimonials attesting to its effectiveness on internet product reviews.
Is this product good to go or what? And by what technique does this thing remove hair by? Ive already searched for the No!No! on this site and all I get is three different forums saying its no good, backed by ZERO qualification.

Only answer if you have somthing more to say than, "its no good, we already talked about it".
And if you did already talk about it show me a link.

Top
Sponsored Links
#51147 - 04/18/08 11:05 AM Re: Sephoras No! No! [Re: Form]
James W. Walker VII Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 8041
Loc: Buffalo NY, & Traveling the US...
here is what the company says about this particular version of their product:

http://www.my-no-no.com/html/technology.htm
compare that with this page on our sister site
http://www.hairfacts.com/methods/etweezer.html

Hair is not a conductor of electricity, nor a very good conduit of heat energy. the growth cells that need to be targeted for permanent hair removal are located in the LOWER portion of the follicle, so blasting the upper portion of the hair, and or hair follicle may cut the hair off at, or just below the skin's surface, but won't provide permanent hair removal, as it will not disturb the germative growth cells in the lower reaches of the hair structure. This is why Probe/Needle Electrolysis inserts a fine wire probe into the follicle so that it is placing the treatment energy directly at the place that needs to be treated in order to effect permanent change in the body tissues.

But I am sure you find even this explanation to be lacking.

Just buy it and tell us how you feel about the results 3 to 6 months after using the product as directed. Then make sure to follow up with the before, during and one year after shots of the treated area.
_________________________
http://www.executiveclearance.com/beforeandafter.html
Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan. --- Tom Landry
Has this site helped you? Pay it forward. Donate to keep HairTell & Hairfacts Online at http://www.hairfacts.com/feedback/support-this-site/

Top
#51160 - 04/18/08 03:31 PM Re: Sephoras No! No! [Re: James W. Walker VII]
Form Offline
Contributor

Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 11
Well thanks for your reply. Yes, the whole transference of heat through the follicle thing seems a little dubious, yet if hair was total nonconductor of heat, laser hair removal wouldn't work.
People are reporting that the regrowth phase is lessened after use, as compared to shaving.

Why would that be, if all it did was burn the hair off superficially wouldn't the hair grow back at the same rate as shaving?

This site isn't an advocacy site for electrolysis is it?

Top
#51163 - 04/18/08 04:33 PM Re: Sephoras No! No! [Re: Form]
Benji_boy Offline
Top 20 Contributor

Registered: 06/21/07
Posts: 314
Loc: South East, London
Heat can travel down the hair - but not very well, hence why there is so much debate on which lasers are best . Comparing a no no! pad to something like the GentleLASE Alexanderlite laser or really any other Grade IV medical laser, is like comparing the pulling power of a old Cortina with a cruise liner. When laser fires light into at the skin it attracts to the melanin partcicles in the hair and travels down the hair follicle at an incredibly fast rate, which is where the pulse factor of lasers come in. If the energy can travel down fast enough before its conductor (the hair) is burnt away it can reach the bottom of the follicle and if in the right hair cycle, can cause thermal damage to germ cells. Where as something as slow as a transdermal patch would simply burn the hair before it reached anywhere close to the lower regions of the follicle.

In regards to the hair growing back slower, the hair may have somewhat of a tappered effect when burnt meaning the hair may be less noticable when growing back. There is also the placebo effect, as well as human error when concerning memory, henec why it is important to have before and after photos, even when doing LHR or electrolysis. People ignore me on this, but there has been extensive research into the way our memories and how our perception of things can differ.

Another interesting point is this type of product has been around for a number of years, if it is permanent why haven't they consulted the FDA or any others similar bodies to back up their claim? Yes, these regulators aren't the be all and end all, but they do give a lot of weight to an arguement.

Regards,
Benji
_________________________
-Chasing the dream

Top
#51167 - 04/18/08 07:42 PM Re: Sephoras No! No! [Re: Benji_boy]
Form Offline
Contributor

Registered: 04/17/08
Posts: 11
Very nice. Indeed people are apt to see and hear what they want, including myself. So I want to hear a reasoned explanation of why this device can't work to counter my hope.

My childish hopes have been decreased a bit more by your piercing logic and knowledge my friend.

Top
#92718 - 10/14/11 08:33 PM Re: Sephoras No! No! [Re: Form]
allijb Offline
Member

Registered: 10/14/11
Posts: 1
The no no removes hair via laser, but if your skin is too light and your hair is too light it is not effective. It smells very badly (as the laser burns your hair) and leaves skins a little red for...30 min. You simply glide it over your skin. Very simple to use.
It didn't work for me, but I may have noticed a difference if I could have used it longer than the 60days it allows. It is worth a try, I believe, because I didn't pay a penny for anything, including the return of product. Hassle-free believe it or not. It would have been worth every penny if it had worked.

Top
#92784 - 10/17/11 12:52 AM Re: Sephoras No! No! [Re: allijb]
James W. Walker VII Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 8041
Loc: Buffalo NY, & Traveling the US...
The NO!NO! is NOT a LASER! It doesn't even claim to be a LASER. You can't buy the crystal needed to make a LASER for the retail price of the No-No.
_________________________
http://www.executiveclearance.com/beforeandafter.html
Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan. --- Tom Landry
Has this site helped you? Pay it forward. Donate to keep HairTell & Hairfacts Online at http://www.hairfacts.com/feedback/support-this-site/

Top
#92851 - 10/18/11 11:10 PM Re: Sephoras No! No! [Re: James W. Walker VII]
James W. Walker VII Offline

Top 10 Contributor

Registered: 06/03/02
Posts: 8041
Loc: Buffalo NY, & Traveling the US...
I saw this and thought it would help some of you out.

TRIA Beauty, Inc. Files Lawsuits Against Radiancy Inc. and Oregon Aesthetic Technologies, Inc
11/10/2010

TRIA Beauty, Inc. announced that it has filed lawsuits against Radiancy Inc. and Oregon Aesthetic Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The lawsuits seek relief from Radiancy's and OAT's ongoing campaigns of false and misleading advertising and other unfair competitive practices related to their respective no!no! hair removal and ANSR:BEAM devices. The suits seek injunctions and damages in connection with their claims. In its complaint against Radiancy, TRIA charges that Radiancy has conducted a massive campaign of national television and Internet advertising to the general public to promote sales of its no!no! hair removal device and that this advertising includes numerous bogus claims. Among other things, TRIA alleges: -- In its labeling and advertising, Radiancy repeatedly claims that the no!no! hair removal device will permanently reduce hair density and hair re-growth by up to 94%. Although Radiancy alleges that it has "clinical studies" that support this claim, those studies do not establish any permanent hair reduction, much less one of up to 94%. In fact, TRIAbelieves, based on its understanding of how the no!no! hair removal device works, that Radiancy's unsupported permanent hair-reduction claims are false and misleading. -- TRIA's FDA-cleared Laser Hair Removal System, unlike the Radiancy product does produce a permanent reduction in hair regrowth and is an advanced light-based technology adapted from the same technology used in dermatologists' offices. The light waves penetrate the skin surface and are absorbed by the hair follicle, which is then disabled. The Radiancy device, by contrast, consists merely of a heated wire that melts or chars the surface hairs with which it comes into contact. Although the no!no! hair removal device does not use or incorporate lasers, Radiancy falsely advertises the no!no! hair removal device as being "like laser" for hair removal and its technology as "laser-like. -- In a further effort to trade off TRIA's reputation for quality, Radiancy has purchased and uses phrases incorporating the TRIA name as "keywords" on leading Internet search engines, including Google, Yahoo!, and Bing to generate sponsored links to Radiancy's websites when Internet users conduct a search using one of these terms. This use is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive consumers and infringes TRIA's trademark rights. The case against OAT involves similar issues. According to the complaint OAT makes a number of false and misleading claims that its ANSR:BEAM device has been "clinically tested and proven" to be safe and effective in treating acne. OAT cites and summarizes a number of peer-reviewed clinical studies in support of these claims. None of these studies, however, involved the ANSR:BEAM, and TRIA believes that the ANSR:BEAM has not been the subject of any clinical trials, at least none that has established its safety or effectiveness in treating acne. Therefore, these claims are all false and misleading. OAT also claims that the ANSR:BEAM has replicated the specific light wavelength of clinically-proven treatments and developed a low-powered, safe, handheld, phototherapy unit, safe for daily use. The studies cited by OAT, however, involved blue-light phototherapy devices operating at a materially different wavelength from the wavelength at which OAT indicates the ANSR:BEAM operates.
----------------------------------------------------------

So you see, the No-No is substantially equivalent to a $100,000 LASER, or better yet, properly performed electrolysis. NOT!!! mad
_________________________
http://www.executiveclearance.com/beforeandafter.html
Setting a goal is not the main thing. It is deciding how you will go about achieving it and staying with that plan. --- Tom Landry
Has this site helped you? Pay it forward. Donate to keep HairTell & Hairfacts Online at http://www.hairfacts.com/feedback/support-this-site/

Top

Moderator:  Andrea 
Sponsored Links
Recent Posts
Thermolysis on thick facial hair (+Photos)
by dfahey
Today at 01:26 AM
When Can I start and who to see In nj?
by Iluv2zap
Yesterday at 07:07 PM
Showing my work...
by Iluv2zap
Yesterday at 02:47 PM
My Skin Years After Last Session
by dj355
10/21/17 04:36 PM
prominent sebaceous glands: can hair removal help?
by Michael Bono
10/19/17 09:16 PM
Top Posters
LAgirl 9994
dfahey 9586
James W. Walker VII 8041
Andrea 4149
Michael Bono 3160
Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 103 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod