Please do take some pictures of your unique tweezer/forceps. Do you mind if I use them (pictures) in a presentation?
I believe that I’ve watched some youtube videos of your finger technique. It didn’t occur to me that the swiping off of the hair would be soothing to the client, but I can see that it could be.
When I was being trained, the other new electrologist would practice on me. She would treat two or three hairs, and then wipe my skin with solution-wetted cotton. She was very slow. I decided that the wiping was very nice, but not necessary between every other hair! Then, I’ve traded treatments with colleagues who never wipe the skin during the treatment - I don’t like that, either! I hope that I’m like baby bear in Goldilocks, who has it “just right”…
Other one of the advantages of the finger technique is that you can catch a handful of hair of an alone time. The tweezers only it allows of one in one, and as much, of three in three. The fingers can catch many hair if they are placed closely together.
I like to work with a cotton soaked in water and soap of chlorhexidine, this neutralizes immediately any particle of powder that our gloves leave. It reduces the burning and refreshes the skin. Also it serves the physiological whey, but I like more the water and the soap.
It has been interesting to read this thread of practitioners, but as a client, I noted the above quote and wanted to ask: If the Telogen hairs are consistently more difficult to treat (and thus, extract), is it clear for the experienced operator to skip such hairs with confidence knowing that it would not be productive work? My electrologist will always treat a hair multiple times (if necessary) until is released; thus, every hair is removed since she works them and checks them with the tweezers until it finally surrenders. It appears to me that this takes significantly more time… and if it also is ineffective, well that’s no good. I should add that I shave the area, so how could a telogen hair even be present above the skin in less than a week?
BTW, All three of my electros over the years have done essentially the same thing.
The electrologist can eliminate the hair in any phase of the cycle.
Also, he/she can recognize the phase of the hair before the insertion, without need to shave the area previously.
And not, the telogen hairs will not have sufficient length in one week. If when you shave the majority of the hairs are telogen, your electrologist will not be able work at them. You will have to wait a few months in order that this hair enters shedding phase and a new cycle begins.
Jossie says: “The electrologist can eliminate the hair in any phase of the cycle. Also, he/she can recognize the phase of the hair before the insertion, without need to shave the area previously.”
My comment (three words): “ab-so-lutely!” The idea of not being able to eliminate telogen hairs is not science based. Remember, observation and science are not the same. “Seeing” might be “believing,” but it’s not necessarily correct.
The “Lucy Peters” technique was to shave during treatment and only treat anagen hairs. She used a gold insulated bulb-type needle (Laurier). Of course her “system” worked too, but the “treat anagen only” aspect was goofy. Still, she was able to sell the system, get notable physicians to endorse her (Dr. Kligman) and had studios all over the USA.
The Lucy Peters system worked, but not because of her secret system. Her gimmick: “guaranteed no regrowth.” How she got around it was the actual “shaving/anagen-only technique.” By doing this, the patient could never discern what was regrowth and what was “new anagen hair.”
My only “beef” with her was that she said all other systems were obsolete and didn’t work. She was dead wrong! In my opinion, “keeping secrets” makes you a “Madame Boom Boom!” The opposite of a “Boom Boom” is Jossie who is an open book. I strive to be the same: share, analyze, improve and share again. As we all improve, the entire profession (and our patients) benefit.
Excellent pictures!!! Thank you! I want to explain accurately, too…Did I understand that you use these for mass removal, or also for extracting random hairs? (Are these the only tweezer/forceps you use?)
For mass removal I use the fingers, does not exist tweezers more precise than our forefingers and thumb, (if a hammer does not cross for the way)
For the technique with an alone hand I use the size “Oc” and “H” tweezers. The picture shows the tweezers that I have used yesterday, before being sterilized.
I have used the longest size to train in the progressive technique with two hands. I continue being very slow with this technique. I dedicate 15 minutes whenever I have the opportunity but it is not sufficient. I need more hours of training.
I'm new to performing this service.
During training I was taught to treat and remove the hair's one by one. But when left on my own, I found that I worked much faster when treated several hairs before removing them. I tried to concentrate on working in a grid like pattern during the treatment.
Glad to see others use this method too.
Just to show others in our audience that there are different approaches and “thinkings” about hair removal under that big banner of electrolysis, I have included this information from another respected electrolysis book written by our Canadian friends, R.N. Richards M.D. and G.E. Meharg R.N., Cosmetic and Medical Electrolysis and Temporary Hair Removal.
They recommend repeatedly in their book that pre-shaving be done three days prior to electrolysis to ensure anagen treatment.
“Prior shaving removes resting (teleogen) hairs from the skin surface and ensures that electrolysis is performed only in growing (anagen) hairs…”
They show a diagram as to why electrolysis is more efective in growing anagen hairs. The diagram shows a resting (telogen) hair follicle. It is short and the dermal papilla is below the follicle, making it difficult to reach, whereas, the follicle of an anagen hair is easily accessible. We have to affect the dermal papilla to prevent regrowth.
Fino Gior has stated, " Research has shown - and most experts agree- that it is impossible to eliminate future hair growth from a follicle that is treated in late stage telogen stage. Therefore, hair will regrow from that follicle, even though the electrologists technique may have been perfect".
The authors further state:
“Pre-shaving makes electrolysis less time-consuming and therefore less expensive. Telogen hairs do not respond satisfactorily to electrolysis, so most epilations performed without pre-shavng are wasted. If you shave before electrolysis, then only the active (anagen) hairs are above the skin, and they will be the only ones to receive treatment.”
“Electrolysis is more comfortable because you are not pushing through the bottom of the deep anagen follicle with the probe as you can easily do when performing electrolysis on the telogen follicles”.
“There will be fewer side effects. … All evidence indicates that the papillae in telogen hair follicles are not accessible to appropriated destructive energy without producing undesirable surface side effects… Bruising can occur more frequently with the treatment of telogen hairs.”
“Easier epilation results because anagen hairs slide out when the correct intensity and an adquate duration have been given. Telogen hairs may have some resistance on epilation even if the treatment energy is adequate.”
They noted that the comments above do not apply to the Kobayashi-Yamada method.
They mention pre-shaving and treating only anagen hairs six times in their book.
Just wanted to give more thoughts on this interesting subject. All I can say about this subject is electrolysis brings one permanent hair removal for every structure of hair, for any color of hair on any color of skin. I have performed electrolysis both ways, on newly shaven or unshaven skin and the client has reached their goal within the time parameters we state here frequently, IIIIFFFF they stick to the schedule that I advise.
Dee, thank you for the work that you have taken to expose the points of view of other BIG professionals and the reasons that they have to working at phase anagen.
The advantage of having been self-taught initially of my career (scanty or void information here in Spain) is that I have been “influenced” neither by anything nor anybody, except for my own observations.
If I see this:
I clean an area of ALL the visible hairs for the human eye, (this area has never been shaved or waxed), the hair is very thin, so I deduce that the great majority they are in telogen phase, I verify later when I see on the sheet of papel is full of hairs with root (point of salt) and a few months later I verify that the elimination overcomes 80 %. Necessarily I have to draw a conclusion: working in telogen is very, very effective.
I do not know if my treatment reaches the dermal papila or not, I have not done bioxia in treated skin, so it is difficult to establish if dermic papila remained or was destroy. Simply, I do not know it. But a thing I know: the follicles treated in telogen never returned to produce hair.
It is for this reason that I am in disagreement with Mr. Gior, Kobayashi-Yamada , Richard and Meharg .
And it is for this reason, I felt so excited when I discovered Michael’s work.
Between the cases described by Michael in his book and my cases in the study of efficiency, nobody might know the one who of us two was employed at the cases of his book. Or who of us two, it was employed at my study of efficiency.
I do not try to convince others electrologists he/she changes his strategy or his protocol of work, Not!
I only claim that the consumers have evidences of the spectacular results of the Electrolysis from the minute 0.
All the hair of this case was treated in telogen and in anagen late.
Pictures:
Before (with Emla)
16 days later
15 minutes of second treatment (advance)
I am sorry, Dee, I cannot follow the recommendations of BIG electrologists or doctors. And to resign myself to having 20% elimination when I can have 80% in the first clearance. If my client is ready to sacrifice itself leaving all the hairs growing, I am going to compensate him with a strategy that allows me to eliminate the possible maximum of hairs.
Kobayashi-Yamada agree with you. Their method treats hair in all phases of growth using insulated probes. I have yet to meet any electrologist that uses this method, but maybe we are doing the KY method anyway when we use insulated probes with HF?
I know that electrolysis students follow this site and I wanted to put out other thoughts on this subject from other well respected electrologists. A well-rounded information based discussion is always helpful to new learners.
I know for a fact that hair can be permanently eliminated in all phases of growth, having cleared virgin hair with anagen, catagen and telogen hair in a good time frame, this is obvious to me. The difference being, that in the telogen phase, when you puncture past the bottom of the follicle to get close to the dermal papilla, there can be more sensation for the client. I can remember clearly an arm case I did that was comprised of mostly telogen hairs. The client wanted marathon sessions and we went at it for 4-6 hours at a time to reach full clearance. Outcome? Hair-free for both arms in 20 hours (she was very hairy) and maintenance was no big deal time-wise after that. She was a happy clappy smoothie in 12 months. Thereafter, any hair that showed up, was small and light and she wasn’t concerned at that point to have it removed.
I personally like pre-shaving, but I don’t routinely recommend it for every case, as every case is different. For the client’s arms above, she had so much hair, I did recommend shaving before, but she did not want to do that. I’m flexible either way because I know that we will still accomplish the intended goal.
You do great work, Josefa and I always love to see your pictures. Thanks for all your contributions!
After 35 years of practicing electrology, I can say with absolutely certainty that both Jossie and Daphne (?) are 100% correct. All hair growth elements are present in telogen and can thus be eliminated. The telogen hair, of course, is “stuck” to the follicle opening and seems more difficult to treat. At that point it’s truly epidermis to epidermis. For insertion depth, always be aware of “papillary drift.” The papilla is not at full (anagen) follicle depth, but has drifted up with the telogenic follicle (along with the stem cells in the bulge). You don’t have to insert to full depth. You do not have to impale the patient!
Clearly Jossie has learned this by observation and has employed the right technique. I have tried to quash the “anagen only” idea for my entire career — I have not been successful at all. People believe what they “think they are seeing.” I would do a real experiment to prove this point, but it would almost certainly be discounted. I remember what was said about Dr. Peereboom’s landmark study (NL). So, it’s kind of hopeless. People will believe what they want to believe! — The good news is: IT DOESN’T MATTER! If you decide to only treat anagen hairs, you will still be performing permanent hair removal and it won’t make a difference in the long run.
Well-known electrologists have based their entire methodology on the “anagen only” myth (e.g., Lucy Peters), and it worked for them. I sort of think it’s an excuse for too much regrowth, but then, that’s just my opinion (not based in fact). My only “grumble” with Lucy Peters is that she advertised that all other systems did not work and were obsolete. NEVER discount what someone else is doing simply because you are getting results! My favorite quote from the Bible: “Pride cometh before a fall.”
Clearly, my name is written on every post (all 6,165) - it is Dee, like ABCDeeeeee, rhymes with “Tree”, but I really like Daphne much better, so please call me Daphne. It is a very cute name, which I wish my parents would have thought of right when I first cried.
Myths are hard to overcome. I compare the myth of treating anagen only hair for best results to those that are diehard believers that shaving affects hair growth, when it certainly does not.
Kobayashi-Yamada agree with you. Their method treats hair in all phases of growth using insulated probes. I have yet to meet any electrologist that uses this method, but maybe we are doing the KY method anyway when we use insulated probes with HF? [/quote]
In such a case, I ask for excuses. Kobayashi- Yamada
Yes Dee, the young generations are our inheritors. For this reason, the information on-line that they receive must be contrasted with the fieldwork. (Beate is an example to continuing, she searches, proves and decides what is the better thing for the client)
They must not trust blind in the hypotheses published by anybody who has a valuable title in the wall of his office. They have to be critics and support in his own criterion based on the experience and on the observation.
The advantage they have now (and that we did not have, yesterday) is that they have a lot of updated information. The mistakes of the past can be rapidly corrected like in this case:
For the “BIG” professional future:
Not everything what you read is necessarily true. Not at least, because the book is bound in pure gold. The CONTENT is the important thing!
One interesting side note. When I was doing my first book, I was very confused about the papilla’s whereabouts in the telogenic follicle. I studied Dr. William Montagna’s landmark text and could not understand his drawing (his drawing also appeared in Hinkel’s book, and many other electrology texts). So, I wrote to him.
He got my letter and wrote back: “Oh my God, my illustration is wrong! How did I miss this?” My letter began several years of correspondence with Montagna (I saved all his letters). He helped me a lot. I am, again, reminded that any drawing is only a symbolic representation of reality. I made a couple mistakes in the drawings in my books too. So far, nobody has “called me on it.” Just consider this post an apology to nature! (One big mistake in my Tele book: I drew the epidermis WAY too thick! Nearly all textbooks show the epidermis about 10X-20X its actual thickness.)
This is probably how most “myths” get perpetuated: copy, paste and print! What really opened my eyes, was working with a surgeon (Dr. Perkins) doing hair transplants. Finally, I could see the actual skin and follicle under powerful magnification — for HOURS. You cut into them and create the tiny hair grafts (my job), and then place them in the tiny 1mm “holes” (also my job). I remember how happy I was to actually SEE the papilla, hair bulge and sebaceous glands (that are gigantic; much bigger than the illustrations. Actually, ALL the illustrations are wrong!) — and the layers of skin. (The fat is sort of disgusting and has an odor, yes I “sniffed” it!). I would say: “Oh look, a telogen hair — look where the papilla is!” The surgeon would say: “Just keep cutting Mike, we don’t have all day!”
I’ve always wished that hair was color coded, so we could know which ones were regrowth or new growth. Mother Nature missed that great idea for the electrology profession.
Decades ago, I had the hair removed from my legs. My electrologist used a sparky, hot Sudona (spelling?). Those hairs were fried to perfection, man! I don’t recall having regrowth,but I do remember my skin was a holy mess for months. I remember it hurt something like what St. Joan of Arc must have felt when she was burned at the stake. The good thing about that experience is it prepared me for childbirth. See! There is always a positive side to some things. Thankfully, today, as I remove hair from clients legs, I am still “Killing hair”, but the difference is, there is happy conversation flowing back and forth. Thanks to our electrolysis manufacturers today, we have tools that are great for electrologists and clients alike.
YES Dee! I do remember the Sudonna machine, and it WAS a “firecracker!” (And, that’s what we called — the firecracker!) Actually, burned the hell out of patients! (I guess I can say that since they aren’t in business any more.) The name “Sudonna” came from the family’s two daughters: Sue and Donna. Very very nice people.
Ferrie used to make needles (invented the insulated needle). They also made the “secret needle” for Lucy Peters: gold insulated. I liked the Ferrie insulated needle because the insulation was black and you could see the “working end.” My only dislike of the Ballet-insulated is that you have no idea where the insulation is (because it’s clear). I always recommended they try to color the insulation so we could place the needle better. Are they doing that now?
Not made any more, but the best insulated needle ever was made by Wally Roberts (Proteus). It had an amazingly designed tiny bulb at the end (to disperse the HF evenly), and was so beautifully made that even under a microscope it was elegant and absolutely perfect. Just the right length too — not too long. I think I still have a couple of Wally’s needles “enshrined.” (I miss Wally.)
