The difference between beauty and skin health

The former is a collection of means to meet aesthetic needs, while the latter is the state goal of normal skin physiological functions. The two are neither inclusive nor antagonistic. The core logic is completely different, and may even conflict in many scenarios.

You will understand if I talk about a client I met last week. I am a 28-year-old Internet operator who regularly undergoes photorejuvenation and salicylic acid rejuvenation once a month. All I stock at home are medical facial masks priced at fifty or sixty yuan each. I apply two masks every day. It seems that I have done enough skin care. However, when the seasons change, my face becomes red and stinging at every turn. I dare not even enter an air-conditioned room. I went to a dermatology department to have my transepidermal water loss (TEWL) rate three times the normal value. The barrier has been almost destroyed. She herself felt particularly aggrieved: "I spent so much money on beauty treatments, why is my skin unhealthy? ”

To clarify the differences between the two, we must first start with their respective core evaluation criteria. The yardstick of skin health is all physiological indicators: whether the barrier function is complete, whether it has normal tolerance to external stimuli, whether the immune function is stable and unstable, whether inflammation will break out frequently, whether the metabolic rhythm is normal, whether old dead skin cells can be shed on time, whether sebaceous gland secretion is within a reasonable range - it has nothing to do with whether it looks good or not. For example, if an adolescent boy has acne all over his face, but it doesn’t hurt or itch, or it won’t turn red or sting when you brush it with acid, then his skin is healthy, and acne is just a normal manifestation of hormonal fluctuations in adolescence. ； On the other hand, if someone's face is so white that no pores can be seen, and they get hot when they blow dry the skin, or become allergic to every skin care product they change, then they have unhealthy skin no matter how beautiful it is.

The logic of beauty is completely different. Its evaluation criteria are never physiological indicators, but the current public aesthetics. Ten years ago, "white and glowing" was popular, and a lot of people went for lead-mercury whitening, powerful peeling and rejuvenation. In the past two years, "good skin" and "firming and anti-aging" have become popular, and photon, thermage, and water-light injections have become popular items. The core goal of all beauty treatments is to make the skin fit the current aesthetic preferences. As for whether it will affect health, it has never been its first priority. Don’t think this is an exaggeration. The “skin resurfacing and whitening” that was popular in the early years relied on peeling off three layers of the stratum corneum to achieve short-term translucency. How many people have damaged the barrier and developed sensitive skin, which is confusing the boundary between “beauty” and “health”.

Interestingly, the relationship between the two has been quarreling in the industry for almost ten years, but there is no unified conclusion. Most conservative dermatologists insist on "health first" and believe that all exfoliative and invasive cosmetic procedures are essentially reversible damage to the skin. Unless there is a clear need for treatment (such as severe acne, chloasma), they should be done as little as possible. Clean, moisturizing and sunscreen are enough for daily skin care. ； The perspective of the functional skin care school is more flexible. It is believed that as long as the frequency and intensity are properly controlled, reasonable cosmetic intervention can help the skin maintain a better condition. For example, low-concentration fruit acid peels can regulate the metabolism of old dead skin cells and improve the problem of oil and acne. Photorejuvenation can also suppress chronic inflammation at the bottom of the skin, but can help sensitive skin maintain stability. ； There are even some radical medical aesthetic practitioners who advocate "no destruction, no establishment", believing that in order to achieve anti-aging and lightening effects, moderate damage is necessary. As long as the postoperative repairs are in place, long-term health will not be affected. These views are all supported by their own clinical data. There is no absolute right or wrong. It is just a matter of making a choice from the standpoint of "health first" or "aesthetics first".

In fact, to put it bluntly, the relationship between the two is like the relationship between physical health and grooming: healthy skin means that all the indicators in your physical examination are normal, you are not sick, and you have enough energy.； Beauty is like doing manicures, perming your hair, practicing your waistcoat line, and wearing high heels. They are all ways to make you look good. You can't say that having a waistcoat line means you are healthy, nor can you say that wearing high heels is not good for your feet and you can't wear them at all. It just depends on whether you can bear the corresponding price.

If I really want to give you some practical advice, there is no need to draw too tight a line between the two. If your skin is constantly red, itchy, or prone to breakouts, and you feel a stinging sensation even after applying any skin care product, then focus on your health first, don’t mess around with whitening and anti-aging programs, and stabilize your skin barrier first. ； As long as your skin is stable, it doesn't turn red when exposed to the sun, and it doesn't cause allergies when you change skin care products. If you want to be whiter and have fewer wrinkles, it's totally fine to try regular products and institutions. The most fearful thing is to confuse the two. Although the skin is obviously in trouble, you still want to "save your face" with beauty treatments. In the end, you spend money on your face and suffer the consequences, which is really not the case.