I sweat, a lot, though I’ve never thought asked a doc about it. So why is it that I’ve just learned this? So-called clinical-strength antiperspirants …come with instructions that they be applied before bed for “maximum” protection from wetness and odor. … Even regular-strength antiperspirants work best when applied to underarms at night, experts told us. Bedtime application “really is the best way to use an antiperspirant,” says Daivd Pariser, M.D., president of the American Academy of Dermatology.
Hello. my name is Akaelu, Chidiogo, a student of the University of Nigeria. i think the mode of sweating is peculier to each person. we are all different, you know? kindly visit www.unn.edu.ng and check out our medical school. you could be informed on this.
The overnight thing, incidentally, seems to go right back to the beginning of deodorants:
> Although the product stopped sweat for up to three days—longer-lasting than modern day antiperspirants—the Odorono’s active ingredient, aluminum chloride, had to be suspended in acid to remain effective. (This was the case for all early antiperspirants; it would take a few decades before chemists came up with a formulation that didn’t require an acid suspension.) The acid solution meant Odorono could irritate sensitive armpit skin and damage clothing. Adding insult to injury, the antiperspirant was also red-colored, so it could also stain clothing—if the acid didn’t eat right through it first. According to company records, customers complained that the product caused burning and inflammation in armpits and that it ruined many a fancy outfit, including one woman’s wedding dress. To avoid these problems, Odorono customers were advised to avoid shaving prior to use and to swab the product into armpits before bed, allowing time for the antiperspirant to dry thoroughly.http://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...
BTW, a quick follow-up: in my recent n=1 experiment, applying deodorant at night seems at least as effective as applying it in the morning, and more effective than applying it right after a shower.
Not especially scientific, mind: I didn't blind the test, I haven't kept a log, and I haven't been rigorous in A-B testing from day to day to pair up conditions in any reasonable way.
First, definitely agree this insight is going to be much more resonant with someone more concerned about elevating their level of protection - so, people who have trouble finding effective protection as someone mentioned above, or very type A folk.
Second, resistance to the idea of putting it on at night, over the perspiration of the day - even if you aren't particularly grimy before bed (say you shower in the morning) - seems like a psychological hurdle that remains unaddressed.
Eric H (and wife), are you suggesting that the recommendation for the timing of deodorant application has some political motivation behind it?
I agree with commenter Tony. The reason why people are resistant to this advice is that what they are doing is already working. If deodorant didn't work for someone and you said "I read in Consumer Reports that doctors suggest you put it on at night" I think they'd be more receptive. They perhaps wrongly think that what is being suggested by "putting it on the night before works better" is "putting it on in the morning does not work," which they know to be false.
Yeah, ditto what Eric said. Consumer Reports has increasingly stuck their noses into politicking -to their detriment- and ended up with poo stuck to their heels. The whole CPSIA matter has been highly educational. I will never assume an objective consumer interest organization is anything of the sort.
People won't change because what they are doing is working.
While, as stated, there are habits and cultural reinforcements; "good enough" is completely satisfactory. If it didn't work then people would fin other solutions.
Sorry for missing the word limit rule. I'll try a shorter one.There is a difference between saying that you're an expert, and actually being an expert. What incentive did the researchers into the timing of deodorant application have to get their experiments right? Many "experts" in the past have given advice that has later on been drastically changed, eg should babies be fed on demand, or strictly every 4 hours? What illnesses should bleeding be used for? Should we eat a high-protein, or a high-carbohydrate, or a high-complex-carbohydrate diet? It strikes me that in those cases where "expert" advice has most changed are ones where experts have limited incentives to be right. I would trust a mountaineer's advice on mountaineering ropes, they literally lay their life on the line. I would trust an engineer who builds working cellphones as an expert on cellphones, if your cellphone doesn't work it's obvious. I trust smoking research because tobacco companies have ample incentives to criticise it, keeping the researchers on their toes. But I don't see that deodorant manufacturers have a strong financial incentive to criticise any studies into the timing of deodorant application, and doctors treat too wide a range of diseases to spend vast amounts of time on sweaty armpits. Nor has any doctor I know ever mentioned spending days following what happens to people's pores. It therefore strikes me that it is quite possible that the studies have never been thoroughly critically examined, and therefore that there are quite possibly a myriad of errors in the research. In these sorts of cases, a certain skepticism about claims of expertise strike me as wise, given the past failures of experts. And Consumer Reports apparently only reports what doctors and manufacturers say, they don't appear to have done any critical research into it themselves. Furthermore, they're talking about the timing of application, not whether the product itself is any good, so it seems unlikely that they would be sued by the manufacturers if they get it wrong. So why should they be regarded as experts on this topic? I'll try the deodorant on at night, out of my own interest and because the experiment is cheap. I predict I won't see a noticeable difference because of natural variations in the weather and the amount of exercise I get.
Robin, why not restrict comment length using something like Greg's Comment Length Limiter? Long comments are almost invariably poorly thought through, so maybe this would result in better comments.
Re: People ignoring instruction that contradict their own mental model.
One of the most valuable things I learned in university about software documentation is that if you don't provide some sort of mental framework for your instructions, people will very quickly create their own. Even better, when your instructions then contradict the mental model they've constructed, they'll ignore your instructions over what their model tells them is correct. Thus it's always dangerous to simply provide a "do this" list without adding "why you're doing this".
(Of course, if your instructions are too long, they'll just ignore them entirely, so you can't win that way either :-))
Because my hairy pits tend to stink in the morning regardless of whether they've got deodorant on them or not. After a shower and scrubbing - yes with a scrub brush - I smell much better. A new application of deodorant seems to keep me from sweating throughout the rest of the day. Seems to work for me.
this is a bit of a non sequitor, but i wanted to share a huge lesson i learned on deodorant vs antiperspirant.
for some medium to heavy sweaters such as me and several of my close friends, antipersp actually led to heavier sweating and pitting out of shirts. our theory is that the antipersp blocks the sweat glands, causing the body to overheat and eventually leading to very heavy sweating that overwhelms the antipersp.
as counterintuitive as it sounds, i and several others i know enjoyed far less sweating/pitting once we switched to straight deoderant. while out theory of why it happens may not be right, the results are clear.
Mike: it is true that I know nothing about antiperspirant use. And it is also true that I am willing to take expert advice on how to use it, even if that contradicts my intuition.
But "Consumer Reports says to put it on at night" is not enough to convince me that I'm hearing expert advice. And it's not enough to convince me that, even if it is better to put it on at night, the benefits outweigh the costs.
So when you say, "your entire response presupposes that you have something useful or interesting to say about an issue you never studied," I say, first, that I have a certain amount of experience with antiperspirants (as Constant notes above). And your argument is weak -- you just haven't given me enough information by "Consumer Reports says to put it on at night" to counter my instinct and preference to put it on in the morning.
If I read "it's 50% better to put it on at night" in a reputable textbook on perspiration technology, things would be different.
Hello. my name is Akaelu, Chidiogo, a student of the University of Nigeria. i think the mode of sweating is peculier to each person. we are all different, you know? kindly visit www.unn.edu.ng and check out our medical school. you could be informed on this.
And I will continue to ignore opinions posted on discussion boards.
The overnight thing, incidentally, seems to go right back to the beginning of deodorants:
> Although the product stopped sweat for up to three days—longer-lasting than modern day antiperspirants—the Odorono’s active ingredient, aluminum chloride, had to be suspended in acid to remain effective. (This was the case for all early antiperspirants; it would take a few decades before chemists came up with a formulation that didn’t require an acid suspension.) The acid solution meant Odorono could irritate sensitive armpit skin and damage clothing. Adding insult to injury, the antiperspirant was also red-colored, so it could also stain clothing—if the acid didn’t eat right through it first. According to company records, customers complained that the product caused burning and inflammation in armpits and that it ruined many a fancy outfit, including one woman’s wedding dress. To avoid these problems, Odorono customers were advised to avoid shaving prior to use and to swab the product into armpits before bed, allowing time for the antiperspirant to dry thoroughly.http://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...
BTW, a quick follow-up: in my recent n=1 experiment, applying deodorant at night seems at least as effective as applying it in the morning, and more effective than applying it right after a shower.
Not especially scientific, mind: I didn't blind the test, I haven't kept a log, and I haven't been rigorous in A-B testing from day to day to pair up conditions in any reasonable way.
But I think I stink a little less.
I just added to this post.
2 things -
First, definitely agree this insight is going to be much more resonant with someone more concerned about elevating their level of protection - so, people who have trouble finding effective protection as someone mentioned above, or very type A folk.
Second, resistance to the idea of putting it on at night, over the perspiration of the day - even if you aren't particularly grimy before bed (say you shower in the morning) - seems like a psychological hurdle that remains unaddressed.
Eric H (and wife), are you suggesting that the recommendation for the timing of deodorant application has some political motivation behind it?
I agree with commenter Tony. The reason why people are resistant to this advice is that what they are doing is already working. If deodorant didn't work for someone and you said "I read in Consumer Reports that doctors suggest you put it on at night" I think they'd be more receptive. They perhaps wrongly think that what is being suggested by "putting it on the night before works better" is "putting it on in the morning does not work," which they know to be false.
Yeah, ditto what Eric said. Consumer Reports has increasingly stuck their noses into politicking -to their detriment- and ended up with poo stuck to their heels. The whole CPSIA matter has been highly educational. I will never assume an objective consumer interest organization is anything of the sort.
People won't change because what they are doing is working.
While, as stated, there are habits and cultural reinforcements; "good enough" is completely satisfactory. If it didn't work then people would fin other solutions.
Sorry for missing the word limit rule. I'll try a shorter one.There is a difference between saying that you're an expert, and actually being an expert. What incentive did the researchers into the timing of deodorant application have to get their experiments right? Many "experts" in the past have given advice that has later on been drastically changed, eg should babies be fed on demand, or strictly every 4 hours? What illnesses should bleeding be used for? Should we eat a high-protein, or a high-carbohydrate, or a high-complex-carbohydrate diet? It strikes me that in those cases where "expert" advice has most changed are ones where experts have limited incentives to be right. I would trust a mountaineer's advice on mountaineering ropes, they literally lay their life on the line. I would trust an engineer who builds working cellphones as an expert on cellphones, if your cellphone doesn't work it's obvious. I trust smoking research because tobacco companies have ample incentives to criticise it, keeping the researchers on their toes. But I don't see that deodorant manufacturers have a strong financial incentive to criticise any studies into the timing of deodorant application, and doctors treat too wide a range of diseases to spend vast amounts of time on sweaty armpits. Nor has any doctor I know ever mentioned spending days following what happens to people's pores. It therefore strikes me that it is quite possible that the studies have never been thoroughly critically examined, and therefore that there are quite possibly a myriad of errors in the research. In these sorts of cases, a certain skepticism about claims of expertise strike me as wise, given the past failures of experts. And Consumer Reports apparently only reports what doctors and manufacturers say, they don't appear to have done any critical research into it themselves. Furthermore, they're talking about the timing of application, not whether the product itself is any good, so it seems unlikely that they would be sued by the manufacturers if they get it wrong. So why should they be regarded as experts on this topic? I'll try the deodorant on at night, out of my own interest and because the experiment is cheap. I predict I won't see a noticeable difference because of natural variations in the weather and the amount of exercise I get.
Robin, why not restrict comment length using something like Greg's Comment Length Limiter? Long comments are almost invariably poorly thought through, so maybe this would result in better comments.
I removed a 650 word comment by Tracy. See the About page for comment policy.
Re: People ignoring instruction that contradict their own mental model.
One of the most valuable things I learned in university about software documentation is that if you don't provide some sort of mental framework for your instructions, people will very quickly create their own. Even better, when your instructions then contradict the mental model they've constructed, they'll ignore your instructions over what their model tells them is correct. Thus it's always dangerous to simply provide a "do this" list without adding "why you're doing this".
(Of course, if your instructions are too long, they'll just ignore them entirely, so you can't win that way either :-))
Because my hairy pits tend to stink in the morning regardless of whether they've got deodorant on them or not. After a shower and scrubbing - yes with a scrub brush - I smell much better. A new application of deodorant seems to keep me from sweating throughout the rest of the day. Seems to work for me.
this is a bit of a non sequitor, but i wanted to share a huge lesson i learned on deodorant vs antiperspirant.
for some medium to heavy sweaters such as me and several of my close friends, antipersp actually led to heavier sweating and pitting out of shirts. our theory is that the antipersp blocks the sweat glands, causing the body to overheat and eventually leading to very heavy sweating that overwhelms the antipersp.
as counterintuitive as it sounds, i and several others i know enjoyed far less sweating/pitting once we switched to straight deoderant. while out theory of why it happens may not be right, the results are clear.
Mike: it is true that I know nothing about antiperspirant use. And it is also true that I am willing to take expert advice on how to use it, even if that contradicts my intuition.
But "Consumer Reports says to put it on at night" is not enough to convince me that I'm hearing expert advice. And it's not enough to convince me that, even if it is better to put it on at night, the benefits outweigh the costs.
So when you say, "your entire response presupposes that you have something useful or interesting to say about an issue you never studied," I say, first, that I have a certain amount of experience with antiperspirants (as Constant notes above). And your argument is weak -- you just haven't given me enough information by "Consumer Reports says to put it on at night" to counter my instinct and preference to put it on in the morning.
If I read "it's 50% better to put it on at night" in a reputable textbook on perspiration technology, things would be different.