Stretch marks are one of the most frustrating skincare concerns, especially as so many people deal with them at some point! It's estimated that 70% of adolescent females, 40% of adolescent males and 90% of people who are pregnant or have been pregnant have stretch marks. There does not seem to be any link to ethnicity; anyone can be affected. As it is a widely afflicting condition, there is no shortage of demand for products to treat them – but what really works?
Stretch marks occur when skin is abnormally stretched and expanded for a period of time. Typically, this occurs during pregnancy, weight gain, weight loss or during periods of rapid growth (e.g. puberty). The abnormal stretching causes the skin's support structure of collagen & elastin to break down or rupture. The visible curled ends of stretch marks beneath the skin are actually bands of elastin that have broken – think of elastin as rubber bands beneath the skin that help it spring and snap back into place.
Essentially, stretch marks are scars that have formed from the inside out, rather than scarring that occurs when skin is externally wounded. Unfortunately, stretch marks are among the toughest skincare concerns to treat because there are no cosmetic ingredients or products that can make much of a difference in their appearance.
Applying topical products such as plant oils or cocoa butter, Mederma (which didn't show results on scars beyond plain Vaseline) or any skincare product promising to prevent, reduce or eliminate stretch marks doesn't work and there is no research proving otherwise.
Massaging skin with rich emollients and creams may feel nice, but the purported benefits of such products only add up to myths and anecdotal accounts mixed with hope, because stretch marks are not caused by dry skin. The depth of stretch marks – far below the skin's surface – and the extreme strain, stress and trauma needed to break down the skin's support structure, is damage beyond the reparative or preventative capability of any moisturiser or oil.
The above information applies to all the products which claim to prevent stretch marks during pregnancy, too. Stretch marks come from the inside out, so applying a topical cream to your skin won't prevent the breakage. We're either predisposed to developing stretch marks or not; women who've said they used "X cream" and didn't get stretch marks whilst pregnant probably wouldn't have gotten them anyway. It's frustrating, we know, but despite anecdotal statements by those who've used stretch mark creams, the research-backed evidence just isn't there. Other than a hit to the budget, for the most part there's no harm in trying such products (just don't expect them to stop stretch marks if you're predisposed to them).
The claims of massage therapy as a treatment for stretch marks are often from those doing the massaging. Unfortunately, no amount of massage will improve the torn, broken elastin under the skin. It's just not the way the body works and there is no clinical research demonstrating the improvement of stretch marks from massage therapy (Swedish or otherwise). Also, massaging the abdominal area during pregnancy can have its own risks if too much pressure is used. If you're pregnant and considering a massage, be sure to speak with your doctor about what kind is most appropriate.
Dermal rollers are handheld devices outfitted with multiple small needles designed to lightly pierce the skin as you roll the device over it. The popular claim is that this controlled wounding of the skin and its subsequent healing process is akin to dermatologic treatments (e.g. laser treatments) which follow the same concept of a controlled wound to stimulate collagen growth and repair.
The truth is there's no research demonstrating dermal rollers improve stretch marks, or produce results better than (or comparable to) laser treatments. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to generate new elastin and building collagen alone isn't going to make stretch marks look much better. Moreover, it's easy to overdo it with these roller devices and that can cause damage to the skin. Don't believe the hype around dermal rollers as a solution to stretch marks.
One study demonstrated microdermabrasion improved the appearance of stretch marks. But not so fast – closer examination of the research revealed a few alarm bells. The first was that the treatment was aggressive: 5 sessions of microdermabrasion per week, for 12 weeks! Second, the measurement of "improvement" was never defined and the study mentioned that the primary improvement was to reddish-purple marks (striae rubra) which typically fade away with time (leaving you with white stretch marks).
However, those who had stretch marks for longer periods of time also noted some level of improvement after the study. The question is, would you be willing to commit to aggressive microdermabrasion in the hopes for non-specific improvement (and perhaps still white stretch marks left behind)?
Let's talk about the treatments that do have the potential to improve stretch marks. As mentioned above, there are no cosmetic ingredients or skincare products that can improve or prevent stretch marks. It is impossible for any cosmetic to raise the indentations back to where the skin level used to be or to repair snapped elastin fibers, but there are alternatives that may provide a small degree of improvement.
Don't fall for the ad hype or false promises of stretch mark creams. Topical skincare products can't raise the indentations back to where the skin level used to be or repair snapped elastin fibers, nor do preventative measures like massage or dermal rollers work to avoid stretch marks. Some prescription retinoids shows a small degree of benefit and some medical procedures can improve their appearance, such as laser treatments and TCA peels, but again, it's important to manage your expectations. However, safe & effective bodycare does exist and it can address multiple different skin concerns, keeping you glowing from head to toe.
1. Burns, 2009, September 17; Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery, January 2008, pages 82-92
2. Clinical Experimental Dermatology, August 2009, 688-693
3. Dermatological Surgery, August 2009, 215-210
4. Dermatologic Clinics, January 2002, 55–65