Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Stretch marks are mostly a result of genes. Topically, creams, oils etc will keep the skin hydrated at the surface, but they really have no activity in the deep layers of the skin where cells are forming, and collagen is being deposited causing stretch marks, with tocopherols (vit E complexes) being one possible exception. You'll have a good chance preventing stretch marks by eating plenty of protein, which is needed for rapid cell division in the skin, not gaining excess weight, and possibly also wearing some support under your bump.


If you do find that you have very bad stretch marks, wait until they don't look angry and red anymore. Then have a treatment like Derma-roller or Pixel laser, which encourage cell turnover and collagen metabolism in the deep layers of the skin. xx

Mama mio tummy oil religiously every day with number one, huge tummy, huge nine and half pound baby- no stretch marks...

The odd bit of same oil with number 2 but was summer and too hot so hardly anything, huge belly again, same size baby and stretch marks! I don't actually think it had anything to do with lack of oils, baby was always really low and over to one side and that is where the stretch marks appeared at 35 weeks..


I agree its all about genes...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • CPR Dave, attendance records are available on Southwark's website. Maggie Browning has attended 100% of meetings. Jon Hartley has attended 65%.
    • I do hope NOT, wouldn't trust Farage as far as I could throw him, Starmer & co.  He's backed by GB News which focus's predominantly on immigration while the BBC focus predominantly on the Israel - Gazza conflict.   
    • Everyone gets the point that Corbynites try to make with the "total number of votes cast" statistic, it's just a specious one.  In 2017, Corbyn's Labour got fewer votes than May's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes). In 2019, Corbyn's Labour fewer votes than Johnson's Tories (both the percentage of votes and aggregate number of votes); and he managed to drop 2.7 million votes or 6.9% of vote share between the two elections. I repeat, he got trounced by Boris F***ing Johnson and the Tories after the Brexit omnishambles. It is not true that a "fairer" electoral system would have seen Labour beat the Tories: Labour simply got fewer votes than the Tories. Corbyn lost twice. There is no metric by which he won the general election. His failure to win was a disaster for the UK, and let Johnson and Truss and Sunak into office. Corbynites have to let go of this delusion that Corbyn but really won somehow if you squint in a certain way. It is completely irrelevant that Labour under Corbyn got more votes than Labour under Starmer. It is like saying Hull City was more successful in its 2014 FA Cup Final than Chelsea was in its 2018 FA Cup Final, because Hull scored 2 goals when Chelsea only scored 1. But guess what - Chelsea won its game and Hull City lost. Corbyn's fans turned out to vote for him - but an even larger group of people who found him repellant were motivated enough to show up and vote Tory.
    • I guess its the thing these days to demonstrate an attitude, in this instance seemingly of the negative kind, instead of taking pride in your work and have standards then 🤷‍♀️
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...