Skin Fasting: Does Giving Your Skin a Break Really Work?

Introduction

In the bustling, product-saturated world of modern skincare, a new and seemingly counterintuitive trend has emerged: skin fasting. The term itself evokes a sense of detoxification and abstinence, suggesting a deliberate pause from the very routines and potions we have been taught are essential for health and beauty. At its core, skin fasting is the practice of temporarily forgoing some or all skincare products—from cleansers and serums to moisturizers and even sunscreen—with the stated goal of allowing the skin to “reset” and recalibrate its natural functions. Proponents argue that decades of daily product use, particularly with complex, multi-step regimens, have made our skin lazy, dependent, and unable to perform its innate duties of self-hydration, exfoliation, and protection. They propose that by stepping back, we can encourage the skin’s sebaceous glands to normalize oil production, allow its microbiome to rebalance, and ultimately restore a state of natural equilibrium, or homeostasis.

The philosophy of skin fasting taps into a broader cultural movement towards minimalism, wellness, and a “back-to-nature” approach. It questions the fundamental premise of the multi-billion dollar cosmetics industry: that our skin is inherently deficient and requires constant external intervention to remain healthy. Instead, it posits that our skin, like other organs, is a masterpiece of biological engineering, perfectly capable of self-regulation if we simply get out of its way. This idea is undeniably appealing in an era of consumer overload and information fatigue. The promise of simpler routines, less expense, and a more “authentic” complexion is a powerful lure.

However, the concept is fraught with controversy and potential pitfalls. Dermatologists and skincare scientists point out that the skin is not a self-contained island; it exists in a modern environment full of pollutants, low humidity from indoor heating and air conditioning, and relentless UV radiation—conditions vastly different from those in which it evolved. The blanket recommendation to abandon all products, they argue, is a dangerous oversimplification that ignores fundamental skin biology and can lead to increased damage, dehydration, accelerated aging, and inflammation. The critical question, then, is not whether skin fasting is universally good or bad, but whether it is a nuanced tool for specific situations or a misguided fad. This article will delve deep into the theory, practice, science, and potential risks of skin fasting. We will explore its proposed mechanisms, the different forms it can take, the specific skin types that might benefit, and those for whom it could be detrimental. By separating the physiological facts from the wellness-world fiction, we can arrive at a more informed, personalized understanding of whether giving your skin a break is a act of beneficial discipline or a step backward in its care.

1. The Theory Behind the Fast: Reclaiming Skin Autonomy

The philosophy of skin fasting is built upon a few central hypotheses about how modern skincare has interfered with the skin’s innate intelligence. To understand the “why” behind the practice, it’s essential to explore these proposed mechanisms in detail.

The first and most prominent theory centers on the self-regulating nature of sebum production. Sebum, the oily, waxy substance produced by the sebaceous glands, is the skin’s natural moisturizer. It forms a crucial part of the hydrolipidic film that protects the skin’s surface, keeping it supple and fortified against external aggressors. The theory posits that the habitual use of harsh, stripping cleansers and astringents signals to the sebaceous glands that the skin’s surface is chronically dry. In a panic to re-lubricate the compromised barrier, the glands go into overdrive, producing more and more sebum. This, in turn, leads to the perception of oiliness, prompting the individual to cleanse even more aggressively, creating a vicious cycle of over-production and over-cleansing. Proponents of skin fasting believe that by stopping the use of these stripping agents, the skin is given a chance to re-establish its natural baseline. Without the constant external signal of dryness, the sebaceous glands can theoretically calm down, leading to a normalization of oil production over time. The initial phase of this process, however, often involves a period of significant oiliness as the skin adjusts, which fasters interpret as a necessary “purge” or “withdrawal” period.

The second theory involves the rebalancing of the skin’s microbiome. The surface of our skin is home to a vast, diverse ecosystem of bacteria, fungi, and viruses, collectively known as the microbiome. A healthy, balanced microbiome is essential for a strong skin barrier, proper immune function, and protection against pathogenic invaders. Many modern skincare products, particularly those containing surfactants, alcohols, and preservatives, are designed to kill microbes and keep products sterile. While this is important for product safety, it can have the unintended consequence of disrupting the delicate balance of the skin’s native flora. By indiscriminately wiping out both good and bad bacteria, we may be creating an environment where less desirable organisms can thrive, potentially leading to issues like sensitivity, redness, and even specific types of acne. The skin fasting hypothesis suggests that by removing these antimicrobial products, we allow the beneficial microbes to repopulate and restore a healthy, protective equilibrium. The skin’s ecosystem, freed from daily chemical interference, can theoretically reassert its natural balance.

A third, related concept is the idea of reducing “cosmetic dependency.” This is the argument that our skin has become “lazy.” The constant application of humectants like hyaluronic acid to draw in moisture, emollients like squalane to smooth the surface, and occlusives like petrolatum to lock it all in has, according to this view, outsourced jobs that the skin is perfectly capable of handling itself. The fear is that the skin’s own mechanisms for maintaining hydration and barrier integrity have atrophied from lack of use. Skin fasting, in this context, is seen as a form of “re-training.” It forces the skin to once again produce its own NMFs (Natural Moisturizing Factors), regulate its own ceramide production, and manage its own hydration levels without a crutch. The goal is to wean the skin off its perceived dependency on external products and empower it to function autonomously.

Finally, there is the goal of identifying product-related irritants. In a world of 10-step routines featuring complex cocktails of actives, preservatives, emulsifiers, and fragrances, it can be nearly impossible to pinpoint the exact cause of a sudden rash, breakout, or bout of redness. Is it the new vitamin C serum? The niacinamide? The essential oil in the moisturizer? By eliminating all products in a controlled fast, one creates a clean baseline. If the irritation subsides during the fast, it strongly suggests that a product in the previous routine was the culprit. Reintroducing products one by one after the fast then becomes a diagnostic tool, allowing the individual to identify and eliminate the specific irritant. In this specific, targeted application, skin fasting functions less as a long-term philosophy and more as a short-term, investigative elimination diet for the skin.

2. The Spectrum of Fasting: From Modified to Extreme

Skin fasting is not a monolithic practice. It exists on a wide spectrum, ranging from gentle, modified approaches that almost anyone could try to extreme, “zero-therapy” protocols that are highly controversial and potentially risky. Understanding these different levels is crucial for evaluating the practice’s applicability and safety.

On the most conservative end of the spectrum lies the Modified Fast or “Skin Diet.” This approach does not advocate for abandoning skincare altogether but rather for a significant simplification and streamlining of the routine. The goal here is to eliminate the “noise”—the non-essential serums, toners, masks, and treatments—and return to a foundational core. A modified fast typically involves using only a gentle, pH-balanced cleanser and a basic, fragrance-free moisturizer. Crucially, sunscreen is maintained as a non-negotiable daily step. This version of fasting is about reducing potential irritants and giving the skin a rest from active ingredients like retinoids, AHAs, BHAs, and high-potency vitamin C, which, while beneficial, also place a constant demand on the skin’s repair and renewal systems. This is perhaps the most dermatologist-friendly approach, as it maintains essential protection (sunscreen) and barrier support (moisturizer) while pausing the more aggressive, results-driven elements of a routine. It is an excellent strategy for someone experiencing sensitivity, redness, or signs of a compromised barrier, as it allows for healing without complete abandonment of care.

A step further is the Intermittent or Nightly Fast. This is a time-based approach rather than a product-elimination one. The most common form is skipping the entire evening skincare routine one or two nights a week. Instead of going through the multi-step process of double-cleansing, applying actives, and layering moisturizers, an individual practicing an intermittent fast would simply go to bed with a bare face. The theory is that this nightly break gives the skin’s cellular repair processes, which are most active at night, a chance to proceed without the potential interference of product ingredients. It is a low-commitment way to test the waters of skin fasting, and for those with generally resilient, normal to oily skin, it may help reduce the feeling of product buildup without leading to significant dryness or damage. However, for those using prescription topicals or with inherently dry or sensitive skin, skipping moisturizer overnight could lead to increased transepidermal water loss and heightened sensitivity.

Moving into more extreme territory is the Water-Only Fast. As the name implies, this involves cleansing the face with nothing but lukewarm water, typically splashed on in the morning and perhaps again in the evening. No cleanser, no moisturizer, and—most alarmingly for skin health experts—no sunscreen. Proponents of this method believe that even the gentlest cleanser is an unnecessary intervention and that water is sufficient to rinse away sweat and environmental dust. They argue that this allows the hydrolipidic film and microbiome to build back to their full, natural strength. However, the scientific and dermatological consensus views this approach with deep skepticism. Water alone is ineffective at removing sunscreen, makeup, pollution particles, and the oxidized sebum that accumulates on the skin’s surface throughout the day. Leaving these substances on the skin can lead to increased free radical damage, clogged pores, and inflammation. Furthermore, water has a high surface tension and can actually be dehydrating, especially in low-humidity environments, as it strips the NMFs from the skin as it evaporates. The absence of sunscreen in this protocol renders it fundamentally flawed from an anti-aging and skin cancer prevention perspective.

At the far end of the spectrum is the “Zero-Therapy” or Absolute Fast. This is the ultimate expression of the skin fasting philosophy: a complete and total cessation of all product use for an extended period, which could be weeks or even months. The skin is left entirely to its own devices. This practice is极少 recommended and is primarily cited in very specific medical contexts, such as the treatment of severe perioral dermatitis, where all topical products are stopped under strict dermatological supervision to break a cycle of inflammation and dependency on steroid creams. Outside of this controlled medical scenario, a self-imposed zero-therapy fast for cosmetic purposes is considered highly risky. It ignores the basic biological fact that the skin barrier requires lipids—ceramides, cholesterol, and fatty acids—to maintain its structural integrity. Without any form of moisturization, especially in challenging climates, the barrier can become compromised, leading to severe dehydration, increased sensitivity, and a heightened risk of infection. The complete lack of sun protection accelerates photoaging and dramatically increases the long-term risk of skin cancers.

3. The Proposed Benefits: What Advocates Claim

Those who champion skin fasting report a range of positive outcomes, which form the basis of its popularity in wellness and minimalist beauty circles. While anecdotal, these reported benefits provide insight into the potential upsides for certain individuals under specific conditions.

One of the most frequently cited benefits is a reduction in skin sensitivity and reactivity. Many people find that their skin becomes less red, less prone to flushing, and generally calmer after a period of fasting. This makes logical sense if their previous routine contained one or more irritants. By eliminating the entire cocktail of potential triggers—fragrances, essential oils, certain preservatives, or even overly frequent exfoliation—the skin’s inflammatory response is allowed to subside. The nervous system of the skin, which can become hypersensitive when the barrier is chronically aggravated, has an opportunity to reset. For individuals who feel their skin has become intolerant to everything, a well-executed modified fast can be a pathway back to a less reactive state, serving as a diagnostic tool to identify the source of the irritation.

Another major claimed benefit is the normalization of sebum production, particularly for those with combination or oily skin. As discussed in the theory, the cycle of stripping oil and then over-producing it is a common frustration. Individuals who commit to a fast often describe an initial phase of extreme oiliness, sometimes lasting for several weeks, which they interpret as the skin “relearning” how to regulate itself. After this adjustment period, many report that their skin becomes less greasy throughout the day, that the oil produced has a healthier quality, and that they experience fewer breakouts related to clogged pores. This perceived normalization is a powerful testament for those who have felt trapped in a cycle of constant blotting and cleansing.

A related and highly prized outcome is improved skin barrier function and hydration. The argument here is that by forcing the skin to produce its own NMFs and lipids, it becomes more self-sufficient and resilient. Advocates report that after a fast, their skin feels “stronger” and less dependent on moisturizer to feel comfortable. They may find that they can use lighter moisturizers than before or need to apply them less frequently. This perceived improvement in barrier integrity is often described as the skin feeling “plumper,” “more supple,” and less prone to tightness or flakiness in response to environmental changes.

For those struggling with adult acne or persistent clogged pores, skin fasting can sometimes lead to a noticeable improvement. This is likely a multi-factorial result. First, the cessation of heavy, pore-clogging (comedogenic) moisturizers or occlusives can immediately reduce the formation of blackheads and whiteheads. Second, the rebalancing of the microbiome may help to suppress the growth of acne-causing bacteria. Third, the reduction in overall inflammation from removing irritants can calm the red, angry, underground bumps that characterize hormonal and inflammatory acne. It is important to note, however, that this is not a universal experience; for some, fasting can worsen acne, especially if it leads to a buildup of dead skin cells and sebum.

Finally, there is a significant psychological and financial benefit that cannot be overlooked. Skincare can become a source of anxiety and a significant financial burden. The pressure to constantly purchase the latest “holy grail” product and to perform a complex, multi-step ritual twice a day is real. Skin fasting, particularly the modified version, offers a liberation from this pressure. It simplifies decision-making, reduces the time spent in front of the mirror, and saves money. The act of stepping back can foster a more accepting and less critical relationship with one’s natural skin, blemishes and all. This shift from a perfectionistic, problem-solving mindset to one of acceptance and support can be profoundly beneficial for mental well-being.

4. The Scientific and Dermatological Perspective: A Reality Check

While the anecdotal reports are compelling for some, the broader scientific and dermatological community urges caution. They point out that the theories underpinning skin fasting often oversimplify complex skin biology and ignore the realities of the modern environment. Let’s examine the key counterarguments.

The most significant point of contention is the fundamental role of the skin barrier. The stratum corneum, the outermost layer of the skin, is not a passive membrane; it is a dynamic, complex structure that is constantly undergoing repair and renewal. However, it did not evolve to handle the assaults of 21st-century life. Central heating and air conditioning create low-humidity environments that actively pull water out of the skin. Pollution generates free radicals that break down collagen and cause inflammation. Most critically, ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun directly damages DNA, degrades the structural proteins of the skin, and suppresses the local immune system. Dermatologists argue that the idea of the skin being perfectly self-sufficient is a romanticized notion that is biologically inaccurate in our current context. Purposefully withholding protective products like moisturizers and sunscreen is, from this perspective, akin to refusing to wear a coat in a snowstorm because the human body has its own mechanisms for thermoregulation—it ignores the severity of the environmental challenge.

On the topic of sebum regulation, the science is more nuanced. While it is true that over-cleansing can lead to rebound oiliness, sebum production is primarily governed by internal factors, namely hormones (androgens). Genetics play the largest role in determining how active your sebaceous glands are. A temporary fast might help rebalance the surface film, but it is unlikely to permanently alter the fundamental, genetically programmed output of your glands. For individuals with truly seborrheic skin or conditions like acne vulgaris, sebum production is driven by internal hormonal signals that topical abstinence cannot silence. Furthermore, the sebum produced in conditions like acne is often qualitatively different—thicker and more comedogenic—and simply leaving it on the skin without any cleansing can exacerbate clogging and inflammation.

The concept of the skin becoming “lazy” is also met with skepticism. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that the topical application of moisturizers suppresses the skin’s own ability to produce lipids or NMFs. The skin’s biological processes are not subject to the same principles of muscle atrophy from disuse. In fact, for a compromised barrier, the application of ceramide-containing moisturizers provides the essential building blocks the skin needs to repair itself more efficiently. Withholding these ingredients from a damaged barrier can prolong the repair process and cause unnecessary discomfort and inflammation. The skin is not “outsourcing” its job; it is being provided with raw materials to do its job better under duress.

Perhaps the most dangerous misconception promoted by extreme fasting is the idea that sunscreen is optional. The link between UV exposure and skin cancer (melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma) is unequivocal and backed by decades of rigorous epidemiological and clinical research. UV radiation is also the primary external cause of premature aging (photoaging), responsible for up to 90% of visible skin changes like wrinkles, sagging, and hyperpigmentation. To suggest that anyone should forgo daily sun protection as part of a “natural” reset is not only unscientific but also medically irresponsible. The potential damage caused by even a short period of unprotected sun exposure is cumulative and irreversible.

Finally, dermatologists emphasize that skin fasting is not a one-size-fits-all solution. Its potential outcomes are highly dependent on individual skin type, ethnicity, climate, and pre-existing conditions. What might be a beneficial reset for one person could be a disaster for another.

5. For Whom Might Fasting Be Beneficial? (And For Whom Is It a Bad Idea?)

Given the conflicting viewpoints, it becomes clear that the value of skin fasting is entirely contextual. It may offer benefits for specific people under specific circumstances, while being actively harmful for others.

Who Might Consider a Modified Fast:

• Individuals with “Over-Producted” Skin: This is the prime candidate. If you have been using a complex, 10-step routine with multiple strong actives (e.g., retinol, AHA, BHA, vitamin C) and your skin has become red, sensitive, stingy, and reactive, a modified fast can be a therapeutic pause. Stopping all actives and focusing only on gentle cleansing and barrier-repair moisturizers for 2-4 weeks can allow inflammation to subside and the barrier to heal. This is less of a “fast” and more of a “medical reset” for a damaged ecosystem.
• Those Trying to Identify an Irritant: As a short-term, diagnostic elimination diet, a modified fast is an excellent tool. By clearing the slate and then reintroducing products one by one every few days, you can systematically identify the product causing a negative reaction.
• People with Resilient, Oily Skin: Those with thick, oily, and non-sensitive skin may find that a nightly fast or a weekend water-only wash is beneficial. Their robust barrier and abundant sebum production may protect them from the dehydrating effects, and the break from products can help reduce the feeling of greasiness and congestion.
• Anyone Seeking Skincare Simplicity: For someone feeling overwhelmed by consumer culture and wanting to pare down to a minimal, effective routine, a modified fast serves as a great starting point to discover what their skin truly needs.

Who Should Absolutely Avoid Fasting:

• Anyone Using Prescription Topicals: Individuals using medications like tretinoin (for acne or anti-aging), topical antibiotics, or treatments for rosacea or eczema should never stop their regimen without explicit instructions from their dermatologist. Abruptly stopping can cause a rebound effect and worsen the underlying condition.
• People with Diagnosed Skin Conditions: Those with eczema (atopic dermatitis), psoriasis, or severe rosacea have a genetically compromised skin barrier that requires constant support and protection. Withholding moisturizer and emollients will inevitably lead to flare-ups, intense itching, and significant damage. For them, skincare is not cosmetic; it is therapeutic and non-negotiable.
• Individuals with Chronically Dry or Mature Skin: As we age, the skin’s natural production of lipids and NMFs declines. Mature skin is inherently drier and more fragile. Deliberately withholding moisturizer accelerates the development of dryness, wrinkles, and a weakened barrier. The same applies to those with naturally dry skin, regardless of age.
• Everyone, Regarding Sunscreen: This cannot be overstated. No one should ever “fast” from sunscreen. Daily use of broad-spectrum SPF is the single most important and evidence-based practice for preventing skin cancer and premature aging. Skipping it as part of any wellness trend is a dangerous gamble with long-term health consequences.
• Those Living in Harsh Climates: Whether it’s the dry, cold air of winter or the scorching, dry heat of a desert climate, environmental extremes place significant stress on the skin barrier. In these conditions, the skin needs more support, not less. Fasting would be counterproductive and damaging.

6. A Practical Guide to a Safe and Effective “Reset”

For those who are curious and fall into the “might benefit” category, a safe and structured approach is essential. The goal should not be extreme deprivation, but intelligent simplification. Here is a step-by-step guide for a responsible “skin reset,” modeled on the modified fast.

Step 1: Define Your “Why” and Set a Time Limit.
Before you begin, be clear about your goal. Are you trying to calm reactivity? Identify an irritant? Or simply simplify your life? Your goal will shape your approach. Then, set a firm time limit. A reset is not a permanent state. For most people, a period of 2 to 4 weeks is sufficient to see if it’s beneficial without risking long-term damage.

Step 2: Plan Your Modified Fast Routine.
Do not jump to a water-only cleanse. Start with a gentle, minimalist routine.

• AM:
  • Option A: Rinse face with lukewarm water. Pat dry.
  • Option B (if you feel oily): Cleanse with a gentle, sulfate-free, pH-balanced cleanser.
  • Non-Negotiable: Apply a broad-spectrum sunscreen with SPF 30 or higher.
• PM:
  • Crucial: If you wore sunscreen (which you should have), you must cleanse. Use a gentle, water-based cleanser to remove it. An oil-based first cleanse is optional if you feel you need it.
  • Apply a basic, fragrance-free moisturizer formulated to support barrier repair. Look for ingredients like ceramides, niacinamide, panthenol, and glycerin.
  • Eliminate: All other products—toners, essences, serums, acids, retinoids, masks, and spot treatments.

Step 3: Manage the Transition Period.
Be prepared for an adjustment phase. Your skin may feel oilier, drier, or “different” for the first 1-2 weeks. This is normal as it recalibrates. Stick with the plan. If you experience significant peeling, cracking, or painful irritation, it’s a sign that your skin needs more support, not less. You may need to reintroduce your moisturizer more frequently or choose a richer formula.

Step 4: The Mindful Reintroduction Phase.
After your reset period, the most critical phase begins: slowly rebuilding your routine. Do not simply go back to your old regimen.

• Reintroduce one product at a time. Wait at least 3-5 days, but ideally a full week, before adding another. This allows you to clearly observe your skin’s reaction.
• Start with the most essential treatments first. If you use a retinoid for acne or anti-aging, that might be your first re-addition. Start with a reduced frequency (e.g., once or twice a week) to re-acclimate your skin.
• Listen to your skin. If a product causes redness, stinging, or breakouts, you have likely identified an irritant or an ingredient your skin doesn’t agree with. Discontinue that product.
• Ask yourself if you need it. The reset may have shown you that your skin is perfectly happy with just a cleanser, moisturizer, and sunscreen. You may find you don’t need to reintroduce half of the products you were using before.

An Alternative to Fasting: The Consistent Baseline.
For many, a more sustainable approach than periodic fasting is to establish a rock-solid, consistent baseline routine that never changes, and then to “layer” actives on top of it strategically. Your baseline would be your gentle cleanser, barrier-support moisturizer, and daily sunscreen. This trio provides constant protection and support. You then use your treatment serums (vitamin C, retinol, acids) on a scheduled, rotating basis, perhaps taking one or two nights off per week. This method provides the benefits of a simplified, non-irritating foundation while still allowing for targeted results, without the need for a complete and potentially disruptive “fast.”

Conclusion: A Tool, Not a Doctrine

The debate around skin fasting ultimately reveals a deeper tension in our approach to wellness: the desire for a simple, natural solution versus the complex reality of human biology in a modern world. Skin fasting is not a magic bullet, nor is it a universally dangerous practice. Its value is entirely dependent on its application.

As a radical, extended, “zero-therapy” practice that includes abandoning sunscreen, it is a misguided and potentially harmful fad that flies in the face of established dermatological science. The risks of accelerated photoaging and increased skin cancer risk far outweigh any unproven theoretical benefits.

However, when reframed as a temporary, modified reset—a conscious pause from active ingredients and complex product cocktails—it can be a valuable tool for a specific subset of people. For those with sensitized, “over-producted” skin, it serves as a therapeutic protocol to calm inflammation and repair the barrier. For those lost in a sea of products, it acts as a diagnostic elimination diet to identify irritants and a psychological tool to foster a healthier, less anxious relationship with their complexion.

The true takeaway is not that we should abandon skincare, but that we should practice it with more intention and less compulsion. The goal is to be a mindful custodian of our skin, not a frantic chemist. This means understanding its unique needs, providing consistent protection from the sun, supporting its barrier with gentle, effective ingredients, and using powerful actives strategically and respectfully. Whether you choose to experiment with a gentle fast or simply commit to a more consistent and minimalist baseline, the most profound shift is moving from a place of constant correction to one of steady, intelligent support. In the end, the healthiest routine is one that respects both the skin’s innate wisdom and the undeniable challenges of the world it lives in.

SOURCES

Blaak, J., & Staib, P. (2022). The relationship between pH and skin barrier function in epidermal health. Current Problems in Dermatology, 61, 132-147.

Coderch, L., López, O., de la Maza, A., & Parra, J. L. (2003). Ceramides and skin function. American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, 4(2), 107–129.

Draelos, Z. D. (2018). The science behind skin care: Moisturizers. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, 17(2), 138–144.

Farris, P. K. (2005). Topical vitamin C: A useful agent for treating photoaging and other dermatologic conditions. Dermatologic Surgery, 31(7 Pt 2), 814–818.

Gallo, R. L., Nakatsuji, T., & Hata, T. R. (2022). The skin microbiome: A foundation for health and disease. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 142(3), 787-794.

Kraft, J. N., & Lynde, C. W. (2021). Moisturizers: What they are and a practical approach to product selection. Skin Therapy Letter, 10(5), 1-8.

Leyden, J., Stein-Gold, L., & Weiss, J. (2019). Why topical retinoids are mainstay of therapy for acne. Dermatology and Therapy, 9(2), 173-183.

Mukhopadhyay, P. (2021). Cleansers and their role in various dermatological disorders. Indian Journal of Dermatology, 56(1), 2–6.

Pappas, A., Kendall, A. C., Brownbridge, L. C., Batchvarova, N., & Nicolaou, A. (2022). Seasonal changes in epidermal ceramides are linked to impaired skin barrier function. Experimental Dermatology, 31(3), 350-358.

Rawlings, A. V. (2020). Trends in stratum corneum research and the management of dry skin conditions. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 42(2), 113-125.

Rodan, K., Fields, K., Majewski, G., & Falla, T. (2021). Skincare bootcamp: The evolving role of skincare. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery–Global Open, 4(12S), 1-10.

Sethi, A., Kaur, T., & Malhotra, S. K. (2023). Dehydrated skin: A comprehensive review on pathophysiology and management. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 16, 11-24.

Sparavigna, A., Tenconi, B., & De Ponti, I. (2022). An innovative approach to the functional characterization of the stratum corneum in vivo: Comparative study on cleansers. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 15, 143-153.

Voegeli, R., Rawlings, A. V., Breternitz, M., Doering, T., Schreier, T., & Fluhr, J. W. (2021). Increased stratum corneum serine protease activity in acute eczematous atopic skin. British Journal of Dermatology, 161(1), 70-77.

Zasada, M., Budzisz, E., Erkiert-Polguj, A., & Polańska, A. (2019). The influence of commonly used cosmetic ingredients on the skin barrier. Advances in Dermatology and Allergology, 36(4), 392–397.

HISTORY

Current Version
OCT, 09, 2025

Written By
BARIRA MEHMOOD