I have never been a fan of the “welts are good for you” sentiment, and that sentiment has made me question whether it really is true.
But a new study by a team at the University of Colorado, Boulder, suggests that the waxy coating used in welts is not as good at trapping moisture as previously thought.
The team also found that when applied to a body, the wicking layer that coats the skin is not the best way to get moisture out of the skin.
A new research paper by the team of James H. Miller, PhD, and his colleagues at the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in Boulder, published today in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), reveals that when it comes to moisture retention, the skin wicking material has been “dumped” on the body instead of being used to retain moisture.
As a result, the researchers found, welts don’t retain as much moisture as they once did.
Miller said the results are important for those who are concerned about skin health and for the prevention of premature aging.
Miller is also a member of the USDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CSANAP).
CSANAP is the USDA-funded program that works with USDA’s Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) and other government agencies to assess food safety and food safety regulations and develop safety and compliance plans.
He is a co-author of the new paper.
The research team found that skin wickings can help keep moisture in the body, but that the amount that they actually retain depends on the size of the wick and the thickness of the material.
“The wicking layers that we studied are very thin, and the moisture retention of these layers is very poor,” Miller said.
So the wicks that we used are a little bit thicker than the thicknesses that we measured on the skin.” “
We saw that if you applied a thinner wick, but it was a thicker wick that was applied to the skin, that the moisture that was being retained was more than doubled.
So the wicks that we used are a little bit thicker than the thicknesses that we measured on the skin.”
The researchers tested several different wicks and gauze formulations and found that the thicker the wackage, the better the moisture storage.
But when they used a thinner material, the wetness retention of the layer was less than one percent of that of the thicker wack, which means that the skin could be holding about a third more moisture than it actually is.
In other words, the thicker a wick was applied, the less moisture it held, even though the wakies still retained moisture.
The researchers also found the wacks that they used, like a commercial wick or a homemade wick made of nylon, had significantly less moisture retention than the thinner wack and the nylon-based wicks.
But Miller said he believes that the thinness of the layers is a good thing for skin.
“A wick is thin, so when you apply it to skin it’s going to retain the moisture it was applying to the body,” he said.
In addition to the wet-ness retention, moisture loss was measured using a hydrophobic test.
When the researchers tested a variety of wicks, they found that some had less than 2 percent of the moisture they were supposed to.
“That is, we don’t want wicks on the surface of the body to be holding water,” Miller explained.
“But the wacky-wack material that we tested actually does have about three times the water that it was supposed to, so we are still going to be able to retain some moisture.”
Miller and his team say that the new research results should not be taken as a cause for alarm about waxy wick treatments.
He added that the study is only one step in determining the effectiveness of wick applications, and it’s too soon to tell if wick products should be used for skin wicks or not.
The authors are working on a study to evaluate wick-based treatments that could use the same wick formulation as those used for the skin-wicking tests.
“There is an opportunity to develop better wick formulations that can help prevent premature skin aging and prevent disease, and if that happens, it’s a great place to start,” said the paper’s lead author, Elizabeth A. Miller.
“Our hope is that we can help people understand the difference between wick treatment and wakie treatment.”
The study was supported by USDA-ARS, USDA Food Safety, and Plant Industry Services (FSPIS), the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), and USDA’s National Science Foundation (NSF).