When Is the 'Right' Time to Get a Facelift?

We're seeing a shift in the way we look at facelifts. What once was a surgery you would get as a last resort to recapture your 'youthful look' has now turned into one of the most popular treatments to fine-tune your facial features. The American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery reports that facelifts continue to be one of the top procedures, with a rise in younger patients seeking this treatment. While people are holding off on filler and Botox, it seems like many are waiting to go all in on facelifts.
But how young is too young? How do you know when it's the right—and wrong—time to get a facelift? There are a couple of things to consider before you go under the knife.
Is there a 'right' age to get a facelift?
When it comes to getting a facelift, your age doesn't really matter. The real dealbreaker, experts say, is your overall health and your facial structure. 'The physical state of the face is more important than the biological age when assessing if someone is a suitable candidate for a facelift,' says Yannis Alexandrides, MD, FACS, board-certified plastic surgeon and founder of 111 Harley St. 'Many factors affect how a face looks and how it ages. These include lifestyle choices, genetics, and in some cases conditions or diseases.'
'I've operated on patients in their 70s who were better surgical candidates than some in their 50s. As long as someone is healthy, has realistic expectations, and can safely undergo anesthesia, they can be a good candidate,' agrees Alexis Parcells, MD, board-certified plastic surgeon and founder of Parcells Plastic Surgery. 'A facelift at any age can be transformative when it's done for the right reasons.'
Dr. Parcells goes on to say that most of her patients who opt for this treatment are in their late 40s to early 60s. This is about the age where skin laxity, jowling, and deeper folds are more pronounced. Facelifts, she explains, are about addressing structural changes and not just surface-level tweaks. So, the best time to get one is when those major face changes begin to bother you.
…but you can be considered too young for one
While there is no ideal age to get a facelift, experts do think that there are instances where one can be too young to undergo this surgery. Mainly, if you aren't showing any signs of aging on your face. 'Anyone under 40 is usually too young,' says Dr. Parcells. 'At that point, most concerns can be addressed with non-invasive treatments like radiofrequency, microneedling, or filler. A facelift is surgery—and with that comes downtime, risks, and cost—so we want to make sure we're correcting actual descent of tissue, not just volume loss or skin quality.'
What makes you a good candidate for a facelift?
There are a couple of things your doctor will look for to determine if a facelift is the right treatment for you. Dr. Alexandrides lists deep nasolabial folds (a.k.a. smile lines), jowling, laxity of the skin on the face or the neck, drooping of the brows, or extensive wrinkling of the face as some of the skin concerns that a facelift is the ideal treatment for. As mentioned before, you'll want to be healthy overall to minimize complications during and post-surgery. On a psychological level, he says patients should have realistic expectations for the results.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

29 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Kidney doctor's shooting comes as questions emerge about dialysis centers

Dr. Andre Obua drove 18 hours from Miami to Terre Haute, Indiana. He pulled up to the home of a local kidney specialist and allegedly opened fire, striking the kidney doctor in the hand before being wrestled to the ground. The only thing more unexpected than the act of violence was the apparent motive. Accused in the shooting, which occurred one month after the brazen murder of the UnitedHealthcare CEO in New York City, was Obua, a highly educated medical resident with a promising career. But Obua had become fixated on one of the least-understood corners in the big business of medicine — kidney dialysis. In letters penned from prison, in phone interviews and on a website he created, Obua shared with CBS News his grievances, discussed the Luigi Mangione case in New York, and offered hints to the underpinnings of an alleged act that landed him in jail, where he is awaiting trial on attempted murder charges. He would not directly discuss the shooting and has pleaded not guilty. Prosecutors in Vigo County, Indiana, said they consider the crime abhorrent — and a source of continued pain for the physician who was shot. CBS News is not naming the victim at the request of prosecutors. Prosecutor Terry R. Modesitt said his office determined the victim "had never done anything to justify having violence brought against him." Modesitt voiced a broader concern about what he said he fears is a growing wave of disturbing vigilante violence that has no place in a civilized society. "These cases that we read about in the news or watch on TV about the news — there's no excuse for this," Modesitt said. "Go out and protest. Write your congressman… file a complaint with the attorney general's office in your state, things like that. But no, there's never any justification to go try to murder someone." Tom Mueller, the author of "How to Make a Killing: Blood, Death and Dollars in American Medicine," spent more than five years studying the dialysis industry. He says the incident conjures many of the same complex swirl of emotions that Americans expressed after the UnitedHealthcare shooting. There is a visceral disgust for violence used to make a statement, he said. And there is long-running dismay about the shortcomings of America's health care system, which may be costing lives. That includes, he said, a rise of for-profit dialysis clinics and their impact on quality of care for those confronting end-stage kidney disease. "Unless we can talk about systemic harm done by the medical profession, the insurance profession, against patients … we're not gonna get anywhere," Mueller said. Mueller may be uniquely positioned to weigh in on both the crime and the issue that may have been underlying it. For months before the shooting, he told CBS News that he and Obua had been corresponding by email about his book. In those emails, which he described to CBS News, he says Obua never gave any indication he was spiraling towards violence. Mueller only learned of the shooting later, during an interview with CBS News. "I nearly fell off my chair when I heard," Mueller said. "My sense is that [his] level of desperation just must have found an outlet in a violent act." Dialysis under scrutiny LaQuayia "LQ" Goldring, 28, has been a dialysis patient for the past ten years. Goldring lives near Louisville, Kentucky, where she spends up to four and a half hours a day hooked up to a home dialysis machine. It acts as her kidneys, taking the blood from her body, removing the waste, then cycling it back in. "Every day I wake up, I'm thanking God that my feet even hit the ground and that my eyes open and I can still breathe on my own," she said. Goldring is one of roughly 500,000 Americans dependent on dialysis to stay alive as they wait and hope for a kidney transplant, the only available remedy for those suffering from end-stage kidney disease. She receives the treatment at home, and says dialysis clinics left her with no control over her care, treating her like a "check." She, like Mueller, believes the industry has become too focused on profits. "This is emergency room care done in the mall," Mueller said. "People are not given the tailored treatment that they need." A review of federal data by CBS News found one-third of dialysis clinics failed to meet federal standards this year — nearly 2,500 of the roughly 7,600 clinics nationwide. The average score was 60 out of 100 possible points. Criticism of the industry has been disputed by the two largest for-profit companies in the dialysis industry, Fresenius and DaVita. Fresenius told CBS News in a statement that the company maintains an "unwavering focus on improving quality of life, strengthening clinical outcomes, and extending the lifespan of those we have the privilege to serve." DaVita said in a statement that its "dedicated clinicians consistently deliver high-quality, individualized care in a complex clinical and regulatory environment." A health care "duopoly" The two companies dominate the national landscape of clinics where kidney patients come to receive regular dialysis treatments — crucial to keeping them alive. Roughly 90% of patients get their treatment in the outpatient clinics. And together, the two for-profit companies own nearly 75% of all U.S. clinics — nearly 5,600 in total. The companies have become what Mueller calls "a duopoly" as the industry has consolidated over the past three decades. The share of independently owned dialysis facilities fell from 86% to 21% during that period. In over 2,500 cities around the U.S., a single company owns every clinic. That industry dominance has a cost, according to Ryan McDevitt, a Duke University economist who co-authored a study released this month looking at the toll of the scarce competition. "This is the most concentrated health care sector across the entire U.S.," McDevitt said. McDevitt argues that Medicare's limits on how much it reimburses clinics per patient have incentivized DaVita and Fresenius to focus on filling chairs to increase their profit margins. Both companies reject that characterization. Last year alone, DaVita delivered more than 29 million dialysis treatments, earning $391 in revenue per session. That includes providing home dialysis treatments, like Goldring receives through Fresenius. Together, Davita and Fresenius reported a total of $33.7 billion in revenue from all of their businesses. McDevitt said his research found that when independent clinics are acquired by DaVita or Fresenius, their transplant referrals drop by about 10%, their patient survival rates fall by 2%, hospitalizations increase by 5%, and infection rates go up by about 12%. While kidney specialists typically dictate the type of care they want for their patients, some doctors told CBS News they felt pressure from the companies running the dialysis clinics to move patients through faster. Dr. Leonard Stern, a nephrologist now at Columbia University, said even if he believed a patient needed five hours of dialysis treatment, there were times that DaVita would refuse. "We have a corporate model that provides the least amount of care for the most amount of profit for shareholders," Stern said. Stern served as medical director of an independent for-profit dialysis center until 2005, when it was sold to DaVita. After the acquisition, he said there were times the company instructed him to make more room for new patients. He said that sometimes meant more billing for DaVita, even if it resulted in unnecessary complications and return visits for his patients. Stern left the clinic in 2013. Dr. Jeffrey Gold, a kidney specialist in Royal Oak, Michigan, said the doctors feel pressure to "get the next patient in — and make sure everybody has a spot to dialyze." McDevitt described the one-size-fits-all approach as inconsistent with patient needs. "They call it bazooka dialysis, where they pump you through the station as quickly as possible," McDevitt said, comparing the turnover model to any other volume business. "They need to turn over stations multiple times a day to hit those profit numbers, to keep shareholders happy." Reports of deficiencies Most dialysis patients rely on the federal government to pay for the treatment. The costs add up to about $40 billion a year, according to the American Association of Kidney Patients. "It's actually one percent of the entire federal budget, which is a staggering statistic," McDevitt said. Despite the expenditures — about $100,000 per patient, according to McDevitt — the U.S. has among the highest death rates for patients on dialysis among developed nations. For years, health surveyors from the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have conducted routine monitoring of dialysis clinics to assess their performance. Since 2013, those officials have cited U.S. dialysis centers for more than 115,000 deficiencies, including poor hand hygiene, unsanitary conditions while handling IV medications, and inadequate training. CMS assigns every facility a "Total Performance Score," evaluating them annually on measures like patient safety, infection control and hospitalization rates. If the score is below CMS standards, the clinic is hit with a financial penalty. A CBS News review of federal data found more than 40% of the clinics run by the nation's two largest dialysis providers — DaVita and Fresenius — failed to meet those same standards this year. That's nearly 1,600 clinics. In separate statements to CBS News, both companies highlighted their performance, saying the data reflects a track record of "exemplary care." Fresenius noted that more than 65% of its dialysis centers received three stars or higher on Medicare's five-star scale — a rate the company said is higher than the national average of all U.S. dialysis providers. The company also said its employees "take immense pride in providing best-in-class, high-quality care to our patients." DaVita said in a statement to CBS News that problems in clinics were "rare and isolated" and represent "exceptions and do not reflect the exemplary care we consistently provide." "We take every concern seriously, and if we make an error, we work immediately to resolve it," DaVita said in its statement. "To mischaracterize such anomalies as systemic care failures is reckless, fear-mongering, and puts patient well-being at risk." Legal settlements top $1 billion The dialysis industry has faced legal scrutiny over the past decade from patients, their surviving relatives, and from state and federal agencies. One ongoing federal case against Fresenius accuses the firm of trying to fraudulently obtain hundreds of millions of dollars of federal funds by performing unnecessary procedures — an allegation the company denies. The two companies have settled at least 25 lawsuits. And CBS News has found that since 2015, Fresenius and DaVita paid out at least $1.13 billion in legal settlements. "I have not seen any improvement in care following these settlements," McDevitt said. A spiral towards violence Frustration over the lack of reform in the industry has been simmering for years, Mueller told CBS News. Which is why Mueller said he was not unnerved as he exchanged emails with a Miami-based medical resident who had taken an interest in dialysis — and specifically, the use of a specific medication he thought could be harming patients. "The kinds of emails he sent were totally rational, very thoughtful, extremely data-driven," Mueller said, calling Andre Obua "the last person in the world I would think to commit a violent act." Over dozens of pages, the letters Obua sent to CBS News from jail describe how he grew up in a low-income household in Ann Arbor, Michigan — a background that "shaped my world views and motivates me to advocate for the less fortunate," he wrote. He says he first heard during an internal medical rotation about the use of a medication being prescribed to kidney patients to speed up the dialysis process, which he speculated could be endangering their health. It appears from his writing that this concern went from being an interest to being an obsession. At one point, he described seeking out a lawyer to file a whistleblower lawsuit, but was ultimately persuaded he could not succeed in court. CBS News sought to verify his claims, but no kidney expert interviewed believed that the medication in question harmed patients. Nevertheless, Obua unspooled mountains of his research, theories and accusations on a public website. A source familiar with the case told CBS News Obua had drawn up a list of kidney doctors to target. Near the top was the victim of his attack in Indiana. In January, for reasons Obua would not directly address in his letters and conversations with CBS News, the 29-year-old said he loaded his car with firearms and a bag of Monopoly money — which he noted was similar to the one left behind by alleged UnitedHealthcare shooter Luigi Mangione — and headed north towards Indiana. Police reports say Obua fired at a Terre Haute kidney specialist without warning, striking the doctor in the hand. The two wrestled in the tranquil suburban driveway until police arrived and placed Obua under arrest. Mueller shakes his head when thinking about the bright future Obua seemingly abandoned that winter evening. "It says we're living in extreme times," he said. "And it's a tragic, tragic event." Modesitt, the prosecutor, said he has no sympathy for the young medical resident who's now facing attempted murder charges. "If you've got a problem in any way with the system or anything else, we have attorney generals, we have secretary of states, different entities that you can file a complaint with," Modesitt said. "But it's never justified to take the law in your own hands." Obua is scheduled to go on trial in August. Full statement of DaVita: Our dedicated clinicians consistently deliver high-quality, individualized care in a complex clinical and regulatory environment. We understand that in any healthcare setting, rare and isolated incidents may occur. However, these are diligently addressed as exceptions and do not reflect the exemplary care we consistently provide. We take every concern seriously, and if we make an error, we work immediately to resolve it. To mischaracterize such anomalies as systemic care failures is reckless, fear-mongering, and puts patient well-being at risk. Full statement of Fresenius Medical Care: Providing high-quality care is our standard, and nothing gets in the way of our patients being our North Star. By any objective measure, our ability to hire qualified staff, deliver outstanding – best-in-class – patient care, and innovate for the betterment of people living with kidney disease far outpaces the industry. This is evidenced by the fact that the most recently available CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) 5-Star quality data, which concluded that more than 65% of all Fresenius Kidney Care (FKC) dialysis centers received 3 stars or higher – higher than the combined national average of all U.S. dialysis providers. Our approximately 70,000 employees and care teams, working across more than 2,600 dialysis centers, and delivering over 31 million treatments annually in the U.S. take immense pride in providing best-in-class, high-quality care to our patients. And our ability to introduce revolutionary advancements and innovation in kidney care, including the upcoming introduction of the 5008X™ CAREsystem in the U.S. that will deliver high-volume hemodiafiltration starting later in 2025, demonstrates our unwavering focus on improving quality of life, strengthening clinical outcomes, and extending the lifespan of those we have the privilege to serve. Netanyahu reacts to U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites Some key Democratic congressional leaders left out of Trump's Iran attack plans Extended interview: LQ Goldring on her quest for a kidney donor

Yahoo

40 minutes ago

• Yahoo

Company makes game-changing breakthrough that could solve common issue with plant-based food — here's what you need to know

Let's be honest: Plant-based protein doesn't always taste great. Even if you love the idea of eating less meat for your health and the planet, the weird aftertaste of some plant-based meats can be hard to ignore. But that might be about to change. According to FoodNavigator USA, the flavor company T. Hasegawa USA has developed a high-tech, natural flavor that tackles the unpleasant "off" notes of plant proteins such as pea and soy. The whole technology (and science) behind it is pretty impressive. When meat sizzles in a pan or bread gets crispy in the toaster, the Maillard reaction creates craveable aromas and flavors. But plant proteins such as soy and pea don't react the same way during cooking, which can leave them tasting bland or, worse, beany and bitter. If companies want people to go for meat alternatives, there's a need to focus on options that taste good and have pleasant textures. As Mark Webster, vice president of sales and marketing at T. Hasegawa, said, "That is where the headwind is." The T. Hasegawa team tackled this problem by developing a natural flavor technology called Plantreact that increases Maillard reactions — the chemical processes that give so-called browned foods their flavors. This innovation doesn't stop with fake meats. The same flavor solution can also recreate creamy, dairy-like notes in alternative milks and other nondairy products. That's huge for people who love the idea of oat or almond milk but miss the full-bodied taste of cow's milk. Plantreact has been in the works for a while, but it's now ready to hit the market. T. Hasegawa is already working with food brands to roll it out in products. Better flavor means plant-based foods are more enjoyable, which makes it easier for more people to cut back on animal products and reduce pollution, conserve water, and shrink their carbon footprints. This tech is already being explored by plant-based brands looking to improve their products, and it may soon appear in alternative meat and dairy products at your local grocery store. Combined with the work of companies such as Meati and Perfect Day, this kind of innovation helps build a future in which eating more sustainably doesn't mean compromising on taste. Why do you eat plant-based foods? The health benefits It's cheaper It's good for the planet I prefer the taste Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.

Forbes

an hour ago

• Forbes

CDC Vaccine Advisors To Vote On Thimerosal In Flu Shots. Here's What To Know About Thimerosal

ATLANTA, GA - OCTOBER 05: A podium with the logo for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ... More at the Tom Harkin Global Communications Center on October 5, 2014 in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo by Kevin C. Cox/Getty Images) The CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is set to vote later this week on the issue of thimerosal in flu vaccines. What exactly is thimerosal and is it actually harmful for people that take vaccines containing the substance? Thimerosal is a mercury-based organic preservative that historically was put in several vaccines in low quantities in order to prevent the growth of harmful bacteria and fungi, particularly when multi-dose vials were used. Vaccines can become accidentally contaminated, as may occur with multiple needle punctures with multi-dose vials. Before the late 1990's, infants were recommended to receive three vaccines that contained thimerosal- hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b and diphtheria-tetanus-acellular pertussis. There are no known health risks associated with thimerosal at the concentrations used in vaccines, according to the FDA. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disagrees. In his 2014 book, he states (as reported in Politico), 'there is a virtually unanimous scientific consensus among the hundreds of research scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles in the field that Thimerosal is immensely toxic to brain tissue.' Thimerosal, as a preservative gets metabolized as ethylmercury, which is distinct from the more toxic methylmercury. In large doses, both compounds can be toxic to the brain and kidney, resulting in tremors, memory loss, mood swings, depression, protein in the urine and kidney damage. However, ethylmercury poses a significantly decreased risk for humans because it has a much shorter half-life of less than week compared to methylmercury, which has a half-life of 1.5 months according to the World Health Organization. Ethylmercury is removed from the body fast and actively excreted into the gut, as oppose to methylmercury that can accumulate in the body and result in potential toxic effects. In 1999, because of scientific uncertainty at the time and theoretical concerns about thimerosal, the preservative was removed from nearly all childhood vaccines as a precautionary measure per the FDA, not because it was shown to cause any harm. The only childhood vaccine that still contains thimerosal in some formulations is the flu vaccine. Part of the reason thimerosal was removed from childhood vaccines was because an infant in the early 1990s receiving childhood vaccines could be exposed to a cumulative dose of mercury as high as 187.5 micrograms by the age of 6 months, which exceeded the guidelines put forth by the EPA, but not the WHO. Even at a dose of 187.5 micrograms of ethylmercury, no studies have shown adverse health effects or harm to humans, other than local skin reactions at the injection site of the vaccine, as shown in a study published in the journal Pediatrics. Despite what Secretary of HHS Kennedy has suggested, thimerosal has not been shown to cause autism. In fact both the FDA and multiple peer-reviewed scientific studies have asserted and shown no link between thimerosal use in vaccines and autism. The use of thimerosal in U.S. FDA licensed vaccines has significantly declined because of reformulations and the availability of vaccines in single-dose containers. Currently, a couple of flu vaccines are formulated to contain thimerosal, although the majority of flu vaccines that currently exist do not contain thimerosal. The ACIP will convene later this week to hold a vote on the status of thimerosal on vaccines. Even if completely removed from the flu vaccine, the vaccine will not 'become' safer, as decades of research has already shown thimerosal to be safe and effective as a preservative. Experts warn that holding the vote could cast doubt on vaccine uptake. Dr. Jeremy Faust, Editor-in-Chief of MedPage Today, writes, 'Elevating this debunked myth to national policy lends credence to misinformation, and sets the stage for other actions that may undermine vaccine confidence in the United States.'