Singapore is seeing a growing demand for aesthetic improvements, driving the popularity of various body slimming technologies. With an increasing number of individuals seeking effective and non-invasive ways to achieve their ideal body shape, the demand for advanced body contouring procedures has soared. From busy professionals to stay-at-home parents, many Singaporeans are turning to these technologies to complement their fitness and diet efforts. The thriving aesthetic industry in Singapore offers a range of options, making it essential for individuals to understand the differences between available treatments to make informed decisions.
Body slimming technologies can be broadly categorised into two main approaches: cold and hot methods. Each method targets fat reduction but employs different mechanisms to achieve the desired results. In this article, we explore the specifics of cold and hot body slimming technologies, discuss their effectiveness, and help you determine which option might be better suited for your goals.
Cold body slimming technologies
Cold body slimming technologies, such as cryolipolysis, have gained significant attention in recent years. The most well-known example of this method is CoolSculpting®, a non-invasive procedure1 that uses controlled cooling to target and eliminate fat cells. entails positioning a device on the targeted area, where it cools the fat cells to a temperature that triggers apoptosis, or the natural process of cell death. Over time, the body naturally metabolises and eliminates the dead fat cells, leading to a more contoured appearance.
Cryolipolysis is particularly popular for treating stubborn fat areas such as the abdomen, flanks, and thighs. One of the primary advantages of cold body slimming technologies is their non-invasive nature, meaning there is no need for anaesthesia, significant downtime, or surgery. Patients can typically resume their daily activities immediately after the procedure. However, it’s important to note that results are not immediate; it may take several weeks or even months to see the full effects as the body gradually processes the fat cells.
Cold body slimming technologies have been widely studied, and research supports their safety and efficacy. For example, a study found that cryolipolysis can reduce fat in the treated area by up to 25% after a single session2. However, it is essential for individuals to consult with a qualified dermatologist from a reputable dermatology clinic to assess their suitability for the treatment and set realistic expectations. It’s also important to note that cryolipolysis is not intended for overall general weight loss but rather for those who want to smooth out (or ‘contour’) a particular part of their body. This distinction is crucial, as cryolipolysis is designed to target localised fat deposits and enhance body shape, rather than serve as a solution for significant weight reduction.
Hot body slimming technologies
In contrast to cold methods, hot body slimming technologies utilise heat to achieve fat reduction. These treatments typically employ energy-based devices such as radiofrequency, laser, or microwave technology to heat the fat cells. The heat causes the fat cells to break down, and the body’s lymphatic system then eliminates them naturally.
Microwave-based body contouring is one of the emerging non-invasive technologies explored in aesthetic medicine for managing localised fat deposits and improving skin texture. Among these, Onda by Deka, which utilises microwave energy to deliver thermal effects into deeper layers of subcutaneous tissue. This process assists in the breakdown of fat cells and support collagen stimulation within the dermal layer.
Unlike conventional radiofrequency systems, which typically deliver energy more superficially, microwave energy is designed to reach deeper adipose layers, potentially offering more uniform thermal distribution. Some clinical studies have observed improvements in skin firmness and texture following microwave-based treatments, although outcomes can vary between individuals.
Onda has been used in aesthetic practices to address concerns such as cellulite and skin laxity on areas like the thighs, upper arms, abdomen, and buttocks. It can also be considered for smaller areas, such as the submental region. The treatment is generally described as comfortable, with a sensation of warmth during application. As with other non-invasive fat reduction technologies, downtime is minimal, though multiple sessions may be recommended based on individual assessments and goals.
Studies have shown that hot body slimming technologies, including microwave treatments like Onda, are effective in reducing localised fat and improving skin laxity. A clinical study published reported significant fat reduction, cellulite improvement, and skin tightening in patients who underwent microwave body contouring treatments3. This makes hot body slimming technologies an excellent option for individuals looking to address both fat and skin concerns simultaneously.
* Onda is among the body sculpting treatments available for aesthetic use.
Cold vs hot methods: Which is right for you?
When deciding between cold and hot body slimming technologies, several factors should be considered, including the area of concern, the desired results, and individual preferences. Cold methods, such as cryolipolysis, are ideal for individuals who want to target specific areas of stubborn fat and are looking for a non-invasive option with minimal discomfort2. This method is particularly effective for those with a relatively stable weight and small pockets of fat that are resistant to diet and exercise.
On the other hand, hot methods like Onda by Deka are more suitable for individuals who want to address both fat reduction and skin laxity. The heat-based approach not only targets fat cells but also stimulates collagen production, resulting in smoother, tighter skin3. This dual-action makes it an attractive option for those concerned about cellulite or sagging skin in addition to fat reduction.
It’s also important to consider the number of treatments required and the time it takes to see results. While both methods are effective, the outcomes and timeframes can vary. Cold methods typically require a longer period to see the full effects, while hot methods may offer more immediate skin-tightening benefits alongside fat reduction.
Ultimately, the choice between cold and hot body slimming technologies should be made in consultation with a qualified dermatologist. A personalised assessment will help determine which method aligns best with your body goals and lifestyle. Additionally, it’s crucial to have realistic expectations and understand that these treatments are not substitutes for a healthy diet and regular exercise.
Conclusion
Body slimming technologies have revolutionised the way individuals approach fat reduction and body contouring. With both cold and hot methods available, there is a wide range of options to suit different needs and preferences. Whether you are considering cryolipolysis for targeted fat loss or Onda by Deka for a combination of fat reduction and skin tightening, these non-invasive treatments offer promising results with minimal downtime.
At Angeline Yong Dermatology, we are committed to helping you achieve your aesthetic goals through personalised treatment plans tailored to your unique needs. Our dermatology clinic in Singapore offers a comprehensive range of services, including body slimming technologies.
References
Ellis, R., & Altomara, D. (n.d.). Coolsculpting for fat loss: Risks, Side Effects. WebMD. https://www.webmd.com/beauty/coolsculpting
Mulholland, R. S., Paul, M. D., & Chalfoun, C. (2011). Noninvasive body contouring with radiofrequency, ultrasound, cryolipolysis, and low-level laser therapy. Clinics in plastic surgery, 38(3), 503–iii. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2011.05.002
Bennardo, L., Fusco, I., Cuciti, C., Sicilia, C., Salsi, B., Cannarozzo, G., Hoffmann, K., & Nisticò, S. P. (2022). Microwave Therapy for Cellulite: An Effective Non-Invasive Treatment. Journal of clinical medicine, 11(3), 515. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030515