TL;DR
Get beauty and skincare favorites delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
A Marie Claire writer who spent $3,600 plus tip on professional hair removal says a month of using Nood’s Flasher Pro left her leg hair finer and slower to return. That is one person’s experience, not proof of equivalent results to professional treatment; IPL devices carry skin and eye-safety risks and may not suit every skin or hair color.
A Marie Claire writer says Nood’s Flasher Pro, an at-home intense pulsed light (IPL) hair-removal device, made her leg hair feel finer and grow back more slowly after about a month of use. The account is a single-user review, not a clinical comparison with professional laser treatment, which the writer said had cost her $3,600 plus tip for 16 sessions.
The writer said she began testing the device after friends asked her about at-home hair removal and after reviewing products, before-and-after images and clinical studies. She described herself as initially skeptical of home-use devices. For the test, she treated both legs and said a session took about 15 minutes. She used level three and continuous mode, after first testing a small area and waiting 48 hours without a reaction.
Nood’s device uses IPL rather than professional in-office laser treatment. The review gives its output as 7 joules per square centimeter, compared with a stated 3–6 J/cm² for Braun’s Silk Expert Pro 5 and about 20–25 J/cm² for an in-office device. The writer said the Flasher Pro has a cooling tip intended to reduce surface heat. Those product specifications and safety descriptions are reported in the review; they do not establish that the device is risk-free or that its results match clinic treatment.
The writer reported little immediate change, then noticed finer-feeling hair and slower regrowth after several treatments. At roughly one month, she said she could go a week without shaving and had little stubble, though hair was still growing. The review describes a proposed schedule of use every three days for eight weeks, weekly for four more weeks, then monthly maintenance. The writer had not completed that schedule, so longer-term results were not established.
What One Month of Home IPL Showed
The review speaks to a practical choice for people weighing ongoing clinic costs against an at-home device. The writer’s reported professional treatment bill was substantial, while the home device offered a way to treat her legs herself. However, the account does not provide a price comparison, a controlled test, or evidence that home IPL can replace professional care for other users.
Results can vary with skin tone, hair color and treatment consistency. The writer described pale skin and light-brown hair, which she said made her a less favorable candidate than someone with very dark hair. She also noted she had not yet finished the recommended course. Readers should treat the outcome as an early personal report rather than a guarantee of lasting hair removal or a prediction of their own results.
Products Worth Considering
Hyperice Hypervolt 3 Pro Percussion Massage Gun with Heated Head and Carry Case
Hyperice Hypervolt 3 Percussion Massage Gun with Heated Head and Carry Case
BowFlex Results Series SelectTech Adjustable Dumbbells, Pair
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Device Differs From Clinic Treatment
IPL devices send broad-spectrum light into the skin, where it is absorbed by pigment and converted to heat. In the review, dermatologist Joshua Zeichner explained that the approach works best when hair and skin have strong contrast, such as dark hair against pale skin. The source says it is less effective on blonde or red hair and may pose risks for darker skin tones.
The review distinguishes IPL from in-office laser treatment and says home devices use lower energy levels. It reports that the Flasher Pro’s 7 J/cm² output is higher than the range cited for one popular home competitor, but lower than the stated range for an in-office device. The writer’s $3,600 expenditure covered 16 professional sessions; the review does not establish that the treatments covered the same body areas or produced comparable outcomes to the device test.
““After a handful of treatments, my hair started to feel finer and grow back more slowly.””
— Marie Claire writer
Long-Term Results and User Suitability
The review does not report the outcome after the full 12-week initial schedule or after monthly maintenance. It also does not provide independent testing of the device’s performance, a comparison trial against professional treatment, or enough detail to determine how typical the writer’s results are. Her account of limited stubble after a month is subjective and does not establish permanent hair removal.
Individual safety and suitability remain important unknowns. The article warns that IPL may be less effective on blonde, red or gray hair and may be risky on deep or dark skin tones. The source also notes risks including burns and unwanted pigmentation, even with home-use devices. Readers should follow the device instructions, assess whether it is appropriate for their skin and hair, and seek professional guidance if they have concerns. The review does not specify whether every reader should use the same intensity or schedule.
The Remaining Treatment Schedule
The writer’s account covers about one month of use, while the schedule described in the review calls for eight weeks of treatment every three days, followed by four weeks of weekly sessions and monthly maintenance. Further reporting or an updated review would be needed to establish whether the early changes persist, whether maintenance is required, and how the device performs for different users. No additional test results or follow-up date are provided in the source.
Key Questions
What did the Marie Claire writer report after a month?
She said her leg hair felt finer and softer, grew back more slowly, and left little stubble after a week without shaving. Hair was still growing, and these were her personal observations after roughly a month.
Is Nood’s Flasher Pro a laser device?
The review describes it as an IPL device, which uses broad-spectrum pulses of light. It is not the same treatment as an in-office laser device.
Can the device permanently remove hair?
The review does not establish permanent removal. Dermatologist Joshua Zeichner characterized the outcome as hair reduction, which may mean slower growth and thinner strands rather than complete eradication.
Who may get weaker results or face added risk?
The source says IPL tends to work better with strong contrast between skin and hair. It may be less effective on blonde, red or gray hair and may carry risks for people with deep or dark skin tones. Check the device’s guidance and consult a qualified professional if unsure.
What safety steps did the writer take?
She tested a small area and waited 48 hours before treating her legs, then shaved before use and followed the device instructions. She also chose level three. Her approach is a description of one user’s routine, not a substitute for the manufacturer’s directions or individual professional advice.
Source: marieclaire.com
