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 reviewer said one month of using Nood’s Flasher Pro at-home IPL device left her leg hair finer and slower to return. Her account is a personal product review, not proof of results for all users; IPL can carry risks and may not work well for every skin tone and hair color.
Marie Claire published a first-person review of Nood’s Flasher Pro, an at-home intense pulsed light (IPL) hair-removal device, after the writer said she had spent $3,600 plus tip on 16 professional sessions. After about a month of use, she reported finer, slower-growing leg hair, while stressing that the device did not stop hair from growing and that individual results and safety risks vary.
The reviewer said she had initially doubted at-home hair-removal devices, then chose the Flasher Pro after researching products, looking at before-and-after photos and clinical studies, and hearing from friends asking for recommendations. Her account describes her own use; it does not establish that other consumers will see the same results or that the device matches professional treatment.
The Flasher Pro uses intense pulsed light, which directs broad-spectrum light toward pigment in hair. The report gives its output as 7 joules per square centimeter and says the device has a cooling tip. For comparison, the article lists Braun’s Silk Expert Pro 5 at 3–6 joules per square centimeter and in-office equipment at about 20–25. These figures describe power output, not a direct measure of effectiveness or safety.
The writer used the device on her legs, selecting intensity level three and continuous mode, and said both legs took about 15 minutes. She reported warmth and a mild snapping sensation, followed by less stubble and slower regrowth after several treatments. The recommended schedule in the review is use every three days for eight weeks, weekly for four weeks, then monthly maintenance; readers should follow the device’s own instructions and suitability guidance.
At-Home IPL Has Limits
The review speaks to consumers weighing the cost and convenience of professional treatments versus home devices. The writer’s reported improvement came after repeated sessions, not a single use, and she said hair continued to grow. The experience is a useful account of one person’s routine, but it is not independent clinical evidence that the device will produce comparable results for others.
IPL’s reliance on pigment also limits who may be a suitable user. The report says the treatment tends to work best when there is strong contrast between skin and hair, and may be less effective on blonde, red, or gray hair. It also cautions that darker skin tones may face greater risk. Potential buyers should check the manufacturer’s eligibility and safety instructions and seek professional advice if uncertain, rather than treating a review as a substitute for individualized guidance.
Products Worth Considering
Garmin Forerunner 55 GPS Running Smartwatch, Black
Philips Sonicare 5950 Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush with 2 Brush Heads, Pink
Oral-B iO Series 3 Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush for Adults, Black, 3 Modes, 2 Brush Heads and Travel Case
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From Clinic Sessions to Home Use
The writer said her prior professional course involved 16 sessions costing $3,600 plus tip. She described that treatment as effective for her, but said the expense made her reluctant to have additional areas treated. The Flasher Pro entered her consideration as a lower-commitment option for legs and arms, though the supplied report does not provide a verified price for the device or a cost comparison over time.
IPL is related to, but not identical with, the laser treatments commonly offered in clinics. The report cites dermatologist Joshua Zeichner explaining that IPL uses broad-spectrum light and that hair-removal results are better when skin and hair have contrasting pigment. Zeichner also cautioned that the goal is often hair reduction rather than complete, permanent removal. The reviewer said her pale skin and light-brown hair made her a less-than-ideal candidate, which is relevant to interpreting her results.
“After a month, she said she could go a week without shaving and have “barely any stubble.””
— Marie Claire reviewer
Results and Safety Vary
The source is a single-user review and does not report a controlled trial, a standardized hair count, or long-term follow-up. It is unclear how durable the reviewer’s reported reduction will be, how outcomes compare across users, or whether the device performs similarly on other body areas. The supplied material also does not establish the product’s price, sales figures, or a verified cost saving against clinic treatment.
The report warns of possible injury, burns, and unwanted pigmentation from home IPL devices. It advises a test spot and a 48-hour wait before broader treatment, and says the device should be avoided by people with blonde, red, or gray hair or deep/dark skin tones. Those cautions are based on the source report; users should consult the current device instructions and a qualified clinician about personal suitability. The review’s mention of FDA clearance does not, by itself, establish that every use is risk-free.
Follow-Up and User Guidance
The reviewer’s account covers roughly one month, while the schedule described in the article runs for several more weeks before monthly maintenance. Longer-term results are not included in the supplied material. Any further assessment would need to track outcomes beyond the initial month and distinguish reduced regrowth from permanent removal.
For readers considering the product, the practical next step is to review the manufacturer’s current instructions, check skin-tone and hair-color eligibility, and perform any required test patch before treatment. Anyone with concerns about pigmentation, skin sensitivity, or whether IPL is appropriate should consult a qualified professional. No further company response or independent comparative testing was included in the source material.
Key Questions
What did the Marie Claire reviewer report?
After about a month with Nood’s Flasher Pro, she said her leg hair felt finer and grew back more slowly. She still had hair growth; her account is an individual experience, not a guarantee.
How does the Flasher Pro work?
The device uses intense pulsed light, which targets pigment in hair with broad-spectrum light. The report says results tend to be better when hair is darker than the surrounding skin.
Does at-home IPL permanently remove hair?
The supplied report does not establish permanent removal. Dermatologist Joshua Zeichner described the process as hair reduction, and the reviewer said hair continued to grow after treatment.
Who may not be a suitable candidate?
The review says IPL may be less effective on blonde, red, or gray hair and may pose added risk on darker skin tones. Check the product’s current eligibility guidance and consult a qualified professional if unsure.
What safety steps did the reviewer describe?
She tested a small area and waited 48 hours, shaved before treatment, and read the instructions carefully. Home IPL can cause burns or pigmentation changes, so users should follow the manufacturer’s instructions and stop if they have a concerning reaction.
Source: marieclaire.com
