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 says she noticed slower-growing, softer leg hair after about a month using Nood’s Flasher Pro, an at-home intense pulsed light device. Her experience is an individual report, not proof of results for other users; IPL can cause injury and may be unsuitable for some skin and hair tones.
Marie Claire’s review of Nood’s Flasher Pro reports that its writer noticed slower-growing, softer leg hair after about a month using the at-home intense pulsed light (IPL) device. The account offers a personal experience for readers weighing home treatments against professional hair removal, but it does not establish that other users will see the same results.
The reviewer said she had paid $3,600 plus a tip for 16 professional sessions and had been considering treating her legs and arms as well. She tested the Nood device after friends asked her about home hair-removal options. The supplied review describes her experience; it does not provide a controlled comparison between the device and professional treatment.
The Flasher Pro uses IPL, or intense pulsed light, rather than the same treatment setup used in a dermatologist’s office. The report gives its energy output as 7 joules per square centimeter, compared with a cited 3–6 J/cm² for Braun’s Silk Expert Pro 5 and roughly 20–25 J/cm² for an in-office device. Those figures describe the devices’ reported output; they do not by themselves show how well or safely a person will respond.
The writer used the device on level three, selected continuous mode and treated both legs in about 15 minutes. After several sessions, she said the hair seemed finer and regrew more slowly. At roughly one month, she said she could go a week without shaving and had little stubble. She also said hair continued to grow, but felt softer. These are the reviewer’s observations, not independently verified measurements.
What Home IPL Can—and Cannot—Show
The review highlights the trade-off for readers considering home IPL: a device may offer a more convenient option than repeated clinic appointments, but its results can be gradual and vary by person. In the reviewer’s account, the change was reduced stubble and slower regrowth, not complete or permanent hair removal.
Cost is part of the appeal. The writer compared the device with her own $3,600 professional-treatment bill, but the supplied source does not state the Flasher Pro’s price. It also does not show that buying the device would replace a course of clinic treatments or produce equivalent results. Readers should treat the comparison as personal context, not a demonstrated cost-saving calculation.
Safety and suitability matter alongside convenience. IPL works by directing light toward pigment in hair, and the review says it is less effective on blonde, red or gray hair and can pose risks for darker skin tones. The reviewer also warns that at-home devices can cause burns or unwanted pigmentation. Her comfortable experience on one skin and hair combination cannot establish safety for everyone.
Products Worth Considering
Garmin Forerunner 570 GPS Running Smartwatch, 42 mm, Raspberry, with P-Bank Bundle
Therabody Theragun Mini 3rd Generation Massage Gun, Black
Therabody JetBoots Prime Wireless Compression Boots – Regular 30-34 Inseam
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Reviewer Tested the Device
The reviewer said she began skeptical of at-home hair-removal devices and read product instructions before treating her legs. She first tried a small test spot on her upper thigh and waited 48 hours to check for a reaction. Before treatment, she exfoliated and shaved, which the article says helps direct light toward the follicle rather than hair above the skin.
The product offers five intensity settings and single-flash or continuous modes, according to the review. Its recommended schedule is to use it every three days for eight weeks, then weekly for four weeks, followed by monthly maintenance. The writer stayed at level three because her skin was sensitive and she wanted to be cautious.
Dermatologist Joshua Zeichner, whom Marie Claire cited, described IPL as broad-spectrum light that generates heat in the hair follicle. He said the treatment is more effective when there is strong contrast between skin tone and hair color. The article says professional devices operate at higher energy levels than the home products it compares, while lower output in home devices is intended to reduce risk.
“I’ve been using it for a month and am pretty shocked by the results.”
— Marie Claire reviewer
Who May See Different Results
The supplied report does not give the device’s price, identify the date of publication, or provide results from a clinical trial of this reviewer’s use. It also does not include objective hair counts, a comparison group, or follow-up beyond about one month. The reviewer’s reported changes therefore cannot establish how durable the results are or how they compare with professional treatments.
The writer described herself as a less-than-ideal candidate because she has pale skin and light-brown hair. The article says IPL may work less well on blonde, red or gray hair and may be risky on darker skin tones, but the supplied material does not provide a complete skin-tone eligibility chart. It is also unclear how often users experience side effects or how the device performs across a wider range of users.
The Eight-Week Treatment Schedule
The review describes a longer routine than the writer’s first month of use: treatment every three days for eight weeks, weekly sessions for the next four weeks, and monthly maintenance after that. The article does not report her outcome after completing that schedule, so the longer-term effect remains unknown.
Anyone considering a home IPL device should read its full instructions, check whether their skin tone and hair color are suitable, and follow the maker’s safety guidance. The reviewer recommends testing a small area before broader use. People uncertain about whether IPL is appropriate for them can seek advice from a qualified dermatologist or other health professional.
Key Questions
What results did the Marie Claire reviewer report?
After about a month, she said her leg hair grew back more slowly and felt softer, with little stubble after a week without shaving. That is one person’s account, not a guaranteed outcome.
Is Nood’s Flasher Pro a laser device?
The review describes it as an IPL device, which uses broad-spectrum light. The article quotes dermatologist Joshua Zeichner saying the process is better understood as hair reduction, since complete eradication may be difficult.
How often does the review say to use it?
The schedule in the article is every three days for eight weeks, then weekly for four weeks, followed by monthly maintenance. Users should follow the device’s own instructions and avoid treating the same area twice in one pass.
Who may not be a suitable candidate for IPL?
The article says IPL is less effective on blonde, red or gray hair and may be risky on darker skin tones. The supplied report does not include a full eligibility guide, so people should check the manufacturer’s guidance and seek professional advice if unsure.
Does the review show that the device is cheaper than professional treatment?
No. The writer reported spending $3,600 plus a tip on 16 professional sessions, but the supplied source does not state the Flasher Pro’s price or establish that it delivers comparable results.
Source: marieclaire.com
