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 reviewed Nood’s Flasher Pro, an at-home intense pulsed light (IPL) hair-removal device, after spending $3,600 plus tip on professional treatments. After about a month of use, she reported finer hair and slower regrowth, but the account is a personal review, not evidence that results are guaranteed or comparable to clinic treatments.
Marie Claire published a first-person review of Nood’s Flasher Pro, an at-home intense pulsed light hair-removal device, in which the writer says she saw finer-feeling hair and slower regrowth after about a month. The review compares that experience with the writer’s earlier $3,600 professional hair-removal course, plus tip, but it does not establish that the device will produce the same results for other users.
The reviewer says she used the device on her legs after researching at-home IPL products and initially doubting that home devices could make a noticeable difference. She describes the Flasher Pro as intuitive to operate and says treating both legs took about 15 minutes. She selected intensity level three and continuous mode, and reported feeling warmth and a mild, rubber-band-like snap during treatment.
After several treatments, the writer noticed that her leg hair seemed to grow back more slowly and feel finer. At roughly the one-month mark, she said she could go a week without shaving and had little stubble. Hair was still growing, she stressed; the change she described was softer regrowth, not complete removal.
The article says the device uses intense pulsed light (IPL), which sends broad-spectrum light into the skin and uses heat to affect hair follicles. It lists the Flasher Pro’s output as 7 joules per square centimeter and describes a cooling tip. The report’s comparison says an in-office device operates at about 20–25 J/cm², while the Braun Silk Expert Pro 5 is listed at 3–6 J/cm². These figures are presented in the source article and do not, by themselves, show how well any device works for a particular person.
What a Month of Home IPL Showed
The review speaks to a practical question for people weighing cost, convenience and ongoing hair reduction: can an at-home device make regrowth less noticeable without repeated clinic visits? The writer’s account suggests she observed a change after regular use, but it is one person’s experience and cannot establish typical outcomes or savings.
The reported treatment schedule is also a meaningful commitment. The reviewer says Nood recommends use every three days for eight weeks, weekly treatments for four weeks after that, and monthly maintenance. Buyers comparing this with professional services should account for the time and recurring use, as well as the device’s price, which is not stated in the supplied report.
IPL suitability and safety vary. The article says treatment tends to work best when there is strong contrast between skin tone and hair color, and warns that some hair and skin combinations may respond poorly or carry added risk. That makes individual suitability more consequential than a single positive review.
Popular right now
Vitamix 64 oz Low-Profile Blender Container with SELF-DETECT, BPA-Free
Vitamix Touch & Go Advance 32-Ounce Bar Blender, White
Samsung 65-Inch QN70FA Neo QLED 4K Smart TV with 8-Foot WireLogic Ruby Ultra High Speed HDMI Cable (2025)
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Reviewer Tested the Device
The writer says her earlier professional course cost $3,600 plus tip for 16 sessions, which had already reduced hair enough to change her shaving routine. She was considering treating her legs and arms but did not want to spend another large amount on professional services. The headline’s roughly $4,000 framing refers to that past spending; it is not a stated price for the Nood device.
Before treating her full legs, the reviewer says she tested a small area on her upper thigh and waited 48 hours to check for a reaction. She then exfoliated and shaved before using the device, following the article’s explanation that shaving helps direct light toward the follicle rather than hair above the skin.
The report cites dermatologist Joshua Zeichner, who explains that IPL is better described as hair reduction than guaranteed permanent removal. The writer also notes that she has pale skin and light-brown hair and considers herself a less-than-ideal candidate compared with someone with darker hair. Her results should be read with those personal details in mind.
““I’ve been using it for a month and am pretty shocked by the results.””
— Marie Claire reviewer
Results and Safety Vary
The supplied report does not include an independent trial of the Flasher Pro, a sample of multiple users, or longer-term follow-up. It is therefore unclear how common the reviewer’s results are, how long they may last, or how much maintenance will be needed. The account also does not establish that the device can replace professional treatment or deliver equivalent results.
The article says the device has FDA clearance, but the supplied material does not specify the clearance details or provide enough information to assess the scope of that status. It warns of potential injury, burns and pigmentation changes from at-home use. The source also advises against use for people with blonde, red or gray hair or deep/dark skin tones; readers should consult the device’s current instructions and a qualified clinician about their own circumstances rather than rely on the review alone.
The writer’s experience at level three cannot predict how another person will respond at a different setting. The report does not provide the device’s price, independent safety data, or a direct cost comparison between the device and a course of professional treatments.
Follow-Up Will Test Durability
The review describes only about one month of use, while the schedule it gives extends through an eight-week initial phase, four weeks of weekly treatments and monthly maintenance. Longer follow-up would be needed to show whether the writer’s reduced-feeling regrowth continues and how often she needs to treat afterward.
Readers considering the device can check the manufacturer’s current directions, eligibility guidance, safety warnings and pricing, then discuss IPL suitability with a dermatologist or other qualified professional—especially if they have a skin condition, take medication that affects light sensitivity, or are unsure whether their skin and hair combination is appropriate. The source does not provide a later update or a confirmed next review milestone.
Key Questions
What did the Marie Claire reviewer report after using the Flasher Pro?
After about a month, she said her leg hair felt finer and grew back more slowly. She still had hair growth and described her experience rather than a guaranteed outcome.
Is Nood’s Flasher Pro a laser device?
The report identifies it as an IPL device, which uses broad-spectrum pulses of light. IPL is not the same technology as the laser treatment the writer previously received professionally.
Does the review show that the device replaces professional treatments?
No. The article recounts one person’s experience and does not provide a direct clinical comparison or evidence that the device replaces professional treatment.
What precautions did the reviewer describe?
She tested a small area and waited 48 hours before treating her legs, shaved beforehand and read the instructions. The article warns that at-home IPL can cause injury, burns or pigmentation changes and says suitability varies by skin tone and hair color. Follow the device’s current safety directions and seek professional guidance if uncertain.
How much did the reviewer spend on professional hair removal?
She reported paying $3,600 plus tip for 16 sessions. The supplied report does not state the Flasher Pro’s price, so it does not establish how much a buyer would save.
Source: marieclaire.com
