cosmetics that heal and improve, a discussion from the side of biology

belassi

Member

December 17, 2014 at 11:14 am

Perry, your comments make sense.

I have been trying to develop a hair restorer (yes you can start laughing now!) with zero success. I put everything in it that I could find that might have an effect (excepting drugs such as Minoxidil). For instance, Trichogen(tm), which is really expensive, was just one component. Our testers reported no effect whatsoever. It has occurred to me that I might buy some human hair growth factor from one of those Chinese biotech companies, but then, would it be safe… such things are after all growth hormones, not just cosmetic ingredients.

I do use ingredients that have a metabolic effect on cells. For instance, Proteasyl TP LS8657. The manufacturer’s published data states that it inhibits elastase and collegenase, which I would have thought are metabolic effects. We’ve been using this in an anti-wrinkle cream with excellent results. I assume that in the USA it would not be a permitted ingredient?

otherhalf

Member

December 17, 2014 at 11:15 am

@belassi

Hair is kind of a dead end, it is dead.

You either prevent damage or just manage it.

Edit: also, I never heard in my field of such a thing called human hair growth factor.

Sexual hormones, neurotrophins and kgf are min inducers of growth (hence on growth, not restoration)

OldPerry

Member

December 17, 2014 at 5:13 pm

@otherhalf - ah, certainly there are lots of ingredients that affect the metabolism of skin. But there are scant few that affect the skin when delivered from a topical treatment.

Vitamin C doesn’t stay stable long enough in a cream to have any real effect.

Vitamin E doesn’t penetrate deep enough to have much noticeable effect.

And the thing about cosmetics is it’s all in the way the claim is written. It would be illegal to say that your skin cream “removes wrinkles” but it is perfectly ok to say your skin cream “diminished the appearance of wrinkles.”

@belassi - sure you could use Proteasyl TP, you just can’t say that it will remove wrinkles. Plus, I doubt that it has much effect when delivered from a topical treatment. Just because an ingredient can “inhibit elastase and collegenase” doesn’t mean that it will. It has to get down deep enough in the Dermis to have an effect. This rarely happens.

Also, the claim “inhibits elastase and collagenase”. What does this exactly mean? This is a typical undefined claim that you find with antiaging ingredients. To be able to support what the claim implies you have to know what is the baseline production level of Elastase or Collagenase. Who knows this for any person? No one. Then to “inhibit production” you would have to quantify before and after when delivered from a topical skin cream. How would you do this?

Realistically, you can probably claim ANY ingredient “inhibits” these enzymes. It’s just a puffery claim.

@otherhalf - while hair is dead, the hair follicles are not dead. If you could restart the growth in the follicle you could restore hair.

otherhalf

Member

December 17, 2014 at 6:29 pm

@perry

It is quite demoralizing to see cosmetics under a purely economical light. It seems like it is more snake oil than it needs to be.

You are also mistaken on your knowledge of biological actives

I would suggest starting with this review:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23369589/?i=6&from=topical%20vitamin%20c%20metabolism

And this paper

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23691100 Vitamin c is taken up by glu4 receptores it really does not need a deep effect because of cell-cell communication.

Regarding the hair:
I mentioned in my own post, you can only act on growth, but the mentioned growth factor does not exist.

OldPerry

Member

December 17, 2014 at 7:41 pm

The claims are what make cosmetics seem like snake oil. The products work very well to make skin look and feel better.

Thanks for the links to the papers.

I’d encourage you to check out the following review of anti-aging ingredients noting particularly the three Kligman questions. For any ingredient you believe has an effect, see if the three Kligman questions are answered.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921764/

I don’t have access to the first article you linked to but I found an open access version of the second paper you mentioned. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653797/

It’s quite likely that I misunderstand something as I’ve been away from biological research for many years, but I don’t see how the second paper supports your position.

From the paper “At the end of the study, female mice treated topically with C E Ferulic exhibited a 34% decrease in tumor burden compared to mice treated with vehicle (Figure 1B); however, probably as a result of variability due to the outbred nature of this strain of mice, the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.6047). “

Also…”Examining the change in tumor burden over time, we found that tumor growth rates did not significantly differ between mice treated topically with C E Ferulic and those treated with vehicle (Figure 1C).”

The authors later claim that “Tumor number and burden were decreased in C E Ferulic-treated mice compared to vehicle-treated mice” but at the same time say the differences were not statistically significant. I don’t understand the point. What am I missing?

I don’t mean to be demoralizing. Creating cosmetics is fun and it really has an impact on the way people feel about themselves.

But science is science and reality is just how it is. If things are not the way we want them to be we shouldn’t pretend that they are. As scientists it is up to us to have the highest standards when it comes to proof of effectiveness.

I’m willing to believe, but before I start recommending to formulators that they should put a specific ingredient in a formula at a certain level because it’s going to have some effect on the skin, I want to know whether that is demonstrably true or not.

If you can’t demonstrate that an ingredient used at a significant level is superior to using a drop of that ingredient then there is really no reason to use a high level.

belassi

Member

December 17, 2014 at 7:48 pm

Compared with our standard face cream, without the Proteasyl, I found quite a big difference - visible in days. I don’t have any doubt myself that it works. I did tester trials with this and two other ingredients from the same lab (Laboratoires Serobiologique) and found it the best of them, although all seemed better than the standard moisturiser. (The other two were Hyalurosmooth and Firmiderm LS 9120).

The tests resulted in two products, one is an anti-wrinkle cream for night use, the other is a gel for morning use. The cream was already our most popular product, the gel is catching up. We often get people buying the pair as a system.

otherhalf

Member

December 17, 2014 at 9:26 pm

@belassi

What is that compound? What is it supposed to do?

Serobiologique has some pretty awesome things

Tell me more!

otherhalf

Member

December 17, 2014 at 9:37 pm

@perry

The papers I proposed in my last post are just the demonstrate that these compounds actually can modulate cell metabolism, not to prove that they cure cancer ah ah ah

Also, I tend not to trust on kligman work after the 90’s when it was found that he forged data and was banned by the fda.

He created retin a i will always be thankful

My skin would not be what it is without it.

But, take his opinion with a grain of salt.

I do know of a few actives that work. And fortunately there other people that also believe in them and put out products that are science backed.

OldPerry

Member

December 18, 2014 at 8:52 am

@otherhalf - In the link I posted I wasn’t referring to any Kligman data. I was referring to the 3 Kligman questions that everyone should ask when evaluating any anti-aging ingredient. Whether he forged data or not, these questions are still important and should be answered for any anti-aging active. Here they are.

1. Can the active ingredient penetrate the stratum corneum (SC) and be delivered in sufficient concentrations to its intended target in the skin over a time course consistent with its mechanism of action?

2. Does the active ingredient have a known specific biochemical mechanism of action in the target cell or tissue in human skin?

3. Are there published, peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled, statistically significant, clinical trials to substantiate the efficacy claims?

Science is not about belief, it is about evidence and what you can prove. Cosmetics is about getting people to believe in stories and buy products. As scientists we need to be careful that we don’t fall for marketing BS just because we want to believe.

otherhalf

Member

December 18, 2014 at 10:42 am

@perry

If you read the papers I posted you already know the answer to the 3 k questions.

And yes, as scientists there is a need to separate waters, at the same time it is disappointing to see the cognitive dissonance between knowing what works and cash cow what doesn’t.

I guess the science just isn’t reaching the consumers, allowing for quackery to reach everyone’s homes.

OldPerry

Member

December 18, 2014 at 12:56 pm

@otherhalf - which of the papers you’ve posted (or that you know of) satisfy Question 3 posted above?