-
Does heating destroy Aloe Vera’s properties?
Hi,
I want to start using Aloe in some of my skincare products, in the first place for the family members who want me to add it.
Myself, I’m not convinced yet about its properties, because I can’t find evidence about it being so great and I only use actives in my own products based on irrefutable evidence.Since Aloe contains mostly water I was thinking of changing the whole % of water to Aloe Vera juice/gel.
If I put this in a O/W moisturizer, can I heat it up to about 60-70C, to make it the same temperature as the emulsifiers/oil phase? Would it destroy too many of its, supposedly, good properties?
If so, would it be better to add it in a lower % to the cooling phase or in a cold process serum?Thanks.
-
35 Replies
-
Like you, I have never been convinced of any positive effects obtained by aloe. One thing I have used it for, with advantage, is a soothing application of a stripped aloe leaf to minor burns - but a similar effect is obtainable with a sliced cucumber, a piece of melon or even a wet cloth.
If you feel obliged to use aloe at your “customer’s” insistence then you can obtain aloe powder or concentrates which are added near the end of processing thus avoiding adverse temperatures.
-
Exactly. Many companies have built their whole image around it and use it as main ingredient, must be something psychological? It looks healthy, green and succulent. But indeed, so does a cucumber.
About the powders. I’ve just read in a link that the plant is undergoing high temperatures in the drying process to obtain the powder.
I think I tell my family to visit the garden centre and just buy the plant. Strip a leaf and stop bugging me. o:)
-
Using the fresh plant will show how slimy and sticky fresh aloe juice/pulp really is!
Cucumber and melon are much more pleasant - and easily available at the greengrocers.
-
I always suspected it feeling like pure glycerin. :#
To think people also eat/drink this stuff. “It’s a strong detox! I got rid of my constipation immediately!” Yeah, so does a gastric flu virus.
Cucumber has indeed a pleasant feel, non sticky. When I was younger and stupid enough to sunbathe, I used to slice cucumber and put it on sunburns.
-
@Doreen81:
Your best bet us to use dried Aloe Powder and reconstitute it in your water phase at 1% for a 100X Aloe Powder … this effectively gives you aloe leaf juice. Liquid Aloe is very expensive compared to this alternative.
Don’t worry about heat … it will not affect anything relative to Aloe.
Yes, you are correct, Aloe has no documented evidence of being effective in skin care, but has a long history of use. Look at it this way … it certainly will not do any harm and if your clients desire it in their products … it’s adding all of 2 minutes to your formulation to add-in aloe powder.
-
Ok, thanks! I’ll try the concentrate to keep the ‘customer’ satisfied.
Good to hear that heat doesn’t affect its properties in a negative way. -
heat will not affect it but could never demonstrate any effectiveness for it in clinical testing.However it does keep some customers happy.
-
At best Aloe is a humectant / moisturizing ingredient so heating to temperatures below the BP of water won’t have any negative effect.
-
I can’t agree with the comments disparaging the effectiveness of aloe vera. We have seen very clear results using 100% aloe cream (based on x10 liquid concentrate) including: very rapid elimination of bruises; effective treatment of burns (first and second degree); big reduction in irritation (used on dermatitis). In addition there are peer reviewed studies, at least one of which showed that aloe cream was MORE effective than the standard (silver based) treatment for severe burns.
-
@Doreen81
1. the “good properties” has first to be defined.
2. this(heat vs no heat) has never been documented as far as I know.
3. In general heating (=energy) induces change (chemical reactions) and things could therefore happen. If you believe in the good properties of Aloe, handle it with care. -
> To think people also eat/drink this stuff. “It’s a strong detox! I got rid of my constipation immediately!”
Just an FYI, aloe vera is a mucilent (mucilage); it creates a slime in the intestine. which is, what some people need. and its well-tested, there are tons of people in Latin cultures who drink it.
the key, for consumption (drinking), is to use the gel on the interior of the leaf, and not the entire leaf. If you are getting a “detox” effect, its because you are likely drinking a “whole leaf” extract (maceration of the entire leaf, rather than physical extraction of the interior of the leaf).
as to inflammation (or burns) it definitely is bioactive. with respect to burns, you need to reduce the heat in the tissues (without cycling with cold!). Any water/nano slurry will technically suck the heat out, almost immediately (i.e. try toothpaste slurried next time!).
But, aloe-vera also hydrates, and I suspect highly is bioactive with respect to actual inflammation. that it also sucks out heat is actually a byproduct of the hydrogel (as in it contributes, part, but not all of the effect). in this respect a thick slurry of toothpaste, works better (heat removal).
countless people, across countless cultures, have aloe vera plants in their kitchens. this is not, arbitrary. if you think that this plant, is somehow “fairy dust”, you need to seriously reconsider your position.
-
@aperson I totally agree that the fresh plant juice ifself is certainly no fairy dust, niether is orange juice or vitamins. However, aloe can not be used in cosmetics as an anti-inflammatory bioactive since this would make it a medicine. Therefore people are usually using a tiny bit of the powder for the marketing story.
-
yes I am understanding, that you (as chemists) are in between a rock and a hard place (having read a large set of older posts). that is, any “biologically active” botanical (claim, ingredient covered by monograph) triggers OTC.
Which in turn means that “functional” percentage use of ingredients (required amounts for therapeutic use), is essentially unknown in “cosmetics” formulation, leaving you stuck putting in 1%’ers, which does nothing but screw up the chemistry of your products, without any actual gain.
I empathize. Having read, probably around 100 discussions on this forum, it is easy to see why “naturals” are covered with such disdain for any potential therapeutic effect. But you have to realize; this is because you are deliberately limited in your use of them (with respect to functional therapeutic use, or marketing of those uses).
I think this is why, for example belassi, has repeatedly shown interest, and successfully developed a product (as he does not face this same “dilemma”).
With the FDA, not eager to expand the repertoire of monographed active ingredients in several classes of “cosmetics”, despite science indicating that there is indeed a therapeutic effect; and with a very uncertain supply (botanical-based api’s need even higher standards than chemical manufacturing, as there is the additional layers of cultivation and cultivar influencing yield, bioactivity & synergestic cofactor effect); I understand, and empathize.
Having said this; do consider: That for some 2000+ years, botanical extracts, were in fact, the major source of medicines for the world (with a couple of notable exceptions with respect to inorganics) including topical applications intended to improve appearance.
That you are unable to capitalize on them, does not mean they are worthless. That you are “forced to fairydust” (at some consternation!), does not mean they are not active. Quite the contrary.
> Therefore people are usually using a tiny bit of the powder for the marketing story.
indeed. I see your point but you have to think, not everyone who is reading this forum, knows this. if this forum, is a valuable resource, for those entering into the field, it makes sense to present the complete picture. And with respect, if you are forced to fairydust, don’t presume that this reflects on the potency or “therapeutic” effects of the underlying ingredients. And IF you are forced to fairydust, and do not take the time to understand the different types of botanics, their bioactivity, their preparations, and what effects their potency, than be thankful you are stuck at 1%!
I am reminded of the indiscriminate use of tea tree oil, and lavender oil, for example in shampoo’s, and resulting gynocomastia in prepubescent boys as a clear warning, that even at “fairydust” inclusion, things can still have major functional effects.
While I did not intend to write a small treatise; I posted, simply to correct the information on Aloe Vera, with respect to its uses. Since I am unfamiliar with your field (still learning), I am unsure as to wha
-
I have just come on this forum and, out of interest, did a search on “Tea Tree Oil” as this is an area of interest for me. Your recent post came up mentioning the purported link between TTO and Lavender with gynecomastia. In fact, this information is now known to be incorrect; the association has been actually shown and published to be a “false positive”. Unfortunately another sensationalized presentation was made recently, but the underlying reasons for the false positive findings were still not addressed by the researchers:
1. Tests were of components, not whole essential oils. The authors tested oil components. Why did the authors not test the whole oils? Were
these tested components synthetically derived or directly extracted from LO and
TTO? Only 4 of 8 tested components are common to both LO and TTO, yet they draw
broad associations of both oils in their conclusions.2. Lab testing (in vitro) is very different from human testing (in vivo). Most of the tested
compounds from TTO and Lavender do not penetrate the dermal/skin barrier and enter the bloodstream –
solid data on this exists. How can compounds
cause systemic disruptions if they are not systemic when applied topically?3. Terpene compounds are highly prevalent in Orange and other citrus
juices. Given the use of these substances in everyday
life, especially as ingested foodstuffs, one would surmise the developed world
would have a high prevalence of gynecomastia, yet gynecomastia is
a “rare condition”.4. Well-documented “false positive” results from phthalates,
nonylphenols, and other chemicals in lab plastics. These
chemicals are known endocrine disruptors, yet are commonly used in laboratory
testing consumables. False positives
from laboratory plastics confounded an earlier paper by Henley (and current
co-author Korach) published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007,
asserting similar claims against LO and TTO.
I hope this gives more clarity on this subject and can help to address this concern. -
@AUteatree
I suppose, it must be common, for prepubescent brothers, to both grow tits where you’re from, on changing a shampoo.
They tracked it back to the “botanicals shampoo” they were using (the only change). Discontinuing the use of the shampoo, corrected the problem.
… about three years later, they publish a study, where both tea tree oil, and lavender, show up as having severe endocrine disrupting effects (published in late 2017 as I recall).
Much as I love the whole “they didn’t test the right component” debate (or any one of the myriad forms of cherry picking scientific “facts”), where I’m from, when you knock out the endocrine disruptor, and the boys both cease growing tits, this is sufficient to establish a causal relationship.
As to the specific botanicals, who knows? Cultivars, collection methods, and soil conditions heavily affect expression of specific compounds; as does method of storage, concentration, plant parts, or even, supply chain issues.
And then there is the genetic predisposition (particular to the individual) to respond to these particular compounds (either biochemically, through anomalous protein expression, or environmental protective effects). What may be carcinogenic to one person; may be entirely harmless to another.
But the point remains. Whether you like it or not. Throwing in random botanicals, without any knowledge of their actual potency, or bioactivity as “fairydust” is, potentially dangerous and irresponsible. As is, conflating no effect based on historical uses of putting in very small amounts.
Furthermore, its the attitude regarding botanicals and their usage in cosmetics that I was addressing. In both directions (dismissive of having no effect; dismissive of having an effect).
Lastly, consider - that even in the synthetic species of chemicals, allergic response is itself, inconsistent (depending on aforementioned genetic predispositions, as well as sensitizing environmental conditions). Yet this forum is filled with countless changes, to avoid potential allergenic responses of specific chemical compounds. And not just in response to a “marketing” concern.
> yet gynecomastia is a “rare condition”.
Which is why the original story caught my eye.… Right up there with prepubescent girls, growing beards (from residuals on testosterone cream transfers) - about two years before any doctor even thought to mention the possibility.
I like, to stay ahead of the curve.
As to tea tree oil, I leave it up to the authors of the recent study if they wish to refute your allegations. Perhaps you should write them with your concerns. I have no vested interest. I certainly, WILL NEVER, be using tea tree oil in any of my formulations. Just out of caution, you understand.
With respect to lavendar, yes I know its bioactive. Definitely.
One last point:> Most of the tested compounds from TTO and Lavender do not penetrate the dermal/skin barrier and enter the bloodstream – solid data on this exists. How can compounds cause systemic disruptions if they are not systemic when applied topically?
I think, you should not confuse, “penetration of the dermal/skin barrier” as the ONLY method of entry into the bloodstream.Plenty of compounds which were thought to “not be possible” to transmit through skin, show up in higher concentrations in blood when topically applied. In fact, I believe one of the chemists here actually had such a problem (for which I was thankful he shared his experience, as in fact, this is a common “inclusion” in formulations).
-
Wow women from Oz are not going to like this They are drinking it, rubbing it on neat, bathing in it & pouring it over our heads to kill lice! TTO is like vegemite!!
-
“prepubescent boys”.
-
@aperson - Thanks for your thorough comments.
There are a couple of points where our opinions diverge.
“countless people, across countless cultures, have aloe vera plants in their kitchens. this is not, arbitrary. if you think that this plant, is somehow “fairy dust”, you need to seriously reconsider your position.“
and
“That for some 2000+ years, botanical extracts, were in fact, the major source of medicines for the world…”
These are both logical fallacies and are not persuasive arguments.
The first is Argument from Popularity. The fact that lots of people use aloe is not evidence that it actually works.
The second is Argument from Antiquity. The fact that botanicals have been used for 2000+ years is not evidence that they work.
And anecdotal evidence is also not proof of anything.
“as to inflammation (or burns) it definitely is bioactive.“You say this with such certainty without supporting evidence. Of course, maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “bioactive.”
@MarkBroussard provided a link to a journal that purportedly was reviewing the literature for the effects of aloe vera. It’s very thorough, unfortunately, the journal he cites is the official journal of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. Nautropathy is not science. It’s voodoo fairy tale stuff and a total scam. They are not a credible source for rigorous scientific information.What is a credible source for scientific information is Cochrane Review. I reviewed what science had to say about Aloe Vera
1. Aloe vera for treating acute and chronic wounds - Conclusion: There is currently an absence of high quality clinical trial evidence to support the use of Aloe vera topical agents or Aloe vera dressings as treatments for acute and chronic wounds.
2. Wound cleansing to help pressure ulcers heal - Conclusion: The authors conclude that there is no good trial evidence to support use of any particular wound cleansing solution or technique for pressure ulcers.
So as far as what is proven, there isn’t good scientific evidence to support the notion that Aloe Vera is helpful for treating wounds, ulcers or anything else.
I’d be happy to change my mind with scientifically controlled evidence, but I remain unconvinced that using Aloe Vera does little more than provide moisturization and the placebo effect.
This is also true of most every herb and extract too.
Not to mention that there is no way to identify the composition of most herbs & extracts so you have no way of knowing what you’re buying.
-
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305417914001247
This study showed the effectiveness of aloe vera gel on a partial thickness burn wound
Four studies with a total of 371 patients were included in this review. Based on a meta-analysis using duration of wound healing as an outcome measure, the summary weighted mean difference in healing time of the aloe vera group was 8.79 days shorter than those in the control group (P = 0.006)
Both thermal and radiation burns healed faster with less necrosis when treated with preparations containing Aloe Vera Gel (18, 19) … Clinical investigations suggest that Aloe Vera Gel preparations accelerate wound healing (14, 18).
In conclusion, aloe vera gel promoted wound healing in second degree burn patients better than SSD cream. The mechanism of the remarkable efficacy of aloe cream in the healing of burn injuries may be explained by its cell proliferation, and anti-inflammatory effects. It also relieves pain better than SSD and is cost effective. (CAUTION, this link contains some images of horrible burns)
-
Why anyone who suffered 2nd or 3rd degree burns
wouldn’t use the meds prescribed by ER doctors
and switch them for unproven treatments? -
@Belassi
In one of the links (researchgate) they state that the test subjects were: “treated exclusively with aloe vera gel”, so there was nothing for comparison. Perhaps a basic gel without aloe vera would’ve had the same effect.
In my opinion only a double blind placebo controlled trial is the only way here. This is were all the homeopathy nonsense also fails. -
> Thanks for your thorough comments.
I try.
>”countless people, across countless cultures, have aloe vera plants in their kitchens. this is not, arbitrary. if you think that this plant, is somehow “fairy dust”, you need to seriously reconsider your position.”
> The first is Argument from Popularity. The fact that lots of people use aloe is not evidence that it actually works.yeah I’m stupid like that. when I go into a new clime; I do what the natives do. I don’t argue out of ignorance, that my understanding is somehow more superior than their customs, having lived in their environs all their lives.
reminds me of that story about the Brits showing up, and running an African colonies farming using “modern” “scientific” agricultural techniques. Crop yield plummeted by 50%. After a decade of famine, one Brit says “hey, the natives here had a planting method, maybe we should try that”. Next year, full crop yields.
Whether you like it or not, its a fact. Aloe Vera is in tons of kitchens. Maybe you don’t cook. I do. So maybe, you’re just not familiar with the properties.
> “That for some 2000+ years, botanical extracts, were in fact, the major source of medicines for the world…”
> These are both logical fallacies and are not persuasive arguments.
logical fallacies? there were only two major sources of medicines up until the 18th century; botanicals, and minerals (1). by far the botanical outweighed the mineral components, which didn’t pick up until analytical chemistry took off; circa 1850 or so. Why do you think, that was the golden age of “patent medicines”?
Personally it doesn’t matter to me whether its botanical or mineral; so long as its effective.
> The second is Argument from Antiquity. The fact that botanicals have been used for 2000+ years is not evidence that they work.
no offense, but simply because something was prevalent in antiquity, does not disprove its effectiveness. And countless studies have demonstrated that a fair amount of the medicines from antiquity have active curative or palliative effects.
the past, is the past. and facts, are facts. So while I appreciate that you think a vague philosophical argument of “logical fallacy” acts as a disproof, you are right on one and only one aspect: we do have differing conclusions.
> And anecdotal evidence is also not proof of anything.
I’m always surprised, at this concept that ‘anectodotal’ evidence, is “not proof of anything”. Far from it; unlike scientific “evidence”, anecdotal evidence is easy to replicate and reproduce (“hence its oral transmission”); does not suffer from ‘arbitrary’ p-values cut offs (“it either works, or it doesn’t”), does not require knowledge of priors in probabilities for unknowns (“knowing the unknowable”).
You seem to think, that the only way to mint knowledge, is to get a scientist to say it is a fact. But the truth is, that being observant, is far more utilitarian in life, than reading some half-baked study, that completely misses the point (“women, endocrine distruptors, tea tree oil”), is questionable in its methodology (statistically “controls” for error rather than removes it), is indistinguishable from the placebo effect (due to p-value blindness to priors), or is completely unreproducible, or worse, politicized or flat-out faked.
Science (REAL science), was never meant to be an altar; nor was it meant to be the sole source of knowledge. To claim so, particularly with its many many known flaws under its modern interpretation, is in your parlance “an appeal to authority”.
Most particularly, a scientific report, is not meant to replace critical thought.
“as to inflammation (or burns) it definitely is bioactive.”> You say this with such certainty without supporting evidence. Of course, maybe I’m misunderstanding what you mean by “bioactive.”
I have the best evidence in the world. I use it. when I get burned. and it definitely cuts down on the inflammation/tissue damage. Mind you, I use toothpaste first as its more effective in dropping the heat in the tissues without subjecting it to additional damage (thermocycling with ice). but once that’s done it’s work, aloe vera goes on. I could use the aloe vera directly, but it requires multiple applications to get the same “cooling” effect that a smear of smudged up toothepaste gets (due to chemistry). the goal of course, is to suck out as much EXTRA heat out of the tissues, without subjecting it to freezing. if its a light burn I skip the toothpaste and go straight for the aloe vera.
> In my opinion only a double blind placebo controlled trial is the only way here. This is were all the homeopathy nonsense also fails.
#1 - up until the 1950’s, most double-blind studies were done with men. which means NONE of the medicines studied under clinical studies, were valid for women. Some of the medicines that were clinically beneficial for men, were actually harmful to women.
#2 - up until about the 1980’s, most of the double-blind studies were performed primarily on white people. Which means that people of color, had the same problems women had in the 1950’s.
#3 - up until the present, the outsourcing of “double-blind” studies to poor countries incentivized financially to self-select “beneficial” results (to maintain their monopoly on clinical testing, in foreign jurisdictions i.e. with little oversight), has led to a rash of “faked” clinical studies. But don’t take my word for it, look it up on the FDA website. Circa 1999 is when they started getting hip to the con.
#4 - a study came out around 2008, that determined that p-value hacking had destroyed the integrity of the “scientific method”, that many of the drugs where not actually better than their prior counterparts, some were in fact worse; and further, that a majority of the borderline medicines “curative” effects were actually due to an understated “placebo” effect.
I could go on, but you get the gist.
(continued on next post)
-
… (continued from prior post)
@all:lastly, with regard to “homeopathics”; on the bright side, their shit is so diluted that the bioactivity is likely nil. makes your 1%, look like a giant amount. but, if you believe in homeopathic medicines, and you buy and take homeopathic medicines, and a placebo effect has an actual effect (either palliatively, psycosomatically, or what have you), then you have just, by definition, treated yourself.
I don’t much care for homeopathics; but it doesn’t offend me any more than say, the “fairydusting” in cosmetics. As Galen said, “all medicine, is toxic”; and Parhelius said: “toxicity, is a question of dosage”. If you are cavalier about the substances you are working with, be concerned. Because all that crap that you throw into a formula willy-nilly, using raw materials with unknown strengths, unknown compounds, unknown effects, can have an effect. (2)
And here, is the real travesty of it. Most of what you put in your formulas, you don’t want in your formulas. But you let some marketing twat force it on you. What exactly, are their credentials? You, at least, are the formulator. That means its YOUR business, what goes into your formulas. Tomorrow if marketing demanded you dump radium in your formulas for the “warm tingly” sensorial, are you going to do it? Then why is a botanical different?
—
(1) three if you include witchcraft four if you include fauna as a separate category (particularly marine); I do not. -
“@MarkBroussard provided a link to a journal that purportedly was reviewing the literature for the effects of aloe vera. It’s very thorough, unfortunately, the journal he cites is the official journal of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians. Nautropathy is not science. It’s voodoo fairy tale stuff and a total scam. They are not a credible source for rigorous scientific information.”
I’ll take issue with this comment:
Here are the credential of the author of the review on Aloe Vera:
Oliver Grundmann, BPharm, MS, PhD, is a clinical assistant professor at the University of Florida in the Department of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy.
In his review, which is very thorough, he cites approximately 120 published articles from a wide variety of journals.Just because it is published in the Naturopathic Journal is not by any means indicative that the information in his review is not scientifically credible.
That may be the Argument From I Didn’t Actually Read The Article
Log in to reply.