-
Does this “Lift-Me-Up” cream have the science behind it?
My wife is interested in this product. Such a big list…I wonder how much are just marketing ingredients.Aloe Leaf Juice skin hydration, high in polysaccharides, plumping and moisturizing, anti-inflammatorySpring Water hydrating
Pimpinella Anisum Extract potent antioxidant, strong antibacterial
Prunus Amygdalus Dulcis Extract forms
a continuous, elastic and smooth film, firming the skin, patented
cross-linking technology, bio polymerization, that reinforces the
natural lifting effect of sweet almond proteinsCalendula Extract wound healing, rejuvenates skin
Alfalfa Extract a source of antioxidants and phytonutrients
Shea Butter soothes irritated skin, healing, conditions and nourishes
Emulsifying Wax emulsifier
Stearic Acid emulsifier, thickening agent
Coenzyme Q-10 a powerful antioxidant, fights off wrinkles and sagging skin, protects the cell membrane, stimulates circulation
Jojoba Oil emollient, dissolves sebum, regulates oil production
Cetyl Alcohol vegetable derived, thickening agent, emulsifier, emollient
Olive Squalene absorbs quickly into skin, protective, conditioning
Soy Protein anti-irritant
Echinacea Extract anti-aging effects, soothes and calms skin, anti-inflammatory, antibacterial
Palmitic Acid naturally occurring plant derived fatty acid, texturizer
Potassium Sorbate preservative
Optiphen (Phenoxyethanol (and) Caprylyl Glycol) paraben free, broad spectrum preservative
Green Tea Extract high in antioxidants, stimulates skin
Retinyl Palmitate skin conditioner, continual use
increases epidermal thickness, reduces number and depth of fine lines
and wrinkles, prevents skin roughness from UV rays, increases skin
elasticityPomegranate Seed Oil antioxidant, conditioning
Rosehip Seed Oil high in fatty acids, remarkable for damaged, mature skin
Seabuckthorn Seed Oil antioxidant, anti-aging, fights rosacea mites
Alpha-D Tocopherol Vitamin E, protects skin, antioxidant
Lycopene naturally occurring, powerful antioxidant properties
Tocotrienols Vitamin E, can reverse signs of aging
Astaxanthin antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-irritant
Lutein carotenoid antioxidant, may help protect skin from Harmful UV Rays
Alpha Lipoic Acid maximizes the effectiveness of other antioxidants, antioxidant, neutralizes free radicals
Ascorbyl Palmitate a stable form of Vitamin C, antioxidant
Sodium Bicarbonate pH adjuster
Citric Acid astringent, antioxidant
-
25 Replies
-
There was a thread a while back….that I thought was pretty revealing. I’m not sure the topic…so I will try and summarize in a way that will answer your question. (Maybe someone else will remember that thread and link it.)
Drugs are effective and regulated. Once something typically becomes proven as effective, it becomes a drug.
Cosmetics are essentially not regulated. Other than providing hydration, humectancy, barrier, and lubrication, cosmetics are generally NOT supposed to have magical powers (don’t confuse this statement with marketing claims you see). If they do…they then become drugs.
So with this in mind…the mfg’s of cosmetic add ins…are generally having to prove the opposite….that their products are not amazingly effective, hence becoming a regulated drug. Do NOT confuse this with the spin the marketing department will add. They will lead you to believe their products grow hair, shave years off your looks, etc…etc.
I would also say…some well formulated cosmetics can actually enhance the health of skin, thereby providing better looking (healthier) skin.
I know this is a feeble explanation of what the original author said…but you get the general idea. Cosmetic ingredients are only really proven to provide the aforementioned, barrier, humectant, and lubrication niches. Anything beyond that…is a marketing department trying to sell product. We use a lot of smoke and mirrors….as you advance you will learn all kinds of tricks for hiding wrinkles with optical blurring and other tricks…hehehe. Did it remove wrinkles….NO…and sometime we can temporarily plump them…
Or stretch them tight for a short moment in time.Don’t get me wrong….I am a firm believer that I can create magic via a cosmetic vector. But this really takes a wizard of science and chemistry to help you, and this is the place to find those people (not meaning me)! And the grand finale….wait for it… once you create cosmetic magic….you pretty much can’t claim that (legally)!!!
-
I just read the list of ingredients….every last one of them made me smile (the explanation after each item)….
let’s just look at one….
Spring Water hydrating
Doubt you’ll find too many chemists that would adulterate their product with that! (Can you imagine the work it will take to return this into something like distilled or deionized water?) -
Graillotion said:There was a thread a while back….that I thought was pretty revealing. I’m not sure the topic…so I will try and summarize in a way that will answer your question. (Maybe someone else will remember that thread and link it.)Drugs are effective and regulated. Once something typically becomes proven as effective, it becomes a drug.
Cosmetics are essentially not regulated. Other than providing hydration, humectancy, barrier, and lubrication, cosmetics are generally NOT supposed to have magical powers (don’t confuse this statement with marketing claims you see). If they do…they then become drugs.
So with this in mind…the mfg’s of cosmetic add ins…are generally having to prove the opposite….that their products are not amazingly effective, hence becoming a regulated drug. Do NOT confuse this with the spin the marketing department will add. They will lead you to believe their products grow hair, shave years off your looks, etc…etc.
I would also say…some well formulated cosmetics can actually enhance the health of skin, thereby providing better looking (healthier) skin.
I know this is a feeble explanation of what the original author said…but you get the general idea. Cosmetic ingredients are only really proven to provide the aforementioned, barrier, humectant, and lubrication niches. Anything beyond that…is a marketing department trying to sell product. We use a lot of smoke and mirrors….as you advance you will learn all kinds of tricks for hiding wrinkles with optical blurring and other tricks…hehehe. Did it remove wrinkles….NO…and sometime we can temporarily plump them…
Or stretch them tight for a short moment in time.Don’t get me wrong….I am a firm believer that I can create magic via a cosmetic vector. But this really takes a wizard of science and chemistry to help you, and this is the place to find those people (not meaning me)! And the grand finale….wait for it… once you create cosmetic magic….you pretty much can’t claim that (legally)!!!
Thanks for the info
“Spring Water” gives away the marketing gimmick. I don’t see how water from a spring could be any better…all water is hydrating. It’s all the other ingredients I was unsure about. GOW uses a lot of fancy ingredients in their products. -
Ah…you missed the point on Spring Water…. It probably has half a dozen ingredients solubilized into it, beyond H 2 and O. All kinds of minerals and who knows what you’ll have to chelate out of it.
(That ranks right up there…with tap water!) -
LOL! … when in doubt, add more ingredients! … Looks like a hot mess of a formula to me.
-
MarkBroussard said:LOL! … when in doubt, add more ingredients! … Looks like a hot mess of a formula to me.
That’s exactly what I was thinking!
-
Were you looking to buy that….or make it?
As far as I can tell…it would be lacking in things that would make it feel nice…texturizers. Kinda a mommy blogger formula…with lots of unproven additives.
Based on some of the choices they made….I would not trust it to touch my skin….and probably why I make all my own stuff.
-
Graillotion said:Were you looking to buy that….or make it?
As far as I can tell…it would be lacking in things that would make it feel nice…texturizers. Kinda a mommy blogger formula…with lots of unproven additives.
Based on some of the choices they made….I would not trust it to touch my skin….and probably why I make all my own stuff.
No, my wife was interested in it. She looks at all the natural/organic skincare sites. I told her I wanted more info on it…see if it’s not all puffery. It would be too complicated for me to make anyhow, lol. I prefer something condensed. She definitely thinks more is better. -
DaveStone said:Graillotion said:Were you looking to buy that….or make it?
As far as I can tell…it would be lacking in things that would make it feel nice…texturizers. Kinda a mommy blogger formula…with lots of unproven additives.
Based on some of the choices they made….I would not trust it to touch my skin….and probably why I make all my own stuff.
No, my wife was interested in it. She looks at all the natural/organic skincare sites. I told her I wanted more info on it…see if it’s not all puffery. It would be too complicated for me to make anyhow, lol. I prefer something condensed. She definitely thinks more is better.Unfortunately it is mostly, if not all, puffery.
-
They have their targeted audiences. The price tag is quite alluring compare to other natural brands. If you expect $1,000 worth work from a $4.5 jar, you might be disappointed so don’t expect anything then you will never be disappointed.
-
Here is a useful strategy to follow whenever evaluating a product that makes big promises.
1. Does it come from a big company?
> No - then it’s just marketing hype
|
|
2. Is it a drug?
> No - then it’s just marketing hype
|
|
Then it narrowly works for many people but maybe not in a way you would ever notice. -
Perry said:Here is a useful strategy to follow whenever evaluating a product that makes big promises.
1. Does it come from a big company?
> No - then it’s just marketing hype
|
|
2. Is it a drug?
> No - then it’s just marketing hype
|
|
Then it narrowly works for many people but maybe not in a way you would ever notice.In that case, is it likely that the ingredients listed aren’t even included in the product? Can a business get in trouble if their product were tested and found to have different ingredients than what’s on the label?
-
@DaveStone - I would expect that the company did actually include all the ingredients they listed.
Absolutely, a company can get in trouble if they list an ingredient then can’t prove they included that ingredient in their formula. That’s why they probably do add at least a tiny amount of all the ingredients they list.
But just including an ingredient doesn’t mean that it will actually do anything. For example, they list “Calendula Extract” because it is “wound healing, rejuvenates skin.” Well, first of all what’s the evidence that the extract actually does that? Of the 7 published human studies available, only 1 was determined to be of good quality and the results from that one were “weak”. The bottom line is even under the best controlled circumstances, there is scant evidence that the extract has any beneficial effect. But there is enough for marketers to make the claim.
As far as how much they use. Typically, extracts are supplied to manufacturers as 1% solutions. Then the makers of the product might put in 1% of that or even less (say 0.1%). So the amount of actual Calendula plant material is more like 0.0001%. Sure, they can say it’s in there but it’s not in there at a level that makes any difference except to support the marketing story.
A similar exercise can be done with all the other “natural” ingredients in there too. Basically, they are things that haven’t actually been proven scientifically to work but they have enough of a reputation to support marketing claims.
The ingredients that will have the most effect in the product you listed include…
Water - hydrating
Shea Butter (and maybe some of the oils) - emollient
Aloe - maybe some humectant propertiesEverything else is either a formula stabilizer (like the preservative, emulsifier, etc) or it is just a marketing gimmick to support the story.
-
@PerryThanks for clearing that up. It doesn’t seem fair that companies can get away with putting infinitesimal amounts of something in their product. They might as well add nothing. No different than selling snake oil.So much misinformation out there. I think the organic/natural businesses base many of their claims on hearsay, especially if passed down through generations. Like that garlic oil can hinder baldness.
-
DaveStone said:Like that garlic oil can hinder baldness.
Don’t forget…repels vampires!
FAIR….where did to get the perception that cosmetic companies were working to make the world a more FAIR place to live.
Last time I checked….they will still trying to make a buck.
I work with one of the chemist on this forum, to make a product with some function from natural resources. We can NOT buy these ingredients….I have to MAKE them. That should tell you something in regards to the potency of what is offered.
And yes, in this industry, .1% is a really common number. Memorize it.
-
@DaveStone - “It doesn’t seem fair that companies can get away with putting infinitesimal amounts of something in their product.“
This is something that all companies in the cosmetic industry do (big & small alike).
The challenge that cosmetic manufacturers have is this…technology isn’t really improving in ways that consumers notice.
If you went back to 1990 and tried a shampoo or conditioner or skin lotion, they would not work any better/worse than the ones that are made today.
30 years with no significant improvements. Compare that to cars, computers or phones. These products from 30 years ago would be almost unusable.So, when you are in an industry where there is minimal technological improvement, the only way you can make your products stand out is through marketing stories. And there is really no point in putting a high % of an ingredient in a formula when you can get exactly the same story from a low %.
-
@Graillotion, regarding smiles following ingredient names. I can’t help but think “Pimpanella Anisum” would make for an ideal porn star stage name.
-
Perry said:
The challenge that cosmetic manufacturers have is this…technology isn’t really improving in ways that consumers notice.If you went back to 1990 and tried a shampoo or conditioner or skin lotion, they would not work any better/worse than the ones that are made today.
30 years with no significant improvements. Compare that to cars, computers or phones. These products from 30 years ago would be almost unusable.So, when you are in an industry where there is minimal technological improvement, the only way you can make your products stand out is through marketing stories. And there is really no point in putting a high % of an ingredient in a formula when you can get exactly the same story from a low %.
Why has their been no big improvements/findings? Because scientists haven’t found any/haven’t tested them extensively enough, or merely lack of funding?
-
@DaveStone - This is just “the world according to Perry” but here are the main reasons.
1. It’s really HARD to find better technologies. Cosmetics/personal care products represent a variety of different types of products. Cleaners, moisturizers, coloring products, anti-aging, exfoliating, conditioning, styling, etc. Not to mention biological differences in hair & skin both genetically and aging. Then there are different consumer desires. Just defining what it means to make something better is hard to figure out. For example, what would make a shampoo “better”?
2. Consumers can’t tell differences. People who use personal care products are easily swayed by packaging, fragrance, color, marketing story, brand story, etc. You can make the greatest product in the world based on lab tests and still have a market failure. People might notice big differences but there just aren’t many of these. Pretty much every company can make products that work as well as everyone else’s products (from a consumer standpoint).3. Bans on animal testing. We do not yet have complete replacements for safety testing without animals. So, if you are able to make a completely new molecule there is no good way of demonstrating that it is safe for consumers to use. That means new raw materials are going to be very similar to the stuff that already exists.
4. Short term focus. In the beauty industry they need to launch new products at least once a year. What that means is that there really isn’t time to do the longterm research that would be required to find impressive new breakthroughs. Companies in the industry would rather spend money on new ways to market existing products than to invest money in long term R&D that may or may not pan out. Not that I blame them - see point #1
5. BS sells as well as real technology - Maybe I’m just being cynical but stories have proven to sell just as well as real technology. A brand like Urban Decay can be created out of nothing, use no new technology, but build up to $150 million in sales in less than 10 years. Kylie Jenner can launch a color cosmetic brand that eventually gets bought for almost $1 billion using standard technology. Why would companies even bother investing in real technology when people are perfectly happy to buy existing stuff?
So, I don’t look to see much improvement any time soon.
-
chemicalmatt said:@Graillotion, regarding smiles following ingredient names. I can’t help but think “Pimpanella Anisum” would make for an ideal porn star stage name.
It sounds like the name of a play about a 19th century madam.
-
@Perry1. It’s really HARD to find better technologies. Cosmetics/personal care products represent a variety of different types of products. Cleaners, moisturizers, coloring products, anti-aging, exfoliating, conditioning, styling, etc. Not to mention biological differences in hair & skin both genetically and aging. Then there are different consumer desires. Just defining what it means to make something better is hard to figure out. For example, what would make a shampoo “better”?True…”better” takes on many meanings. Some things can’t really be bettered. I agree shampoo is one of them. There’s mild, normal, and harsher strengths. They all clean hair. That’s all they are designed to do. Most all the product types you listed can’t be bettered. They were all created a long time ago and have been developed to a tee over the years. However, there aren’t many “anti-aging” cosmetics products out there that do just that. Like you said though, if a product caused a physiological effect, it would classified as a drug. So I guess there isn’t anything major that can be done through cosmetics.It seems “better” for many consumers=more natural ingredients that work just as well. Problem is, many haven’t been adequately analyzed for safety. Or they don’t work that well. If they did, all the big corps would grab hold of them. Playing devil’s advocate, I would imagine the big guys wouldn’t want anything “natural” to work out. Otherwise, they could be out of business. If it was discovered that some plant oil or anything over the counter could inhibit male balding, then we wouldn’t need Minoxidil anymore.
-
@DaveStone - If a cosmetic company found an ingredient or treatment that made a significant difference in solving problems like anti-aging or hair loss, the demand would be so great, they would do all the necessary research required to get an NDA. Minoxidil, Latisse & Tretinoin are recent examples. But mostly, research isn’t turning up anything impressive.
In truth, big companies would be happy to find natural ingredients that work. It’s a much easier marketing story to tell. Plus, many big brands already embrace natural as a marketing strategy. (Burts Bees, Toms of Maine, Aveeno, etc). Corporations do not fear natural will put them out of business.
I’ll go out on a limb and say there are no natural oils or materials that will be discovered to significantly inhibit hair loss. People have been looking for thousands of years and if there was anything obvious, it would have been found by now.
-
Perry said:I’ll go out on a limb and say there are no natural oils or materials that will be discovered to significantly inhibit hair loss. People have been looking for thousands of years and if there was anything obvious, it would have been found by now.Well, I guess you’re right there. The herbal stores may disagree with you, though!
-
@PerryFrom your time in the industry, have you known any of the big corps to pay off organizations that decide/recommend whether an ingredient is cosmetically safe or not? I always wonder if the studies are rigged in their favor.
-
For the most part, Big Corps in the beauty industry do not make raw materials. So, they are only indirectly involved in safety testing. In fact, a Big Corp would not even look at using an ingredient if the supplier hadn’t first done safety testing.
If you look at the most controversial ingredients, safety testing has been done.
Parabens, Phthalates, Talc, Formaldehyde donors, etc. These have all been determined to be safe as used in cosmetics. Studies that raise questions use unrealistic exposure amounts, or directly expose cells, or make correlations but don’t prove causation, etc.There is an entire “fear marketing” segment of the industry that is designed to scare consumers and convince them to buy more expensive, less effective products. Consumers don’t know. They are not interested or informed enough to read actual Toxicology reports. So, it works.
And big corps don’t really care too much because they are happy if consumers move away from less expensive products. They will just make more expensive versions (e.g L’Oreal making “sulfate free” shampoos) or they will just buy the indie brands that grew because of fear marketing (e.g. Drunk Elephant is now owned by Shiseido). None of these products are more safe for people. But consumers will spend more money on them because they have been convinced they are.
The bottom line is that big companies have no interest in selling dangerous products. And there is no extra profit in doing it. This isn’t the Tobacco industry where their product is inherently dangerous and there is no safe product.
It’s easy to make safe cosmetic products. Rigging safety studies would make no sense and not be profitable.
Log in to reply.