-
Peptides….has anyone changed their mind in 2.5 years?
I re-read a really good thread from a couple of years ago…I will post the link, as a backdrop for this question.
Why do you say peptides don’t work in skincare? — Cosmetic Science Talk (chemistscorner.com)
(Worth the read, I thought Pharma waxed very eloquent on his expose.)
The chemist commenting on the thread were not convinced of any value in peptides. The reason I am asking for updates, I have two chemists that aid and abet my projects. I think neither one of them think too highly of the peptides to date. However, as I speak to some respected marketing type folks, they are rather adamant that my new eye cream will need a peptide. I guess I should have clarified…maybe they said ‘needs’, they were referring to claim and marketing value, but from the gist of their recommendations, I think they fully believed in the performance of peptides.
So, I know that sometimes the ingredient makers stumble into something that actually works, from time to time, and often these ingredients come to market with pretty poor research and proof, but the test of time shines on their lucky horseshoe or four-leaf clover.
So, the question. Have any of the peptides actually gotten to the point where very respected individuals firmly believe they have a significant value? I have tried to phrase this in such a manner…that supporting research may not be in place, but enough unbiased results have filtered in, that we can begin to speculate a value. I will then use this hopeful value and hitch my marketing wagon to it.
Aloha
@Perry @Pharma @Pattsi @ngarayeva001
-
16 Replies
-
Graillotion said:So, the question. Have any of the peptides actually gotten to the point where very respected individuals firmly believe they have a significant value?None except for one that’s used in eye lash serum, somehow it seems to work(?) a little.
Graillotion said:However, as I speak to some respected marketing type folks, they are rather adamant that my new eye cream will need a peptide. I guess I should have clarified…maybe they said ‘needs’, they were referring to claim and marketing value, but from the gist of their recommendations, I think they fully believed in the performance of peptides.I would say, throw in at least 3 peptides or use a blend or two, the more the fancier. And maybe some amino acids or those plant stem cell short peptides.
From my humble experience, only 3 ingredients have been proven to be working well for eye cream, 1) luxurious packaging 2) superb texture and 3) advertizing.
And maybe retinol and its derivatives.Cheers and good luck on your project.
-
I would suggest that you survey the market looking at the top-rated Eye Creams by consumers and dermatologists and see if peptides are a necessary ingredient for marketing purposes. I think you will find that they are not really necessary.
-
To be a successful marketer it Helps to believe your own BS. So it’s unsurprising to me that marketers think having a peptide in the formula is necessary.
No, I’ve not seen any new information about peptides that convinces me they are an improvement over the performance of a good moisturizer.
-
@MarkBroussard - good point, it doesn’t have to be peptide, it would be better if the claim ingredient is in line with the whole series you want to promote, jumping your own brand may not be a good idea. Unless you are strong enough to have a stand alone functional eye cream, adding peptide as a star dust wouldn’t hurt.
-
@Graillotion Should you go for that red fruit extract: a pinch copper peptide might help the colour to a deeper and more purple hue. The amount added would hence depend mostly on colour cause else, it’s all about pixie dust… well, to be honest, copper peptide (GHK-Cu) is one of the few peptides which actually penetrate skin (more or less sound scientific publications available in this regard; can’t comment on ‘real’ cosmetic values for healthy skin). Its antioxidant, anti-ageing, skin regenerating, and anti-inflammatory activities are totally in line with your eye cream.
-
@Graillotion GHK- Cu has many studies proving its efficacy. @Pharma is right to point out the penetration issue, as the peptide need to reach living cells, and bypass the stratum corneum. There are some delivery system available encapsulating peptides that allow them to penetrate the skin and target specific cells.
-
@jeremien - what studies did you find particularly convincing about Ghk-Cu?
-
@Perry in vitro studies on col 1, 3 and elastin, this study has been repeated many times and the effect appears to be reproducible in 2D cell culture model and 3D skin looking to gene expression and protein quantificaation, and the corresponding anti-wrinkle effect observed in clinical studies.
-
jeremien said:in vitro studies on col 1, 3 and elastin, this study has been repeated many times and the effect appears to be reproducible in 2D cell culture model and 3D skin looking to gene expression and protein quantificaation, and the corresponding anti-wrinkle effect observed in clinical studies.Can you link these to me… I would like to read them.
Aloha.
-
I wonder if it is possible for peptides to really work if they are usually sold as a 0.1% solution and such solution is added to the product at 2-3% (at best).
-
@Graillotion, you can access the sederma website and download a technical dossier with all the tests carried out.@pomelo22 peptides are very effective at very low doses, and you don’t really need to use them at high concentration. However, as stated in this chat, to be effective they must bypass the outer SC layer of the skin,
-
@jeremien I am afraid that the information you have recommended is highly marketing biased. It is nothing but very professional quality advertising. However, nobody (from the representatives of the peptide manufacturers) can explain how the active reaches the target structures in the skin… And how peptides overcome the epidermal barriers.
-
This is one of the biggest problems in the cosmetic industry. The research showing positive results of ingredients is funded and often carried out by the very companies who benefit financially by getting people to use the technology.
(e.g. this reads like a big sales pitch for peptides rather than serious science - https://www.crodapersonalcare.com/en-gb/blog/peptides-for-skin-the-key-to-a-successful-cosmetic-product )
I’ve seen raw material companies with technology that is “very effective at very low doses” for as long as I’ve been in the industry. I wonder what has happened to the great technologies that were supposed to reverse grey hair, restart hair growth, wipe away wrinkles…and on and on.
I’ve not seen any independent scientific evidence showing peptides are any different than the other amazing technologies that have come and gone in the cosmetic industry.
But I try not to be a cynic. Do you have any evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of peptides that isn’t produced by a company trying to sell peptides?
My biggest problem with company sponsored research is that they stack the deck. When they do placebo controlled tests, they compare the technology to a terrible moisturizer. This is great to show big improvements but it isn’t particularly compelling. They should be comparing to the best technology on the market or at least a standard moisturizer that contains petrolatum, mineral oil and glycerin.
-
@Perry and @vitalys, I totally agree with the fact that the cosmetic industry is very marketing and sometimes claims are not based on real science. However, in the case of peptides, there are many studies showing effects on specific receptor of cells, and the use of biologic mimetics peptide is well documented (not just for skin). Regarding the dose, there are some pharmaceutical formulations based on peptides where only a few milligrams allow a pharmaceutical effect to be obtained for months, after a single parenteral injection.The main problem, as said before, is the bypass of SC, and this can be achieved with a adequate delivery system. Looking quickly through the peer-reviewed literature, I find these two articles, but I’m sure you can find many more:
- Gazitaeva ZI, Drobintseva AO, Chung Y, Polyakova VO, Kvetnoy IM. Cosmeceutical product consisting of biomimetic peptides: antiaging effects in vivo and in vitro. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2017- In Vitro and in Vivo Studies of pH-Sensitive GHK-Cu-Incorporated Polyaspartic and Polyacrylic Acid Superabsorbent PolymerShilpa Sharma, Mohammad Faiyaz Anwar, Amit Dinda, Maneesh Singhal, and Amita Mali ACS Omega 2019 4 (23), 20118-20128 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.9b00655
Just as a comment, working for many years in the academic, pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry, I could tell you that the cosmetic industry is full of very good scientists, and there is a huge knowledge of the skin and its biology… the problem is at some point, commercial use of this knowledge. -
Even looking at the marketing brochures, not necessarily copper peptides, but peptides in general, the results are not very impressive. A 10% decrease in wrinkle depth or a 10% increase in skin smoothness is not a big difference and I think it can be easily achieved by comparing a weak cream without humectants with a product that contains 2% glycerin. Peptide solution usually contains 50- 75% glycerin and the use level of peptides is 2-3%. It’s like comparing a cream with glycerin vs. without glycerin. Another example, reducing the volume of bags under the eyes by 3%. Maybe someone just got some sleep.
Here you can find some information on copper peptides:
https://www.pharmawell.at/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/TDS_Neodermyl_wirkstoff_en.pdf -
@jeremien I don’t think the issue with peptides is that they are not able to interact with certain receptors (they are bioactive, for sure), but that their use in topical cosmetic products is justified. Both papers you mentioned bypass the SC: in one, peptides are applied to an open wound, and in the other, they are injected. That’s different than topical application to preserved skin. And there are limits to encapsulation, especially how far it can penetrate.
Lately, you want to see these peptides evaluated in well controlled clinical trials, and as @Perry mentioned, there hasn’t been convincing evidence in those (only the ones from suppliers).
I always recall an ingredient called Procapil (from Sederma), which has been in the market for years, promising a natural way of treating hair loss…and yet, the only actives approved (so far) are Minoxidil and Finasteride, since they are the only ones that showed real benefits in multiple and well controlled clinical trials.
Log in to reply.