OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
Yes, it’s unlikely that you’ll see any performance benefit from using it at 0.01%. However, you’ll still get all the marketing benefits.
-
Not at a low % it won’t
-
If it is just for claims, a good place to start is 0.01%
-
No. You need to make it in an OTC facility if you are going to sell it as an OTC.
-
I think the place to start is to list what you mean by “natural”. By many people’s definition of natural something that has Carbomer in it would not be considered natural.
-
@braveheart - is there evidence that that actually works? (e.g. some kind of peer reviewed, placebo controlled study)
-
I don’t have any specific formulas to share at the moment but you might find our free natural cosmetic report useful.
-
I see very little evidence of much benefit (beyond marketing) of using amino acids in topical formulations. There are lots of questions that occur to me from the information posted.
The paper sited starts with a really weak marketing claim.”Some amino acids can be absorbed from the skin and may aid in tissue repair and regeneration. “I guess the amino acids being discussed include Proline, Glycine, Taurine, and Cysteine. Does this mean the other 16 amino acids were investigated and found not to be effective?Also what does “may aid” mean? Does that mean 90% of the time, 50% of the time, 1% of the time or there’s one chance in a million it will aid? Wouldn’t that also mean that it “may not aid” in tissue repair and regeneration? What determines whether it’s going to help or not?And what specifically is meant by tissue repair and regeneration? Do these amino acids convert scar tissue to normal skin? Do they regenerate skin so there is extra skin? What does this mean? Is there a study showing scar tissue is regenerated when these amino acids are applied?If Taurine works as an antioxidant wouldn’t other, better antioxidants be preferred to have a superior effect? What makes taurine a better choice as an antioxidant over other molecules? And why would you need two antioxidants (taurine and cysteine)?If proline is involved in the stimulation of DNA synthesis wouldn’t this be a potential problem in the event that someone had skin cancer? Stimulating the production of more cancerous DNA doesn’t sound like a good idea. Have they shown that proline stimulates DNA synthesis for only non-cancerous DNA?There is some interesting stuff here and the technology of amino acids shows some potential however, there are so many unanswered questions and vague claims that there is little reason to use these ingredients (except for marketing purposes). And based on the hypotheses provided (stimulating DNA synthesis, preventing cell apoptosis) it may be downright dangerous to use amino acids in topical skin care products. -
@David - the Aquea technology theoretically leaves something behind on the skin.
-
For non-controversial topics Wikipedia is actually a decent resource. It’s been shown to be as reliable as something like encyclopedia Britannica.
Although it’s more of a starting point than an ending point. -
I’m not sure I understand the question. Do you want to know whether Tetrasodium EDTA can be used in those products? Yes, it can be.
-
I’m with ya!
-
You might also try an experiment where you adjust the pH higher to see if that is causing the problem.
-
@nasrins - earplugs.
-
Very interesting. I love when you can get multiple uses out of a single ingredient.
-
Antibacterial products are an OTC in the US and you are restricted to only use approved ingredients. There is a process by which the supplier can get it approved as a new antibacterial agent. Why haven’t they done that?
-
@nasrins - I think it’s rather simple to shield people from the negative effects of ultrasonic production.
-
@heraklit - that will be a much larger challenge. Disease causing microbes have had over 300,000 years to evolve. We’ve had about 150 years to figure out how to prevent them from killing us.
-
There is no evidence that vitamins from natural sources are superior to synthetically produced vitamins when delivered from cosmetics.
-
@otherhalf - which of the papers you’ve posted (or that you know of) satisfy Question 3 posted above?
-
I doubt anyone could demonstrate a penetration difference between a C16 and a C22 molecule. Perhaps there is some theoretical difference but not a practical one.
-
@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. -
I think many of you are avoiding answering the original question.
Is the addition of HA or FA useful or a waste of money?I have yet to see any evidence that using these ingredients in a skin cream at a significant level has superior effects to a really good moisturizing cream using stuff like petrolatum, mineral oil and glycerin.If your cream cannot out perform a standard cream you can get all the marketing benefits of adding HA or FA by making a standard cream and putting a few drops of those ingredients in the formula. Putting more than that in the formula without a measurable benefit is a waste of money right?@Margreat - What benefit are you trying to achieve by using 30% L-ascorbic acid? -
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.
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. -
I don’t know what you mean by this…”They both have benefits but they can’t be put at the same level.”
When someone uses a skin cream they expect certain benefits. If it’s reduction of wrinkles (or the appearance of that) then any ingredient that does that is comparable.While I understand the theoretical & potential effects of HA, how would you prove that it is not just having a moisturizing effect from a topical treatment? What measurement would you take to prove this?I can understand it’s use in surgery but that’s internal. The skin is an incredibly good barrier against most substances put on it so lots of things that work on human cell cultures or inside the body, don’t work when applied topically.