OldPerry
Forum Replies Created
-
If the consumers can’t feel the difference then why does the answer matter? Just make a product that consumers like.
The truth is that you’re asking a question that doesn’t have a simple answer. The characteristic of “conditioning” is a subjective one. So whether something is more conditioning or less depends on what you are measuring.
Your measure is based on asking people. So there is no way you can theoretically guess what they will think. -
How are you measuring conditioning?
-
It does both. Mostly it removes the conditioning ingredients. But some of it combines with the cationic & forms an insoluble salt that stays behind on hair.
-
These terms are marketing terms. They were invented to get consumers to buy more / multiple products. Functionally, there isn’t much difference.
- deep conditioner : thicker version of normal conditioner
- Pre-conditioning can work. I used to work on a product called VO5 Hot Oil treatment. There was no oil in it but you put it on your hair before shampooing. It had a cationic polymer (PEI) and a cationic surfactant (cocotrimonium chloride). You put it on before shampooing, then the anionic in the shampoo would react with some of the cationic that was on the hair and you’d get additional conditioning. Well, theoretically anyway. In truth, it didn’t really work much better than just a standard conditioner. And if you conditioned after shampooing, there wasn’t really any extra benefit.
- There is no evidence that keeping a conditioner in your hair longer will condition it better. Conditioner is like ketchup on french fries. Once you coat it, it’s pretty much as coated as it’s going to get. Letting it soak doesn’t have much effect.
- The only difference between conditioners and deep conditioners is the marketing story.
-
I don’t think a company could get away with introducing a new drug without doing any published test. Perhaps they meant they are just going to make a generic insulin? They’d still have to do testing though.
-
I haven’t any experience in testing for this specifically.
Perhaps this paper would be of interest.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jocd.13854But their conclusion is relevant… “There is not a formal standardized method to test for blue light protection; however, spectrophotometers, imaging devices, measuring oxidative stress, and visual evaluations are some of the methods being used today.“
So, this is an emerging field and no one has really worked out the best way to measure.
-
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.
-
Strangely, colder water works better
-
That’s a big challenge in our industry. There are numerous companies that benefit from convincing consumers to be afraid of certain chemicals in their products.
It is illegal to sell cosmetics that are unsafe.
-
Where did you get the idea that PEGs were not safe?
-
No they don’t cause cancer.
Yes they are safe.You can find reliable safety data here
https://cir-safety.org/ingredients -
Well I still doubt you’ll notice much difference but it might be worth testing
-
@jeremien - what studies did you find particularly convincing about Ghk-Cu?
-
Sure you can use them in the same formula.
No, there really isn’t any reaction between them.
There is always an irritation risk when using kojic acid in any product. You’ll have to test it. -
Sounds like a job for the knockout experiment
-
For the most part, I don’t think IP is not particularly valuable in the cosmetics industry.
I don’t know if they still do but, P&G used to let any company license the shampoo technology they used in making Pantene. They knew what many people figure out…the formula is only one small piece of whether a product will be successful or not.
Sure, you need to make a good formula but consumers are not particularly good at noticing differences. With the right packaging, brand name, positioning, and fragrance you can make people like even a sub par formula.
-
No, not due to preservative breaking down anyway
-
I tested a few formulas using formalin but the vast majority were DMDM Hydantoin
-
You will not notice any difference in effect on hair between pH of 2-3 & pH 4-5 unless maybe you’re soaking the hair in the product for an extended amount of time.
-
I have not seen this in practice & have tested numerous shampoos/conditioners that are exactly as you describe
-
@PhilGeis - yes, of course. I just had the sense that phenoxyethanol was on the outs with the natural crowd.
-
For the uninitiated, Iselux® SFS-SB is…
INCI: Aqua (and) Sodium Lauroyl Methyl Isethionate (and) Cocamidopropyl Betaine (and) Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate (and) Sodium Methyl Oleoyl Taurate
-
Phenoxyethanol still passes as “natural”?
-
Also, the safety limit of Cetrimonium Chloride in a leave-in product is 0.25%. So, you probably shouldn’t use it.
-
When you add other conditioning ingredients (cationic surfactants, humectants, fatty alcohols, etc) the pH may likely increase. Also, you can just add some alkaline ingredient (NaOH) to increase the pH to around 4. Bottom line, it’s fine to use. Whether it actually does anything is a different question.