 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
 |
Tue Apr 03, 2007 9:03 am  |
Swiss skincare often makes me feel like a mindless consumer drone.
1. I don't know how they work.
2. The companies don't tell you how their products work.
- Taken from the research section of the Valmont website: "triple DNA brings exceptional and powerful properties to the skin : hydration, cellular regeneration, energy booster and first anti-ageing."
- Yeah, thanks. One question: How?
3. It's very questionable if they work at all.
4. They're $$$.
Yet, I'm still very tantalized.
I wonder why? Is it because of the idea of Switzerland itself... that mountainous per capita GDP paradise?
Well, here's an article on how the DNA technology in Valmont products works.
http://www.in-cosmetics.com/ExhibitorLibrary/153/ARTICLE_COSMETICSANDTOILETRIES_KALINATAW.pdf.pdf
Very briefly, they take DNA from sturgeon reproductive tissue. You slather on this DNA. The sturgeon DNA gives your cells extra DNA bases to work with.
Some thoughts: Valmont products would seem to pair really well with Remergent products. Valmont products give your cells extra bases. Remergent products give your cells extra DNA repair enzymes.
I don't see why you would need DNA from such an expensive fish as sturgeon. If you wanted a cheaper version of Valmont (as far as this DNA technology goes), Pevonia Botanica uses marine DNA in some of its products. I believe this is DNA from salmon and/or scallops. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:09 am |
 I agree with you totally! I have the same thoughts on Cellcosmet but I love the luxury feel of their line. I think it is a good line but overpriced, but it won't stop me buying from EDS! 
BTW, after trying to pull teet from the SA, the cells are from horses. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Apr 03, 2007 10:06 pm |
Isn't Yves Rocher a swiss brand, too? I was unable to find any instructions or ingredients on certain products I used to buy from them, and got really frustrated. Does anyone even use this brand any more?
ETA: Ok, I was wrong. YR is from France. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Apr 03, 2007 11:16 pm |
I'm personally not really a big fan of Swiss skincare, generally speaking most brands either give me breakouts or a horrible rash.  Not to mention as already specified most brands do cost a fortune  so I guess I'm lucky in that aspect  but I don't mind certain products from LP. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Apr 04, 2007 2:57 am |
Thanks RMB for the article.
I guess this helps to explain why I have had such good results with my skin using Remergent and Valmont products. I never understood how Valmont worked but the products always seem to like my skin. |
_________________
Skin: Over 60, ex combination now sensitive, Cellcosmet |
|
|
|
|
Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:08 am |
Why would the DNA of another species be at all helpful to human skin?
It wouldn't, at least not in the sense that a skincare company might suggest. Perhaps the oily tissue of the sturgeon, from whence the DNA was derived, will be emollient to the skin, perhaps the tissue is nutrient rich, but the DNA of another species is not going to affect the DNA or growth factors of a human. Silliness. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Apr 04, 2007 6:20 am |
| MBGirl wrote: |
Why would the DNA of another species be at all helpful to human skin?
It wouldn't, at least not in the sense that a skincare company might suggest. Perhaps the oily tissue of the sturgeon, from whence the DNA was derived, will be emollient to the skin, perhaps the tissue is nutrient rich, but the DNA of another species is not going to affect the DNA or growth factors of a human. Silliness. |
I agree with you. In fact, even if they did use human cells, (this is going to be gross but have you ever seen dead human skin?) I have it feels like rubber and a bit slimy. It is a wonder how any type of skin can be used in skincare products. I think this is why I did not become a scientist!
Anyway, I still love Cellcosmet because it seems to work for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:53 am |
| MBGirl wrote: |
Why would the DNA of another species be at all helpful to human skin?
It wouldn't, at least not in the sense that a skincare company might suggest. Perhaps the oily tissue of the sturgeon, from whence the DNA was derived, will be emollient to the skin, perhaps the tissue is nutrient rich, but the DNA of another species is not going to affect the DNA or growth factors of a human. Silliness. |
Silliness? My take is the jury's still out on whether this technology is silly or not. But it won't be silly based on your point. Please read the article.
They're not talking about switching human DNA with sturgeon DNA. Look, all DNA whether you're a fish or a human is made of the same building blocks. Remember in school where we learned about the 4 bases of DNA - A, G, C, T? The article is saying you can take these 4 bases from the DNA of other organisms and give them to your cells to use. Whether or not this works we can debate. Whether or not it's worth it to do this rather than some other active we can debate, too. But this isn't a case of replacing a sequence of human DNA with a sequence of sturgeon DNA a la Jurassic Park. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Apr 04, 2007 11:19 am |
| I also don't think DNA can be brought from a cream, but my friend's skin is more and more better after she ues valmont. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:29 am |
<The article is saying you can take these 4 bases from the DNA of other organisms and give them to your cells to use. Whether or not this works we can debate.>
And that is EXACTLY what I am debating. I hold steadfast that this won't work.
<But this isn't a case of replacing a sequence of human DNA with a sequence of sturgeon DNA a la Jurassic Park.>
Well of course it isn't such a case, and I most certainly didn't suggest it was. Again silliness, all of it.
If using four bases from non-human DNA was at all effective in any sort of regeneration or repair of human cells, the country (and parts of the world) wouldn't be so focused on *human* stem cell issues.
On the other hand, I do think human growth factors, i.e. those derived from human tissue, can indeed be effective in cellular regeneration and repair, when the delivery system is appropriate. I do not think the same is true of non-human sourced growth factors, however. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 06, 2007 6:59 pm |
Hi MBGirl, I guess we'll just disagree on this. This type of DNA technology may or may not work. I've used a few Valmont products, and did not notice great improvement. What improvement I did notice could be attributed to the moisturizing ingredients that are also found in many less expensive products. However, some people say they've experienced great changes with Valmont. And Triple DNA (and Valmont's more expensive DNA technologies that seem to work on the same principles) is what Valmont puts forward as responsible for those changes.
If you told me you had doubts on the delivery of Sodium DNA, I could understand. But I just don't see the fact that Sodium DNA originates from an animal source as the hiccup here. These organic bases are in sturgeons, dogs, cats, us - they're the same thing no matter where they come from.
I also don't understand what stem cells have to do with this. They're orders of magnitude larger and more complex than the topic at hand. If you're talking about using an entire cell, human and not sturgeon would be the way to go, though they are injecting human DNA into animal egg cells these days. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:03 pm |
| i totally agree with swiss skincare lines...it's not just valmont..but there's la prairie and quite a few other ones out othere that charges ridiculously high prices without really disclosing what's working in their products. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Apr 06, 2007 7:08 pm |
I also don't understand what stem cells have to do with this. They're orders of magnitude larger and more complex than the topic at hand. If you're talking about using an entire cell, human and not sturgeon would be the way to go, though they are injecting human DNA into animal egg cells these days.
agree this! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:40 am |
I don't know how some of the Swiss skincare works but I am a great fan of Valmont and Cellcosmet because I have seen such positive results on my skin from the use of their products.
I have come to believe that a great number of skincare companies seem to produce new products based on what they perceive the market wants. For example when dmae is the rave you see a lot of dmae products appearing, peptides can also be a rave and lots of products appear containing peptides, just like the wave of products containing botox like ingredients. I came to the conclusion that the companies were responding to consumer demand rather than supplying the products because they might improve the skin.
The big difference with Valmont, Cellcosmet (Remergent and a few others) is that they have used their own research (and many years of research) to produce products which their research has shown could improve skin condition and assist with anit-aging. And that is the reason why I will continue to use Valmont, Cellcosmet, Remergent (and a few others) and have very little desire to try the fads. |
_________________
Skin: Over 60, ex combination now sensitive, Cellcosmet |
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2007 2:57 am |
| I agree with you! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:21 am |
Interesting article RMB!! I am also very curious about the "Science" behind the Swiss brands. I don't know what to make of the science behind the sodium DNA to know if it really is a sound explantion but it is interesting that they do have studies on this. Also, I don't know the quality of the studies and they seem to be limited but it is still very interesting.
I wonder if any studies have been done just using the bases and not a purified form of DNA? I also wonder if there are any studies with the other DNAs in Valmont like the magnesium DNA or with the RNA. BTW I don't think that Valmont uses sturgeon DNA. The Valmont website says salmon DNA and the ingredient lists have it as sodium DNA, magnesium DNA, etc.
MBGirl I also don't see what this has to do with stem cells. There are all sorts of ingredients like Copper Peptides that are used or being researched for skin repair. Scientists are constantly pursuing many avenues of research on regeneration and repair of human cells. Why should we just be focused on stem cells and exclude anything else? I tend to be very skeptical and very demanding when it comes to evidence but dismissing something like this without even bothering to research it furhter is IMO cynical and not skeptical. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:42 am |
Firstly, don't assume that I haven't researched this topic well. I have. I am not being cynical, I simply don't think this is sound science.
Moreover, I used the analogy of stem cells as an aside, stressing the import of human sourcing. I am aware that these aren't stem cells, for goodness sake!
To whomever mentioned it, I don't understand how an active like copper peptides fits into this discussion at all...please explain it's relevance to human and non-human sourced DNA. Copper peptides are not sourced from human tissue, so how are they related to this discussion??
I don't discount that Valmont and similar products work, I don't know if they do or don't, but I DO doubt that the products work because of the biological mechanisms suggested.
I will agree with you here, though; I think this is indeed an avenue where we will see effective skin repair products develop in the future, but I do think these future products will employ human sourced actives instead of non-human sourced.
I am entitled to my educated opinion, correct?
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2007 11:51 am |
Perhaps it would be interesting to have those swiss skin care users who have seen marked and remarkable results in their skin to post about them. It may be useful to determining what biological or cosmetic mechanism spurred the improvement.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:43 pm |
| I'll add this, too; if it works (swiss skincare) I'll use it, whatever the biomechanism... |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2007 4:46 pm |
| MBGirl wrote: |
| Firstly, don't assume that I haven't researched this topic well. I have. I am not being cynical, I simply don't think this is sound science. |
Then I assume you have seen studies that would show that topically applied sodium DNA does not have any benefits? I don't mind you saying that the science is not sound but I would be interested to hear some good reasons why you feel this way. 
| Quote: |
| Moreover, I used the analogy of stem cells as an aside, stressing the import of human sourcing. I am aware that these aren't stem cells, for goodness sake! |
I really didn't mean to imply that you were saying that these were stem cells. I just take exception with your claim that we are so focused on stem cells because there is no other way to go for regenerating human cells. I don't think that stem cells are the only thing that we should be researching when it comes to skin regeneration and I was just implying that there are many other actives that are being researched for skin rejuvenation. In other words just because stem cells show promise and are being pursued heavily by researchers we can't interpret this to mean that there are not other options that are worth researching and that they wouldn't be researching stem cells if DNA worked!
| Quote: |
| To whomever mentioned it, I don't understand how an active like copper peptides fits into this discussion at all...please explain it's relevance to human and non-human sourced DNA. Copper peptides are not sourced from human tissue, so how are they related to this discussion?? |
I only mentioned copper peptides as an example of an ingredient that shows promise for skin rejuvenation and to show that there are many avenues being pursued in skin rejuvenation research besides stem cells. Yes, I am aware that they are not sourced from human tissue but that was not my point. I used them as an example to make a point that was indirectly related to the topic.
| Quote: |
I am entitled to my educated opinion, correct?
|
Absolutly!! I hope you don't feel that I was suggesting that you are not allowed to have an opinion or express it. In fact I rather apprectate different opinions as they allow us to have some very interesting discussions. In other words...........RELAX we are all here to have disucssions about these things and you are not being attacked for having your opinion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Apr 07, 2007 10:59 pm |
MBGirl, I have posted a number of reviews on Valmont products and have consistently remarked on the inprovements to my skin with this line, as well as Remergent and Cellcosmet. I have never tried to understand why they may have been working but I can see the difference in my skin over the longer term. None of them were overnight miracles but because the products just seemed to suit my skin I stayed with them.
I find all the comments in this subject really interesting as there are suggestions both for and against why some of these ingredients should or probably don't work. Your input and everyone else who has posted here is greatly appreciated by someone like me who is too lazy to do the research. |
_________________
Skin: Over 60, ex combination now sensitive, Cellcosmet |
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 08, 2007 6:52 am |
"Then I assume you have seen studies that would show that topically applied sodium DNA does not have any benefits? I don't mind you saying that the science is not sound but I would be interested to hear some good reasons why you feel this way. "
]
There are a number of reasons why I feel this way. Here are two:
I do not think that those studies are scientifically sound and impartial, nor conducted with a large enough sample size, nor conducted by a neutral party. I would like to see the same study results duplicated by other researchers, those who do not have an interest in the study outcome.
Secondly, while sodium DNA may affect cells, will it cause an appreciable (visible) improvement in skin? I think this issue has yet to be satisfactorily proven. Improvements in the area of 10% aren't even visible to the naked eye, for example...so to me, it's not significant to say that sodium DNA can affect a cell, I need to know how much effect it may have, and what the result of that effect may be, in practical application. I've read the studies and I do not feel confident that these issues (and others) have been adequately addressed.
Moreover, regarding your comments about peptides and other actives to regenerate skin, while I agree that other actives should certainly be explored, I still do not see the relevance of peptides and other non-tissue sourced actives to this discussion. We have been discussing human sourced versus non-human sourced "actives" (such as DNA and growth factors) and while copper peptides, vitamin c and its derivatives, and tretinoin are among other regenerative actives, they are not really in the vein we are discussing. Hormones and derivates, such as estradiol and estriol, would be a more apt comparison, as they can be human sourced, plant sourced, or sourced from other mammals, all with differing affects on the human subject.
Anyway, as I mentioned, while I strongly doubt that this skincare works via the biomechanism that is claimed, I am very open to reading more extensive, scientifucally sound studies on the subject.
But, if it works, shout out and being the skincare junkie that I am, I'll slather some of it on, too! I'd really love to hear exactly and specifically what it has done for longterm users, though....has it diminished redness/ruddiness/broken capillaries, diminished wrinkles and lines, given firmer skin, repaired scars and depressions...? Share the juicy details, please!
Hope that answers your question. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:42 am |
| Hi MBGirl, the two reasons you give for doubting the effectiveness of Sodium DNA could be given for pretty much any active outside of tretinoin. Theresa was probably asking for a study that says this DNA technology does not work versus the general gripes that always come up: not enough studies, sample sizes too small, possible bias, improvements difficult to quantify, etc. It's cool though, I doubt such a study exists. I mean it was hard to even find the study we've been talking about. Anyway, thanks for a lively discussion and I look forward to continued reviews, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Apr 08, 2007 9:00 am |
MBGirl I think that there is a little misunderstanding here. I have never said that I feel that the article proves that sodium DNA works. Further, I never said that the studies were proof that it works. I just said that it was interesting. Having only seen a vague summary of the studies in the article I personally will refrain from analyzing them. Yet I too feel that they probably are a little weak, have too small a sample size and may be biased but that is just a guess since I have not seen the actual studies-just comments on them in the article. If you have found the studies referenced in the article, which it sounds like you have, and have read them could you please provide links to them since I could not find them (in English anyway!).
| Quote: |
| Anyway, as I mentioned, while I strongly doubt that this skincare works via the biomechanism that is claimed, I am very open to reading more extensive, scientifucally sound studies on the subject. |
I did not realize this! I got the impression from you comments early on that you were dismissing this out of hand as being too silly to even work and that was my main concern. But if you are open to seeing futher evidence on this then I can't object to that. I too have strong doubts about this but prefer to refrain from making a judgement until I see the actual studies and see more solid evidence that it works.
Regarding my comments on other actives, I have explained why I made those comments and if you still don't understand why I made those references I will leave it at that. That being said I really don't know where you get the idea that our discussion has only been about "human sourced" versus "non-human sourced" actives. I though our discussion was about the science behind the DNA in products like Valmont and if it could possibly work. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Apr 09, 2007 5:56 am |
"I did not realize this! I got the impression from you comments early on that you were dismissing this out of hand as being too silly to even work and that was my main concern. "
I DO think it is too silly to work! But there is certainly no need to be concerned! When there is scientific evidence that salmon DNA actually works to address human skin damage, and if I still think the concept silly in the face of future scientific evidence, THEN you should be concerned!
I suspect that if the products work, they likely do so because of another biomechanism, not because of salmon or sturgeon DNA. That said, as with anything, I am open to seeing scientific research data proving otherwise. To date, I have not seen any studies that remotely prove the efficacy of salmon DNA as a regenerative agent for human skin. I won't assume it works until proven otherwise; indeed, I will assume it does not work until proven otherwise. I feel this cautious approach is the soundest tack for a consumer when considering skincare claims, as this is an industry rife with false promises and misleading pseudoscience. I think our perspectives are fundamentally different in that respect.
"That being said I really don't know where you get the idea that our discussion has only been about "human sourced" versus "non-human sourced" actives. I though our discussion was about the science behind the DNA in products like Valmont and if it could possibly work.
[/quote]"
Where I get the "idea"? You might want to review the thread contents to discover where I got that idea! LOL! I was most certainly discussing human versus non-human sourced issues, from my very first post in this thread. My point was that non-human sourced DNA would not work as an effective regenerative agent on human tissue, and not about the general science behind DNA use in skincare products in general. In fact, I repeatedly noted that I felt there was promise for the application of human-sourced actives, like human growth factors. Please reread my comments to clarify your confusion.
We clearly won't agree on this, and at this point I'd say we're beating a dead salmon, wouldn't you?!
|
|
|
|
|
| Fri Apr 19, 2024 6:02 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
