"Science" behind copper peptides
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:53 pm

Peptides are not full molecules, they are very small parts of molecules. Collagen and Elastin are too large to penetrate the skin, which is why scientists think they are not effective in skin care. But peptides are only parts of those molecules - in this case taken from Collagen and Elastin. The suggestion is that it is not that the Collagen and Elastin deliver Collagen and Elastin to your skin but when these peptides are combined with the copper, they convince the skin that it has been damaged and that encourages the body to produce Collagen, as it would do with a wound.

free skin care · Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:28 pm

alexes wrote:

Peptides are not full molecules, they are very small parts of molecules. Collagen and Elastin are too large to penetrate the skin, which is why scientists think they are not effective in skin care. But peptides are only parts of those molecules - in this case taken from Collagen and Elastin. The suggestion is that it is not that the Collagen and Elastin deliver Collagen and Elastin to your skin but when these peptides are combined with the copper, they convince the skin that it has been damaged and that encourages the body to produce Collagen, as it would do with a wound.

Then it sounds like none of the CP users need to be dermarolling...they can just use Skin Signals instead!

free skin care · Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:50 pm

alexes wrote:

Peptides are not full molecules, they are very small parts of molecules. Collagen and Elastin are too large to penetrate the skin, which is why scientists think they are not effective in skin care. But peptides are only parts of those molecules - in this case taken from Collagen and Elastin. The suggestion is that it is not that the Collagen and Elastin deliver Collagen and Elastin to your skin but when these peptides are combined with the copper, they convince the skin that it has been damaged and that encourages the body to produce Collagen, as it would do with a wound.

Wouldn't this also place them into the nanoparticle classification as I think that is the size required to penetrate past the epidermis and down to the dermis of the skin?

free skin care · Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:25 pm

avalange wrote:

cps were marketed to me as having anti-aging properties, but in my correspondence with Dr. Pickart he steadfastly denied that anyone without major damage to repair should be using his products. there's a double standard there, and i think he would do well to quell our fears and confusions by clarifying his own scientifically-informed position on how best his products should be used.

--avalange

Do you know how he defines major damage? We're all "damaged"

free skin care · Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:30 pm

I am not certain if CPs could be called nanoparticles - I believe they are too large to be considered that size. The contention is that when an exfoliant is used, the CPs can penetrate far enough to encourage anti-inflammatory response and collagen production. As far as dermarolling - I understand that many women do this to help the process along, not because it is necessary for the CPs to work.

free skin care · Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:30 pm

I don't think we have a clue as to his definition of major damage. I see many using the products for firming and pigmentation???

free skin care · Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:35 pm

alexes wrote:

I am not certain if CPs could be called nanoparticles - I believe they are too large to be considered that size. The contention is that when an exfoliant is used, the CPs can penetrate far enough to encourage anti-inflammatory response and collagen production. As far as dermarolling - I understand that many women do this to help the process along, not because it is necessary for the CPs to work.

Agree, The quote above implies that the peptides penetrate with no mention of any exfoliation? Unless I am missing something in that post?

free skin care · Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:38 pm

I don't know - I just quickly checked the site and it said that exfoliation was necessary. Although, to be honest, I never really bothered with exfoliation for the first eight months I used the CPs and still had results, so...?

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 4:54 am

alexes wrote:

for the first eight months I used the CPs and still had results, so...?

Very interesting, because I was forming a theory that the results from the CP's were pretty much due to the acids that are recommended to use with them. Sorry if you have stated this before, alexes, but what results did you have with the CP's?

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:27 am

rileygirl wrote:

alexes wrote:

for the first eight months I used the CPs and still had results, so...?

Very interesting, because I was forming a theory that the results from the CP's were pretty much due to the acids that are recommended to use with them. Sorry if you have stated this before, alexes, but what results did you have with the CP's?

I think that there are 2 issues:

a. AHA: I don't think, given all the evidence behind the effects of AHA on skin, that we can deny that at least part of the effects people see using CPs are due to the AHA.

This would be the same if someone uses Retin-A + AHA. The improvement would be due to both.

b. Improvement without AHA: I think there are 2 possibities, one is that the CPs work. The other is that the other substances work. Some of the CPs creams have other things in it that can obviously improve people's skin, the creams with retinon + CPs being the most obvious example.
The other thing to consider is that there is a difference between VISUAL improvement and HISTOLOGICAL improvement. There are lots of creams that can make our skin look a lot better but the only effect is to help the skin retain water and thus look more "plump". This "plumpness" improves scars, hyperpigmentation, wrinkles and unevennes.

When you see randomized controlled trials of skin products, the placebo group also always improves. In some cases, it even improves histologically, with more collagen production! So obviously just sticking to a routine, cleaning our skin (which causes at least a tiny exfoliating effect), maintaining it hydrated, etc. improves our skin regardless of what actives the emulsion has.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:57 am

Josee wrote:

I think that there are 2 issues:

a. AHA: I don't think, given all the evidence behind the effects of AHA on skin, that we can deny that at least part of the effects people see using CPs are due to the AHA.

This would be the same if someone uses Retin-A + AHA. The improvement would be due to both.

b. Improvement without AHA: I think there are 2 possibities, one is that the CPs work. The other is that the other substances work. Some of the CPs creams have other things in it that can obviously improve people's skin, the creams with retinon + CPs being the most obvious example.
The other thing to consider is that there is a difference between VISUAL improvement and HISTOLOGICAL improvement. There are lots of creams that can make our skin look a lot better but the only effect is to help the skin retain water and thus look more "plump". This "plumpness" improves scars, hyperpigmentation, wrinkles and unevennes.

I agree that the AHA's definitely play a part in the improvement in the skin. A combination of AHA with other proven actives has definitely been show to work.

I have also thought that the other ingredients in the product could possibly be playing a role in the improvement people get with the CP's.

While there is the difference between visual and histological improvement, I would be thrilled with some visual improvement, as I never get that from any product (other than when I used Obagi). Very Happy

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:12 am

DarkMoon wrote:

I don't think we have a clue as to his definition of major damage. I see many using the products for firming and pigmentation???

From reading websites that talk about "damage" I think "damage" is basically either scars, hyperpigmentation, sagging and any of the process involved in aging.

The problem with that is that the body uses different strategies to repair "damage" so, for example, enhancing the natural process of wound healing might not be good for sagging. Conversely, enhancing anti-wrinkle production might not be good for healing a real wound.

In addition, if this "communication" between the peptides and the skin were to happen, it would have to mean that the peptide goes to the dermis (or that it stimulates the epidermis to release something that will then go to the dermis to "stimulate"). I'm not sure there's evidence the GHK-Cu even goes to the deeper layers of the epidermis, esp. given the fact that there are conflicting reports on whether it is able to pass the stratum corneum!

I don't use any peptides but I think there's some evidence that peptides (including GHK-Cu) can increase collagen production (there's no evidence regarding second generation CPs). But if I were to use peptides, I would lean to use one with no metals and one that doesn't have reports or ruining people's skin (mmm Maybe matrixyl?) Just my own thing.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:32 pm

Josee wrote:

The other thing to consider is that there is a difference between VISUAL improvement and HISTOLOGICAL improvement.

And let's not forget the placebo factor...I think people really WANT to see results so badly that they convince themselves that they ARE seeing results. Embarassed

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:00 pm

rileygirl
You asked about the results I have seen in my skin due to using CPs. I was given a steroid injection for severe muscle pain due to a disease I have, and not warned that it could permanently thin the skin over my entire body. My skin is now like that of a woman twenty years older, and I look at least fifteen years older than before the injection. I bought the CPs because I did some research and felt they were safe; my hope was that they would thicken my skin again. After eight months of applying the CPs to my naso-labial lines and to my breasts, I could not deny the change. The lines around my mouth had filled in about 50% and my breasts had - weird I know - increased a full cup size. I could not figure it out. I was using the CPs for skin thickening, not bust enhancement. I had actually lost about ten pounds during that time, and because I am small chested that usually means my boobs disappear. Instead they got bigger. My bras don't fit, people have noticed. I am not on hormones, and not pregnant. It was suggested that this is the effect mentioned on the Skinbio site - encouragement of the growth of subcutaneous fat. I don't use any other products on my chest or around my mouth.
Most recently I have started to use the CPs on my hands and under my eyes. It has only been two months, but there is improvement there as well. I will just keep using them, and see what happens - hopefully things will continue to get better.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 3:18 pm

Josee wrote:

Star Model wrote:

Furthermore, it is impossible for free copper ion to exist in the system. The binding affinities of peptides for copper ion are so high that for every molecule of free ionic copper, there are at least 1000 billion bound copper ion bound to the peptides. The amount of free copper is unmeasurable and of no consequence.

Josee wrote:

I don't know when Dr. Pickart wrote this post but it is certainly either outdated or inaccurate. I think it was in the 90s when I first read about trace elements and free copper.

Free copper DOES exist and it IS measurable. Excess free copper is the basis of Wilson's disease.

McMillin GA et al. Direct measurement of free copper in serum or plasma ultrafiltrate.Am J Clin Pathol. 2009 Feb;131(2):160-5.

Some excerpts from the paper:

Copper is an essential element and a critical component of many metalloenzymes. However, excess copper, particularly the free (ie, not bound to proteins) fraction, may lead to tissue injury due to pro-oxidant effects and depletion of antioxidant reserves. It is estimated that less than 5% of the total copper concentration circulates independent of binding proteins such as ceruloplasmin. Thus, the concentration of protein-free copper is very low relative to the total serum copper concentration. As a result, a clinically significant change in the free copper concentration may not be detected through measuring total copper concentrations alone. Indeed, the total serum or plasma copper concentration is generally insensitive to detection of copper overload.

The most dramatic example of copper overload is Wilson disease (WD), wherein a defect in ATP7B, the gene that codes for the primary transporter responsible for copper elimination, leads to excess copper in circulation and accumulation of copper in tissues. Copper excess is also associated with cancer, preeclampsia, dilated cardiomyopathy, inflammation, biliary obstruction, Alzheimer disease, and total parenteral nutrition

Free copper concentrations represent the active, potentially toxic fraction of copper in circulation. The most dramatic clinical example of copper overload is WD. Owing to impaired elimination of copper and resultant accumulation of copper observed with WD, it is logical that the concentration of free copper would be elevated, and determination of the free copper level may assist in the diagnosis and monitoring of WD. Herein, a method for the determination of the free copper concentration is presented and its validation for clinical use described.

He is right though that most copper is bound to proteins (including enzymes). But this could be problematic too because if you have a complex like GHK-Cu (or the second generation) that is quickly broken in vivo, then that free copper will bind to some other protein. And that other protein + copper might be one of the many reactions in which copper generates free radicals or has some other adverse effect.

..................................................................................................

Dr. Pickart got back to me regarding the problem with the McMillian paper cited above:

From Dr. Pickart:

I don't know what they mean by free copper. Free copper ion will become a hydroxy acid and precipitate out of solution at the body's pH.

As for the paper from McMillian et al, I will write to them. They used a filtration method to remove the proteins. They said they measured protein free copper. But the remaining protein-free fraction is filled with small peptides and amino acids which have a high affinity for copper with a binding constant of around 10 exp 6. So if copper ions and amino acids were in about equal quanties, then for each unbound copper molecule, one million are bound to a peptide or amino acid.

However, since there is at least a 200-fold excess of amino acids to copper, even
less would be free.

McMillan is also very wrong about diseases. They are wrong about Alzheimer's disease - every paper in the last 6 years from labs that specialize in Alzheimer's disease finds that copper is protective. And Center for Disease Control says copper does not cause cancer after
reviewing all of the literature.

There is much confusion about copper and disease.

Total blood plasma or serum copper is elevated in many diseases such as heart disease, cancer, psychosis, arthritis, and so on. This led people to think that copper caused the diseases.

But 90-95% of blood plasma or serum copper is in ceruloplasmin, an anti-oxidant protein that rises with stress and disease. But this is not
the copper that exchanges with tissues but a small fraction of plasma copper (5-10%) bound to the protein albumin that is technically
difficult to measure. During many diseases, this exchangeable copper is decreased. The addition of more dietary copper raises this exchangeable copper and reverses many of the disease conditions.

For example, there once was a study of 20 men put on a very low copper diet with the idea that it would reduce the factors like cholesterol that were increased the disease. After one month, the study was stopped after three men had heart attacks and one died.

There is a chapter on this at www.skinbiology.com/copperhealth.html on
this but it could be expanded into a book.

The worst was reports like this that said copper caused Alzheimer's Disease. Until 2004, every paper that concerned copper said it caused Alzheimer's. Finally really good laboratories looked at this and came to the opposite conclusion. Then a placebo-controlled clinical study in Germany found that early stage Alzheimer's patients who were given
copper supplements did much better mentally than did the control treatment group. The latest paper in this area found that more tissue copper stops the rolling up of proteins that produces the plaques in the brain.

There is a lot of poor research on copper and disease. Sometimes I wonder if such papers represent any actual experiments.

Low Dietary Copper or tissue copper is Causative or Associated with:

INCREASED
Alzheimer's Brain Plaques (49,50)
Emphysema (59)
Anemia (51)
Aortic Aneurysms (52)
Arthritis (53)
Atherogenic Blood Lipids (53)
Blood Pressure (54)
Cancers (55)
Cardiovascular Disease (56)
Cholesterol (57)
Damaging Oxidations (53)
Diabetes (5 Cool

Fatigue (53)
Immune System Function (60)
LDL - Low-Density Lipoprotein (61)
Osteoporosis (62)
Protein Glycation (5 Cool

Psychosis (53)
Sensitivity to Pain (53)
Tissue Inflammation (63)

DECREASED
Anti-oxidant Activity (53)
DHEA – dehydroepiandrosterone (64)
Energy Production (53)
HDL - High Density Lipoprotein (65)

References

49. Bayer TA, Schafer S, Simons A et al. Dietary Cu stabilizes brain
superoxide dismutase 1 activity and reduces amyloid a{beta} production
in app23 transgenic mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Nov
25;100(24):14187-14192.

50. Phinney AL, Drisaldi B, Schmidt SD et al. In vivo reduction of
amyloid-{beta} by a mutant copper transporter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.
2003 Nov 25;100(24):14193-14198.

51. Lynch SM, Klevay LM. Contrasting effects of a dietary copper
deficiency in male and female mice. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. 1994
Feb;205(2):190-6.

52. Greene, et al. Rats on a copper deficient diet had a decrease in
aortic integrity that produces eventual aneurysm. J Surg Res 1987; 42:
503-512.

53. Sorenson JR. Copper complexes offer a physiological approach to
treatment of chronic diseases. Prog Med Chem. 1989;26:437-568.

54. Klevay LM, Halas ES. The effects of dietary copper deficiency and
psychological stress on blood pressure in rats. Physiol Behav. 1991
Feb;49(2):309-14.

55. DiSilvestro RA, Greenson JK, Liao Z. Effects of low copper intake on
dimethylhydrazine-induced colon cancer in rats. Proc Soc Exp Biol Med.
1992 Oct;201(1):94-7.

56. Klevay LM. Cardiovascular disease from copper deficiency--a history.
J Nutr. 2000 Feb;130(2S
Suppl):489S-492S.

57. Klevay LM. Dietary copper: a powerful determinant of
cholesterolemia. Med Hypotheses. 1987 Oct;24(2):111-9.

58. Saari JT, Dahlen GM. Early and advanced glycation end-products are
increased in dietary copper deficiency. J Nutr Biochem. 1999
Apr;10(4):210-4.

59. Copper deficiency and developmental emphysema. Nutr Rev. 1983
Oct;41(10):318-20

60. Failla ML, Hopkins RG. Is low copper status immunosuppressive? Nutr
Rev. 1998 Jan;56(1 Pt 2):S59-64.

61. Klevay LM. Dietary copper: a powerful determinant of
cholesterolemia. Med Hypotheses. 1987 Oct;24(2):111-9.

62. Klevay LM. Lack of a recommended dietary allowance for copper may be
hazardous to your health. J Am Coll Nutr. 1998 Aug;17(4):322-6.

63. Bo S, Durazzo M, Gambino R et al. Associations of dietary and serum
copper with inflammation, oxidative stress, and metabolic variables in
adults. J Nutr. 2008 Feb;138(2):305-10.

64. Klevay LM, Christopherson DM. Copper deficiency halves serum
dehydroepiandrosterone in rats. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2000 Oct;14(3):143-5.

65. Klevay LM. Dietary copper: a powerful determinant of
cholesterolemia. Med Hypotheses. 1987 Oct;24(2):111-9.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:36 pm

Star Model wrote:

I don't know what they mean by free copper. Free copper ion will become a hydroxy acid and precipitate out of solution at the body's pH.

Free copper is also sometimes called ultrafiltrable. This copper is responsible for free radical generation and all kinds of adverse effects (I gave the references before)

Star Model wrote:

As for the paper from McMillian et al, I will write to them. They used a filtration method to remove the proteins. They said they measured protein free copper. But the remaining protein-free fraction is filled with small peptides and amino acids which have a high affinity for copper with a binding constant of around 10 exp 6.

Exactly....assuming that the filter McMillian used was too big and thus let Cu2+ plus peptides pass... then it works even WORSE against copper peptides!!!!
It is THAT fraction (the fraction that according to Dr. Pickart is made of copper + peptide) is the one that has been associated to for free-radical generation and adverse effects.
Having said that, other methods (including include chelation and solid phase extraction) have been used to measure free copper.

Star Model wrote:

McMillan is also very wrong about diseases. They are wrong about Alzheimer's disease - every paper in the last 6 years from labs that specialize in Alzheimer's disease finds that copper is protective.

Huh? This is news to me. Just to cite a few articles (there are hundreds):

1. Anti-copper therapies in Alzheimer's disease: new concepts.Recent Pat CNS Drug Discov. 2009 Nov;4(3):209-19.

2. Copper in the brain and Alzheimer's disease.J Biol Inorg Chem. 2010 Jan;15(1):61-76. Epub 2009

3. Clioquinol decreases amyloid-beta burden and reduces working memory impairment in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease.J Alzheimers Dis. 2009 Jun;17(2):423-40.

4. Alzheimer's disease as copper deficiency.Med Hypotheses. 2008;70(4):802-7. Epub 2007 Oct 24.

5. The risks of copper toxicity contributing to cognitive decline in the aging population and to Alzheimer's disease.J Am Coll Nutr. 2009 Jun;28(3):238-42.

Star Model wrote:

And Center for Disease Control says copper does not cause cancer after
reviewing all of the literature.

This is what is posted on the CDC's website regarding copper: We do not know if copper can cause cancer in humans. EPA does not classify copper as a human carcinogen because there are no adequate human or animal cancer studies.
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/PHS/PHS.asp?id=204&tid=37

Star Model wrote:

But 90-95% of blood plasma or serum copper is in ceruloplasmin, an anti-oxidant protein that rises with stress and disease. But this is not
the copper that exchanges with tissues but a small fraction of plasma copper (5-10%) bound to the protein albumin that is technically
difficult to measure. During many diseases, this exchangeable copper is decreased. The addition of more dietary copper raises this exchangeable copper and reverses many of the disease conditions.

Actually.... NOT, it's the other way around. In Alzheimer's disease the fraction of copper not bound to ceruloplasmin has been found more often increased than not. Total copper has been found either the same, increased or decreased in different studies. Please read:

- Excess of nonceruloplasmin serum copper in AD correlates with MMSE, CSF β-amyloid, and h-tau. Neurology 2006;67:76–82

- Longitudinal prognostic value of serum "free" copper in patients with Alzheimer disease. Neurology. 2009 Jan 6;72(1):50-5.

- The risks of free copper in the body and the development of useful anticopper drugs. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2008 Nov;11(6):727-32.

It is this "exchangeable" copper that is blamed for a lot of the adverse effects because when it "reacts" with other enzymes it can produce good or BAD ractions.

Star Model wrote:

For example, there once was a study of 20 men put on a very low copper diet with the idea that it would reduce the factors like cholesterol that were increased the disease. After one month, the study was stopped after three men had heart attacks and one died.

I wonder which ethics committee approved of such trial. Copper is a necessary trace metal. We need copper to live.

Star Model wrote:

Finally really good laboratories looked at this and came to the opposite conclusion. Then a placebo-controlled clinical study in Germany found that early stage Alzheimer's patients who were given copper supplements did much better mentally than did the control treatment group. The latest paper in this area found that more tissue copper stops the rolling up of proteins that produces the plaques in the brain.

Mmmm... which study is that? Could you please cite it for me? Because the only RCT I know of that was carried out in Germany (a phase II trial) found no difference between copper supplementation and no copper supplementation. This is the conclusion of the study: "In the present clinical trial, we demonstrate that oral intake of Cu orotate (8 mg Cu daily for 12 months) has no effect on cognitive abilities of AD patients and is neither detrimental nor beneficial."

Here's the reference:
Intake of copper has no effect on cognition in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease: a pilot phase 2 clinical trial.J Neural Transm. 2008 Aug;115( Cool

:1181-7. Epub 2008 Jun 28.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:48 pm

bethany wrote:

Josee wrote:

The other thing to consider is that there is a difference between VISUAL improvement and HISTOLOGICAL improvement.

And let's not forget the placebo factor...I think people really WANT to see results so badly that they convince themselves that they ARE seeing results. Embarassed

I also thought so until I decided to drop my CP serum and use the very same routine but with Valmont Glacier Serum in the place of my CP serum.

Let me tell you, girls, I'll never drop my CP serum again. Whatever the science behind them may be, CPs work for me. During the 3 months that I wasn't using CPs my face sagged and was in horrible condition (in spite the fact that I kept using all the other products and gadgets as before).

I cannot report any anti-wrinkle effects of CPs, but I see dramatic firming effects and I've been using them for 3 years.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:58 pm

Dear Russian Sunshine,

Thanks for posting--I for one, value your opinion and your experience, as, I hope, people would value mine. Glad to hear that you have had measurable results with cps.

just because we are having a tough time proving anything scientifically doesn't cancel out the positive results some are enjoying.

--avalange

RussianSunshine wrote:

bethany wrote:

Josee wrote:

The other thing to consider is that there is a difference between VISUAL improvement and HISTOLOGICAL improvement.

And let's not forget the placebo factor...I think people really WANT to see results so badly that they convince themselves that they ARE seeing results. Embarassed

I also thought so until I decided to drop my CP serum and use the very same routine but with Valmont Glacier Serum in the place of my CP serum.

Let me tell you, girls, I'll never drop my CP serum again. Whatever the science behind them may be, CPs work for me. During the 3 months that I wasn't using CPs my face sagged and was in horrible condition (in spite the fact that I kept using all the other products and gadgets as before).

I cannot report any anti-wrinkle effects of CPs, but I see dramatic firming effects and I've been using them for 3 years.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:39 pm

Star Model wrote:

Low Dietary Copper or tissue copper is Causative or Associated with:

INCREASED
Alzheimer's Brain Plaques (49,50)
Emphysema (59)
Anemia (51)
Aortic Aneurysms (52)
Arthritis (53)

.......

I can actually do the same and quote even more papers Smile

HIGH DIETARY OR TISSUE COPPER IS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED:

Alzheimer's (1,2)
Emphysema (3,4)
Anemia (5,6)
Aortic Aneurysms (7)
Atherogenic Blood Lipids (8,9)
Blood Pressure (10)
Cancers (11,12)
Cardiovascular Disease (10)
Cholesterol (8,9,10)
Damaging Oxidations (13)
Diabetes (14)
Fatigue (15)
Immune System disfunction (16)
LDL - Low-Density Lipoprotein (8,9)
Osteoporosis (17)
Protein Glycation (1 Cool

Psychosis (19)
Sensitivity to Pain (20)
Tissue Inflammation (13)

1. Risks of copper and iron toxicity during aging in humans. Chem Res Toxicol. 2010 Feb 15;23(2):319-26.
2. The risks of copper toxicity contributing to cognitive decline in the aging population and to Alzheimer's disease. J Am Coll Nutr. 2009 Jun;28(3):238-42.
3. Trace elements and oxidative stress in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Saudi Med J. 2005 Dec;26(12):1882-5.
4. Trace elements as a component of oxidative stress in COPD. Respirology. 2004 Mar;9(1):33-7.
5. Interaction between anemia and blood levels of iron, zinc, copper, cadmium and lead in children. Indian J Pediatr. 2007 Sep;74(9):827-30.
6. Comparison of serum levels of iron, zinc and copper in anaemic and non-anaemic pregnant women in China. Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2004;13(4):348-52.
7. Abdominal aortic aneurysm or aortic occlusive disease: role of trace element imbalance. Angiology. 2007 Apr-May;58(2):191-5.
8. Serum lipids and glucose as associated with hemoglobin levels and copper and zinc intake in young adults. Life Sci. 1983 Apr 18;32(16):1897-904.
9. Cardiovascular risk factors in relation to the serum concentrations of copper and zinc: epidemiological study on children and adolescents in the Spanish province of Navarra. Acta Paediatr. 1997 Mar;86(3):248-53.
10. The relationship between established coronary risk factors and serum copper and zinc concentrations in a large Persian cohort. J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2009;23(3):167-75
11. Impact of inorganic nutrients on maintenance of genomic stability. Environ Mol Mutagen. 2009 Jun;50(5):349-60.
12. Copper chelation in cancer therapy using tetrathiomolybdate: an evolving paradigm. Expert Opin Investig Drugs. 2009 Apr;18(4):541-8.
13. Copper homeostasis in eukaryotes: teetering on a tightrope. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2006 Jul;1763(7):737-46. Epub 2006 May 12.
14. The role of zinc, copper and iron in the pathogenesis of diabetes and diabetic complications: therapeutic effects by chelators. Hemoglobin. 2008;32(1-2):135-45.
15. Changes in serum trace elements after surgery: value of copper and zinc in predicting post-operative fatigue. J Int Med Res. 1992 Feb;20(1):12-9.
16. Chronic effects of copper exposure versus endocrine toxicity: two sides of the same toxicological process? Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003
17. Copper: not too little, not too much, but just right. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1995 Jul-Aug;29(4):280-8
18. Copper-catalyzed ascorbate oxidation results in glyoxal/AGE formation and cytotoxicity. Mol Nutr Food Res. 2007 Apr;51(4):445-55.
19. Role of calcium, magnesium, copper and zinc in mental diseases. Acta Cient Venez. 181;32(2):123-31.
20. A series of patients in the emergency department diagnosed with copper poisoning: recognition equals treatment. Tohoku J Exp Med. 2006 Jul;209(3):243-8.

(I did this very quickly so please forgive me in advance for typos and mistakes!)
--------------------

Now... what is the point of all these? The point of all this is that ANYONE can selectively quote things from the medical literature to prove a point or to sell a product. I can probably selectively quote things from the literature to make milk look like the worst poison on earth kind of thing. As scientists, I believe we have the moral obligation to present a balanced view of the evidence to give a complete and truthful picture of the current knowledge as opposed to quoting things to benefit our case.

Is copper good? Is copper bad? We don't know.

Copper to some extent has to be good because it's an essential element. But the balance of copper is obviously something very delicate since it's associated BOTH with good things and bad things. The role of copper in our bodies is so complex that I don't think we'll understand it fully for a while.

Do copper peptides really work? Are they safe? We don't know. There is some evidence that they might work, there is some evidence that they might not work. There are great testimonials from people who benefited from them, there are testimonials from people who had horrible reactions from them.

I don't think it's bad that people use CPs, I don't think it's bad that people sell CPs. I think exciting times are coming as people do more research regarding different copper-peptide complexes. We have just started scratching the surface. I just don't think it's right to show just one side of the issue.

BTW, this happens not only with CPs but with most cosmetics out there.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 8:45 pm

RussianSunshine wrote:

bethany wrote:

Josee wrote:

The other thing to consider is that there is a difference between VISUAL improvement and HISTOLOGICAL improvement.

And let's not forget the placebo factor...I think people really WANT to see results so badly that they convince themselves that they ARE seeing results. Embarassed

I also thought so until I decided to drop my CP serum and use the very same routine but with Valmont Glacier Serum in the place of my CP serum.

Let me tell you, girls, I'll never drop my CP serum again. Whatever the science behind them may be, CPs work for me. During the 3 months that I wasn't using CPs my face sagged and was in horrible condition (in spite the fact that I kept using all the other products and gadgets as before).

I cannot report any anti-wrinkle effects of CPs, but I see dramatic firming effects and I've been using them for 3 years.

RS, that is awesome that you were able to counteract the sagging! Are you also using the DMAE product from SB?

BTW, I was not referring specifically to CPs in this case...I think the placebo factor applies to ALL products.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:50 pm

I've been reading that people are checking their multivitamin supplements for COPPER in view of some of the information that it might not be so good for health. Most multivitamin supplements contain copper.

free skin care · Wed Apr 28, 2010 10:57 pm

m1rox wrote:

I've been reading that people are checking their multivitamin supplements for COPPER in view of some of the information that it might not be so good for health. Most multivitamin supplements contain copper.

Dr. Ann Louise Gittleman is very hot on not overdoing the copper supplements for health reasons...she actually wrote a book on it. But that is very different from a skin product (I would assume).

Quote:

"Why Am I Always So Tired?: Discover How Correcting Your Body's Copper Imbalance Can * Keep Your Body From Giving Out Before Your Mind Does."
Copper overload is an insidious but increasingly common nutritional problem, says Ann Louise Gittleman, author of the bestselling Beyond Pritikin. She says that difficulty getting out of bed, midday slumps, mood swings, insomnia, and anxiety may be symptoms of a copper/zinc imbalance. She discovered this link after she encountered several patients in her nutritional practice--most of them women--who were not suffering from hypothyroidism, adrenal problems, or anemia (as she had suspected), but rather a mineral imbalance that was diagnosed after simple hair testing.

Vegetarian diets, low-fat diets, and taking multivitamins--all ostensibly healthy moves--can make you more susceptible to copper overload. So do less-healthy activities, including drinking alcohol and coffee, taking cortisone, and being constantly stressed. (These activities sap the body of zinc, says Gittleman, jeopardizing the delicate zinc/copper homeostasis in the body.) Home tap water may also be overloaded with copper, and women are susceptible to absorbing copper from intrauterine devices.

To remedy the overload, Gittleman outlines an easy plan for renewing health and increasing energy. She includes a questionnaire to help determine if copper overload may be a problem for you; gives resources for hair analysis in case your doctor doesn't have one; instructs on how to read a tissue-analysis report; and outlines a sensible diet plan, including menus to keep the zinc/copper balance in check.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Always-Tired-Correcting-Imbalance/dp/0062515942

free skin care · Thu Apr 29, 2010 12:18 am

Yet copper deficiancy can cause neurologic disease, as well as other problems. Those with diets too high in zinc - as sited in many of Josee's studies - have copper deficiency problems. Just like the sodium/potassium pump, the minerals both need to be present for one to be healthy, or to actually live. Copper is in our blood, it is necessary for life. The studies that suggest there is a problem with copper and Alzheimer's all state that further research is necessary, because it is not certain whether the copper is the culprit or an artifact of the condition. Consider potassium - after a person dies they have very high potassium levels. That is not because the potassium killed them but because release of potassium is a natural occurrence after death. The same has been suggested with regards to health and copper - that copper levels increase because of certain conditions, not that increased copper levels caused those conditions.

free skin care · Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:34 am

This discussion appears to be going know-where! We have one set of scientific articles stating that copper doesn't contribute to Alzheimer's and another stating it does. We have some people saying that CPs have saved their skin, and others who say that it has damaged it.

How is anyone supposed to make an informed decision?

free skin care · Thu Apr 29, 2010 2:26 am

I think that is a good question!
For me the answer came when talking to my friend in Neuropsychology. She works with Alzheimer's patients almost exclusively and feels that the threat from a copper peptide is almost nil. My dad is a biochemist and he feels the same - but these are people I know, and trust. I was thinking today that people who don't have family or friends they can ask should maybe talk to their doctors about it, to put their minds at ease.
I guess that with the problem of whether to try the products or not the answer is how much time do you want to give the product? I started off really slowly and diluted as much as possible, and I think that is why I saw no uglies. The Skinbio site warned about them, and it freaked me out, so I was a little over-cautious I think. I have been using them for eight months now, and in truth I saw not much difference for the first month, month and a half. It definitely is not a product that gives instant results, and like any active can have consequences if used incorrectly.
I think the best you can do is talk to your doctor, and then decide to give them a go, or not.
Don't know if that is a good enough answer, but it is the way I made my decision.

Automatic Message

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.