Let's Make a List / Name That Fantastic Active
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Wed May 02, 2012 5:41 pm

jom wrote:

Dr. J I think we discussed Gluconolactone as an ingredient briefly on another thread but I was wondering what you think of it as an active ingredient.

Also, in particular, what do you think of this product that contains gluconolactone (I know you won't like the silicones but besides that what do you think?):

NeoStrata Bio-Hydrating Cream

Water (Aqua), Gluconolactone, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Propylene Glycol, Isododecane, PEG-40 Stearate, Sorbitan Monostearate, Isocetyl Alcohol, Stearyl Alcohol, Stearic Acid, Glyceryl Diisostearate, Cyclomethicone (Cyclopentasiloxane), TEA, Ethoxydiglycol, Dimethicone (Methylpolysiloxane), Butylene Glycol, Tocopheryl (Vitamin E) Acetate, Arginine, Disodium EDTA, Magnesium Aluminum Silicate, Xanthan Gum, Methylparaben, Chlorphenesin, Propylparaben.

http://www.dermstore.com/product_Bio-Hydrating+Cream+-+PHA+15_33227.htm

Neostrata is big on AHA's and PHA's. Gluconolactone (one of the latter) has antioxidant qualities, and is less irritating than glycolic acid (probably because it doesn't penetrate nearly as well). Most of the "anti-aging" testing seems focused on the combination (e.g. glycolic + gluconolactone). When compared side-by-side, AHAS's score slightly better.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15002657)

So, my opinion is that it is a reasonable ingredient with rational science behind it, but doesn't really do anything the other HA's do, although with less irritation.

I remain ambivalent about exfoliants in general. Peels have a place. Trying to do it slowly via exfoliative actives in creamy moisturizers seems an odd compromise. I also don't like things with such narrow therapeutic ranges that vary widely from person to person.

Retinoids make much more sense to me. They reach deeper, stimulate turnover from the inside out, act as cell signalling agents. Easier to control effects. Wider therapeutic range.

free skin care · Thu May 03, 2012 5:07 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Tiny wrote:

News just said that a new study said drinking red wine can "stop" cell aging!!! So I vote we all drink a few bottles while we read this.

While the red wine theory has been around this is a new study.

eta:

I ment to ask, can resveratol actually abosorb into the skin Confused

, because if it can

re-edited so it did not appear I'd already been drinking the wine

I hate to burst that bubble but it is one glass daily for women and 2 glasses daily for men, Cabernet was shown to contain the highest amount of resveratol! Shock

Sorry on the beer doc, but dark beer especially makes for a lot of mommy's milk! Laughing

No wonder a good friend of mine looks so good at 55, all she drinks is red wine.

free skin care · Thu May 03, 2012 5:59 pm

Yay! Finally an *active* I can really get into.. Very Happy

Lush that I am... Laughing

free skin care · Thu May 03, 2012 6:17 pm

LMAO! Now THAT'S a glass of vino! Cheer's

free skin care · Thu May 03, 2012 6:22 pm

Tiny wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Tiny wrote:

Well if it is the only way to get it

LMAO, You can buy it in supplements, but drinking some Red Wine sure would be more fun! Laughing

shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

OK......sorry i won't tell I promise! Now raise your glass you two! Cheers!

free skin care · Thu May 03, 2012 6:43 pm

Antioxidants protect the cells and tissues in our bodies from damage. Red wines, such as cabernet and merlot, are high in antioxidants. Since these wines are made from different varieties of grapes, the types and levels of antioxidants between the two wines are not the same. If you enjoy drinking red wine, the American Heart Association recommends a daily limit of 4 ounces for women and 8 ounces for men.
IMPORTANT FACTORS
The amount of antioxidants in grapes is determined by the type of grape, geographic area and production method, according to MayoClinic.com. These factors affect the color of the wine produced. Generally, the darker the grape, the higher the antioxidant content. Wine made from red grapes tends to have more antioxidants than wine made from white or green grapes. Additionally, purple grapes are higher in antioxidants than red grapes.

TYPES OF GRAPES
Cabernet is made from the cabernet sauvignon grape variety. These grapes are dark red and purple with a thick skin. Merlot is made from grapes in the Gironde-Bordeaux wine-growing region. These grapes are red and thin-skinned, and ripen earlier than the Cabernet sauvignon variety. According to a 2011 study published in "Biotechnology & Biotechnology Equipment," the skin of the Cabernet sauvignon grapes have higher antioxidant content than the skin of the grapes used to make merlot.
PHENOLIC CONTENT
Polyphenols are antioxidant compounds in grapes that influence the color and taste of wine. In a 2009 study published in "Food Chemistry," researchers found a strong relationship between antioxidants and phenolic content. Red wines were higher in both antioxidants and phenolic content than white wines. Specifically, cabernet had the greatest number of antioxidants of the 37 wines studied.
RESVERATROL
Resveratrol is a type of antioxidant that plants produce to defend themselves from infection, injury and fungi. Grapes and red wine are high in resveratrol. Studies have found that resveratrol reduces the development of tumors and the spread of cancer cells, according to the National Cancer Institute. A 2003 study published by "Drugs Under Experimental and Clinical Research" compared levels of resveratrol in 19 red wines. Researchers found the highest concentration of resveratrol in merlot.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/556500-antioxidants-in-cabernet-vs-merlot/

Rotate your wine! Laughing

free skin care · Thu May 03, 2012 6:55 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Rotate your wine! Laughing

free skin care · Sat May 05, 2012 2:22 pm

but....wasn't that my point? we don't know (do we?) which category these last ones belong to?
thumbs up or thumbs down?

Again, I am sorry - my 20+ year career is in law and psychology, I am not a scientist...would appreciate if some here could write for the layman or I could point you to my forum where we can discuss intricate intersections between psychology and the law, using obscure terms of art. Bad Grin

BFG - headed back to the blender & the race. lol

free skin care · Fri May 18, 2012 8:06 am

egyptiangoddess wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts on the cream DrJ.

I must say however that you have me very confused about retinoids and telangiectasia. You've given me differing opinions about this and it simply doesn't make sense. (Not to mention such a short trite answer. That is not the DrJ I am familiar with!) You should know more about this issue DrJ considering your colleague, Dr George himself has rosacea. I am starting to feel like you are more than one person with differing opinions whom can't be trusted for a definitive answer which is very disappointing to me as I quite trusted some of your opinions and information. Sad

This is what you just said in response to my query about retinoids and broken capillaries:

DrJ wrote:

Telangiectasia should get better with retinoids, they won't get worse. Maybe another ingredient?

Yet, in another thread I started in regards to Liposomes, I mentioned that I thought I had developed some broken capillaries due to a non-prescription retinol cream I was using. Then I asked you what you thought of a lotion (Fragrance-free Earth Science Almond Aloe lotion) that I liked that helped my rosacea. I asked you if you thought it looked ok to use and this was your response:

DrJ wrote:

This cream has a retinoid too (Retinyl Palmitate), so if it was the culprit before you may be at risk again.

So which one is it DrJ? How can you have two different opinions on whether retinoids can cause broken capillaries or not? I haven't used anything with Vitamin A since you said this. (Even though the Retinyl Palmitate in that lotion is near the end of the ingredients list, surely there must not be very much?) I myself have searched exhaustively for an answer to this question, only to come up with differing opinions. (Which I think many in my position have done as well!) Which has been a huge frustration to say the least. Rosacea and/or broken capillaries can cause a large amount of damage to one's self esteem. Yet retinoids are touted as being the best anti-aging active there is. Even in this thread. So what is someone with rosacea and/or who is prone to broken capillaries to do? And then I receive two different responses about whether retinoids cause telangiectasia from you? Again, an intelligent Doctor whose own colleague suffers from rosacea. One would think you would have a definitive answer to this question and would be posting study after study about it. Not only due to the fact that retinoids are, after all, a "Fantastic Active", but due to your love of discussion and sorting fact from fiction. Since when did you post such short answers to something so important? If retinoids ARE a fantastic active, and there are *so* many people that suffer from rosacea and broken capillaries, SURELY you, DrJ, would post a definitive answer about whether retinoids cause telangiectasia? You are after all, one of the "Truth Pair o' Docs." Surely this issue is close to your heart with Dr George having rosacea himself? He IS your friend and colleague after all.

Then there is this. Taken from the thread "Recent comprehensive meta-study on research into skincare":

Quote:

"Unlike RA (retin a), GA (glycolic acid) does not induce angiogenesis and neovascularization in the dermis.
This can be exploited for patients suffering from photo-induced telangiectasia or rosacea, conditions were RA is
contraindicated".

That is taken from "Cosmeceutical Agents: A Comprehensive Review of the Literature," by TC Tsai and BM Hantash, in Clinical Medicine: Dermatology, 2008 1, 1-20- la-press.com

And this is your response to that study:

DrJ wrote:

The paper is an excellent review of the evidence base, but is not current. All citations are older than 2007, so that's when it was written (takes ~6-8 months to get published). Five years is like a quarter of a lifetime in regenerative medicine.

Good on retinol, but lacks reviews of more recent literature on non-RA rx's. Salicylates & acne - not much new, buyt other acne actives starting to appear (e.g. boron). Good on ceramides,

Paper is written to emphasize the state of the evidence base, looking for definitive independent studies. Hard to find those, mainly because the NIH does not award grants for wrinkle studies. However, does a good job of tying together wound healing (grantable) vs wrinkles.

The world of growth factors and cytokines was new back than, so not much on that. Only mentions a few e.g. TGF, EGF, KGF. There are hundreds to consider.

Overall excellent. But not timely.

So you agreed that the paper was accurate about retinol? Which confirms that you believe that retinoids are contradicted in conditions such as telangiectasia. And you told me to stay away from a lotion with Retinyl Palmitate in case a retinoid was the culprit of my broken capillaries before. And again, I digress, this was your most recent comment to me about it:

DrJ wrote:

Telangiectasia should get better with retinoids, they won't get worse. Maybe another ingredient?

Do clarify DrJ. Let's remember that a lot of people read this board and trust it as a source for correct information. This forum helps a lot of people do the best things for their skin. Let's remember that many people are affected by rosacea and broken capillaries (of whom are also in pursuit of anti-aging) and that it is an important issue to discuss when discussing fantastic actives. I think it's important that, due to retinoids being a, if not the most, fantastic active thus far, we address and come to a conclusion about whether retinoids do or do not cause telangiectasia. I am certain I speak for *many* people about this issue, many who probably don't post here yet read the forum actively and are in the same boat as I am in with rosacea/broken capillaries and effectively want to prevent aging as well.

People with Rosacea and/or who are prone to broken capillaries must NOT be left out of the discussion of fantastic actives, nor any other skin conditions, such as eczema etc. lest this thread not be a definitive resource to one and all who are actively fighting aging and want to do it with the most proven "Fantastic Actives" available. Which is what I thought this thread was supposed to be. Surely whilst discussing which ingredients are definitively "Fantastic Actives", and using scientific research to conclude which ingredients are the best for anti-aging, we must not forget to include which fantastic actives may NOT be appropriate for certain skin conditions, based on the literature available. Or this will not be a definitive resource to anti-aging for one and all. We all have different skin conditions, just like we all have different skin types. Yet we all want the same thing: to prevent and fight aging.

TIA for your clarification about retinoids and telangiectasia DrJ. And for any other opinions on this issue!

Hmm. I think you are taking statements from different contexts and trying to meld them together. E.g. when I said "Good on retinol, but lacks reviews of more recent literature" I was giving an opinion on a paper in terms of its timing & completeness, not commenting on the question at hand.

So, let me make a clear, concise, and definitive statement (or two) on telangiectasias. They are not caused by retinoids. There is a vast and abundant literature including side effects.It is not listed on the labeling as a side effect. It is not mentioned but maybe once or twice in a huge compendium. Telangiectasias are, however, associated with rosacea. SO THE ASSOCIATION IS INDIRECT. AND IT IS ONE OF EXACERBATION, NOT CAUSATION. Now rosacea can be "exacerbated" by retinoids simpoly because they can be irritating (red, dry, flaky phase). This does not mean that retinoids cause the rosacea. In fact anyone can get irritation; its just that in people with rosacea, who already have inflammation going on, are going to be more susceptible. Does that mean that VitA causes rosacea? No. Or telangiectasias because that can happen with rosacea? No. It just means that people with rosacea are going to be more sensitive and prone to "itis" -- but as with normal skin, it can be worked through.

Now, telangiectasias can be related to things other than rosacea. The most common cause is hereditary. Pregnancy is on the list, there are others. Now it happens that telangiectasias are more prominent when the skin is thinned, and less so when it is thick. Thin skin is more translucent. Ergo, the thicker the epidermis & dermis, the less prominent these things are. Ergo, things that thicken skin (like retinoids, or isoflavones, or whatever) can help lessen their appearance. It doesn't make them leave, it just makes them less obvious. Finally, as I have already said, neovascularization has nothing to do with telangiectasias. Its a normal part of would healing, and regeneration of tissues. Those are nice healthy well behaved vessels.

The bottom line is ITS THE ROSACEA, unless you have some other reason for telangiectasias. Nothing else is causing it, certainly not retinoids. But retinoids, if you are sensitive to them, might make them show more. Note the IF. Everyone's skin is different. Which brings me to the penultimate point. You are looking for definitive hard and fast rules. In medicine, usually doesn't work that way. There is a role for trial and error.

Finally, if they really bug you, see a dermatologist, talk about laser.

free skin care · Sat May 19, 2012 6:35 am

I feel that Dr J has been very generous with his time to answer our questions here. Let's keep that in mind...

free skin care · Sat May 19, 2012 8:42 am

DrJ wrote:

I stand by what I stated, all correct in context. It's not contradictory in the least, if you grasp exactly what we are talking about, and the shades of nuances of differences between sensitivities and adverse reactions. I can sit around and parse through everything I may have said in the past to tell you exactly what I meant and why, but it would be a momentous waste of time because I suspect your real agenda is something else. And when I try to explain my reasoning, its not just for you, but for others who may not have your level of dermatologic expertise, so excuse if think I am being too simple minded. Sorry if it puts you off that I am not composing notes just for you.

So, my advice is this: don't ask me for advice. Problem solved. I won't be answering anyway. Go see a dermatologist. Go take some classes. Go get a degree. Prove to the world you have superior wisdom. Whatever.

My guess is Egyptian Goddess's real agenda is simply to get beautiful, healthy and radient skin, trying to learn from the teaching dr J is doing on EDS.

free skin care · Sat May 19, 2012 8:48 am

Lotusesther wrote:

DrJ wrote:

I stand by what I stated, all correct in context. It's not contradictory in the least, if you grasp exactly what we are talking about, and the shades of nuances of differences between sensitivities and adverse reactions. I can sit around and parse through everything I may have said in the past to tell you exactly what I meant and why, but it would be a momentous waste of time because I suspect your real agenda is something else. And when I try to explain my reasoning, its not just for you, but for others who may not have your level of dermatologic expertise, so excuse if think I am being too simple minded. Sorry if it puts you off that I am not composing notes just for you.

So, my advice is this: don't ask me for advice. Problem solved. I won't be answering anyway. Go see a dermatologist. Go take some classes. Go get a degree. Prove to the world you have superior wisdom. Whatever.

My guess is Egyptian Goddess's real agenda is simply to get beautiful, healthy and radient skin, trying to learn from the teaching dr J is doing on EDS.

Agreed, but you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. People won't help if they feel they are under attack.

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 12:03 pm

My 'fantastic actives' when it comes to cleansing are called warm water (INCI: aqua) and Microfiber.

Anything worth while you can use as a toner, makes more sense than rinsing it off or applying it to uncleansed skin.

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 4:48 pm

DrJ wrote:

"It works for me" is not generalizable proof but I'll bet it sells more product than all the proof we could muster. Its a right vs left brain thing.

It may definitely work to get some people to buy, but I have read too many raves about products that have worked miracles for others, and don't do squat for me. And usually the raves are talking about the latest/greatest, not the boring stuff that truly works. All this N=1 stuff sounds rather silly to me. Don't get me wrong, I am glad when something works for someone, but 1 person having a good results really doesn't tell us anything.

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 5:12 pm

jom wrote:

You're right, the only person it applies to is the N of 1. But that's what this forum is about, reporting on what works or doesn't work for a particular person and then the readers can decide if it's something they want to try for themselves and hope it works for them too. It's great to have reviews but the only way to know if something will work for you is to try it.

That's very true - but that's not how medications are developed - they're expected to work on the majority, not the minority. If antibiotics had only worked on a very few people where would they be now - in obscurity. That's why we need to talk about actives that have some kind of proven track record.

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 5:15 pm

Keliu wrote:

jom wrote:

You're right, the only person it applies to is the N of 1. But that's what this forum is about, reporting on what works or doesn't work for a particular person and then the readers can decide if it's something they want to try for themselves and hope it works for them too. It's great to have reviews but the only way to know if something will work for you is to try it.

That's very true - but that's not how medications are developed - they're expected to work on the majority, not the minority. If antibiotics had only worked on a very few people where would they be now - in obscurity. That's why we need to talk about actives that have some kind of proven track record.

Agree that the only way to know is to try it. However, I totally agree with Keliu. If something is "proven", it works for the majority, and not just 1 or 2 people.

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 6:18 pm

Am I the only person here who has no idea what "N = 1" means?

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 6:39 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Keliu wrote:

Am I the only person here who has no idea what "N = 1" means?

If I recall correctly Newton's Law N (unit) 1 (number of subjects) roughly applied in this case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_(unit)

But isn't that referring to a measure of Force?

Quote:

The newton (symbol: N) is the SI derived unit of force. It is named after Isaac Newton in recognition of his work on classical mechanics, specifically Newton's second law of motion.

What's it got to do with a person?

But regardless, if science is going to be interested in ONE person's "proof" then I don't know how anything really factual can be proven. This was the basis of my argument on the Ageless Secret Thread. Are we going to accept the "proof" of one person that spraying water on the face is anti-aging?

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 7:29 pm

jom wrote:

Keliu and Darkmoon, you are over-analyzing it! It has nothing to do with Newton! Rolling Eyes

I'm not over-analysing anything! Everyone keeps saying N = 1 and I didn't have a clue what it meant. Now I realise it means absolutely nothing!!

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 7:53 pm

Keliu wrote:

jom wrote:

Keliu and Darkmoon, you are over-analyzing it! It has nothing to do with Newton! Rolling Eyes

I'm not over-analysing anything! Everyone keeps saying N = 1 and I didn't have a clue what it meant. Now I realise it means absolutely nothing!!

It means something if you are the one (wasn't that a song by the BeeGees?).

Here is the clinical aphorism that goes along with it. Let's say of every 10,000 people who use a drug, one of them dies of a nasty side effect. Low risk you might say. The problem is that if you are that one, then there is a 100% chance you will die. Ouch!

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 8:30 pm

jom wrote:

I guess that depends on how you define "proven." If you're talking about it in a clinical or medical sense "clinically proven" (which I think is a term that is overused) it works on more than one person. If you're talking about it in an indivudual sense (N=1) "individual proof" then all it matters to is the person using it. The product has "proven" to me that it works (for me). I think sometimes on this forum people disagree with things just for the sake of disagreeing and trying to prove that you're "smarter" than the other person. It isn't necessary to dissect every comment or over-analyze it.

I didn't realize we were talking about a particular product here, I thought we were talking about active ingredients? Did I jump on the wrong thread? What I mean by a proven active ingredient is one that has stood the test of time - A and C - work for the majority, not just a few people. I did not think I was dissecting or over-analyzing anything?

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 8:56 pm

rileygirl wrote:

I didn't realize we were talking about a particular product here, I thought we were talking about active ingredients? Did I jump on the wrong thread? What I mean by a proven active ingredient is one that has stood the test of time - A and C - work for the majority, not just a few people. I did not think I was dissecting or over-analyzing anything?

Exactly! What is the point of considering the clinical studies and other scientific research if we're just going to base our purchases on "try it and see". What is wrong with statistical data which provides evidence that something works in the majority of people?

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 9:15 pm

Add my voice to the chorus.

Those drugs, actives, etc. whatever you want to call them, that are truly effective are the ones that withstand the test of time - the best test of all.

Widespread acceptance comes from lots of testing, in a variety of settings, again - over time.

Until then, it's hope in a jar or pill bottle.

Given the average human lifespan, I recognize we can only wait for so long... Laughing

so until then we look for other evidence like clinical data and/or reports from many users.

One or two really doesn't mean anything unless you choose to be the guinea pig and hey, that's your choice - spend your money and time however you wish.

I disagree with the notion that some disagree just to disagree.

What we are employing here is known as critical thinking. No surprise, I highly endorse it. The cosmetics industry is widely known to be rife with BS.

BFG

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 11:13 pm

DrJ wrote:

There is a confusing array of new active ingredients out there, making claims left and right. Let's together construct a list, then rate the evidence for each (claims, how does it work, does that make sense, etc). Once we sift through, it will be a resource for others who come here for information.

So if you want to add something to the discussion, name that ingredient, some reference to what it claims to do (or even just a link), whether you have tried it & results, and any other pertinent information you may have. And your opinion, if you have one. The rest of us will pile on (good naturedly, of course).

This in my mind seems to be in contradiction with 'N = 1'.
If this is supposed to be a resource for others, it should be more than 'it worked for 1 person'.

The most important things about experience with ingredients are in my mind:
- possible side effects, like sensitivities
- real life performance. Things may sound beautiful in theory or work in a petri dish, in real life things are different. Especially when it comes to the question whether or not that ingredient can get to the layer where it can do its job. Penetration. That can depend on formulation (so it's not just a matter of ingredient name, but also of the formula in which it was used) or it can just mean that the theory was nice but too many variables were not taken into account.

Contrary to the supposed scientific approach we have anecdotal evidence. Many ingredients have been known to work for years, but the theory why they work was missing (think aspirin, or in cosmetics the effects of essential oils or progesterone). This does not mean they don't work (or that they work for everyone for that matter) but simply that they haven't been researched and tested in a scientific way. But if your mother and grandmother had good results with ingredient x, chances are it will work for you too. In that case it's more like a cohort study btw (even if the cohort is small, but with many overlapping genetical characteristics).

That's what happens here at EDS sort of: an x number of users share their experience, and from that you can gather if there is a statistically significant number of people who have results, so that you know if it's worth a shot or not. This of course taking into account human nature - the short term rave, the biased opinions of those who have been recruited to rave about a product, and the wishful thinking that makes people interpret slight improvement as the beginning of something really great. So time, no matter how large the n is, is an important factor too.

free skin care · Wed May 23, 2012 8:31 am

DrJ wrote:

This is a great discussion, although I suspect we will be considered off topic. What this has evolved into is a discussion of "cosmetic epistemology" -- how do we know what we know? What constitutes evidence for efficacy and safety? What is the role of personal (N=1) experience? And of sharing that experience with others (anecdotes, which pretty much fills the product forums)? What and who can we trust for guidance?

So, should we start a new thread and continue the discussion? Sounds like a good deal of interest so far.

Sure, I am game. As long as we can all agree to disagree and no one gets defensive about comments, it could be a really good discussion. Start the thread, Dr J.

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.