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

free skin care · Tue May 08, 2012 10:39 am

Admit it...you're jealous. You don't have that research paper. Wink

But since you are up for splitting receptors, why is it in the accelerator?

Br J Dermatol. 2003 Oct;149(4):841-9.
Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind study on the clinical efficacy of a cream containing 5% alpha-lipoic acid related to photoageing of facial skin.
Beitner H.
Source

Department of Dermatology, Karolinska Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden. harry.beitner@ks.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

alpha-lipoic acid (LA) or the reduced form dihydrolipoate (DHLA) is a potent scavenger with anti-inflammatory properties. Previous uncontrolled studies with topical treatment with 5% LA-containing creams indicate a beneficial effect on photoageing skin.
OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a cream containing 5% LA showed any advantages concerning a number of the criteria associated with ageing of the facial skin, compared with an identical cream lacking LA.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Thirty-three women, mean age 54.4 years, were included in this controlled study. After randomization half the face was treated twice daily for 12 weeks with the LA cream and the other half with the control cream. The following methods of assessment were used: self-evaluation by the test subjects, clinical evaluation, photographic evaluation and laser profilometry. Profilometry was performed before the start of treatment and at the end.
RESULTS:

All four methods of assessment showed a statistically significant improvement on the LA-treated half of the face. Laser profilometry, the most objective method used, showed an average decrease in skin roughness of 50.8% (44.9-54.0) on the LA-treated side, compared with 40.7% (32.4-48.7) on the placebo-treated half of the face P < 0.001 (Wilcoxon matched pairs test).
CONCLUSIONS:

It is indicated that 12 weeks of treatment with a cream containing 5% LA improves clinical characteristics related to photoageing of facial skin.

But what they don't tell you...is that it's kind of smelly at 5%.

free skin care · Tue May 08, 2012 10:40 am

What about CLA?

I do not have access to this:

Hawkins SS, Feinberg C, Foy V, Usui T, Wada T, Kent J, Green M, Weinkauf R, Marriott R
Clinical and consumer-assessed improvement to photoaged skin with Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA): A novel cosmetic PPAR for anti-aging benefits. Proceedings of the 24th IFSCC Congress, Osaka 2006.

BFG

free skin care · Tue May 08, 2012 11:30 am

DragoN wrote:

Admit it...you're jealous. You don't have that research paper. Wink

But since you are up for splitting receptors, why is it in the accelerator?

Br J Dermatol. 2003 Oct;149(4):841-9.
Randomized, placebo-controlled, double blind study on the clinical efficacy of a cream containing 5% alpha-lipoic acid related to photoageing of facial skin.
Beitner H.
Source

Department of Dermatology, Karolinska Hospital, 17176 Stockholm, Sweden. harry.beitner@ks.se
Abstract
BACKGROUND:

alpha-lipoic acid (LA) or the reduced form dihydrolipoate (DHLA) is a potent scavenger with anti-inflammatory properties. Previous uncontrolled studies with topical treatment with 5% LA-containing creams indicate a beneficial effect on photoageing skin.
OBJECTIVE:

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a cream containing 5% LA showed any advantages concerning a number of the criteria associated with ageing of the facial skin, compared with an identical cream lacking LA.
MATERIAL AND METHODS:

Thirty-three women, mean age 54.4 years, were included in this controlled study. After randomization half the face was treated twice daily for 12 weeks with the LA cream and the other half with the control cream. The following methods of assessment were used: self-evaluation by the test subjects, clinical evaluation, photographic evaluation and laser profilometry. Profilometry was performed before the start of treatment and at the end.
RESULTS:

All four methods of assessment showed a statistically significant improvement on the LA-treated half of the face. Laser profilometry, the most objective method used, showed an average decrease in skin roughness of 50.8% (44.9-54.0) on the LA-treated side, compared with 40.7% (32.4-48.7) on the placebo-treated half of the face P < 0.001 (Wilcoxon matched pairs test).
CONCLUSIONS:

It is indicated that 12 weeks of treatment with a cream containing 5% LA improves clinical characteristics related to photoageing of facial skin.

But what they don't tell you...is that it's kind of smelly at 5%.

Don't get me wrong - it's antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects are well known. That's why it's there. And I like the mitochondria story. It's just that it seems like everybody is going after collagen induction as the end all-be all of anti-aging, and then not bothering to talk about what that even means. If I really thought alpha-lip was cranking on type I collagen but in an inflammatory way ( which goes against its known inflammatory role) I might want to rethink. My real mission here is toi get these guys to measure TGF-beta fractions. That's where the criticsl information lies.

free skin care · Tue May 08, 2012 11:41 am

Fair enough. But then you end up running into yourself..we're old farts, hitting meno or peri or post. Balance. Just because you can supply via exogenous application, doesn't necessarily mean that it is taken up. Transdermal penetration being the tricky bugger that it is. Up regulate, down regulate and at the end of the day, you have the cytokine boys arguing with the mRNA transcription team and no body agrees. Which came first? The cytokine or the mRNA? The enzyme mediates or the substrate/ or some mysterious yet to be determined co factor limits?

But one thing, darn it, we CAN agree on,
Apple stem cell extract is totally bogus!!!!

Where were we?

free skin care · Tue May 08, 2012 1:00 pm

DragoN wrote:

Fair enough. But then you end up running into yourself..we're old farts, hitting meno or peri or post. Balance. Just because you can supply via exogenous application, doesn't necessarily mean that it is taken up. Transdermal penetration being the tricky bugger that it is. Up regulate, down regulate and at the end of the day, you have the cytokine boys arguing with the mRNA transcription team and no body agrees. Which came first? The cytokine or the mRNA? The enzyme mediates or the substrate/ or some mysterious yet to be determined co factor limits?

But one thing, darn it, we CAN agree on,
Apple stem cell extract is totally bogus!!!!

Where were we?

Yes, the wonder and complexity of it all. In many cases we know cytokines are acting directly on DNA up & down reg. Then the DNA makes mRNA which acts as a cellular messenger. Then proteins get made, some of which are cytokines, and they can either amplify or down mod the effect of the original cytokine.

Best metaphor is listing to a symphonic orchestra on a big concert hall. You can analyse every sound wave, measure where it bounces, how one wave at one frequency adds to or subtracts from other waves at other frequencies, tonal patterns, rhythms, synchronizations, etc. Or, you can just sit back, listen, and enjoy the end result. There is a time for both.

Tue May 08, 2012 2:53 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

Which brings me to the question why estrogen (as estradiol and estrol) hasn't been named as fantastic active yet.
Jan Marini has a face cream with estrogens and progesterone in it. Some people mix their own diluted estrogen cream. All research out there reports very good results. The whole soy isoflavones thing came about because of the supposed estrogenic qualities of the stuff (as well as dill, fennel, clover, lots of other stuff with estrogen-like activity).

DragoN wrote:

Lotusesther wrote:

Some people mix their own diluted estrogen cream. All research out there reports very good results.

As long as it works. Run with it. Your skin, does as you like. I run with the active component in Soy Isoflavones to similar effect and added bonuses. Pick your poison.

Barefootgirl wrote:

It has been (scroll that thread), that's why I mentioned we're reaching the point of summarization for a sticky. If we don't, the thread either dies or people tire of redundancy and slither away.

BFG

Lotusesther wrote:

I apologise, I posted in the wrong topic, thought I was reading the 'name that fantastic active' topic. Sorry!

EthelM wrote:

Lotusesther wrote:

Quote:

I am biased of course. I want results.

Don't we all Very Happy

Which brings me to the question why estrogen (as estradiol and estrol) hasn't been named as fantastic active yet.
Jan Marini has a face cream with estrogens and progesterone in it. Some people mix their own diluted estrogen cream. All research out there reports very good results. The whole soy isoflavones thing came about because of the supposed estrogenic qualities of the stuff (as well as dill, fennel, clover, lots of other stuff with estrogen-like activity).

I use estriol because, while it is a weaker estrogen compared to estradiol, it is indeed a bio-identical human estrogen. Phytoestrogens, like those in soy et al, are far weaker and can be counterproductive, because the weaker phytoestrogens will occupy the estrogen receptors instead of the estriol (or estradiol) thus lowering the body's estrogen levels. Low estrogen contributes to thinner, drier, wrinkled skin and collagen/elastin degradation. Estradiol and estriol both showed very similar results in the skin studies, with estriol being just slightly more effective. However, estriol showed fewer (actually, showed no) irritation effects over estradiol, and since it is a weaker estrogen, and since I'm not menopausal, I felt better choosing estriol over estradiol. Again, both estriol and estradiol are actual human estrogens (USB), not phytoestrogens. I haven't had any systemic effects from the estriol, but I certainly would expect systemic effects from the much stronger topical estradiol.

DrJ wrote:

EthelM wrote:

Lotusesther wrote:

Quote:

I am biased of course. I want results.

Don't we all Very Happy

Which brings me to the question why estrogen (as estradiol and estrol) hasn't been named as fantastic active yet.
Jan Marini has a face cream with estrogens and progesterone in it. Some people mix their own diluted estrogen cream. All research out there reports very good results. The whole soy isoflavones thing came about because of the supposed estrogenic qualities of the stuff (as well as dill, fennel, clover, lots of other stuff with estrogen-like activity).

I use estriol because, while it is a weaker estrogen compared to estradiol, it is indeed a bio-identical human estrogen. Phytoestrogens, like those in soy et al, are far weaker and can be counterproductive, because the weaker phytoestrogens will occupy the estrogen receptors instead of the estriol (or estradiol) thus lowering the body's estrogen levels. Low estrogen contributes to thinner, drier, wrinkled skin and collagen/elastin degradation. Estradiol and estriol both showed very similar results in the skin studies, with estriol being just slightly more effective. However, estriol showed fewer (actually, showed no) irritation effects over estradiol, and since it is a weaker estrogen, and since I'm not menopausal, I felt better choosing estriol over estradiol. Again, both estriol and estradiol are actual human estrogens (USB), not phytoestrogens. I haven't had any systemic effects from the estriol, but I certainly would expect systemic effects from the much stronger topical estradiol.

Soy isoflavones are not the poor cousins of estrogenic hormones. They are not just weak mimics, and much of their action has little to do with estrogen receptors.

Phytoestrogens in general are known to have epigenetic action on gene transcription, and to effect miRNA. In skin they act as paracrines. A whole region of dermal epithelial cells can be affected by stimulation of a few receptors. The phytoestrogen genistein promotes wound healing by multiple independent mechanisms. Really good at stimulating collagen synthesis, but also seems to help deeper (e.g. fat layer level) regeneration. May be one or the best stimuli of facial "plumping", a very desirable goal in aging skin. All that and a very low incidence of side effects makes isoflavones a good ingredient.

EthelM wrote:

Sorry Dr J but I will adamently disagree. Phytoestrogens can and do compete for estrogen receptors and when an aging female is involved, they can indeed cause natural estrogen disruptions and worsen conditions such as androgen sensitivity, etc. Phytoestrogens are known to worsen DHT-related hair loss in women (AGA, androgenic alopecia) and to worsen hormonal acne. For these reasons, phytoestrogens are contraindicated in PCOS patients, as one example. This is well known. Are you a gynecologist or endocrinologist?
I hold firm to what I wrote above. I would *never* use phytoestrogens, either topically or internally. Never.

DrJ wrote:

EthelM wrote:

Sorry Dr J but I will adamently disagree. Phytoestrogens can and do compete for estrogen receptors and when an aging female is involved, they can indeed cause natural estrogen disruptions and worsen conditions such as androgen sensitivity, etc. Phytoestrogens are known to worsen DHT-related hair loss in women (AGA, androgenic alopecia) and to worsen hormonal acne. For these reasons, phytoestrogens are contraindicated in PCOS patients, as one example. This is well known. Are you a gynecologist or endocrinologist?
I hold firm to what I wrote above. I would *never* use phytoestrogens, either topically or internally. Never.

Hi EthylM. It's OK to disagree, if in fact a good debate can be more of a learning experience than just agreeing. I'm not an gyne, but IM/endo (diabetes) and am aware of the many controversies that plague the whole HRT field.
OK, so lets start with some data form the literature. Can you you supply some studies or other references to support your "never use phytoestrogens" stance?
And no rat studies showing isoflavones increasing testosterone, because it has been conclusively shown that in humans it does no such thing. I'll stipulate for the record that only those rats seriously considering hair plugs should eat lots of soy.

Lotusesther wrote:

Right, here we go again.

free skin care · Tue May 08, 2012 4:06 pm

Have we been here before? What did I miss?

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 4:53 am

You didn't miss anything, because this is news to me too...and we do need to flesh this one out. Back up evidence for these assertions please!! Smile

From all I've read, reproductive hormones are only at issue when levels are dropping or diminished and we shouldn't and don't even need to consider swallowing, injecting or slapping anything on the skin until such time, for beauty, health or otherwise.

I've used estrogen based topicals because I have physical evidence that my levels are dropping (without too much info, changes in the menstrual cycle after years of calendar perfection) and my blood tests reveal this.

So far twice this week, I've seen people mention they are using estrogen and are not close to menopause...from what I have read, this is not only a waste of money, but potentially harmful (depending on systemic effects of any topicals).

Yikes, confusing.

BFG

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 4:57 am

DrJ wrote:

Have we been here before? What did I miss?

This which I bumped again, Havana bumped it yesterday.

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?p=6460459#6460459

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 5:01 am

The Schmidt study, and others that were done later, show that at low levels estrogen cream (estriol or estradiol) doesn't have systemic effects.
Is there any similar research into the systemic effects of soy isoflavones?

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 5:36 am

The other thread is helpful, *but it does not address the differences between hormone supplements (topical or otherwise) and phyoestrogens with respect to the skin*.

That is what we need to flesh out here.

Thanks, BFG

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 6:29 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

The other thread is helpful, *but it does not address the differences between hormone supplements (topical or otherwise) and phyoestrogens with respect to the skin*.

That is what we need to flesh out here.

Thanks, BFG

My one point is can we even consider it "A Fantastic Active" when:

(a. A large portion of the population should not or can not use anything with estrogenic effects.

(b. There is so much confusion regarding systemic effects of various forms.

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 7:10 am

Understand, hence my suggestion that when we compile a list, we include the caveats with each.

BFG

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 8:17 am

DarkMoon wrote:

Barefootgirl wrote:

The other thread is helpful, *but it does not address the differences between hormone supplements (topical or otherwise) and phyoestrogens with respect to the skin*.

That is what we need to flesh out here.

Thanks, BFG

My one point is can we even consider it "A Fantastic Active" when:

(a. A large portion of the population should not or can not use anything with estrogenic effects.

(b. There is so much confusion regarding systemic effects of various forms.

I agree with BFG that we need here to discuss estrogens vs phytoestrogens and examine the differences and similarities for both benefits and risks.

I agree with DM that we need to present proof that phytoestrogens are not fantastic sctives if they are dangerous or if they don't work.

So let's look at the evidence for all these questions and issues.

I am going to discuss soy isoflavones because they are the typical and most studied phytoestrogen. I am going to focus mainly on topical effects, although oral/nutritional do shed light especially on safety issues.

First I am going to lay out my claims. They may sound bold, but I promise to present evidence for each and every one.

As background reading I want to suggest:

A good piece by SkinCeuticals with soy background science: http://www.skinceuticals.com/_us/_en/science/download/Soy.pdf

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 8:20 am

Here are my claims:

• Soy isoflavones have been widely studied in a nutritional biochemistry context (oral soy). Numerous benefits have been noted, including memory, lowered cancer rates, reduction in menopausal symptoms, and skin appearance.
• Applied topically, soy isoflavones in the correct doses are not absorbed significantly. If tiny amounts are absorbed, they affect only estrogenic beta receptors, and thus not those in breast and uterus. Hence they have a greater safety profile than topical estradiol, which is not beta receptor selective, and therefore has risks for proliferative lesions in those organs.
• Soy isoflavones are in fact antiproliferative, and thus may be protective against skin cancers when applied topically.
• Soy isoflavones have a well documented anti-hyperchromia (skin lightening) effect, whereas high levels of estrogen are what is responsible for melasma.
• Soy isoflavones stimulate estrogen receptors in the cell’s nucleus and thereby act to retard skin thinning and collagen loss comparable to topical estrogen formulas.
• Soy isoflavones increase levels of glycosaminoglycans (GAG) and specifically hyaluronic acid (HA) in skin. HA production in aging skin is a very good thing, and helps with volume restoration.
• Soy isoflavones are antioxidants - they raise cellular GSH content and GST activity decreasing H2O2 formation and preventing DNA degradation. Estradiol is not an antioxidant.
• Soy isoflavones are effective in promoting wound healing. Things that are good for wound healing (which involves collagen and elastin synthesis) are good to rejuvenate skin.

OK, now let's dig into the literature. To start the journey, let me share this clinical study in 30 women for 6 months using topical soy isoflavones. It’s a full text reference and the authors do a good job of explaining the underlying principles.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2705153/pdf/cln64_6p505.pdf

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 8:42 am

Dr. J bold is exactly why I and some should not use or consume soy.

Finally, our data have shown that the administration of a concentrated soy extract for six months can provide definite benefits. We note improvements in skin health for the postmenopausal women in our study, mainly through
increased epithelium thickness, elevated concentrations of collagen and elastic fibers, and an increased number of subcutaneous vessels. Presumably, these same effects
could also protect skin against the deleterious effects of UV radiation. Isoflavone therapy is worthy of further investigation and should be compared to results obtained in the treatment of postmenopausal women with a standard replacement estrogenic therapy.

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 9:38 am

DarkMoon wrote:

Dr. J bold is exactly why I and some should not use or consume soy.

Finally, our data have shown that the administration of a concentrated soy extract for six months can provide definite benefits. We note improvements in skin health for the postmenopausal women in our study, mainly through
increased epithelium thickness, elevated concentrations of collagen and elastic fibers, and an increased number of subcutaneous vessels. Presumably, these same effects
could also protect skin against the deleterious effects of UV radiation. Isoflavone therapy is worthy of further investigation and should be compared to results obtained in the treatment of postmenopausal women with a standard replacement estrogenic therapy.

I don't understand your logic. We should stop consuming soy (despite mellenia of experience and decades of quality epidemiologic research showing its benefits) because we want to study the equivalency more?

As we delve into the lit, you will see that there are probably just as many studies on topical isoflavones as there are for estrogens in terms of absorption, benefits, and safety.

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 9:47 am

DrJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Dr. J bold is exactly why I and some should not use or consume soy.

Finally, our data have shown that the administration of a concentrated soy extract for six months can provide definite benefits. We note improvements in skin health for the postmenopausal women in our study, mainly through
increased epithelium thickness, elevated concentrations of collagen and elastic fibers, and an increased number of subcutaneous vessels. Presumably, these same effects
could also protect skin against the deleterious effects of UV radiation. Isoflavone therapy is worthy of further investigation and should be compared to results obtained in the treatment of postmenopausal women with a standard replacement estrogenic therapy.

I don't understand your logic. We should stop consuming soy (despite mellenia of experience and decades of quality epidemiologic research showing its benefits) because we want to study the equivalency more?

As we delve into the lit, you will see that there are probably just as many studies on topical isoflavones as there are for estrogens in terms of absorption, benefits, and safety.

Aside from not having any of the typical side effects of menopause including thinning skin, the following from the thread I linked to earlier:

It's not so much that it's controversial in my mind as you said it's a personal decision. What concerns me having the iron levels I do and always have had is more a personal concern about risking blood clots.

Normal Ranges

Hemoglobin Male: 13 - 18 gm/dL
Female: 12 - 16 gm/dL

Hematocrit Male: 45 - 62%
Female: 37 - 48%

I test Hemogloban at 15+ always

I test Hematocrit at 36+ always

This is great when I need clotting as I stop bleeding very rapidly even with a bad cut, however I find it a worry for undesired clotting

I have at least 4 OB/GYN's that have said no to anything that may raise estrogen, so I won't risk it!

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 10:21 am

DarkMoon wrote:

DrJ wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Dr. J bold is exactly why I and some should not use or consume soy.

Finally, our data have shown that the administration of a concentrated soy extract for six months can provide definite benefits. We note improvements in skin health for the postmenopausal women in our study, mainly through increased epithelium thickness, elevated concentrations of collagen and elastic fibers, and an increased number of subcutaneous vessels. Presumably, these same effects could also protect skin against the deleterious effects of UV radiation. Isoflavone therapy is worthy of further investigation and should be compared to results obtained in the treatment of postmenopausal women with a standard replacement estrogenic therapy.

I don't understand your logic. We should stop consuming soy (despite mellenia of experience and decades of quality epidemiologic research showing its benefits) because we want to study the equivalency more?

As we delve into the lit, you will see that there are probably just as many studies on topical isoflavones as there are for estrogens in terms of absorption, benefits, and safety.

Aside from not having any of the typical side effects of menopause including thinning skin, the following from the thread I linked to earlier:

It's not so much that it's controversial in my mind as you said it's a personal decision. What concerns me having the iron levels I do and always have had is more a personal concern about risking blood clots.

Normal Ranges

Hemoglobin Male: 13 - 18 gm/dL
Female: 12 - 16 gm/dL

Hematocrit Male: 45 - 62%
Female: 37 - 48%

I test Hemogloban at 15+ always

I test Hematocrit at 36+ always

This is great when I need clotting as I stop bleeding very rapidly even with a bad cut, however I find it a worry for undesired clotting

I have at least 4 OB/GYN's that have said no to anything that may raise estrogen, so I won't risk it!

DM- It is true that hormone therapy (HRT) increases the risk of cardiovascular and thromboembolic disease, particularly in users of oral HT. So yes, I understand your worry about undesired clotting. But the same is NOT true for phytoestrogens (e.g. soy isoflavones).

J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005 Apr;90(4):1936-41.

Dietary soy containing phytoestrogens does not activate the hemostatic system in postmenopausal women.

Teede HJ, Dalais FS, Kotsopoulos D, McGrath BP, Malan E, Gan TE, Peverill RE.

Cardiology Unit, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Road, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.

The soybean is rich in isoflavone phytoestrogens, which are ligands for estrogen receptors, but it is unknown whether soy/phytoestrogens have similar procoagulant effects to estrogen. In this randomized double-blind trial, 40 healthy postmenopausal women of age 50-75 yr received soy protein isolate (40 g soy protein, 118 mg isoflavones) (n = 19) or casein placebo (n = 21). Plasma markers of coagulation, fibrinolysis, and endothelial dysfunction were measured at baseline and 3 months. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Compared with casein placebo, soy decreased triglycerides (P < 0.005) and low-density lipoprotein/high-density lipoprotein ratio (P < 0.001) and increased lipoprotein (a) (P < 0.05). Activity of coagulation factor VII (VIIc) decreased similarly in both groups (P < 0.005). Prothrombin fragments 1 + 2 (a marker of thrombin generation) decreased in the soy group (P < 0.005), but the change was not different from the casein group. There was no effect of soy on soluble fibrin (a marker of fibrin production), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (a marker of fibrinolytic inhibitory potential), D-dimer (a marker of fibrin turnover), or von Willebrand factor (a marker of endothelial damage). In conclusion, the results of the current study do not support biologically significant estrogenic effects of soy/phytoestrogens on coagulation, fibrinolysis, or endothelial function.

Here is the whole paper: http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/90/4/1936.full.pdf

This is one of the main differentiating features that argues in favor of isoflavone phytoestrogens -- they don't carry the same risk. Certainly not topically, nor even orally.

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 10:43 am

Thank you DrJ for the enlightening soy data.

On a related note, I was interested to read very recently that there is emerging evidence that estrogen therapy in early meno may reduce cardio risk. Apparently, they are awaiting the conclusion of two key trials.

DM, you probably ought to address the phytoestrogen issue with your personal doctors, particularly since they've already weighed in on the issue with you and more familiar with your situation.

BFG

free skin care · Wed May 09, 2012 10:50 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

Thank you DrJ for the enlightening soy data.

On a related note, I was interested to read very recently that there is emerging evidence that estrogen therapy in early meno may reduce cardio risk. Apparently, they are awaiting the conclusion of two key trials.

DM, you probably ought to address the phytoestrogen issue with your personal doctors, particularly since they've already weighed in on the issue with you and more familiar with your situation.

BFG

I have as I posted 4 OB/GYN's who are my previous doctors and family friends and my current GYN as well!

free skin care · Sun May 13, 2012 4:04 am

Dr. J, what is your opinion of SNAP-8 peptide?

http://www.wrinklesystem.com/laboratorydata/snap_8.pdf

free skin care · Sun May 13, 2012 8:16 am

jom wrote:

Dr. J, what is your opinion of SNAP-8 peptide?

http://www.wrinklesystem.com/laboratorydata/snap_8.pdf

Muscles are contracted when they receive neurotransmitter released from inside a
vesicle. The SNARE (SNAp REceptor) complex is essential for this neurotransmitter
release at the synapsis (A. Ferrer Montiel et al, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1997, 272,
2634-2638). It is a ternary complex formed by the proteins VAMP, Syntaxin and SNAP-
25 (SyNaptosomal Associated Protein). This complex is like a cellular hook which
captures vesicles and fuses them with the membrane for the release of
neurotransmitter.
SNAP-8 is a mimic of the N-terminal end of SNAP-25 which competes with SNAP-25
for a position in the SNARE complex, thereby modulating its formation. If the SNARE
complex is slightly destabilized, the vesicle can not release neurotransmitters
efficiently and therefore muscle contraction is attenuated, preventing the formation of
lines and wrinkles (see Fig.1).

1. Purports to work at the neuromuscular junction, like Botox (or curare). Problem- there is no muscle in skin. Not in the epidermis, the dermis, or the subdermis.

2. This is why Botox is injected. Asking proteins placed on the skin to transverse all the way to muscle is impossible. Too many proteases (there to protect us against foreign invaders).

3. If it got to the muscle layer, that would be a problem. Where is the most vulnerable muscle around your face? Eyelids. They would be the first affected, resulting in ptosis (eyelid droop).

4. If it acted on the muscle layer, it would not be a cosmetic, but a drug, or a poison, just like Botox, or curare.

5. It comes from Lipotec, same as SynAke oil. Very cynical company in Spain with a whole line of utter nonsense. This company believes skin care consumers are very, very, very stupid. They insult you daily. Then laugh all the way to the bank.

6. Why oh why do we put up with this stuff? So transparent and egregious are the lies. So blatant the CosmeQuackery. Why aren't you people angry????

free skin care · Sun May 13, 2012 10:48 am

<<Why aren't you people angry????

Can't you tell that I am? Cool

Many days here on this forum, I feel like I am standing alone, lol.

It's easier to vote no than yes with the wallet.

BFG

free skin care · Sun May 13, 2012 11:08 am

DrJ wrote:

jom wrote:

Dr. J, what is your opinion of SNAP-8 peptide?

http://www.wrinklesystem.com/laboratorydata/snap_8.pdf

Muscles are contracted when they receive neurotransmitter released from inside a
vesicle. The SNARE (SNAp REceptor) complex is essential for this neurotransmitter
release at the synapsis (A. Ferrer Montiel et al, The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1997, 272,
2634-2638). It is a ternary complex formed by the proteins VAMP, Syntaxin and SNAP-
25 (SyNaptosomal Associated Protein). This complex is like a cellular hook which
captures vesicles and fuses them with the membrane for the release of
neurotransmitter.
SNAP-8 is a mimic of the N-terminal end of SNAP-25 which competes with SNAP-25
for a position in the SNARE complex, thereby modulating its formation. If the SNARE
complex is slightly destabilized, the vesicle can not release neurotransmitters
efficiently and therefore muscle contraction is attenuated, preventing the formation of
lines and wrinkles (see Fig.1).

1. Purports to work at the neuromuscular junction, like Botox (or curare). Problem- there is no muscle in skin. Not in the epidermis, the dermis, or the subdermis.

2. This is why Botox is injected. Asking proteins placed on the skin to transverse all the way to muscle is impossible. Too many proteases (there to protect us against foreign invaders).

3. If it got to the muscle layer, that would be a problem. Where is the most vulnerable muscle around your face? Eyelids. They would be the first affected, resulting in ptosis (eyelid droop).

4. If it acted on the muscle layer, it would not be a cosmetic, but a drug, or a poison, just like Botox, or curare.

5. It comes from Lipotec, same as SynAke oil. Very cynical company in Spain with a whole line of utter nonsense. This company believes skin care consumers are very, very, very stupid. They insult you daily. Then laugh all the way to the bank.

6. Why oh why do we put up with this stuff? So transparent and egregious are the lies. So blatant the CosmeQuackery. Why aren't you people angry????

So this is in the wrong thread, it should be in the Worst Ingredients thread?

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.