 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Mon May 14, 2012 8:38 am  |
| jom wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
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? |
Yes. And let's do invite somebody from Lipotec to please come here and defend their science. What would it take, do you think? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon May 14, 2012 8:43 am |
Hi Dr J
A few yrs ago I was at a science talk by an Aberdeen university scientist and he said that the most youth-giving substance was ecstasy because it gave mitochondria a mighty boost. I read in an earlier post that scientists are looking at the role of mitochondria. The practicality of getting high quality MDMA and then rubbing it into the face is well, nil I imagine! Just sayin'
But have you heard anyting about this? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon May 14, 2012 9:57 am |
| hussar01 wrote: |
Hi Dr J
A few yrs ago I was at a science talk by an Aberdeen university scientist and he said that the most youth-giving substance was ecstasy because it gave mitochondria a mighty boost. I read in an earlier post that scientists are looking at the role of mitochondria. The practicality of getting high quality MDMA and then rubbing it into the face is well, nil I imagine! Just sayin'
But have you heard anyting about this? |
No, but we have a mitochondrial / aging expert on our team (Dr Sy). I'll ask him what he knows. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon May 14, 2012 4:43 pm |
Correct me if I am wrong, the products from Lipotec are unregulated, so they can make claims to the moon and there's no recourse for that?
It would be great if someone could get Lipotec to defend their products with facts.
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon May 14, 2012 5:34 pm |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
Correct me if I am wrong, the products from Lipotec are unregulated, so they can make claims to the moon and there's no recourse for that?
It would be great if someone could get Lipotec to defend their products with facts.
BFG |
Or at least some logic. The deficiencies are so glaring that I saw today even Dr Oz picked up on it (well, probably he was tipped of by Allergan (the Botox people). |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue May 15, 2012 5:04 am |
I just read this entire thread and now I feel like I need a margarita! 
OK. First of all, DrJ, you said:
| DrJ wrote: |
| Hydrolysed collagen is actually useful for topical hydration. Beyond that, it does nothing. Big fragments not absorbed. Smaller bits useless peptides and amino acids. Will not join in with your own collagen to make new bundles. Does not supply needed substrate to make collagen. Collagen fragments may even be a negative feedback signal to fibroblasts that they don't need to make any more. |
So..wow that worries me. I understand that topical collagen is just a water binding agent. But DOES it REALLY cause fibroblasts to cease or decrease collagen production? You can't make a statement like that without proof surely?!
The reason I ask is because I was trying out a new face cream which has collagen in the ingredients list.  It's Olay Micro-Sculpting Cream (Fragrance-Free) and this is the ingredients list (Which, I wouldn't mind your opinion on this cream DrJ!)
WATER, GLYCERIN, ISOHEXADECANE, NIACINAMIDE, ISOPROPYL ISOSTEARATE, ALUMINUM STARCH OCTENYLSUCCINATE, NYLON-12, DIMETHICONE, PANTHENOL, TOCOPHERYL ACETATE, SODIUM HYALURONATE, PALMITOYL PENTAPEPTIDE-4, CARNOSINE, CAMELLIA SINENSIS LEAF EXTRACT, ALOE BARBADENSIS LEAF JUICE, SOLUBLE COLLAGEN, ELASTIN, ALLANTOIN, STEARYL ALCOHOL, POLYETHYLENE, CETYL ALCOHOL, SODIUM ACRYLATES COPOLYMER, BEHENYL ALCOHOL, BENZYL ALCOHOL, CAPRYLIC/CAPRIC TRIGLYCERIDE, POLYACRYLAMIDE, DIMETHICONOL, PEG-100 STEARATE, STEARIC ACID, DISODIUM EDTA, CETEARYL GLUCOSIDE, CETEARYL ALCOHOL, CITRIC ACID, C12-13 PARETH-3, LAURETH-7, C13-14 ISOPARAFFIN, SODIUM HYDROXIDE, AMMONIUM POLYACRYLATE, ETHYLPARABEN, METHYLPARABEN, PROPYLPARABEN, TITANIUM DIOXIDE, TIN OXIDE, MICA
I'm really sorry about the caps. I copied and pasted it. So, if topical collagen causes a DECREASE in your own collagen production, shouldn't that ingredient be on the worst actives list? (Which I have yet to read.) Shouldn't people be yelling it off the rooftops?! It's in a lot of products! I am terrified to use this cream now. Please tell me it's not true. The last thing I want is decreased collagen production right?
And one more question. DarkMoon posted a study saying this:
| Quote: |
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 have NEVER heard that soy caused an increase in subcutaneous vessels. Are they saying an increase in blood vessels on the face/broken capillaries?! Does this mean one prone to broken capillaries should not use topical soy? I thought soy was a fantastic topical for people with sensitive skin/rosacea etc. so what the...?? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue May 15, 2012 8:27 am |
| egyptiangoddess wrote: |
I just read this entire thread and now I feel like I need a margarita!
OK. First of all, DrJ, you said:
| DrJ wrote: |
| Hydrolysed collagen is actually useful for topical hydration. Beyond that, it does nothing. Big fragments not absorbed. Smaller bits useless peptides and amino acids. Will not join in with your own collagen to make new bundles. Does not supply needed substrate to make collagen. Collagen fragments may even be a negative feedback signal to fibroblasts that they don't need to make any more. |
So..wow that worries me. I understand that topical collagen is just a water binding agent. But DOES it REALLY cause fibroblasts to cease or decrease collagen production? You can't make a statement like that without proof surely?!
The reason I ask is because I was trying out a new face cream which has collagen in the ingredients list. It's Olay Micro-Sculpting Cream (Fragrance-Free) and this is the ingredients list (Which, I wouldn't mind your opinion on this cream DrJ!)
WATER, GLYCERIN, ISOHEXADECANE, NIACINAMIDE, ISOPROPYL ISOSTEARATE, ALUMINUM STARCH OCTENYLSUCCINATE, NYLON-12, DIMETHICONE, PANTHENOL, TOCOPHERYL ACETATE, SODIUM HYALURONATE, PALMITOYL PENTAPEPTIDE-4, CARNOSINE, CAMELLIA SINENSIS LEAF EXTRACT, ALOE BARBADENSIS LEAF JUICE, SOLUBLE COLLAGEN, ELASTIN, ALLANTOIN, STEARYL ALCOHOL, POLYETHYLENE, CETYL ALCOHOL, SODIUM ACRYLATES COPOLYMER, BEHENYL ALCOHOL, BENZYL ALCOHOL, CAPRYLIC/CAPRIC TRIGLYCERIDE, POLYACRYLAMIDE, DIMETHICONOL, PEG-100 STEARATE, STEARIC ACID, DISODIUM EDTA, CETEARYL GLUCOSIDE, CETEARYL ALCOHOL, CITRIC ACID, C12-13 PARETH-3, LAURETH-7, C13-14 ISOPARAFFIN, SODIUM HYDROXIDE, AMMONIUM POLYACRYLATE, ETHYLPARABEN, METHYLPARABEN, PROPYLPARABEN, TITANIUM DIOXIDE, TIN OXIDE, MICA
I'm really sorry about the caps. I copied and pasted it. So, if topical collagen causes a DECREASE in your own collagen production, shouldn't that ingredient be on the worst actives list? (Which I have yet to read.) Shouldn't people be yelling it off the rooftops?! It's in a lot of products! I am terrified to use this cream now. Please tell me it's not true. The last thing I want is decreased collagen production right? |
I know this goes against conventional wisdom, so please bear with me. Conventional wisdom says that collagen is a good thing in your skin, so grinding it up and putting it on your skin must also be good. Conventional wisdom is wrong.
Now in the old days you got collagen hydrolysates (dissolved cow caracasses) but the size of the fragments are too large to be absorbed. If it stays oin top of the skin it traps water, which makes it moisturizing. But then when confronted with this no absorption thing, they started filtering out the very smallest fragments, which might be absorbed in small amounts. Oh so very clever. Except for this - theyt qare essentially doiong the same thing that UV damage does. Breaks down collagen into small fragments. Now those fragments then stimulate MMP-1, which then goes about dissolving more collagen (just like with the sun). NOT a good thing.
Here is a reference:
J Cosmet Dermatol. 2011 Jun;10(2):126-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1473-2165.2011.00555.x.
Effecting skin renewal: a multifaceted approach.
Widgerow AD, Grekin SK.
The skin undergoes intrinsic aging as a normal course, but exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light results in major cumulative damage that manifests as the typical aged photodamaged skin. UV irradiation produces a sequence of changes within the skin layers starting with signaling processes following DNA damage and culminating in nonabsorbed fragmentation of collagen and other proteins within the extracellular matrix. These fragments promote the synthesis of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that further aggravate the damage to the ground substance and add to fragment accumulation. This study describes a unique sequential approach to controlling this photodamage - inhibition of signaling, inhibition of MMPs, proteasome stimulation and mopping up of fragments, stimulation of procollagen and collagen production, and uniform packaging of new collagen fibers. Thus, a multifaceted approach is introduced with presentation of a unique product formulation based on these research principles.
You want to mop up fragments and suppress MMP's. Thats the job of cytokines, also VitA. Topical low MW collagen hydrolysates (fragments) = a BAD idea. The large fragments, as we said, don't get absorbed anyway. I suspect that "soluble collagen" is the regular old stuff, not the low MW stuff. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue May 15, 2012 8:51 am |
| egyptiangoddess wrote: |
And one more question. DarkMoon posted a study saying this:
| Quote: |
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 have NEVER heard that soy caused an increase in subcutaneous vessels. Are they saying an increase in blood vessels on the face/broken capillaries?! Does this mean one prone to broken capillaries should not use topical soy? I thought soy was a fantastic topical for people with sensitive skin/rosacea etc. so what the...?? |
The new, healthy blood vessels are there to support the increased thickness of the skin itself. They are deep, and covered by the connective tissue. This is not the same as telangiectasias (visible dilated capillaries, so-called broken capillaries) in the skin. In fact by thickening the skin soy isoflavones can help hide those. So does Vit A or anything that causes thickening of the dermis. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue May 15, 2012 8:26 pm |
A few days ago, I posted a link to a study showing positive effects of CLA on the skin, got no responses, so not sure if that study is considered one of a kind.
There is also this very positive study on Progesterone:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16120154
Comments?
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed May 16, 2012 3:31 am |
Ah! OK. So, "topical low MW collagen hydrolysates" are bad; "Regular" collagen (which includes "soluble collagen") is fine? I've never seen collagen hydrolysates on an ingredient list but I'll be staying away from those. As well as anything from Lipotec!
Would you mind giving me your opinion on that face cream DrJ? It has some of the "Fantastic actives" that you recommend. Does it look OK to use?
Regarding soy, I am very relieved! Soy is one of my top ten actives I'd say. The last thing I want is broken caps! But you say Vit A thickens skin and thus makes broken caps less visible. This is what I thought as well, but can't "retinoids" cause broken capillaries as well? I got a few whilst using a non-prescription retinol cream. (It contained retinyl propionate. LOVED what it did for my skin.) Though, I think it was due to using another product with Vitamin A in the ingredients list. Whether that was active in the product or not I don't know. It wasn't up high on the list. And I also used a scrub a few times in the months during use.  I sure wish I could use that retinol cream. It was fantastic. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed May 16, 2012 7:36 am |
| egyptiangoddess wrote: |
Ah! OK. So, "topical low MW collagen hydrolysates" are bad; "Regular" collagen (which includes "soluble collagen") is fine? I've never seen collagen hydrolysates on an ingredient list but I'll be staying away from those. As well as anything from Lipotec!
Would you mind giving me your opinion on that face cream DrJ? It has some of the "Fantastic actives" that you recommend. Does it look OK to use?
Regarding soy, I am very relieved! Soy is one of my top ten actives I'd say. The last thing I want is broken caps! But you say Vit A thickens skin and thus makes broken caps less visible. This is what I thought as well, but can't "retinoids" cause broken capillaries as well? I got a few whilst using a non-prescription retinol cream. (It contained retinyl propionate. LOVED what it did for my skin.) Though, I think it was due to using another product with Vitamin A in the ingredients list. Whether that was active in the product or not I don't know. It wasn't up high on the list. And I also used a scrub a few times in the months during use. I sure wish I could use that retinol cream. It was fantastic. |
Telangiectasia should get better with retinoids, they won't get worse. Maybe another ingredient? |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed May 16, 2012 2:50 pm |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
A few days ago, I posted a link to a study showing positive effects of CLA on the skin, got no responses, so not sure if that study is considered one of a kind.
BFG |
BFG, take a look at the Textbook of Aging Skin (Farage, Miller, Maibach), Chapter 21 (pp 216 - 221). There is a discussion there of a series of studies which compared a cream containing 3% CLA vs vehicle. I am not sure if that is the exact research you are looking for (IFSCC Congress, Osaka 2006). |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 17, 2012 5:08 am |
Ok thank you DrJ. You didn't reply about the cream though.  Could you please tell me if you think it looks ok to use? It's got some of the things you recommended. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 17, 2012 6:58 am |
| egyptiangoddess wrote: |
| Ok thank you DrJ. You didn't reply about the cream though. Could you please tell me if you think it looks ok to use? It's got some of the things you recommended. |
Cream is fine otherwise, some good actives, except that it contains parabens. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 17, 2012 7:19 am |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
A few days ago, I posted a link to a study showing positive effects of CLA on the skin, got no responses, so not sure if that study is considered one of a kind.
There is also this very positive study on Progesterone:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16120154
Comments?
BFG |
I am ambivalent about PPAR agonists in general. As anti-inflammatories, they work by stimulating cytokines, and as you know I like to do that more directly. In clinical studies they seem to do a good job of reducing photoaging (the split-faced studies were already mentioned). What bothers me is this - while CLA seems to have a pro-collagen effect, it also seems to have a lipolytic effect. I'm just not sure breaking down fat is what we want on faces, in this era where volume restoration (matrix plus fat) is a foreground issue. Cheeks generally need plumping after 50. CLA is even being touted as a treatment for cellulite. But as a facial esthetics active - doesn't get my vote.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22360330
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21643838
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18495457 |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 17, 2012 2:54 pm |
Appreciate your comments on CLA. We also see it sometimes recommended for body fat loss (adjunct to a dieting plan)...so that seems to make better sense now.
Thanks, BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 18, 2012 3:24 am |
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. 
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! |
|
|
|
|
 |
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 19, 2012 5:36 am |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Hmm. I think you are taking statements from different contexts and trying to meld them together. |
You are sadly mistaken DrJ. I am not "taking statements from different contexts and trying to meld them together." What on earth are you talking about? It's obvious you gave me two different opinions on the same subject at two different times. Right, that makes sense when you're just one person with views that can be trusted to be correct.  Again, I reiterate:
Your most recent comment:
| DrJ wrote: |
| Telangiectasia should get better with retinoids, they won't get worse. Maybe another ingredient? |
Your prior comment:
| DrJ wrote: |
| This cream has a retinoid too (Retinyl Palmitate), so if it was the culprit before you may be at risk again. |
And as for what you just said?
| DrJ wrote: |
| 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. |
Actually, you said:
| DrJ wrote: |
| Good on retinol, but lacks reviews of more recent literature on non-RA rx's. |
How convenient of you to leave that part out.
What are you talking about retinoids can exacerbate rosacea? Well big surprise. You'd better call the newspapers with that unknown information. Because everyone and their neighbor doesn't know retinoids can cause irritation. And yes, I as well as everyone else is well aware of the other causes of broken capillaries DrJ.
And wow. I have to say, I am very disappointed that you assumed I had irritation during my use of the retinoid. Where on earth did you get that idea? I certainly didn't say that. I'm quite shocked by that really. Very unbecoming behaviour of a Doctor I must say, to just assume things without any prior knowledge. It's a non-rx retinoid. I had ZERO irritation from it. The broken capillaries occurred for no reason during my use. I stopped using it and random broken capillaries stopped popping up out of nowhere. And FYI, my "rosacea" was perfectly clear. But of course, you assumed I had active/bad rosacea though right? (Again, very becoming behaviour...) And I have to say, it's just fantastic that you are unaware of many people developing broken capillaries with retinol use. I am sure it's very comforting to MANY to know you are very well-rounded and knowledgeable regarding retinoids. 
Many people have this problem with retinoids DrJ. (Which apparently you didn't know. Again, very comforting.) And no, I am NOT talking about in relation to rosacea. And yet you dismiss the meta-analysis you first agreed with which states:
| 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".
|
So many contradictions with you "DrJ". And the cold tone? Very unimpressed and disappointed to say the least. All I have to say is: True colors. |
|
|
|
|
|
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... |
_________________
42! Currently using: NCN All-in-One, Mito-Q cream, Eviron AVST, Osea, Grateful Body. Wouldnt be without: Rhassoul clay, avocado oil, Glorybe Herbals hydrosols and perfume oils |
|
|
|
|
Sat May 19, 2012 8:17 am |
| egyptiangoddess wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Hmm. I think you are taking statements from different contexts and trying to meld them together. |
You are sadly mistaken DrJ. I am not "taking statements from different contexts and trying to meld them together." What on earth are you talking about? It's obvious you gave me two different opinions on the same subject at two different times. Right, that makes sense when you're just one person with views that can be trusted to be correct. Again, I reiterate:
Your most recent comment:
| DrJ wrote: |
| Telangiectasia should get better with retinoids, they won't get worse. Maybe another ingredient? |
Your prior comment:
| DrJ wrote: |
| This cream has a retinoid too (Retinyl Palmitate), so if it was the culprit before you may be at risk again. |
And as for what you just said?
| DrJ wrote: |
| 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. |
Actually, you said:
| DrJ wrote: |
| Good on retinol, but lacks reviews of more recent literature on non-RA rx's. |
How convenient of you to leave that part out.
What are you talking about retinoids can exacerbate rosacea? Well big surprise. You'd better call the newspapers with that unknown information. Because everyone and their neighbor doesn't know retinoids can cause irritation. And yes, I as well as everyone else is well aware of the other causes of broken capillaries DrJ.
And wow. I have to say, I am very disappointed that you assumed I had irritation during my use of the retinoid. Where on earth did you get that idea? I certainly didn't say that. I'm quite shocked by that really. Very unbecoming behaviour of a Doctor I must say, to just assume things without any prior knowledge. It's a non-rx retinoid. I had ZERO irritation from it. The broken capillaries occurred for no reason during my use. I stopped using it and random broken capillaries stopped popping up out of nowhere. And FYI, my "rosacea" was perfectly clear. But of course, you assumed I had active/bad rosacea though right? (Again, very becoming behaviour...) And I have to say, it's just fantastic that you are unaware of many people developing broken capillaries with retinol use. I am sure it's very comforting to MANY to know you are very well-rounded and knowledgeable regarding retinoids.
Many people have this problem with retinoids DrJ. (Which apparently you didn't know. Again, very comforting.) And no, I am NOT talking about in relation to rosacea. And yet you dismiss the meta-analysis you first agreed with which states:
| 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".
|
So many contradictions with you "DrJ". And the cold tone? Very unimpressed and disappointed to say the least. All I have to say is: True colors. |
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Sat May 19, 2012 11:00 am |
| bethany wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
| Quote: |
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. |
Exactly. |
_________________
42! Currently using: NCN All-in-One, Mito-Q cream, Eviron AVST, Osea, Grateful Body. Wouldnt be without: Rhassoul clay, avocado oil, Glorybe Herbals hydrosols and perfume oils |
|
|
|
| Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:07 am |
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. |
|
 |
|
|
