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 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 5:46 pm

rileygirl wrote:

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.

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.

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 5:50 pm

rileygirl wrote:

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.

Statistical proof is a numbers game. All about probabilities and normal curves and confidence limits. It doesn't "prove" that it works for any individual, but that there is a statistical likelihood of it working for a significant number in a defined population. Similar concept to the odds of winning on slot machines in Vegas. Some people win. You may not.

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 6:22 pm

Keliu wrote:

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

N=the number of people in your study

=1=the person using the product

It's not a common term just one coined (kind of cutely) by DragoN. All it means is that you are testing something for yourself and you're not saying it will work or not work for everyone.

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

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)

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 6:44 pm

I agree that is why I said roughly applied in this case!

For me one does not equal proof of anything other than that is one persons subjective assessment of something.

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 7:08 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

I agree that is why I said roughly applied in this case!

For me one does not equal proof of anything other than that is one persons subjective assessment of something.

And that was DragoN's point when she used the term and what everyone else who has used the term since meant.

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

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 7:11 pm

Maybe this is her N=1

N of 1 trial
Clinical trials a clinical trial in which a single Pt is the total population for the trial–eg, a single case study; an N of 1 trial in which random allocation is used to determine the order in which an experimental and a control intervention are given to a Pt is an N of 1 RCT. See Trial.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/N+of+1+trial

free skin care · Tue May 22, 2012 7:17 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Maybe this is her N=1

N of 1 trial
Clinical trials a clinical trial in which a single Pt is the total population for the trial–eg, a single case study; an N of 1 trial in which random allocation is used to determine the order in which an experimental and a control intervention are given to a Pt is an N of 1 RCT. See Trial.
McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/N+of+1+trial

EXACTLY! What else can you dig up! You're on a roll you should start a new thread for this! Rolling Eyes

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 8:46 pm

Good point, Dr. J.
N=1 concept works for me;
along with having other N=1's sharing their inputs.

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 11:12 pm

jom wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

I agree that is why I said roughly applied in this case!

For me one does not equal proof of anything other than that is one persons subjective assessment of something.

And that was DragoN's point when she used the term and what everyone else who has used the term since meant.

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

Newton
Unit system: SI derived unit
Unit of...Force Symbol:
Named after: Isaac Newton
In SI base units: 1 N = 1 kg·m/s2

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 12:19 am

DarkMoon wrote:

jom wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

I agree that is why I said roughly applied in this case!

For me one does not equal proof of anything other than that is one persons subjective assessment of something.

And that was DragoN's point when she used the term and what everyone else who has used the term since meant.

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

Newton
Unit system: SI derived unit
Unit of...Force
Symbol: Symbol: N
Named after: Isaac Newton
In SI base units: 1 N = 1 kg·m/s2

Corrected Internet Glitch

free skin care · Wed May 23, 2012 7:25 am

DarkMoon wrote:

jom wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

I agree that is why I said roughly applied in this case!

For me one does not equal proof of anything other than that is one persons subjective assessment of something.

And that was DragoN's point when she used the term and what everyone else who has used the term since meant.

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

Newton
Unit system: SI derived unit
Unit of...Force
Symbol: Symbol: N
Named after: Isaac Newton
In SI base units: 1 N = 1 kg·m/s2

Corrected Internet Glitch

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.

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.

free skin care · Thu May 24, 2012 8:00 am

rileygirl wrote:

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.

Anybody up for talking about "DNA repair" ingredients? Telomerases, that sort of thing? Or is this way too geeky?

free skin care · Thu May 24, 2012 2:02 pm

DrJ wrote:

Anybody up for talking about "DNA repair" ingredients? Telomerases, that sort of thing? Or is this way too geeky?

I'm willing to listen if you want to share your knowledge. I may not have anything to contribute. I understand that telomeres are one of the latest hot topics in health care. But don't know much more.

free skin care · Thu May 24, 2012 3:12 pm

jom wrote:

DrJ wrote:

Anybody up for talking about "DNA repair" ingredients? Telomerases, that sort of thing? Or is this way too geeky?

I'm willing to listen if you want to share your knowledge. I may not have anything to contribute. I understand that telomeres are one of the latest hot topics in health care. But don't know much more.

It's actually quite interesting, and also speaks to theories of aging. So if we tak about it we can explore a lot of that basic aging process stuff. Especially the part where aging and cancer seem to be reciprocally interrelated. I toss something in tomorrow.

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.