 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:22 am  |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
I realize I am standing by myself out here on the limb, but I'll state it again.
I believe that if any ingredient is effective, it is also likely to be regulated and therefore only available by prescription. Anything else is window dressing.
bfg |
This is incorrect. You need to understand how regulation works (or doesn't work) in the US. While the original consumer protection laws under the food, drug, and cosmetics act provided strong safeguards, many of these were stripped away years later. As a result, regulation has nothing to do with how effective an ingredient is -- it merely has to do with what is claimed for it. As long as you steer clear of "structure function" or curative claims, you can put just about anything in a jar and sell it as a beauty enhancing skin thing.
As an example, there is a drug called Teprenone that is a prescription only ulcer treatment in Japan. The makers could not get it approved in the US as a drug for safety issues. So now they sell it in a skin cream (Renovage). It's not effective, and probably not safe. So why not regulated? It goes on the skin, and the claim is "improved appearance". Huge loophole.
On the other side of the coin are highly effective ingredients that might take forever to get approved as therapeutics can quickly come to market. Some of the first stem cell derived therapeutics are now coming to market in the cosmeceutical category. They are highly effective. They are safe. But they are also "natural", and if you don't make claims for curing disease--you get a pass from the drug category of regulation.
Also, the reasons drugs are so expensive has to do with the fact that hundres of millions are spent bringing them to market under strict regs.
So, regulation light. It has a good side, and an ugly side. But it is the law of the land.
"rileygirl brings up a good point, penetration is an often overlooked issue, but an important one since the depth of penetration, as far as I know is what determines the classification of the topical as a drug, cosmetic or often gray area of cosmeceuticals."
Nope, not true. Again, it is claims, not actual function. If you claim ingredient X gets absorbed and does something to muscle layer, then that is structure function, and would be considered a drug. It you stick to "improves appearance" not a problem.
Penetration is big issues, and probably >95% of all actives never get to where they would be acting if they indeed work at all. Most often they sit on top of the skin and degrade until washed away. Example: collagen in face creams. Huge molecule, not going to get absorbed intact. As I tell people might just as well put some other cheaper protein on there. Hamburger? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:58 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
| And I'm sorry, love to read the geek stuff but what I am after is results. |
Totally agree. |
And that is why we look at the evidence. Because everybody is telling you the same thing -- my stuff works! It's the best! But you know that isn't always true. In fact the louder they proclaim, the less likely it is true. And of course if they are selling it on HSN, watch out.
Now you could try everything out there and see which gives you results. But remember also, results do not come quickly (matrix reforming, anti-wrinkle takes months) or cheaply (you could spend thousands playing the field.
So, as a wise consumer, how do you know which ones give results? What we here are suggesting is that since these things are (supposedly) based in science, then understanding the science is a reasonable way to sort the sheep from the goats. In the end it is of course personal. Even if something is terrific for 90% of all user, you could be in the 10%.
The reason for the geeky stuff is that the companies purveying skin nostrums have a habit of using science-y language to try to sell you products. Some of it is real, most of it is "junk science". Or simply made up science, I notice more and more.
The geeks (if you can trust them) know the rules of science, the scientific method, and how to sort real from unreal. They can spot phony science. They know where to find legitimate science sources. They understand something about physiology and can judge whether some purported action is likely or mere fantasy.
So, we invite you to join the geeks and the nerds in the quest for "results". Even if you are not yourself geeky, then know this: geeks love questions. Ask away!
I'm out of posts for today (reached my limit) so i will not get to answer Rileygirls excellent follow up questions on cytokines. I promnise to spend more time on this tomorrow. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:30 am |
| DrJ wrote: |
Here is what I have gleaned, but let's all chime in .
Aloe Vera -- moisturizer, antioxidant, 1/5 overall
Hyaluronic Acid - the usual mw stuff is only a moisturizer, huge molecue, but as a moisturizer pretty good, so 2/5
Copper Peptides - matric & collagen proliferative, 3/5
Soy isoflavones -- multiple mechanisms, 3/5 overall, each varies
Niacinamide multiple mechanisms, we haven;lt discussed in detail yet
Glucosamine - where is the evidence? |
I agree with your 1 and 2 (and actually would put HA in the 1/5 myself but I can live with 2/5).
We haven't discussed copper peptides unless I missed that entirely (and it is possible)?
(No opinion on the other 3 really, as I haven't looked into soy isoflavones or glucosamine yet. Have tried Niacinamide (NIA 24) and did not have results with that, other than it turned my nice white (non-tanned in other words) skin a peachy color that I did not like and did not think looked healthy.) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:27 pm |
| Firefox7275 wrote: |
| You all seem to have a different understanding of the word discuss in the context of science than I do; Jom asking for a long list of actives to be expanded upon is not discussing, it's seeking to be spoonfed. Asking about is a one way download, discussion is a two way dialogue. For everything but cytokines WE should be contributing references and links as per the OP. I don't see how the OP could have been any clearer than it is. But have it your way, it's your thread to bleed DrJ dry as you see fit. |
There is no need to criticize me for wanting to be spoonfed because I am asking for Dr. J's opinion. I keep up with what is happening in skin care in my own way so I have some knowledge of the asctives I am talking about but just asking for someone else's opinion based on his expertise in the area and the research he has done is not being spoonfed. It is a way of expanding my knowledge base. It is qualitative research. If Dr. J wants to post a lot of published articles that is fine with me too it doesn't mean I have time to read them all so his opinion based on the research he has done and conclusions he has come to after doing the reading is what is important to me.
I have been a member of this forum for many years and know that topics can take on a life of their own. You have to go with the flow. You are not the forum moderator so you are not responsible for telling people what to discuss. I think asking Dr. J's opinion and for his research on active ingredients of interest is very much staying on topic. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:29 pm |
I have to agree with Barefootgirl. Trying to discuss all actives on one thread is like trying to heard cats.
For example, DrJ, you give CPs 3/5. And yet CPs have been one of the most contentious actives discussed here. The famed "uglies" aside, CPs have been blamed for irreparable skin damage by numerous members. I don't know how many threads there are here on CPs, but one thing is for sure - there is absolutely no agreement on their efficacy.
When I mentioned Niacinamide and Glucosamine I should have said that I combine them in one serum. References can be found here: http://www.bulkactives.com/abstracts/glucosamine.htm Yes, it's a seller's website, but the references are clinical studies.
I think what Firefox wants to achieve here is a database (with research) of affective actives in one thread. But all this information is contained throughout this Forum in lengthy threads in which nobody agrees on anything anyway. Then you have to factor in the varying reactions of different people, skin type, age etc. Plus some people choose only to use organic/natural actives and refuse to apply anything to their skin which has been developed in a lab.
The skincare industry is a minefield of contradictions. If someone can sum it all up in one thread - we'd all be eternally grateful, then we wouldn't need to be wasting all our money and time experimenting with things that don't work. But I just don't think it's something that can be summarized successfully.
The only solid active with a history of efficacy I can think of is Retin-A. But even that has its detractors. And if we were to discuss all of the relevant information on that drug - we'd be here for weeks without discussing anything else. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:09 am |
This is a very interesting thread, I am thrilled to follow it and appreciate the help with sorting facts from fiction.
Since the entire industry is driven by Marketing & Money, the Truth is often very hard to decipher -and my wallet and health is at stake here LOL (obviously!)
A consolidated database would be ideal. We all have a special interest in the topic, perhaps Firefox can use her extensive knowledge, writing skills and passion to take that on as a contribution to the community.
Appreciate the feedback here.
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 7:36 am |
Dr. J,
There are many on the forum who use a needling device (also known as a dermaroller) - with short needles (usually 0.2mm or 0.5mm) in length. This is rolled across the face to create channels in the skin allowing for better penetration of certain actives.
Your thoughts on this practice?
Thanks, BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:55 am |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
Dr. J,
There are many on the forum who use a needling device (also known as a dermaroller) - with short needles (usually 0.2mm or 0.5mm) in length. This is rolled across the face to create channels in the skin allowing for better penetration of certain actives.
Your thoughts on this practice?
Thanks, BFG |
I like dermarollers. I call them the "poor man's laser" because if you think about it, they really do work a whole lot like fraxel lasers, which basically use light energy to punch a series of tiny holes in your skin down to the dermis. Yes, I know its a little more complicated than that, but there is the basics.
Now those holes are an induced trauma, but in small doses, separated by spacing of the holes. Which means the trauma is limited, and still plenty of undamaged cells in between. So, the undamaged cells in between get involved by sending out signals to get a repair crew in here to mop up the dead ones and start making some replacements. Cytokines! Once that whole sequence starts, the status quo is changed. Proteases come out to gobble up damaged (and old) collagen and elastin, and fibrobasts are encouraged to make new and fresher matrix proteins.
A general physiologic theoretical principle underlying all this is called hormesis. Which states that tissues do better if we stress them every once in a while. Keep the damage control systems trained up and always ready (like your local fire department always doing drills).
But what happens when the fire men get old? They retire? They get replaced, right? Like somewhere there is a stem cell for firemen. Can always make a new one. Ah, if it were only that easy in the human body.
This cycle of damage/repair works better if you are younger, because you have specialized repair cells in abundance. But as you get older, you have less. So one danger of this would be that you would heal imperfectly, e.g. in an inflammatory way. That can lead to "micro-scarring". More about that in a post about wrinkles & stuff.
Dermarolling can also be very useful as a route for delivery of actives. It creates micro channels that bypass the stratum corneum. By altering needle length, you can even direct the active to just the layer you want.
So, to cut to the chase, I like dermarolling, and believe it works in isolation, depending in age, but I like even better the idea of combining it with just the right actives so that you are 1) assuring the right response in the damaged skin, and 2) helping deeper acting actives to get in and get working.
I'm going to do a post on this at BFT soon, and will bring in some evidence & pose even more questions.
Now, back to the topic of this thread. I'll stop by again in a few hours to talk about our list. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:39 pm |
I am a believer. Niacinamide has lots of good quality medical evidence. Let's do a quick review.
1. Antioxidant effects: niacinamide increases the reduced forms of NAD(P), which have potent antioxidant properties.
2. Improves epidermal barrier function. Evidenced by reduced TEWL and an increase in the skin’s resistance to potential harmful topical agents. Proposed mechanisms include increased synthesis of ceramides via upregulation of serine palmitoyltransferase, the rate-limiting enzyme in sphingolipid synthesis, and stimulating keratinocyte differentiation via an influence on keratin K1, which results in an increase in epidermal turnover
3. Decreases yellowing of skin through its antioxidant capabilities, niacinamide inhibits oxidative processes, such as protein oxidation, glycation, and the Maillard reaction, which produces Amadori products. Amadori products are yellowish-brown in color and accumulate in skin matrix components, like collagen, in response to oxidative stress as we age.
4. Decreases erythema & blotchiness, increasing barrier function, which results in less irritation when the skin encounters environmental insults and hence less redness (at least theoretically).
5. Decreases fine lines and wrinkles by reducing GAGs and increasing dermal collagen and protein production (i.e., keratin, fillagrin, and involucrin).
6. Hyperpigmentation: reduces melanosome transfer from melanocytes to surrounding keratinocytes. One study showed that 5% niacinamide moisturizer provided 35–68 percent inhibition of melanosome transfer from melanocytes to keratinocytes.
Analysis by multiple angle reflectance spectrophotometer demonstrated that 2.5% niacinamide resulted in smoother skin surface compared to vehicle alone (p<0.05).3.5% niacinamide cream was compared with placebo for four weeks and demonstrated a 14.8% reduction in skin roughness (p=0.05).
• In a randomized, double-blind, split-face, placebo-controlled,clinical trial, 50 white females applied 5% niacinamide and vehicle twice daily for 12 weeks. Results showed significant improvement in fine lines and wrinkles, hyperpigmentation, redness, yellowing, and skin elasticity (p<0.05)
• In a randomized, split-faced trial, 5% niacinamide was used on 18 Japanese women vs. vehicle, pigmentation change was evaluated qualitatively and quantitatively using high resolution digital images and subjective judgments. After 8 weeks, there was significant lightening of hyperpigmentation on the side treated with niacinamide compared to vehicle (p<0.05).
References available for all these if anyone wants to dig deeper.
So this little molecule is a multifunctional powerhouse, with multiple modes of action, on a whole array of aging signs.
I put it on the list with hmmmm shall we say 4/5 (can't be perfect, else there would be no room for something even more spectacular). What do you guys say?
PS I am looking into creating google docs table for us to all share that will compile all the stuff we are discovering in this thread. We can make it public for all to see, and can even cut and paste summaries to show here.
Need one or two volunteers who will do the actual entries and maintenance. Any takers? |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 4:55 pm |
| Keliu wrote: |
I have to agree with Barefootgirl. Trying to discuss all actives on one thread is like trying to heard cats.
For example, DrJ, you give CPs 3/5. And yet CPs have been one of the most contentious actives discussed here. The famed "uglies" aside, CPs have been blamed for irreparable skin damage by numerous members. I don't know how many threads there are here on CPs, but one thing is for sure - there is absolutely no agreement on their efficacy.
When I mentioned Niacinamide and Glucosamine I should have said that I combine them in one serum. References can be found here: http://www.bulkactives.com/abstracts/glucosamine.htm Yes, it's a seller's website, but the references are clinical studies.
I think what Firefox wants to achieve here is a database (with research) of affective actives in one thread. But all this information is contained throughout this Forum in lengthy threads in which nobody agrees on anything anyway. Then you have to factor in the varying reactions of different people, skin type, age etc. Plus some people choose only to use organic/natural actives and refuse to apply anything to their skin which has been developed in a lab.
The skincare industry is a minefield of contradictions. If someone can sum it all up in one thread - we'd all be eternally grateful, then we wouldn't need to be wasting all our money and time experimenting with things that don't work. But I just don't think it's something that can be summarized successfully.
The only solid active with a history of efficacy I can think of is Retin-A. But even that has its detractors. And if we were to discuss all of the relevant information on that drug - we'd be here for weeks without discussing anything else. |
So we need some catnip then, to herd those cats.
Maybe we do need to look at CP more closely. I was only really considering the fact that there is some reasonable data. But I hear/read the same things you do -- that many people have issues with it, and consider it harmful. Interesting to me that the literature is one sided. Guess that validates the need for forums like this one. Maybe in our database we need to distinguish between clinical trials and user experience.
I just talked about Niacinamide. Glucosamine adds something perhaps (some tyrosinase enzyme inhibition), but the effect is, I think, weak compared to others that interfere with melanocytes & pigment production. If I were to go for something really lightening, beyond niacinamide, I would probably choose alpha arbutin. More powerful, but not a phenol, not hydroquinone.
You are right that retinoids are a huge topic. I think we do need to tackle them in summary form. I am going to come out in favor of them, based on stron evidence, but also cautious in the awareness of how trickly it can be, and a lot has to do with the form, the dose, the time frames, chronicity, and other actives employed simultaneously.
Thanks to all of you for a really stimulating conversation. This a great thread!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:18 pm |
DrJ,
Thanks again.
I posed the question of chronic inflammation to Dr. Des Fernandes, I guess you could call him the godfather of percutaneous collagen induction. His response was that as long as the correct after care topicals are applied and for the length of time recommended, there is no ongoing chronic inflammation following dermarolling.
The after care topicals consist of oil based vitamins and antioxidants.
I am curious as to your thoughts.
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:33 pm |
Dr. J,
Based on these two ingredients lists would you say that there is enough niacinamide in these products to be beneficial and which product looks better to you? Thanks
Product 1:
Water (Aqua/Eau), Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Niacinamide, Arbutin, Alcohol, Dipropylene Glycol, Glycerin, Panthenol, Magnesium Ascorbyl Phosphate, Sodium Hyaluronate, Butylene Glycol, Diacetyl Boldine, Human Oligopeptide-9, Pinus Pinaster (Pine) Bark Extract, Haematococcus Pluvialis Extract, Astaxanthin, Portulaca Oleracea Extract, Anthemis Nobilis (Chamomille) Flower Extract, Allantoin, Polyglyceryl-10 Oleate, Polyglyceryl-10 Stearate,Tocopherol, Tocopheryl Acetate, Dipotassium Glycyrrhizate, Bisabolol, Propylene Glycol, PPG-26-Buteth-26, PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, Acrylates/ C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Glyceryl Acrylate/Acrylic Acid Copolymer, Hydroxyethylcellulose, Potassium Hydroxide, Sodium Metabisulfite, Lysolecithin, Lecithin, Sodium Phosphate, Sodium Chloride, EDTA, Disodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Caprylyl Glycol
Product 2:
Water (Aqua), Isopropyl Isostearate, Dimethicone, Butylene Glycol, Arachidyl Alcohol, Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate, Tocopheryl Acetate, Tocopherol, Niacinamide, Panthenol, Phytantriol, Ubiquinone, Retinyl Palmitate, Daucus Carota Sativa (Carrot) Root, Hydroxyphenyl Propamidobenzoic Acid, Epilobium Angustifolium Flower/Leaf/Stem Extract, Squalane, Dipalmitoyl Hydroxyproline, Palmitoyl Tripeptide-5, Palmitoyl Oligopeptide, Ceramide 2, Pyrus Malus (Apple) Fruit Extract, Soy Isoflavones, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Ursolic Acid, Ilomastat, Olea Europaea (Olive) Leaf Extract, Camellia Oleifera (Green Tea) Leaf Extract, Lycium Barbarum (Goji) Fruit Extract, Glycerin, Tribehenin, PEG-10 Rapeseed Sterol, Pentylene Glycol, Polyacrylate 13, Polyisobutene, Polysorbate 20, Behenyl Alcohol, Arachidyl Glucoside, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Aminomethyl Propanol, Disodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Ethylhexylglycerin. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 5:45 pm |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Maybe we do need to look at CP more closely. I was only really considering the fact that there is some reasonable data. ! |
This is actually one of the most contentious issues. It is argued by some here that all the promising data is on the 1st generation CPs - and that the 2nd generation CPs are completely unproven. What is your opinion on this DrJ? |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Fri Feb 17, 2012 9:25 pm |
Dr. K,
I would like to hear your comments on the first & second generation of copper peptides too! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:46 am |
Hi Doc and everyone!
I hope it's appropriate to add a new ingredient/ingredients or actives at this point?
I would love to hear thoughts on DNA repair ingredients, in particular, the extracts of Arabidopsis Thaliana, plankton, and micrococcus lysate.
Is there any evidence to support that these ingredients or any topicals can truly repair DNA? |
_________________
42, have used tretinoin since age 18! Replenix CF serum and eye cream, RAMicro, Glytone 2 lotion every other day |
|
|
|
|
Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:44 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Maybe we do need to look at CP more closely. I was only really considering the fact that there is some reasonable data. ! |
This is actually one of the most contentious issues. It is argued by some here that all the promising data is on the 1st generation CPs - and that the 2nd generation CPs are completely unproven. What is your opinion on this DrJ? |
I also would like to hear your thoughts on 1st and 2nd gen CP's. And, are the results people get due to the CP, or the AHA (or RA) they use with the CP's? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Feb 18, 2012 12:02 pm |
| DrJ wrote: |
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING SOY ISOFLAVONES
Research suggests that estrogen deficiencies following menopause may contribute to signs of aging in skin. Systemic and topical estrogens have been shown to counter these effects and to have antioxidant properties. Although much weaker, soy isoflavones (phytoestrogens) have been shown to mimic estrogen and to have antioxidant effects, making them ideal for use on maturing skin.
AGING SKIN AND HORMONAL FLUCTUATIONS
As humans age, the skin becomes dry, loses its elasticity, and begins to wrinkle — these are the primary visible effects of chronological aging. Following menopause 1-3 it has been shown that skin thickness decreases and collagen levels in the skin diminish, which may further contribute to these negative age-related changes in the skin. Scientific studies strongly suggest that these changes may be attributed to menopausal and/or age-related hormonal fluctuations. More specifically, research suggests that estrogen deficiency may
primarily be responsible.
ESTROGEN: A CRUCIAL PART OF THE AGING EQUATION
Estrogen works by joining with estrogen receptors in the body and signaling genes in cells to be switched on or off. Flipping these switches can cause the body to generate new cells or to produce special substances. For example, raised estrogen levels can cause breast growth during pregnancy, as well as the production of milk following pregnancy. Following menopause, the body stops producing much estrogen. Although the exact mechanisms are unknown, this reduction in estrogen is believed to contribute to decreases in skin thickness, dryness, and loss of elasticity.
Estrogen receptors have been detected in the skin, and systemic 2,4 and topical 5,6 estrogen have now been shown to increase skin thickness, increase collagen levels, and improve wrinkling and dryness.7,8 While estrogen is important, researchers also believe that decreased estrogen levels are only part of the aging equation; free radical attack caused by exposure to environmental elements like sunlight, smoke, and pollution also contributes to premature aging in skin. Antioxidants can help counter these effects by neutralizing free radicals, and estrogens are strong antioxidants with even stronger activity than vitamin E and vita min C. 9-11
SOY ISOFLAVONES: AN ALTERNATIVE TO ESTROGEN
Soy isoflavones are phytoestrogens, substances that mimic the activity of estrogen. The estrogenic effect of phytoestrogens is considerably weaker than estrogens, but is appreciable 12 and both oral and topical application of phytoestrogens have
been shown to have many beneficial effects for the skin. In addition to estrogenic activity, soy isoflavones have antioxidant properties,13,14 and like other antioxidants, help to prevent free-radical damage to DNA.
Soy-containing foods may contain as much as 1/1000 of their content as phytoestrogens and are credited with the\ low incidence of cardiovascular disease15-17 and breast cancer18 in Asian populations that consume large amounts of these substances.19,20 Phytoestrogens have also been effective for preventing skin cancer in mice, both orally21 and topically.22
GENISTEIN: BENEFITING SKIN
Genistein is the most abundant isoflavone in soy, and there is a strong body of research supporting the benefits genistein provides the skin. Genistein is a strong antioxidant 23,24 and may be effective in preventing cancer. Although its exact anticancer mechanism is unknown, genistein has been proven to protect against sunburn in humans 25 and to block the formation of reactive oxygen species. The antioxidant effect of phytoestrogens is also synergistically enhanced in the presence of vitamin C. 26 This makes soy isoflavones an ideal alternative to estrogen therapies, and perfect for use on maturing skin.
SUMMARY
Soy isoflavones or phytoestrogens mimic estrogen behavior and may have beneficial effects in maturing skin. Estrogen deficiencies in post-menopausal women may contribute to decrease of skin thickness, dryness, and loss of elasticity and it is believed that topical application of soy isoflavones may help counter some of these negative age-related changes.
REFERENCES
1. Brincat M, Moniz CJ, Studd JW, Darby A, Magos A, Emburey G,
Versi E. Long-term effects of the menopause and sex hormones on
skin thickness. British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology 1985;
92:256-259.
2. Castelo-Branco C, Duran M, Gonzalez-Merlo J. Skin collagen
changes related to age and hormone replacement therapy. Maturitas
1992; 15:113-119.
3. Affinito P, Palomba S, Sorrentino C, Di Carlo C, Bifulco G, Arienzo
MP , Nappi C. Effects of postmenopausal hypoestrogenism on skin
collagen. Maturitas 1999; 33:239-247.
4. Maheux R, Naud F, Rioux M, Grenier R, Lemay A, Guy J, Langevin
M. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the
effect of conjugated estrogens on skin thickness. American Journal
of Obstetrics & Gynecology 1994; 170:642-649.
5. Brincat M, Versi E, O’Dowd T, Moniz CF, Magos A, Kabalan S,
Studd JW. Skin collagen changes in post-menopausal women receiving
oestradiol gel. Maturitas 1987; 9:1-5.
6. Varila E, Rantala I, Oikarinen A, Risteli J, Reunala T, Oksanen H,
Punnonen R. The effect of topical oestradiol on skin collagen of
postmenopausal women. British Journal of Obstetrics &
Gynaecology 1995; 102:985-989.
7. Dunn LB, Damesyn M, Moore AA, Reuben DB, Greendale GA.
Does estrogen prevent skin aging? Results from the First National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES I)
[see comments]. Archives of Dermatology 1997; 133:339-342.
8. Schmidt JB, Binder M, Demschik G, Bieglmayer C, Reiner A.
Treatment of skin aging with topical estrogens. International Journal
of Dermatology 1996; 35:669-674.
9. Ruiz-Larrea MB, Martin C, Martinez R, Navarro R, Lacort M, Miller
NJ. Antioxidant activities of estrogens against aqueous and
lipophilic radicals; differences between phenol and catechol estrogens.
Chemistry & Physics of Lipids 2000; 105 :179-188.
10. Ayres S, Tang M, Subbiah MT. Estradiol-17beta as an antioxidant:
some distinct features when compared with common fat-soluble
antioxidants [see comments]. Journal of Laboratory & Clinical
Medicine 1996; 128:367-375.
11. Moosmann B, Behl C. The antioxidant neuroprotective effects of
estrogens and phenolic compounds are independent from their estrogenic
properties. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America 1999; 96:8867-8872.
12. Zava DT, Duwe G. Estrogenic and antiproliferative properties of
genistein and other flavonoids in human breast cancer cells in vitro.
Nutrition & Cancer 1997; 27:31-40.
13. Ruiz-Larrea MB, Mohan AR, Paganga G, Miller NJ, Bolwell GP,
Rice-Evans CA. Antioxidant activity of phytoestrogenic isoflavones.
Free Radical Research 1997; 26:63-70.
14. Wiseman H, O’Reilly JD, Adlercreutz H, Mallet AI, Bowey EA,
Rowland IR, Sanders TA. Isoflavone phytoestrogens consumed in soy
decrease F(2)-isoprostane concentrations and increase resistance of
low-density lipoprotein to oxidation in humans. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition 2000; 72:395-400.
15. Lichtenstein AH. Soy protein, isoflavones and cardiovascular disease
risk. [Review] [56 refs]. J Nutr 1998; 128:1589-1592.
16. Cassidy A, Griffin B. Phyto-oestrogens: a potential role in the
prevention of CHD?. [Review] [69 refs]. Proceedings of the Nutrition
Society 1999; 58:193-199.
17. Lissin LW, Cooke JP. Phytoestrogens and cardiovascular health.
[Review] [90 refs]. Journal of the American College of Cardiology
2000; 35:1403-1410.
18. Ingram D, Sanders K, Kolybaba M, Lopez D . Case-control study of
phyto-oestrogens and breast cancer [see comments]. Lancet 1997;
350:990-994.
19. Wiseman H. Role of dietary phyto-oestrogens in the protection
against cancer and heart disease. [Review] [47 refs]. Biochemical
Society Transactions 1996; 24:795-800.
20. Bingham SA, Atkinson C, Liggins J, Bluck L, Coward A. Phytooestrogens:
where are we now?. [Review] [138 refs]. British Journal
of Nutrition 1998; 79:393-406.
21. Limtrakul P, Suttajit M, Semura R, Shimada K, Yamamoto S.
Suppressive effect of soybean milk protein on experimentally induced
skin tumor in mice. Life Sciences 1993; 53:1591-1596.
22. Wei H, Bowen R, Zhang X, Lebwohl M. Isoflavone genistein inhibits
the initiation and promotion of two-stage skin carcinogenesis in mice.
Carcinogenesis 1998; 19:1509-1514.
23. Cai Q, Wei H. Effect of dietary genistein on antioxidant enzyme
activities in SENCAR mice. Nutrition & Cancer 1996; 25:1-7.
24. Wei H, Cai Q, Rahn RO. Inhibition of UV light- and Fenton reactioninduced
oxidative DNA damage by the soybean isoflavone genistein.
Carcinogenesis 1996; 17:73-77.
25. Wei H. American Academy of Dermatology 1998 Awards for Young
Investigators in Dermatology. Photoprotective action of isoflavone
genistein: models, mechanisms, and relevance to clinical dermatology.
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 1998; 39:t-2.
26. Hwang J, Sevanian A, Hodis HN, Ursini F. Synergistic inhibition of
LDL oxidation by phytoestrogens and ascorbic acid. Free Radical
Biology & Medicine 2000; 29:79-89. |
It would have been appropriate for you to include the source where you copied this information from.
http://www.skinceuticals.com/_us/_en/science/download/Soy.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Feb 18, 2012 1:16 pm |
| h.kitty wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
THE SCIENCE SUPPORTING SOY ISOFLAVONES
Research suggests that estrogen deficiencies following menopause may contribute to signs of aging in skin ... |
It would have been appropriate for you to include the source where you copied this information from.
http://www.skinceuticals.com/_us/_en/science/download/Soy.pdf |
I noticed that too! Yes, I too like citations/references/links, otherwise we assume the author of the piece is the person posting the information (rather than just passing along the work of someone else). I think that's called plagiarism. I was actually hoping Dr. J could provide us with information from J&J, since he was associated with them in the past. |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Sat Feb 18, 2012 3:57 pm |
| h.kitty wrote: |
| It would have been appropriate for you to include the source where you copied this information from. |
I agree. I actually tried first to link to it, but I am too junior a member here, and cannot include links in my posts. I get a warning. Sorry for being sloppy and forgetting to mention the source, it is a good one. I have some additional newer information now available and will probably take the opportunity to write an analysis piece for BFT. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Feb 18, 2012 4:07 pm |
What about DMAE?
I believe DMAE was touted by Perricone and others as being an important active although there have been some negative findings with DMAE and skin health. "[According to one study,] when DMAE was applied to both human and rabbit skin cells, there was a drastic and rapid swelling of fibroblasts, which maintain the connection between cells. Within a few hours after applying DMAE, cell division slowed and at times stopped completely. Twenty-four hours after applying the concentration of DMAE found in anti-wrinkle cosmetics, the fibroblast mortality rate reached over 25%." (sorry do not have link at moment-- copied this from a past email I sent to a company about their product)
I contacted a couple companies that I respect about their usage of DMAE and they insist that the quality of the DMAE matters and that they have never seen negative effects from the active. Also, DMAE was discussed and at least one positive study was presented on truthinaging.com
Anyone's thoughts? |
_________________
Almost 40! with sensitive/responsive skin, using facial exercises very lightly. Derminator or prof micropen just a few times a year. AQ eye serum (great for lash growth too) on occasion. Otherwise natural skin care products. |
|
|
|
|
Sat Feb 18, 2012 8:31 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| I also would like to hear your thoughts on 1st and 2nd gen CP's. And, are the results people get due to the CP, or the AHA (or RA) they use with the CP's? |
A really good and well-thought question!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 19, 2012 1:40 am |
| jenp7 wrote: |
| What about DMAE? |
DMAE is yet another controversial active with both positive and negative studies. How the average consumer is supposed to make an informed decision, I don't know.
I also don't take much heed of anecdotal evidence because I think people see what they want to see.
I would have liked this thread to have been called, "Which Active has the Most Concrete Scientific Evidence Behind It? |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Sun Feb 19, 2012 5:09 am |
Hi Keliu,
I think with that title, we'll only end up discussing Retin A 
Anyway,
Noticed these new "hot" products in New Beauty and wondering what category they fall into? ( are they considered 2nd gen peptides?)
Veno Max complex fromwww.immunocologie.com
Snoxin and Nanoblur fromwww.snoxin.com andwww.nanoblur.com?
These last two are making HUGE claims!
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tue Apr 16, 2024 4:19 pm |
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. |
|
 |
|
|
