Ingredient Spotlight: Renovage/Teprenone & EGF
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Thu Jan 05, 2012 12:10 am

Moderator: This topic has been split from http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=43222 for those interested in in-depth ingredient discussion / debate.
---------

This is what Dr. Todorov had to say about Teprenone back in 2009.

Quote:

Thanks, based on what's in pubmed, teprenone appears to be an interesting substance acting as a protector of various tissues against different kinds of damage/stress. It seems to work, at least in part, by activating so-called heat-shock proteins (HSP) as well as reducing inflammatory response (by attenuating expression of nfKB, etc.). From general standpoint these effects may make it beneficial for the skin, esp. for the skin under environmental and other stress. However, I haven't see any data in pubmed where its effects on the skin have been studied.
http://www.smartskincare.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4556

Does anyone have any more up-to-date research info on its effects on the skin - Lacy????

free skin care · Fri Jan 06, 2012 7:52 pm

Keliu wrote:

Does anyone have any more up-to-date research info on its effects on the skin - Lacy????

I doubt there will be any further research done on the effects of Renovage/Teprenone on the skin simply because Sederma owns/produces the ingredient and they have done their studies already. Have you read the patent application? It outlines the results of their preliminary study:

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090214607

Please note that the cream tested in Sederma's trial is not the same or even similar to Nanci's product. This wouldn't matter if you believe it is just the active causing the results (but IMO it is the total formulation which is responsible for the slight improvement in subject's skin).

Sun Feb 05, 2012 2:46 pm

Thanks for the informative post... There's a ton of sites marketing renovage... Even ones I frequently go to: Garden of Wisdom and Silk Naturals.

I bought and finished a cream from GoW and just bought a serum from Silk Naturals with renovage as a preventative. I guess I have to find some way to ditch the serum. Embarassed

On another note, Skin Actives and Paula's choice both speak out against this ingredient as well.

free skin care · Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:08 pm

scpocky wrote:

On another note, Skin Actives and Paula's choice both speak out against this ingredient as well.

What do they say?

Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:40 pm

erg wrote:

scpocky wrote:

On another note, Skin Actives and Paula's choice both speak out against this ingredient as well.

What do they say?

Woops, I guess I should include it Razz

I can't include the exact link since it is prohibited for newbies but I got the first one off skinactive's website and the other off paula's choice ingredient dictionary. Hopefully that's okay... If it's not I can edit my post.

The Game translate that Renovage.
By Hannah Sivak, PhD
Biochemist
Skin Actives Scientific LLC
Gilbert, AZ

Do you believe in recycling? So do the people in the skin care industry.

When a chemical fails clinical tests for curing this or that illness, the industry loses money. How can they recoup the money? They recycle it as an ingredient in skin care products. All they need is a new name.

What is Renovage? It used to be called Teprenone, an ulcer medication used in Thailand and in Japan but never used (or approved by the FDA) for the USA. But don't worry, it is still good enough to sell to women who worry about their aging skin.

The chemical name? Geranylgeranylacetone
CAS number? 6809-52-5
Or, if you prefer 6,10,14,18-Tetramethyl-5,9,13,17-nonadecatetraen-2-one
Less attractive than the trade name, Renovage.

Anyway you call it, there is no scientific information published in journals supporting the use of teprenone on skin. But it takes little time and money to get a commercial "reaserch" company to hash some numbers about wrinkles in volunteers. Then the marketing department can extol the "87% improvement in this and that" in experiments done without any peer review.

Don't waste your money just to be a Guinea pig in an gigantic experiment in marketing. It is your skin, your money. Go for proven ingredients, like Nobel Prize winning epidermal growth factor. Epidermal growth factor will actually renew your skin, without fancy name but with thousands of scientific research papers to prove its value.

Paula's Choice Cosmetic Dictionary

Teprenone is the brand name for a drug known as geranylgeranylacetone, which is used to treat gastric ulcers and is being researched as an option for slowing age-related hearing loss (Sources: Brain Research, May 2008, pages 9–17; and Digestion, October 2007, pages 215–224). What do hearing loss and ulcers have to do with aging skin? One of the key ways geranylgeranylacetone works is by influencing heat-shock proteins, which help other proteins interact as they should at the cellular level, which in turn affects many systems in the body. Heat-shock proteins are most active during times of stress, such as exposure to cigarette smoke and exposure to sunlight.

When heat-shock proteins are reduced (which ultimately is what you want because that means reducing skin inflammation—think inflamm-aging), cells appear to live longer. Some cosmetic companies have theorized that geranylgeranylacetone (as Teprenone) also may have a helpful effect when applied topically. Perhaps their logic went something like this: The skin is the body’s largest organ, it produces a lot of heat-shock proteins because it is exposed to environmental and physical stresses, so ingredients that help reduce these damaging proteins will be of benefit.

The problem? There’s no research that topically applied geranylgeranylacetone has any effect on heat-shock proteins in skin. Moreover, any cosmetic company whose products contain teprenone means they're using a drug ingredient in a cosmetic product, so the consumer is the guinea pig.

free skin care · Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:43 pm

thanks!

Mon Feb 06, 2012 6:57 am

Skinactives web-site suggests: "Don't waste your money just to be a Guinea pig in an gigantic experiment in marketing. It is your skin, your money. Go for proven ingredients, like Nobel Prize winning epidermal growth factor. Epidermal growth factor will actually renew your skin, without fancy name but with thousands of scientific research papers to prove its value." But barefacedtruth scientists say that EGF is oncogenic. And that's exactly how they started their web-site, because of disagreement with truthinaging. Go to their first posts and you will see a post called EGF is oncogenic but who cares, use it anyway??- the post that was BANNED at truth in aging". I would rather believe the scientists than Marta from truthinaging. At first I liked her site, often looked at her recommendations, but then I got suspicious, because she often recommends different products from the same brand, like Nutra-Lift. I remember somebody asked her a question in the comments if she any ties with companies she markets. Just a few days ago I learnt about another TRUTH site- personalcaretruth (it was recommended by Paula Begoun, she is one of the experts).

free skin care · Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:42 am

Gosha wrote:

Skinactives web-site suggests: "Don't waste your money just to be a Guinea pig in an gigantic experiment in marketing. It is your skin, your money. Go for proven ingredients, like Nobel Prize winning epidermal growth factor. Epidermal growth factor will actually renew your skin, without fancy name but with thousands of scientific research papers to prove its value." But barefacedtruth scientists say that EGF is oncogenic. And that's exactly how they started their web-site, because of disagreement with truthinaging. Go to their first posts and you will see a post called EGF is oncogenic but who cares, use it anyway??- the post that was BANNED at truth in aging". I would rather believe the scientists than Marta from truthinaging. At first I liked her site, often looked at her recommendations, but then I got suspicious, because she often recommends different products from the same brand, like Nutra-Lift. I remember somebody asked her a question in the comments if she any ties with companies she markets. Just a few days ago I learnt about another TRUTH site- personalcaretruth (it was recommended by Paula Begoun, she is one of the experts).

So are you saying you'd use Renovage, or not? Question

Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:46 am

No, I would not use Renovage or EGF, especially after reading all these posts. And before, I was thinking about buying EGF capsules and DNA serum from NCN. I use retin-a, vitamin c serum, NCN formula 5-5-5 (glucosamine/ niacinamide), Paula's choice 10% AHA , her 2% BHA, her RESIST Anti-Aging Clear Skin Hydrator and sunscreen.

free skin care · Wed Feb 08, 2012 7:31 pm

Hello skin care enthusiasts. Newbie here. I am one of the physician-scientists who has researched this particular product, and found it lacking in scientific rationale. In fact, the science defies known logic. The active is claimed to have something to do with telomeres (ends of DNA strands that shorten with aging) and yet there is extensive published medical literature that denies that, and in fact shows that it induces heat shock proteins (sometimes called cell death warning signals). Teprenone is a Japanese anti-ulcer drug that could not get FDA approval here in the U.S., for safety reasons, I believe. The presence of this drug in a skin care product deeply troubles me. Not to mention sensing like this whole DNA myth they created is an attempt to fool folks into paying more than they need to for what might be a good moisturizer. Happy to answer questions.

free skin care · Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:07 pm

Hello DJ:
I'm not following this part of your sentence - Will you clarify please: ....sensing like this whole DNA myth they created is an attempt to fool folks into paying more than they need to for what might be a good moisturizer.

The part I'm not understanding is sensing like this whole DNA myth.. Is that a comparative? Or slang ...? TIA

In your opinion should anything with DNA be considered only to be a good moisturizer? Or is it detrimental? Again thanks?

free skin care · Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:33 pm

sister sweets wrote:

Hello DJ:
I'm not following this part of your sentence - Will you clarify please: ....sensing like this whole DNA myth they created is an attempt to fool folks into paying more than they need to for what might be a good moisturizer.

The part I'm not understanding is sensing like this whole DNA myth.. Is that a comparative? Or slang ...? TIA

In your opinion should anything with DNA be considered only to be a good moisturizer? Or is it detrimental? Again thanks?

Not answering for DrJ, as I am sure he will do that himself. Have you read the BareFacedTruth articles linked to earlier in this thread? You may find they make his position clearer as they were written by DrJ or his partner-in-crime DrG. Ignore me if you already knew that and had read them! Embarassed

free skin care · Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:39 pm

Hi Sister sweets,

Call it a paraphasia (I guess actually paragraphia since I wrote it). Or, simply, poorly formed sentence.

Just drop the "like" and make it "...sensing this whole DNA myth they created is an attempt to fool folks into paying more than they need to for what might be a good moisturizer."

The point about it being a myth should clarify for you what my opinion as to your question "... should anything with DNA be considered only to be a good moisturizer?" The product does not perform DNA "repair" as it claims. In fact, it may be doing the opposite. It sets into motion a cascade of damage control signals (falsely), which are themselves deleterious to an otherwise healthy cell.

Heat shock proteins (which teprenone induces) tell the cell and its neighbors, including immune cells ready to destroy, that the cellular DNA has been damaged in a major way. This sets of a cascade of events which are aimed at rescue, or sacrifice (cell is killed off because cells with damaged DNA are dangerous -- this is how cancer starts). But since the cell DNA wasn't damaged in the first place, no rescue takes place. Further, if it was damaged in the way that UV light damages DNA, it may make it worse, not better. In normal cells subjected to HSP's certain parts of the DNA become occupied by factors which interfere with its normal function, rendering it ineffective. Or it make start making the wrong proteins. Or, it may just get killed off by immune cells thinking its beyond repair.

You can replace the DNA repair myth with the cell biology version of the Chicken Little fable. Remember the farmyard hen who kept crying "the sky is falling"? Only add farmer Brown to the mix, who after the third such false warning chops the head off our sadly mistaken Chicken Little. Cells get axed like that all the time.

As a further illustration, want to know how Teprenone works as an anti-ulcer drug? It causes cells lining the stomach to secrete huge quantities of mucus. This mucous protects the stomach lining from acid. But I can assure you that you do not want your skin cells doing the same thing. These emergency secretions of "damaged" (true or not) cells will gum up the works between cells where collagen & elastin is made. Will end up doing the opposite of what you would want if you strive for healthy skin.

Hope I didn't gross you out. Be thankful I didn't bring anatomy pictures of dying skin.

free skin care · Thu Feb 09, 2012 2:20 am

Excuse me if my question is utterly stupid. But isn't a lot of anti ageing procedure based on causing damage, like the use of laser technology with heat, or mechanical or chemical things to set off a cascade of events that is supposed to lead to discarding old skin and creating new hopefully undamaged skin? Even copper peptides, with the regime of extensive use of abrasives like AHA and that awful cleanser people complained about, works through skin damage and repair with, again hopefully, better looking new skin.

My question is this. The emphasis seems to lie then on increased skin cell turnover. That may be OK if you're like 30 years old, but in older skin I can imagine the capacity to form new cells, and the quality of those new cells, could be different. Wouldn't skin care aiming for controlled damage/controlled inflammation/hyper increased cell turnover be, in the long run, in fact very bad for the skin?

free skin care · Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:05 am

Lotusesther wrote:

My question is this. The emphasis seems to lie then on increased skin cell turnover. That may be OK if you're like 30 years old, but in older skin I can imagine the capacity to form new cells, and the quality of those new cells, could be different. Wouldn't skin care aiming for controlled damage/controlled inflammation/hyper increased cell turnover be, in the long run, in fact very bad for the skin?

Yes!! Exactly right. It's like death from 1,000 paper cuts. The capacity to respond to damage diminishes with age, along with the stem cell population. Healing in fetuses/newborns is essentially scar free. Healing in octagenarians involves mainly scar tissue. But increased skin turnover is not the culprit, it is the nature of the stimulus to it, and your skin's response. Retinoids increase turnover with very little inflammation. Lasers are controlled cell death rays, a lot more inflammation.

free skin care · Thu Feb 09, 2012 10:14 am

DrJ wrote:

Yes!! Exactly right. It's like death from 1,000 paper cuts. The capacity to respond to damage diminishes with age, along with the stem cell population. Healing in fetuses/newborns is essentially scar free. Healing in octagenarians involves mainly scar tissue. But increased skin turnover is not the culprit, it is the nature of the stimulus to it, and your skin's response. Retinoids increase turnover with very little inflammation. Lasers are controlled cell death rays, a lot more inflammation.

If stem cells are less, and less responsive, I would think any kind of damageing procedure could be counterproductive after a certain age. There is a difference, I think, between premature skin ageing through sun damage and the normal intrinsic ageing, and possibly a difference in what certain topical treatments can do and what kind of unexpected effects they can cause. Are cosmetics/cosmeceuticals tested on different age groups, I wonder.

free skin care · Thu Feb 09, 2012 1:45 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

If stem cells are less, and less responsive, I would think any kind of damageing procedure could be counterproductive after a certain age. There is a difference, I think, between premature skin ageing through sun damage and the normal intrinsic ageing, and possibly a difference in what certain topical treatments can do and what kind of unexpected effects they can cause. Are cosmetics/cosmeceuticals tested on different age groups, I wonder.

That's a very insightful question. The answer is "very rarely". But you are spot on right. The balance of intrinsic vs extrinsic aging, and the host ability to mount a response to damage, are critical to what works and what doesn't and how well. And timing. If you mop up DNA damage the night after the day in the sun, that's one thing. If you wait 20 years to try to alter those long term photoaging consequences, its another.

There will be a time in the future when skin care will be customized to you as an individual. Not just your age group and skin type, but your genetic make up and degree of exposure to the nasties. We will take your skin cells, and grow them in the laboratory. We will measure them. Put them on a treadmill. Will will challenge them with "actives" to see how they respond. Maybe compare several. All of this before we put it in a jar and you smear it over your whole face.

free skin care · Thu Feb 09, 2012 4:36 pm

DrJ wrote:

We will take your skin cells, and grow them in the laboratory. We will measure them. Put them on a treadmill. Will will challenge them with "actives" to see how they respond. Maybe compare several. All of this before we put it in a jar and you smear it over your whole face.

Isn't this really the only way to de-age your skin? Aging is a biological action - part of our natural life-cycle. Anything that is going to alter (be it stop or turn back) the normal process of aging is going to have to have an effect on the body at cell level.

People have been searching for the "elixir of life" for centuries but whilst modern medicine is concerned with lengthening our lives, I don't think there's a branch of medicine that is specifically concerned with de-aging - although, maybe stem cell research could be put in to that category. But there hasn't been that much buzz about stem-cell topicals to convince me that they actually biologically de-age the skin.

DrJ - given what the medical profession knows about skin aging at this point in time - what topicals do you specifically recommend?

free skin care · Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:49 pm

Hi . Dr J - Thank you for some thoughtful posts. I've enjoyed reading them and they have made me think and question some things. I know you realize EDS is a great place to reach an audience so I hope you don't mind a few questions.
I would like to know your medical background and expertise. I understand you may not want to post full name etc. but will be happy if you send it to me by PM (private messge). I promise not to disclose but will certainly verify credentials. (They come from your site and anyone can to do that) My only concern is that you are not Marketing yourself and setting yourself up as the "expert to trust". I'm sure that is not your intent. TIA. Best. Sis

free skin care · Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:24 pm

For Sis:

http://barefacedtruth.com/biography-of-a-really-mad-scientist/

free skin care · Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:53 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

For Sis:

http://barefacedtruth.com/biography-of-a-really-mad-scientist/

Thanks, what an informative website!

free skin care · Sat Feb 18, 2012 6:12 am

sister sweets wrote:

I have not been following Dr. J. I'm not sure about an agenda as M Wisteria mentions.

I believe she may be speaking about this "Our company (Cellese) is releasing a brand new product in a few weeks." http://barefacedtruth.com/2012/01/22/of-stem-cells-cytokines-tunneling-nanotubules-mitochondria-and-skin/#comment-550

free skin care · Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:17 pm

sister sweets wrote:

My only concern is that you are not Marketing yourself and setting yourself up as the "expert to trust". I'm sure that is not your intent.

Well of course, DrJ has an agenda. Don't we all? But I would be happy to tell you all about mine. I'm not at all secretive. I believe wholeheartedly in "full disclosure". That's why I put that bio. up on BFT. Happy to discuss here as well.

I think the issue for some people is not so much about agenda, but more directly a question of "who can you trust?" when it comes to scientific information. I think it's an excellent question, and deserves airing. In fact, I think there should be a whole thread devoted to that topic. I'll air it briefly here, but hope there is support for a deeper discussion.

Let's talk first about agenda. I lead a double life, so to speak, so I guess I have several agendas. One of the ways I spend my time is as a consumer advocate and science watchdog. I do this because I have seen so many egregious examples of fraud and abuse in the marketplace, especially in skin care. But this is not new to me. I was an early member of the Council Against Health Fraud 30 years ago, and wrote and spoke against dubious practices then (it's how I met Linus Pauling, in fact). My agenda here is the same as the BFT agenda ... to inform, educate, investigate, ask hard questions, and in all cases try to elevate good science over junk science.

I have a day job as the CEO (and one of the scientists) of a company that is involved with stem cells science (regenerative therapeutics) as applied to skin. It’s been around for several years, and plans to soon release a product based on that several years of new research. I am also responsible for multiple other products that have been released by other companies, in the stem cell space and otherwise. Contractually, I am not allowed to name names.

So, next question is … do I have biases? Absolutely! Don’t we all? It’s human nature. In fact as scientists, much of what we do in experimental design is to try and compensate for the biases that we all know we have. Sometimes people pretend they don’t have biases. It’s common e.g. for journalists to want you to believe their reporting is entirely factual. Often they are deluding you, or themselves. We all have opinions, based on our experience, and who we are. Judges have bias. Doctors have biases (some helpful so not). So, given that, what is a person to do? Simple, just be as open as you possibly can about what your biases are. You will see all sorts of biases in my writing about ideas that have scientific support vs. ideas that are based in fantasy and don’t fit known scientific constructs. This is my “evidence bias”. I think it’s a good one. I have other less useful ones.

Can my opinion be trusted because I work in the commercial science realm? Well, if we eliminate all commercially funded science from the picture, there is actually little left. So called cosmetic science is really an academic backwater. You can’t get grants to study wrinkles (but you can for wound healing, which involves some similar mechanisms). But, you know what? There is just as much bias in academia as there is in commerce. Maybe more. Could write a book on that topic. So, that doesn’t really tell you much.

BTW – it’s OK to NOT believe me. I’m here to spread the word. I don’t assume that everyone wants to hear it, or that all who do will believe it. Maybe because of opposing biases even. Anyway, I don’t need for you to believe me. I’m happy to win a few converts; no delusions of grandeur here.

I don’t come here to flog my own products. If they ever got mentioned, it would only be in the context of why I know what I know, i.e. my expertise in this area goes beyond what you will find published. They were mentioned maybe one or twice at BFT only in the context of answering a question or as part of our disclosure, because to not mention them would be weird and deceptive. I’m not here to sell anything. I’m not the marketing department. They have their own ideas. I’m just the guy who pays the bills and sweeps the floor at the end of the day.

I could probably review my own work, but who would believe that? (hmmmm – wonder what rating I would give it? Probably not a perfect score).

So, what about choosing sources of information that are reliable. Here are things I would look for in people and web sites … 1) adherence to principles of the scientific method, 2) clear use of logic to make a point, 3) use of facts to bolster opinion, for the best available sources, 4) a willingness to be challenged (not overly dogmatic, and we can all be wrong), 5) a willingness to engage in debate and to flex and bend, 6) credentials are good, degrees and the such, but there are whacky MD’s and PhD’s in the world also, 7) a track record (has he/she steered you wrong before), Cool

disclosure - context is useful for discerning, 9) consistency – did he/she just show up here once to flog a product or idea, or do they evidence a broader agenda and more complete foundation for knowledge, and 10) humility – if he/she thinks he is always right, cannot be challenged, berates for your question or contribution – you could be dealing with someone there to feed his or her ego, and could care less about you.

This is already long winded (not one of the criteria) so I will stop. You guys can debate it if it interests you. I’m open to all questions, as always.

free skin care · Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:22 am

Dr. J,
Thank you for all the information. But I have a question - why is 'so called cosmetic science'
an academic backwater, so that you can't get a grant to study wrinkles?
I would have thought that the first scientists to find an infallible cure for wrinkles would become multimillionaires, and possibly the holders of the Nobel Prize!

free skin care · Mon Feb 20, 2012 9:42 am

Holmes wrote:

Dr. J,
Thank you for all the information. But I have a question - why is 'so called cosmetic science'
an academic backwater, so that you can't get a grant to study wrinkles?
I would have thought that the first scientists to find an infallible cure for wrinkles would become multimillionaires, and possibly the holders of the Nobel Prize!

It's because of the adage "nobody ever died of old skin". Higher priority to diseases that kill and cause disabilities. Besides, women are more concerned about wrinkles than men, on average. But who runs the science establishment? Mainly men. Hate to bring up sexual politics, but in this case it's kinda obvious.

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.