 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:25 am  |
Kassy, thank you very, very much for the info!
Does this mean that if something is a drug or active, it will be stated as first ingredient, even if there is not much in it? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:58 am |
| jom wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| jom wrote: |
Dr.J and DragoN, What do you think of this moisturizer?
Water (Aqua), Helianthus Annuus (Sunflower) Seed Oil, Squalane, Butylene Glycol, Diglycerin, Dimethicone, Glyceryl Stearate, PEG-100 Stearate, Cetearyl Alcohol, Glycerin, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Isopropyl Isostearate, Hexanoyl Dipeptide-3 Norleucine Acetate, Palmitoyl Oligopeptide, Palmitoyl Tripeptide-5, Ceramide 2, Dipalmitoyl Hydroxyproline, Hydroxyphenyl Propamidobenzoic Acid, Epilobium Angustifolium Flower/Leaf/Stem Extract, Sodium Hyaluronate, Pyrus Malus (Apple) Fruit Extract, Glucosamine HCl, Bambusa Vulgaris Extract, Pisum Sativum (Pea) Extract, Soy Isoflavones, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Ursolic Acid, Ilomastat, Ubiquinone, Tocopheryl Acetate, Tocopherol, Panthenol, Olea Europaea (Olive) Leaf Extract, Camellia Oleifera (Green Tea) Leaf Extract, Lycium Barbarum (Goji) Fruit Extract, Ethylhexyl Palmitate, Silica Dimethyl Silylate, Tribehenin, PEG-10 Rapeseed Sterol, Pentylene Glycol , Ceteareth-20, Steareth-2, Lecithin, Acrylates/C10-30 Alkyl Acrylate Crosspolymer, Aminomethyl Propanol, Disodium EDTA, Phenoxyethanol, Methylparaben, Propylparaben, Butylparaben, Isobutylparaben, Ethylparaben, Fragrance. |
As a moisturizer ? -- really hard for me to read that (not being a formulation chemist). But quite a few familiar emollients & oils & emulsifier . Nice list of actives too, including some of my favorites, although a couple key ones missing (like stem cytokines). Who makes it? What's it cost? |
This is the product:
http://www.mlaskincare.com/store/merchant.mvc?Screen=power-cream
What do you think of this brand?
Would it be possible for you to ask your formulator his opinion? |
Answer In addition to silicones it has hydrolyzed soy protein (why?) 5 different parabens (!), and fragrance (why?). It costs more than Cellese Accelerator for the same 1.7 oz, and contains no stem cytokines (and none of the other ingredients justify the cost). |
|
|
|
|
|
Youth
New Member
 
Joined: 10 Apr 2012
Posts: 6
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:28 am |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
What's wrong with hydrolyzed soy protein?
|
You should ask, "What does it do?" Basically it's a film former and humectant. No real affect on the skin, I believe (could be wrong). It's used mostly in shampoos and conditioners (as your link reinforces as well). Why should it be in a skin care product? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:23 am |
| Youth wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
What's wrong with hydrolyzed soy protein?
|
You should ask, "What does it do?" Basically it's a film former and humectant. No real affect on the skin, I believe (could be wrong). It's used mostly in shampoos and conditioners (as your link reinforces as well). Why should it be in a skin care product? |
Great answer, Youth.
Protein hydrolysates are created by digestion with acids & chemicals of whole protein. The solvents themselves are sometimes problematic, and of course proteins are the essence of most allergic reactions. Typically, you end up with a random (unsorted, unfiltered, unknown) collection of protein fragments (large peptides) in the 50,000 Dalton or bigger size range. They cannot be absorbed by skin, so they sit on the surface. Bacteria, viruses, and yeasts thank you for creating a nice 'culture medium" on the skin surface, and grow in it.
Just like mud, anything that sticks together and locks in moisture can be called a humectant. Mud is cheaper, and doesn't take food from the mouths of starving children in Africa, who really need that soy protein to supplement their diet.
Suggestion to cosmetic industry: extract the wonderful isoflavones from soy, put that in your concoctions, and donate the remaining pure protein to Save the Children. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:25 am |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Kassy, thank you very, very much for the info!
Does this mean that if something is a drug or active, it will be stated as first ingredient, even if there is not much in it? |
In which case water is the active ingredient in the product under discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:29 am |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Kassy, thank you very, very much for the info!
Does this mean that if something is a drug or active, it will be stated as first ingredient, even if there is not much in it? |
In which case water is the active ingredient in the product under discussion. |
Aqua-water is usually the first ingredient in many, many products for the skin.
It is a penetration enhancer from what I recall, or do you disagree on that? |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:38 am |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Kassy, thank you very, very much for the info!
Does this mean that if something is a drug or active, it will be stated as first ingredient, even if there is not much in it? |
In which case water is the active ingredient in the product under discussion. |
Aqua-water is usually the first ingredient in many, many products for the skin.
It is a penetration enhancer from what I recall, or do you disagree on that? |
Think of your skin after a long soak in the tub. That pruning is not due to water being absorbed, it's due to water, salts, & oils being sucked out (or chased into the dermis).
Cosmetics are typically O/W (or W/O) emulsions. The skin's defense barrier is more tuned to keeping out water than oils. Things that are dissolved in the aqueous phase have a harder time getting in. That's the reason for liposomes & nanosomes. You take your water soluble (lipophobic) active and wrap it in lipids (or amphiphilic phospholipids) so that the skin sees it as fat, not water. Nanosomes combine lipid wrappers with small particle size to get even better penetration. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:42 am |
I still don't see the problem. It would be if it was the main ingredient, and the moisturizing cream did not contain any other actives, but as a component in a moisturizerit makes perfect sense. Why not make your skin feel soft and smooth while the other components are doing their job underneath I say. It's not a serum, it's a day cream.
Of course I understand perfectly that anything that doesn't contain stem cell cytokines is crap, and that all the lovely ingredients listed underneath the retinol (0.2 percent) do a wonderful job in the accelerator. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:47 am |
| DrJ wrote: |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Kassy, thank you very, very much for the info!
Does this mean that if something is a drug or active, it will be stated as first ingredient, even if there is not much in it? |
In which case water is the active ingredient in the product under discussion. |
Aqua-water is usually the first ingredient in many, many products for the skin.
It is a penetration enhancer from what I recall, or do you disagree on that? |
Think of your skin after a long soak in the tub. That pruning is not due to water being absorbed, it's due to water, salts, & oils being sucked out (or chased into the dermis).
Cosmetics are typically O/W (or W/O) emulsions. The skin's defense barrier is more tuned to keeping out water than oils. Things that are dissolved in the aqueous phase have a harder time getting in. That's the reason for liposomes & nanosomes. You take your water soluble (lipophobic) active and wrap it in lipids (or amphiphilic phospholipids) so that the skin sees it as fat, not water. Nanosomes combine lipid wrappers with small particle size to get even better penetration. |
I am aware of W/O and O/W emulsions, and was not saying that a lot of water soaking the skin is good.
Just stating a fact that looking at many products water is first on the list often expensive water!
But in the correct amount it can help enhance penetration or no? Some actives we use only dissolve well in H2O. |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:57 am |
Well if it doesn't that would make all those c-serums pretty useless wouldn't it?
Transdermal drug delivery often uses a vehicle consisting of ethanol, propylene glycol and water. I guess that's what we should turn to for information about delivery through the outer skin layer, because those delivery systems have been tested in vitro but also in vivo. Or all those HRT patches are just placebo of course. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:09 am |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Kassy, thank you very, very much for the info!
Does this mean that if something is a drug or active, it will be stated as first ingredient, even if there is not much in it? |
In which case water is the active ingredient in the product under discussion. |
You both misunderstood..
From the FDA link on previous page;
Cosmetics which are also drugs must first identify the drug ingredient(s) as "active ingredient(s)" before listing the cosmetic ingredients (21 CFR 701.3(d)).
As far as I can see nothing qualifies as an "active" in anything under discussion in this thread..
@DrJ, would you please share with us the % of water in both of your products? I see water listed 2nd in both ingredient lists and Mesenchymal Stem Cell Cytokines listed 1st.
From my research and understanding, "water" is typically 70 to 90% in a formulation.. |
_________________
♥I'm flattered by all the lovely PM's, but I don't get here much these days. Please don't be afraid to post your quearies to other DIY members who will be glad to help you (or sell you their wares..lol) Still happy with LED, dermarolling and a DIY antioxidant regime. Peace & Hugs to all.♥ |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 10:09 am |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Well if it doesn't that would make all those c-serums pretty useless wouldn't it?
Transdermal drug delivery often uses a vehicle consisting of ethanol, propylene glycol and water. I guess that's what we should turn to for information about delivery through the outer skin layer, because those delivery systems have been tested in vitro but also in vivo. Or all those HRT patches are just placebo of course. |
Exactly on our C serums as well as many antioxidant serums geared to acne prone and oily skin!
If you look at the DIY serums Ethanol, Propylene Glycol and Water are our staples!  |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:18 am |
| Kassy_A wrote: |
From the FDA link on previous page;
Cosmetics which are also drugs must first identify the drug ingredient(s) as "active ingredient(s)" before listing the cosmetic ingredients (21 CFR 701.3(d)).
As far as I can see nothing qualifies as an "active" in anything under discussion in this thread..
|
This says the same thing, but in clearer language (clearer to me, anyway):
Where a cosmetic product is also an over-the-counter drug product, the declaration shall declare the active drug ingredients as set forth in 201.66(c)(2) and (d) of this chapter, and the declaration shall declare the cosmetic ingredients as set forth in 201.66(c)( and (d) of this chapter.
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=701.3
Sometimes a true "drug" is included in a cosmetic formula. This would include (according to US FDA regulations) sunscreen ingredients, fluoride in toothpastes, anti-dandruff ingredients in shampoo, etc. "Cosmeceutical" is not a term recognized by the FDA, but it is used in the cosmetics industry to represent ingredients that they consider "actives". So the industry and the law both use the same terminology (actives), but the definitions are different. This thread doesn't discuss actives if you use the term as defined by the FDA, but we aren't lawyers here! I don`t get the point you are trying to make.
Dr J, I would like to know more about nanoencapsulation of ingredients. Would appreciate any literature that demonstrates increased delivery of actives via nanoliposomes. TY |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:21 am |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
| I still don't see the problem. It would be if it was the main ingredient, and the moisturizing cream did not contain any other actives, but as a component in a moisturizerit makes perfect sense. Why not make your skin feel soft and smooth while the other components are doing their job underneath I say. It's not a serum, it's a day cream. |
I agree. Mix the water with other stuff, and you have a moisturizer. I thought the question was about water itself.
| Lotusesther wrote: |
| Of course I understand perfectly that anything that doesn't contain stem cell cytokines is crap, and that all the lovely ingredients listed underneath the retinol (0.2 percent) do a wonderful job in the accelerator. |
Of course I never said that.
What I did say is that the actives in the Accelerator are there in carefully thought through doses, and for a reason - 1. medical evidence of efficacy, 2. known role physiologically & biochemically, and 3.cross compatibility physiologically & biochemically. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:28 am |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| DarkMoon wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Kassy, thank you very, very much for the info!
Does this mean that if something is a drug or active, it will be stated as first ingredient, even if there is not much in it? |
In which case water is the active ingredient in the product under discussion. |
Aqua-water is usually the first ingredient in many, many products for the skin.
It is a penetration enhancer from what I recall, or do you disagree on that? |
Think of your skin after a long soak in the tub. That pruning is not due to water being absorbed, it's due to water, salts, & oils being sucked out (or chased into the dermis).
Cosmetics are typically O/W (or W/O) emulsions. The skin's defense barrier is more tuned to keeping out water than oils. Things that are dissolved in the aqueous phase have a harder time getting in. That's the reason for liposomes & nanosomes. You take your water soluble (lipophobic) active and wrap it in lipids (or amphiphilic phospholipids) so that the skin sees it as fat, not water. Nanosomes combine lipid wrappers with small particle size to get even better penetration. |
I am aware of W/O and O/W emulsions, and was not saying that a lot of water soaking the skin is good.
Just stating a fact that looking at many products water is first on the list often expensive water!
But in the correct amount it can help enhance penetration or no? Some actives we use only dissolve well in H2O. |
Yes, water is required. 60% of our body is water. 50% of most foodstuffs is water. Essential for life and certainly biochemistry. And yes, most actives are water solublle therefore in the W phase of the emulsion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:31 am |
| Kassy_A wrote: |
Dr J, I would like to know more about nanoencapsulation of ingredients. Would appreciate any literature that demonstrates increased delivery of actives via nanoliposomes. TY |
We had a discussion on another thread recently. I have forgotten where. I'll search around. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:40 am |
| I did find a patent description where cytokines were connected to fatty acids to enhance penetration. Man called Skinner developed that in 2008, and cosmeceutical use was stated in the patent. Not exactly liposomes but apparently searching for an answer to the same problem. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 5:09 pm |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Kassy_A wrote: |
Dr J, I would like to know more about nanoencapsulation of ingredients. Would appreciate any literature that demonstrates increased delivery of actives via nanoliposomes. TY |
We had a discussion on another thread recently. I have forgotten where. I'll search around. |
Is this what you were thinking of?
| DragoN wrote: |
| Quote: |
Human pluripotent stem cells (Lifeline).
Source: Created from unfertilized oocytes (female eggs, which have been donated from IVF clinics). These pluripotent stem cells have the capacity to differentiate into any one of 220 different cell types found in the human body (become bones, muscle, lungs, etc.) but have not yet done so. They are more potent than any other kind of stem cell because they are much closer to the original oocyte. Each time the stem cells divide they become more specialized, but also weaker.
The benefits: cellular proliferation, gene regulation and DNA repair
Preservative: Lipid bi-layer nanosphere
Potency: High |
How so?
Parthogenic stimulation is only successful for a few rounds, there after, there are major problems. Strange statement about "strength" and proximity to oocyte.
-80C for storage. Even then, you have breakdown. So what exactly if anything is still left in the mix? Not...much.
Ranks up there with spinach mitochondria bits and or pieces slapped on my face to rev up my ATP production.
Characterization of cytokine-encapsulated controlled-release microsphere adjuvants.
Sharma A, Harper CM, Hammer L, Nair RE, Mathiowitz E, Egilmez NK.
Source
TherapyX, Inc., Buffalo, NY, USA.
Abstract
Controlled-release, injectable polymer microspheres provide a clinically feasible alternative to gene-modification for the local, sustained delivery of cytokines to tumors for cancer immunotherapy. Long-term release kinetics, bioactivity profiles, and stability of interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-12 (IL-12), and granulocyte- macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-encapsulated microspheres prepared by phase inversion nanoencapsulation (PIN) were evaluated. While all formulations released physiologically relevant quantities of cytokine for up to 30 days, the individual release kinetics were different. Recovery of specific activity after encapsulation was 40%, 60%, and 90%-that of pre-encapsulation levels for IL-2, GM-CSF and IL-12, respectively. Upon storage, the IL-12 microspheres rapidly lost activity, whereas IL-2 and GM-CSF microspheres remained stable for at least 9 weeks. These studies demonstrate that biochemical properties of microsphere formulations vary depending on the cytokine, and rigorous characterization of formulations is a prerequisite to in vivo testing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15665625
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:09 pm |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Lacy53 wrote: |
Dr J, I would like to know more about nanoencapsulation of ingredients. Would appreciate any literature that demonstrates increased delivery of actives via nanoliposomes. TY |
We had a discussion on another thread recently. I have forgotten where. I'll search around. |
I am personally interested in the specific delivery system in AnteAGE, and the science behind why you chose it. This is what I was was trying to get to in my earlier request.
Thanks! |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:13 pm |
| jom wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Kassy_A wrote: |
Dr J, I would like to know more about nanoencapsulation of ingredients. Would appreciate any literature that demonstrates increased delivery of actives via nanoliposomes. TY |
We had a discussion on another thread recently. I have forgotten where. I'll search around. |
Is this what you were thinking of?
| DragoN wrote: |
| Quote: |
Human pluripotent stem cells (Lifeline).
Source: Created from unfertilized oocytes (female eggs, which have been donated from IVF clinics). These pluripotent stem cells have the capacity to differentiate into any one of 220 different cell types found in the human body (become bones, muscle, lungs, etc.) but have not yet done so. They are more potent than any other kind of stem cell because they are much closer to the original oocyte. Each time the stem cells divide they become more specialized, but also weaker.
The benefits: cellular proliferation, gene regulation and DNA repair
Preservative: Lipid bi-layer nanosphere
Potency: High |
How so?
Parthogenic stimulation is only successful for a few rounds, there after, there are major problems. Strange statement about "strength" and proximity to oocyte.
-80C for storage. Even then, you have breakdown. So what exactly if anything is still left in the mix? Not...much.
Ranks up there with spinach mitochondria bits and or pieces slapped on my face to rev up my ATP production.
Characterization of cytokine-encapsulated controlled-release microsphere adjuvants.
Sharma A, Harper CM, Hammer L, Nair RE, Mathiowitz E, Egilmez NK.
Source
TherapyX, Inc., Buffalo, NY, USA.
Abstract
Controlled-release, injectable polymer microspheres provide a clinically feasible alternative to gene-modification for the local, sustained delivery of cytokines to tumors for cancer immunotherapy. Long-term release kinetics, bioactivity profiles, and stability of interleukin-2 (IL-2), interleukin-12 (IL-12), and granulocyte- macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)-encapsulated microspheres prepared by phase inversion nanoencapsulation (PIN) were evaluated. While all formulations released physiologically relevant quantities of cytokine for up to 30 days, the individual release kinetics were different. Recovery of specific activity after encapsulation was 40%, 60%, and 90%-that of pre-encapsulation levels for IL-2, GM-CSF and IL-12, respectively. Upon storage, the IL-12 microspheres rapidly lost activity, whereas IL-2 and GM-CSF microspheres remained stable for at least 9 weeks. These studies demonstrate that biochemical properties of microsphere formulations vary depending on the cytokine, and rigorous characterization of formulations is a prerequisite to in vivo testing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15665625
|
|
There is a much broader literature just about liposomes and solid lipid nanoparticles. In terms of encapsulation for dermal delivery, there is nothing all that special about cytokines in this context; just think of them as peptides or proteins. I have a good reference for protein delivery in general I will dig up. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 6:41 pm |
| Kassy_A wrote: |
| Nice to see you back Beth... Hope all your babies are A-okay... xox |
Thank you Kassy! The babies are doing great...I recently lost one older one to diabetes, but the other 7 are still keeping me on my toes.  |
_________________
No longer answering PM's due to numerous weird messages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 7:56 pm |
| bethany wrote: |
| Kassy_A wrote: |
| Nice to see you back Beth... Hope all your babies are A-okay... xox |
Thank you Kassy! The babies are doing great...I recently lost one older one to diabetes, but the other 7 are still keeping me on my toes. |
I got a kick out of this Hi and thanks. For the new members I can only imagine......
Glad your fur babies are doing well and sorry to hear about the one you lost. I had to let Frodo go due to diabetes as well. |
_________________
The best way to locate your cat is to open a can of food. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:22 pm |
I believe it was jom who likes to divide the world of actives into "acidic" and "soothing". In this vein, I have an anecdote to share about AnteAge. Just heard about this today.
An AnteAGE user had a deep acid (phenol + TCA) peel procedure (done in dermatologist office) but didn't peel. But she liked the results (after a week). The doctor was baffled. A peel-less peel? Will look further. |
|
|
|
|
| Tue Apr 23, 2024 6:09 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. |
|
 |
|
|
