7 Degrees of Stem Cell Separation
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Fri Aug 03, 2012 8:57 am

This thread is very interesting... thank you !

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:33 am

Keliu wrote:

It's been intimated, if not stated outright, that Adipose stem cells cause inflammation which can lead to cancer. I would like an opinion on that.

I'd also like it if we could be sure that topical application is viable (rather than injecting).

The cytokines from adipose tissue are known to be inflammatory in profile, at least in most overweight/obese people. These "adipokines" (adipose cytokines) are thought to contribute to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.

But this is different but perhaps related to adipose stem cells.

Hence, personally, I would be more skeptical of using adipose tissue cytokines, whether from mature adipocytes or stem cells.

A good review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224869

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:39 am

cm5597 wrote:

Keliu wrote:

It's been intimated, if not stated outright, that Adipose stem cells cause inflammation which can lead to cancer. I would like an opinion on that.

I'd also like it if we could be sure that topical application is viable (rather than injecting).

The cytokines from adipose tissue are known to be inflammatory in profile, at least in most overweight/obese people. These "adipokines" (adipose cytokines) are thought to contribute to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.

But this is different but perhaps related to adipose stem cells.

Hence, personally, I would be more skeptical of using adipose tissue cytokines, whether from mature adipocytes or stem cells.

A good review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224869

well, what if one is not overweight or obese? This makes no sense to me. If it gives heavy people cancer, why not skinny people?

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:50 am

Lotusesther wrote:

I agree using human material brings along a lot of potential risks we just don't know yet.
My concern is more, that adding cytokines haphazardly could mess with your own cytokine production mechanisms, like taking hormones messes up your own hormone system. The question is, is there a viable equilibrium created when taking this, and what happens when you stop using them?.....This is why I think products like these should be tested over a longer period of time before they are put on the market.

I totally agree. The body consists of extraordinary feedback loops. It doesn't make sense to me that a particular cytokine profile is always what the body would need; it's like always sending your cells the same signal. Sometimes you want to send a growth signal (e.g., after eating; anabolic), and sometimes you want to send a repair signal and energy-conserving signal (more catabolic), etc. That said, sending a single "signal" all the time could still be better than no additional signal at all...

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 8:56 am

Tiny wrote:

cm5597 wrote:

Keliu wrote:

It's been intimated, if not stated outright, that Adipose stem cells cause inflammation which can lead to cancer. I would like an opinion on that.

I'd also like it if we could be sure that topical application is viable (rather than injecting).

The cytokines from adipose tissue are known to be inflammatory in profile, at least in most overweight/obese people. These "adipokines" (adipose cytokines) are thought to contribute to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.

But this is different but perhaps related to adipose stem cells.

Hence, personally, I would be more skeptical of using adipose tissue cytokines, whether from mature adipocytes or stem cells.

A good review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224869

well, what if one is not overweight or obese? This makes no sense to me. If it gives heavy people cancer, why not skinny people?

What in particular doesn't make sense?

If you are not overweight or obese, then you are are less prone but not immune to having more of these inflammatory cytokines in your fat stores.

There isn't a one-to-one ratio, meaning there are no automatics. It's just that it's far more common in obese people.

About what causes the typical inflammation in fat tissue in obese people, there are lots of theories (e.g., low levels of oxygen simply from having large fat cells, high levels of circulating free fatty acids, more inflammatory diets, less exercise), but no definitive answers, as far as I know.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:02 am

cm5597 wrote:

Tiny wrote:

cm5597 wrote:

Keliu wrote:

It's been intimated, if not stated outright, that Adipose stem cells cause inflammation which can lead to cancer. I would like an opinion on that.

I'd also like it if we could be sure that topical application is viable (rather than injecting).

The cytokines from adipose tissue are known to be inflammatory in profile, at least in most overweight/obese people. These "adipokines" (adipose cytokines) are thought to contribute to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.

But this is different but perhaps related to adipose stem cells.

Hence, personally, I would be more skeptical of using adipose tissue cytokines, whether from mature adipocytes or stem cells.

A good review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224869

well, what if one is not overweight or obese? This makes no sense to me. If it gives heavy people cancer, why not skinny people?

What in particular doesn't make sense?

If you are not overweight or obese, then you are are less prone but not immune to having more of these inflammatory cytokines in your fat stores.

There isn't a one-to-one ratio, meaning there are no automatics. It's just that it's far more common in obese people.

About what causes the typical inflammation in fat tissue in obese people, there are lots of theories (e.g., low levels of oxygen simply from having large fat cells, high levels of circulating free fatty acids, more inflammatory diets, less exercise), but no definitive answers, as far as I know.

So if I am not overweight or obese, then I am less inclinded to have adipose stem cells at all? If Adipose causes inflamation and perhaps cancer, yet is mainly found in obese or overweight people? Or am I just missing the boat completely here?

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:12 am

That's a very important question Tiny, I was wondering too. I had always heard that it's not so much a difference in amounts of fat cells, but the size due to the amount of fat stored inside them that made people overweight, but if there are stem cells that can turn into fat cells that would mean, I guess, that the number of fat cells is different in obese people vs not-obese?
And, related to that, could it be that the cytokines produced by stem cells are different from the cytokines produced by fully developed fat cells that are used as storage by the body?

Maybe there is even some sort of interaction with the estrone that is stored in fat cells?

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:56 am

Tiny wrote:

cm5597 wrote:

Tiny wrote:

cm5597 wrote:

Keliu wrote:

It's been intimated, if not stated outright, that Adipose stem cells cause inflammation which can lead to cancer. I would like an opinion on that.

I'd also like it if we could be sure that topical application is viable (rather than injecting).

The cytokines from adipose tissue are known to be inflammatory in profile, at least in most overweight/obese people. These "adipokines" (adipose cytokines) are thought to contribute to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc.

But this is different but perhaps related to adipose stem cells.

Hence, personally, I would be more skeptical of using adipose tissue cytokines, whether from mature adipocytes or stem cells.

A good review: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21224869

well, what if one is not overweight or obese? This makes no sense to me. If it gives heavy people cancer, why not skinny people?

What in particular doesn't make sense?

If you are not overweight or obese, then you are are less prone but not immune to having more of these inflammatory cytokines in your fat stores.

There isn't a one-to-one ratio, meaning there are no automatics. It's just that it's far more common in obese people.

About what causes the typical inflammation in fat tissue in obese people, there are lots of theories (e.g., low levels of oxygen simply from having large fat cells, high levels of circulating free fatty acids, more inflammatory diets, less exercise), but no definitive answers, as far as I know.

So if I am not overweight or obese, then I am less inclinded to have adipose stem cells at all? If Adipose causes inflamation and perhaps cancer, yet is mainly found in obese or overweight people? Or am I just missing the boat completely here?

It's quite complex. What I said doesn't apply to adipose stem cells, and it's not that adipose (fat), which every person has, causes inflammation.

It's that we tend to observe more inflammation in the fat tissue of obese people--quite a bit more. And that inflammation in the fat of obese people is thought to contribute to increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes (and less so cancer). It doesn't mean you will get it if you are obese, it just means that you are at a higher risk.

The issue is that if a lot of people's adipose cells (fat cells) are secreting inflammatory cytokines, why would you want to use adipose to produce your cytokines?

I hope this explains better Smile

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 10:01 am

Lotusesther wrote:

I had always heard that it's not so much a difference in amounts of fat cells, but the size due to the amount of fat stored inside them that made people overweight

I've actually seen real data on this. There is wide variation among people in both the numbers of fat cells that people have and the size of those fat cells. Moreover, both the size and number of fat cells that you have can change.

Lotusesther wrote:

And, related to that, could it be that the cytokines produced by stem cells are different from the cytokines produced by fully developed fat cells that are used as storage by the body?

Maybe there is even some sort of interaction with the estrone that is stored in fat cells?

Exactly. Those are great questions; I don't know the answer to those questions.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:10 am

cm5597 wrote:

I've actually seen real data on this. There is wide variation among people in both the numbers of fat cells that people have and the size of those fat cells. Moreover, both the size and number of fat cells that you have can change

CM, I read somewhere that you are born with x amount of fat cells and that's it. For example if you have lipo on your stomach and remove x amount of cells, the cells that are left can continue to grow bigger(gain more fat) but you wouldn't make any new fat cells. From what I'm reading up above this isn't true. Is that right. Just want to make sure I'm reading this correctly. Thanks.

Sun Aug 05, 2012 11:23 am

More along the lines of CM's comments:

Quote:

Another recently emerged multipotent stem cell candidate is the Adipose-derived Stem Cells (ASC). In the old days, adipose tissue (fat tissue) is thought to have a fixed amount of adipocytes (fat cells), and so we had long believed that the increase in adipose tissue mass is just the increase in the mass of adipocytes instead of their number. However, now we know that this is not true, thanks to the discovery of ASCs, it has been revealed that our number of adipocytes can vary under different body conditions due to the presence of stem cells in adipose tissue. To the surprise of many, unlike unipotent stem cells which can only differentiate into a single type of cells, ASCs can transform into cells other than adipocytes, including cells of the bone, lung, muscle, neurons, etc., giving them a whole broad spectrum of later generation cells at the terminally differentiated end. Not only that, their easiness to differentiate is ranked the highest among stem cells.

http://www2.stemunion.com/stem_cell.html

Quote:

page 225—Early studies suggested that fully differentiated adipocytes do not divide and that the number of fat cells were fixed in early childhood and that subsequent gains in adipose tissue represented increases in fat cell size. This is no longer considered to be true, since adipose tissue in adults is now known to contain preadipocytes capable of forming new fat cells, and fat deposition can result from proliferation of these immature adipocytes. Some medications can also have an important effect on fat cell numbers.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=FFg88IaReBwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:03 pm

havana8 wrote:

More along the lines of CM's comments:

Quote:

Another recently emerged multipotent stem cell candidate is the Adipose-derived Stem Cells (ASC). In the old days, adipose tissue (fat tissue) is thought to have a fixed amount of adipocytes (fat cells), and so we had long believed that the increase in adipose tissue mass is just the increase in the mass of adipocytes instead of their number. However, now we know that this is not true, thanks to the discovery of ASCs, it has been revealed that our number of adipocytes can vary under different body conditions due to the presence of stem cells in adipose tissue. To the surprise of many, unlike unipotent stem cells which can only differentiate into a single type of cells, ASCs can transform into cells other than adipocytes, including cells of the bone, lung, muscle, neurons, etc., giving them a whole broad spectrum of later generation cells at the terminally differentiated end. Not only that, their easiness to differentiate is ranked the highest among stem cells.

http://www2.stemunion.com/stem_cell.html

Quote:

page 225—Early studies suggested that fully differentiated adipocytes do not divide and that the number of fat cells were fixed in early childhood and that subsequent gains in adipose tissue represented increases in fat cell size. This is no longer considered to be true, since adipose tissue in adults is now known to contain preadipocytes capable of forming new fat cells, and fat deposition can result from proliferation of these immature adipocytes. Some medications can also have an important effect on fat cell numbers.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=FFg88IaReBwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

So if I read this right, Adipose can adapt, whereas other's can not, am I reading this correct? And if so whats the scare, if the SC's from Adipose adapt, in theory, they become what one needs them to be, where one uses them?

And if I further read this right, then we never know much of anything, science is ALWAYS evolving, what was once thought of as NOT happening, NOW shows it does. So when we all read all these papers on this and that, in 2 years this and that might be a different ball game. Science is about discovering, as they learn more, they discover more. Right? It is rarely about "fact", it changes.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:10 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

I agree using human material brings along a lot of potential risks we just don't know yet.
My concern is more, that adding cytokines haphazardly could mess with your own cytokine production mechanisms, like taking hormones messes up your own hormone system. The question is, is there a viable equilibrium created when taking this, and what happens when you stop using them?.....This is why I think products like these should be tested over a longer period of time before they are put on the market.

But don't we have to factor in that the ReLuma product has been on the market for ten years? That's a fairly long time, and it's definitely long enough to get good customer feedback. If there are issues with the source of the stem cells in this product, I think we would have heard something about this. I can see your arguement better with the newer products that have only been around for a couple years at most, but I have a hard time with ReLuma. A half million bottles over ten years is just a lot of product to be floating around out there. Where are the unhappy users?

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:18 pm

Panda1 wrote:

A half million bottles over ten years is just a lot of product to be floating around out there. Where are the unhappy users?

Just going to play devils advocate here, but if Reluma was that great (and please no one take any offense as none is meant and I am thrilled that there are a few on this forum that are getting great results with it), wouldn't we hear about it a lot more on skin care forums, beauty mags, etc? Especially due to the fact that is has been around so long?

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:22 pm

There you have a good point - ReLuma has been on the market for quite a long time now, so there must be long term users out there. If it was dangerous or damaging the stories would be out by now.

ETA: I responded to Panda1, now I see Rileygirl's response. And of course that is also a question mark - anything that eliminates lip lines would get the biggest rave all over the internet IMO.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:23 pm

rileygirl wrote:

Panda1 wrote:

A half million bottles over ten years is just a lot of product to be floating around out there. Where are the unhappy users?

Just going to play devils advocate here, but if Reluma was that great (and please no one take any offense as none is meant and I am thrilled that there are a few on this forum that are getting great results with it), wouldn't we hear about it a lot more on skin care forums, beauty mags, etc? Especially due to the fact that is has been around so long?

I wondered the exact same, except they have kept tweaking and changing their formula. The last being around 3 years ago. They recently tweaked and changed their cream as well. So Perfectly good question.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:26 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

There you have a good point - ReLuma has been on the market for quite a long time now, so there must be long term users out there. If it was dangerous or damaging the stories would be out by now.

ETA: I responded to Panda1, now I see Rileygirl's response. And of course that is also a question mark - anything that eliminates lip lines would get the biggest rave all over the internet IMO.

Not quiet "get rid of" hugeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee improvement so far!! I don't want to mislead anyone

but when I searched RL, all I did see was raves on reviews, even from jaded reviewers who did NOT want to like it. A few and I mean very few dud reviews, most raving.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:37 pm

Huge improvement in lip lines is a LOT more than you get from most products.
Maybe it's the price tag, and also maybe it's marketed mainly through derm's offices and spas under private labels. I can imagine that 'adipose stem cells' sounds a lot more appealing when your derm says it than when you read about it.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:40 pm

Lotusesther wrote:

Huge improvement in lip lines is a LOT more than you get from most products.
Maybe it's the price tag, and also maybe it's marketed mainly through derm's offices and spas under private labels. I can imagine that 'adipose stem cells' sounds a lot more appealing when your derm says it than when you read about it.

They have been marketed differently, mainly thru plastic surgeons for post surgery! or derms offices. RL is sold thru 2 outlets or 3, and plastic surgeon office's not 100's of stores. So your right, you don't walk into Macy's and see these products.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 12:52 pm

rileygirl wrote:

Panda1 wrote:

A half million bottles over ten years is just a lot of product to be floating around out there. Where are the unhappy users?

Just going to play devils advocate here, but if Reluma was that great (and please no one take any offense as none is meant and I am thrilled that there are a few on this forum that are getting great results with it), wouldn't we hear about it a lot more on skin care forums, beauty mags, etc? Especially due to the fact that is has been around so long?

Riley - I've been waiting for that, because that is certainly an arguement that could be made. I'd have to look at the sales figures to see how the product volume has been distributed (like maybe most of it was in the early years and recent sales are declining?) I just don't know. If sales have been increasing over the years, it's got to be through word of mouth, because I can't ever remember seeing the product advertised. So while the numbers makes me feel ok about the product safety, it does bring up other questions Confused

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:05 pm

Panda1 wrote:

Riley - I've been waiting for that, because that is certainly an arguement that could be made. I'd have to look at the sales figures to see how the product volume has been distributed (like maybe most of it was in the early years and recent sales are declining?) I just don't know. If sales have been increasing over the years, it's got to be through word of mouth, because I can't ever remember seeing the product advertised. So while the numbers makes me feel ok about the product safety, it does bring up other questions Confused

If you find anything on the sales figures, please let us know! I am curious. I would like to believe in word of mouth, etc, and I will be very honest and say I have only been to 1 med-spa in my life, which was many years ago, but TNS was the wonder product there. I still would think even if it was just distributed mostly in spas/derms offices that people would come on the forum and share that it works?

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:20 pm

rileygirl wrote:

Panda1 wrote:

Riley - I've been waiting for that, because that is certainly an arguement that could be made. I'd have to look at the sales figures to see how the product volume has been distributed (like maybe most of it was in the early years and recent sales are declining?) I just don't know. If sales have been increasing over the years, it's got to be through word of mouth, because I can't ever remember seeing the product advertised. So while the numbers makes me feel ok about the product safety, it does bring up other questions Confused

If you find anything on the sales figures, please let us know! I am curious. I would like to believe in word of mouth, etc, and I will be very honest and say I have only been to 1 med-spa in my life, which was many years ago, but TNS was the wonder product there. I still would think even if it was just distributed mostly in spas/derms offices that people would come on the forum and share that it works?

I'll let you know if I can find anything, but Invitrx is not a publicly traded company so financial info is not readily available.

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:29 pm

rileygirl wrote:

Panda1 wrote:

Riley - I've been waiting for that, because that is certainly an arguement that could be made. I'd have to look at the sales figures to see how the product volume has been distributed (like maybe most of it was in the early years and recent sales are declining?) I just don't know. If sales have been increasing over the years, it's got to be through word of mouth, because I can't ever remember seeing the product advertised. So while the numbers makes me feel ok about the product safety, it does bring up other questions Confused

If you find anything on the sales figures, please let us know! I am curious. I would like to believe in word of mouth, etc, and I will be very honest and say I have only been to 1 med-spa in my life, which was many years ago, but TNS was the wonder product there. I still would think even if it was just distributed mostly in spas/derms offices that people would come on the forum and share that it works?

I can't disagree with you on any of this! My eye surgeon is world renown, he discovered that those that botox "doesn't work on" was really a vit deficiency, if you take this vit for 4 days prior, its takes, and it also lasts longer. Now why this, well he knew this for a few years before its NOW offered in most derms office's doing offering botox. Whats my point, it works, but took years to catch on. He was actually just on the news about this. He's done alot more (stuff that is now making tons of money, but I won't bore all), because this stuff fascinates him. I wish I needed to go see her, I'd ask him, he could fill my brain with info on this.

why all this useless info, some stuff is out for years before its thought of as "wow", or good.

Not defending, because honestly I don't know

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:42 pm

The same argument for a certain groups beloved Kinetin, only Kinerase uses it (as far as I see so far) I do not see raves about it in magazines or beauty blogs and only one DIY supplier even bothers to sell it? Yet I see a few on forums rave at what a miracle ingredient it is?

free skin care · Sun Aug 05, 2012 1:53 pm

Tiny wrote:

My eye surgeon is world renown, he discovered that those that botox "doesn't work on" was really a vit deficiency, if you take this vit for 4 days prior, its takes, and it also lasts longer.

Wow, this is very interesting! I tried Botox once, maybe 5-6 years ago? At any rate, it did not take for me. I had to go back and get it again a week or 2 later, and it still did not take. Do you happen to know what vitamin deficiency?

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.