| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Sat Mar 24, 2007 3:32 pm  |
Are there copper receptors in the skin just as there are receptors for antioxidants such as Vit A etc. ?
I am doing my own modified version of Dr.Hubers theory of not using high performance topicals too often to avoid receptor overload and fatique.
I use Renova 0.025% only twice a week and plan on using Skinbio's GHK Cu three times weekly. Currently I am using Neova five days a week since it is less strong that Skinbio's serum.
Thanks  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:55 am |
Hi Monica
If you did want to follow the Huber program he doesn't agree with using CPs - says the molecule size is too big to penetrate the skin, but anyhow....
Skinbio never explicitly states that CPs use receptors but they constantly use the term 'signals' repair in their descriptions. I believe they do mean receptors. Carol Demas says they use receptors in her DIY book. I didn't realise just how many things do use that mechanism til recently.
I don't believe in receptor fatigue myself, but I do believe in cycling the stronger CPs (Supercop cream and Supercop x2). From my experience I think they work better that way. Maybe because they eliminate damaged proteins your skin needs some time to build up new proteins afterwards). |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:47 am |
In cell biology and biochemistry, the terms receptors and signals are not used to mean the same thing. You have receptors on the surface of your cells that recieve the signal (usually called ligand) - that is why it is called a "receptor" - it receives. When the extracellular signal is received by the receptor, it triggers intracellular signals. In other words, a receptor receives the signal, and you can have signals both outside and inside the cell.
So it really isn't necessary for a signal to penetrate a skin cell, it can be received by a receptor on the skin cell, and trigger work within the cell. Other signals need to be carried thru the phospholipid bilayer of the cell. It just depends on the molecule. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:29 am |
Thanks Patchouli
That's interesting, but I'm not totally clear.
I was assuming because Dr P talks about signals that there must be a receptor. Is that not the case? Can the signal be received in other ways too? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:00 am |
| I'm not sure what you mean. If there is nothing there to receive it, then it wouldn't be acting as a signal. A receptor and a signal are just two different molecules doing two different things. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:42 am |
| Molly wrote: |
Hi Monica
Skinbio never explicitly states that CPs use receptors but they constantly use the term 'signals' repair in their descriptions. I believe they do mean receptors. |
I see.
I thought you meant what I was saying was wrong, but I see I've just written it badly and you think I'm saying signals *are* receptors.
I should have said "I believe that means there must be receptors"
Because they never say receptors on Skinbio but I am guessing as they talk about signals there must be receptors for those. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 7:47 am |
Here is an analogy, albeit a simplistic one:
When someone calls your cell phone, that person is sending a signal. In order for you to receive that phone call, you must have a cell phone. The incoming call is the signal, and your cell phone is the receptor.
Without the appropriate receptor, the signal cannot have an affect. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:01 pm |
Thank you so much for your responses. So there must be CP receptors which are receiving the signals.
Hm - I dont know if there is indeed the possibility of receptor fatique with ALL topicals which use receptors.
Maybe with some topicals it is more about the fact that they simply act irritating if overused. As in the case of various forms of Vit A.
Others may just work too fast if applied too much. Could this be what happens in the case of CPs, rather then receptor fatique? It would explain why too much too fast leads to uglies.
Then there may indeed be some which lead to receptor fatique, as in the case of Vit C?
Does this make sense? Im sorry, If Im off - Im trying to understand this all and am still getting confused at times |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:27 pm |
BUT, topical actives can indeed have an effect onthe skin without the signal/receptor relationship.
One example is Vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid). Contrary to what's been asserted, there aren't any vitamin C receptors in the skin, and so there is no such thing as Vitamin C receptor fatigue! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 1:43 pm |
God, this is all so confusing! Can anyone clarify which actives have skin receptors and therefore can result in receptor fatigue and which don't?
Also, if there are receptors in the skin for a certain active how often can one use that active to reduce the fatigue? once a week? twice a week? |
_________________
my new jewellery website:www.gentle-medusa.com |
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:14 pm |
GG - There is no such thing as 'receptor fatigue'. It's just a term coined by Dr Huber so I wouldn't worry too much about it. He suggests twice a week for any and all actives and he includes Vit C on that list though most disagree that it uses receptors anyhow.
I asked over on Smartskincare a while back about receptors and I was told Vits B, C & E don't use them; on the other hand I'm told Niacinamide (a form of B, is it not?) does.
I'm sure retinoids use receptors and I think we can add CPs to that list.
Yes, it's not clear to me either. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 4:55 pm |
I read the info on http://www.osmosisskincare.com/
that s.o. posted this weekend elsewhere on this site and it says that yes, retinoids have receptors, but that there are NO retinoic ACID receptors (tretinoin), which is why you have to be more careful using those - as in Retin A . They prefer the retinaldehyde form of Vit A.
I also remember now what Molly said that there are NO receptors for Vit C.
Oh, and Molly - you are right, that Dr.Huber believes that copper cannot penetrate. I dont believe him though, since Dr.Pickard explained the size of the copper molecules to be small enough to do so. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 5:21 pm |
I agree with Molly that this receptor fatigue is just a theory of Dr. Huber's and I have not yet seen proof that it occurs so I too don't worry too much about it.
Molly I wonder if niacinamide does have receptors. I did tell you that I thought it did but then again Dr. T said that the B vitamins do not work by receptors. Maybe a little more research is in order here! 
Monica34 I may not be certain on some of these substances and whether they have receptors but I do know this much-there definetly are retinoic acid receprors!! Further retinaldehyde converts to retinoic acid and that is how it is able to activate the cellular receptors and have an effect. You have to be more careful with Retin A (retinoic acid) becasue it activates more or the retinoic acid receptors than other retinoids like Differin or Tazorac. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:06 pm |
Hi Theresa,
I apologize - you are right. I had this wrong about the retinoic acid receptors. I looked up the info on SkinOsmosis again, and this is what it says:
| Quote: |
UNDERSTANDING VITAMIN A
Let us be very clear, there is no more important skin ingredient than Vitamin A. The body stores Beta Carotene
and Vitamin A (aka Retinol) in the skin for activation whenever it needs to repair itself (which ends up being
24hrs/day). It converts Retinol to Retinaldehyde, which has some activity, and then it converts Retinaldehyde to
Retinoic Acid (aka Retin A). Looking at this process, you would naturally think that Retin A is the answer since
that is the most active of the group and has the majority of receptors in the skin. The reason that is not true is
because retinoic acid requires very careful regulation. The skin has no ability to store retinoic acid so whatever
is produced (or applied topically) is utilized. Unfortunately, like many processes in the body, when receptors are
over-stimulated, they do not work as well. In the case of Retin A, the irritation resulting from over-stimulation
reduces its effectiveness and the downregulation of receptors makes it less active over time. Retinol, on the
contrary, can be stored in the skin. It is 1/500th as active as Retin A and has little independent activity outside
of what is converted to Retin A by the skin (which is a very small amount). To achieve an adequate response,
approximately 5% is needed topically every day. Retinaldehyde is the immediate precursor to Retin A and
has been proven to have similar activity in the skin to Retin A. The big advantage is that the skin can store
whatever is not converted, thus reducing irritation and maximizing effectiveness with long-term use.
Maximum stimulation of collagen/elastin with minimal irritation, that is why Retinaldehyde is the best form
of Vitamin A available. |
Sorry - thanks for correcting me |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:16 pm |
FYI - I've been reading about the product NIA 24 which contains a Vit.B3 ester, mistryl nicotinate. It claims to be able to repair the skin barrier and reverse photodamage without causing the vasodilation (redness, irritation) associated with other forms of niacin. The info about NIA 24 provided on skin-etc.'s website suggests receptors are involved in the process:
http://www.skin-etc.com/prmofa.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2007 6:58 pm |
I have been thinking about receptor fatique some. I believe there must be such a thing, though I am not sure what it applies to. Maybe the better word would be receptor insensitivity?
One example is insulin insensitivity, where the insuline receptors become less receptive due to down regulation if someone eats a diet that leads to high blood sugar and resulting high insulin levels. This leads to a condition where the pancreas has to produce more and more insulin to have an effect on the insulin receptors.
What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 26, 2007 3:30 pm |
Another thought - could the ability to move on to stronger CPs be a sign of CP receptors becoming desensitized making for a larger need for CP to continue improvment? So getting used to stronger CPs would mean requiring stronger CPs due to applying CPs to often?
The same may then be the case with tretinoin.
Just putting this out there - I would love to hear from the more knowledgable girls here |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 27, 2007 12:16 am |
It is an appealing theory Monica, I agree. Especially because you can compare it to other functions where sensitivity/allergies could arise, but I think the skin might be a bit different.
If you consider only 2% of what we put on our skin actually reaches the parts which have receptors. I believe most of the sensitivity is felt more on the surface of the skin where we have to put so much stuff on to achieve that tiny active percentage. So maybe it doesn't follow so well.
I'm still thinking about it though. Would be nice to hear more opinions. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:32 am |
Hi Molly,
what you said about the skin not letting actives penetrate so easily and that affecting the possibility of developing an insenitivity is interesting too.
In general in the body however, I can think of many more examples now. Caffeine or other stimulants, as well as drugs or pain killers etc. All very active substances which once the body "gets used too" we need more of to get the same effect. It doesnt produce a stronger result, only keeps the outcome at the same level - with more of the active necessary the longer it is being used.
I would love to find more info online - I googles specifically copper peptide receptors and receptor fatique or insensitivity but have had no luck. All I know is that copper DOES definitely use receptors - but we already cleared this up here before. |
|
|
|
|
| Sun Apr 28, 2024 5:56 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. |
|
 |
|
