"Science" behind copper peptides
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:23 am

DarkMoon wrote:

Caution: While moderate use of copper peptides stimulates collagen synthesis and has antioxidant effect (by stimulating the antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase), excessive use can have an opposite effect by increasing the levels of free copper and/or by triggering excessive production of metalloproteinases. Free copper promotes free radical damage and collagen breakdown leading to accelerated skin aging. Metalloproteinases can digest collagen and elastin, weakening the skin and causing sag.

I have read this before it would be nice to know though what is meant by excessive - once a day, twice a day, etc.

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 9:52 am

rileygirl wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Caution: While moderate use of copper peptides stimulates collagen synthesis and has antioxidant effect (by stimulating the antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase), excessive use can have an opposite effect by increasing the levels of free copper and/or by triggering excessive production of metalloproteinases. Free copper promotes free radical damage and collagen breakdown leading to accelerated skin aging. Metalloproteinases can digest collagen and elastin, weakening the skin and causing sag.

I have read this before it would be nice to know though what is meant by excessive - once a day, twice a day, etc.

I agree, I think the issue as we have seen with those who experienced damage that is very likely dependent on individual sensitivities. Obviously many have no problems at all, other have temporary "uglies" and some have major issues that last.....who knows how long?

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:05 am

hotdocgirl wrote:

I've been using copper peptides for about nine weeks now. I want to give it 12 weeks before I make any blanket statement on how they've worked for me or not.

...as for this thread? I think CP's must really work for some..or why all the attention? I don't see "science" threads on the countless other useless products discussed on EDS.

How many of us have wasted... WAY more money $$$$ on other creams and laser procedures that did nothing or even made our skin worse for a while? Yeah that would be you. you. and you. (or you wouldn't be here).

My impression of Skin Biology is that it is pretty obvious that copper peptides are not a "one formula fits all" kind of skin care product. The company seems pretty up front about that. I feel informed from the website that it will take TIME for the products to work. That i may have to experiment with different combinations of products to see what works for me. They don't hide the fact that "uglies" can happen..talk openly about it. The products don't cost a lot compared to other cosmetic lines.

It is my impression that Dr. Pickart is really more interested in helping people with scars and those with severe acne get normal skin. That improved youthful skin is just a fallout of his research...and folks like us clamor for a miracle.

His website is not slick or sexy. CP product packaging is modest. His representatives are not perfect looking like models..they look like
"real" people. So I don't see a big scam here people.

I think cp's do work...but expectations are the problem here. Do they work to your expectations?

hotdocgirl,

This thread was started because if any science is discussed on the regular CP thread things got a bit ugly! There is absolutely discussion of science on other products on many threads without issues, that just was not the case here.

All studies that have been done on copper peptides were on the first generation CP's, yet most are using second generation or a combo of both.

Your experience and perception of the SkinBio site has not been shared by all, we do have members who received poor recommendations and suffered because of that. I feel they as well as those who choose to have a place to discuss the science deserve a place where their voice may be heard.

All due respect intended!

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:23 am

DarkMoon wrote:

I agree, I think the issue as we have seen with those who experienced damage that is very likely dependent on individual sensitivities. Obviously many have no problems at all, other have temporary "uglies" and some have major issues that last.....who knows how long?

Yes, you are probably right, what is excessive for one, probably is just fine for another. It is probably going to be an individual thing. I am using the GHK every other day right now and I am comfortable with that, but will keep an eye on my skin!

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:27 am

I don't doubt the honesty of people who had a bad response to cp's. I've also seen people on this site have bad responses to retin a and and obaji. I, myself, have had fabulous results with those products. Did my skin look a lot worse before it got better? Heck yeah. Did it take time..more time than I wanted? Heck yeah, again.
If I would have quit at those signs of ugly skin ..I could have complained forever about it. But, just like with cp's..the information of the "process" was there. I think that is somewhat the case in the criticism of cp's.

It is just my view..that Skin Biology..to me. a newcomer is what it appears to be. An emerging science. I think the question as to 2nd generation cp's being formulated to be patented is a good point One that was obvious to me when I read up on cp's.

However, I think there is a high degree of transparency on Skin Biology. No false claims. I appreciate all the feedback on this thread..even with the stuff I don't agree with.

But for the $100 bucks I've invested in cp's so far..I'm willing to give a try and report back my personal results. To me..that is the best science. forget the studies.

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 10:29 am

Honestly Riley I think that's all anyone can do, take it slow and really pay attention to your skin for changes good or bad. Hopefully good!!! Very Happy

I happened upon this on QVC beauty board forum, a bit of a heavy discussion on Isomer's Copper P serum! Some say not a CP, yet.....

http://community.qvc.com/forums/Beauty-Banter/topic/77682/PageNumber/2/index.aspx

Quote:

Isomers Copper P
She used that term because Saccharomyces/Copper Ferment is a copper peptide!

I'm a researcher by trade and this whole issue of GHK copper vs. Saccharomyces/Copper Ferment has really intrigued me, so I've been doing some research.

Saccharomyces/Copper Ferment is the INCI name, the trade name is Biopeptide Cu. Directly from MacroCare, one of the companies that manufactures it:

Biopeptide Cu (Saccharomyces/Copper Ferment), the copper peptide complex from MacroCare will help you to see the benefits of human copper peptides as it transfers copper to the cells. It is effective for wound repair, collagen stimulation, improvement of skin elasticity, reduction of free radical and oxidative damage.

I also want to say that I am not a huge Isomers fan, most of the products don't work for me, but the Copper P serum is one that I can use. I don't rave about it or post about it often because I only use it occasionally. I was very intrigued by this whole copper debate and wanted to find out if there was any misinformation in Manuela's presentations (it appears not) and what exactly Saccharomyces/Copper Ferment is.

Also, while doing my research I discovered that overuse of copper peptides can actually have a negative impact on the skin ~ it can cause collagen damage, reduce elastin, and increase discoloration.

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:38 pm

I've been using Skin Biology's CPs, starting with the weakest and slowly working my way up to the strongest, Skin Signals. Is my skin perfect? No, but I didn't expect perfection, just to slow down the clock or stop it, which has happened. That doesn't mean I am not open to other things as the science evolves. I have added Mismo ACE serum on half my face using their trial size which should last 6-8 weeks to see how it compares to the other side of my face as I continue my CP routine. That is the only way to tell if/how a product works, yet few people do it, resorting to wishful thinking for results. If there is a slight improvement from the Vit ACE, I'll probably add that in long term or another Vitamin C product and contiue with CPs for a while longer at least. They are relatively inexpensive compared to most things on the market.

I have experienced the uglies with CPs. A little goes a very long way so if people are slathering it on, that would explain their problem. If they aren't exfoliating at night, that's another cause. CPs build up the skin but you have to tear it down to prepare for the building up again! Just stop until the uglies disappear, which they will.

I have used Skin Signals on cuts, new surgical wounds and abrasions and they seem to heal much faster so that is proof to me that something good is happening. I doubt dabbing on your typical beauty cream would have any affect or even an adverse affect. Most of them are just moisture barriers anyway, which is why your skin feels soft.

I am a bit amused by the rabid anti CP brigade's remarks, though. Why the vitriol when, as someone else pointed out, people have had similar problems or worse with other products? We have the freedom to try anything we want, right? Unless the government has just passed even more restrictive laws on our personal freedom, which wouldn't surprise me these days. Laughing

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:56 pm

My main point was that this thread was started simply to discuss the science behind copper peptides.
I have seen recent threads that also have studies posted about damage or actual aging effects from Retin A, Vitamin C ect. ect.

I just don't believe for one second that CP's should be a "sacred cow" of skin care products where nothing that is negative is allowed to be posted or that they are suitable for every person's skin. We accept this fact for any other skin care product nothing works well for all people. Blaming users for stopping "too soon" is standard with CP's, yet nothing else?

BTW I have used CP's in the past without any issues and am seriously considering incorporating them back into my regime this year, so it's not personal. Smile

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:23 pm

There is a lot of information about the difference between the difference between first generation and second generation copper peptides on the following link. The studies as posted here were done on first generation only.

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=37435&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0

free skin care · Sun Dec 26, 2010 7:12 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

My main point was that this thread was started simply to discuss the science behind copper peptides.
I have seen recent threads that also have studies posted about damage or actual aging effects from Retin A, Vitamin C ect. ect.

I just don't believe for one second that CP's should be a "sacred cow" of skin care products where nothing that is negative is allowed to be posted or that they are suitable for every person's skin. We accept this fact for any other skin care product nothing works well for all people. Blaming users for stopping "too soon" is standard with CP's, yet nothing else?

BTW I have used CP's in the past without any issues and am seriously considering incorporating them back into my regime this
year, so it's not personal. Smile

Maybe this from Dr. Torodov helps explain that

although unusual some people do indeed have real damage from using copper peptides.

http://www.smartskincare.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=7748

Quote:

I am not sure what is being quoted here, but it is clearly a misquote if someone is attempting to quote my words.

I never said that copper peptide oxidation was a problem. The problem might be, at least in theory, excessive MMP activation. CP are known to activate MMP. In fact, MMP activation is part of the mechanism thru which CP mediate skin remodelling.

I've always said that for most people copper peptides appear to be safe. However, the anecdotal reports of rare cases of side-effects should not be dismissed out of hand. One possible mechanism is the following. As I said, CP induce MMP (matrix metalloproteinases). Due to individual variability in induced MMP expression, in rare cases MMP production could be excessive and lead to side-effects, such as overshoot in connective matrix degradation. Unfortunately, to run a study testing this hypothesis would be laborious and expensive because you need to test a large sample to determine individual variability.

I don't specialize in copper peptides. I understand their mechanism of action to the degree a biochemist can understand research in a closely related field after reading research articles on it. I have not done CP studies in person and I never said I did. However, after receiving a number of anecdotal reports from users on significant side-effects, I felt that a remote possibily of such problems was at least worth a mention. Of course, anecdotal reports are not proof. But they may be a reason to conduct further research.

Of course, compared to Dr. Pickart, who has done decades worth of hands-on work with copper peptides, I am not an authority on this particular subject. On the other hand, I do not have a vested interest in commercial aspects of copper peptides either.

free skin care · Mon Dec 27, 2010 6:38 am

rileygirl wrote:

DarkMoon wrote:

Caution: While moderate use of copper peptides stimulates collagen synthesis and has antioxidant effect (by stimulating the antioxidant enzyme superoxide dismutase), excessive use can have an opposite effect by increasing the levels of free copper and/or by triggering excessive production of metalloproteinases. Free copper promotes free radical damage and collagen breakdown leading to accelerated skin aging. Metalloproteinases can digest collagen and elastin, weakening the skin and causing sag.

I have read this before it would be nice to know though what is meant by excessive - once a day, twice a day, etc.

More importantly I hope one of our more scientific minds can come up with the source of this information, although Dr. Torodov did explain the reasioning behind this phenomenon we still don't have a solid scientific answer as to what's too much, too often???

free skin care · Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:48 am

ITA with the fear mongering about the CPs. I read every page on the lengthy thread and was terrified to try it initially. There seemed to be a group that were very pro CPs and others who warned you that your skin could turn into a permanent mess of 'uglies'. While no one product can work for everyone, I do think that the opinions on CPs have been expressed a little too strongly by some.

Foxe and SisterSweets were awesome; they were very informative. I followed their recommendations to the letter and have experienced none of the 'uglies' people spoke about. I went slowly and used it on my chest. I don't really need it on my face at this point.

I initially started using it on my eyelids to help repair them after having bleph surgery. They tightened my skin so much that I had to stop using it. Because my surgeon was a little too aggressive removing the unwanted skin on my eyelids, they weren't closing as tightly as they should. The swelling still isn't completely gone; I was warned it can take up to 6 months, so the last thing I needed was tightening on my eyelids. If you do need tightening on your lids, I'd highly recommend the Super GHK cream. It was what Foxe recommended I start with. My intention was to work up to the Night Eyes Premier cream after I finished with the Super GHK.

free skin care · Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:08 am

Josee a doctor, started this thread about what science is behind the second generation CP's and that the studies on first generation cp's are all related to wound healing. The whole point was to separate the science for those who want it from the happy camper CP thread, but that seems to really upset some of those that are insistent that CP's can do no wrong. Again much of what was posted by proponents of CP's is now removed. We are all thrilled for those that have positive results, we just wanted to discuss the science without drama!

Non of this that is being posted relates to the science!

Josee wrote:

OK I did not want to hijack "sunscreen" the thread any further so I decided to start a new thread.

I do hope we can have a good and fruitful discussion and abstain from engaging in ad hominems with other posters which do not provide really any information regarding the topic at hand.

I claimed that there is no evidence that the second generation of copper peptides has any anti-aging effect. I also contend that the website makes unsubstantiated claims and selectively quotes medical literature to prove a point.

So I asked for references. And I was told they were 4 studies. The 4 studies Dr. Pikart cites can be found here on his website: http://reverseskinaging.com/studies15.html

The website claims:
"Four independent, placebo-controlled double-blinded clinical studies at the University of California at San Francisco have given statistically significant positive results that our products markedly accelerated the rate of skin regeneration and reduced skin irritation after severe skin damage. Dr. Howard Maibach, who directed the studies, is one of the the world's leading dermatologists with over 60 books and over 1,350 papers on the topic."

Just from the start there are some poblems:

- Dr. Maibach has over 1200 papers but not ON THE TOPIC of skin regeneration or copper peptides. His research specialty (as per his website) is: Dermatotoxicology, dermatopathology and percutaneous penetration.

- The studies did not assess the "rate of skin regeneration". The studies assessed TEWL which is transepitelial water loss. It is used many times to measure the integrity/function of the stratum corneum. It is not synonym of skin regeneration. In fact, there are substances (and cosmetics) who diminish the TEWL yet impair skin regeneration. One study also measured a visual score (VS), skin blood flood volume (BFV) and skin color.

- The damage was not "severe". This were clinical trials done in healthy volunteers so as it is obvious, you can't cause severe damage to volunteers for clinical trials.

- One study did not find any significant difference, yet that is conveniently not mentioned in the website

- No study discusses clinical significance. Things can be statistically significant but not clinically significant. For e.g. I can have a large sample size. In one sample size the average height is... 1.65 m and in the other the average height is 1.64. I do my statistical tests and I find that the 2 populations are statistically significan different with p<0.05. Now... is really the difference between 1.65 and 1.64 important or relevant? Probably not. That's why in clinical research is always better to report the confidence interval as opposed to simply the p-value. The thing is that the purposes of this studies was to mainly evaluate their models of irritation more than to test a particular agent. So the did not report confidence intervals since they were not really that interested in clinical significance but in the ability of their model to detect differences.
For more information of p-value, you can read:
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2009 May; 106(19): 335–339)

Acta Paediatr. 2008 Aug;97( Cool

:1004-7. Epub 2008 May 7.

In there it states: " It is good practice for authors of research articles to report CIs with their estimates instead of just p-values as p-values are less informative and convey no information on clinical importance."

Now... on to the studies....

1) Zhai, Chang, Singh, Maibach, Contact Dermatitis, 40, 1999, 205
Sample size = 14
Study on the effect of topical copper on contact dermatitis. Copper peptide improved TEWL, skin color and VS more than placebo starting on day 8-10. BFV showed no significant difference. Clinical significance not discussed

2) Zhai, Poblete, Maibach, Int. J. Dermat., 37, 1998, 386
Sample size= 6
Study on the effect of topic copper on skin irritation (measured by TWEL). The study found NO EFFECT.
"Our data showed that there was no statistical difference between the topical agent and stripped skin during the barrier function repair process. The results indicate that topical application had no adverse effect on repair"

3) Zhai, Leow, Maibach, Clin. Exp. Derm., 23, 1998, 11.
Sample size = 6
Study on the effect of copper peptide on skin barrier after irritation by acetone (measured by TWEL). The study found a positive effect of copper peptide vs. placebo. Clinical significance not discussed.

4) Zhai, Leow, Maibach, Skin Res. Tech., 4, 1998
Sample size = 6
Measure TWEL after detergent irritation and copper peptides. They found an effect of copper peptides. Clinical significance not discussed.

So... what can conclude after reading this articles? One can conclude that a solution containing copper peptides may help accelerate water barrier function. Do these studies provide any evidence that the copper peptide studies "regenerate skin", or have any antiaging function whatsoever? NO.

Are the website claims misleading? In my opinion YES, but each one has different standards on when to classify something as misleading.

free skin care · Mon Dec 27, 2010 12:15 pm

Perhaps there could be a "Study/Science" thread section for those who want to look at just that area for the most popular products discussed on EDS..that way it wouldn't appear that one product is singled out or attacked.

However, it is So tempting to want to jump in a talk off strict dictated subject for many of us. I sort of like how things happen organically..shows the interest of the membership.

I appreciate the feedback. all of it. that's the beauty of EDS..all those opinions..and it is pretty easy to tell which opinions are tried and true...or reactionary...or those plain naysayers..and the perpetual optimists who see imidiate results. They all should have a voice and place here...we all should.

free skin care · Mon Dec 27, 2010 2:47 pm

hotdocgirl wrote:

I appreciate the feedback. all of it. that's the beauty of EDS..all those opinions..and it is pretty easy to tell which opinions are tried and true...or reactionary...or those plain naysayers..and the perpetual optimists who see imidiate results. They all should have a voice and place here...we all should.

I completely agree with you hotdocgirl - Everyone should be able to voice their opinions. Unfortunately, certain persons seem to get very offended and/or defensive if their opinion and/or product of choice is questioned.

(And I love your term for the ones who have immediate results - perpetual optimists. Great choice of words!)

free skin care · Mon Dec 27, 2010 11:03 pm

One good thing -- this thread reminded me to reorder Skin Signals. While I was on SkinBiology's forum, I read some of the threads. There are a few members who are aggressively experimenting on themselves and being very honest as to their results, pro and con. It's a good resource.

The only thing I don't like is that they keep reinventing the wheel. More products for different parts of the body with more additives and fillers. The common denominator is CPs. I like a basic product and a simple routine.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 8:47 pm

SoftSkin wrote:

One good thing -- this thread reminded me to reorder Skin Signals. While I was on SkinBiology's forum, I read some of the threads. There are a few members who are aggressively experimenting on themselves and being very honest as to their results, pro and con. It's a good resource.

The only thing I don't like is that they keep reinventing the wheel. More products for different parts of the body with more additives and fillers. The common denominator is CPs. I like a basic product and a simple routine.

I don't know about a simple routine, between diluting, buffering, pushing....figuring out just how fast to go, when to back off and all the different products people are dealing with on the CP thread it's downright complicated as I see it.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:18 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

SoftSkin wrote:

One good thing -- this thread reminded me to reorder Skin Signals. While I was on SkinBiology's forum, I read some of the threads. There are a few members who are aggressively experimenting on themselves and being very honest as to their results, pro and con. It's a good resource.

The only thing I don't like is that they keep reinventing the wheel. More products for different parts of the body with more additives and fillers. The common denominator is CPs. I like a basic product and a simple routine.

I don't know about a simple routine, between diluting, buffering, pushing....figuring out just how fast to go, when to back off and all the different products people are dealing with on the CP thread it's downright complicated as I see it.

DM, I felt the same way after reading the CP threads. Foxe and SisterSweets gave great advice. I started with the Super GHK Cream and now also use Skin Signals. I have started to see some pretty significant results with these two products. I'm a KH junkie, so I'm not looking to completely switch skincare lines. I've been able to incorprate CPs into my skincare regime with these two products. I think the Super GHK cream is a great way to start. I never diluted it. I made sure that I applied it thinly and started every 2nd day (once only) and worked up to every day. It took me a couple of weeks before I used it every day. I never experienced any 'uglies'.

free skin care · Tue Dec 28, 2010 11:29 pm

Time2Bme,

I do understand exactly what you are saying, but I have read all the threads here and on other forums and from what I see your experience is atypical (finding a simple routine quickly).

I think the biggest issue is that those who have had really bad reactions (not me) are just discounted. I know not a single thing works for all individuals, for example we had one member that had an allergic reaction to Avocado Oil! That is a pretty benign product but it happens.

Very Happy

free skin care · Wed Dec 29, 2010 10:08 am

Hi DM !!
I think it is definitely more difficult if you plan on using multiple products. I thought I had my routine down and then read that it couldn't be used with hydrogen peroxide, which Karin Herzog contains.
There is definitely a learning curve with all the products and how they can react with each other. I know that when I was looking at them in initially, I was so afraid to try anything that I was over-complicating things.
ITA with your statement about people reacting to things. I've done the same, so I don't discount that. I was only speaking from my personal experience. I had never read so many amazing reviews and at the same time, so many BAD reviews about one single product. It seemed a little excessive at times.

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:00 am

My perspective as someone who used copper peptides, used what was recommended by Skin Biology and used it appropriately - starting slowly etc, and as someone who experienced severe negative effects requiring a 6 month course of Accutane and daily use of acids to fix) is that copper peptides (at least from Skin Biology) are not properly tested and the effects not properly studied.

Customers are guinea pigs.

A statement was made early on when questions were being asked "Dr. Pickart skips research steps and ignores authorities in his research field."

His response (on his forum):

"Yes, I admit that I do this. Life is short and not taking risks is the biggest risk."

I can't be the only one that was shocked by that!

So, while prescription retinoids (which some have commented on) may cause some peeling, and quite often can cause sensitivity to various degrees, they are VERY well tested using proper pharmaceutical methods, following research steps and taking into account the opinions of experts in the field. The negative effects also subside very quickly upon cessation of their use and they don't leave permanent damage.

As for the statements being made about "copper peptide bashing", I feel like I'm the one on the receiving end of that. It seems that anyone who has anything negative to say is immediately jumped upon (and I'm not just talking about on EDS, though to a degree it does happen here too) and is told they either did something wrong or are just plain over-reacting. They are often belittled.

The most severe "bashing" I received was at MUA, where, on my notepad I fully documented my experiences. Within days I started receiving private messages from people who would sign up for accounts, message me with very offensive, sometimes even threatening messages, then delete the account!

I even received offensive emails at an email address that I don't publish and only use for online shopping, thus used when making my purchase from Skin Biology. Coincidence???

Then there was the infamous "trolls" page on the Skin Biology website. Accusing those of us questioning the products of being trolls and even as the one person using different names!

So please, don't play the bashing card!

I don't see this thread as going anywhere positive. Nobody here is well read enough on the science of copper peptides. It is a thread of user experiences and opinions.

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:10 pm

For anyone interested in recent scientific information on GHK-Cu, here is a new study not previously discussed on this thread:

Human skin penetration of a copper tripeptide in vitro as a function of skin layer.
Hostynek JJ, Dreher F, Maibach HI.
Department of Dermatology, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA

Inflammation Research 2010 Aug 20. [Epub ahead of print]

Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN: Skin retention and penetration by copper applied as glycyl-L: -histidyl-L: -lysine cuprate diacetate was evaluated in vitro in order to assess its potential for its transdermal delivery as an anti-inflammatory agent.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Flow-through diffusion cells with 1 cm(2) exposure area were used under infinite dose conditions. 0.68% aq. copper tripeptide as permeant was applied on isolated stratum corneum, heat-separated epidermis and dermatomed skin and receptor fluid collected over 48 h in 4 h intervals using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry to analyze for copper in tissues and receptor fluid.

RESULTS: The permeability coefficient of the compound through dermatomed skin was 2.43 +/- 0.51 x 10(-4) cm/h; 136.2 +/- 17.5 mug/cm(2) copper permeated 1 cm(2) of that tissue over 48 h, while 97 +/- 6.6 mug/cm(2) were retained as depot.

CONCLUSIONS: Copper as tripeptide was delivered in potentially therapeutically effective amounts for inflammatory disease.

You can read the full article here:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/lr616880l7681343/fulltext.html

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:28 pm

Correct me if I am mistaken but as the study states copper peptides are an effective anti inflammatory aren't those using them along with dermarolling (not just for penetration) defeating the purpose of dermarolling? My understanding (again correct me if incorrect) was inflammation is the goal when rolling?

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:47 pm

DarkMoon wrote:

Correct me if I am mistaken but as the study states copper peptides are an effective anti inflammatory aren't those using them along with dermarolling (not just for penetration) defeating the purpose of dermarolling? My understanding (again correct me if incorrect) was inflammation is the goal when rolling?

Copper Peptides are anti-inflammatory but are also strong skin remodelers. That's why I will use them for only 1/2 of my long needle rolls AND for every short needle roll.

These are some of the reasons why I use them in a roll>they:
REPAIR THE SKIN by activating metalloproteinases that remove the damaged proteins found in scars and blemishes and suppressing production of TGF-beta, the scar producing factor;
IMPROVE SKIN TONE by stimulating new capillary formation (angiogenesis) to improve blood vessel microcirculation (cellular nutrition);
IMPROVE SKIN ELASTICITY AND FIRMNESS by increasing the synthesis of collagen and elastin;
INCREASE THE SKIN'S NATURAL MOISTURE LEVELS by increasing the water-holding proteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) that hold moisture in your skin (The only true way to moisturize(link) your skin);
SPEED SKIN RENEWAL by producing biochemical energy from nutrients in the body's blood supply;
CALM THE SKIN and reduce inflammation by blocking the damaging actions of interleukin-1;
GUARD THE SKIN against free radical damage by activating superoxide dismutase and blocking the release of oxidative iron from ferritin;
PROTECT THE SKIN by increasing the natural defense mechanism against oxidative damage through activation of the skin's anti-proteases TIMP-1 and TIMP-21;

free skin care · Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:47 pm

Anybody with information one way or another, Another possible concern.......

What are we to make of this information???

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?p=538908&highlight=copper+peptodes+estrogenic+effects#538908

Actually, it is NOT known whether copper peptides have an estrogenic effect or not.

What it IS known is that copper peptides disintegrate very quickly in plasma (please see the articles cited in the "Science..." thread) separating the copper.

Secondly many copper peptide creams have added copper chloride which would readily provide copper.

And then it IS known that copper has estrogenic effects.

So... it is more than sensible to think that putting a copper containing cream on your breast will provide free copper to the tissues which in turn can cause estrogenic stimulation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No this is not speculation. Studies HAVE shown that copper has estrogenic activities:

Comp Biochem Physiol C Toxicol Pharmacol. 2010 Jun;152(1):51-6.

Toxicol In Vitro. 2009 Jun;23(4):569-73.

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.