 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:37 pm  |
| DrJ wrote: |
| jom wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Forgot to mention one more effect. Protection against photoaging, photocarcinogenesis and cancer suppressing effects in general. Lots of new literature on that. |
Would you say that when it comes to soy (and other antioxidants really) you may not be able to see results or see the way it is helping your skin (for eg. the way you can see improvement in wrinkles from Vitamin A) but it is sort of behind the scenes benefiting your skin? |
It's affecting deeper layers. By stimulating the estrogenic receptors, it is increasing the thickness of skin. Not just HA, but likely also fat pads. Thin skin is a major contributr to the appearance of aging, especially in women, especially post menopause. |
Thanks so much Dr. J for a very interesting and a very informative post. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 15, 2012 11:35 pm |
| Firefox7275 wrote: |
Why are you trying to make me feel bad about wanting to keep one single solitary thread on topic? For obvious reasons, there are numerous threads on EDS discussing what people like and use, what they think is effective and DIY. Very few threads are given over to discussing the underlying research which, as you are aware, is something I am interested in. Why read the OP, see the thread is actively being used for its original purpose but completely ignore that? Would you prefer if every time you posted something about an active I am interested in I asked you to supply a reference?
What DrJ thinks is effective has been quoted by Jom. It makes sense to me to use this thread to ask about cytokines, because that is truly getting it 'from the horse's mouth' - from the person conducting the research. Everything else is derailing the thread because we could (and should if you read the OP) be researching it ourselves. Why not start another thread if you want to chit chat with DrJ without contributing, instead of helping hijack this one? |
Whilst it might make sense to you to use this thread to ask about cytokines (and that's fine by me, I'm interested too), the title of this thread is, Let's Make a List/Name That Fantastic Active. Nothing was said about only discussing cytokines. That is what I did - I named what I thought was a fantastic active. Then you asked me for information - and I posted you a couple of links. So how is discussing anything else but cytokines derailing the thread? I did what was asked and made my contribution, I did not hijack the thread. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 12:02 am |
Same here - the opening post of this topic doesn't say anything about limiting to a single mechanism. In fact what we are discussing, our own preferred actives and their action and evidence, should be IMO as broad as possible because whatever articles WE find we have no real idea of interactions and synergies, where I think that is a very important aspect.
The whole cytokine thing may appear in unexpected places, as it may be part of the mechanism that makes several actives work. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:05 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
Honestly Firefox, I feel as if we're all in trouble for not doing our homework - lighten up a bit!
There are also numerous threads discussing Niacinamide on EDS - plus some DIY recipes.
|
Why are you trying to make me feel bad about wanting to keep one single solitary thread on topic? For obvious reasons, there are numerous threads on EDS discussing what people like and use, what they think is effective and DIY. Very few threads are given over to discussing the underlying research which, as you are aware, is something I am interested in. Why read the OP, see the thread is actively being used for its original purpose but completely ignore that? Would you prefer if every time you posted something about an active I am interested in I asked you to supply a reference?
It makes sense to me to use this thread to ask about cytokines, because that is truly getting it 'from the horse's mouth' - from the person conducting the research. Everything else is derailing the thread because we could (and should if you read the OP) be researching it ourselves. Why not start another thread if you want to chit chat with DrJ without contributing, instead of helping hijack this one?
| Keliu wrote: |
Whilst it might make sense to you to use this thread to ask about cytokines (and that's fine by me, I'm interested too), the title of this thread is, Let's Make a List/Name That Fantastic Active. Nothing was said about only discussing cytokines. That is what I did - I named what I thought was a fantastic active. Then you asked me for information - and I posted you a couple of links. So how is discussing anything else but cytokines derailing the thread? I did what was asked and made my contribution, I did not hijack the thread. |
If you embolden it slightly differently does the meaning become clear? My comment to you was polite and on topic, your response took things onto a personal level and brought my comments to others into the equation. Now you try to distance yourself from those who cannot be bothered to contribute? You are far more intelligent than that Keliu and you know full well I am too.
You all seem to have a different understanding of the word discuss in the context of science than I do; Jom asking for a long list of actives to be expanded upon is not discussing, it's seeking to be spoonfed. Asking about is a one way download, discussion is a two way dialogue. For everything but cytokines WE should be contributing references and links as per the OP. I don't see how the OP could have been any clearer than it is. But have it your way, it's your thread to bleed DrJ dry as you see fit. |
_________________
Sensitivity, forehead pigmentation & elevens, nose & chin clogged pores. Topicals: Aloe vera, squalane, lactic acid, Myfawnie KinNiaNag HG: Weleda calendula, Lanolips, Guinot masque essentiel, Flexitol Naturals, Careprost. Gadgets: Vaughter dermarollers, Lightstim. |
|
|
|
 |
Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:38 am |
Firefox, why should WE bring in references and links? Just go and see on Bulk Actives or Skin Actives and there are the main sources of info we lay people have access to without turning skin care into a full time job.
Cytokines sound interesting, sure, but it's a generic term just like 'hormones' and a potential new buzz word to sell overpriced skin creams with too many promises. The proof is always in how it holds up on actual skin. Lots of stuff works a treat in vitro but you don't find out the flip side until you get a dried out wrinkled patch because YOUR skin does not like vit. C. Now that is information that, IMO, is just as vital as any peer reviewed study on hairless mice.
Cytokines sound sexy where old work horses like oils and vitamins etc do not. Look how a term like 'DNA repair' or 'telomeres' can boost the price of serum, without delivering any other results than good moisturization. A topic like this on a forum like this could be a 'when in vitro met in vivo' including hilarious fake scenes. Just my 2 cts. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:36 am |
Lotusesther: Because that is what DrJ put this thread here for! Is it so unreasonable to want the thread to be used as intended and to remain on topic? There are reams of threads mentioning actives alongside anecdotal evidence, but without references or scientific discussion. How do you propose we rate the evidence and create a resource for a host of actives if only two or three people can be bothered to put in any effort? And as I asked Keliu: why read the OP, see the thread is actively being used for its original purpose but completely ignore that?
BTW I have already done a fair bit of research on PubMed and Google Scholar, I don't need to read sales websites. That is something I would be happy to share, hopefully getting a little something in return. I do see value in discussing both in vivo and in vitro tests, I do not expect you to be interested just to respect that some of us are. Please, go post somewhere else on SCT if sharing knowledge of the underlying science does not interest you and leave us geeks to be geeky.
| DrJ wrote: |
There is a confusing array of new active ingredients out there, making claims left and right. Let's together construct a list, then rate the evidence for each (claims, how does it work, does that make sense, etc). Once we sift through, it will be a resource for others who come here for information.
So if you want to add something to the discussion, name that ingredient, some reference to what it claims to do (or even just a link), whether you have tried it & results, and any other pertinent information you may have. And your opinion, if you have one. The rest of us will pile on (good naturedly, of course). |
|
_________________
Sensitivity, forehead pigmentation & elevens, nose & chin clogged pores. Topicals: Aloe vera, squalane, lactic acid, Myfawnie KinNiaNag HG: Weleda calendula, Lanolips, Guinot masque essentiel, Flexitol Naturals, Careprost. Gadgets: Vaughter dermarollers, Lightstim. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:22 am |
Firefox, I don't see the point in collecting articles and links for dr J., as I believe he must be quite au courant because of his job.
What we are getting here are a list of actives that WE, potential clients, know and like, and a view of the kind of knowledge we have of them. Very interesting marketing data if you ask me. Look at the way soy is 'discussed' by dr J - through lots of references to estrogen, and the obvious genistein references, which have led to a plethora of soy products in both skin care and menopause relief pills. It's stating the obvious. But topicals are not just about in vitro results, but also about both delivery and dosage. These are the hard to find things I would like to discuss, simply because there is a lot of b.s. out there referring to interesting research but with very little practical value. And I'm sorry, love to read the geek stuff but what I am after is results. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 4:41 am |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
| And I'm sorry, love to read the geek stuff but what I am after is results. |
Totally agree. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:25 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
Ok, so after reading that paper, I feel I have an extremely basic understanding of cytokines now. Basically (very) they are cell signalers. What do you feel that cytokines will do for aging skin? And, would it matter if the aging was intrinsic or extrinsic? |
Also, would age come in to play, where a younger person will get better a better outcome than someone who is postmenopausal?
I noticed that a lot of the growth factors were in platelets. I have low (extremely) platelets, and I am curious what that means for a person like me? Would you know anything about that? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:55 am |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Firefox, I don't see the point in collecting articles and links for dr J., as I believe he must be quite au courant because of his job.
What we are getting here are a list of actives that WE, potential clients, know and like, and a view of the kind of knowledge we have of them. Very interesting marketing data if you ask me. Look at the way soy is 'discussed' by dr J - through lots of references to estrogen, and the obvious genistein references, which have led to a plethora of soy products in both skin care and menopause relief pills. It's stating the obvious. But topicals are not just about in vitro results, but also about both delivery and dosage. These are the hard to find things I would like to discuss, simply because there is a lot of b.s. out there referring to interesting research but with very little practical value. And I'm sorry, love to read the geek stuff but what I am after is results. |
What we are collecting, and what I understand the thread to have been intended to collect, are indeed two different things. The references are not for DrJ, as clearly stated in the OP it was to create a communal resource for us and future EDSers. I agree with you about the interesting marketing data, tho perhaps not in the way you imagine and certainly not in the way I expected. DrJ already knows which actives are the most commonly used and trusted from discussions on SCT and no doubt from running a couple of searches. Soy was not discussed in this thread, a brief lecture was given because nobody else could be bothered to research it. If you don't like that he states the obvious, do not trust his motives and are not interested in helping create a resource why are you wasting your time here?
Obviously we all want results, but there are different approaches to selecting the most appropriate active or combination of actives. Personal experience/ anecdotal evidence is all over every other thread on EDS - what is the point in gathering the exact same thing all over again here? This thread was supposed to be about theory and trials, that is not supposed to trump the anecdotal evidence it is supposed to complement it. Some of us get pleasure simply in learning about the human body - the geek factor - others like a balance of science and anecdotes before they buy. I really do not understand why I am having to defend the concept of a solitary thread that is evidence-based.
If you want to discuss delivery methods and dosage please do initiate that. Off the top of my head there is stuff on PubMed relating to aloe vera and oleic acid being used to deliver certain drugs; if you post what you already have and they are not there, I will happily hunt those down. You are spot on about the BS, hence DrJ suggesting we "rate the evidence" and me trying to keep the thread on topic! |
_________________
Sensitivity, forehead pigmentation & elevens, nose & chin clogged pores. Topicals: Aloe vera, squalane, lactic acid, Myfawnie KinNiaNag HG: Weleda calendula, Lanolips, Guinot masque essentiel, Flexitol Naturals, Careprost. Gadgets: Vaughter dermarollers, Lightstim. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:07 am |
| Firefox7275 wrote: |
| You all seem to have a different understanding of the word discuss in the context of science than I do; Jom asking for a long list of actives to be expanded upon is not discussing, it's seeking to be spoonfed. Asking about is a one way download, discussion is a two way dialogue. For everything but cytokines WE should be contributing references and links as per the OP. I don't see how the OP could have been any clearer than it is. But have it your way, it's your thread to bleed DrJ dry as you see fit. |
Sorry Firefox, but I'm not understanding where you're coming from. I've belonged to this Forum for about six years and during that time most of the discussions I've taken part in have been about the effectiveness (or not) of various actives etc. All this is nothing new. Then along comes DrJ - an expert in the field of skincare, a medical scientist who is in the process of developing an anti-aging serum, a doctor who is so passionate about what we put on our skin he has a website dedicated to revealing the truth about topicals - who is asking US for information about actives and asking US for the relevant research (I mean no disrespect DrJ). But isn't that asking to be spoon-fed? And then we get told by you not to ask DrJ anything because we will be "bleeding him dry". All seems a bit ridiculous to me. Why on earth shouldn't Jom pick the good doctor's brains, given his knowledge and dedication to truth in skincare, without being made to feel like a parasite. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:15 am |
As for staying on topic. The title of this thread is Let's Make a List/Name That Fantastic Active. So what we have so far is:
Aloe Vera
Hyaluronic Acid
Copper Peptides
Soy
Niacinamide
Glucosamine
Ok, carry on! |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:24 am |
The topical actives I use, based on my own research are:
various retinoids/Vitamin A
Vitamin C
Vitamin E
estrogen
misc antioxidants such as red palm oil,
lycopene
acids (as in peels)
My references and that of many other postgers are scattered in abundance throughout this forum, so feel free to dig for them if you want - but believe these to be well documented. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:26 am |
Bless you Keliu for your summation for keeping this going free of drama, lol.
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:31 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
Sorry Firefox, but I'm not understanding where you're coming from. I've belonged to this Forum for about six years and during that time most of the discussions I've taken part in have been about the effectiveness (or not) of various actives etc. All this is nothing new. Then along comes DrJ - an expert in the field of skincare, a medical scientist who is in the process of developing an anti-aging serum, a doctor who is so passionate about what we put on our skin he has a website dedicated to revealing the truth about topicals - who is asking US for information about actives and asking US for the relevant research (I mean no disrespect DrJ). But isn't that asking to be spoon-fed? And then we get told by you not to ask DrJ anything because we will be "bleeding him dry". All seems a bit ridiculous to me. Why on earth shouldn't Jom pick the good doctor's brains, given his knowledge and dedication to truth in skincare, without being made to feel like a parasite. |
Perceived efficacy and evidence-base overlap but are not necessarily one and the same. The OP is quite clear in it's stated aims, reading between the lines DrJ intended to be facilitator and no doubt explain anything we still didn't understand or where there seemed to be gaps in the research. Had people contributed we would have learned/ improved critical thinking skills and/ or have filled in the blanks in one another's knowledge.
Obviously Jom and you can ask whatever you see fit ... but I would really appreciate this thread is not derailed in the process, which I have said over and over again. Is it really so unreasonable to ask for a single thread to stay on topic and be about the research? You might not understand why DrJ started the thread nor why I am interested in the theory, but you can respect that a new thread should be started for anything that does not meet the criteria set out in the OP.
Please re-read the first post, take it at face value, stick to it or start a new thread. ALL I want is to do exactly what is suggested in the OP, nothing more complex or devious. Why is that ridiculous to you? |
_________________
Sensitivity, forehead pigmentation & elevens, nose & chin clogged pores. Topicals: Aloe vera, squalane, lactic acid, Myfawnie KinNiaNag HG: Weleda calendula, Lanolips, Guinot masque essentiel, Flexitol Naturals, Careprost. Gadgets: Vaughter dermarollers, Lightstim. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:39 am |
All of the topicals I listed claim to provide anti-aging benefits for the skin: pore reduction, wrinkle reduction, evening of skin tone and other signs of aging and yes, I have noticed positive results from these.
In fact, my face not has not aged in the 6 years I have been using these topicals and I am perimenopausal. I do have dynamic wrinkles that I eliminate with Botox, but those have remained the same in depth. I am sure if I stopped the Botox, they would return.
The only sign of aging I cannot reverse without surgery is some sagging in the cheeks which continues with the aging process.
I do use a zinc based sunscreen, so I am sure that has contributed significantly - I consider sunscreen to be an "active" topical.
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:42 am |
I don't see zinc mentioned thus far.
I have tried this product:
www.relastin.com for elasticity issues.
I like the moisturization properties, but not sure whether it is contributing anything above the other topicals I already use.
The manufacturers writes about a proprietary zinc based ingredient, but not much detail.
If anyone has anything else to share on zinc, please do so.
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:45 am |
Firefox,
What you are attempting to accomplish is akin to herding cats.
Suggest you follow your own stated goals and respond as you inferred from the original post and leave the rest of us to write as we see fit.
Live and let live, take what you need and leave the rest.
Also, you could volunteer to compose a master list of research references if this is your passion.
BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:05 am |
I see you wanted only new actives  sorry.
Those will have limited evidence, but good to read about, nevertheless.
Time marches on so in meantime, I am sticking with what works, but always open to new solutions.
Thank you, BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 7:06 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
| Well to be honest I would like to see more toxicology studies on the actives people put on their skin. It's amazing what people can put on their skin if they think it could preserve their youth or reverse ageing. |
And this brings us to the question if these "actives" penetrate the skin or not. I know the drug ingredients do, but what about the OTC so-called actives? |
I found this statement in this article that BFG posted on another thread. "Dr. Lizzul does not believe that most of the questionable "active ingredients" penetrate the stratum corneum to be able to have the claimed effects on the dermis or epidermis. In some cases, if the ingredient magically penetrated to the dermis, it could be harmful, not helpful, he added."
As we are discussing ingredients, I think this is an important part of the discussion. If the topicals do not penetrate, then what good are they and how much can they really improve the skin? Also, if this is the case, then why is there such a huge movement to the "natural" or "organic" products, which always tout "safety" as their main selling point? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:13 am |
rileygirl brings up a good point, penetration is an often overlooked issue, but an important one since the depth of penetration, as far as I know is what determines the classification of the topical as a drug, cosmetic or often gray area of cosmeceuticals.
I have written quite a bit here on the subject of penetration and of course, inflammation - acute vs. chronic.
All of these issues need to be viewed holistically.
I was just at the medspa the other day - noticed something from Obagi called Elastiderm, intended to rejuvenate/tighten, etc.
Ingredients: zinc, copper, malonic acid, blueberry extract and a patented technology to drive ingredients into the skin...of course, all we know is what they claim.
bfg |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:18 am |
I realize I am standing by myself out here on the limb, but I'll state it again.
I believe that if any ingredient is effective, it is also likely to be regulated and therefore only available by prescription. Anything else is window dressing.
The exception to that in my opinion are the micronutrients (certain vitamins, antioxidants -primarily derived from natural sources). There are moves to control and regulate these as well.
I get my skincare via prescription or vitamin shop - not a dept store.
bfg |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:49 am |
| Keliu wrote: |
As for staying on topic. The title of this thread is Let's Make a List/Name That Fantastic Active. So what we have so far is:
Aloe Vera
Hyaluronic Acid
Copper Peptides
Soy
Niacinamide
Glucosamine
Ok, carry on! |
We have also talked about soy isoflavones with extensive lietrature referencing, and stem cytokines (we just scratched the surface on newer approaches like this).
As we are compiling this list we need to also categorize each in terms it primary mode of action, and how much efficacy we conclude based on its claims. And how much support there is from the science.
Here is what I have gleaned, but let's all chime in .
Aloe Vera -- moisturizer, antioxidant, 1/5 overall
Hyaluronic Acid - the usual mw stuff is only a moisturizer, huge molecue, but as a moisturizer pretty good, so 2/5
Copper Peptides - matric & collagen proliferative, 3/5
Soy isoflavones -- multiple mechanisms, 3/5 overall, each varies
Niacinamide multiple mechanisms, we haven;lt discussed in detail yet
Glucosamine - where is the evidence? |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 8:54 am |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
| The topical actives I use, based on my own research are: |
various retinoids/Vitamin A AGREE
Vitamin C AGREE
Vitamin E AGREE
estrogen AGREE BUT MANY CAUTIONS
misc antioxidants such as red palm oil,
lycopene AGREE
acids (as in peels) YEAH BUT VIT A MUCH BETTER
so we pretty much agree. estrogens are a huge topic unto themselves. Not every woman tolerates hormone replacement, and there are some risks. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:11 am |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
I don't see zinc mentioned thus far.
I have tried this product:
www.relastin.com for elasticity issues.
I like the moisturization properties, but not sure whether it is contributing anything above the other topicals I already use.
The manufacturers writes about a proprietary zinc based ingredient, but not much detail.
If anyone has anything else to share on zinc, please do so.
BFG |
There is one bit of evidence that bi-metal zinc malonates will increase elastin synthesis. I don't think it has ever been replicated. However I also not that products really is a grab bag of silicones: cyclopentasiloxane, dimethicone crosspolymer, dimethicone,in addition to zinc mica, and titanium dioxide.
I don't rate this one beyond a question mark. |
|
|
|
|
| Sat Apr 20, 2024 8:21 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. |
|
 |
|
|
