There are certain rumors about skin care that sound so logical, people assume they must be true. Unfortunately, sometimes the right answer is the one that combats common sense! Here are five of the most common myths about summer skin care I have recently heard:
1. SPF 100 means 100% protection.
Errrt, wrong! An SPF of 100 means that the sunscreen blocks 99.0% of UV rays. And yes, that means an SPF of 200 is not only possible, but also would theoretically only block 99.5% of UV rays. How did I get these numbers? The amount of UVB an SPF is effective at blocking can be estimated using the following algorithm from dermatologist Dr. Rachel Herschenfeld: SPF means that 1/(SPF number) of rays goes through. That means that SPF 30 allows 1/30 UVB rays, or 3.3% through, blocking about 96.6% of UVB rays, and SPF 50 allows 1/50 UVB rays, or 2.0% through, blocking about 98.0% of UVB rays. According to Dr. Leslie Baumann, über-derm and author of Cosmetic Dermatology, the Sun Protection Factor (SPF) commonly listed on products refers to the amount of UVB protection, measured by the time it takes for a person without sunscreen versus a person with sunscreen to show a erythemal skin reaction (i.e., to show redness).
2. A base tan protects you from future sun damage.
Yes, it is true that darker-skinned women naturally have a slight SPF built-in to their skin (as if Halle Berry and Iman weren’t enough to make me jealous already, *sighs*). However, women who are lighter-skinned should not get a “base tan” to prevent future damage. For one, you will incur free radical and structural damage while trying to achieve the build-up of melanin that yields the bit of sun protection. And two, let’s not forget that everyone — of all skin tones — still needs sun protection: “[Melanin build-up provides an umbrella of sun protection], but the umbrella is porous - you’re still getting DNA damage, which can lead to wrinkles and skin cancer,” says NYC dermatologist Dr. Doris Day in the June issue of Allure. In other words, everyone needs sunscreen, and while dark skin naturally provides a bit of beneficial SPF, tanning lighter skin to get there isn’t benefiting you in the long run.
3. Self-tanner saves you from free radical damage.
Yes and no on this one. Yes, there is nothing proven to naturally age your faster UV light, which does pretty much everything from depleting collagen levels to inducing free radical production at monstrous levels. And if you use self-tanner and stay out of the sun as a result, then you are saving your skin. However, if you use self-tanner and then go out into the sun, you could be causing more damage: According to a 2007 study published in Germany (and cited in Allure), for 24 hours after applying a self-tanner, the skin is more susceptible to free-radical damage once being exposed to the sun.
In other words, best case scenario: avoid self-tanner, wear sunscreen, and avoid the sun between 10-4 P.M. except for 15 minutes/week (for adequate vitamin D production). Next best scenario: use self-tanner, wear sunscreen, and avoid the sun between 10-4 P.M. except for 15 minutes/week. Worst case scenario: use self-tanner, don’t wear sunscreen, and go out into the sun. Eeeeek!
4. “If my powder contains SPF, that’s enough protection.”
Oh dear. If you want to know how much SPF you are really getting from a product, divide the SPF number by 14, according to Dr. Leslie Baumann, über-dermatologist from the University of Miami. According to Baumann, scientists estimate the SPF of a facial powder assuming 1200 mg of product is used with each application, but the average woman only applies 85 mg of powder at a time, 14 times less than the estimated amount. In other words, if you want adequate sun protection, wear a moisturizer or sunscreen with SPF under your powder, even if your powder contains sunscreen.
5. SPF = UPF.
UPF, the rating system for sun protective clothing, has been getting a lot of press recently because sun protective clothing is currently popular and - dare I say it - increasingly stylish. However, unlike SPF, which quantifies only UVB protection, UPF is a number that incorporates both UVA and UVB (broad-spectrum) protection.
In general, according to Baumann’s Cosmetic Dermatology textbook, a UPF of 10 equals protection of about SPF 30, so a UPF of 50 equals protection of about SPF 150 (i.e., lets 1/150 rays through, providing 99.25% protection). Pretty cool, huh? 
****
In short, rumors were made to be about Hollywood celebrity scandals, not your skin. Let’s put an end to these 5 skin care myths, shall we? 
Let me know your thoughts! After all, until June 19, 2008, every comment on FutureDerm.com counts as 1 entry in the $500 skin care giveaway from Skinmedix.com!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
May 22nd, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary, Controversy, Cosmetic Dermatology News, General Cosmetic Dermatology, Sunblocks, The Worst Things For Your Skin, sunscreen |
20 comments
One excellent self tanner: Clinique Self Sun Face, $18.50, Amazon.com
Self tanners are like the Alfred Hitchcock of the skin care world: they are very popular, yet they work in mysterious ways. However, recently, I decided to uncover the secrets of the self tanner, and I thought that it might be interesting to share.
Most self-tanners work by using dihydroxyacetone (DHA) as the main ingredient. According to a report from The Danish Ministry of the Environment, DHA reacts with amino acids and amino groups during the formation of melanoids (pigments), on the outermost layer of the skin (stratum corneum). The reaction between DHA and amino acids and amino groups results in the formation of pyruvate and other hydroxycarbonyl compounds (see below).
Source: Mst.dk
The next stages involve amine reaction with keto- (i.e, a compound with a C=O group) and aldo (i.e., a compound with an H-C=O group) compounds to form ketoimines and aldoimines:
Source: Mst.dk
The resulting skin cells turn a tan-like color, which fades over time because the skin sheds itself completely every 35 to 45 days. Because this is process gradual, companies generally recommend that you reapply a self-tanner every 2 to 3 days in order to maintain the same level of tan.Tune in Monday evening (after 9 EST) for four steps to your perfect self-tanning job!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
April 21st, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary, General Cosmetic Dermatology, Quick Questions |
no comments
Three weeks ago, I asked readers what age they think is appropriate for a woman to start getting Botox. The results are in:
- 38 percent (the majority) think women should wait until 35;
- 24 percent think they’re ready at 25 (surprising!);
- 18 percent think it is best to wait until 45;
- 10 percent think 55;
- …and only 10 percent say never.
Obviously, this is a personal decision, but I think the fact that only 10% are opposed to Botox altogether shows how mainstream cosmetic dermatology has become in our society. Of course, I may have a bit of a dermatology-savvy audience already… Let me know your thoughts!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
April 18th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary |
4 comments
Curel Continuous Comfort is $3.99 on Drugstore.com
The answer is yes, according to Dr. Frederic Brandt in this month’s Real Simple magazine. Even the most basic moisturizer hydrates, giving the skin a chance to rest. By doing so, you help maintain collagen production over time, according to Dr. Brandt. This keeps the skin firmer and younger for longer.
However, as Dr. Brandt is quick to point out, there are lots of other ingredients that are clinically proven to improve the skin too. At any rate, though, don’t be fooled into thinking expensive is automatically better. Although it is true that expensive creams often have better presentation and new ingredients (like the vitamin B5-derivative nicotinic acid in the NIA24 line), more drugstore-based skin care companies are putting extensive funds into R&D and coming up with some equally impressive ingredients (like the vitamin B5-derivative niacinamide in some Olay and Cover Girl products). The key is to stay educated! (For a full post on drugstore versus department store products, please click here.)
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
April 18th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary, Quick Questions |
3 comments
Elizabeth Arden is one company with many more brands behind it than you might imagine. Photo source Elizabeth Arden.com
Everyone has it: a favorite brand, maybe a bit of brand bias. (”I won’t use MAC, but I’ll use Estée Lauder!”) Unfortunately, most customers don’t know just how many of their favorite brands are actually divisions of the same company. A special thanks goes out to the sources, Kiss and Makeup (primary source from which the list was derived) and The Beauty Brains, on this one.
Estée Lauder
- Clinique
- Prescriptives
- Origins
- MAC
- La Mer
- Bobbi Brown
- Tommy Hifiger
- Aveda
- Jo Malone
- Bumble and Bumble
- Darphin
- Missoni
- Aramis
- Lab Series
- Kiton
- Donna Karan
- American Beauty
- Good Skin
- Flirt!
- Sean John
LVMH
- Dior
- Benefit
- Fresh
- Acqua di Parma
- Givenchy
- Make up for ever
- Guerlain
- Kenzo
- Sephora
L’Oreal
- All L’Oreal brands
- Lancôme
- The Body Shop
- Maybelline
- Biotherm
- Kiehl’s
- Shu Uemura
- Cacharel
- Giorgio Armani
- Helena Rubinstein
- Dermablend
- SkinCeuticals
- Vichy Laboratoires
- Kérastase
- Redken
- Garnier
- Softsheen-Carson
Coty
- Rimmel London
- Lancaster
- Davidoff
- Jil Sander
- Calvin Klein
- Colognes of Sarah Jessica Parker, Jennifer Lopez, Kylie and the Beckhams
Proctor and Gamble
- Max Factor
- Covergirl
- Aussie
- Clairol
- Graham Webb
- SK II
- Olay
- Braun
- Gillette
- Head and Shoulders
- Herbal Essences
- Infusium
- Pantene
- Physique
- Hugo Boss Fragrances
- Sebastian
- Vidal Sassoon
- Wella
Unilever
- Dove
- Lynx/Axe
- Impulse
- Lux
- Ponds
- Sunsilk
- Vaseline
- Timotei
Bourjois
- Bourjois cosmetics (available at Sephora)
- Chanel
Revlon
Elizabeth Arden
- Elizabeth Arden products
- Prevage
- Britney Spears, Hilary Duff and many other fragrances
Alliance Boots
- Toni and Guy (products only)
- Kangol (products only)
- French Connection (products only)
- Botanics
- No 7
- 17
- Soltan
Johnson and Johnson
- Johnson’s
- Aveeno
- RoC
- Piz Buin
- Clean and Clear
- Neutrogena
Clarins
- Clarins products
- Thierry Mugler
- Azzaro
Dr. Audrey Kunin, M.D.
Dr. Fredric Brandt, M.D.
Dr. Howard Murad, M.D.
Dr. Nicholas V. Perricone, M.D.
- N.V. Perricone Cosmeceuticals
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
February 18th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary |
4 comments
One common source of parabens is deodorant. Photo source ehponline.org
Parabens are preservatives that are found in about 90% of all skincare and cosmetics products. Antibacterial and antifungal p-hydroxybenzoic acid esters, the six most commonly used forms of paraben are Methylparaben, Ethylparaben, p-Propylparaben, Isobutylparaben, n-Butylparaben and Benzylparaben. They are commonly used due to their relatively unique property of being effective preservatives and being correlated with a low incidence of contact dermatitis, according to the American Journal of Contact Dermatitis. However, controversy has risen over paraben use in skin care and cosmetics, implicating that parabens may cause cancer, influence estrogen levels, accumulate in tissues, and increase UVB-mediated DNA damage. Despite these findings and consumer alarm, based on current scientific findings, parabens in skin care and cosmetics are safe, although sunscreen use with paraben-containing products may be suggested. Here is what has been established:
Parabens and Breast Cancer
Controversy over parabens began largely in the late 1990’s, due to the suggestions that parabens bind to estrogen receptors in MCF-7 breast cancer cells and rat uteri [after oral administration of parabens]. It was also suggested that parabens upregulate estrogenic gene expression in human breast cancer cells, yeast cells, and in vivo in fish. Studies with immature mice and rats showed that subjection to parabens decreased uterine weight. It was finally suggested that parabens increased breast cancer cell proliferation, and parabens were found in breast tumor samples.
However, none of these studies hold practical implications for skin care products. In the breast cancer cell study, MCF-7 human breast cancer cells are subjected to parabens in one million-fold molar excess, thousands of times beyond the amount of parabens a patient is subjected to in a typical skin care product application. Similarly, parabens bound to estrogen receptor sites in rat uteri at far higher concentrations than paraben levels found in skin care products. In the study with fish, parabens were ingested by the fish in doses between 100 and 300 mg/kg, which amounts to about 15000 mg of parabens for the average 74 kg American woman. (To put this in perspective, a normal application of a skin care product [sunscreen] amounts to 1 mg of product per cm2 of skin, the average human body has 14800 cm2 of skin, the average skin care product is about 1% parabens and 20-60% [depending on paraben type] crosses the skin, resulting in about 60 mg of parabens, or roughly 1/24 the amount used in the study).
With regards to the parabens found in breast tumors, it sounds scary, but it is reassuring to know that no studies have shown that parabens are found in higher concentration in breast tumor samples than any other type of human body tissue. Nor has it ever been established that parabens were the cause of the breast tumors. In fact, parabens in practical concentrations have been established since 1984 as non-mutagenic, and no studies to date have ever shown parabens to be harmful below concentrations of 10-6 M. Finally, no studies have ever established that parabens induce cancer in benign cells. For this reason, the U.S. FDA declared in 2005 that parabens in the concentrations found in skin care products and cosmetics (up to 25%, but typically 1%) pose no logical risk to the consumer.
Parabens and Long-Term Use
In 2007, a French study reopened speculation against parabens when it suggested that parabens may accumulate in tissues over time. In the study, a realistic amount (0.45 mg) of parabens was applied to the skin’s surface every 12 hours for 36 hours. It was found that repeated applications every 12 hours increased quantities of parabens moving across the skin barrier for the first 24 hours. However, the results also showed that parabens applied to the skin had no cumulative effect 36 hours later, suggesting that parabens do not accumulate in the skin at all after one-and-a-half days. As such, parabens in skin care products do not accumulate in tissues after 36 hours, and thereby should not pose a risk for the lifetime skin care product user.
Butylparaben and sperm counts
In a 2002 study, it was found that butylparaben consumption as 1% of the daily diet in the mouse significantly reduced sperm counts, and as little as 0.1% butylparaben in the daily diet somewhat altered sperm counts. However, just 0.1% butylparaben in the daily diet amounts to about 775 mg/day of butylparaben for the average American consuming 775 g of food each day. This is hundreds of times more than the average skin care product application over the entire body*. As such, it is very impractical to assume that sperm counts in humans can be reduced from using skin care products.
*Assuming, as above: a normal application of a skin care product [sunscreen] amounts to 1 mg of product per cm2 of skin, the average human body has 14800 cm2 of skin, the average skin care product is about 1% parabens and 20-60% [depending on paraben type] crosses the skin, resulting in about 60 mg of parabens per full-body skin care product application].
Methylparaben may increase UV-induced damage
In a 2006 study in Toxicology, cultured keratinocytes (human skin cells) subjected to practical levels of methylparaben and cultured in methylparaben-containing solution for 24 hours were more subject to UVB-damage than cells that were not cultured in methylparaben. However, cells cultured in methylparaben and not subjected to UVB damage were unaffected.
From this study, two questions are raised. One, does this apply to skin cells in vivo, or only in culture? Clinical trials with patients should be conducted. (If they are and I see it, I will post.) Two, does this suggest that sunscreens should always be used in conjunction with methylparaben-containing products? One cannot really answer the second question without answering the first. Hopefully, the scientific community will provide the answer soon!
Other Sources
Other sources of excellent factual information on parabens:
Overall Opinion
Based on current research, typical paraben exposure from skin care products does not seem to increase health risks. I think my favorite quote on avoiding parabens and using paraben-free products comes from Oprah Magazine’s beauty editor, Valerie Monroe: “If you’re the kind of person who triple-locks and checks her doors, you’ll use [paraben-free products].” Yet, based on the current scientific research, there does not seem to be health risks from paraben use in typical skin care products, so I myself am sticking to my tried-and-true favorite beauty products, regardless of paraben content.
I will certainly repost if I read any scientific studies or articles that suggest risks of parabens in the future.
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
February 15th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary, General Cosmetic Dermatology, Spotlight On... |
6 comments
Antibacterial soaps contain high concentrations of low-molecular weight alcohols, like ethyl alcohol, that can be extremely drying to hands. Recently, I read that some dermatologists suggest that patients use gentle and skin-beneficial facial cleansers for their hands instead, like Cetaphil Gentle Skin Cleanser, shown above. To verify if this is okay, enter the following excerpt from an interview with epidemiologist Elizabeth Bancroft, M.D., in the February 2008 Vogue.
Everyone talks about hand washing. Why is it so powerful?
Plain soap and water works lilke a chemical bomb - the fats in the soap attach themselves to the lipid layer in the bacteria’s membrane and kill it.
Antibacterial soap - discuss.
Antibacterial soaps aren’t necessary outside hospitals and may encourage the growth of drug-resistant bugs.
As a result…
It doesn’t seem necessary to use a special antibacterial soap for your hands at all, unless you are working in a hospital or amongst the immune-compromised. For more on making your hands look and feel their best, please consult this article.
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
February 4th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary, Quick Questions |
2 comments
According to Dr. Jeannette Graf, a dermatologist from Great Neck, NY and author of Stop Aging, Start Living: The Revolutionary 2-Week pH Diet, the pH of the food you consume and products you use affect the state of your skin. As Graf states in the January 2007 Elle: “Reducing exposure to chemicals can definitely help stabilize skin and hair pH.” Although some experts agree with Graf’s alkaline theory, some also believe the skin should be kept at a slightly acidic pH, as stated by Danny Siegenthaler, a doctor of traditional Chinese medicine and co-creator of Natural Skin Care Products by Wildcrafted Herbal Products: “Maintaining a slightly acidic pH of around 5.5 is critical.”
If these contrasting opinions seem confusing, it’s no wonder — a Google search for “skin ideal pH” results in just as many statements for the acidic (under 7) as the alkaline (over 7)!
What support is there for each pH theory?
According to Dr. Graf, the skin should be kept at a pH slightly higher (more alkaline) than 7 (neutral pH) because most of the foods consumed by Americans result in acidity, including meat, sugar, alcohol, and processed foods. As Graf tells Elle, “They’re converted into acids in the bloodstream…the slightly acidic epidermis becomes superacidic, and your complexion suffers.” Graf’s opinion is further supported by homeopath Heather Osler, who states in this article that “80 to 90 percent of the average American’s diet contains acidifying foods.” and Graf adds further that “three servings of a healthy, alkaline food for every soft drink will help keep pH in line.”
Unfortunately, this does not seem to be a universal opinion, as Siegenthaler elaborates here: “With increasing age…the skin’s pH becomes [less acidic], and thus more susceptible to bacterial growth. This reduced acidity kills fewer bacteria than before, leaving the skin susceptible to bacterial growth and infections. The skin weakens as a result and begins developing problems with increasing age.” Further, according to Elle, the Charme Skincare System that shifts the pH of water to the acidic range is used in West Hollywood, as Nile Institute Spa owner Nina Curtis says, “The restructured water is great for killing bacteria post-extractions.” Houston dermatologist Dr. Alpesh Desai agrees: “Acidic water creates a hostile environment for bacteria.”
What happens when skin pH is out-of-balance?
Both camps — those in favor of the slightly acidic and slightly basic skin pH — feel that skin pH plays a role in the attainment and maintenance of a clear complexion.
What is too acidic — or basic — to eat?
According to Dr. Graf and other nutritional experts, including a holistic expert in this article, the digestion of meat, sugar, alcohol, and processed foods can take pH to an unfavorably acidic level.
What is too acidic — or basic — to use on my face?
This is interesting, because acidic solutions of alpha hydroxy acids, such as glycolic acid and lactic acid, as well as vitamin C as L-ascorbic acid (amongst others) have many beneficial effects when topically applied the skin, despite their acidic pH. On the contrary, (including while some [basic] alcohols are beneficial and hydrating for most skin (cetyl alcohol, cetearyl alcohol, cetostearyl alcohol, cetyl alcohol 40, C12-15 alcohols, stearyl alcohol and lanolin alcohol), certain low-molecular weight alcohols are not (like methanol, ethanol, and SD alcohol 40, amongst others). As such, there does not seem to be a definitive answer to the skin pH question insofar as what is acceptable and unacceptable to topically apply to your skin.
Does independent scientific research support either theory?
There is a small amount of research on skin pH available. One independent study from 1994 by Dikstein and Zlotogorski here suggests that skin pH only varies slightly amongst Caucasian skin, and is slightly more alkaline in Indian skin. There is also a documented pH gradient present in all skins, as resolved by fluorescence imaging in this 2002 study in the Biophysical Journal. In Dr. Graf’s Stop Aging… book, detailed stories of patients who experienced brightened complexions and improved skin tone and appearance after adopting the suggested alkaline diet and skincare regime are provided.
Overall, however, it would seem that more independent scientific research needs to be done to determine the exact degree of variance in skin pH and its effects.
In summary?
The information on how pH affects the skin is vast, and unfortunately, contradictory at this time. It seems that the best option is to eat healthfully (which usually means a reduction in red meat, white sugars, alcohol, and processed foods anyway) and to use skin care products with well-documented ingredients that are specifically recommended for you by a dermatologist. Although it would be nice to have an all-encompassing theory like the pH theory for the skin, I doubt one can be universally adopted until further research is done.
P.S.: If you have additional scientific information on how pH affects the skin (preferably scholarly and not affiliated with a product), please feel free to contact me! I will update the blog with more verifiable information as it becomes available.
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
January 4th, 2008
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary, Spotlight On... |
2 comments
According to Susan C. Taylor, board-certified dermatologist and author of Rx for Brown Skin, there are four basic mechanisms of skin aging:
1.) genetic factors;
2.) telomere shortening and chromosomal alterations;
3.) free radical generation (in excess of free radicals necessary for normal metabolism);
4.) UV light-induced skin damage.
Each of these are discussed in more detail below.
Genetic factors that contribute to skin aging
Skin aging is the result of genetic, as well as environmental, factors. In several lower species, genes that contribute to aging have been identified, and it is believed that corresponding genes may play a role in aging of humans. For instance, studies in mice have shown that caloric restriction increases the life of the mice and the expression of sirt1 genes, which code for sirtuins that may be responsible for prolonging the life of cells by turning off unnecessary gene expression. For human skin, caloric restriction has also been proposed to decrease contact dermatitis, decrease free radical formation, and potentially preserving the softened, youthful state of collagen by decreasing the formation of advanced glycation endproduct glucosepane. More on caloric restriction and human skin is available here.
Telomere shortening and chromosomal alterations
Telomeres are repeated patterns of DNA sequences (TTAGGG) found at the end of chromosomes. With each round of DNA replication, telomeres shorten. Older adults have shorter telomeres compared with younger adults and children; when telomeres reach a certain shortened length, the cell is no longer able to divide, and cell death occurs. In fact, according to this study, the size of telomeres found in adrenal (kidney) chromosomes shortens by about 0.24% per year of human life. The telomere theory of aging is also supported by patients with Werner’s Syndrome, a rare disease in which aging is accelerated. Although an enzyme, telomerase, is able to make telomeric sequences to replace shortened sequences, and the introduction of telomerase into retinal epithelial cells and fibroblasts has been shown in this 1994 study by Bodnar et. al. to regenerate telomeres, telomerase is also reactivated in cancer cells, and so the introduction of telomerase into normal human cells to fight aging is not in fact a sound therapy at all.
Other chromosomal alterations reported by Dr. Susan C. Taylor in Cosmetic Dermatology include a defective DNA helicase, which is the enzyme used to uncoil DNA prior to each round of replication. It has been found that a mutation in DNA helicase is responsible for Werner’s Syndrome and the premature aging symptoms that result. In another disease resulting in accelerated aging, progeria, a misregulation of mitosis has been identified as the major cause.
Free radical generation
The free radical theory of aging has existed since the 1950’s by Denham Harman. The theory essentially states that free radical processes cumulatively lead you to age. Free radical generating processes include UV exposure, environmental pollutants, and smoking, and also mandatory processes, like respiration and metabolism. As respiration and metabolism are necessary for life to continue, it is impossible to eradicate free radical production in the body completely. For this reason, it has been proposed by deGrey in Ending Aging (amongst others) that free radicals are a natural byproduct of life that should not necessarily be neutralized with antioxidants. According to Dr. Jeannette Graf in Cosmetic Dermatology, newfound technologies like “spin traps” have been developed to eradicate only the rare free radicals that are created when an aberrant electron “spins” out of its orbit. (Spin traps, being developoed by Dr. J. Carney and his associates, are not yet available in skin care products.)
Despite this, most experts emphatically recommend the use of topical antioxidants, with support from numerous nutritional studies that demonstrate eating antioxidant-rich fruits and vegetables helps to prevent aging and certain diseases. As topical application of an ingredient results in a maximal absorption of about 33% of the ingredient, according to this 2002 study by Briggs et. al., so applying topical antioxidants and consuming them through the diet should have synonymous effects. In addition, while studies at MIT have suggested that oxygen free radicals do not contribute to a shortened lifespan, another study has demonstrated that oxygen free radicals can damage the DNA of cultured skin cells. As such, free radical-induced aging seems to be one of the only causes we can treat: eat a diet rich in antioxidants and apply a multitude of topical antioxidants to eradicate free radical production.
To eat as many antioxidant-rich vegetables as possible, according to this 2006 study by the American Botanical Council, vegetables were found to retain 80% of their raw antioxidant capacity when steamed, but just 30% when boiled. Also, of 27 vegetables, those with the highest antioxidant capacity were artichokes, beetroot, cabbage, broccoli, red chicory, red chili, and yellow pepper, so eat up!
To maximize the benefit of topically applied antioxidants, use products with network antioxidants (vitamin C, vitamin E, lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10 and glutathione), and/or strong antioxidants, such as coffeeberry, idebenone, vitamin E and kinetin.
UV Radiation
UV radiation generates free radicals, which turn on matrix metalloproteinases (enzymes). In a 1996 study by Fisher et al., it was found that UV exposure increase MMPs (and hence collagen production) in three steps, as mentioned in Dr. Leslie Baumann’s Cosmetic Dermatology. One, UV exposure increases the production of the transcription factor c-jun. Two, the “extra” c-jun combines with another transcription factor already present in high concentration, c-fos, to produce activator protein, AP-1. Three, AP-1 activates the MMP genes, which produce collagenase, gelatinase, and stromelysin-1. It may further be noted that there are twenty-three human MMPs, and MMP-1 has been found in studies to be the MMP responsible for collagen degradation. And, similar to how natural antioxidants keep free radicals in check, the body naturally produces Tissue Inhibitors (TMPs) to keep levels of MMPs down. Unfortunately, however, as people age, MMP activity increases, while levels of Tissue Inhibitors (TMPs) decrease.
Matrix metalloproteinase activity can be stopped in two ways. The first is to prevent their production. This is best done with a sunscreen with high UVB protection (UVB has been directly liked to MMP production by Fisher et al.) Fortunately, the best UVB protection is easy to find: look for the sunscreen with the highest sun protection factor (SPF), a direct measure of UVB protection. The second method is to stop the degrading activities of the MMPs. According to Dr. Wexler, there are several substances that act as MMP inhibitors (MMPis): epigallocatechin-3-gallate (a derivative of green tea), retinoic acid, eicosapentaenoic acid (an omega-3 fatty acid), beta-carotene, DHEA (though this is controversial), polysaccharides, vitamin E, and vitamin C, and flavonoids. Research has shown all of these inhibit MMPs and increase TIMPs. Patricia Wexler’s MMPi Skin Regeneration Serum, available at Bath and Body Works stores, uses MMPis to inhibit MMP activity in skin cells by more than 80% (statistic from drpatriciawexlermd.com).
In short, what should I do to prevent skin aging?
First and foremost, wear a broad-spectrum (UVA/UVB) sunscreen and avoid the sun with protective hats, clothing, and sunglasses, particularly when the sun’s rays are the strongest, between 9 AM and 4 PM. However, according to a 2007 study from the University of Pittsburgh, there is a nationwide vitamin D deficiency, so make sure that you get 10-15 minutes of sunscreen-free exposure per week between hours of 9 AM and 4 PM to areas like your face, hands, back, and feet.
Second, try to eat a diet filled with steamed (not boiled) antioxidant-rich vegetables like artichokes, beetroot, cabbage, broccoli, red chicory, red chili, and yellow pepper. Use topical antioxidants with documented independent research behind them as well, particularly vitamin C, vitamin E, lipoic acid, coenzyme Q10, glutathione, idebenone, coffeeberry and kinetin (of course you don’t have to use them all!).
Lastly, be healthy. The skin is often an early indicator of disease, so what’s good for your body is ultimately good for your skin. Take care of yourself!
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
December 29th, 2007
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary |
one comment
Johnson’s 24 Hour Moisturizer contains a high concentration of mineral oil. $4.99,
Drugstore.comVisit your local drugstore, and you are bound to find a plethora of lotions with mineral oil as one of the main ingredients. Hailed for its emollient properties, but believed by many women to clog pores, is this inexpensive ingredient good or bad for your skin?
What is mineral oil?
Mineral oil is a colorless, odorless substance that is derived from petrolatum. It is widely used in cosmetics because it rarely causes allergic reactions and provides a barrier of moisture on the skin and promotes wound healing.
What are some benefits of mineral oil?
According to Cosmetics Cop Paula Begoun, “Cosmetics-grade mineral oil is [among those] considered the safest, most nonirritating, and effective moisturizing ingredients ever found.” In fact, this 1989 study in the journal Dermatitis found that mineral oil was more effective in preventing water loss from the skin than a solution with 15% linoleic acid, a fatty acid. Mineral oil has also been shown to be effective in wound healing, according to Begoun.
Is mineral oil really comedogenic or pore-clogging?
According to Rebecca James Gadberry, chairman and co-CEO of YG Laboratories, mineral oil is not as offensive as many women believe. On a rating of zero-to-five, with five being highly pore-clogging, Gadberry says that tests of the cosmetic grade of mineral oil usually grant a one or two rating, depending upon the methodology of the test.
Further, mineral oil is an occlusive agent, which, according to the textbook Cosmetic Dermatology “functions by filling the spaces between desquamating corneocytes to create a smooth surface.” When filling those spaces, unfortunately, mineral oil traps other ingredients into the skin. If the other ingredients are comedogenic (pore-clogging), mineral oil can exacerbate their negative effect, as Gadberry notes, “Caution should be used when mineral oil is included in leave-on products containing pore-clogging ingredients — at least when these products are applied to clog-prone skin.” A list of comedogenic ingredients may be found here, from Natural Beauty Care.
Why does mineral oil have such a bad reputation?
Mineral oil is derived from petroleum. However, as Gadberry notes, many people do not realize “more than 50% of the ingredients used in cosmetics are.” In addition, mineral oil comes in different grades, ranging from technical grade mineral oil, used to lubricate engines and equipment, to cosmetics grade mineral oil, which has undergone purification. Contaminants that are not removed in the purification of mineral oil have been shown to clog pores; however, Gadberry notes that most manufacturers of cosmetics purify their mineral oil. Further, if patients use leave-in products containing mineral oil and comedogenic ingredients, the occlusive mineral oil would trap the comedogenic ingredients in the skin, resulting in more rapidly clogged pores.
As a result, should I use products containing mineral oil?
In a moisturizer, mineral oil appears to have high moisturizing ability combined with low irritation rates and a low price tag. However, care needs to be taken not to use a mineral oil-based moisturizer in conjunction with any products containing comedogenic (pore-clogging) ingredients, as the mineral oil would tend to trap the pore-clogging ingredients into the skin. For this reason, mineral oil should also not be used in leave-on treatments containing comedogenic (pore-clogging) ingredients. However, as long as care is taken to exclude comedogenic (pore-clogging) ingredients from the skin care regime, based on the science, mineral oil makes an inexpensive moisturizer that will hydrate your skin. Don’t expect the results of niacinamide; just expect hydration from mineral oil. (For this reason, rating for Johnson’s 24 Hour Moisturizer: 6/10, will hydrate your skin, but don’t expect anything else!)
All in all, a solid hydrating ingredient (much better than I previously thought!), just don’t expect anything but hydration, and be careful of what you use in conjunction with it.
Ingredients in Johnson’s 24 Hour Moisturizer
Water, Mineral Oil, Glycerin, Carbomer, Phenoxyethanol, Ceteareth 6, Methylparaben, Sodium Citrate, Fragrance, Stearyl Alcohol, Sodium Hydroxide, Citric Acid, Ethylparaben, Propylparaben, Glyceryl Oleate, Squalane
Share on Facebook
Email This Post
December 21st, 2007
Posted by
futurederm |
Commentary, Quick Questions, Spotlight On... |
3 comments
Earlier Posts »
