Can a $1,200 Eye Treatment Really Reduce Wrinkles? - Episode 430

Summary

---

The Beauty Brains Podcast Episode 430

Can a $1,200 Eye Treatment Really Reduce Wrinkles?

Date: July 24, 2026
Hosts: Valerie George & Perry Romanowski

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, real cosmetic chemists Valerie and Perry tackle listener questions around some of the beauty industry's hottest—and most expensive—product claims, including the effectiveness of a $1,200 eye treatment, plant stem cells in anti-aging products, Olaplex's new curl treatment, and more. Alongside product breakdowns, they discuss industry news such as new ingredient grading sites, biotechnology predictions, and consumer misconceptions about beauty product safety.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Beauty Industry News & Ingredient Grading Platforms

• New Cosmetic Ingredient Database:
  • Dr. Brijesh Patel has launched "Expert Ing," a platform grading 49,000+ ingredients (A-F).
  • Valerie and Perry critique the concept:
    • Grades ignore vital usage context (e.g., retinol safety depends on concentration and formulation).
    • Overly simplistic grading can mislead consumers, much as the EWG Skin Deep database has in the past.
    • “The fact that an ingredient is present doesn’t answer a lot about its toxicology.” — Valerie [06:00]
    • Regulatory compliance, not just ingredient lists, ensures product safety.
    • Consumers should not need to be chemists to make purchasing decisions.
    • “This is a bit misleading for consumers... It’s more information that’ll just make you feel bad.” — Perry [07:15]
• Future of Beauty—Industry Predictions (WWD Article):
  • Five "top scientists" predict trends such as engineered peptides and holistic routines.
  • Valerie and Perry note these ideas are evolving but sometimes over-hyped:
    • Engineered Biotech & Peptides: Already happening, more a change for marketers and chemists than for consumers. [11:10]
    • Wellness "Balance Maxing":
      • Integration of injectables, ingestibles, and holistic lifestyle into routines is cyclical, and unlikely to become the new normal.
    • Skin-Tracking Wearables:
      • Seen as far-fetched; low long-term adoption due to complexity and regulatory constraints. [14:02]
    • AI in Cosmetics:
      • May speed up launches, but not true formulation innovation. Practical uses are limited primarily to branding and planning.
      • “AI will make it so there’s more beauty slop products.”—Perry [16:30]
      • AI can't replicate or speed up essential testing (e.g., stability tests).
    • End of Clean Beauty?
      • Both hosts are skeptical—consumer fear marketing is too entrenched.
      • “The majority of consumers think their beauty products do some harm or have the potential to cause harm… that’s the premise of clean beauty and that’s not going anywhere.” — Valerie [17:59]

---

2. Product/Ingredient Deep-Dives & Listener Q&A

Olaplex Bond Shaper Curl Rebuilding (Heather’s Question)

• Mechanism:
  • Multi-step process: application of a peptide solution, a surfactant system, and a conditioning/styling product.
  • Peptides (possibly oligopeptides) may interact with hair bonds (not necessarily disulfide)—potentially providing temporary effects comparable to other curl treatments.
  • "Any peptide penetrating the hair will interact with the hair bonds in some way—maybe not disulfide bonds, but it will react with ionic bonds or hydrogen bonds." — Valerie [22:46]
  • No-wash recommendation likely to avoid rinsing out the active ingredients before full effect.
  • Hydrogen peroxide is part of the process—may suggest a neutralization effect.
  • Overall, seems similar to other treatments with good marketing. “If your clients are happy about it, they’re happy.” — Perry [24:29]

Plant Stem Cells & The $1,200 Eye Treatment (Amy’s Question)

• Product: Atox Lift and Locked Wrinkle Solution by Stem Talk Skin Systems
• Key Ingredients Listed: Argan stem cells, acacia stem cells, coconut oil, avocado oil, peptides (e.g., palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7), hyaluronic acid, etc.
• Main Points:
  • Ingredient list isn't fully disclosed online—a red flag.
  • Unlikely to provide unique technology or an effect beyond what established brands offer.
  • Immediate "lifting" effect likely due to film-formers—creates temporary skin tightness.
  • “I’m skeptical that this would be worth $1,200 to improve your eyes. I don’t see any technology here you couldn’t get somewhere else.” — Perry [28:46]
  • Valerie suggests, “Should you replenish this at $1,200? The answer is absolutely not. For $1,200 you could get Botox fillers… lots of other things that probably do more permanent, real restoration.” [29:14]
  • Both hosts discourage repurchasing, despite the short-term visual improvement.

Hair Color Damage (Valerio’s Question)

• Which is Worse: The Alkalizer or Hydrogen Peroxide?
  • Hydrogen peroxide is the true damaging agent:
    • Efficiently penetrates hair, attacks keratin indiscriminately, damage is “permanent.”
    • Damage is exacerbated at high pH (from alkalizer).
    • “Hydrogen peroxide is the worst… it essentially breaks apart your hair keratin, which results in reduced strength.” — Valerie [33:54]
  • Alkalizer choice matters:
    • Ammonia and monoethanolamine are common. Monoethanolamine causes more long-term damage because it remains in hair longer.
    • “Use it once the damage is about the same… Use it the second time, more damage with monoethanolamine because it doesn't leave the hair very easily." — Valerie [34:51]

Sunscreen That Won’t Sting Eyes (Lisa’s Question)

• Problem: Chemical filters sting; physical blockers (zinc oxide) leave a white cast (especially Fitzpatrick 4 skin tone).
• Solutions:
  • Valerie suggests Keys Soulcare "Protect Your Light" Daily Moisturizer SPF 30 (hybrid sunscreen, waxy feel helps it stay put).
  • “That thing stayed put on your face… I am a fan of the waxiness.” — Valerie [37:14]
  • Perry suggests using sunscreen sticks around the eyes, but Valerie finds them “glycoly” and not as effective at stopping migration.
  • Ultimately, no universal answer as preference and tolerance are personal.

Le Balm Solid Moisturizer—Worth $130? (Lori’s Question)

• Product Positioning: 8-in-1 multitasker; $130 for 1 oz.
• Ingredients: Squalane, sunflower seed wax, ceramides, peptides, plant antioxidants, fragrances like geraniol, linalool, etc.
• Analysis:
  • Valerie isn’t a fan of solids for facial skincare, prefers ritual/texture use on body.
  • Claims of 68 actives and 21 amino acids critiqued as mostly marketing:
    • “They do not have amino acids intentionally added… that's not really the same as adding 21 amino acids.” — Valerie [42:47]
  • Scented but otherwise similar to other balms.
  • Both hosts find the claims exaggerated, value questionable, and recommend caution before splurging.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Ingredient Grading Sites:
  • “Consumers do not need to be chemists. You don’t. It’s more information that’ll just make you feel bad.” — Perry [07:15]
• On Innovation with Peptides:
  • “I think you can do some really cool things… but at the end, I don’t think a consumer will notice a difference.” — Valerie [11:10]
• On $1,200 Eye Creams:
  • “Should you replenish this at $1,200? The answer is absolutely not. For $1,200 you could get Botox fillers… lots of other things that probably do more permanent, real restoration.” — Valerie [29:14]
• On Product Claims in Beauty Marketing:
  • “The majority of consumers think their beauty products do some harm or have the potential to cause harm. And at the end of the day, they don’t want certain things in their products. And that’s the premise of clean beauty. And that’s not going anywhere.” — Valerie [17:59]
• On Solid Moisturizers:
  • “The only thing it does is it prevents water loss on your skin. It’s not really like a moisturizer and an eye cream—they do different things.” — Valerie [40:00]
• On Hair Color Damage:
  • “Hydrogen peroxide is the worst. When you’re coloring hair… it essentially breaks apart your hair keratin, which results in reduced strength.” — Valerie [33:54]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Ingredient Grading Database & Critique: [03:45–08:21]
• Future of Beauty—Industry Trends & Predictions: [08:27–19:07]
• Listener Comment—Canadian SPF regulations: [19:07–20:29]
• Olaplex Bond Shaper Curl Review: [20:43–25:07]
• $1,200 Eye Cream & Plant Stem Cells: [25:11–30:46]
• Hair Color Damage—Peroxide vs. Alkalizer: [30:46–34:56]
• Best Sunscreen That Won’t Sting Eyes: [34:56–37:58]
• Le Balm Solid Moisturizer Breakdown: [38:47–43:45]

---

Overall Tone

Warm, witty, and honest, blending scientific thoroughness with a dose of humor and skepticism about product marketing. Both hosts keep the conversation accessible for everyday beauty consumers, regularly debunking hype and focusing on facts.

---

Summary

This episode shines a scientific light on luxury beauty claims (like $1,200 eye creams and stem cell wrinkle solutions), ingredients grading apps, and industry trends (AI, wearables, biotech). The hosts reinforce that most expensive and hyped products deliver similar results to less glamorous counterparts. Consumers are encouraged to trust credible science, prioritize practical product experience over flashy claims, and avoid fear-based marketing.

---

For more listener questions, behind-the-scenes beauty science, or to submit your own, visit The Beauty Brains on Patreon, Instagram, and other platforms.

Transcript

[A]

Hi, I'm Valerie and you're listening to the Beauty Brains. Welcome to the Beauty Brains, a show where real cosmetic chemists answer your beauty product questions and give you an insider's look at the cosmetics industry. This is episode 430. I'm your host, Valerie George, and with me today is Perry Romanowski. Hi, Perry.

[B]

Hello, Valerie. Great to see you back.

[A]

Good to see you. On today's show, we're going to cover a lot of questions, including how does Olaplex bond Shaper curl rebuilding work? Are plant stem cells reducing wrinkles? What chemical and hair color damages the hair? What's a good sunscreen to use that won't sting the eyes? And is Le Balm, solid moisturizer worth the price? But first, that inane chitchat.

[B]

Yeah. You were gone last week. Was it a road trip, a flying trip? Where were you?

[A]

We took a road trip. Baby C turned one and we went to visit family and we ended up driving 19 hours each way. We love road trips, though. We stop and see a lot of sights and make it a good time. Visit cool restaurants, coffee shops, points of interest.

[B]

Yeah. There's actually this app called Run a Road Tripper.

[A]

Okay.

[B]

And if you put in where your road trip is going to be, it'll tell you all these things along the way that to see, like, wacky things, like, I was. We did that once. We were driving back from Florida to Chicago and we stopped in, I think it's North Carolina to see the world's largest fire hydrant.

[A]

Yeah, my parents love that kind of stuff. You know, we'll stop if we see it. But we're more like historical points of interest, like, oh, what happened in this area in the 1700s. And, you know, we visit the historical markers and, and that kind of stuff when we do audiobooks related to driving through the area so we can get a sense of, like, the history. So, yeah, it's a lot of fun. And Baby C was pretty good. It's a long time to be in the car as a baby.

[B]

Sure, sure. Now, did you. What'd you do with the dogs? Did you kennel them up or something?

[A]

Oh, yeah. They go to this little farm and hang out and have a great time. We were gonna take them just given the duration. We were visiting family and my parents have this crazy huge yard and a pool and Butch loves swimming, but it would have been too much. That's a big drive for a baby. And two 90 pound dogs.

[B]

Two big dogs. That's right. Well, we're glad you're back I've just still been taking care of kittens. Actually, we're leaving on a trip at the end of the month.

[A]

Another trip? See, you act like I'm the one who's always gone. You're always gone.

[B]

Well, it's.

[A]

You know, this was my first vacation in a year. This is. You know, I've been on work trips, you know, but I feel like that's a little different. But is this pleasure or for work?

[B]

We're actually going to Greece. My niece graduated high school, and we're taking her on a trip there for. So that'll be. That'll be a Greece and Albania.

[A]

So can I be your niece?

[B]

Well, I think there's some genetics involved there that aren't gonna work.

[A]

No, Greece is great. I once spent a whole summer there working. My church has a camp there, a traveling camp, and it was awesome. You're going to have a great time.

[B]

I've never been, and I'm looking forward to it. I'm especially looking forward to it because I hear they have a lot of cats.

[A]

They do. And dogs, and they just kind of roam around and they're allowed in the restaurants and whatnot.

[B]

Oh, yeah. Well, I love all animals.

[A]

Great.

[B]

All right. You know what else I love?

[A]

Beauty news.

[B]

By the way, this one came across my desk. Well, my computer screen, anyway. It's a new tool to grade cosmetic ingredients. Apparently, there's this new cosmetic ingredient platform called Expert Ing. And it was created by formulation scientist Dr. Brijesh Patel. And, you know, it does. It gives letter grades to more than 49,000 cosmetic ingredients. So, I guess they have to take an exam to get a grade. I don't know.

[A]

Yeah.

[B]

Wow. The pitch is that, you know, unlike some other ingredient databases, the grades are based on information from regulatory agencies around the world.

[A]

Wow.

[B]

It also. It also explains what the ingredients do in plain English. It lets the users create profiles for concerns, whether, like, if they're pregnant or they have eczema. And it can alert you when. When a product, formula, or regulatory status changes.

[A]

So this is a database for consumers, not for formulators like me and you.

[B]

Right. I would see this as something along the lines of, like, the EWG Skin Deep database or something like that.

[A]

Yeah, I have some concerns.

[B]

Yeah, I imagine so. So what. What do you. What is the problems you think with this is?

[A]

Well, I think it's very difficult to just assign a letter grade to something without knowing the context in which it's used. So, for example, retinol. Retinol is great at a certain concentration, not Great at another concentration. And you just simply can't look at a product or type in an ingredient and know what grade it's going to get in the product. The answer would be A through F and I don't find that very helpful.

[B]

Yeah, it's, it's kind of the same problem the Skin Deep database has. Right. Except their rating scale is what, 1 to 10, you know, red, green, yellow or whatever. So this guy, instead of doing one to 10, he's going a through F. How could even an ingredient get an A? Like is water an A? I mean too much water can kill you too. So how does that get an A?

[A]

Yeah, it's a little concerning. Again, just given that the fact that an ingredient is present doesn't answer a lot about its toxicology. And the reality is like all products have to be safe. Hopefully brands are using third party toxicologists or safety assessors to ascertain through real exposure calculations this exact scenario. So just typing in something and getting information out of it I think could be damaging much in the way that EWG Skin Deep database is damaging. Although I will say that EWG has cleaned up their act a little bit in terms of, yeah, the information, they're more realistic scores. They've taken a lot of heat over the years and things that they said used to be bad they now are, are required to say are fine. Like sodium Lauryl sulfate. Because it, it is fine.

[B]

Right. So is that some sort of legal thing that they ran into? I guess being in California and a lot of lawyers there?

[A]

Yeah, maybe. I'm not sure but I mean, I'd like to see this do well. But I'm sure there's other challenges with the software as well. Like at the end of the day, it's not really a toxicology platform, it's just a consumer facing platform.

[B]

It kind of pretends to be. And the other thing it says, it talks about using government information, but then it also uses like Sephora's clean standard. And you know, they didn't use like science to come up with that. That was just like what their buyers liked or didn't like. So it wouldn't be like appropriate toxicologist stuff. So I mean the bottom line for me is that, you know, this might be a convenient database for somebody to look up ingredients. But I don't see how this is particularly helpful and it is a bit misleading for consumers. So you know, to me, if a product is out on the market and if your doctor hasn't said, you know, an ingredient is bad for you, you know, Use it. And if the product is. Doesn't feel good, then stop using it. I don't know. It's too much. We're getting too much information about chemists. You know, you know, you consumers do not need to be chemists. You don't. It's. It's more information that'll just make you feel bad.

[A]

Yeah, I think it causes a lot of stress, and at the end of the day, you know, there's no reason to stress out, I don't think.

[B]

No, let the toxicologists and chemists stress. You just use the products.

[A]

Well, there was another interesting article about the future of beauty, and it's according to five top scientists. And this was in wwd, you know,

[B]

didn't they just listen to our last. Our episode in December where we make our predictions?

[A]

Yeah, they're not interested in our predictions.

[B]

I guess not. Well, I was interested to see. So who are the top five beauty scientists? And to be honest with you, I heard of a couple of these, but I hadn't heard of all of these. Have you heard of these chemists?

[A]

I've heard of a few of them, and they're not all chemists in the industry. They maybe have different technology platforms or different raw material companies. But. But I wouldn't say they're necessarily like chemists or in the context of like the cosmetics industry, they maybe work across different industries.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, I guess I would just think if you're gonna get like the top scientists, I would have heard of them. I mean, I guess. Of course I know Ron Robinson. He's a cosmetic chemist guy. But Jasmine,

[A]

Yasmina Aganovic. Yep. I know her very well from Archaea. They're a raw material technology incubator. Josh Britton from Debut, I know him as well through the Independent Beauty Association. They're a biotech startup. So again, more on the raw material side. And then I've heard of Joyce de Lemos from Dew and Alec Batiste from Sweet Chemistry. But do you know what would have really been interesting? If they didn't just talk to independent brands and talk to maybe a diverse range of companies of different sizes. Companies like l', Oreal, Procter and Gamble, Unilever. They invest a significant amount of money in beauty's future, and they actually even invest in small companies that are developing technology. So it would have been interesting to hear from people from there. But I would presume the reason they don't have anyone from that list is they wouldn't disclose what they think is coming.

[B]

Right. Sure. Yeah. So with that in Mind, let's see what they have to say and we'll see what we think about it. They say from chemistry to Biology said the industry is moving towards engineered biotech ingredients and peptides built for specific biological outcomes. Yeah, I mean I saw that at suppliers day. But you know, as far as. But as I think unless you change the regulations for what cosmetics are allowed to do, I don't think biotechnology can have such a huge impact on the way that these products function.

[A]

I think it's already happening. So this isn't a future prediction. This is already actively happening as you mentioned. I think you're exactly right. I don't think this will change the benefit that consumers get, but I think it changes the story that marketing people can tell and it changes what chemists have to choose from. By choosing these. I'm a peptide fan, right. By choosing different peptides you can do some really cool things. But at the end of the day, I don't think a consumer will notice a difference.

[B]

Having said that, I do think if we're going to find any innovation in cosmetic products and ingredients, it's probably going to come from biotechnology because I think surfactants are kind of done and amalience are all done. So it's got to be these biochemicals and polymers. All right, another one they say balance mask balance maxing and holistic wellness balance maxing.

[A]

Anything with maxing is. It's like a new younger thing. We wouldn't get it.

[B]

So this is all about topical injectables ingestion balanced alongside sleep, exercise and stress management. You know, I guess this is all reasonable life advice, but it seems like pretty weak evidence that it's a coherent product category. I mean, when you lump like a serum in with your sleep hygiene, is that gonna make your serum work better? I don't know, it just sounds more holistic marketing or something to me than actual new science.

[A]

Well, this concept of ingestibles, injectables, all these things kind of living in a beauty routine is not a new concept. In fact, 10 years ago ingestibles were really huge and then they went away and now they're a growing category again. All this kind of stuff is cyclical. I don't think this is going to be long staying. People have a relatively low commitment to ingestibles and injectables. Most injectables live out of a price point that most people can afford. I don't think necessarily injectables are rising unless, you know, population. It's just a factor of like Population rising and population groups aging. So I think this is not something that will be long staying.

[B]

Yeah, and, but I agree with you too. It's going to be cyclical and it's going to come back. Another prediction is that wearables are going to be tracking your skin and you'll have these devices that are monitor your hydration, your ph, your cortisol levels and then the sensors will help you decide what products you should be using at what time. I don't know. I don't think we, we know enough about the skin or what makes it feel better or work better with these, this kind of detail. I don't know. This seems a little far fetched to me.

[A]

Also there's such a wide PH range for skin that's acceptable. Acceptable and biologically acceptable. Also where is the skin on your body? It can differ. Are you male or female? What's your age, what time of year is it? So I think this will be a little more complicated to produce. And also managing cortisol and inflammatory markers. To think that a topical cosmetic product could or should influence those types of things is a really dangerous territory to play into. There's so many things that change cortisol in your body and a slight increase isn't necessarily a bad thing. And I would hate to see what kind of damage this could be, could do. Also I feel like this is certainly medical device territory. And also the thing about devices is they have low adoption rates. So how many people are going to get this and continue to use it over, over the years? I don't think so.

[B]

I mean. Right. If it was something like you put a ring on or a watch or something. Sure. But how are those things are not going to be able to monitor your skin like on your feet or something. So I don't know. Yeah, and I'm, I'm with you there. Like people buy these medical devices, these home medical devices and are promised these things out. It's going to improve your face. But come on, those red light masks don't work. All right, there is AI lowers the barrier to entry. It's going to. AI will speed up product launches. I, that's probably true. I don't think they're going to be making better products, but probably faster.

[A]

Yeah, I don't think faster is always better either. And I don't think AI knows anything that a seasoned formulator couldn't figure out.

[B]

No. I guess to me what the AI would help do is like if you need a brand story, AI is great for something like that, you know, Helping you shape your brand story. But, but all the formulas are going to all be kind of what's already out there. There's not going to be any innovation in the formula. But if you had an idea for a beauty product, you could go to ChatGPT and say, here's my idea, give me a launch plan. And I think it'd do a pretty good job of giving you that. You know, you're just going to use contract manufacturers and existing formulas. But I think she's right. AI will make it so there's more cosmetic. Well, as the kids would say, cosmetics, beauty slop products.

[A]

Yeah, I don't know. It's always right. Well, the thing is there's certain things in the development process you can't speed up. And while you can use AI to screen, and this is not any like Chat, GPT or Gemini, but real AI platforms designed to screen peptides or emulsifiers and to check your stability, at the end of the day you have to still do stability and computer compatibility and all this testing and AI is not going to speed that up. It might get your formula to a more predictive place. But guess what? I don't use AI from that retrospect and you know, I feel like I'm in a pretty good spot and sometimes you can, you know, use things that are tried and true and you put one change into it and there's a shift that you didn't anticipate for some reason. So I don't even think on the true raw development side it necessarily speeds things up.

[B]

I would agree with you there too. Yeah, you still gotta run a 12 week stability test. I don't believe AI can predict that and it won't be able to do that for a while. All right, the last one Joyce predicts there's the end of clean beauty since consumers are getting savvier and they want real data instead of science washing. Eh, you know what, I push back on that. I mean consumers are, are still, I don't know, convinced, fooled I might say by what you see as science washing or greenwashing. That stuff still sells. So I don't see that going away.

[A]

I honestly like to akin this to different people on our side of the industry saying parabens are going to come back in and fighting the good paraben fight. And you did it for a while as well. I feel like you were in defense of parabens and at the end of the day consumers don't want to go back to parabens. It's too ingrained that ship has sailed. And I feel like this is the same thing. It's wishful thinking. The majority of consumers think their beauty products do some harm or have the potential to cause harm. And at the end of the day, they don't want certain things in their products. And that's the premise of clean beauty. And that's not going anywhere as long

[B]

as people are buying these products. Marketers are still going to come up with stories to say that their product is safer than their competitors because it's fear. Marketing works, it just works. It's just how people are. And the products aren't safer. You aren't making your skin better. But if you're afraid of somebody else's product, you're going to go buy that. And if some marketer can take advantage of that, they are going to do that. So I don't see clean beauty going away, despite what science says about it.

[A]

Exactly. We do have some listener comments from a listener. Riva. Hi beauty brains. Love your program and have been listening for many years. I would like to correct a small point made during your discussion about the FDA approving Vemitrizenol. I'm a consumer, not a regulator or a scientist. But as far as I understand, Canada does not follow the same SPF regulations as The States United US we have a hybrid model where SPFs can be classified as a drug or natural health product. In addition to many of the same filters, we also have Uvanil and Meroxil among others that are not yet available in the U.S. similar but different. All the best. Reva.

[B]

I'm not in Canada so I don't know, but I thought they kind of followed all the same approvals that the FDA did.

[A]

Yes, we did make that comment in passing and didn't go into the finer details that Canada does have their own version of the fda. Health care Canada, if you have a zinc oxide or titanium dioxide sunscreen, it's actually considered a natural health product versus a traditional spf. And so it gets a natural health product number versus a drug identification number. And yeah, there are a few other filters, but for the most part companies are formulating for the US And Canada in mind and so they just follow the US Formulation guidelines, which is what we were intending to say. But there are different regulatory pathways, correct?

[B]

Exactly. Well, we always do appreciate comments, so thank you for that, Reva.

[A]

Thank you. All right, well, let's answer some questions. Our first question comes to us from Heather.

[B]

Heather says thank you so much for your service. I'm a bleached curly haired curl specialist I've been using the Olaplex Bond Shaper curl rebuilding treatment on my clients as needed. I think it provides decent results. Hard to say because I don't see my clients for a while after. Though I do ask them to tell me what they observe after. Anyway, I'm curious how it works and also why they suggest not washing for two days after. All. Right. Looks like the treatment has three different parts to it. A repair, enhance and define.

[A]

I have tried not the professional treatment that's here, repair, enhance and define, but I've tried the take home products that are recommended by Olaplex and in my opinion they're fine. They're nothing super special. But yeah, in terms of the professional treatment, I think Olaplex is kind of following their own model. They have this essentially what is a solution that soaks the hair. This peptide, which is the bond shaping technology, can either penetrate the hair or sit on the surface of the hair. You enhance it with a, essentially a surfactant system and then put a take home product on it that is very conditioning, has some styling polymers in it and helps create style within the hair.

[B]

Basically this is just like any other curl treatment product you have, you know, to make your hair look smoother and springer springier. But they have that added ingredient that is Olaplex that they say is their bond building ingredient that theoretically repairs the disulfide bonds inside the hair. And so I mean there's at least, I mean, I mean they say there's a plausible mechanism behind their technologies. Whether consumers can notice any difference, I don't know.

[A]

Well, it is a short peptide, so an oligopeptide is pretty small, you know, maybe just a couple dozen or less amino acids in it. And they might have some data that shows this little tiny peptide goes into the hair fiber. I personally haven't seen the data, so I can't state that. But any peptide penetrating the hair will interact with the hair bonds in some way. Maybe not disulfide bonds, but, but it will react with ionic bonds or hydrogen bonds because peptides have both positive charges and negative charges. And so they can kind of interact with things in the hair. Is it doing anything special that another oligopeptide or dipeptide couldn't do? I'm not sure about that. I don't think so. Based on what I know about peptides and the hair fiber. And I do believe it probably is doing something in hair. But I think it's, you know, a great story, probably really nice products and you probably could use Some other things that have the same type of effect. The reason they probably tell you not to wash the hair for a couple days after is they want to make sure that you're not rinsing off any of the molecules that haven't had a chance to find. Find their spot in the hair. Is my.

[B]

Yeah, Theoretically, the longer it's on there without being rinsed off, you could have more chemical reactions, although I suspect it's happening pretty quickly and there's not a lot going on after, you know, the first day or so.

[A]

Yeah. And it's interesting. The second step has a little bit of hydrogen peroxide in there. And so this probably also tells me there's some kind of neutralization step going on within the hair. So very interesting.

[B]

Yeah. I mean, it's good to see some technology out there. Now, whether it's much better than just some other curl treatments, it would be hard to tell. But if you're, you know, if your clients are happy about it, you know, they're happy.

[A]

Yeah. So how it works, you know, I'm not really sure. In summary, a peptide probably goes in. There's a neutralization step similar to a perm that's probably doing something within the hair. And then there's this really great styling product afterwards. That's. That's probably it.

[B]

Yeah. Yeah. All right, thanks for that question.

[A]

Our next question comes from Amy. Hello, beauty brains. I was recently going through the airport in another country and had extra time on my hands. I was sucked into trying and buying Atox Lift and Locked Wrinkle Solution by Stem Talk Skin Systems, and immediately my under eyes looked great. I'm always so careful about falling for overly hyped and priced products, but not this day. They claimed it had plant stem cells and that's what made it work. I know it probably is a form of a temporary polymer, but had to ask the two smartest beauty brains. I know I feel a bit foolish for even asking, but this product is actually over one. Is that right? $1,000 online and I thought I got a deal at 200 plus. Any thoughts? Have you heard of this or did I just fall for this line? By the way, Perry, you're the patron saint of kitties. Your stories always warm my heart. I'm a kitty foster failure of a beautiful link siamese, and I'm grateful for fostering for the past three years.

[B]

Ah, well, yeah, kitties are so friendly and nice and they can be very affectionate and they can be very aloof too. But I like them.

[A]

I like the aloofness well, this stem Talks product is very interesting. First of all, I think the most important thing is that you liked it.

[B]

Yeah. Well, I will also say yes. $1,200 US for 42 ounces. What? Wow.

[A]

Good thing it's for the eyes and you don't need a lot.

[B]

Yeah, that is true. But it's not going to last very long, I guess.

[A]

Okay. Yeah, so I'm on that page. It doesn't have the ingredients or anything.

[B]

It says ingredients. Argan, plant stem cells, acacia plant stem cells, coconut oil, avocado oil. Yeah. It doesn't actually give you the ingredient list, which is, you know, that's kind of a thing that companies have started to do that actually putting the ingredient list online. But it's weird that they haven't done that. And I'm looking at their packaging and they don't have any image of their ingredient list. So that's kind of interesting. As far as ingredients go, they have the atox, they have the B tox, the C tox. Okay. So they had, say they have palmyl tetrapeptide 7 in there. They have palmidyl tetrapeptide 1.

[A]

Yeah. I mean, I wish we had the full ingredient list.

[B]

Yeah, it's hard to know. I mean, they just show the ingredients that they want people to see. But you know, the glycerin, hyaluronic acid. I mean, look, as far as I'm concerned, when you see a company like this, which is probably a smaller company, they're spending a lot of money. They don't have scientists or researchers that are doing more than what PNG or l' Oreal or when the big guys are doing. And so it's highly unlikely that they're going to have any technology that you couldn't get from one of the big guys. And so what they do, what they can do that the big guys can't do, is come out with a $1200 product and sell it. Because, you know, big companies need to sell a certain amount of volume before it becomes worth it for them to sell a product. That's why smaller companies can charge huge amounts because they don't have to sell a lot to keep their business going, whereas big companies need to sell a lot so they, they can't sell these hugely expensive products. So all that is to say I'm skeptical that this would be worth $1,200 to improve your eyes. I don't see any, any technology here that you couldn't get somewhere else.

[A]

Now, certainly if this were $200 retail, I would be like, it's worth a try. Especially since you tried it and you felt like, wow, you know, you're in an airport, your under eyes are in the worst condition that they could be, in my opinion, if you're flying. And the fact that you liked it is the most important thing. Now, should you replenish this at $1200? The answer is absolutely not. For $1200, you could get Botox fillers.

[B]

Right.

[A]

Lots of other things that probably do more permanent, real restoration. But I'm curious. I really want to try it. I see someone selling it used on Poshmark. I can't bring myself to do that. But if anyone had some and they just wanted to squirt a little in a cup, I would give you $25.

[B]

Wait a second. They're selling a used product, somebody already used it, and then just, well, you're

[A]

not supposed to sell used products. But you know, this person got it, probably tried it, didn't like it. Oh, I'm just gonna sell it and say it's new. I only took one pump out. Right. I want to see the return rate on this company's stuff. That's what I would like to see because they do have a return policy and I would imagine it's kind of high.

[B]

Yeah. And as far as feeling that immediate result, it's probably from the film forming ingredients that we don't. We know there probably are in there, but we don't know exactly what those are. But that's kind of what they do. You know, you create the film on your skin and then when it dries down, it sort of tightens it up. And that's kind of how these anti puffy things work.

[A]

So you're saying I shouldn't try it? I look pretty tired right now. I just got back from a 19 hour drive with Baby C. I'm saying

[B]

if you send me $25, I'll squirt something in a jar and you try to be glycerin with some PvP.

[A]

Oh, my goodness.

[B]

All right, next question comes to us from Valerio. It's a two parter and. Yeah. Hi, beauty brains. I'm Valerio and I'm a professional hairdresser. I'm from Naples in the south of Italy, the best part of Italy. I have two questions for you guys. One in the hair color composition, the tube plus peroxide. Which one creates more damage in the hair shaft? The alkalizer or the hydrogen peroxide? And what kind of damage is that? And then the second question is, I wish to be part of a course in hair chemistry by Valerie. You did that in at Suppliers Day in. In May, I believe. I sure did, but I live in Italy, so is there any online course for those of us who don't live in the States? Thank you for your information and any information you share. You guys are precious. Oh, well, thanks for that. Well, on that course, actually, Valerie and I were just talking and we're going to try to introduce that course in September for people. So keep. Keep an ear out for that. We'll let people know.

[A]

Well, Valerio, great question. In hair color, if we're talking about permanent hair color, where you have a tube of cream, hair color and peroxide, the tube either contains something that makes a high ph, it's either ammonia or monoethanolamine, and you have a separate bottle of hydrogen peroxide developer. And when those two are mixed and it helps develop the hair color into a color, it helps it penetrate the hair, and it helps remove your hair's existing melanin in order to get the new color to show up in your old color to get a little bit removed.

[B]

Yeah, sure.

[A]

Now, you may think that the alkalizer is the worst part. It smells, It's a high pH, it's creating a really terrible environment. But the true damaging material is the hydrogen peroxide. Because it's not an intelligent material. It goes into the hair very efficiently. It's very tiny, and it is looking for electrons. And ideally, it would hit the electrons in your melanin, which gives your hair its natural color. But before then, it's running into your hair protein keratin, and it's attacking anything it can there, which is highly damaging to the hair. It's even worse at a high pH. And so if you just put hydrogen peroxide alone, probably not too bad. I mean, it wouldn't be great for the hair, but it has this synergistic activity when it's in a high ph. And so for that reason, I think hydrogen peroxide is the worst. When you're coloring hair, you're also adding a little bit more hydrogen peroxide than you need to facilitate that reaction because you want your guest in the chair to have the experience done pretty fast. They don't want to be coloring their hair for two days. Right. You want them in and out in an hour. So you're putting a little bit more. So definitely for these reasons, I think hydrogen peroxide is more damaging for your hair, and it essentially breaks apart your hair keratin, which results in reduced strength.

[B]

And that's not going to get repaired easily.

[A]

It is permanent effect pretty much. So yeah, use less peroxide than you need to. And also I will say the alkalizer choice makes a difference. I just want to throw this in. So I mentioned the two choices are pretty much ammonia or monoethanolamine. And ammonia and monoethanol mean you use them once the damage is about the same. And this is. It's a little complicated to explain, but this is presuming they're the same activity in the formula. Use it once they're the same, use it second time, a third time, a fourth time. Monoethanolamine is actually more damaging to the hair because it doesn't leave the hair very easily. Ammonia is a gas. That's why it's annoying. And hair color is stinky. But when you use ammonia free hair color, you're like, oh, this is so great. It doesn't smell but it actually is harder to get out of the hair and you get more damage over time to your hair protein.

[B]

Yeah, just stays in the hair and keeps, keeps on damaging, keeps on partying.

[A]

So valerio, I hope that helps and maybe we'll see you in the fall online. Next question comes to us from Lisa. My Fitzpatrick score is 4. So zinc oxides are white on my skin. Therefore I look for hybrids and tints. But I'd like to find something that blends more easily. Every chemical filter absolutely kills my eyes. I've tried most every LRP, ELF, Supergoop, CeraVe, Cetaphil, and none has not killed it after an hour. You mentioned a waxy feel to stop migration. Can you recommend a product or tell me an ingredient to look for? Thanks.

[B]

These are always hard questions for me to answer because you know what you like and what works for you is always such a personal choice, right? And when somebody says that, oh, you know, every chemical filter just kills my eyes, I mean everyone. It's hard to know what to do.

[A]

Well, the problem is most SPFs are like kind of oily feeling and they migrate on skin and they migrate right into the eyes. And let me tell you, there is one. It was put into a gift bag at a society of Cosmetic Chemists event and everyone was trash talking this spf and I actually thought it was pretty great. I wish I could remember the name of it. I can't. It'll come to me. Oh my gosh, I'm blanking on the name. But let me tell you about another. And people didn't like it because it had this like waxy kind of feel. On the skin. But there's another one that I was gifted actually by the people who developed it. It was Alicia Keys Protect yout Light Daily moisturizer. Broad spectrum SPF 30. I mean, I have like kind of white skin, but I did not feel there was a really big cast. It's a hybrid and I felt like it did pretty well. Now, if you're a 4, is it going to do well? I don't know. But that thing stayed put on your face. And I like to periodically kind of touch my face throughout the day because I always felt it there. I didn't like rub, but I would just, oh, don't touch your face. It's there. And I thought it was pretty nice. And I've actually bought it since using it. And I am a fan of the waxiness.

[B]

Well, you know, maybe a sunscreen stick used like around the eyes might help prevent that kind of a thing. So, you know, I guess you could use sunscreen. Like that's typical chemicals, other places. And then around the eyes or in your face to use a stick, maybe that would help prevent that stinging.

[A]

I just, I don't like the sticks. I don't feel like they're waxy. I feel like they're kind of glycoly. Does that make sense? It just feels like you put a humectant on the face and I'm not a fan of that.

[B]

You know, it's all like a personal choice and feel. So unfortunately there's not one simple answer answered to this. But those are our thoughts.

[A]

Yeah. Well, anyway, give the Alicia Keys a try, like I said. And there's actually some videos of Maybe Fitz types 3 and 4 reviewing it online. I just took a look and you can check it out from them. I also like, by the way, that it's an affordable price point. And if we remember the name that was left in the dinner dance gift bag, that was very waxy and everyone hated it except for me. And I was like, give me all the sp. Spf. I'm going to try to remember and tell you because those two did not go into the eyes. And I have other recommendations, but they would leave a white cast on your skin, so I can't give those. But.

[B]

And my recommendation is to wear a hat. Oh, big broom.

[A]

No, she wants to have really good looking skin for a long time. All right, one more question from Lori.

[B]

Yeah. Lori says the Labom is a. A solid moisturizer created by Dr. Natasha Bonjour from France. It costs $130 for one ounce. Are the ingredients worth the splurge. The Le Balm solid moisturizer. Have you seen this product?

[A]

No, but I like I just said I'm not a huge fan of solid moisturizers. I don't like sticks. I don't like, you know, I don't mind putting it on like parts of the body, you know, but sure, on the face. I'm just not a huge fan of it. And I actually have seen this product. It's all over my, my Instagram. I just. And the Instagram's really great. I'm like, let me try it. And then I'm like, no, you don't like the solid Bombs because again, they kind of have this like really topical feel to them.

[B]

Well, it's a credo beauty product. You can find it through them. And they say it functions as a 8 in 1 multitasker. Replacing your serum moisturizer, eye cream, night cream, lip balm treatment primer and overnight mask. Wow, that's a lot to do in one product.

[A]

Yeah. Now let, let me retract my statement about. All right, the Bombs.

[B]

You like a balm? Is this what you're saying?

[A]

No, I don't, I don't really, but I don't like to use it as a skin care product. Okay. And this is why I don't like that they say, oh, it replaces eight products. Cuz the end of the day it just really the only thing it does is it prevents water loss on your skin. It's not really like a moisturizer and an eye cream. They do different things. And besides like eye creams have actives in them specific for the eye area. Which is why, believe it or not, I'm an eye cream proponent. But the one thing I do like about a solid in air quotes, moisturizer or balm in a pot, is that you can create a ritual. So, so what I like to do, and I actually used to use the May Lindstrom Balm for this because I like the smell. It's just a ritual. And I didn't necessarily put it on my face, but I would like put it on my chest or maybe my stomach or whatever. And I created like a nighttime routine and ritual and then maybe I would like gua with it or something like that. So I wouldn't use it as a skincare replacement, but I did like the ritual piece of it. So that's the only time I would use a solid moisturizer. And I would never use one in a stick. Just not for me.

[B]

Well, I'm looking at that. They Advertise it as having 68 actives in their concentration. But then I'm looking at their ingredient list. I don't see 68 ingredients.

[A]

But they're not 68.

[B]

Seems like a lot.

[A]

Maybe they're 68 letters.

[B]

But they have squalane, you know, sunflower seed, wax, ceramide, np, palmidotrite, tetrapeptide. Yeah, all this kind of stuff that you find everywhere else. They have rutin in there. R, U, T, I, N. Do you

[A]

know what that is?

[B]

I do not.

[A]

Me neither.

[B]

It sounds like something derived from, you know, a fungi or something. I don't know.

[A]

Yeah, never heard of it.

[B]

It's antioxidants sourced from plants, so they have, like, a lot of stuff. You know, interesting to me, though, they have geranol and linalool. So this has got some fragrance in

[A]

it, in addition to farnesol. Citronello. Yeah. The other thing I don't like is that they say the product contains. This is. I remember from clicking on the Facebook ad or Instagram ad being like, should I get this? And, you know, does it replace my made Lindstrom ritual? They say it has 21amino acids in it. And the reason I don't like this statement is, first of all, they do not have amino acids intentionally added to the product. It might come from. From hydrolyzed collagen or some other plant material they have in there, but that's not really the same as adding 21amino acids. Like, amino acids on their own do different things than when they're in a polymer form.

[B]

Right. But also, I thought there was only 20amino acids. What's the other one?

[A]

Well, I think there's 20 essential amino acids. I think there's other. Other ones.

[B]

Yeah, but in making proteins in the body, I think we only use 20. I mean, you can make other ones, sure, certainly. But 21 is an interesting choice there, but perhaps there was another one discovered since I. Since I was in biochemistry back in college.

[A]

Yeah, I think 20 are the essential. Like, we got to have them.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

You know, and then there's like nine. Our bodies don't produce that kind of thing. But I think there are more. They just don't exist in humans.

[B]

All right, well, I want to know

[A]

if anyone has tried this product, because, like I said, it's beautiful.

[B]

You're. You're product curious here, huh?

[A]

I'm just product curious. But after buying the doctor few products, you know, I took a risk and sure, you know, that was an expensive risk I took. And this is also an Expensive risk. And I, I can't take it being expensive.

[B]

It seems to me that this at least would last longer than that eye cream. Because, you know, this first. That's only $130.

[A]

And bombs do last a long time. That is correct. So you're right there.

[B]

You know what? You know what else lasts a long time? Underarm deodorant. I've had, like, the same stick for like four months.

[A]

Yeah, it does.

[B]

And it just. But I think there's some trick that they're doing. I think they. They colored the packaging the same color as the product and so I might be out of product and I'm just still using it.

[A]

No, I think it lasts a long time. I think it does. Cause, like, really, how much are you putting on? You know?

[B]

Yeah, you're not putting on much. So it makes you wonder, how do these companies stay in business?

[A]

I don't know. Well, speaking of stay in business, I have to sign off and get to work. Thanks for listening, everyone. If you get a chance, head over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify and leave us a review that will help other people find the show and ensure we have a full docket of beauty questions to answer.

[B]

Speaking of questions, if you have a question and want to hear your voice on the show, you can just record it on your smartphone and email it to thebeautybrainsmail.com or you can call 1-872-216-1856 and leave a voicemail. Hey, the Beauty Brains are also on Patreon. If you appreciate the fact that we don't have commercials and sponsors and we can talk about products however we want. That's only because we're supported by our listeners on Patreon. So head over to patreon.com the BeautyBrains and and subscribe at any level for our patrons. We also will occasionally have special events. You get transcripts and you get to have your questions answered in a higher priority than everyone else.

[A]

Also, follow us on our various social media accounts. On Instagram, we're at thebeautybrains 2018 on X, we're at the Beauty Brains. On Blue sky, we're the Beauty Brains. We have a Facebook page, a TikTok and a YouTube.

[B]

Did you see that? I actually put something on TikTok to for beauty brains.

[A]

I'm not on TikTok.

[B]

Oh, well, I actually did. So if you're on TikTok, check it out.

[A]

Thanks again for listening, everyone. And remember, be brainy about your beauty.

[B]

Thanks everyone. Kittens.