Hair bond builders and more - Episode 413

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Beauty Brains – Episode 413

Title: Hair Bond Builders and More
Release Date: December 4, 2025
Hosts: Valerie George & Perry Romanowski

---

Main Theme or Purpose

This episode of The Beauty Brains, hosted by cosmetic chemists Valerie George and Perry Romanowski, tackles common questions from listeners about hair and skin science, focusing on hair bond-building products, ingredient efficacy, and cosmetic safety. The show centers around demystifying product claims, scientific studies on hair repair technologies, and practical tips for consumers seeking to protect their hair and make informed beauty choices.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Understanding "Bond Builders" in Haircare

• Study Overview: The hosts discuss a recent, much-circulated study comparing two popular commercial “bond builders": Olaplex and K18.
• Study Design: Researchers created extra damaged hair tresses via over-bleaching, then applied either Olaplex No.0 or the K18 Molecular Repair Mask, measuring results using advanced analytical methods (SEM, Raman spectroscopy, DSC, etc.) ([05:57–11:32]).
• Findings:
  • Olaplex appeared to act internally, increasing tensile strength by 48% and improving hair brightness by 34%. The mechanism is presumed to involve bonding with free sulfur groups inside the hair.
  • K18 functioned more as a surface conditioner, improving hair’s visible smoothness (tensile strength up 20%), but not altering internal bonds as per the study’s measurements.
  • Critique: The hosts note the study’s major limitations, including lack of proper controls (such as plain conditioners or water), testing only one-use application, and a narrow focus on extremely damaged Caucasian bleached hair.
  • Scientific Skepticism: Valerie and Perry express skepticism about claims of "disulfide bond rebuilding," highlighting the role of product conditioning ingredients as the more likely source of "felt" hair improvement.

Quote:

"The bottom line for me...is I’m not convinced these products really create extra bonds in the hair that substantially affect the strength...the fact that they still use conditioning ingredients tells me you’re mostly getting good conditioning."
— Perry ([17:03])

Quote:

"It is extremely difficult and almost nearly impossible to rebuild disulfide bonds as they were in hair...what consumers actually feel is the conditioning element, not the hair bonds being rebuilt."
— Valerie ([20:29])

---

2. Barrier Repair in Skincare vs. Hair Repair

• Valerie was quoted in a Science Direct article about skin barrier repair.
• Key Difference: Skin has biological "barrier repair" capability (restoring lipids, improving microbial environment), while hair, being dead tissue, cannot truly be "repaired"—only conditioned or temporarily patched ([03:32–04:47]).

Quote:

"With hair, you can make it feel better, but the damage is done. It’s like fabric. But with skin, it’s very dynamic, constantly evolving."
— Valerie ([04:00])

---

3. Listener Questions: In-Depth Answers

A. Ingredient Efficacy & "Sprinkling"

• How can consumers tell if ‘featured’ ingredients are used at effective levels?
• The hosts explain that percentages rarely matter to consumer effectiveness. Many potent ingredients (like peptides or ceramides) work at very low levels. Ultimately, product efficacy should be judged on clinical testing, not inky cosmetic lists ([24:57–29:22]).

Quote:

"There are so many ingredients that are used at very tiny levels but have a lot of clinical support and efficacy. Peptides are an example."
— Valerie ([27:34])

B. Heatless Curls and Hair Damage

• Are overnight heatless curls damaging?
• Conclusion: This method is considerably less damaging than heat styling (like curling irons). Any minor "wear and tear" from manipulation is negligible ([30:49–35:26]), and use of light styling products can help hold curls.

Quote:

"From a damage perspective, I think it’s definitely way less damaging to the hair than a thermal device."
— Valerie ([34:00])

C. Direct Dye Hair Color (e.g., Milkshake Direct Color) Claims

• Is Milkshake Direct Color damaging or misleading in its claims?
• These are semi-permanent dyes that stain the hair surface, not entering or modifying the hair’s internal structure. Their claims are typical for this category, and not misleading, but such products are generally unsuitable for effective gray coverage ([36:21–42:18]).

Quote:

"This is a surface level product....I don’t recommend this technology for gray coverage."
— Valerie ([41:50])

D. Use of Cyclotetrasiloxane in Hair Sprays

• Why would a brand use a controversial ingredient like cyclotetrasiloxane?
• The EU restricts it due to potential human and environmental risks, but other geographies (US, Canada) deem it safe under typical usage. Regulatory disagreement drives its continued use outside the EU. Brands may not have strong in-house R&D or are using contract manufacturers ([43:11–50:06]).

Quote:

"Not everyone agrees it’s a dangerous health issue...the US, Canada, Australia don’t have the same opinion as the EU."
— Valerie ([44:01])

E. Formulating Conditioning Hair Color

• Can hair color products also function as masks?
• Conditioning agents (especially in alkaline hair color systems) compete for the same hair binding sites and may block/impede color uptake. Most brands focus on aftercare conditioners due to these incompatibilities ([50:22–52:44]).

Quote:

"You can make a hair color that also can condition...It won’t be a very good hair color."
— Valerie ([51:02])

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments (with Timestamps)

• On patents and hair science:

  "You can get a patent for lots of things. They don’t have to work."
  — Valerie ([10:22])

• On evaluating product efficacy:

  "At the end of the day, the clinical testing...on the product as a whole is what matters—is the product working or not?"
  — Valerie ([28:29])

• On marketing claims:

  "Companies write things in a way where a consumer will have a different takeaway than what they're actually saying."
  — Perry ([40:42])

---

Important Segment Timestamps

• 03:27 – Valerie’s mention in Science Direct about barrier repair
• 05:44 – Deep dive into hair bond builders and breakdown of the recent study
• 24:57 – Listener questions segment begins
• 30:49 – Heatless curls and hair damage
• 36:21 – Analysis of Milkshake Direct Color and direct dye technology
• 43:11 – Cyclotetrasiloxane in hair sprays and regulatory discussion
• 50:22 – Formulating hair color that conditions

---

Tone and Style

• The conversation is inquisitive and gently skeptical, blending scientific rigor with practical consumer insight. The humor is light, and both hosts bring personal experience and technical understanding—making even complex chemistry engaging and relatable.

---

Overall Takeaways

• Be skeptical of marketing claims—many rely on ambiguity rather than outright deception.
• Conditioning is the primary source of the “repaired” feel in most hair products—don’t expect miracles from bond builder products.
• Ingredient percentages aren’t always meaningful for product performance; look instead for evidence of careful clinical studies.
• Direct dyes are gentle in terms of structural effects but not effective for gray coverage.
• Regulations on cosmetic ingredients vary widely between the EU, US, and other regions; what’s “dangerous” in one area might be acceptable elsewhere.

---

For further questions or direct product concerns, Valerie and Perry invite listeners to reach out via their website, Patreon, or social media accounts (see end of transcript).

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 cosmetic industry. This is episode 413. I'm your host, Valerie George, and with me today is Perry Romanowski. Hi, Perry.

[B]

Hello, Valerie. Great to see you. I see you showered. Yay.

[A]

I'll talk about that in a minute. On today's show, we're going to cover lots of questions, including how do you know when an ingredient in a formula is at a working percent? Why would a company use a dangerous ingredient in their product? Do heatless curls damage hair? What's the deal with Milkshake Direct Color? How do hair color products with conditioning effects work? But first, that chit chat.

[B]

Valerie, we're coming up on a big holiday. Are you getting any? Are you hosting, like a big dinner?

[A]

We are not. We're just keeping it quiet. We're doing our own dinner here. Making our own food. Just me, Mr.

[B]

Cosmetic Chemist Baby C. Or you made DoorDash McDonald's. But.

[A]

Perry, last week was a rough week. Okay.

[B]

I went the lesser rough week week. We're heading out to my parents or my. My mom or my sister's house. Well, they all kind of live around the same spot, but I guess we got to bring food or something. I don't know. I bring my appetite. I don't really bring much else.

[A]

Yeah, well, I have a pie you could use.

[B]

Oh, really?

[A]

Yeah, one of our friends brought us a really giant apple pie. Very good. It's from a local bakery. We had it last year. Yeah, Pretty amazing. We actually brought it to a Thanksgiving dinner last year. Did we keep it a little longer than it should have? Yes.

[B]

But you're not bringing the same pie from last year.

[A]

No, no. Well, last year we also got this exact same pie from them and we had it for probably a week and a half and then we brought it to Thanksgiving dinner. Oh, it was still good. It was fun.

[B]

Yeah, sure. Those pies, they got a high level of sugar, low water activity. You're not going to get a lot of bacterial or mold growth.

[A]

Right, exactly. So that's what we did. But yeah, no, no big plans, really. Just trying to relax. It's really challenging, you know, having such a baby. Baby around.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

That it's nice to just kind of not have work on top of waking up at 4am to be with Baby C and all those things.

[B]

Well, you know, I. I got up today at 4:30 because my cat wanted to eat and he just jumps on your head and hits you in the head.

[A]

Oh, you don't leave out food for him overnight.

[B]

He wants the wet food. I leave dry food for him. But he's, you know, he wants his wet food at 4:30 in the morning. So, yes, I.

[A]

What a creature of comfort.

[B]

I'm an early riser.

[A]

Oh, my goodness. Well, we have a big show today, so let's head over to beauty news.

[B]

What did you see, Valerie? I see you were quoted in a science news article.

[A]

Yeah, Science Direct. They wrote an article on barrier repair and they asked me to talk about it and I did. That's kind of the long story short.

[B]

Now, when you talk about barrier repair with skin products, are these skin products really repairing the barrier or is it just sort of an aesthetic thing or is that what barrier repair is?

[A]

I think it's both because your skin is biologically living. I mean, hair is different. Repair is different because it's biologically dead. It's literally a, almost like a physics issue at that point. So when you disrupt your hair, you can't really repair it. You can make it feel better, but the, the damage is done. It's. It's like fabric, but with skin it's, you know, very dynamic. It's constantly evolving. And really what you're doing when you're repairing the barrier of your skin is you're maybe restoring the lipid content to the outermost layers and you're allowing your skin to not lose as much water. Maybe the microbial environment is being restored. We have.

Bacteria and yeast living on our skin. They can get disrupted when your barrier is broken, meaning you lose too many lipids on your skin and things can start to get in. So I really just.

[B]

The natural moisturizing factor, you're talking about, the NMF, as we call it in the business, and that has ceramides in it and, you know, some types of other humectants and phospholipids and that sort of thing.

[A]

Exactly. With all the exfoliating we're doing, the sun can disrupt this as well. There's just lots of things that disrupt it. And so some skin care products can put these items back, like the free fatty acids ceramides, and they can stay on the outermost layers and let your skin remodel and take care of itself.

[B]

Yeah, I'll include a link in the show notes so people could see that article. You know, Valerie.

I stumbled on this one about bond builders and I thought we could chat about that because people ask us about Bond builders a lot. But this was a paper going around.

[A]

The paper we're going to look at today put two big bond building favorites to the test. So these are products already on the market, already well known. And the authors did something pretty interesting. They didn't start by evaluating the products. What they did is they spent a significant quantity of time creating damaged hair so they could use the hair for fair comparisons.

[B]

Right. That part was one of the interesting things about this article. So they bought commercially bleached Caucasian hair and what they found that it wasn't damaged enough and so they had to do extra bleaching. And so they have this protocol where they made the hair rougher. Now I've used bleached hair in the past and you can definitely tell a difference when you're creating a hair tress with bleach damaged hair versus what they call virgin hair. But it's interesting to me that they felt it wasn't damaged enough. So they thought what to get, to get good results on their study, I guess they needed to damage it more.

[A]

Well, one way to really damage it is bleach with thermally treating the hair afterwards. But you know, I'm kind of interesting what they're interested in, what their basis was for deciding that what maybe is industry standard isn't necessarily enough for them.

[B]

Well, I think if we go through the paper we can see a bit here. So they made these trusses that were extra bleach, so extra damage. And then they didn't really have this hypothesis. Do these bond builders work? They were saying, can we create a repeatable lab damage hair model that lets us evaluate hair repair technology like the including. And they tested two commercial products, they tested the K18 and they tested Olaplex using various instrumentation tests. So here's what they did to keep things controlled. They had, they had a various number of tresses, they had a no treatment truss. I guess that's what they considered their bleach control. Then they had a single application of 10% Olaplex and a single application of 10% K18. So these are all different trusses. And then the researchers, they looked at everything from the appearance to the chemical bonding to mechanical strength using various analytical devices, SEM, afm, Raman spectroscopy, differentiating, scanning, calorimetry and even Elman's reagent to detect certain sulfur based chemical bonds. So in other words, they, you know, did every analytical lab test that they could probably think of. And this is all in a hopes to try to support the brand claim mechanisms of these things. So now Olaplex claims that it is creating stronger sulfur sulfur bonds within the hair.

[A]

Well, Olaplex used to claim that they since moved away from that language and they don't actually talk about building disulfide bonds on their product website anymore. I mean, I have all the old original Olaplex literature. You know, I worked at a salon brand so we were highly interested when it launched. But I, I mean that's something we'll discuss in it over the next couple minutes. That's something that's really hard to prove and likely not to happen. And I've gone head to head with other people about the mechanism because I do know a lot about protein chemistry and at this point bismill amido chemistry. So. Yeah, but they don't claim that anymore. They kind of shied away from that. They just say building bonds and let the consumer decide.

[B]

Well, I will say Olaplex did get a patent on this molecule that they use. And then the molecule is presumably bonds with free sulfur segments in the hair protein and, and creating these SR bonds. And then the idea in the patent was that then those R bonds will connect and then so that makes it stronger. But like you said, I guess they backed away from that because that's kind of difficult to claim. Which is interesting if you think about how were they able to get a patent. But here's a tip.

[A]

You can get a patent for lots of things they don't have to work.

[B]

The science that you see that you read in patents is only like theoretically, that's not proven science. So I'm skeptical of the science in a patent. All right, so what did they find? They did this study and they found that Olaplex acted more internally. And since it's a water based system, they said, oh, this penetrates deeply into the hair fiber and essentially was filling spaces inside the fiber. Now they, the authors attributed this mechanism to saying that, okay, now it's forming these SR bonds through this Michael addition process. So that kind of supports Olaplex's claim that there are some bonds being built. Now to prove this, they did some measuring things. So they did tensile strength. So they took fibers and after the treatment and then they stretched them and figured out how much stronger they were. And they said tensile strength was improved by almost 48%. Then they had brightness of the hair was 34% improved.

[A]

And then, which makes sense because if you have some with this treatment, presumably you also get some better fiber alignment. And so that will change the way light reflects off Hair.

[B]

Well, I have to say also that one of the things I'll get to that's disappointing in this is that they used Olaplex and K18 as the finished product. And so, yeah, a hair conditioner makes hair shinier. No kidding. They didn't, they didn't have a control. But let's, let's get to that. So anyway, they did find more, you know, through their analytical testing, they did find some more sulfur, so SR bonding, they had more of that than compared to K18. So that sort of suggested that there is some sort of reinforcement of the cortex going on. Now the K18 one, this one behaved more like a surface treatment. It's got a lipophilic base. It formed like an external coating on the fiber rather than getting inside. And the authors were not convinced that it was creating any new sulfur sulfur disulfide bonds. And their Raman spectroscopy, they did not show that either. So that's interesting based on what the brand claims.

[A]

Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, I guess I wouldn't have chosen these products to test against each other. First of all, they chose Olaplex number zero, which is kind of like a diluted Olaplex number one, which is the bond building treatment solution. And then they took the molecular repair hair mask, which is essentially a conditioner. And so of course The Olaplex number zero is going to be more watery and the K18 isn't. I don't know why they didn't do the K18. Isn't there a spray?

[B]

So I'm not sure it's fair to compare these two products because they kind of have different bases, right?

[A]

Yeah, it's not the products I would have chose to compare to each other.

[B]

Yeah. So with the K18 they said, oh, it improves so smoothness. There was less visible flaking and then the tensile strength for that one was up 20%. And then they said the changes were driven more by conditioning components than any structural protein repair, which, you know. So basically K18 made the surface look and feel better, but it wasn't actually doing anything to the internal structure. So I guess based on what's implied in this study is they said Olaplex does bonding and K18. Well, it does more conditioning of course, though.

[A]

But I mean, if they compared the number three to the K18 molecular repair mask, I could, you know, they would have something different. I just don't think they understand, understand the market. I know why they use the number zero because that's the non professional version. And so that's what they were able to get, but come on.

[B]

Well, I also think it's a huge miss that they didn't test just a basic conditioner because.

[A]

Yeah, or water.

[B]

Right. You're going to get tensile strength improvement in just using. Do you get that? Just improving using a conditioner? Because they say tensile strength was improved by 20% with the K18 and 48% with Olaplex. Well, I mean, first of all, you don't have any variants, so those could be the same number, you know, because there's. I don't know if you've ever done tensile strength tests, but the variance in those studies is huge.

[A]

So you have to do many, many, many.

[B]

Yeah, that could be like 48% plus or minus 40%. It could be anywhere.

[A]

Well, hopefully they reported it only if it were a statistically significant difference. But again, the control, you know, that they had was just bleached hair. It's not a good control. Of course it's going to perform better.

[B]

Now here was just some of the things that I noticed in this paper, which some people hold this up as like proving that this, these bond builders are great treatments. You know, in this study, first they don't have a placebo or a conditioner control. So a lot of the effects that you're seeing could be just because they used a conditioner on hair. So I, I don't know why they wouldn't do such a simple control, you know, but I guess you, you might do a simple control. I know why. Like raw material suppliers, they'll do studies like this all the time. They don't include a control because if they did a control, it would reduce the effect that you're seeing. So they have to make it less. And so maybe that's what they did here then they only used one application, you know, as a single use. How much effect are you going to get from a single use? I don't know. You might have got more effect over time, but.

[A]

Well, I don't disagree with that one. It'd be interesting to see Olaplex number one over time, which, you know, I've worked extensively with Olaplex and claims testing, but I think they advertise that the product does these things in one use. So I don't totally mind that they only looked at it once here. Yeah, I, I more have a problem with the hair that they looked it on.

[B]

Looked at it on. That's a good point. Yeah, they only looked at it on Caucasian bleached hair and it was a special bleached hair where they like over bleached it to get it super damaged.

You would want to see it on different types of hair and such to be able to, to make these claims. But I guess I can understand that and then their mechanism, the claims for the mechanism. I'm still not completely convinced that the study that these products are like bond rebuilding and you know, it showed maybe there's some internal reinforcement because maybe product is getting in there that's not necessarily has anything to do with the bonding. So I don't know. The bottom line for me and these studies is I'm not convinced that these products really create extra bonds in the hair that are going to substantially affect the strength of the hair.

[A]

I think the products that they chose, not the Olaplex number zero, but the K18, I think it led to a lot of complexity in the results. So FT is really great to use on a hair fiber to look at all the different types of bonds that are present. But they had a lot of noise and over overlap that they couldn't really discern to mean anything. And I, I think had they used maybe the K18 spray, that would have been presumably removed a lot of the noise from the different molecules. Also, you know, they did these tests, but the method in which they're done is really important. And I didn't see that they used a partner that has a lot of experience doing these types of tests. So for example, they did a lot of thermal analysis which looks at the denaturation temperature of hair protein. And presumably if you've improved hair's strength or restored the keratin, the keratin won't denature as easily. But this test is very easy to not do. Well, pretty much you could do it and the results don't necessarily come out in some kind of meaningful way. So there's a ton of technique involved and these are a lot of very specific tests to do. So I hope they partnered with a facility that's expertised in this because I wasn't under the impression that this was necessarily a hair research group.

[B]

Right. This looks like the kind of thing that maybe tri, the Textile Research Institute, would be good at doing, but.

[A]

Or the Deutsche Volt Forschung. Yeah, the German version of tri.

[B]

They must have done this like a group like that must have done a study like that. They probably haven't published it or something so.

[A]

Well, I mean often the work at these organizations is contracted by clients, so you can't necessarily publish it. But they do do some publishing and, you know, there is a lot of research on. Again, that's why I was surprised the university folks thought the hair wasn't damaged enough, because there's tons of literature out there that talks about how to damage hair for this type of work.

[B]

All right, well, the bottom line is if you use Olaplex or K18 and they make your hair feel better, you know, that's great. But I'm still a little skeptical of whether they're creating these bonds in your hair that are substantially changing the hair and can be miracles on a molecular level. To me, the fact that they still use conditioning ingredients in their formulas says to me that, you know, mostly you're getting good conditioning.

[A]

Well, I think it goes back to the fact that with hair, it's a physical material. Right. And so let's say you technically can rebuild bonds within the hair. And I always have said from. For several years, and many people are now repeating this, that it is extremely difficult and almost nearly impossible to rebuild disulfide bonds as they were in hair. And in my talk, I go through the chemistry, why? And it's more likely that they're rebuilding nitrogen bonds and hydrogen bonds, especially olaplexis technology at the ph it's working in. It's primarily rebuilding nitrogen bonds, which your hair has tons of. So I'm not discounting that they don't work. I'm discounting what they're purporting to do, which is rebuilding disulfide bonds, which is only one part of hair strength.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And so if we take that aside, let's assume they're really doing it. A consumer doesn't feel hair bonds being rebuilt. They feel their damaged hair still. Right. So you have to have the conditioning element, otherwise a consumer is not going to think it works. So I guess in some way it's a little bit, you know, it's hard because it's like, well, does it really work? It's like, well, I don't know. My hair feels good. And at the end of the day, that's kind of all that matters.

[B]

Right? Right. And is it. Is the. Do the bonds matter or not? Not as much as the conditioning, not.

[A]

As much as the conditioning. We have some more listener feedback from Melissa. She had a comment from episode 411. At the end of the podcast, we were talking about hair losing its color, and we mentioned some big words about ingredients that help prevent hair color from fading as quickly. But she was interested in actual products that maybe have some of these ingredients. We talked about, like amodimethicone so, Perry, she wants to know, can we list some products that prevent color loss?

[B]

Well, there are lots of products that contain ammo. Dimethicone. It's a. It's a pretty common hair product.

You know. You know, it's. Redken has one, so I'm sure l' Oreal has products with it in there. Do you have some specific one that you find good?

[A]

Well, I always recommend to look for a brand that specifically advertises to be color protecting, but not just using the words. Most specifically, they have to tell you the results that they got in their color safety studies. To me, that means the product is really color protecting because safe for colored hair is a different claim test than color protecting. But there is a product I did some work on in my prior salon life. Paul Mitchell Clean Beauty. The hydrate shampoo and conditioner. The color safety studies were phenomenal on even just the shampoo alone. Usually all shampoos strip color. This one did an incredible job at leaving the color intact, even though it's not positioned as a color safety or color protecting collection. And then we also, of course, did the conditioner with it because that's what most companies do is they test the shampoo and conditioner because the. The conditioner is always color protecting, so you get better data. But the Paul Mitchell Clean Beauty hydrate is. Yeah. An example of a non color protecting collection where I was like, holy cow. This is like, pretty good.

[B]

Well, there you go. There's a couple of products you can check out. And of course, we don't take sponsorship from anybody, so take that.

[A]

And I actually did that testing data, so it's not like I'm just spouting a recommendation. Yeah, I, you know, was responsible for all that claims testing.

[B]

And if you can find it, you probably can't. But the Tresemme had this color lock technology where you sprayed it in your hair and it kept your hair coloring longer. It's probably not on the market anymore, but I know that technology worked.

[A]

Wow. Well, maybe they still use it. You never know. Maybe they'll go through their old filing cabinet that Unilever threw out and they'll.

[B]

See a 0.44% in one of the formulas. Because that's a Romanowski.

[A]

Oh, my goodness. Well, we have a ton of beauty questions today. Let's go over there.

First question comes to us from Kiara. How can you figure out when a company markets a specific ingredient as distinctive of the product, but it's really ingredient sprinkling? When in 99% of the cases, the beauty company does not disclose the ingredients percentages. P.S. i found some useful content on this by Due's co founder, Charlotte Palermo.

[B]

Charlotte Palermo. I've, I've never, I've never heard of her.

[A]

You don't know Charlotte?

[B]

No, I looked it up and she's some sort of esthetician and she's got like 350,000 followers on Instagram.

[A]

So she does a lot of skin education, skin care education. Now she has her own brand. Own brand. Due, I remember when it was started, started as a. I felt like it was positioned as a CBD brand, but now I don't, I don't know if that's the case. And then they had this transparent pricing strategy where they actually disclose to you all of the. The cost of their product. I don't, I don't think they do that anymore either. Maybe they do. I haven't been to their website in a long time. But, you know, they're very successful. At least, you know, they appear to be successful online and they have a cool lab in New York City. And Charlotte's, you know, a recognizable face in the beauty science communication field.

[B]

Ah, well, so she must have some sort of tips on searching for ingredients because I certainly have some ideas myself.

[A]

Well, the. What I've seen on the social media content, honestly, is not much different from what's already on the Internet.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

You know, look for. If they disclose percentages or go to their website, I go to their literature, see if they have anything sprinkled somewhere else. And you know, of course the 1% line rule, which I absolutely just get so annoyed anytime says the 1% line rule because to me that's a silly thing to look for because everyone thinks they have formulating figured out like, oh, let me look for phenoxyethanol. It's 1%, but actually most phenoxyethanol occurs in blends.

[B]

Right.

[A]

And it's almost always under 1%. So I don't think it's a good 1%.

[B]

Judge 1% is kind of sensitizing or something. Phenoxy, ethanol.

[A]

Well, that's the maximum limit.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Some people do use the blend at 1%, but that puts the phenoxy under 1% and you can put it anywhere you want to in the inkey list. So I just. There's other ways to look for 1%, but I just think they're all. From a consumer perspective, I think they're absolutely, absolutely invaluable. And the other reason I get annoyed when people try to say, oh, well, if it's not above 1%, forget about it. There are so many ingredients that actually are used at very tiny levels that have a lot of great clinical support and efficacy from them. Peptides are an example and ceramides are another example. You actually use 0.1% or less active of these raw materials materials. So I don't think you need them.

[B]

Cationic polymers like guar hydroxypropyl trimonium chloride, you use it at 0.2%, maybe up to 0.5%, but it's well under 1%. You wouldn't use that much. Another ingredient you can think of. If you think, you know, under 1% doesn't matter. Just think of the dyes in your products. Those are put in the products at 0.0001% and you still get colored product. So you know that just because an ingredient is under 1% doesn't mean it's not doing anything. It can be doing a lot.

[A]

Well, I think, you know, the question here is how do we know if they're using in air quotes an efficacious level of an ingredient or are they just sprinkling it in the product? And at the end of the day, I kind of say it doesn't matter because in reality, the clinical testing that any company company is going to be doing is on the product as a whole. And so sometimes you might not even use a meaningful amount, meaning a high level of an ingredient, but you have lots of things at lower levels that maybe synergistically do the claim that the product is saying it's doing. And at the end of the day that's the most important thing, like is the product working or not? So I actually would focus less and care less about what ingredients the companies are talking talking about.

[B]

Right?

[A]

I mean, yeah, it's interesting to know the how, but sometimes the how isn't in one ingredient story or two ingredient stories. I would actually look for the clinical testing.

[B]

I would agree. I don't think consumers knowing percentages of ingredients is very helpful at all. It's put on stuff. Some people put it on their products for marketing because they assume that consumers will think, well, if it's in a high level, it's going to work better. But you could have ingredients in exactly the same level, but if they're in a different base or a different delivery system, they're going to have a different impact. And so honestly, when it comes down to it, consumers can't really know are somebody just sprinkling an ingredient in or are they putting it in at effective levels? Now you can know when you see a product that has, like, botanicals in it, aloe vera or jojoba oil or those kinds of things, those are almost always put in at just tiny amounts because those ingredients don't have as big an effect as some other less expensive, but more chemically sounding ingredients would have. And so there. Those are always just going to be marketing ingredients because the amounts of levels you'd have to put it in there aren't going to work as well, and they would cost way too much. So, you know. But when it comes down to it, I don't think consumers can really know. Is a company fooling you or not? Besides looking at the clinical studies that they say they can support.

[A]

Exactly. Our next question comes to us from Jenny.

[B]

Well, Jenny says, is hair damaged by heatless curls? I like to do heatless curls overnight, so no chemicals or heat is involved in the curling of the hair. But is this still damaging to hair? I think not more than normal wear and tear. But I have been wondering if there's more to it. Have you used these heatless curls, Valerie?

[A]

The question is, have you used them?

[B]

I have definitely not. They're these. I remember these little pink things that we used to have in the salon, and they would get the hair wet, and they would wrap it around them, and I guess you. You just let it dry, and then that curls the hair. But I guess that'll. It'll keep a curl. Based on what? Hydrogen bonding and such. But kind of like when you get bedhead, you go to sleep, and you wake up and your hair's flying around, and you can't just mat it down, Right?

[A]

Exactly. So with these heatless curls, you do take, like, a soft and silky rod. That's the typical method. And you start with slightly damp hair. So not wet hair, but hair that's, you know, maybe like 90% dry. You want a tiny bit of moisture on it. So some of the hydrogen bonds are still dissolved within the hair. And essentially, you wrap your hair around this rod, and how tight you wrap the hair, meaning how close is the hair wrapped to the next wrapping, is how tight the curl curls will be. And so you essentially go to bed. So you're wearing these rods for many, many hours. Your hair dries, your hydrogen bonds reform in the new shape, and when you remove the rods, voila, you have heatless curls. So really, it's nothing new. I would say technology, very. That's what I used to do as a kid. If I wanted wavy hair, I would go to hair with braids. Right. Or, you know, using socks was another method. Sock curl pearls, I think, is what my mom did for us. Or sometimes even just like those pink foam rollers that you're talking about.

[B]

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, sure.

[A]

So nothing new, right.

[B]

But as far as damaging goes, you're right. It's. It's going to be less damaging than. Certainly less damaging than a perm. Probably less damaging than a curling iron. Curling irons you put in heat right on there. But I would also think that these are not going to hold as well as the. Those other technologies. So you'll get a curl, a bend, but it'll come out pretty easily once it gets a little moisture.

[A]

I definitely recommend some kind of product to help with that curl retention, especially afterwards, once you've released the hair. I mean, he is definitely more effective at creating curl and that curl longevity because you can diffuse more throughout the hair fiber. Whereas when your hair is damp, you know, most of your hydrogen bonds and your salt bridges are already dry. So, you know, you're not getting as much holding your hair in that new curl pattern. So there's that. But from a damage perspective, I think it's definitely way less damaging to the hair than a thermal device. As I mentioned before in the bleaching study that we talked about with Olaplex and K18, when you really want to trash hair, you bleach it and then you put a flat iron over it. A heat is so stressful and so terrible for hair. When I was at the salon brand, I actually created a device that used different imagery. We. It was an existing device, but we custom fitted it to my purposes. And we were able to image hair using different, you know, settings in this device. And we could tell when people were putting too much heat on their hair. Certain imagery that we had would pick that up. And it was always a telltale like, wow, this person needs to put the curling iron down. But, yeah, so very damaging to the fiber. So definitely less damaging. I mean, any time you physically manipulate your hair, you run the risk of some light damage to it, but would a consumer notice? I don't think so. I mean, to me, it's no different than letting your hair air dry. And I know a lot of people say air drying is worse than thermal protection. Based off one really unrealistic study that was done. I see many derms touting that online, and it's really frustrating, but I think you're totally fine to do this method. Yeah.

[B]

And if you want to hold the girls. Yeah. Put on some hairspray because that'll hold it.

[A]

Exactly. Our third question comes to us from Rita. Hi, beauty brains. I'm a big fan from Portugal. I've gone back and re listened to several of your episodes on hair dyes and dye shampoos, but I can't find any episodes that cover a similar formulation to Milkshake Direct Color. I'm baffled by it, and it makes some ambitious claims, but I'm looking at the ingredient list, and. And I can't figure out what actually helps the color last as long as they promise. I would think the color would be gone in one wash. It's ammonium peroxide free. Am I missing something like mea in the formula? If so, should they really be claiming that Milkshake Direct Color respects hair structure without modification? I only have about five individual gray hairs, and I don't want to damage my hair just to cover them. Is this brand being honest in their claims? Will my hair structure really be on untouched? Thank you so much.

[B]

Now, presumably you've worked, you know, this brand anyway, because you're very much into the hair color. But this is. This is what, a shampoo, A color in product.

[A]

This is a direct color product. So, for example, it's a lightweight conditioning base. And then they have dyes present inside. Like, for example, for purple, they use acid violet 43. And these dyes, you can directly see the color of them. I mean, they call it direct color. And so the dyes, you can. There's no chemical reaction required. They. The color that you see is the color that you get, and they stick to the hair.

[B]

They essentially stain the hair, then.

[A]

They stain the hair. Yep.

[B]

Yeah. So it's like if you spill, like, Kool Aid on your white T shirt, and you get a. You get a color that doesn't come out. That's kind of how these things work. They sort of adhere to the surface of the hair fibers, and then they show themselves because they're chromatic molecules. And so that's how they. Which is unlike, like, a permanent color, which is. Goes into the hair fiber, and then there's a polymerization reaction, and then that polymer shows off the color. So these are different in that. But the question is, how do these things not get rinsed out? And I guess it's because they bond to the surface.

[A]

Right, Exactly. Hair has a lot of negative charges on it, and it has to do with. I mean, for the consumer purposes, we'll call it ph of the hair. But essentially, hair almost always exists in a negatively charged state. Even more if you've damaged it through Other treatments. So dyes that are primarily positively charged to stick to these negatively charged sites on hair.

[B]

Yeah, and so that's. In that way they work there. Now, as far as it affecting hair structure, I don't think these things negatively affect hair structure any more than just like a regular hair conditioner. They are pretty much surface level ingredients.

[A]

Well, I think what the milk shape Pro, which is this is part of the Pro color line, is referring to is that it doesn't require a chemical reaction action to see the color. Therefore, there's nothing penetrating the hair fiber, you know, modifying bonds, creating oxidation byproducts. It literally is just working on the outside. So in a way, they're making their color look better or like it's doing something that other color isn't. But really like, all color in that category works that way. They're not doing anything special. That other color that uses the same technology does.

[B]

They don't have a special technology. There's like everyone else's. But as far as whether that gets washed out. Yeah, these direct dyes get washed out more quickly than a permanent dye, which is inside the fiber.

[A]

Unless you hate the color, then it stays forever. That's a little joke.

[B]

You know, some. Some stains you can't even get out of your clothes ever.

[A]

I know. Depending on the dye. Yeah. Some of the dyes, just. Some of the dyes just really love the hair. They really do.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

But what Rita is asking is how is it that they can make the color last as long? And I mean, I'm sure all of their colors last a different length of time. They're all made up of different dyes, and different dyes stay on the hair for a different amount of time.

[B]

Right.

[A]

But what provide some color longevity probably could be phenyl trimethicone. It's a really great color protectant. It coats the hair fiber, and as long as you don't wash it out, you should be pretty good with it. The challenge with this type of color is you can't make it too conditioning because then the conditioners are competing for the same spots on the hair as the dyes. So we've addressed that. Will hair structure really be untouched? Yes, this is a surface level product. But, Perry, do you think that. That the things they're saying are true? Are they being honest in their claims?

[B]

I generally trust the honesty of companies when they make claims, but what I think companies do do is that they write things in a way where a consumer will have a different takeaway than what they're actually saying.

[A]

Very Good point.

[B]

So it's a, it's. I don't, I don't think companies generally rely, in fact, it's against the law to lie in advertising. So if you're going to make a claim in your advertising, you're going to have some way to substantiate that test to say, oh, this isn't a lie here it is. But it might be giving you an impression of some claim they're making that there aren't actually making. So yeah, it's tricky to read claims.

[A]

Yeah. And when I actually went to the website and read everything, in my opinion, they were not saying anything that is not just inherent to the type of color they're producing. I don't felt that they made strong claims. So to me, this is not much different than any other direct, direct dye. I mean, they have a lot of shades.

[B]

Sure, sure.

[A]

You know, it looks really, you know, the branding is really great. I wonder why the brand is called Milkshake. But that's probably a different story. Don't drink it. These probably will kill you.

[B]

Maybe it's from like that, that song, My Milkshake brings on the bones. Please, no, please don't.

[A]

Now I'm never gonna get it out of my head. Oh my God.

[B]

No.

[A]

But if you're honestly looking for gray coverage, I don't recommend this technology. I recommend conventional hair color. Yeah, it just, they don't, they're not really attracted to gray hairs that much. Ah.

[B]

Yeah. They're attracted more to damaged hair. So if you damage your gray hair.

[A]

Maybe.

[B]

Maybe.

[A]

Yeah. But even then gray hair is interesting because it's almost like the cuticles. Like glass. Glass almost. So I just, I don't recommend it for gray coverage.

[B]

All right, we ready to move on to our next question. Boy, oh boy, the time is going by. Here we go. This one comes to us from Dasi says regarding cyclotetrasiloxane in spray products. In the Kristin S. Blow dry spray. It's the very first ingredient. Could you comment on why a well known hair care company would put that ingredient to a spray given the known radio risk? I don't consider Kristen S. A small company. Maybe I'm uninformed. So it's not likely to fly under the radar or have someone on staff who'd question this. Not sure if your monitor questions here, but just curious on your thoughts on that. I think this was originally a YouTube question and then I don't really see the YouTube comments much, but we do have the, the form in our show notes where you can Put in a question. And that's where this came from.

[A]

Yeah, I actually haven't been to our YouTube yet. I mean, I guess I could peruse, you know, the Spotify and the Apple comments we get because they, like, get emailed to us, which is pretty nice when people, you know, on Buzzsprout have a question or whatnot. So it's pretty nice.

[B]

First of all, cyclotetrasiloxane, she says it's given it's an ingredient with a known risk. It's just strange because what's the known risk?

[A]

Well, in the eu, they have restricted it because they feel it is a CMR material, meaning carcinogenic, mutagenic, reproductively toxic, harmful to human health.

[B]

Really. I thought that was just an environmental thing because it does one of those things that does build up in the.

[A]

Environment, but that's cyclopentasiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane.

Let me, let me back up. So basically, cyclotetrasiloxane in Europe is restricted for human health, and cyclopenta siloxane is restricted for environmental health. And so in Europe, you essentially are not allowed to use them. And they can only be present as impurities in other silicone products, up to 0.1% in the raw material. Now, in other geographies like the United States, Canada, I believe Australia, they've also done extensive research into cyclotetrasiloxane and cyclopentisloxane. And they don't have the same opinion as the EU does on the safety of these ingredients. And so therefore, you're permitted to basically use them. I mean, I feel like Canada.

You know, they did determine there is some level of exposure, but it's, you know, of course, with use level, and I think that's everywhere, but, you know, you're still permitted to use these things. Except in California, they've restricted cyclotetrasiloxane as part of AB496. But there's no scientific basis for that other than a politician wrote a bill and said it should be banned and people voted on it.

So there is a worldwide disagreement on the safety a of these materials. So I think, you know, if you live in Europe, you might even also feel that they're safe for use, but they're still, still restricted, one for human health, the other for the environment. And Canada, actually, 15 years ago, led tons of studies on the environmental fate of these products, and they actually determined they're not a detriment to the environment because they do degrade. They just Just don't biodegrade and they don't accumulate.

[B]

Well, in looking up, it seems like the EU's primary concern of D4 are the environmental ones. But they did flag as a possible human health issue is the possibility of toxicity. Yeah. In animals at really high levels. So that means it's classified as a suspected of damaging fertility, but really only in high dose animal studies and so not anything that humans would ever be exposed to. So I guess that was the basis for that. But the bottom line is the reason that a company would still use this is first, not everyone agrees with that it's a dangerous health issue and not everybody agrees that it's an environmental issue. Now, I think the environmental issue is more of an issue than. Than the health thing because I'm skeptical that silicones, which are pretty much inert, are going to cause, you know, human health problems.

[A]

Exactly. Now, Perry, remember when you were at IFSCC and I made you walk around taking pictures of all these posters for me because I couldn't be there?

[B]

Yes, I do recall.

[A]

We'll take a look at your Rolodex because one of them is actually a poster on silicone degradation pathways. Because I've been following this for quite a long time. Because people think silicones are horrible for the environment because they don't biodegrade, but they do degrade. And they degrade from different things in different pathways down to fundamental chemical products that are not harmful. This poster did a great summation on all of the modeling of air degradation, water degradation, soil degradation, and some of the lengths of time that it takes. And actually some of the degradation is faster than biodegradative pathways.

[B]

Wow. Okay.

[A]

So more to come in that area. So I wouldn't even say they're necessarily horrible for the environment, and especially given that several geographies also agree with that.

[B]

Right. And just because regulators around the world come to some conclusion about ingredients doesn't mean that that's necessarily science based or even true. The EU is a little bit more regulatory happy than the United States, except in the area of sunscreen. The US we are much more strict.

[A]

In our sunscreens and colorants. I would say the US is more strict in colorants.

[B]

Right, There you go. So it is strange how that varies like regulations. Why? You would think if it's all just science based, we'd all come to the same conclusions, but we don't. So that's why a company like Kristin S Blow Dry Spray is still using this ingredient, even though in some other areas regulators think that it's a problem.

[A]

Well, also I'll say. I'll say two things. One, in California on January 1st, they will not be able to sell this product, hold store, distribute, manufacture it. So after January 1, 2027, not 26, you'll see this product disappear from the California market. Maybe they'll reformulate it. The second piece is just in general. Historically when I formulate sprays, we never use the cyclic silicones. Our toxicologists never approved them for that use. Now every toxicologist may be have a different interpretation of the data, but we were never allowed to put cyclic materials into sprays out of an abundance of precaution for health. Our toxicologist was based in the eu so they maybe also follow this precautionary principle. But nonetheless that wasn't an issue. The other piece is Kristen S may appear like a large brand, but that doesn't mean they necessarily have all the resources or are doing all the things to make sure that they're making the best decision for their formulations. I'm not saying they're not, but I just wouldn't assume that they're a large brand. So they have all these resources or people who would question it or whatnot.

[B]

They might also just be using a contract manufacturer to make this for them.

[A]

That's my point exactly. Like they might not have all the things that you think. Like most brands actually don't have their own R and D facilities.

[B]

Right. You can be a really big brand and not have your own manufacturing facilities.

[A]

Or not have your own regulatory people or not do toxicology reviews of the formulas or.

[B]

Well, it looks like we have time.

[A]

For one more comes to us from Harsha.

[B]

I want to make a hair color product with conditioning benefits like a hair mask. What would be the best conditioning aid or strategy for a hair color product which could maximize the wet and dry conditioning benefits? Considering that hair colors typically operate at alkaline ph, what are your thoughts on using silicones in hair colors and how much conditioning can be deposited with the conventional system? And suggest an alternative method for doing to get your best Hirsha. Now this sounds like a formulating question and so one of our formulation fans, but. All right, so can you make a hair color that also can condition the hair?

[A]

You can. It won't be a very good hair color. And this is because conditioning agents are competing one, for the same sites on the hair.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

And two, when they do attach to the hair, they create a steric hindrance, which means the molecules are so big they can block other molecules from effectively penetrating the hair fiber. And so for this reason, this is why you don't see a lot of conditioning permanent hair color products on the market, because it impacts the color uptake, color longevity and so forth.

[B]

So there is a steric hindrance and these ingredients interfere and so the colors don't deposit as well.

[A]

Exactly. So for this reason, you can't put a lot of conditioning agents in now you can put silicones if you'd like. Companies do it all the time. So that's one way because it helps coat the hair fiber and doesn't necessarily hinder as much as, let's say a quaternized conditioning material.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

Would. But even just given the high PH system, most of these conditioning agents aren't in a positively charged state anyway because of the alkalinity of the system. So the conditioning agents ipso facto might not even really stick. So that being said, that's why many brands focus on the aftercare and what you apply afterwards once you have the.

[B]

Hair color removed, it's always easier to deliver conditioning as a secondary thing when it's in a different product like a two in one shampoo. It can clean your hair and provide a little conditioning, but it's never going to be as good as a shampoo and then a condition conditioner. So delivering benefits separately generally works especially for conditioning.

[A]

Exactly. So sorry, Harsha, the answer is not more in depth. Also, you know, we typically don't go into formulation details on the show, but maybe that gives you a little insight about the challenge of creating conditioning hair color.

[B]

You know what she could do? She could send in unasked [e-mail].

[A]

Yeah, alternatively we, you know, we are a consulting service so we'd be happy to aid in her formulation. Yeah.

[B]

Contact her directly. Do you hear that music?

[A]

I do. Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, head over to Apple Podcasts or Spotify and leave us a review that's going to help other people find the show and ensure we have a full docket of beauty questions to answer.

[B]

And if you don't mind your voice on the show and you want have a question, just record, record it on your smartphone and email it to thebeautybrainsmail.com or you can use the form that's in the show notes of this episode. And if you'd like to just leave us a message, go to 1-872-216-1856.

[A]

Can you say that in a voice of like, you know, it's like a, you know, almost like you're having a furniture sale and people need to call in to get the special.

[B]

Sure. Let me say if I can say that better. You can call 1-872-216-1856.

[A]

We'll work on it.

[B]

We'll see if anyone, we'll see if anyone calls. Hey, speaking of anyone, you know, we have patrons that help support the show. If you notice, our show doesn't have commercials and that's because we don't take advertising money. But the show does cost a little bit to run. So if you want to support the show, go to patreon.com the Beginning Beauty brains and subscribe at any level. You get a higher priority of your questions getting answered and you get a transcript of the show.

[A]

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

[B]

Yeah, that's we are out there and actually we're publishing stuff on YouTube now. So there we go.

[A]

That's great. Well, thanks again for listening everyone. And remember, be brainy about your beauty.

[B]

Thanks everyone.