← The Beauty Brains
The Beauty Brains
Sunscreen scandals, Busted celebrity brands & beauty questions answered - episode 407
00:53:01
Loading summary
Transcript175 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hi, I'm Perry and you're listening to the Beauty Brains. Hello and 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 407. I'm your host, Perry Romanowski, and with me today is Valerie George. Hello, Valerie.
- [00:31]
B
Hi, Perry.
- [00:32]
A
Hey, Valerie. We got lots of questions since we were off for like three weeks because I was traveling and we just couldn't connect and the questions have been building up. So today we are going to cover some ones that were sent in recently, including. Is the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology a reliable source for peptide information? How do you know if a product with an active ingredient has enough to be effective? Does topical estrogen improve the skin? Do at home microneedling devices work? And do you need to use Hypochlaris spray for skin care? And finally, is a salon detangler different than the ones you can buy at regular stores? But first, Valerie, it's been a while.
- [01:18]
B
Where have you been? Perry, I know you went to France. I was supposed to go on that trip and baby cosmetic chemists totally ruined everything. In a good way. Sure, but you were gone forever.
- [01:31]
A
You know, I was gone for 20 something days, actually. When I go on trips, I always do a thing called trip notes where I write down exactly what I do all day. So like what time I wake up, what? You know, my wife hates these trip notes because sometimes I'll put. Wife got annoyed with me because of whatever thing.
- [01:52]
B
I already hate them myself. Yeah, yeah.
- [01:55]
A
Overall, the trip was awesome. We were in. We were in Nice, then we were in Cannes, which I used to call Cannes or Cannes, but it's Cannes, France. Okay, then. Then we headed to all parts of Switzerland from Lauterbrunnen to Lucerne. Ended up in Zurich, so went to a bunch of the mountain places. So it's very cool. I was out there for the IFSCC congress, which was three days of scientific education about cosmetic products. And boy, there was a lot of it. You couldn't even keep up with it. There were so many presentations.
- [02:33]
B
You couldn't even keep up with my request list because I had you running all over the place taking pictures of posters and making sure I could get what I needed even though I couldn't attend.
- [02:44]
A
That is so true. There were, there were like, you know, 800 posters. It was hard to see them all. And then there was like 60 something presentations. It was very interesting stuff and it's good to see that there is some science Going on in the cosmetic industry.
- [03:01]
B
We were also speaking of the industry. We were also recently on the radio.
- [03:05]
A
Yeah, we did this interview in early September, and it ended up at how on earthradio.org and so I'll include a link to it. I did not listen to the replay. Did you. Did you get a chance to listen?
- [03:20]
B
I listened to part of it. Mr. Cosmetic Chemist got really annoyed with me, so I had to turn it off. But essentially, it's a radio station that's part of the Denver Public Radio Network or whatnot. Public radio, essentially. And it's a scientist who interviews other scientists. And it was fun to talk a little bit about what we do.
- [03:41]
A
Yeah. And I didn't actually come out and say that if I had only one product, it would be toothpaste that I carry around all the time like on that other show we did. But, yeah, that's fun. I always appreciate doing interviews with you and some other show, so that's fun.
- [03:58]
B
I forgot about that interview. That was with jvn. Jonathan Van Ness.
- [04:02]
A
Yes, that's right.
- [04:03]
B
That was, I think, one of the most fun interviews I ever did. Oh, goodness.
- [04:07]
A
It was a blessed.
- [04:08]
B
Well, yeah, I really didn't do much. Pretty Kitty's missing. We haven't seen her in a while. Yeah, it's. It's not looking good. Patches came over. Patches only comes over when she wants to tell me, like, something crazy happened. And she came over right when I was like, hey, wait a second. I haven't seen Pretty Kitty for a while, but the kittens are alive and well. One of them almost came up to me. We'll see what happens.
- [04:33]
A
Well, that's fun. You know, I was. I left my outdoor cats alone for, well, three weeks or something, and I came back and Dreamsicle greeted me as I was getting out of the cab to go back into my house with all my luggage, Little Dreamsicle comes running.
- [04:49]
B
How cute.
- [04:51]
A
Yeah, he missed me. But then the other five, they were all around, too, so everybody's good. And I guess they don't need me as much as I imagine they do.
- [05:01]
B
Oh, goodness.
- [05:03]
A
Well, speaking of imagine, let's imagine some of this beauty news and see what we've had. First story that I saw was that Washington State reportedly has banned formaldehyde preservatives. And this is an interesting one for me because when I first started in the industry, the standard preservatives we would go with was methylparaben and DMDM hydantoin. It's a blend of preservatives, which just works. And it's adaptable to so many different systems, and it works really well. But now, if you're gonna follow the laws in Washington state, you're not allowed to use it. Washington state is the first US state to ban 25 formaldehyde releasing chemicals in cosmetics, effective January 1, 2027. Although they're allowing you to sell through December 31, 2027. The ban extends the state's Toxic Free cosmetics Act of 2023, addressing concerns that formaldehyde and its releasers are carcinogens used to extend product shelf life. The ban covers intentionally added formaldehyde releasing compounds beyond just the 25 that they had listed with detectable formaldehyde, presumably intentionally added. So, yeah, that was passed there. Now, even California didn't get that intensive day.
- [06:34]
B
Not yet. I'll tell you, I was part of an advocacy group that really tried to get the Department of Ecology, which is the group in Washington state essentially trying to enforce this legislation. And I just tried to explain to them, like, look, you say that you're doing this to help protect populations, especially disproportionately unprotected populations. And the reality is, a lot of people use these preservatives. They're used safely. They've been used for decades and decades and decades. The amount of formaldehyde released is so tiny, even if the maximum amount of preservative were used and the maximum amount of formaldehyde were released, there would be more formaldehyde in a banana. I literally wrote that in this statement with all this scientific evidence to the state of Washington. So are you regulating fruit? Are you telling people don't eat fruit? No, it's just they're unfairly targeting cosmetic products.
- [07:36]
A
I just think it makes it seem like they're doing something. It's just like the theater safety. They're not making products safer.
- [07:42]
B
In fact, you could argue they're making them unsafer more.
- [07:46]
A
Right, right. Because we're replacing it with stuff that we don't know how well it works or how safe it is. It just. It's a replacement. It hasn't been studied nearly as long.
- [07:56]
B
And a lot of these replacements will drive up cost. Because these are affordable preservatives. You don't need to use them at high levels because they're super effective. And so now you have to put more expensive things in. And so prices of products will just go up. The other thing is a lot of these, you know, clean preservative alternatives cause contact dermatitis or irritation of skin, or there's some part of the population that has sensitivity to them. So I actually think this was a big miss by the state of Washington.
- [08:28]
A
Well, we'll see if it goes through because on some level the epa, the FDA is supposed to be regulating the ingredients that go into cosmetics. And I can't imagine that if we're going to have this patchwork of state regulations that that's going to last very long. I know a bunch of other states have tried to do this. Minnesota, I think they passed something like that. My home state of Illinois, I think they tried to pass something like this. And I think once, maybe the fda, I'll step in and say, ah, you can't do that. Washington state. And because they have the MOCRA thing going on. Right. And MOCRA was supposed to look at some formaldehyde donating preservatives.
- [09:11]
B
Well, the way Mokra is situated right now is that states are allowed to make their own rules according to ingredient regulations, except for coal tar hair dyes, so. Or basically colorants as well. So. And OTC products. So states can't touch that, but they can do anything else when it comes to ingredient restrictions. And I think the FDA does need to step in and do something because it's really hard for a brand to be like, oh wait, I can ship here, but not here here. It's expensive to reformulate and at the end of the day, the products just aren't safer.
- [09:45]
A
Right, right. So, well, you know, politicians are passing these laws and they don't really care what scientists are saying. But that's just how our country is going these days, unfortunately.
- [09:58]
B
I saw one interesting thing in the news. Well, a couple things, but the first is ChatGPT now has an online marketplace.
- [10:06]
A
Like you can buy cosmetics through ChatGPT.
- [10:10]
B
What it's going to recommend products based on ChatGPT searches. And so brands basically have to partner and opt in. So essentially this is a monetizing machine for ChatGPT. And for some reason I always thought ChatGPT or these AI things were supposed to be unbiased, but I don't know. Now it feels like there's going to be bias because it, it's like, well, who paid? Glossier is one of them.
- [10:42]
A
Right, Right. Well, I mean, ultimately these AIs are going to have to start making money somehow. And making money with just prescriptions, no, not prescription subscriptions is probably not going to cover the cost that they're put. They're dumping into these. So, you know, they haven't had advertising either. And that certainly will go away. Look what happened to Google Remember Google when it first started out? Maybe there's an ad here or there. Now I can't use Google. You go to Google, you ask something and 80% of the page is just ads or sponsored content. It's just a lot of junk out there. And I think ultimately these AIs are going to do the same thing because they need to make money somehow, I guess, sadly. So, yeah, this seems just like that. You know, if you pay enough, Chat GPT will tell you to go buy this product.
- [11:37]
B
Well, I'm not a fan of Chat GPT and I'm not a fan of biased stuff. Just like we don't take ads. I feel like it's like Chat GPT taking advertisements. I don't like it.
- [11:48]
A
Yeah, well, I'm with you there. But you know, that's, I guess that's a way that they can try to make money some. You know, the formaldehyde was being banned. I also saw there was another big brouhaha about another ingredient being banned. It's the TPO was being banned in nail polish. Now TPO is an ingredient used in gel nail polishes. It's, what do you call it, a plasticizer. It makes the gelling happen. And the European, the European Union is now prohibiting the use of this ingredient. TPO is trimethylbenzyl diphenyl phosphine oxide. It's classified as a reproductive toxin by European regulators. And so now they're saying you can't use that in your gel nail polishes anymore. And so this is, this was caused quite a hubbub. I think it's the same with, you know, the formaldehyde donor things is the use, the exposure levels that you get on this are so tiny that, that it's never going to manifest itself in any human condition. There's never been any proof that these things have reproductive problems for humans the way that we use them in nail polishes. But Europe is, we're of the opinion that it's better to be safe than sorry. I guess what they did here, it's.
- [13:13]
B
Definitely a precautionary hazard based approach which is not reflected in reality. So of course I had to hit up the nail guru, Doug Schoon, who knows everything about nails. And I said, what is the big deal? Because it feels like this restriction is not cool and just the way it blew up in the papers. And essentially what happened is there are some studies where they force fed TPO to rats and looked at what would happen and they basically said, wow, this is a carcinogen. It has to be banned. But they only looked at oral feeding in rats. They didn't do any other exposure conditions. And in reality, in nail polish formulations, there's such a small amount of this added. You're not going to ingest it, you're not going to inhale it. It's cured on the nail. Very little actually goes through the nail plate. And so the actual risk is extremely, extremely low, negligible. So why would they ban it? But that's how the EU works. They do a really extreme risk approach, I guess. Yeah, hazard versus risk, I guess.
- [14:27]
A
Sure, sure. They say, if there's any problem, let's ban it. And then you can prove that it's that you shouldn't have banned it later, I guess. So that's their safer way, unfortunately, then you're banning things, you're banning more things then you need to. Whereas the United States, maybe we don't ban enough things, but, you know, you have to prove that something is causing a problem. And that's when you would ban it, I guess so. It's just different approaches. This also leads to the notion, I think, that Europeans are somehow healthier than people in the United States. And I haven't spent, you know, almost a month there just recently, you know what I was very much struck by? You know, they eat pretty much the same kind of foods that we eat, although somehow they get this notion that processed meats and cheese are good for breakfast. I don't know that, you know, what's, what's in the meats and cheese in breakfast. Oh, I like it. Yeah, I know, but you got pickles for breakfast. Come on.
- [15:29]
B
Love it.
- [15:31]
A
But you know what I noticed mostly there are a lot more smokers in Europe than in the United States. At least the places that I go, there are people smoking all over the place. And I'm saying to myself, you're doing, you know, you're banning these minuscule things. You're like staying away from processed foods and stuff. And then you're smoking. It's like that's all been, you know, all been negated those health benefits by you're smoking. It's. It's ridiculous. Europeans are not more healthy.
- [16:01]
B
I agree in some aspects, for sure. But it turns out, at least from their approach and how they restrict cosmetics, they look like they're safer, but at the end of the day, the law is still the same. Cosmetics have to be safe in Europe, they have to be safe in the U.S. end of story.
- [16:18]
A
Yeah, I don't, I don't think they're safer In a way that anybody would notice. It's just that you could tell the stories about them or anything. But there's no, you couldn't do like an epidemiological study where you'd study the population of Europe versus the population United States and their cosmetic use and say one population is healthier than the other because the products are essentially the same.
- [16:41]
B
Exactly. Well, speaking of worldwide cosmetics, there was a really interesting BBC article on sunscreen.
- [16:49]
A
Oh yeah, I saw that one. Made the, made the rounds of social media and so they were saying some sort of scandal rocking Australia where some. What was this? A bunch of products were found not to have reached the SPF claims that they were making.
- [17:05]
B
Correct. So a report was released. This group had gone around and collected a bunch of SPF products, conducted their own testing and said, your product did not pass with the SPF claim that you're claiming.
- [17:17]
A
So somebody would say, oh, I'm selling you an SPF 50. This group went out, they bought the product, they ran their SPF testing and they said, oh, it only got SPF 30, so you're lying.
- [17:28]
B
Exactly.
- [17:29]
A
And did they do a, a bunch of products?
- [17:31]
B
Well, they did a bunch of them, but the biggest one I think that took the brunt of it is a brand called Ultra Violet or ultra violette. SPF 50 plus did not test to be that. They defended it. Then they went out and tested it again, I guess and ended up recalling it because it had an SPF of four according to this third party testing lab.
- [17:58]
A
Yeah, they reclaim it 50 and it had a four.
- [18:01]
B
Yeah, something doesn't sound right with that.
- [18:06]
A
Yeah, yeah, that's. It seems like if you're formulating that you're not going to make that. But I could see a 50 being really a 35 or even a 30, but a 50 being a 4. Although I will also say it's pretty, pretty difficult to form SPF50 with just using zinc oxide as your SPF thing. And it looks like that's what they were trying to do. Yeah. It also said that other ones didn't meet their claims. Computing products from Neutrogena, Banana Boat, I mean those are big companies. I think one of the biggest problems is that SPF testing is not easily replicated. So you could test SPF of exactly the same product using two different labs and you'll get two different results. Whereas if you measure something like how much does a product weigh? You put it on a scale and it weighs and it's going to weigh the same pretty much any scale you do. But if you do SPF testing, it's not going to be the same between labs and there's going to be variance and sometimes that variance can be pretty high.
- [19:19]
B
I don't think 50 to 4, though.
- [19:21]
A
No. Yeah, no, 50 to 4. Something is wrong there.
- [19:26]
B
Yeah. Something doesn't feel right and, you know, lots of things could go wrong. I don't think it's fair to speculate because the brand probably did do testing, they got the results, they got. Maybe they did three validation batches of testing. I don't really know the answer. But manufacturing is tricky. Sometimes things go wrong at the manufacturing level. I'll just leave it at that. Sometimes, you know, a product maybe isn't stable and so you're getting a little separation. You're not getting the true quantity of active tested in the bulk of the production.
- [20:01]
A
Especially a zinc oxide formulated product.
- [20:04]
B
Exactly. So there's just lots of stuff that could have. Could have gone wrong. But I guess it doesn't change the fact that one lab got an SPF of four. Right. What I thought was interesting in this article, they interviewed somebody who had a little skin cancer spot right. In the portion of their nose where it meets the eye. And they felt like they'd been bamboozled by the SPF industry. And is it because all these years she'd been using SPF that never met the SPF criteria. And actually, I have to say that that portion of the face where your nose, the bridge of your nose meets your eye area is actually the portion of the human body where people apply the least amount of sunscreen. And that's actually one of the most common skin cancer areas because of the lack of adequate SPF protection, not from the product per se, but because you're barely putting any next to your eyes, so it doesn't run in your eyes. So it's not really the spf, it's the user application.
- [21:03]
A
Yeah, exactly. Sunscreen is not a perfect sun blocker. You know, the. The best sunscreen is just not to go into the sun. The second best is a sunscreen.
- [21:13]
B
Right, Exactly.
- [21:15]
A
I mean a. Clothes. Clothes work pretty well too. But then I guess the third is a sunscreen.
- [21:21]
B
Well, I hope people don't stop using sunscreen because it does work to reduce the incidence of cancers.
- [21:28]
A
Yeah. And I think if you want to be safe, use products from big companies. Despite what they said, Neutrogena, I would have faith in that. Banana boat. You know, the big companies are doing the testing themselves and they're doing independent testing to verify the results. So that's that's what I would stay away from. These, like, these small companies who are hiring contract manufacturers to do their formulas and then it's just a marketing system story.
- [21:54]
B
Well, I do have one more thing. I know we've spent a big portion of time on news today and catching up. It's been a while, so I did want to cover it because as our listeners know, we are on the pulse when it comes to celebrity brands and.
- [22:10]
A
Someone else launch something.
- [22:12]
B
Actually, no launches. One of our predictions that brands would actually be closing is coming true. And the two companies that are closing are Drew Barrymores Flower Beauty and Kim Kardashian's Skin by Kim.
- [22:27]
A
Well, the Drew Barrymore one doesn't surprise me that much. She probably just lended her name to it. Right.
- [22:33]
B
I'm surprised it lasted as long as it did.
- [22:36]
A
Yeah. The Kim Kardashian one, though, that does surprise me. Her sister had the whole. What was that? Chloe? No, no, not Chloe. It was the younger one.
- [22:46]
B
The Jenners. Kylie. Her brand is really doing well.
- [22:52]
A
Really? Okay, Well, I mean, that was the one bought out, but I remember the Cardassian skin one. Wow, that's. You would think that she could have kept that going. I don't know.
- [23:02]
B
I don't know. Maybe. There's a multitude of factors at play, but, yep, they are ceasing to exist, shutting down all operations.
- [23:11]
A
Wow. Well, hopefully what it really means is that these Cardassians are becoming less popular and so we won't have to see them around as much because, boy, they were really, you know, famous for being famous. There you go.
- [23:24]
B
I doubt that's gonna happen.
- [23:25]
A
She'll launch something else, of course. All right, speaking of launching, let's launch into the questions that we've had sent in. We've got a question first from Shelly. She's a patron. Actually, we had a bunch of patron questions, so let's get to those. Hi, Valerie and Perry. I love all aspects of the podcast, from the chit chat to the beauty news, to the questions and the song sometimes included at the end. Yes, I do that on occasion. Alright, I'm looking for a new peptide serum and was considering a product that recently published a study in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. I am not familiar with this publication and wondered if it's a reliable source. The product is fairly expensive, but the claims are that it increases collagen and elastin production and preserves facial fat. Skin biopsies were performed on the subjects at the start of the treatment and again at 12 weeks. As you frequently Point out the study was completed by the company selling the product. Is this journal peer reviewed and reliable? Thanks for all the education. So the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, have you heard of this one?
- [24:36]
B
I have heard of it. I think it's an open access journal.
- [24:41]
A
Well, in fact, yeah. Wiley Sciences, who is a big science publisher, it looks like they are the ones who produce this.
- [24:52]
B
Now is it open access with peer review?
- [24:57]
A
Well, according to them it is, yeah, it is peer reviewed. It has an editorial board. Open access just means that it is. The articles are freely available to online for anyone to read, download and share. And so that way the costs of publishing are usually paid by the authors instead of by the readers or libraries. So what that can lead to is that it's kind of pay to play. If you want to get your article in this Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, you can pay the journal X amount of money to publish your study. And you can see that there's a sort of an inherent problem there with the incentive structure. Right. So the magazine is getting paid money, so they have an incentive to maybe loosen their standards. And of course the, the company who wants to sell the product is going to of course pay whatever they can to get the publicity. Now there is peer reviewed, that's a good thing. But for, so for this journal it's peer reviewed but, but sometimes open access stuff says it's peer reviewed, they have a panel of reviewers and then, you know, it's really just a rubber stamp. So to me, Wiley is an organization that, yeah, yeah, they do publish, you know, scientific stuff. So I wouldn't discount them right away. But you have to understand that the article you're reading was paid to be published in there and by the brand.
- [26:36]
B
That did the research, who incentivized to show that their products do things versus not doing things. Yeah, and saying, wow, we're in a journal, it's scientifically studied, it's, it's all part of the marketing angle. Now I will say I do believe in peptides. If they can get into the skin, I don't know anything about this peptide or this study, so it's hard to say. But I guess it depends on the price of the product because it couldn't hurt to try. But I definitely wouldn't go broke looking for it.
- [27:09]
A
Yeah, I personally would be skeptical that the peptides are going to get down to the spot at enough quantity to have an impact that is usually set in it. And as a consumer you usually just notice if it's moisturizing and it feels Good to put on. You think your skin is better. So I, I personally am skeptical that peptides make a huge difference. But again, we're, you know, Valerie and I can look at the same data and legitimately come to different conclusions.
- [27:41]
B
Well, I haven't read this study. I'm just saying like it can't hurt to use it. I mean, I'm curious to know what brand did it.
- [27:48]
A
But you know what, you and I are like, we're like SPF testing.
- [27:52]
B
Oh my goodness. No, I mean if we both, we both know that it's, I mean, kind of a load of bs, right? When at least when it comes to it was done by the brand, you have to have some inherent skepticism with it. Now I just like to have a little hope that these peptides work because I studied proteins in grad school and peptides are biologically active. They're very tiny. Now. Does that mean it's guaranteed to get in and get down?
- [28:22]
A
No, but I 100% agree with you that if any ingredient is going to have an impact, it's going to be one of these, you know, biological materials like a peptide because yeah, they will do. Would interact with biochemistry because that's, we're made up of peptides. So that's what happens. I'm just skeptical that stuff coming out of a skin lotion is going to go through all of the processes it would need to go to, to have a big meaningful impact.
- [28:52]
B
Well, thanks for the question, Shelly.
- [28:55]
A
Here's a question from Sherry and she's also a patron. Thank you so much, Sherry and Shelly for supporting us on Patreon.
- [29:02]
B
Hi, longtime subscriber and I love the show. I also love the chit chat. Don't listen to the naysayers. Congratulations to Valerie and Mr. Cosmetic Chemist. Thank you. I had a question about the vitamin C ingredient, techtrahexyldecyl ascorbate. I believe Valerie mentioned it was expensive. Vana Cream has a vitamin C cream with this ingredient and it is only $17.99 for 1.2 ounces. Does this have enough of the tetrahexidosyl ascorbate to be effective? I've tried one tube and didn't notice a difference, but wondered if more long term use would work better. Also, Valerie, there's a dupe for the Supergoop tinted sunscreen, the Kroger Shimmer Sunscreen, SPF 40. I love it. Very inexpensive and it isn't runny. Thanks.
- [29:42]
A
Oh, that must be in reference to another. Another one we did. That's right.
- [29:48]
B
Exactly. Wow. Well, I Do know a bit about this ingredient.
- [29:53]
A
Ah, the tetrahexa decyl ascorbate or a vitamin C knockoff or modified vitamin C. Right. It's an antioxidant, isn't it?
- [30:04]
B
It is, it's an oil soluble version. It's basically a vitamin C ester, completely water insoluble. And, and the original manufacturer of this material has a lot of data. And yes, I know you could say, well, the manufacturer did the studies, of course. Yes, you have to use a little bit of hesitation. However, this material is a quasi drug in Japan and South Korea for reducing pigmentation in skin.
- [30:31]
A
And so wait, quasi drug? That's like in the United States we have over the counter drugs. So you know, those are things that had to have been proven to actually work. So is that how quasi drug regulation is like in Japan?
- [30:46]
B
Exactly. So there had to be some burden of proof for this material to do the things that the manufacturer is saying it does for the purpose of pigment reduction. And so the manufacturer has tons of studies. I believe the quasi drug use level in Japan is 3% for this material. And it's not a lot, but it's kind of a lot when you think of how expensive this material is per pound.
- [31:11]
A
Right.
- [31:11]
B
So when I'm thinking about this Vani cream, I don't think they're using 3% based on the price and just how expensive the ingredient is. Basically for every 1% of this ingredient, you're looking at the cost contribution being a few bucks. So if this cream is 17.99, I doubt they're even using 1% of this vitamin C. Now the supplier does have some.
- [31:43]
A
Right, the way, well, the way costing goes with a product is that if you can buy it from a retailer for what, 18 bucks? The retailer bought it from the manufacturer for $9. And so the manufacturer was selling it for $9. And so that's even less money that can go to the formula. I, I figure about one third the cost of what the manufacturing is selling for goes to ingredients. Right. So if it's, you know, if it's nine bucks that they're selling it for one, so. But three bucks is the most they could spend on the ingredients for this formula. And that's probably a lot lower than they could if they were using a lot of this. Tetrahexodecyl ascorbate.
- [32:27]
B
Yeah. Now there's no way, I think that they're using this in any meaningful level to allow for skin brightening. However, the ingredient supplier. And again this comes from the ingredient supplier. So full Disclosure has shown efficacy as low as 0.1% for collagen production and increasing in dendritic length of the cells. I mean, they have literally hundreds of studies. So you. If you're looking for skin brightening and for really demonstrable effects, I probably would shift to a cream that has a level disclosure, and I would look for at least 3%. Now, alternatively, you could head to my website, simplyingredients.com and just buy the ingredient yourself. But we have actually a couple brains who do that, and they make their own vitamin C serums, and they're very happy with it.
- [33:18]
A
Well, that is fun. And the supergoop tinted sunscreen, I guess you can find it over at Kroger.
- [33:26]
B
I'm gonna go look for it.
- [33:28]
A
Hey, Valerie, we've got an audio question. Actually, we have two audio questions in today's show. They both came to us through our. Our phone number, 872-216-1856, if you want to call. Okay, here is the first one. Let me play this from Ivy.
- [33:49]
C
Hi, Valerie and Perry. My name is Ivy, and my question of the moment has to do with estrogen. Last year, I started hormone replacement therapy, and in addition to it being miraculous in helping with hot flashes and sleepless nights and a host of other symptoms, it was incredibly helpful. I don't know if I would call it a controlled experiment, but I absolutely felt like I saw an improvement in the skin on my face. Like maybe a little bit tighter and more plump. I don't know. But anyway, it made me very curious about topical estrogen. And if you have any insights or opinions about it, I would be really curious and appreciative to get the information. I'm a fairly new listener to your show, and I really appreciate it. I think you are fantastic, and your ph together is perfect. So thanks so much. Bye.
- [34:53]
A
Your ph together is perfect.
- [34:56]
B
Aw. You know, Perry, I was going to record a solo episode while you were gone, and I was just, one, too scared to do it. And two, I was like, we have such a good banter. That's what I think makes the show really great. I mean, I know you have a lot of haters. I'm just kidding. I'm sure we both do, but it's just so good without you. And I thought, okay, you're gonna say this and say it that way, and then, of course, no one would be there to say anything back. So I was like, I'll just wait till he gets back.
- [35:25]
A
Right? Yeah, you know, it's true. I've. I've Done a couple of solo episodes and I just do not, I just don't love doing solo shows. It's much more fun to do it with you. All right, how about this estrogen? You know, there was a whole, I know there's a whole hubbub about whether estrogen replacement therapy is a good thing to do or a bad thing to do. It's still kind of controversial, but I think it ends up most people, most. The consensus would be that it's good to do. I don't really know, honestly, it's outside of my area of expertise.
- [36:01]
B
Well, mine as well. But I actually used to work for, we'll call it an anti aging doctor and I was responsible for organizing. She did a lot of research and I was responsible for organizing her peer reviewed literature. And I do know that the creams do add a lot of value for hormone replacement therapy or what she would do is like fine tune your levels, we'll call it. And they were all prescription or compounded topical creams where a tiny bit just got applied to, for example, like the inside of your wrist or something like that. No one was using it as like an all over face cream. And I, I just feel like the doctor I worked for would frown upon that because yeah, it's supposed to help you internally, not be used all over the place. And sometimes too much can be a bad thing. And I would say, you know, these creams are made at compounding pharmacies, they can be. Hormones are biologically active. And I think from a toxicology perspective, if you aren't really sure about how much you're actually getting and the effects systemically it could have. I just wouldn't do it for skin beauty. I would do it for health reasons.
- [37:19]
A
Right. There's also all this like safety concerns about estrogen mimics and they're like, well, also estrogen, it's not mimicking, it actually is estrogen.
- [37:29]
B
Yeah. Oh goodness. So yeah, Ivy, I wish we knew a little more, but I think, I mean one, we don't. And two, I would just, you know, continue to consult your doctor if you know you are using it in places you shouldn't. I would just make sure you're using it the way it should be used.
- [37:46]
A
As far as whether it penetrates. In looking at the molecule though, the molecular weight in daltons is about 272 and there's this what, 500 Dalton rule. So if the molecule is smaller than 500daltons, it has a potential to penetrate. And certainly there are like estrogen patches and stuff and That's a way to deliver it. So topically, theoretically, it could get to penetrate the skin and get down to the dermis and have a impact. So, yeah, that would make me weary of anything that's not a prescription product to be using it.
- [38:23]
B
Yeah. I think the last question we had on the estrogen was that you could get it from places without a prescription.
- [38:31]
A
Right.
- [38:31]
B
And we found that very alarming.
- [38:34]
A
Right.
- [38:34]
B
That you would take a hormone without a doctor's care.
- [38:38]
A
Yeah, you shouldn't do that. But you know what you should do? Call in and leave us a question, because you can play it on the show. Like this one from Shirley. There's a lot of S names today.
- [38:52]
B
Shelly, Sherry, Shirley. It's a tongue twister.
- [38:55]
A
There we go. And Shirley says the following.
- [38:59]
C
Hi, beauty brains. This is Shirley. I have two questions. They kind of layer on top of each other. The first is, what is your opinion of these new to me, micro needling devices where you stamp serum through little needles on your face every other week, every two weeks, and you see. Supposed to see results in about three to six months. The second part of that is one of the companies, I don't think I can name the company that Michael Needling recommends using hypochlorous acid spray. Prior to use or after use? I can't remember. But what is your opinion of hypochlorous acid spray? Is it something I should use before I work out? Like for. To prevent the sweat from giving me breakouts? So those are my questions. Thank you very, very much, Valerie and Perry. Congratulations, Valerie, on your new baby birds.
- [40:02]
B
Well, thanks for the congratulations, Shirley. I appreciate it.
- [40:06]
A
That's so fun for you. The b. Is the baby sleeping better now or.
- [40:11]
B
Oh, yeah, yeah. He's a tank. He's pretty fat. And he's not even three months yet. He's like two and a half months. So he's just. He's not even 12 weeks. He's just a tank. So he's not sleeping all the way through the night, but when he goes down, he goes down hard.
- [40:27]
A
Oh, well, that. That is nice. All right. Speaking of nice, what do you think of these micro needling devices?
- [40:35]
B
I think Mic, micro needling is very interesting because professionally, you can have it done. And doctors and nurses and med spas, depending on the state you're in, they're allowed to go into deeper layers than a person at home can go into. So microneedling in a professional setting can go down, like to the dermis. They can actually puncture the dermis, and this facilitates collagen restructuring mimics wound healing. Ingredients can penetrate further, but the devices you use at home can only penetrate into the outermost layers of the epidermis and space, specifically, I think the two outermost layers. So it does help ingredients get in a little bit more, but it doesn't necessarily play a role, in my opinion, in the collagen remodeling and wound healing aspect.
- [41:28]
A
Right. It's not getting down that far. Now, the ones you could do at a spa or a doctor's office. The problem there is if it gets deep enough, it can start to bleed. Right. Because if you get. If you get to the dermis, that's where the blood vessels are and stuff. And that could cause some bleeding. So that's why the FDA doesn't let people sell needling that would go that deep.
- [41:53]
B
Yeah, could definitely be dangerous if you didn't know what you were doing for sure. Now Shirley asks if it's doing anything, and I guess, you know, she's using a nice serum, and the serum has actives that can do things. The microneedling will help them penetrate. I know a couple active ingredients that are really hot right now are exosomes and salmon pdrn, which is essentially hydrolyzed DNA from salmon sperm. And those two types of materials essentially only get in with microneedling.
- [42:29]
A
Yeah. Exosome is not going to be topically applied to get anywhere.
- [42:34]
B
In fact, less than 1% of exosome application penetrates into the stratum corneum and stratum granulosum, according to one study. So you really need microneedling for that. But I mean, I guess it depends what your outcome, what your desired outcome is, you know, is the only way that you could determine if it's working and if you've been doing it for as much as you've been doing it, are you seeing results? That would be the other most important thing.
- [43:00]
A
Day, I would say if you're doing it regularly, usually it takes about eight weeks to start to see something with these actives. Right. Because your skin essentially turns over completely in about eight weeks.
- [43:16]
B
Well, healthy skin on the face is about 28 days. So it's about 14 days from the basal layer of the skin, which is the lowermost layer of the epidermis, and then another 14 to get into the stratum corneum and come out. But of course, as you age, that slows down rapidly. If you have problems with your skin, it could be faster, it could be slower. So. But yeah, I would say it's anywhere from four to eight weeks.
- [43:44]
A
Yeah. Yeah, I'd say so. So if you're using it and you're not seeing anything in six months, something's not working.
- [43:51]
B
It's interesting, the hypochlorous acid recommendation. I'm not a fan, only because I don't believe that most consumers actually get hypochlorous acid in these products, but it's essentially an antibacterial. And so I'm wondering if they're recommending to use it before or after as a. A precaution against infection in the skin.
- [44:13]
A
Right. That's probably what is going on there. Yeah. And if you. I could see if you. If you micro needle deep enough, you know, you could send some sort of bacteria down there that you don't want down there because you got a lot of microbes on the surface of your skin and a lot of those you don't want to get into your body.
- [44:32]
B
Yeah, they. Yeah. Even the good ones you don't want in your body. The good ones or the bad ones, you. You want them on the outside. So, yeah, that's probably why that recommendation is there.
- [44:42]
A
Yeah.
- [44:42]
B
And so I wouldn't stop, you know, or make sure everything you're doing is like, really clean and sanitized. Yeah, that would probably be my recommendation if you. You didn't want to use their hypochlorous spray if it's giving you the breakouts.
- [44:57]
A
All right, well, looks like we got time for one more question. And this one comes to us from Zara. Hello, Valerie and Perry. I have just discovered your podcast. Let me tell you, I am addicted. I love learning about what happens behind the scenes when it comes to everyday things that we use. My question is regarding Detangler. A detangler that I bought at the salon when I got my last haircut. The brand is Unite and it's called seven Seconds Detangler. I have very long hair, more than halfway down my back, and it's a bit damaged from previous highlights. The Detangler works incredibly well. I don't have to fight tangles after every wash. The problem is that it's $48 Canadian for a 236 milliliter spray bottle. The question is, is there something in it that's not in anything else? Just for the heck of it, I looked at for Detanglers with Ammo Dimethico. And lo and behold, Pantene has one called moisturizing leave in Detangler. I'm not sure if it's solely the ammo dimethicone that's providing the slip that I like. Could you point out other ingredients that are in the Unite product that helps keep my hair under control? Thank you so much. And then she provided some pictures of her cat who's also named Teddy. I. I have a cat named Teddy and she is. Yes. Doesn't look like my Teddy, but. Because it's a tabby. But yeah, I always like pictures of cats. So thank you for that question. All right. Detanglers and salon products. So is this Unite company making a product that nobody else in the industry can make?
- [46:37]
B
It's kind of a standard issue detangler. And actually they're going to have to go through a little reformulation coming up. I'll tell you why.
- [46:45]
A
Oh, really? Well, they have dmdm Hydensoin in it.
- [46:49]
B
No. Okay. So basically how detanglers work is they have to have conditioning agents in them that work when the hair is wet. And this one uses cetrimonium chloride, which is a wet combing detangler, meaning the comb can go through the hair much easier. When the hair is wet. A consumer does not notice feel from cetrimonium chloride. They just notice that the hair is combing better in the wet stage. So Unite had to add some feel good stuff to it. And it definitely is the amodimethicone and the behem trimonium methyl sulfate, which do a great job of coating the hair, improving the ability for the comb to go through and imparting a really great feel to the consumer both when the hair is wet and a little bit when the hair is dry. These are really common ingredients. Pretty much you could find them in almost any detangling type spray. So I would continue to look for sprays that have amodimethicone, behentri, ammonium ethyl sulfate and cetrimonium chloride to see if there's one that's more in your alley from a affordability perspective.
- [47:57]
A
And I would say from a performance standpoint, there's no way this product works better than what Pantene is going to get. I just. Pantene has so many scientists working on these types of products. These types of products are so easily testable. Right. That it would be. They're gonna, they're gonna optimize the performance of their formulas. Now, having said that, a small company like Unite can take the Pantene product and say, oh, we can make something like this, and the contract manufacturer could easily knock that off. So I don't think the Pantene can be so much better. I just don't think that a small company making their own products is going to Be better than a Pantene.
- [48:40]
B
You didn't ask me why it's going to have to be reformulated.
- [48:43]
A
Oh, yeah. Why is it going to have to be reformulated?
- [48:46]
B
Well, they have a little ingredient in there called cyclotetrasiloxane. First of all, you should not put cyclotetrasiloxane into a spray. So, you know, I don't like that they did that. But secondly, you don't put it in.
- [49:00]
A
A spray because it just evaporates off, doesn't it?
- [49:03]
B
Well, the inhalation risk.
- [49:04]
A
Oh, right. You don't want to inhale that stuff.
- [49:07]
B
Yeah, you don't want to inhale cyclotetrasiloxane or cyclopentisloxane. Just in my experience working with toxicologists, however, cyclotetrasiloxane has been listed on California's AB 496, which goes into effect coming up January 1, 2026. So Unite will have to unite their lab together and say, take this out of our spray. It cannot be in the state of California. And Unite is located in the state of California. I've been to that by their awareness. Oh, boy.
- [49:37]
A
Well, you know what I'm gonna say, hey, if any of you people working at Unite are out there, Valerie's available for consulting and reformulating.
- [49:48]
B
I have a lab, Sure.
- [49:52]
A
I don't. I just talk about the lab.
- [49:55]
B
Well, hopefully there, I don't think the reformulation will change it too much. You don't really need cyclotetrasiloxane in a formula like this, so. And it's at the very bottom. It's probably in there. Less than 1%. They could take it out, switch to a low senistoke dimethicone and be fine. Or probably just take it out and it's gonna be fine.
- [50:12]
A
Honestly. Yeah. You have the amodimethicone. Why do you need the cyclomethicone in there anyway? It seems like extra.
- [50:19]
B
Anyway, free advice. They don't need to hire me. Just take it out.
- [50:24]
A
Yeah. No charge for that or for the show. Speaking of the show, you hear the music.
- [50:29]
B
Thanks for listening. If you get a chance, head over to Apple Podcasts 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.
- [50:38]
A
Speaking of questions, you heard two people with their voices on the show, and that's because. Because they called in and left their question on our question phone number, 872-216-1856. But if you have a question and you don't want to say it. You can just email to us or to thebeautybrainsmail.com and if you want your question answered in a higher priority than anyone else's, you can support us on Patreon. Just head on over to patreon.com thebeautybrains and subscribe at any level. We do give you a higher priority to answering your questions. You also get a transcript of the show.
- [51:17]
B
I love it when you do that part. I'm never good at saying it. I always flub it. So many people ask us, how do you guys make money on the show? And I just say, we don't. And you should see the look on their face. We're ad free. I love it. That means we can say whatever we want. Almost.
- [51:31]
A
Right. We can only stay ad free because of our supporters on Patreon. So thank you for that.
- [51:36]
B
Oh, goodness. Don't forget to follow us on our various social media accounts on Instagram. Right. The Beauty Brains 2018 on X worth. The Beauty Brains on Blue sky. With the Beauty Brains, we have a Facebook page, a TikTok and a YouTube.
- [51:47]
A
Yeah. And sometimes we do publish stuff on those. But, you know, often we do respond to people's comments there. So that's. That's.
- [51:56]
B
We're gonna get back into it. Perry. I've got goals now that Baby C is out.
- [52:01]
A
Sure.
- [52:02]
B
Goals.
- [52:03]
A
Future Valerie is crushing it on that one, as is future Perry.
- [52:09]
B
Thanks again.
- [52:09]
A
We always have such big plans for our future selves, don't we, Future Valerie?
- [52:14]
B
Future Perry are awesome.
- [52:16]
A
I know. I was coming home from this trip, and I'm on the trip. I'm like, okay, you get home, you're not gonna drink as much. You're not gonna have so much soda, you're gonna read more. And I got. I'm planning all these things, things for future Perry. And has he done them yet? No.
- [52:30]
B
Yeah. You're drinking a Diet Coke right now.
- [52:32]
A
I know. He wasn't supposed to be drinking this.
- [52:35]
B
Well, here's the thing. There's still time for future Perry to do those things. That's the great news.
- [52:39]
A
There is. There is. I look forward. Future. Future Perry is going to be better than this. Future Perry.
- [52:45]
B
Well, thanks again for listening, everyone. And remember, be brainy about your beauty.
- [52:51]
A
Thanks, everyone.
- [52:58]
B
Kittens.