Sunscreen sticks, oils, hair masks and more - episode 404

Summary

The Beauty Brains – Episode 404: Sunscreen Sticks, Oils, Hair Masks and More

Date: August 16, 2025
Hosts: Valerie George & Perry Romanowski
Theme: Real cosmetic scientists answer consumer questions about sunscreen formats, hair product ingredients, and product reformulations.

---

Episode Overview

In episode 404, Valerie and Perry take on listeners’ questions about sunscreen stick effectiveness and application, the genuine role of oils, butters, and silicones in hair care, the science behind popular hair masks, and tackle misleading sunscreen marketing. Along the way, they discuss industry news, product reformulation controversies, and the science vs. myths shaping the beauty industry. The hosts bring their trademark blend of technical insight and playful banter, aiming to make beauty science clear and accessible.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Industry News & Chit Chat (00:59 – 23:19)

Cruelty-Free Certification Drama (04:47)

• PETA Suspends "Beauty Without Bunnies" Certification for EU Brands:
  PETA stopped certifying brands in the EU as cruelty-free due to REACH regulations. Even if animal testing for cosmetics is banned in the EU, chemicals must still be animal-tested for environmental or worker safety under REACH.
  • Valerie: "You could animal test for many other reasons and not cosmetics, but then the cosmetics industry could use that data if they needed to and still be in compliance." (06:47)
  • Takeaway: “Cruelty-free” certifications in cosmetics are not straightforward because of overlapping chemical regulations.

Marie Claire Article Fights "Chemical-Free" Fearmongering (08:01)

• Major beauty media are finally challenging the demonization of chemicals in cosmetics.
  • Perry referenced for quotes alongside Kelly Dobos.
  • Valerie: "There's no reason to be scared of your products." (09:40)
• They discuss misattributions and misquotes in media, highlighting how science communicators are sometimes quoted out of context.

Urban Decay All Nighter Setting Spray Reformulation Backlash (13:24)

• Urban Decay’s cult-favorite spray was reformulated after L'Oréal shifted production in-house from original developer Skindinavia, sparking backlash online.
• Why Do Formulas Change?
  • Integration into corporate structure, regulatory compliance in multiple geographies, cost control, or supply chain improvements.
  • Perry: "Formulas are changed because maybe there's regulatory changes or ingredients fall out of favor... But anytime you change your formula, your huge loyal customer base is going to complain." (17:21)
• Valerie: “It’s not that Urban Decay probably wanted to do this. It was probably a bigger corporate strategy... That’s how the cookie crumbles sometimes.” (17:04)

Study Finds No Correlation Between Retinol Product Price and Content (20:10)

• Perry: “No correlation between the price of the product and the amount of retinol used. ...the price is likely influenced by factors beyond retinol content, such as brand positioning, formulation, marketing, and perceived credibility.” (20:58)
• Consumer Advice: Don’t equate higher price with more or better active ingredient.

---

2. Listener Questions & Expert Answers (23:19 – 54:54)

Q1: Sunscreen Sticks – Effectiveness & Application

(Asked by Misty; 23:19 – 32:01)

• Do sunscreen sticks work as well as lotions?
  • If applied liberally (2mg/cm²), a stick provides the labeled SPF.
• Are sticks more likely to miss spots or be under-applied?
  • Valerie: “You definitely would need to use your fingers to rub it in. ... With a stick, I just don't think you'll be able to effectively get all the contours.” (27:00)
• Tips for Proper Use:
  • Rub the product out with your fingers after swiping, especially on contours and over peach fuzz.
  • Sticks may not spread as well as lotions; be deliberate for full coverage.
• Perry on rubbing technique (shaving analogy):
  • “With the mustache, you just have to rub up – apply against the direction of the hair.” (28:41)

Q2: Oils, Butters & Silicones in Hair Care for Coily Hair

(Asked by Michelle; 32:09 – 39:10)

• Role in Hair Care:
  • Oils: Penetrate (especially shorter chain, saturated oils like coconut/C12). Increase elasticity and strength.
  • Butters: Large molecules, tend to coat hair rather than penetrate. Mainly lubricate the surface.
  • Silicones: Provide slip, shine, may deliver additional hair benefits (thermal/color protection).
• Are oils/butters genuinely moisturizing?
  • Valerie: “When a consumer says, 'my hair is moisturized', they’re actually talking about that lubricated slip on the outside.” (36:14)
• Layering Oils/Butters over Silicones?
  • Not typically necessary. Some silicones are more functional than lubricating, so layering depends on the hair’s needs and product specifics.
  • Perry: “A silicone, while it's going to be lubricated and shiny, it's going to feel different than an oil butter mixture.” (38:28)

Q3: Claims by Skinnies Sunscreen – Can You Use Less?

(Asked by Timothy (audio); 39:27 – 45:04)

• Can anhydrous (waterless) sunscreens like Skinnies be used at less than 2mg/cm² and still provide labeled SPF?
  • Short Answer: No. All SPF claims are based on testing the final formula at 2mg/cm², regardless of water content.
  • Perry: “The idea that theirs is more concentrated is not... that doesn't really hold up... you need to use the same amount.” (42:41)
  • Valerie: “It actually doesn't matter where you are in the world... everyone’s pretty aligned on quantity for sunscreen testing.” (43:27)
• Danger of One-Application-Per-Day Claims:
  • Many factors remove sunscreen (sweat, friction, swimming), making reapplication necessary.

Q4: Do All Hair Masks Work Like Philip Kingsley Elasticizer With Pre-Shampoo Use?

(Asked by Noga; 45:19 – 54:54)

• Is there something special about masks used pre-shampoo versus post-shampoo?

  • Valerie: “If you used this product like a regular conditioner or a different mask like a pre-treatment, I think you would kind of find they do the same thing... Everything else is just kind of like an oil. So it has castor seed oil in it, which is incredibly heavy for hair.” (48:53)

• DIY Experiment Suggested:

  • Try your favorite mask both ways and see if you notice a difference.

• Perry: “You're making your hair dirty, and then you shampoo it to remove the oils. ...The idea here is you’re hoping that you don't remove all of the oils from your hair.”

• V05 Hot Oil Sidebar: The legendary pre-shampoo hot oil didn’t contain plant oils, mostly petrolatum, mineral oil, and lanolin.

• Controversy About Hydrolyzed Proteins:

  • Are all hydrolyzed proteins the same? Perry explains once hydrolyzed, structural differences mostly disappear and they act similarly. But Valerie points out slightly different amino acid profiles might exist, though these are insignificant for the typical consumer.
  • Valerie: “I don't think a consumer would notice a difference. But if I gave you a shampoo with three samples… I want you to tell me there's no difference! …but I don't have time, Perry, because my day starts at 2 in the morning.” (54:32)

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Cruelty-Free Certification:
  Perry: “On some level they're all kind of hypocritical because these ingredients have already been tested.” (07:47)

• On Fearmongering in Beauty:
  Perry: “People just prefer to be afraid of stuff, I guess. ...It's like pushing a boulder up a hill, trying to sink these unsinkable rubber duckies.”
  (09:40)

• On Ingredient Changes:
  Valerie: “It's not that Urban Decay probably wanted to do this. It was probably a bigger corporate strategy. ...That's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. It's how it is. Business is business.”
  (18:18)

• On Sunscreen Application:
  Valerie: “The number one spot that facial skin cancer occurs because people are not applying SPF there...is right by your nose.”
  (27:00)

• On the Feel vs. Function of Oils/Butters:
  Valerie: “When you have more water in hair, you actually change the fiber alignment, and you actually could increase breakage if it were the literal sense of moisturization.”
  (36:14)

• On Marketing vs. Science:
  Perry: “...Because our business is so much driven by brand images and marketing, that the formulation...often pales in comparison to the amount of money spent on marketing and on packaging.”
  (21:56)

• On Protein Types in Hair Care:
  Perry: “If you take protein from silk or...scales and then you hydrolyze them, you cannot tell much difference between the two of them.”
  (54:23)

• Musical Finale:
  As a running joke, the episode closes with Perry adapting “Believe it or Not” into a song about oils penetrating hair.
  (57:25)

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Cruelty-Free Certification & REACH Regulations: 04:47 – 08:01
• Marie Claire Article on Chemicals in Beauty: 08:01 – 11:09
• Urban Decay All Nighter Setting Spray Reformulation: 13:24 – 19:27
• Retinol Product Pricing vs. Content Study: 20:10 – 23:19
• Q1: Sunscreen Sticks Application & Effectiveness: 23:19 – 32:01
• Q2: Oils, Butters & Silicones in Hair Care: 32:09 – 39:10
• Q3: Skinnies Sunscreen Dosage Claims & Anhydrous Formulas: 39:27 – 45:04
• Q4: Hair Masks – Do All Work Like Elasticizer When Used as Pre-shampoo?: 45:19 – 54:54
• Hydrolyzed Proteins Debate: 52:04 – 54:54

---

Summary Takeaways

• “Cruelty-free” labels are complicated by chemical regulatory testing like REACH.
• Don’t be afraid of cosmetic ingredients just because you’ve heard scary claims—mainstream science supports safety.
• Sometimes brands must reformulate for strategic, regulatory, or economic reasons—not always to “cheapen” a product.
• Sunscreen sticks work but need thorough application and rubbing in; do not assume anhydrous formulas allow for reduced application.
• Oils and butters lubricate/coast more than they “moisturize” hair; penetration varies by molecular size; silicones offer slip and shine.
• Marketing and packaging often drive product pricing more than active ingredient content.
• Hair masks labeled for pre-shampoo use may not fundamentally differ in function from typical masks; try usage experiments to decide what works for you.

---

Closing Notes

The Beauty Brains encourages listeners to send questions and voice memos (accent and all!), subscribe on Patreon for extra perks, and remain “brainy” about beauty by looking past hype and fearmongering to the science.

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 404. I'm your host, Valerie George, and with me today is Peri Romanowski. Hi, Perry.

[B]

Hey, Valerie. 404. That's Palindrome. Turn it upside down and it's a.

[A]

Oh, I knew that you would say it was a palindrome. I just had a feeling. I was like, Perry has something to say about this number. And we on today's show have a lot to say about questions, including what is the right way to apply sunscreen sticks? What role do oils, butters and silicones actually play in hair care? Do you need less anhydra sunscreen than lotion based ones? And do all hair masks work the same way? But first, our chit chat.

[B]

Valerie, you know, last time I was talking, I was just back from doing this bike ride and you know, I exercise and I do a lot of bike riding. You know, 150 miles in two days. And you know what? I gained weight.

[A]

Wow. Was it muscle?

[B]

I don't know. I know, I know it was. I don't know what it was. Probably water retention or something. I gained like four pounds. How can you bike like 150 miles and gain four pounds?

[A]

I mean, it has to be the water retention, right?

[B]

It must be something like that. I guess I don't know enough about weight gain and loss. Although on the plus side, I did kind of lose all that weight. Like I lost nine pounds since that. So there you go. All this kind of goes away, I guess.

[A]

Well, speaking of weight gain, I took Baby C to the doctor today and they actually told the nurses, please remeasure this tub of lard. Because we don't believe how much weight he gained in the last two weeks.

[B]

Wow.

[A]

Yeah, he gained two and a half pounds, more than two inches in height. And he's. Yeah, just a very big old, very big boy.

[B]

That's like gaining 20% of his weight, right?

[A]

Yeah, he's done a lot of eating. And it must be all the Oreos I've been eating. We're passing them off to him.

[B]

Goes right through you to him. But you know what?

[A]

Oreos I'm not eating. Speaking of celebrity launches, you know, we always talk about the celebrity launches in skincare. Well, Oreos has had some celebrity launches as well because they're Selena Gomez Oreos. You know, when you're at the grocery store, you always kind of have to pop over to the Oreo section, see what they got going on. They always have these weird flavors like Oreos with gummy bears inside and all that kind of stuff.

[B]

Sure.

[A]

And sure enough, they're cinnamon flavored Oreos. Selena Gomez is the flavor name.

[B]

Wow, the Selena Gomez? Yeah, I might have to try them, actually. Oreos had never really been my favorites. Neither have like Chips Ahoy. I, I kind of. Oh, you know what, I like the Nutter Butters. So who would be the sponsor? Who would be like a celebrity to do Nutter Butters?

[A]

I don't know, but the comedian who pops into my mind, is it Louis Louie Anderson? I picture him liking Nutter Butters.

[B]

Sure, sure. I was thinking like a Jim Carrey, but yeah, yeah, there's some sort of a comedian, just like a goofball.

[A]

Yeah, you got to be a goofball to eat Nutter Butters, but yeah. So Selena Gomez has a beauty line. She now has an Oreo named after her. Mr. Cosmetic Chemist said they're pretty good. I wouldn't try them, but he couldn't resist after talking smack about him for two weeks.

[B]

So they sound pretty good. Oh, you know what, I was just reminded of one other thing.

[A]

What?

[B]

You know how like you had a baby like what, three weeks ago?

[A]

Four weeks ago? Yep.

[B]

You know who else had a baby four weeks ago?

[A]

Who?

[B]

The other former beauty Brain podcaster, Randy had a baby. So look, there's beauty new beauty brains springing up all over the place of food.

[A]

Oh, look at that. Well, congratulations, Randy. I know you're not listening, but if you talk to Randy, please pass him congrats from all the beauty brains fans who were Randy fans.

[B]

Well, it was funny. He, he was going to call me because he hadn't told me it was going on. He saw the title of the last podcast episode, which was, I don't know.

[A]

Something and a baby.

[B]

And a baby. And he saw that. He's like, what? He already knows and then he find out it was yours.

[A]

Well, congratulations, Randy.

[B]

More beauty brains in the world.

[A]

Wow. Well, speaking of world beauty news, we have a lot going on this week.

[B]

The first story I saw was in cosmetic business and it caught my eye because it's one a topic that I follow a bit and that is animal testing or cruelty free. And in this story, it turns out PETA has decided to suspend their cruelty free baby beauty without bunnies approval for anybody who's producing products in the eu. And you know why that is?

[A]

Is it because of their reach appeal on forcing brands to test for cosmetics.

[B]

Exactly. So in the eu, cosmetic testing of ingredients has been banned. Well, they started. The ban was like, started in 2004, but it wasn't like fully implemented, I think until like 2012. So now you can't sell a product in the EU if you've tested it on animals or you've even tested the raw materials on animals. But so PETO was going through and certifying companies that they were, you know, Beauty without Bunny certified. Well, it turns out the EU regulations also has this other thing called Reach that says, well, you can't sell any sort of cosmetic or you can't sell any chemical to you unless it's been tested on animals.

[A]

I've talked about this before with the whole animal testing thing that all these countries are imposing. It's really, it's really kind of a farce because the reality is, one, most ingredients have been animal tested in the past. The second is there are other regulations such as environmental consumer exposure not related to cosmetics, which is reach. I've mentioned that.

[B]

All sorts of worker exposure too, where the people making the things, you have to do testing to ensure that when they're making it, they're safe too. And that doesn't apply for the bands.

[A]

Exactly. So you could animal test for many other reasons and not cosmetics, but then the cosmetics industry could use that data if they needed to and still be in compliance. And maybe PETA was listening and said, you know what, this is pretty crazy. Listening to our podcast, Perry, and they said, this is pretty crazy. We should look into this. And maybe they did. I doubt that's the case, but it is happening. And we even just talked about how samurais had a sunscreen active and the courts force them to comply with REACH and do animal testing on a sunscreen active.

[B]

Right.

[A]

So I'm a little surprised PETA did this, given the fact that it is so pervasive. And it's not just in the eu, to be honest, it's probably also happening in the US and Canada.

[B]

It's also, it's also not new. Why are they doing it now? Because this has been going on for a while.

[A]

Maybe they just realized, maybe they just caught on, I don't know. But I think we'll see more uprising in this area for sure.

[B]

Yeah, it really is the problem with these sorts of certifications of cruelty free. I mean, on some level they're all kind of hypocritical because these ingredients have already been tested. Usually that's what happens.

[A]

Exactly Well, I saw something, and I saw a familiar name or two pop up in it. It was a Marie Claire article. Can we stop hating on chemicals and skincare, please? And thanks. And before I even went into the article, I said, I bet you $100 Perry Romanowski is going to be quoted in this. And if he isn't, everyone in Marie Claire should be fired. And you know what? You were quoted. And our friend Kelly Dobos.

[B]

Oh, that's right. Yeah, we were. It was good to see that they reached out to cosmetic chemists for this article because the article is all about why. Looking into the fear mark, fear mongering of cosmetic ingredients and whether things are safe or not. And they specifically looked at ingredients like parabens and the safety of those. And they looked at petroleum derivatives like petrolatum and mineral oil and whether that's safe and sulfates. You know, all of the classics that are typically highlighted as dangerous that have been used forever in the industry. And, you know, it's just good to see, like a mainstream magazine kind of tackling this problem because normally they would be on the other side saying, hey, these are scary. You should use the ones that don't use these things so well, it sounds.

[A]

Like maybe the writers a Beauty brains fan or at least has common sense, because I actually thought it was very well done. And I. I honestly didn't feel there was a counter perspective to offer because there's no reason to be scared of your products.

[B]

Yeah, I think that's right, because there's certainly plenty of articles out there taking the other perspective without getting the facts about the safety of ingredients first. But this one just went with, what can we prove? What's real? And they just looked at the controversies that are out there and whether there's any validity to it. And it turns out for the most part, there is not. I'm not sure this is gonna move the needle at all because, you know, people. People just prefer to be afraid of stuff, I guess. But it's good to have it out there, right? This is all you can do. It's like pushing a boulder up a hill, trying to sink these unsinkable rubber duckies. And these things just keep popping back up. I still can't believe, like, sulfates and petrolatum and parabens are like a thing that people even think about now.

[A]

But I know. Well, and now people hate sunscreens. And it's. Everything's getting politicized. It's out of control. But moral of the story is Marie Claire did a great job. They Quoted great people. And I think people should go read it if they haven't.

[B]

Yeah. All right, we'll put a link in the show notes. It's always nice, nice to talk to a reporter and then see your words where you say, oh, yeah, I think I said that because a lot of times you'll get interviewed by somebody and you'll talk to them for a half hour and then you read the article and you're like, did I really say that?

[A]

Yeah. I always offer to proof because it is scientific content. And unless they're recording what I'm saying and I've given them permission to, I always want to make sure they convey the right thing. Because there's another science communicator who posted a lot of shade. I don't know if that term still used anymore, but they threw a lot of shade at me over a quote I said in an article that I didn't even say. That was like the walk away that the reporter took away. But they put quotes around it like as if I had said it word for word. And I didn't think it was fair for the other science communicator to do that to me because surely that's happened to them in the past. And they didn't even give that as a possibility.

[B]

I was on the Dr. Oz Show. That's right, on his show a few times way back when. And you know, I only went on there because it's, you know, good publicity and I felt, you know, I didn't mostly didn't respect what his show is because I think there was a lot of nonsense. But I also thought that it's good to go on there to get the non nonsense out there if you can get a scientific perspective. So at least if I'm spreading good information, I figure that's good. And as an aside, Dr. Oz was a really nice guy. Even though I wanted to hate him. He was like the nicest celebrity I ever met.

[A]

Yeah, I heard he's a great person.

[B]

Yeah. I don't know how he is now.

[A]

But you know, the profession, professional stuff aside, but like, as a human, like just a really kind person. I have heard that.

[B]

Sure, sure. Well, in person he was a nice guy. So anyway, I'm on the show, I do this thing, I make this statement about hair conditioners or something and I know what I said. But then I saw like a replay of the show and they had edited my video words so to make me say something that I didn't really say.

[A]

Welcome to. Welcome to Hollywood, Perry.

[B]

And so I Don't think you should ever look at what a chemist or somebody is saying and then get outraged by what they said because they might not have actually said that. I don't.

[A]

And it's not just this industry. It happens all the time where it's like. That was edited everywhere.

[B]

Right, Right, exactly. So certainly sometimes people say stupid stuff, but sometimes someone says a stupid thing that they didn't really say.

[A]

Exactly. Well, one other big drama thing happened that I thought was really interesting because we do talk about this all the time on the show. Did you hear that Urban Decay All Nighter setting spray, which we've gotten questions about on the show before, has been reformulated.

[B]

I only know this because a reporter contacted me and said, hey, have you seen all this hubbub on the Internet? I'm like, I don't really follow TikTok or Instagram or anything for my mental health. I have to kind of stay away from that stuff. But then I looked into it and yeah, it turns out everybody's all upset because Urban Decay made a formulation change and they were kind of. Were they kind of blaming it on l' Oreal and say l' Oreal is trying to cheapen it or.

[A]

No, here's what happened. And you should have referred this reporter to me because I would have spilled the tea, even though I don't have any confidential information. Okay. So basically what happened is Urban Decay has a product called All Nighter Setting Spray. It's a cult classic, well loved, high performing. It has really cool polymers in it, a cooling technology, and it was actually produced by a contract manufacturer that will say it's not private labeled for Urban Decay, but they developed the formula for Urban Decay way before l' Oreal was ever in the picture.

[B]

Okay. Urban Decay was an independent company and then they got popular and L' Oreal bought them for like 150 million bucks. Like, you know, 15 years ago or something.

[A]

Yeah, exactly. So the contract manufacturer got to continue manufacturing this formula. The CM is called. CM is contract manufacturer in our world.

[B]

In the biz, yeah.

[A]

The CM was called skindinavia and all of a sudd. L' Oreal pulled the business and they're manufacturing the product themselves. And obviously this involved reverse engineering or coming up with their own formulation. And l', Oreal, through Urban Decay, made the announcement that they've updated the formula, provided some upgrades to it, put in new technologies. It now features 24 hour wear, a finer mist, temp cooling technology, refresh scent, and people got in their panties in a twist. They got into a Kerfuffle. Because they were like, this formula was so awesome.

[B]

Right.

[A]

What were you thinking, changing anything? So Scandinavia basically comes out and says, l' Oreal pulled the rug from under us and we're no longer manufacturing it. And we got screwed over and all this kind of stuff, and the little.

[B]

Guy gets screwed by the big corporation. I get it. That's why it hit the news hard, huh?

[A]

So here is what's happening, and this is what I know from the industry is that l' Oreal is actually pulling manufacturing business from a lot of different manufacturers. That's the chatter on the street. They're bringing it in house to help control costs. And the reality is l' Oreal doesn't own all of their formulas because the brands they've acquired develop them through CMS when they were independently owned companies. Or maybe it was something that l' Oreal didn't have the capability to do, or whatever that reason is, I don't know. But now l' Oreal's bringing everything in house. And so this means pulling business from companies. And yeah, it probably stinks to lose a lot of money, especially on a SKU that I would imagine is hundreds of thousands of units a year.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, probably for them, it makes up a huge chunk of their business. You know, if l' Oreal is asking, you're going to produce for them before you produce for your smaller companies and such.

[A]

Exactly. So that's what happened. It's not that Urban Decay probably wanted to do this. It was probably a bigger corporate strategy. And it's happening all over the place all of the time. And that's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. It's how it is. Business is business.

[B]

I mean, formulas are changed because maybe there's regulatory changes or ingredients fall out of favor. And that's why Johnson and Johnson took forever to change their baby shampoo, because that's a hugely popular product. You make one little change, people are gonna have big complaints. But it just got to a point where they said, oh, well, we can't use this preservative anymore. It's too much bad pr. So they just switched to a thing. But anytime you change your formula, people, your huge loyal customer base is going to complain, especially if they loved it. And it happens all the time. When a big company like l' Oreal buys another company, then they have to get economies of scale and they bring it in house and they change the formula a little bit and people go crazy over it. But that's just how the industry is. There's there's almost no formulas that are the same for the last, you know, decades or whatever. Except maybe Chanel number nine. That formula has been the same forever.

[A]

And here's the other thing that can happen sometimes, and I'm not saying this did happen, but sometimes what can happen is a brand is acquired and a big company like l' Oreal says, hey, brand that we just acquired, take your time. You be, you keep doing your thing. Over the years, they start to integrate the brand into the larger corporation. Take a peek under the hood, see if things are compliant in all geographies or not. Try to get better buying power or not. And sometimes they look and say, wow, this is actually what the formula is. Holy cow, this isn't compliant somewhere. Or it was misrepresented or there's things that just aren't obvious up front that need to be changed in the long term for regulations, consumer safety, all that kind of stuff. And so then they do have to make the change. And maybe that coincided with moving manufacturing. I do know that that happens as well.

[B]

Yeah, absolutely. Well, formulas change and no amount of complaining will usually bring it back. I don't know. But there's nothing really sinister going on here, at least in my mind. It's just typical corporate stuff.

[A]

And who knows, maybe it's just as good.

[B]

Well, I have to say it's probably if they're doing their formulating right, they've done consumer testing and consumers probably can't tell a difference. The only reason they know it's different is because the ingredient list has changed. And this Scandinavia probably made a big deal out of it on social media and riled up all the, all the fans are saying, oh, this is crazy, even though they don't notice any differences. But that would be my guess. People are surprisingly not good at noticing subtle differences in formulations.

[A]

What about noticing difference in prices? I know that people are not very good at that. And there was something else that came out this week on that.

[B]

That's right. In fact, this was a study published in Open Access journal called the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. But this is a study that looked at price analysis of over the counter retinol products and they did a study that examined the correlation between the prices of OTC retinol products and the amount of retinol in the product. Because they must have had the, they must have the idea that if you spend more on a retinol product, you're going to get more retinol. Well, you know what they found?

[A]

Sometimes that's not the case, it's not like, it's not like a package of bread where it's like, oh, a half loaf is this price and a full loaf is that price, right?

[B]

Not at all. In fact, they found no correlation between the price of the product and the amount of retinol that was used. And their study concluded that the price of the OTC retinol products is likely influenced by factors beyond retinol content, such as brand positioning, formulation and delivery systems, marketing, and perceived credibility. It is suggested that consumers should consider formulation design and other factors beyond brand claims when purchasing retinol products. I mean, we've been preaching this forever like the cost of your product does not necessarily reflect the performance of that product. And because our business is so much driven by brand images and marketing that the formulation, the amount of money that we spend to develop the formulas often pales in comparison to the amount of money spent on marketing and on packaging.

[A]

Yeah, I'm not surprised by this. I mean, having purchased retinol in the past, before my rosacea days, you know, they're relatively the same price. Whether you're 0.05 or 0.1 or 0.2, you're not going to spend a whole lot more money. I mean, maybe it's a couple dollars difference, but most of these formulas also have maybe like a certain package to them or they have other characteristics that you're buying with it. You're not just buying the retinol. There's other ingredients and claims and that kind of thing. And that may impact the price, but it's usually within a price point within the brand. So, for example, like Paula's CH cannot charge $100 for a retinol product. That would be really crazy. But Skin Medica, which is in a different price here, could charge a lot more money for a retinal product. That's the same percentage. It's kind of like Beauty 101, right?

[B]

I don't know why they had to do a whole. I don't know why they had to do a whole dermatology study on it and that anyone is surprised by this.

[A]

I hope they didn't pay to have this published. But it was just a letter to the editor. So.

[B]

Yeah, letter to the ed. But it was a very in depth letter. But I thought it was. I thought it was pretty interesting. And it's good to see that dermatologists are now realizing that the price of a beauty product does not really impact how effective it is.

[A]

Well, speaking of effective, let's effectively answer some beauty questions. Our first question comes to us from Misty. Is there a way to search past episode topics and questions? I was trying to remember if you've talked about sunscreen sticks in terms of effectiveness, depending on application, like missing spots, not applying enough. I do remember you discussing that this could be more of an issue with sprays compared to lotions. It seems like it would be easy not to apply enough of the stick product or even to miss spots. Also, do you need to rub it in or just swipe? Thanks, Misty.

[B]

Well, thanks for being a patron, Misty. I forgot to mention she comes from Patreon. And that's a good question. First about how you can search topics and old shows. And the answer is it's coming in 2026.

[A]

Maybe.

[B]

Well, you know what, since we're doing transcripts, I can make one giant file of the transcripts and then you could just get that file and do the search on the transcripts.

[A]

As a patron.

[B]

As a patron, I think we could do that as a patron benefit. So I will put that together and so you'll be able to do that and find the shows. But right now we don't have anything easily done on that. But we do have some thoughts on stick lotions for. Or stick products for spf. Right.

[A]

You know, I'm not a stick product fan. I remember maybe 10 years ago. Gosh, probably 15 years ago since I'm like aging rapidly. I remember a bunch of stick products came out. They were a K beauty phenomenon and they were just super heavy on glycols. And I'm just not a fan of that dewy, heavy feel on skin. I'm just not. And so for me, stick products are awful. Also, stick products for me remind me of just like really bad sunscreen. Like, as a lifeguard, you would put like the zinc shape on your cheeks to like, you know, help deflect your nose. Yeah, yeah. And I don't know, it's just not an aesthetically pleasing application. Even though I do like waxier SPFs because they remind me not to touch my face. But.

[B]

Right.

[A]

From a effectiveness standpoint, I think it's a different type of question.

[B]

Well, I have to say from an effectiveness, if you're putting it on at the recommended levels that are tested with SPF testing and there's an SPF claim on there, then yes, it would be effective. And I think on some level, anhydrous ones stay on better. They.

[A]

They don't, they don't migrate as much necessarily because they have to have a lot of wax in them to keep them as A stick.

[B]

Exactly. And they're not going to be influenced by water as much, so they probably are, over time, more effective at maintaining the proper spf. But I do see what you're saying, like, it would be easy to miss spots because it's not like there's like, a little line where you say, oh, there's the sunscreen. And when you rub it, it doesn't rub in the same way or spread the same way. So it's harder. These anhydrous ones are harder to spread. So all that is saying is like, yeah, these compared to lotions. I think anhydrous sticks are effective for spot applying for spf. But overall applying, I just don't think you're gonna be as effective as, say, a lotion or even a spray.

[A]

You definitely would need to use your fingers to rub it in. You wouldn't be able to just swipe, because some of the most common areas that are missed, even with finger applications are the bridge of the nose, the sides of the nose, and the corners of your eyes right by your nose. That's actually the number one spot that facial skin cancer occurs because people are not applying SPF there. That was in a paper from a couple years ago that I remember. And so with a stick, I just don't think you'll be able to effectively get all the contours of those regions without helping rub them in and helping spread that product around.

[B]

I guess you don't have to rub it, like, into your skin. You just have to rub it around, rub it out, Covers the rubber, the surface. So, yeah, just swiping. Unless you're just got a, like, one spot. Like when they. You know, when the football players put those dark things under their eyes.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

That's just like a one swipe. And so if that was a sunscreen, that would probably be suitable. But if you're putting on your nose or somewhere like that, you're gonna have to rub it around so it gets everywhere also.

[A]

Okay. I don't know if you know this, Perry, but basically a lot of women get mustaches as they age, and it's not, like, super heavy. Maybe your wife has it.

[B]

I don't know.

[A]

Yeah, it's just like a little furry. And when I think of applying a stick sunscreen over this region, I just think of the stick. Stick sunscreen covering the hairs, even though it's peach fuzz and not getting to my skin.

[B]

Oh, okay.

[A]

So I feel like you would kind of have to rub it in a lot of different places.

[B]

You just have to Rub, you know, with the mustache, you just have to rub up.

[A]

So apply against the direction of the hair.

[B]

Right? I guess. Well, you know, that was a big question when I was growing. When I was in high school. Like, the question was, which. What. Which direction are you supposed to shave? Because, you know, you're in high school, you don't know about shaving.

[A]

I mean, I still don't know. I mean, like, what's the answer?

[B]

I mean, I don't. I think that the natural answer is you shave down. So.

[A]

In the direction of the hair.

[B]

In the direction of the hair. Although on my neck, I always shave up because I just feel like you get a closer shave when you shave up.

[A]

Maybe you do both. Like, you go with the grain and then against the grain.

[B]

Well, when I want to get a closest shave, I go against the grain. So that there must be some merit to that. I'm probably exposing myself to a chance of, like, slicing up my skin, but it doesn't happen. So I don't think there's a definitive answer, like, this is the right way, even though I'm sure there are people out there that say, yes, this is the way you should do it. But for me, down on the face and then up on the neck works quite well.

[A]

I'm going to tell you a story about Mr. Cosmetic Chemist. He's not going to appreciate this.

[B]

Get out.

[A]

Only because he was just like, I think you're a terrible chemist.

[B]

Was he shaving with the Oreos? The Celine Dion Oreos? Selena Gogos.

[A]

Oh, my gosh. Celine Dion Oreos would be amazing. No. So basically, he was out of shaving cream. And I was like, you could use literally anything in the shower because basically, hot water, you just need a little lubrication.

[B]

So a little shampoo? Yeah, Anything like that.

[A]

Conditioner even?

[B]

Sure.

[A]

Well, he used a conditioner, and it broke him out so bad.

[B]

Oh. Oh, boy.

[A]

And I permanently lost his trust.

[B]

Oh, man. He was just. Just happened to be sensitive to those ingredients.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

I can't believe that you have to suffer from that one incident. How could you. You can't even predict that. How could you know?

[A]

Well, there's a second incident. It didn't happen with him. It happened with my brother. But he got to witness this. Okay. My brother, I sent him a ton of product from the salon brand I used to work at. And we had a Tea Tree peppermint hand soap.

[B]

Love that Tea Tree peppermint hand soap.

[A]

It's so good. I sent my brother liters of it. Okay. Because it came in Liters. And we got everything for free and that kind of stuff. So I had also sent my brother this, like, basic sulfate shampoo. Lemon scented. Really great. Literally the same stuff as in a body wash. Okay. And I told my brother, like, almost all cleansers can be used as a body wash because they have a lot of the same ingredients. Well, my brother put this tea tree hand soap.

[B]

Oh, no.

[A]

Yeah. Down there in the nether regions. Yep.

[B]

It's got the methyl salicylate in it or something.

[A]

Oh, totally burned his boy parts up.

[B]

Oh, boy.

[A]

Lit them on fire. And I also lost his trust. And Mr. Cosmetic Chemist knew about this incident. And so when the conditioner shaving thing happened, he was just like, I'm done taking your beauty advice.

[B]

I'm eating my Selena Gomez Oreos. That's right. All right, shall we go on to Michelle's question?

[A]

Yeah, let's do it.

[B]

Michelle says I'm black with tightly coiled hair. And I noticed most products marketed to our community are heavy in oils and butter. What role do these ingredients actually play in hair care? In our community, they're often said to keep hair moisturized to prevent breakage, but I've heard that's not scientifically accurate. What's really happening and following up. Silicones seem to be excellent for hair, but many brands avoid them. Would it make sense to layer an oil or butter rich product on top of a silicone based leave in conditioner? And if so, why? Or why not? Okay, this is right up your alley. These are the types of products you used to make. Right?

[A]

Exactly. So. So what's really cool about oils and butters is they could be terrible for your hair or they could be great for your hair. There's really only two ways about it. And this is because, believe it or not, oils do penetrate.

[B]

Ah, walking on air. I never. Oh, sorry. It's just a mental thing. You know the theme from the Greatest American Hero? What? Sorry, you don't know the Believe it or not Believe it or not?

[A]

Well, I know the song, but I didn't know it was from that.

[B]

It's triggering to me whenever I hear that, that phrase, believe it or not, I just break out into that song. I'm sorry, let's go back to Michelle's question.

[A]

Should it be believe it or not, oils go into hair? We could change the lyrics up. Yeah. All right.

[B]

I think there's gonna be a song at the end of the show for that.

[A]

Oh, my goodness. Okay, so basically, it's kind of hard to explain, but I'm not A big believer in butters for hair. And this is my opinion, because butters have really large molecules in them. Very large.

[B]

When we say large molecules, they're carbon and hydrogen. Just a lot of them in a row, and then they branch off, and so they take big shapes. So we have big molecules.

[A]

Exactly. Butters tend to sit on the outside of hair, whereas oils contain triglycerides that vary. So, for example, you might have triglycerides, which are carbon and hydrogen fatty acids that have maybe 18 carbons, 24 carbons, 8 carbons. They're kind of a little bit more distributed. But with oils, there are actually two types of fatty acids that can penetrate into hair. Whereas in butters, again, you get a lot of sitting on top of the hair. And those two oil are oil types, I should say. What do you think, Perry? What chain length are we talking?

[B]

C12. What, coconut oil? C14. C12.

[A]

Exactly.

[B]

Shorter ones.

[A]

The shorter ones that are fully saturated, so they don't have any bends to them. So think capryla, capric, triglyceride, coconut oil on its own. But when you get into traditional plant oils, anything with 18 carbons and 1 degree of unsaturation can penetrate. So oleic acid.

[B]

Oleic, yeah, yeah, exactly.

[A]

Whereas linoleic and linolenic don't really penetrate the hair. And so I like using oils in little quantities. You actually don't really use a ton of oil in hair care because, again, it can sit on top of the hair, but some of it can go in because they help go in. They improve elasticity, they improve hair strength. But when they do sit on the outside, they coat the hair fiber and lubricate it. So from that perspective, they'll help prevent breakage. But in terms of keeping hair moisturized, that actually doesn't really happen, because when you have more water in hair, you actually change the fiber alignment, and you actually could increase breakage if it were the literal sense of moisturization. So when a consumer says, oh, my hair is moisturized, they're actually actually talking about that lubricated slip on the outside. It's a perception. It's not a literal moisturization.

[B]

Yeah, because it's often that that flexibility or that slip, it's not from the water, it's from the hydrocarbons that are in the butters and the oils. And so that's what they're referring to. And so that's why it's technically not moisture. Even though the word moisturized has is it's sort of morphed away from being water. Containing to just more talking about the characteristics of the fiber. So whether it's wet or moisturized feeling, that doesn't. It doesn't necessarily depend on water.

[A]

Exactly. And this is really important. I mean, it's one. It's important for all hair, except maybe fine hair, which could easily be weighed down by these buttery, oily lubricants. But especially if you have frizzy, kinky, coiled, curly hair, you have a physics problem. So usually when you run your fingers down your hair, if it feels smooth and moisturized, you say, wow, my hair is really healthy. But the problem is if you have any bend to your hair, you feel all those bends. And especially if you have coiled, curly or kinky hair, the hair doesn't want to be smooth and straight. You apply a lot of stress and strain on it when you do, let's say, run your fingers through it or put a comb through it. So you want that lubrication to help with that and reduce the stress, strain and breakage.

[B]

Exactly. Now, the other question was about silicones. Does it make sense to layer oils on top of silicones?

[A]

I would say if you really needed the lubrication, you could, but I would say it might not be necessary. And it depends on what the silicone is, because not all silicones are necessarily lubricating silicones. Some of them are functional, like, for example, silicone that offers thermal protection or a silicone that offers color protection. A silicone that reduces frizz. You know, it may not be doing the same thing that this oil or butter would do. So you may want to use them in tandem, but you might not have to.

[B]

I think also people kind of get used to how their hair has felt. And a silicone, while it's going to be lubricated and shiny, it's going to feel different than an oil butter mixture. So if you've grown up and you kind of like that feel, you could do the silicone first and then put the oil butter on afterwards and still maintain that feel feel that you're used to. But you get the benefits of silicones because you'll use less of the oils and butters. So it could feel a little lighter, I guess.

[A]

I think oils and butters actually leave a lot of drag on hair. I think silicones offer a more slippy type experience. That's my opinion.

[B]

Oh, for sure, for sure. And shinier, too.

[A]

Yes.

[B]

Hey, you know who's back? Super fan Timothy.

[A]

Oh, Timothy, I was thinking about you the other day and I was like, yeah, we haven't had a question from him in a while, and he must have been reading my mind.

[B]

Sent in an audio question, and here it goes.

[C]

Hi, Beauty Brains. I have a question for you today about sunscreen, specifically the company Skinnies. So my understanding has always been that sunscreens, when they are tested, must be tested at 2 milligrams per centimeter squared. And so then when you're applying that sunscreen in order to get the SPF that's on the bottle, that's the. The same amount that you have to use on your body. But I have a friend in Australia who said that that's not correct. The claims that this company is making are true. So what they are saying is that because their formula is waterless, you have to use less of it. And they say that you don't have to use that 2 milligrams per centimeter squared, which to me seems unethical because my understanding was that that 2 milligrams per centimeter squared was universal. So that's my question to you. Is it different in Australia? So it just seems like they're making a lot of claims about, like, waterless being better, that you can use less of their sunscreen. So that's why you should buy it, get more bang for your buck. And the bigger question is, do they also. Do you still have to apply 2mg per cm squared to get the SPF on Australian sunscreens, or are they actually telling the truth about their sunscreen? Thank you so much for your time, very much. Love your show and appreciate your expertise.

[A]

Are they allowed to make those claims? I don't think so.

[B]

Well, it depends on where they are and what the rules are and stuff. Probably in the United States. No, it's otc. They're a little tighter with the claims there, too. I don't know. I mean, it's social media, I guess. People make claims until they get forced to take them down.

[A]

In thinking about our previous question, okay, Timothy mentioned that Skinny says their product is waterless, so therefore you need to use less. I actually would think you may need to use more because typically anhydrous products don't spread as well, in my opinion.

[B]

One of the questions was about whether when you test an anhydrous formula, do you use that 2 centimeters per or 2 grams per centimeter rule or whatever it is? And the answer is yes. The regulations have to be. The assumption is you have to still apply 2 milligrams per centimeter per centimeter of skin. And so whether it's FDA or ISO you have to test it the same as you're doing a cream. So the idea that theirs is more concentrated is not. That doesn't really hold up here because the way an SPF would work is generally is, well, you test the whole formula. So you test the whole formula at the level that assesses. So if it says SPF 30, that means it was tested on a person's skin with 2 milligrams per centimeter squared. Whether it was anhydrous or water based does not matter. And so for them to try to claim that you need to use less of theirs, that just doesn't hold up. You need to use the same amount that was tested and that's the same amount as a water based formula.

[A]

And not only that, it actually doesn't matter where you are in the world. I think for this because whether you're the fda, whether you're the ISO method, which is an international standard organization method, or even the Australian New Zealand standard which aligns with the ISO method, they all use this 2 milligrams per centimeter squared. So it's not like they can say that because they're in Australia and they did testing in Australia like that regulation or the, the testing for the regulation is the same as it is in the US and Canada and the eu. So it's not even like anhydrous to hydrous. It's, it doesn't matter where you are. Like everyone's pretty aligned on quantity of sunscreen for testing.

[B]

Yeah. So their claim that you can use less of theirs, I haven't, I'm not looking at the claim specifically. So, you know, they kind of make the implied claim. They say, you know, we don't include water and water doesn't protect you from sunscreen. So that's why Skinnies is better for the environment because we're not wasting water. And because Skinnies isn't diluted sunscreen acts like a concentrated staying on your skin doing what it should do for longer. I mean you put on this, you're supposed to put on the same amount of their anhydrous one or your water based one and it'll deliver the same spf. So this marketing is a little bit misleading in my opinion.

[A]

Also I think one of the claims that Timothy mentioned was that you only need to apply it at the beach one time and one application on a typical day is enough. I think that's crazy because it rubs off, sweats off. Even if it's anhydrous, it's mixing with your body fluids.

[B]

And for sure. It's not sticking and it's not keeping a consistent film. Like you bend your arm, even if it's anhydrous, it's going to move the concentration of the film. So it'll be more concentrated in one area and less concentrated in another area where the folds are. And so, yeah, that. That claim seems a little over the top, too.

[A]

So bottom line, I wouldn't buy into the hype. I don't think there's anything special there.

[B]

You know, I mean, it's probably a fine product. It's not a good piece of marketing.

[A]

Yeah, I would pass. Also, I'm just like, thinking how greasy it is.

[B]

Oh, yeah, yeah. Lots of grease. So. All right.

[A]

One last question. Yeah.

[B]

Comes to us from Noga. Hi, beauty brains. Sorry for not recording. I have an accent and I don't want people to struggle understanding. Thank you so much for what you do. And science education is so important. It really is. I have been using the Philip Kingsley elasticizer for a while and it's hands down the best mask I've ever used. However, I never use another mask the way they instruct. First, dampening the hair, then spread a thick layer on the mask, and then you wait a minimum of 30 minutes and then you wash and shampoo as usual. Usually I wait several hours. It promises to make the hair feel significantly softer and more bouncy. And it delivers. I wonder whether other masks could do the same if they were put on the same way or is there a different formulation depending on whether a mask is intended to be used before versus after shampooing and on how long is it designed to be on the hair? To be honest, I also find this method more convenient. And thanks for an old comment from Perry on the hair care science subreddit I sometimes will comment on there. I now know that all hydrolyzed proteins are the same because amino acids are like Lego blocks. So I wonder if another potentially more affordable mask would, with some hydrolyzed protein and castor oil could give a similar benefit, even if it is not intended to be used pre shampoo. And then the link of the ingredients. Thank you so much, Noga. A little bit to impact there. So let's start with the hair masks and that method. Damp the hair, put it on and wait 30 minutes before shampooing it off. That's different than other hair masks.

[A]

Exactly. So this is a pretreatment hair mask. And so what that means is, is you, before shampooing and conditioning, you would apply this treatment mask to your hair, allow everything to penetrate or coat your hair and then you kind of shampoo most of it off before conditioning like usual. And I'd say pre treatments, pre shampoos, you know, whatever you call them, kind of came about five to seven years ago. I remember talking about them in my old salon professional days and well, well.

[B]

I mean the masks. But I used to work on a product called VO5 hot oil treatment, which you put on before. And that's been around since.

[A]

Oh yeah, I meant like a resurgence in it, you know, like a re interest. And I just don't feel it ever picked up traction because like the V5 hot oil treatment, it really is kind of like a heavier occlusive product product and it really coats the hair and then you kind of wash a lot of it off and some of the residue is left, which is what the hair feels like after it's been treated, per se. So I could see the allure of it. I have a feeling though, if you used this product like a regular conditioner or a different mask, like a pre treatment, I think you would kind of find they do the same thing. Because as far as the conditioning aspect goes, the Philip Kingsley elasticizer has amodimethicone and cetrimonium chloride and guar hydroxypropyl trimonium chloride. These are the conditioning agents. Everything else is just kind of like an oil. So it has castor seed oil in it, which is incredibly heavy for hair. I would never recommend it or use it usually because that's so sticky. But that's actually probably what makes it a really nice pre treatment.

[B]

Right.

[A]

For this product.

[B]

But yeah, then the shampoo rinses that out.

[A]

It kind of takes most of it off. Yeah. So no go. What I would recommend is two experiments. One, take your Philip Kingsley elasticizer and just use it like a regular hair mask. So shampoo maybe condition if you want, and then leave this mask on for two minutes and rinse it off and then do the exact same with a different hair mask and see if you see a difference. Likewise, you could take a different hair mask, use it as a pre shampoo treatment, same way you do your Philip Kingsley elasticizer and see what happens. And I think you'll find they're pretty close, I think.

[B]

So this is definitely based on the ingredients. There's a lot of these ingredients are used in rinse out conditioners that are used after. So the idea of putting this on before, I'm not sure I see the huge benefit except it making your shampoo be less effective. So essentially you're making your Hair dirty, and then you shampoo it to remove the oils. And I guess the idea here is you're hoping that you don't remove all of the oils from your hair. So you're hoping your shampoo doesn't work as well.

[A]

Well, you wouldn't remove all the amodimethicone because that does last a few washes.

[B]

And what supposed to though the guarantee the guar. The hydroxyprometrylam chloride. That'll stick on there too. It's just that you're putting this on dirty hair. You know, your hair's not essentially washed, so it's not gonna be optimized. I think this would work better post shampooing. Although with all those oils in there, it probably would be harder to rinse out. So, you know, maybe that's why they do it this way.

[A]

That's exactly why they do it this way. Now, Perry, I know you've told this story a million times, and I hate to inflate afflict our listeners with this information again, but I honestly really forget, what were the five oils in VO5?

[B]

Oh, sure. Well, petrolatum. It was mostly petrolatum. And there was mineral oil to make it fluid.

[A]

Yep. So I could see how that's like castor oil, because castor oil is very heavy, like mineral oil, in my opinion, very sticky.

[B]

And. And there was lanolin, which was, you know, lanolin oil.

[A]

Yeah, like the sheep.

[B]

And then there was sheep's microcrystal. Yeah, yeah. Microcrystalline wax. Okay, that's another one. And then there was like a. Like a PPG PPI blend, like a fluid liquid blend. And so those were kind of the five oils that were put together or oily materials that were put together.

[A]

So there were no plant oils in it.

[B]

That all came later in the marketing. But no, there weren't any actual plant oils. They were all. It was all petroleum based, stuffed. Well. And lanolin. Yeah.

[A]

I didn't know that. Sheep sweat. Yeah. Interesting.

[B]

Okay, well, you know, lanolin feels quite nice. It does have a weird.

[A]

It does. It just smells terrible.

[B]

A barnyard smell. It feels really nice.

[A]

Yeah, it's. It's slippy and lubricious and. Yeah, it's nice, but also weird. I do need to address one other thing with this question, which.

[B]

Oh, are we going to end on some controversy? Let's do it. What do we got?

[A]

Oh, my gosh. Okay, first of all, this old comment from you on the hair care science subreddit that all proteins are the same because they're all made of Amino acids. And I would just like to say that yes, all proteins are made of amino acids like Lego blocks. But yes, the Lego blocks are different shapes, Perry, and different colors. And you put different Lego blocks in, you can get something a little bit different based on the fact, you know, is it a basic amino acid, a acidic amino acid? Does it have an electron ring rich ring in it?

[B]

These are all correct. In fact, hair and skin are both all made up of protein and they're certainly different.

[A]

Right, exactly.

[B]

But the key piece of this from my comments are, and I made this comment a long time ago and maybe.

[A]

Before I provided some advice to you.

[B]

Maybe a little different. I'm not sure if I'm completely convinced, but here is the basis. The thing that you're forgetting is that it says hydrolyzed. And so the process of hydrolyzation is it breaks. So, so proteins have a four, four levels of structure. It has the sequence of amino acids.

[A]

Which is primary structure. Yep.

[B]

Right. And then those amino acids will fold up, secondary structure second. And then those folded little pieces, those are the Lego blocks. And they will then piece together to give you the three dimensional fourth quaternary.

[A]

Structures, the final quaternary structured.

[B]

There you go. And then those things can all be put together and create organs and skins and stuff. So you have all that structure. Well, hydrolyzing just takes all that structure and just rips it all down and cuts it up into just strings of amino acids. And so when you're buying a hydrolyzed protein, you're going to have a range of just these short amino acid chains. I think probably the longest doesn't go any longer than 50amino acids in a row. And so you don't, you don't get any secondary structure there. So I'm saying if you take protein from silk or you take protein from scales or something and then you hydrolyze them, you cannot tell much difference between the two of them?

[A]

I don't think so. I mean, could a consumer notice a difference in most products where people are hardly using any protein? I would say.

[B]

And there's that too.

[A]

You are correct. I don't think a consumer would notice difference. A difference. But if I gave you a shampoo with three, three samples of a shampoo with different proteins in them loaded in there, I want you to tell me there's no difference. And if I had time, I would do this. But I don't have time, Perry, because my day starts at 2 in the morning.

[B]

So 2 in the morning. Speaking of that, you've got to go.

[A]

To Bed soon we shall continue the conversation.

[B]

We. We will.

[A]

Well, thanks for listening, everyone.

[B]

Yeah, thanks everybody. If you get a chance, can you head over to Apple Podcasts and leave us a review or Spotify? We take comments there too. And now on YouTube, people are leaving comments on YouTube too. So you want to leave comments.

[A]

I hope they're nice. If they're mean comments, please don't.

[B]

No, I will filter them so you never have to see the mean ones. But there haven't been. There have been nice comments if that's going to help other people find the show and ensure we have a full docket of people beauty questions to answer.

[A]

Speaking of questions, if you have a question, we love hearing your voice. We don't care what your accent is. We love the diversity it brings to the show. Just record it on your smartphone and email it to thebeautybrains gmail.com or check the show notes for our telephone number where you can call. We'll never pick up the phone, trust us. Leave a voice message and we're going to use that voice message on the show.

[B]

You know, incidentally, I we have a question in the queue where the person said, please use an AI to do my voice.

[A]

So we will do that, but we'll do it only because they asked. With a disclaimer because they asked.

[B]

The Beauty Brains are on Patreon. If you appreciate that. We don't have commercials on this show because that allows us to say whatever we want about anybody's product. We do need some support. So go to patreon.com thebeautybrains and subscribe at any level that will ensure we keep commercial away and your questions get a higher priority and you get a transcript of every show and soon you'll have the searchable transcript of any show where we've answered a question before.

[A]

We might need the money for lawyers after this whole skinnies thing.

[B]

I was just.

[A]

American lawyers are very expensive.

[B]

Yeah, it turns out they are.

[A]

Also, don't forget to follow us us on our various social media accounts. On Instagram, we're at the beauty brains 2018 on X worth the Beauty Brains on Blue sky, we're at the Beauty Brains. We have a Facebook page and a.

[B]

TikTok and a YouTube and on YouTube we're @thebeautybrains 2018.

[A]

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

[B]

Thanks everyone. Kittens.

[A]

I really love this Walking on Hair song that you have going on. Penetrating hair. Whatever.

[B]

Penetrating hair.

[A]

Oh my gosh.

[B]

Believe it or not, oils in my hair I never thought I could shine so free Smoothing away on a comb and a press who could it be? Believe it or not, it's just me.