Caution Cellulite: Bumpy Road Ahead: Part 2

Most cellulite products come in the form of lotions and creams with a vast array of either exotic-sounding or lab-synthesized ingredients. Beyond topical products there are devices such as endermologie, medical treatments such as lasers and mesotherapy (a procedure involving repeated injections, which is claimed to break down fat). As far as skin-care products are concerned, the litany of options is mesmerizing.

Yet there is almost no uniformity between anti-cellulite formulas. It would appear, if the claims are to be believed, a wide variety of unrelated extracts can deflate or break down fat and/or restructure skin. Looking at the research, however, most suggest there is little hope anything rubbed on the skin can change fat deposits or radically reduce the appearance of cellulite. (Sources: Dermatologic Surgery, July 2005, pages 866-872 and The European Journal of Dermatology, December 2000, pages 596-603)

Lotions and Creams: A review of the more popular anti-cellulite products may be found in the full-length report (see link below).

A Bevy of Anti-Cellulite Ingredients: A review of the more typical ingredients contained in various anti-cellulite products may be found in the full-length report (see link below).

Mesotherapy: Mesotherapy is a procedure, which has been claimed to dissolve fat from the repeated injection (and I mean lots and lots of injections) of various substances into the fat layers of skin. Mesotherapy got its start 50 years ago in France through the work of a physician who was trying to find a cure for deafness. (Source: Dermatological Times, December 1, 2004)

Some of the substances being injected are homeopathic and some are pharmaceutical. Strangely, there isn’t necessarily any consistency, and the cocktail of ingredients can vary from practitioner to practitioner, which makes this treatment very hard to evaluate.

The most typically used substance is phosphatidylcholine, but it can also be combined with deoxycholate. A handful of studies have shown this can successfully reduce fat when injected into the skin, with one study demonstrating this for the undereye area. Theoretically, the reduction of subcutaneous fat may be caused by inflammatory-mediated cell death and resorption.

However, mesotherapy isn’t without risk. One study explained, “Side effects included burning, erythema and swelling at the injection site. At follow-up averaging 9 months, 50 percent of patients reported persistence of benefit, 20 percent experienced some fading, and 30 percent [received no benefit at all].

Finding out if this would work for you isn’t inexpensive. Mesotherapy costs $300 to $500 for each treatment and about ten to fifteen sessions are recommended, so it actually ends up being more expensive than liposuction. (Sources: Journal of Cosmetic Laser Therapy, December 2005, pages 147-154 and March 2005, pages 17-19; Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, November 2005, pages 1127-1130; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, July 2003, pages 162-70; and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, July-August 2003, pages 315-18) Learn more about mesotherapy in our complete report (see link below).

Endermologie: Developed in France in the 1980s, the FDA approved this high-powered, handheld massage tool in 1998. It consists of two motorized rollers with a suction device moved over the skin, somewhat like a mix between an old-time, wet-clothes ringer and a vacuum cleaner. (By the way, European women are confounded by cellulite, too, even though they tend not to have the weight problems Americans do. But remember, weight and cellulite are not directly related.)

While claims abound, legally, those advertising endermologie treatment are only permitted to promote it for “temporarily improving the appearance of cellulite.” Of course, somehow the word “temporarily” is never seen in the ads or Web sites promoting this device. Finding out if this works is time consuming and pricy. Anywhere from ten to twenty treatments are recommended plus one or two maintenance visits per month are required to preserve any results. There is no typical cost, and depending on where you go, prices can range from $75 to $200 per session. More information on endermologie is available in the complete report (see link below).

Non-ablative Lasers and Light Systems: Ever since the FDA approved TriActive Laserdermology (Cynosure Inc, Chelmsford, MA) as a Class II medical device that “temporarily reduces the appearance of cellulite,” lots of companies have wanted in on the action.
TriActive combines a diode laser (at a wavelength of 810 nanometers) with localized cooling, suction and mechanical massage (sort of a cross between a laser and an endermologie machine). Treatment protocol varies, but generally the process is three times a week for two weeks and then biweekly treatments for five weeks. As a Class II medical device, this laser can be sold and used without physician supervision, which means a growing number of salons and spas are advertising its success and changing the FDA classification of “temporarily reduces” to a more alluring “reduces” cellulite. (Sources: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf3/k030876.pdf; Securities and Exchange Commission Information, http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRx.z4y6.htm; and Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, June 2005, pages 81-85 and June 2004, pages 181-185)

Another device approved by the FDA is the VelaSmooth system (Syneron Inc, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada). It combines near infrared light at a wavelength of 700 nanometers, continuous wave radiofrequency and mechanical suction. Twice-weekly treatments for a total of eight to ten sessions have been recommended. One of the only studies demonstrating this machine’s efficacy included twenty women, and eighteen of the twenty personally thought they saw improvement.

Yet the actual measurements only showed a 0.3-inch reduction in thigh circumference. Hardly sweeping results by any standard, making it clear larger-scale studies are needed, especially before you decide to spend $1,000 or more to see if these kinds of machines can get you what you want, namely smoother thighs, not a lighter wallet. (Sources: Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, December 2004, pages 187-190; December 2004, pages 181-185; June 2005, pages 81-85)

Electrical Muscle Stimulators (EMS) and Iontophoresis Devices: According to www.quackwatch.com, “Muscle stimulators are a legitimate medical device approved for certain conditions” to relax muscle spasms, increase blood circulation, prevent blood clots and rehabilitate muscle function after a stroke. But many health spas and figure salons claim muscle stimulators can remove wrinkles, perform facelifts, reduce breast size, reduce a “beer belly” and remove cellulite.

Iontophoresis devices are prescription devices that use direct electric current to introduce ions of soluble salts (i.e., medications) into body tissues for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes. The FDA considers promotion of muscle stimulators or iontophoresis devices for any type of body shaping or contouring to be fraudulent. (Source: http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia8901.html)

Body Wrapping: Many salons and spas offer a cellulite/weight-loss service where the body is tightly wrapped or dressed in special garments with or without a “specialty” cream or lotion applied first. Promising to reduce inches off your body, the cost for these treatments range from $65 to $500 depending on the salon and whether the clientele is elite enough to warrant the steep price.

Scientific-sounding information makes this process seem legitimate, but in the long run all it is doing is temporarily compressing your skin (you could probably do this yourself with plastic wrap), which will then return to its original shape in a matter of time, how much time depends on your skin’s response. Impressive results often are delivered after measuring several parts of the body and adding up small incremental changes, which in total, end up sounding far more impressive than they really are.

Infomercials, Internet sites and some multilevel marketing companies sell at-home systems claiming to eliminate toxins and squeeze water-logged fatty tissue dry. You can’t squeeze toxins out of a cell. While you may be able to squeeze water out of a cell, the same pressure would concurrently injure other cells, which isn’t good for your skin. Plus, the water content would return to whatever level is natural for the body fairly soon due to homeostasis.

All in all, there is no research whatsoever showing body wrapping does anything positive and it will not get rid of fat or cellulite. (Source: Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/12/transdermal.htm)

Skin Patches: Learn more about skin patches for cellulite in our complete report (see link below).
Liposuction: Liposuction has been used to reshape and reduce the appearance of accumulated fat layers and cellulite. However, the primary function of this procedure is to remove fat in localized areas, not cellulite. In cases, where liposuction involves the removal of large quantities of stored fat, it can sometimes worsen the appearance of cellulite by creating unsupported and slackened skin, which allows any remaining fat (and some always remains) to show through.

For original article and to view the reports noted above, visit Paula Begoun’s site. Reprinted with permission. (c) Copyright 2005, 2006, 2007 by Paula Begoun and Bryan Barron. This publication is the property of Paula’s Choice, Inc. (“Paula’s Choice”), and/or its owners or affiliates.

Paula Begoun is the author of “Don’t Go To The Cosmetic Counter Without Me”.

Caution Cellulite: Bumpy Road Ahead: Part 2

Most cellulite products come in the form of lotions and creams with a vast array of either exotic-sounding or lab-synthesized ingredients. Beyond topical products there are devices such as endermologie, medical treatments such as lasers and mesotherapy (a procedure involving repeated injections, which is claimed to break down fat). As far as skin-care products are concerned, the litany of options is mesmerizing.

Yet there is almost no uniformity between anti-cellulite formulas. It would appear, if the claims are to be believed, a wide variety of unrelated extracts can deflate or break down fat and/or restructure skin. Looking at the research, however, most suggest there is little hope anything rubbed on the skin can change fat deposits or radically reduce the appearance of cellulite. (Sources: Dermatologic Surgery, July 2005, pages 866-872 and The European Journal of Dermatology, December 2000, pages 596-603)

Lotions and Creams: A review of the more popular anti-cellulite products may be found in the full-length report (see link below).

A Bevy of Anti-Cellulite Ingredients: A review of the more typical ingredients contained in various anti-cellulite products may be found in the full-length report (see link below).

Mesotherapy: Mesotherapy is a procedure, which has been claimed to dissolve fat from the repeated injection (and I mean lots and lots of injections) of various substances into the fat layers of skin. Mesotherapy got its start 50 years ago in France through the work of a physician who was trying to find a cure for deafness. (Source: Dermatological Times, December 1, 2004)

Some of the substances being injected are homeopathic and some are pharmaceutical. Strangely, there isn’t necessarily any consistency, and the cocktail of ingredients can vary from practitioner to practitioner, which makes this treatment very hard to evaluate.

The most typically used substance is phosphatidylcholine, but it can also be combined with deoxycholate. A handful of studies have shown this can successfully reduce fat when injected into the skin, with one study demonstrating this for the undereye area. Theoretically, the reduction of subcutaneous fat may be caused by inflammatory-mediated cell death and resorption.

However, mesotherapy isn’t without risk. One study explained, “Side effects included burning, erythema and swelling at the injection site. At follow-up averaging 9 months, 50 percent of patients reported persistence of benefit, 20 percent experienced some fading, and 30 percent [received no benefit at all].

Finding out if this would work for you isn’t inexpensive. Mesotherapy costs $300 to $500 for each treatment and about ten to fifteen sessions are recommended, so it actually ends up being more expensive than liposuction. (Sources: Journal of Cosmetic Laser Therapy, December 2005, pages 147-154 and March 2005, pages 17-19; Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, November 2005, pages 1127-1130; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, July 2003, pages 162-70; and Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, July-August 2003, pages 315-18) Learn more about mesotherapy in our complete report (see link below).

Endermologie: Developed in France in the 1980s, the FDA approved this high-powered, handheld massage tool in 1998. It consists of two motorized rollers with a suction device moved over the skin, somewhat like a mix between an old-time, wet-clothes ringer and a vacuum cleaner. (By the way, European women are confounded by cellulite, too, even though they tend not to have the weight problems Americans do. But remember, weight and cellulite are not directly related.)

While claims abound, legally, those advertising endermologie treatment are only permitted to promote it for “temporarily improving the appearance of cellulite.” Of course, somehow the word “temporarily” is never seen in the ads or Web sites promoting this device. Finding out if this works is time consuming and pricy. Anywhere from ten to twenty treatments are recommended plus one or two maintenance visits per month are required to preserve any results. There is no typical cost, and depending on where you go, prices can range from $75 to $200 per session. More information on endermologie is available in the complete report (see link below).

Non-ablative Lasers and Light Systems: Ever since the FDA approved TriActive Laserdermology (Cynosure Inc, Chelmsford, MA) as a Class II medical device that “temporarily reduces the appearance of cellulite,” lots of companies have wanted in on the action.

TriActive combines a diode laser (at a wavelength of 810 nanometers) with localized cooling, suction and mechanical massage (sort of a cross between a laser and an endermologie machine). Treatment protocol varies, but generally the process is three times a week for two weeks and then biweekly treatments for five weeks. As a Class II medical device, this laser can be sold and used without physician supervision, which means a growing number of salons and spas are advertising its success and changing the FDA classification of “temporarily reduces” to a more alluring “reduces” cellulite. (Sources: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/pdf3/k030876.pdf; Securities and Exchange Commission Information, http://www.secinfo.com/dsvRx.z4y6.htm; and Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, June 2005, pages 81-85 and June 2004, pages 181-185)
Another device approved by the FDA is the VelaSmooth system (Syneron Inc, Richmond Hill, Ontario, Canada). It combines near infrared light at a wavelength of 700 nanometers, continuous wave radiofrequency and mechanical suction. Twice-weekly treatments for a total of eight to ten sessions have been recommended. One of the only studies demonstrating this machine’s efficacy included twenty women, and eighteen of the twenty personally thought they saw improvement.

Yet the actual measurements only showed a 0.3-inch reduction in thigh circumference. Hardly sweeping results by any standard, making it clear larger-scale studies are needed, especially before you decide to spend $1,000 or more to see if these kinds of machines can get you what you want, namely smoother thighs, not a lighter wallet. (Sources: Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy, December 2004, pages 187-190; December 2004, pages 181-185; June 2005, pages 81-85)

Electrical Muscle Stimulators (EMS) and Iontophoresis Devices: According to www.quackwatch.com, “Muscle stimulators are a legitimate medical device approved for certain conditions” to relax muscle spasms, increase blood circulation, prevent blood clots and rehabilitate muscle function after a stroke. But many health spas and figure salons claim muscle stimulators can remove wrinkles, perform facelifts, reduce breast size, reduce a “beer belly” and remove cellulite.

Iontophoresis devices are prescription devices that use direct electric current to introduce ions of soluble salts (i.e., medications) into body tissues for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes. The FDA considers promotion of muscle stimulators or iontophoresis devices for any type of body shaping or contouring to be fraudulent. (Source: http://www.fda.gov/ora/fiars/ora_import_ia8901.html)

Body Wrapping: Many salons and spas offer a cellulite/weight-loss service where the body is tightly wrapped or dressed in special garments with or without a “specialty” cream or lotion applied first. Promising to reduce inches off your body, the cost for these treatments range from $65 to $500 depending on the salon and whether the clientele is elite enough to warrant the steep price.

Scientific-sounding information makes this process seem legitimate, but in the long run all it is doing is temporarily compressing your skin (you could probably do this yourself with plastic wrap), which will then return to its original shape in a matter of time, how much time depends on your skin’s response. Impressive results often are delivered after measuring several parts of the body and adding up small incremental changes, which in total, end up sounding far more impressive than they really are.

Infomercials, Internet sites and some multilevel marketing companies sell at-home systems claiming to eliminate toxins and squeeze water-logged fatty tissue dry. You can’t squeeze toxins out of a cell. While you may be able to squeeze water out of a cell, the same pressure would concurrently injure other cells, which isn’t good for your skin. Plus, the water content would return to whatever level is natural for the body fairly soon due to homeostasis.

All in all, there is no research whatsoever showing body wrapping does anything positive and it will not get rid of fat or cellulite. (Source: Federal Trade Commission, www.ftc.gov/opa/2004/12/transdermal.htm)

Skin Patches: Learn more about skin patches for cellulite in our complete report (see link below).

Liposuction: Liposuction has been used to reshape and reduce the appearance of accumulated fat layers and cellulite. However, the primary function of this procedure is to remove fat in localized areas, not cellulite. In cases, where liposuction involves the removal of large quantities of stored fat, it can sometimes worsen the appearance of cellulite by creating unsupported and slackened skin, which allows any remaining fat (and some always remains) to show through.

For original article and to view the reports noted above, visit Paula Begoun’s site. Reprinted with permission. (c) Copyright 2005, 2006, 2007 by Paula Begoun and Bryan Barron. This publication is the property of Paula’s Choice, Inc. (“Paula’s Choice”), and/or its owners or affiliates.

Paula Begoun is the author of “Don’t Go To The Cosmetic Counter Without Me”.

Caution Cellulite: Bumpy Road Ahead: Part 1

Cellulite is a complicated and controversial topic with no agreement among researchers as to exactly what it is physiologically or which treatments, if any, can have a positive effect. The only two things about cellulite everyone agrees on are what it looks like and if you have it, you hate it and you want to get rid of it.

Regrettably, most of us (women that is) have it to one degree or another. According to statistics, and this is really shocking, cellulite shows up on the thighs of more than 85 percent of females past the age of eighteen regardless of ancestry, although it is somewhat more common for Caucasian and Asian women. To make matters worse, for women, cellulite represents stored, hard to metabolize fat that is interdependent on estrogen. And any amount of fat (and we all need some in our bodies) can show up as cellulite on women’s thighs. (Source: Cosmetics & Toiletries magazine, October 2004, page 49)

As the anti-cellulite product and treatment market increases, research regarding efficacy remains at a bare minimum and is often obscured by self-serving studies from those who peddle these cures. Sadly, the lure of these supposed remedies is hard to fend off because fighting cellulite is an uphill battle. For lots of women the mere hope or illusion that something may work is a powerful temptation, and that weakness is something the cosmetics industry counts on and exploits to the max. (Source: Journal of Cosmetic Science, November 2005, pages 379-393)

Myth Busting:_Let’s start by straightening out some popular myths about cellulite:

Men don’t get cellulite: To some extent this is true. Physiologically, women are far more prone to accumulating fat on the thighs and hips while men gain weight in the abdominal area. Plus, for women, the connective tissue beneath the skin has more stretch and is vulnerable to disruption, which is the perfect environment for developing cellulite. Some men do get cellulite-just statistically not as much as women. (Source: Journal of Cosmetic Science, March-April 2005, pages 105-120)

Drinking water helps: Drinking water probably is beneficial (although there is really no research showing how much is healthy versus unhealthy), but there is no research showing water consumption impacts fat anywhere on your body, let alone the dimples on your thighs. (Source: American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative, and Comparative Physiology, November 2002, pages 993-1004)

Water retention causes cellulite: It’s ironic that low water intake is considered a possible cause of cellulite, and the polar opposite “retaining too much water” is thought to be a factor as well. There is a lot of speculation of how water retention can affect cellulite but there is no actual research supporting this notion. Further, fat cells actually contain only about 10 percent water, so claiming to eliminate excess water won’t make a difference. And any measurable result would be transient, at best, as the water lost would soon be replaced. (Source: Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. November 2003, pages 817-821)

Eating a specialized diet can help: A healthy diet encourages weight loss and may help your entire body look better. However, because weight in and of itself is not a cause of cellulite, dieting won’t change the skin structure of your thighs. For some, cellulite is made worse by the accumulation of extra fat. In those cases, weight reduction may decrease the total area and depth of cellulite. (Source: Clinical Dermatology, July-August 2004, pages 303-309)

Cellulite is different from fat on the rest of the body: Theories abound about how cellulite differs from regular body fat. However, few studies show how cellulite clumps differently than other fat on your body. But overall, most researchers feel cellulite is just fat, plain and simple. Besides, even if cellulite is different in how it congregates, what you can and can’t do about fat on any part of the body remains the same. (Source: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/cellulite.html)

Exercise can help: Exercise helps almost every system in the human body, but it won’t necessarily impact the appearance of cellulite. Exercise doesn’t improve skin structure and it can’t affect localized areas of fat. In other words, you can’t spot reduce fat accumulation in a specific area. (Source: British Journal of Plastic Surgery, April 2004, pages 222-227)

Detoxifying the body reduces the appearance of cellulite: Detoxifying the body in popular culture has taken on the meaning of purging it of pollutants or any other problem substances within the environment or in the foods we eat. In terms of the way this concept has been mass marketed, there is little research showing credible efficacy as to whether or not detoxification of the body is even possible. However, “detoxifying” the body as it is used in the scientific community describes the process of reducing cellular damage. Antioxidants, enzymes, and proteins can prevent certain abnormal or undesirable cell functions from taking place. There is no doubt this is helpful for the body. Whether or not this reduces cellulite is completely unknown because skin structure and fat accumulation are not caused by toxins in the environment or the food we eat. Furthermore, there are no studies showing toxins of any kind prevent fat from being broken down. (Sources: Journal of Endotoxin Research, April 2005, pages 69-84 and Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, May 2003, pages 258-264)

What We DO Know
There are three leading theories about cellulite formation:
1. Women have unique skin structure on their thighs, which causes cellulite to easily form.
2. The connective tissue layers on the thigh are too weak or thin to maintain a smooth appearance — allowing fat contour to show through.
3. Vascular changes and possible inflammatory conditions may be to blame. (Source: Journal of Cosmetic Laser Therapy, December 2004, pages 181-185; Journal of Applied Physiology, April 2002, pages 1611-1618; and Skin Research and Technology, May 2, 2002, pages 118-124)

Next week part 2 of this article
For original article visit Paula Begoun’s site. Reprinted with permission. (c) Copyright 2005, 2006, 2007 by Paula Begoun and Bryan Barron. This publication is the property of Paula’s Choice, Inc. (“Paula’s Choice”), and/or its owners or affiliates.

Sun-Believable: The ABCs of Sun Protection

A = Awareness; B = Be cautious; C = Consistency

While more and more people are aware that unprotected sun exposure is dangerous because of an increased risk of skin cancer, exactly what sunscreen to use and how to apply it is still a mystery to many. Everyone needs to know the following facts to be safe in the sun:

You’ve heard of SPF-but what do those numbers really mean? The SPF number on a sunscreen label tells you only how long you can stay in the sun without burning. It does not tell you the quality or amount of sun protection you are getting. For example, an SPF 50 sunscreen does not protect you “better” than an SPF 25. An SPF of 25 means that you can stay in the sun approximately nine hours without burning while the SPF 50 allows for about 18 hours in the sun without burning. But how many places in the world have 18 hours of sunlight every day?

So the extra protection is actually meaningless. In terms of how much sunlight (Ultra Violet-UV rays) gets through to the skin, both SPF 25 and SPF 50 protect nearly identically. An SPF 50 is not better than an SPF 25. If anything, it misleads lots of people into thinking they are getting stronger protection when all they are getting is unnecessary longer protection. According to the Academy of Dermatology, the sunscreen you use must be at least an SPF 15.

Is SPF the only consideration for sun protection? SPF numbers are important, but only part of the picture when it comes to sun protection. There is a great deal of research proving UVA rays are the sun’s most destructive force. You don’t feel them because they don’t cause sunburn, but they are believed to be the primary cause of skin cancer and wrinkles. Unfortunately, the SPF rating is only a measurement regarding the sun’s UVB rays, it doesn’t tell you anything about whether or not you will be protected from the sun’s damaging UVA rays. There is no rating for UVA protection, so it is all about the ingredients. Sunscreens must contain one of the following UVA-protecting ingredients approved for use in the U.S.: titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and avobenzone (often listed as butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane). It is critical to understand the UVA-protecting ingredient must be listed as an “active ingredient.”

Are expensive sunscreens more effective? Sunscreens are regulated as over-the-counter drugs by the FDA, so price is not an indicator in any way, shape, or form about efficacy. Research has shown that in order for sunscreens to be truly effective they must be applied liberally every day and reapplied as needed. Because of this fact, expensive sunscreens may actually be a problem for skin because how liberally is someone going to apply a $35, $50, $75, or higher per-ounce sunscreen?

And remember, sunscreen needs to be applied 365 days a year-most people aren’t aware that sun damage begins the moment their skin sees daylight, spring, summer, winter or fall. Over time, cumulative exposure generates a lot of skin damage!

Even after you’ve taken all these precautions of every day of the year liberally applying a sunscreen with an SPF 15 or greater that has UVA-protecting ingredients, you still need to be aware that basking in the sun is a problem for the health of skin. Sunscreen is not complete protection, it does have limitations, so seeking out shade, wearing sunglasses, or wearing a hat with a visor or wide brim is better than any anti-wrinkle cream you could ever buy.

Copyright 2005, 2006 by Paula Begoun and Bryan Barron. The information provided does not substitute for a face-to-face consultation with a dermatologist or with your physician, and should not be construed as individual medical advice. Additional information can be found at www.cosmeticcop.com

Cell-Communicating Ingredients

Antioxidants are something with which many people have now become familiar. Whether they come in the form of foods you eat, supplements you take orally, or ingredients you apply to your skin, these substances are commonly understood as being important for health.

Over the past several years, I’ve written a great deal about how important antioxidants are when it comes to helping reduce environmental damage that is the result of sun damage, pollution, cigarette smoke, and even the very air we breathe.

Now there is a new group of ingredients getting attention for their role in helping skin function more normally. Medical journals refer to these as “cell signaling” substances — but I think “cell communicating” is more descriptive of what they do in relation to skin care.

Antioxidants work by intervening in a chain-reaction process called free-radical damage. An antioxidant can grab the loose-cannon molecule that causes free-radical damage to begin and nullify it, and in so doing, slow or inhibit this problematic progression. Yet as helpful as antioxidants are, they can’t stop free-radical damage altogether, and they definitely can’t correct years of unprotected or poorly protected sun exposure. Damage of this nature causes abnormal skin cells to be produced. Instead of normal, round, even, and completely intact skin cells being regenerated, when damaged cells form and reproduce they are uneven, flat, and lack structural integrity. As a result of these deformities, they behave poorly.

By contrast, cell-communicating ingredients, theoretically, have the ability to tell a skin cell to look, act, and behave better, more like a normal healthy skin cell would, or to stop other substances from telling the cell to behave badly or abnormally.

Cell communication is fundamental to all aspects of health. For all parts of our bodies to work properly, including skin cells, each cell must know how to perform the correct action at the correct time — and, hopefully, to ignore the information (in the form of messenger substances) that tells cells to do the wrong thing. This takes place through constant, ceaseless communication, with myriad substances telling cells how and when to function properly, and the cells then relaying that information to each other. When cells miscommunicate, or when substances relaying bad information get through to the cell, all sorts of problems can take place.

Every cell has a vast series of receptor sites for different substances. These receptor sites are the cell’s communication hookup. When the right ingredient for a specific site shows up, it has the ability to attach itself to the cell and transmit information. In the case of skin, this means telling the cell to start doing the things a healthy skin cell should be doing. If the cell accepts the message, the cell can then share the same healthy message with other nearby cells and so on and so on.

As long as there is a receptor site and the appropriate, healthy signaling substance, a lot of good, healthy communication takes place. But a cell’s communication network is more complex than any worldwide telephone system ever made. The array of receptor sites and the substances that can make connections to them make up a huge, complex, and varied group with incredible limitations and convoluted pathways that we are still finding out about. And as far as skin care is concerned, it’s an area of research that’s in its infancy. No doubt you will be hearing more and more about cell-communicating or cell-signaling ingredients being used in skin-care products, despite the lack of solid research. The good news is that, theoretically, this new horizon in skin care is incredibly exciting.

When science discovers which ingredients can tell skin cells how to do the right thing, and we can then put those in a skin-care product with antioxidants, anti-inflammatory agents, and ingredients that mimic the skin’s intercellular structure, that would be one really amazing moisturizer worth investing in!

For now, the skin-care ingredients to look for in terms of theoretical cell-communicating ability include retinol, retinaldehyde, retinoic acid, epigallocatechin-3-gallate, eicosapentaenoic acid, niacinamide, lecithin, linolenic acid, linolenic acid, phospholipids, carnitine, carnosine, adenosine triphosphate, adenosine cyclic phosphate, palmitoyl oligopeptide, palmitoyl tripeptide-3, and pyrus malus (apple) fruit extract.

Sources for this story can be found at http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn/print.asp?ID=366

Cosmeceuticals: Science, Marketing, or a Little of Both?

Cosmeceuticals are loosely defined as products combining the benefits of a cosmetic and a pharmaceutical. The term is used by many skin-care companies, especially those sold or endorsed by dermatologists, to give the impression the products have more effective or more biologically active ingredients than just ordinary cosmetics.

As more and more doctors get into selling or endorsing skin-care products, you will hear more and more about cosmeceuticals. Dr. Tina Alster is the spokesperson for Lancome; Dr. Karyn Grossman is the spokesperson for Prescriptives; Dr. Patricia Wexler’s namesake products, Patricia Wexler M.D. Dermatology, launched this fall; Skin Effects by Dr. Jeffrey Dover is at CVS; Dr. Sheldon Pinnell’s SkinCeuticals line has been purchased by L’Oreal; and, of course, there’s N.V. Perricone, M.D. Upping the ante in this group is Dr. Howard Sobel, who added the outrageously priced RMX Maximum — $1,000 for a 28-day supply — to his DDF skin-care line.

Despite all this medical pedigree, the term cosmeceutical is not in any way regulated or controlled, and anyone can slap that label on their products to promote them as being more “medical.” Cosmeceuticals are nothing more than a marketing term with illusions of grandeur. Even the FDA says cosmeceuticals don’t exist, and considers these products to be merely cosmetics with clever marketing language attached.

Do cosmeceuticals really differ from any other cosmetics? The answer is both yes and no, because no matter how a product is labeled and marketed, many skin-care treatments contain ingredients that affect the biological function of skin. The biologically active ingredients to look for include antioxidants (most of which have anti-inflammatory properties), cell-communicating ingredients, exfoliants, skin-lightening ingredients, and intercellular substances (ingredients that mimic skin structure).

Antioxidants, applied topically, reduce free-radical damage, thus helping prevent cellular damage, collagen destruction due to inflammation, and immune suppression. These actions are incredibly valuable for skin. But aside from the insistent claims by those who say their product lines have the best antioxidants, the research is clear: There is no single best antioxidant, just lots and lots of potent options and lots and lots of research showing benefit for skin from everything from pomegranate, curcumin, superoxide dismutase, grape-seed extract, green tea, lycopene, vitamin E, vitamin C, DMAE, glutathione, uric acid, carnosine (beta-alanyl-L-histidine), and glucopyranosides (resveratrol) to niacinamide, polyphenols (epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), genistein, pycnogenol, and more. One other point: Many researchers believe that a single antioxidant, no matter how stable or potent, is not as effective for skin as a group of antioxidants, because antioxidants in combination can exert a synergistic cumulative action on the skin.

Cell-communicating ingredients interact with skin cells via receptor sites or cellular pathways that essentially allow these substances to tell a cell to behave or function better. That is, they instruct the cell to repair itself and act normally (or for the sake of baby boomers, act more “youthfully”) by reducing inflammation, encouraging production of healthy skin substances, inhibiting substances that cause collagen to break down, and on and on. Without question, this is the most promising area in current skin-care research. The most well-researched ingredient in this category is by far the retinoids (vitamin A), specifically the prescription version tretinoin, which is found in Retin-A and Renova (tretinoin is also available generically). In cosmetics, retinol and retinaldehyde are known to have efficacy similar to that of tretinoin. Other cell-communicating ingredients that are still the subject of research are a wide variety of peptides and niacinamide. At the moment, however, there is no independent research showing that peptides can perform as claimed on the labels of products containing them.

Exfoliants help surface skin cells shed in a more normal, “younger” way, which allows skin to function and look more radiant and healthy. There are many reasons why skin cells build up on the surface, but the primary one is sun damage. Normalizing cell turnover does improve the feel and appearance of the skin’s surface, but research also indicates that it can improve collagen production. Topical scrubs are one way to exfoliate, but such mechanical exfoliation can be harsh on skin and there is little research showing any benefit. On the other hand, certain substances definitely can exfoliate skin, including glycolic acid, lactic acid, polyhydroxy acids (gluconolactone and lactobionic acid), and salicylic acid.

Skin-lightening ingredients inhibit melanin formation, thus reducing the appearance of brown discolorations. Skin-lightening ingredients include hydroquinone, arbutin, azelaic acid, some forms of vitamin C, and glycyrrhetinic acid.

Intercellular substances, which I often refer to as “ingredients that mimic skin structure,” should be the backbone of every moisturizer. Intercellular substances are those ingredients that exist naturally in skin, and that work to hold skin cells together. A dry environment, sun damage, irritation, inflammation, and age can all greatly reduce the presence of these substances in skin. Adding intercellular substances to a moisturizer helps keep the layers of skin whole, resilient, and in good physical shape by providing the materials the skin needs to defend against the environment. Ingredients such as ceramides, cholesterol, fatty acids (linoleic acid, triglycerides, glycerin, phospholipids, and lecithin), and glycosaminoglycans (hyaluronic acid and sodium PCA) are essential for helping skin function normally. Regardless of the name, cosmeceutical or otherwise–a skin-care product is only as good as what it contains and how those ingredients can help your skin function better, or in the vernacular, to act younger. In fact, moisturizers (or any skin-care product claiming to have an effect on wrinkles or sagging skin) should absolutely contain an elegant mix of antioxidants, cell-communicating ingredients, and intercellular substances as they help skin keep a normal level of hydration, build collagen, reduce skin discolorations, and prevent cellular damage.

Sources for this article can be found at http://www.cosmeticscop.com/learn/art.asp?ID=405; Copyright 2005, 2006 by Paula Begoun and Bryan Barron