Peptides According to FutureDerm:
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:41 pm

She states:

Palmitoyl pentapeptide-3 and Matrixyl (which is actually palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 + palmitoyl oligopeptide) have the most substantiated research backing their claims thus far.

So, how do we find formulations containing either of these in amounts demonstrated to be effective?

Suggestions?

BFG

free skin care · Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:55 pm

http://www.smartskincare.com/treatments/topical/pentapeptide.html
PAL KTTKS = Matrixyl
Promoted as being better than Retinol. Compared apples to oranges and Retinol at 0.07%

M3000. The research was not a grand as it was initially touted 300X better...or some darn thing. It was not statistically significant. And was producers data.

Quote:

So, how do we find formulations containing either of these in amounts demonstrated to be effective?

DIY.

free skin care · Sun Jun 03, 2012 5:59 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

She states:

Palmitoyl pentapeptide-3 and Matrixyl (which is actually palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 + palmitoyl oligopeptide) have the most substantiated research backing their claims thus far.

So, how do we find formulations containing either of these in amounts demonstrated to be effective?

Suggestions?

BFG

Remember This Thread by NOTH...AKA John C. Hill?

Matrixyl to be "phased out" except to P&G....

http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=35768

free skin care · Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:07 pm

PAL KTTKS is the active component in the product called Matrixyl. Can't patent that.

Topically applied KTTKS: a review

free skin care · Sun Jun 03, 2012 8:02 pm

DragoN wrote:

PAL KTTKS is the active component in the product called Matrixyl. Can't patent that.

Topically applied KTTKS: a review

Maybe not but that is all discussed on the other thread I linked to, There is still a "Patent Pending"

Assignees: SEDERMA
Inventors: Karl Lintner (Rambouillet, FR)
Patent application number: 20090029926

http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090029926#b

free skin care · Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:21 am

Taken from the link:

There is growing evidence to suggest that loaded nanoparticles are capable of high levels of skin penetration enhancement [61–63].

So we're back to the age old problem of penetration.

nanoparticles or liposomal delivery?
which is better?

extra points for the bonus round.

BFG

free skin care · Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:30 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

Taken from the link:

There is growing evidence to suggest that loaded nanoparticles are capable of high levels of skin penetration enhancement [61–63].

So we're back to the age old problem of penetration.

nanoparticles or liposomal delivery?
which is better?

extra points for the bonus round.

BFG

Seeing as the only supplier is the one in Taiwan by the SEA that is selling the Matrixyl as PAL KTTKS (as far as I can find) I guess she can answer that question?

free skin care · Mon Jun 04, 2012 5:35 am

Actually, I was referring to any topicals where this is an issue - i.e. - is there a general consensus as to more effective: so-called loaded nanoparticles or liposomal delivery?

I suspect we don't yet know...fawnie to the rescue?

BFG

free skin care · Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:15 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

She states:

Palmitoyl pentapeptide-3 and Matrixyl (which is actually palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 + palmitoyl oligopeptide) have the most substantiated research backing their claims thus far.

So, how do we find formulations containing either of these in amounts demonstrated to be effective?

Suggestions?

BFG

This should fit the bill;

Cellular Skin RX: SuperMax Multi-Peptide Skin Solution Serum

Active Ingredients that Work™: Seaweed Extract, Hyaluronic Acid, Acetyl Hexapeptide 3, Pentapeptide 3, Tripeptide, Acetyl Glutamyl Heptapeptide -1, Palmitoyl Oligopeptide, Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-3

Other Ingredients: Distilled Water, Phenonip, Ethylhexylglycerin

http://www.cellularskinrx.com/supermax.html

It looks like it's well loaded to me, and no crappy filler ingredients..

Also, DIY is always an option. Or semi-DIY if you just want to load up a cheaper retail product that has the actives in short supply.

http://www.lotioncrafter.com/matrixyl-3000.html

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 12:29 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

Taken from the link:

There is growing evidence to suggest that loaded nanoparticles are capable of high levels of skin penetration enhancement [61–63].

So we're back to the age old problem of penetration.

nanoparticles or liposomal delivery?
which is better?

extra points for the bonus round.

BFG

Liposomes = slippery phospholipids; delivery boys on bicyles whose shoelaces come untied often. Nanosomes = SLN's, dermal delivery rocket ships, sometimes overshoot.

Nanos (solid lipid nanoparticles and variants) better penetrants. and more stable (the bad rap for liposomes is that they decay, short half life). Plus, you can use any lipid (like the ones in your emulsion already). The rap against nanos is that they are too good (can get deep into dermis, which is where the main blood supply is, which means some may get absorbed in the circulation). The latter has a simple solution - make sure that whatever your active is it is natural to the body and will be "a drop in the bucket" in the general circulation, and easily disposed through natural mechanisms (e.g.liver proteases). Need I mention an example?

Here is where I equivocate a tad - BOTH are best. Use lipos when you want slower release and your actives are net lipophilic. Nanos when you want faster & deeper. Use together for extra thrills. Need I mention an example?

Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:00 pm

DrJ wrote:

Barefootgirl wrote:

Taken from the link:

There is growing evidence to suggest that loaded nanoparticles are capable of high levels of skin penetration enhancement [61–63].

So we're back to the age old problem of penetration.

nanoparticles or liposomal delivery?
which is better?

extra points for the bonus round.

BFG

Liposomes = slippery phospholipids; delivery boys on bicyles whose shoelaces come untied often. Nanosomes = SLN's, dermal delivery rocket ships, sometimes overshoot.

Nanos (solid lipid nanoparticles and variants) better penetrants. and more stable (the bad rap for liposomes is that they decay, short half life). Plus, you can use any lipid (like the ones in your emulsion already). The rap against nanos is that they are too good (can get deep into dermis, which is where the main blood supply is, which means some may get absorbed in the circulation). The latter has a simple solution - make sure that whatever your active is it is natural to the body and will be "a drop in the bucket" in the general circulation, and easily disposed through natural mechanisms (e.g.liver proteases). Need I mention an example?

Here is where I equivocate a tad - BOTH are best. Use lipos when you want slower release and your actives are net lipophilic. Nanos when you want faster & deeper. Use together for extra thrills. Need I mention an example?

please mention examples! Smile

some of us have no idea when it comes to the complicated stuff.

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:08 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

She states:

Palmitoyl pentapeptide-3 and Matrixyl (which is actually palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 + palmitoyl oligopeptide) have the most substantiated research backing their claims thus far.

So, how do we find formulations containing either of these in amounts demonstrated to be effective?

Suggestions?

BFG

FutureDerm herself already answered that question: http://www.futurederm.com/2012/05/30/product-review-cellese-anteage-serum-accelerator/ ... “Of those I have examined, the Cellese AnteAGE Serum has one of the highest concentrations of palmitoyl oligopeptide" ... and "... palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 has been found to reduce inflammatory cell-signaling proteins known as interleukins (Clinics in Dermatology, 1999).”

I think BFG is just tossing me soft ones. Thanks!

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:09 pm

radicallan wrote:

please mention examples! Smile

some of us have no idea when it comes to the complicated stuff.

I believe Dr. J's example are his own AnteAGE products?

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:12 pm

DragoN wrote:

PAL KTTKS is the active component in the product called Matrixyl. Can't patent that.

Topically applied KTTKS: a review

Remind me to stop sending those royalty checks.

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:37 pm

rileygirl wrote:

radicallan wrote:

please mention examples! Smile

some of us have no idea when it comes to the complicated stuff.

I believe Dr. J's example are his own AnteAGE products?

Really?

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:46 pm

Actually, she gave several product recommendations in the article:

http://www.futurederm.com/2012/06/02/what-are-the-differences-between-peptides/

I just have no idea whether the amount of actives in these recommended products are enough to be effective.

Do you trust FutureDerm?

BFG

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:51 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

Actually, she gave several product recommendations in the article:

http://www.futurederm.com/2012/06/02/what-are-the-differences-between-peptides/

I just have no idea whether the amount of actives in these recommended products are enough to be effective.

Do you trust FutureDerm?

BFG

I don't after she nixed PTR for retinol during the day, yet gave a thumbs up to AnteAGE which has the same?

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:54 pm

Presumably, her site is supported via her advertisers.

Wink

BFG

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 1:58 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

Presumably, her site is supported via her advertisers.

Wink

BFG

Yes that is how it appears! Wink

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 4:18 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

Actually, she gave several product recommendations in the article:

http://www.futurederm.com/2012/06/02/what-are-the-differences-between-peptides/

I just have no idea whether the amount of actives in these recommended products are enough to be effective.

BFG

All I can tell you is that the product I linked you to above, has exactly what you asked for, and according to Skincare RX, the concentrations for Acetyl Hexapeptide is 10% and the Matrixyl is 4%.

I highly doubt you will find a better alternative (for peptides alone) in a retail product. Simple, no nonsense ingredient list;

SuperMax Multi-Peptide Skin Solution Serum

Active Ingredients that Work™: Seaweed Extract, Hyaluronic Acid, Acetyl Hexapeptide 3, Pentapeptide 3, Tripeptide, Acetyl Glutamyl Heptapeptide -1, Palmitoyl Oligopeptide, Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-3

Other Ingredients: Distilled Water, Phenonip, Ethylhexylglycerin

I'm also impressed that they haven't stuck Dimethyl Isosorbide (DMI) in there, which would have allowed them to reduce the concentration of actives pretty substantially, there by reducing the production costs..

(Yeah, yeah, I know, I use it as a penetration enhancer too....but I still don't skimp on my actives.. Wink

)

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:15 pm

Barefootgirl wrote:

Presumably, her site is supported via her advertisers.

Wink

BFG

I don't know, since Cellese wasn't an advertiser at the time the FutureDerm AnteAGE review was completed. We just got so much traffic from the review, we figured out that her readers were discerning and therefore potential customers. And she has a lot of them, to be sure. Not really part of our business plan, but then you know me ... whimsical character that I am.

I've already stated widely my take on bias. It's a fact of life, get used to it. I know the biases of all the regulars here (kinda obvious) and they know mine (equally obvious).

As far as Nicky is concerned, she takes a high road and follows strict guidelines in terms of editorial reviews. I know this by firsthand experience. No monkey business, for sure. She strives for objectivity, and has built in controls to assure same. She values her reputation. Is that 100% guarantee of a perfect commerce agnostic point of view? No.

But hey, look around. This site sells products. Why do we assume Nicky is a bad girl because she wants to start a business? There are lots of ladies around here with DIY concerns. Do we assume they never let their economic interests shade their comments? of course not.

Then there are seller-reviewers who have little objective credibility, continually make major boners of fact, and the community of believers continues to give them a big pass. That's not Nicki. I use the example as contrast.

The best way to judge anyone who reviews is to look at their sources of information. Are they reliable? Can they point you to objective sources? Or do they disguise opinion as fact. If they speak science, make sure they know their science.

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:28 pm

I think you can manage the hypocrisy PTR does not buy a banner from Nikki and was nixed for a day product with retinol.

Cellese/AnteAGE has paid for a banner and was given a thumbs up yet has retinol in the day product!

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:33 pm

DrJ wrote:

Barefootgirl wrote:

Presumably, her site is supported via her advertisers.

Wink

BFG

I don't know, since Cellese wasn't an advertiser at the time the FutureDerm AnteAGE review was completed. We just got so much traffic from the review, we figured out that her readers were discerning and therefore potential customers. And she has a lot of them, to be sure. Not really part of our business plan, but then you know me ... whimsical character that I am.

I've already stated widely my take on bias. It's a fact of life, get used to it. I know the biases of all the regulars here (kinda obvious) and they know mine (equally obvious).

As far as Nicky is concerned, she takes a high road and follows strict guidelines in terms of editorial reviews. I know this by firsthand experience. No monkey business, for sure. She strives for objectivity, and has built in controls to assure same. She values her reputation. Is that 100% guarantee of a perfect commerce agnostic point of view? No.

But hey, look around. This site sells products. Why do we assume Nicky is a bad girl because she wants to start a business? There are lots of ladies around here with DIY concerns. Do we assume they never let their economic interests shade their comments? of course not.

Then there are seller-reviewers who have little objective credibility, continually make major boners of fact, and the community of believers continues to give them a big pass. That's not Nicki. I use the example as contrast.

The best way to judge anyone who reviews is to look at their sources of information. Are they reliable? Can they point you to objective sources? Or do they disguise opinion as fact. If they speak science, make sure they know their science.

That is one thing I will say for Nicky, she usually refers to (and links to) studies to back up her statements about an ingredient. Although I think she gives too many questionable products high ratings. She is also coming out with her own line of products so I'm wondering how that will affect her opinion about other products she reviews.

ETA: I'm curious about which ingredients she will use in her own products.

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:47 pm

I went to an electronics store looking for a cheap $200 TV for my bedroom. The salesman at the store convinced me that Brand X was better than Brand Y. Knowing that I had recourse in the event of a problem with the Brand X TV and that the risk of wasting my money was low, I bought the TV, brought it home and turned it on. It continues to work every day, the remote works and the picture and sound are beautiful every day. Every day I see it working for me.

Buying topical formulations with expensive actives doesn't work that way - there is no recourse, the risk of wasting my money is high. I have nothing to go on...but to wait and see if my skin shows any signs of improvement. Skincare sellers make all kind of wild claims, every day, all day - just turn on Brand X TV and the commercials come spilling out.
In this kind of market, reputation and data are all the consumer has to go on. When we discover that something doesn't add up, the situation is almost impossible to recover from. Just contact the many product/treatment proponents who have graced this forum in the past. We've watched them come and we've watched them go.

BFG

free skin care · Tue Jun 05, 2012 7:20 pm

Why would you misslead on how/why Cellese choose to advertise on Futerderm? If I read Nikki's review correctly Dr.J, she invited you to advertise, of course at a price. According to her you were invited prior to the time of her posting the reivew and had already accepted the Big Banner. She said it would be coming, which it did!

Nothing wrong with advertising, you've done tons of it here! Why confuse the facts?

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.