Matrixyl vs. Matrixyl 3000 / alternative to retinol & Vi
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:43 pm

bethany wrote:

Kassy_A wrote:

Matrixyl is indeed a very nice anti-wrinkle ingredient. I don't think I'd consider it an "alternative" to retinol though, as the topic name implies.

Exactly...there are way too many independent, time tested studies on why Vit A is absolutely essential to even consider trading it in for something far less proven.

I would prefer to add it as a "nice to have" active, as opposed to replacing an absolute requirement.

Matrixyl IS a proven effective active ingredient with many independent studies that substantiate the claims. One of the best independent studies done on Matrixyl is listed here, with a link to the Power Point presentation.

When I was tasked with finding skin measurement equipment for our new clinical testing lab at the raw material supplier job, I became interesed in the Courage & Khazaka line of analytical instruments. At a trade show, I met with the representatives and was shown this presentation. Based on this information we bought the equipment and used it on subsequent studies, including the study of the demo product with Matrixyl and Jojoba Esters.

There are several reasons why I've chosen this study as an excellent independent example.

1) It was not funded, created, or conceived by any cosmetic company.

2) It was not funded, created, or conceived by any cosmetic raw material supplier.

3) It was a sales tool for a skin measurement device company, specializing in testing the skin for moisturization, smoothness, sebum production, elasticity, etc.

4) It was produced by a dermatologist; Assoc. Prof Hristo Dobrev, MD, Phd. Department of Dermatology and Venereology, Medical University, Plovdiv, Bulgaria

5) The information was then peer reviewed by the International Society for Biophysics and Imaging of the Skin (ISBS).

6) All measurements were done using Courage and Khazaka skin meaurement devices. These pieces of analytical insturmentation give quantitative, scientific results of high accuracy.

7) There were no human opinions, or objective measurements or assumption made at any point in the study.

The Power Point presentation is over 115 pages long and does make for interesting reading if you are up to it. If you prefer to cut to the chase, here are the main points relating to Matrixyl and its proven efficacy:

PG. 36 "Long Term Application of Cosmetic Products": The study used a cream call "Aroma Vital Wrinkle Control Cosmetic Line" (Aroma, Sofia, Bulgaria). The cream contained a rather low loading of Matrixyl at 1.0%. Recommended loading is 3% - 5%, and I use 3.0% in my formula. The cream was used once daily in a 2 months study.

PG. 37 This page presents the results of the instrumentation study for "skin thickness". The measurements showed proof that the Matrixyl containing cream created an "accumulation of newly synthesized collagen in the skin".

PG. 74 "Long Term Application of Moisturizers": The graph on this page shows increase in moisturization over the term of the study with the Aroma Vital as a day cream, a night cream, and an eye cream.

PG. 88 "Assesment of Anti-Wrinkle Efficacy of a Cream Containing Matrixyl": The testing used the Visioscope which measures skin roughness (wrinkles) and surface imperfections. The photographs show an undeniable lessening of wrinkles and smoother skin.

I have no doubt that it wasn't by accident that they picked a cream containing Matrixyl. There are thousands of anti-age creams and lotions available in all parts of Europe, yet they picked the Aroma Vital for the study. I believe it was because they knew that Matrixyl would bring about positive changes in the skin surface, skin thickness, and moisturization. Therefore, that would be the perfect material to use to prove the usefulness of the Courage & Khazaka skin measuring equipment in the measurement and study of cosmetic skin care formulations.

http://www.courage-khazaka.de/service/articles/SkinFunctionalDiagnostics.pdf

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 12:53 pm

John, by any chance have you come up with a new "Matrixyl" product?

I'm also patiently waiting for your answer to my Vitamin C question regarding the *study* you shared.

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:12 pm

Kassy_A wrote:

John, by any chance have you come up with a new "Matrixyl" product?

I'm also patiently waiting for your answer to my Vitamin C question regarding the *study* you shared.

Kassy, he already conveniently mentioned that he formulates with Matrixyl in his first post.

NOTCH wrote:

I personally formulate with Matrixyl for two reasons, I heard about that one first and liked the studies and data that came with the raw material. Also, since I make smaller quantities of products, I didn't have to worry about patent problems making use of the material very easy. Until I see further proof that Matrixyl 3000 is better than Matrixyl, I will keep using Matrixyl in my anti-wrinkle formulas.

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:25 pm

Kassy_A wrote:

John, by any chance have you come up with a new "Matrixyl" product?

I'm also patiently waiting for your answer to my Vitamin C question regarding the *study* you shared.

Thanks for the questions Kassy, I have sent the answers to you in an e-mail since I am prohibited by the board forum rules from discussing the names of the products that I formulate and sell.

John

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 1:28 pm

bethany wrote:

Kassy_A wrote:

John, by any chance have you come up with a new "Matrixyl" product?

I'm also patiently waiting for your answer to my Vitamin C question regarding the *study* you shared.

Kassy, he already conveniently mentioned that he formulates with Matrixyl in his first post.

NOTCH wrote:

I personally formulate with Matrixyl for two reasons, I heard about that one first and liked the studies and data that came with the raw material. Also, since I make smaller quantities of products, I didn't have to worry about patent problems making use of the material very easy. Until I see further proof that Matrixyl 3000 is better than Matrixyl, I will keep using Matrixyl in my anti-wrinkle formulas.

Quite right bethany! The forum rules do not prohibit formulators from talking about the efficacy and attributes of raw materials, or those raw materials that the formulator prefers to use for specific reasons of which I have pointed out quite clearly in this technical thread.

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:39 pm

bethany wrote:

Kassy_A wrote:

John, by any chance have you come up with a new "Matrixyl" product?

I'm also patiently waiting for your answer to my Vitamin C question regarding the *study* you shared.

Kassy, he already conveniently mentioned that he formulates with Matrixyl in his first post.

NOTCH wrote:

I personally formulate with Matrixyl for two reasons, I heard about that one first and liked the studies and data that came with the raw material. Also, since I make smaller quantities of products, I didn't have to worry about patent problems making use of the material very easy. Until I see further proof that Matrixyl 3000 is better than Matrixyl, I will keep using Matrixyl in my anti-wrinkle formulas.

Thanks Beth, I'm crystal clear now.

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:56 pm

NOTCH wrote:

Kassy_A wrote:

John, by any chance have you come up with a new "Matrixyl" product?

I'm also patiently waiting for your answer to my Vitamin C question regarding the *study* you shared.

Thanks for the questions Kassy, I have sent the answers to you in an e-mail since I am prohibited by the board forum rules from discussing the names of the products that I formulate and sell.

John

I got the PM John, but I was only really aking the question to find out if you had an ulterior motive with all this Martrixyl stuff .. Laughing

I see now that you do!

My other question in regard to the vitamin C used in the *study* you posted is still unanswered..??? Since you are essentially putting down vitamin C and retinol, you should really be well prepared to answer that fairly easy question..

You are right about the forum rules, but I don't think you should be using the PM system to sell your product either.

It's one thing if a member PM's you for further info, but quite another for you to initiate the PM'(sss) and even include the "ebay item #"... Shame on you

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:32 pm

Oh Kassy, Kassy, Kassy, you asked if I had come up with a new Matrixyl product. Since I cannot talk about my products in the public forum, I followed the rules and PM'd you with the product that I do make, which, answered your question perfectly. I did NOT initiate this contact, you did.

Now you've shown what you do with "Private Messages". My trust (and everybody else's) in you and bethany has just gone completely out the window, and surely never to be regained. What is your agenda anyway. What have you got against Matrixyl other than the fact that you and bethany are retinol, vitamin C fans? And before you go there, I don't sell Matrixyl, and I don't work for Croda or Sederma.

By the way, I also DID NOT put down retinol or vitman C treatments in ANY way in this thread. If you would have gone back and checked, I followed my initial technical post with one that had this statement, in the beginning:

"Retinol is a tried and true anti-wrinkle active material. For those of you who like this regimen and can tolerate it, then by all means continue to use it. However, not everyone can tolerate the retinol regimen and may not like or want the potential skin irritation, redness, peeling, or sun sensitivity that can be associated with it's use."

Perhaps from now on, you should read the technical posts a little more carefully rather than worry about who's writing them and why. You should use PM's as what they are "private" messages, and you should worry about things that only concern you. Other people have been applauding this thread in properly intentioned PM's to me since it was started. Let's just stick to the technical scientific facts in this public forum, shall we? Cool

I'll have your answer on the Vitamin C question before the end of tomorrow, rest assured.

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 4:38 pm

John, personally I really appreciate the info on matrixyl since I know...without even trying...that I cannot tolerate Retinol A or Vit. C. serum...due to the sensitivity of my skin.

So far I've done exceptionally well with certain reversing of facial aging 'symptoms' with botanically active oils like rosehip seed oil, hemp oil, tamanu oil, etc. and essential oils like carrot seed, heliochrysum, frankincense etc.

but matrixyl is interesting to me...so here are a few questions I have:

you posted that matrixyl3000 is synthetic...so what non-synhetic source do the peptides in matrixyl come from...bacteria, plants, fish, animals?

Also..since matrixyl isn't any longer available to diyer's..what do you think about the matrixyl 'substitutes' on such diy websites as skinactives.com? Do you think they are safe..effective?

And lastly.... I see you use a lot of botanical actives in your products....and that you are an award winning chemist....and I'd love to see valid scientific tests done on botanical active oils and essential oils... cause i really believe that they are as powerful as many of the lab produced anti-aging ingredients available....any hope of that in the future from you or your peers?

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 5:50 pm

I thought this was interesting:

Quote:

Matrixyl 3000
INCI: Glycerin, Butylene Glycol, Water(Aqua), Carbomer, Polysorbate-20, Palmitoyl Oligopeptide (and) Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7

Similar to:
Skin Research Laboratories Promaxyl
Garden Botanika Hand Creme
A-R-T Night Recontructor

Anti-wrinkling and lifting effect. 45% less deep wrinkles after 2 months!

Matrixyl(tm) 3000 contains twp matrikines(tm), Pal-GHK and Pal-GQPR which act in synergy to restore and maintain skin's youthful appearance. These matrikines which are messengers of cutaneous restructuration and repair.

They can used in formulations for: anti-aging, face-lifting and wrinkle treatment products; suitable for gels, serums, lotions and creams.

LATEST ADVANCEMENT OF MATRIXYL!! MORE EFFECTIVE!!
Compared to Matrixyl - An in vivo clinical test in which 2 panels of 23 volunteers aged 39-74 applied a cream containing 3% Matrixyl 3000 to one-half of their face against a placebo or 3% Matrixyl on the other half, twice a day for 56 days. Anti-wrinkling and lefting efficacy was assessed by profilometry and photography.

- Surface occupied by deep wrinkles (>200um) tested results were Matrixyl 3000 -44.9 and Matrixyl -27.7
- Main wrinkle density tested results were Matrixyl 3000 -37.0 and Matrixyl -27.3
- Main wrinkle average depth tested results were Matrixyl 3000 -15.1 and Matrixyl -9.8
- Main wrinkle average volume tested results were Matrixyl 3000 -18.5 and Matrixyl -14.7
- Roughness tested results were Matrixyl 3000 -14.4 and Matrixyl -10.8
- Complexity or lifting effect tested results were Matrixyl 3000 -16.6 and Matrixyl -12.7

http://www.thepersonalformulator.com/wvss/product_info.php?products_id=693

The ZO Growth Factor Serum has 2 peptides that they say outperform the Matrixyl and Matrixyl 3000 peptides....it sounds like we may want to keep an eye out for these as well!

Quote:

How are the ZO peptides (Myristoyl hexapeptide-4 and myristoyl pentapeptide–8 ) different from the peptides in the market?

In contrast to the older peptides that have a palmitic acid attachment, the ZO skin health line makes use of 2 proprietary lipopopeptides that make use of the myristoyl tail as a fatty acid penetration enhancer. According to the assays done by a US biotech company, myristic acid is a much superior penetration enhancer compared to palmitic acid. These lipopeptides demonstrate superior activity in upregulating mammalian genes that are the key to the function and proliferation of skin cells. These are the genes that upregulate collagen synthesis. At the same time these lipopeptides downregulate other genes (ILK and MMP) that can contribute to the inflammatory reponse....

They are touted to be the most effective collagen and matrix biopolymer enhancing peptide commercially available. These demonstrate superior activity in upregulating mammalian genes that stimulate skin cells to produce more collagen. The concentration of these lipopeptides in the final product is low (10ppm) because the compound is very active. These concentrations have been selected by doing careful titration (dose vs response curves) using fibroblasts in tissue cultures. The final concentration selected for the lipopeptides are optimal to obtain maximum responses. In addition, a reduction in effects was observed at higher concentrations.

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:08 pm

This is very good information bethany. I am a fan of all peptide technologies since they have been proven to work as skin active ingredients.

An important thing to remember, and one that I am going to answer in jasminerosey's question is the fact that these peptides are "active" ingredients. Active ingredients are usually loaded in low percentage levels. But more important than the actives, in many cases, is the base cream or lotion that is used as the "carrier" for the active. If the base cream or lotion does a poor job of transport, penetration, and/or compatibility with the skin's own natural sebum, the amount of active reaching the inner layers of the skin could be reduced. Reduced penetration equals reduced effectiveness. Poor compatibility, often leads to drier skin that the user had before they started the regimen! A poorly conceived and formulated base lotion can ruin even the best active ingredient's ability to function.

I'll explain more tomorrow with some very basic cosmetic chemistry rules that I will provide for jasminerosey.

free skin care · Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:25 pm

NOTCH wrote:

Oh Kassy, Kassy, Kassy, you asked if I had come up with a new Matrixyl product. Since I cannot talk about my products in the public forum, I followed the rules and PM'd you with the product that I do make, which, answered your question perfectly. I did NOT initiate this contact, you did.

Now you've shown what you do with "Private Messages". My trust (and everybody else's) in you and bethany has just gone completely out the window, and surely never to be regained. What is your agenda anyway. What have you got against Matrixyl other than the fact that you and bethany are retinol, vitamin C fans? And before you go there, I don't sell Matrixyl, and I don't work for Croda or Sederma.

By the way, I also DID NOT put down retinol or vitman C treatments in ANY way in this thread. If you would have gone back and checked, I followed my initial technical post with one that had this statement, in the beginning:

"Retinol is a tried and true anti-wrinkle active material. For those of you who like this regimen and can tolerate it, then by all means continue to use it. However, not everyone can tolerate the retinol regimen and may not like or want the potential skin irritation, redness, peeling, or sun sensitivity that can be associated with it's use."

Perhaps from now on, you should read the technical posts a little more carefully rather than worry about who's writing them and why. You should use PM's as what they are "private" messages, and you should worry about things that only concern you. Other people have been applauding this thread in properly intentioned PM's to me since it was started. Let's just stick to the technical scientific facts in this public forum, shall we? Cool

I'll have your answer on the Vitamin C question before the end of tomorrow, rest assured.

Your post is insulting and uncalled for, and I've reported it to the moderators.

Unlike you, I have no agenda or ulterior motives.

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:04 am

John,
I am eagerly awaiting your response to my questions.....I am deeply appreciating having an expert chemist on the forum

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 8:49 am

Matrixyl IS a proven effective active ingredient with many independent studies that substantiate the claims. One of the best independent studies done on Matrixyl is listed here, with a link to the Power Point presentation.

There are several reasons why I've chosen this study as an excellent independent example.

1) It was not funded, created, or conceived by any cosmetic company.
2) It was not funded, created, or conceived by any cosmetic raw material supplier.
3) It was a sales tool for a skin measurement device company, specializing in testing the skin for moisturization, smoothness, sebum production, elasticity, etc.

6) All measurements were done using Courage and Khazaka skin meaurement devices. These pieces of analytical insturmentation give quantitative, scientific results of high accuracy.

[quote]

As you noted, it appears that the study here was done as a marketing device for their equipment, which still makes it less than independent. A "null result" doesn't help them prove that their equipment works.

Not saying that the study is unreliable, just that it isn't a true double-blind peer reviewed study. And it wasn't submitted to a scientific journal, either.

You mentioned that there are lots of studies on these particular peptides. Any that you know that are in peer-reviewed journals? Those for me are more persuasive that things prepared for marketing purposes.

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:08 am

Sorry, I messed up the quote section in my last post. The first several lines up to the 'quote' mark are all by NOTCH, not me.

The rest is my reply. I hope this is clear now.

And I really would like to see any scientifically vetted study in a peer-reviewed journal on these peptides. (I have used a serum containing Matrixyl 3000 but discontinued it while I was slimming down my skincare regimen.)

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 9:55 am

I agree with the contents in flitcraft's post. The research that has been done on matrixyl is not regarded as independent studies neither on Smartskincare.com (link posted by Kassy_A on page 1 in this thread) nor by Paula Begoun on Cosmeticscop.com (see below).

Matrixyl, other peptides, growth factors etc are often used in skin care formulations and may have some positive effects on skin (for all I know), but the manufacturers claims of their effectiveness are not backed by independent studies. Topical vitamin A and C are in a league of their own when it comes to independent research.

Quote from Cosmeticscop.com:

Palmitoyl Pentapeptide 3. Trade name Matrixyl, a fatty acid mixed with amino acids. The only research showing this has any significance for skin was carried out by the ingredient manufacturer Sederma. In their research, three different "half-face" studies with a total of about 45 participants showed it to be better than a retinol or vitamin C product. Without independent substantiation, however, there is no way to know how accurate this company funded research is.

http://www.cosmeticscop.com/dictionary_term.aspx?tid=1694&lid=526&term=palmitoyl+pentapeptide+3

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 10:57 am

Yes, it would be great if to know of any such double-blind peer reviewed studies..f they do exist...

...but on a personal level, even without those studies, I'm still interested John, in why you choose matrixyl instead of other peptides (you've already told us why you chose it instead of matrixyl3000)...and I feel.. imo.. that there is a sincerity in your choosing it instead of retin a or vit.c in your product...

..it helps me to have alot of info from different perspectives..so I can 'put it all together' in a way that feels true for me.

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:03 pm

I agree flitcraft, I pay the most attention to peer reviewed studies if I can find them. The study done by the Medical University in Plovdiv, and Courage & Khazaka was peer reviewed by the International Society for Biophysics and Imaging of the Skin (ISBS). The findings were published in their Journal. I will also go back and search through issues of the Journal of of Cosmetic Science which is the official journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists, of which I am a member. This Journal is also peer reviewed.

The primary reason why I chose Matrixyl had a lot to do with timing. It was the peptide available to me at the time that I was tasked with making an Anti-Wrinkle formulation that contained Jojoba Esters with a Peptide to be tested in the, then new, Clinical Testing Lab at the raw material supplier where I worked. Currently, there a several reasons why I still use Matrixyl. It was proven to work in those clinical trials, which backed up the other Matrixyl trials we were aware of, and I firmly believe in the old saying, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". You have to keep in mind that the INCI dictionary is three volumes thick, each one being approximately 3 inches thick. That is tens of thousands of cosmetic ingredients. I simply don't have the time to check everything out. I plan two new launches for 2009. Neither one plan to use new peptide technology. Instead, I'm going in the direction of skin sebum compatibility which I believe should be the "keystone" for any properly functioning cosmetic formula. The bottom line is, there just isn't enough lab time, development time, research time, stability time, and then clinical trial time to try very many new ingredients...unless, something really pops out as new and novel.

jasminerosey, I just now got off of the phone with the technical scientific rep at Croda/Sederma in Parsippany, NJ. I spoke with Abhijit Bidaye (yes, that is his name) and obtained the following information. First, Matrixyl and Matrixyl 3000 are both synthetically prepared lipopetide microproteins. As for the Vitamin C question, we'll have to wait a little longer for the answer. Abhijit says the studies were performed in France by the Sederma company who developed Matrixyl. He is aware that the Vitamin C cream was a commercial product that was on the market in France at the time. What he does not know right now is the name of the Commercial product or the type of Vitamin C that was loaded at 5%. He promised me that he will ask these questions of the Sederma group in France and get back with me on Monday with the answer.

Finally, just a word of advice (or caution) for you and I mean this in a total constructive way Septembergirl. Probably the very last place I'd ever go for technically accurate, scientifically based, cosmetic information is Paula Begoun on Cosmeticscop.com All the cosmetic chemists that I know in the US roll their eyes back in their head when they see something mentioned from that source.

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:11 pm

NOTCH wrote:

Finally, just a word of advice (or caution) for you and I mean this in a total constructive way Septembergirl. Probably the very last place I'd ever go for technically accurate, scientifically based, cosmetic information is Paula Begoun on Cosmeticscop.com All the cosmetic chemists that I know in the US roll their eyes back in their head when they see something mentioned from that source.

I take what she says with a grain of salt. I remember back when I was devouring her books and believed everything she wrote. She panned the 'new' (back them) sunscreen ingredient parsol..kept going on and on about how irritating it was and how the FDA had good reason not to approve it. Next thing you know, FDA approves it, Paula plops it in her sunscreens. Now, after all the hoopla about how unstable it is and how limited the protection is, she's busy refuting all the data and says how wonderful it is. Of course, it's in her products now. The only thng I appreciate is that she provides good, thorough ingredient listings. Now I do the research myself.

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 12:40 pm

For those of you who like to do your own research (which I STRONGLY applaud) like marina, here is your homework assignment for this weekend.

Here is a link to the World Intellectual Property Organisation website. The specific page deals with a patented and patentable inventions involving Matrixyl and Matryxil 3000.

(WO/2008/020954) COSMETIC COMPOSITION TO ACCELERATE REPAIR OF FUNCTIONAL WRINKLES

There are several references listed which would make very interesting reading for those of you who would like to learn more.

The one I found interesting was in the Journal of Cosmetics Science:
Lintner K, Preschard, O. "Biologically Active Peptides: From A Laboratory Bench Curiosity to a Functional Skin Care Product", International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 22, 207-218 (2000)

Here is an excerpt that includes that reference:

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PEPTIDES

The focus of the early art has been on disclosing substances that were thought to physically replenish the molecules that build new collagen or that add substances which irritate or disrupt the basal layer to effect its regeneration and healthy reconstitution. More recent art teaches the benefits of topical peptide treatments in stimulating the upper dermis to renew itself by cellular re-growth. This is supported by the knowledge that the body has naturally occurring peptides that are instrumental in stimulating the healing process following a wound to the skin. Robinson teaches (6,492,326) various formulations containing combinations of palmitoyl pentapeptide-3, derivatives of pentapeptides, and mixtures thereof. Lintner (6,620,419) discloses peptide formulas of the general sequence palmitoyl-lysyl-threonyl-lysyl-serine that increase the synthesis of collagen and gylcosaminoglycans. They act synergistically to heal wrinkles and other forms of skin aging far more effectively than earlier formulations. The key difference in the Lintner teaching to that of Robinson is the addition of a fatty acid chain onto the terminal end of a pentapeptide that makes this lipophilic modified peptide very efficient at penetrating the epidermis and thus more effective reaching the formative layers of the dermis. The Lintner patent is the basis for the commercial product Matrixyl® ( Sederma, SA). By virtue of published research Matrixyl™ is recognized as a cosmetic substance that increases and restores the formative cells, fibro-collagenous network and extra-cellular components. (Lintner K, Preschard, O., "Biologically Active Peptides: From A Laboratory Bench Curiosity to a Functional Skin Care Product", International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 22, 207-218 (2000)) and (Mas-Chamberlin et al. "Matrikines: A Natural Concept to Replace Retinoids in Wrinkle Treatment, Personal Care Asia Pacific, 5, 1, (2004). The net result is to increase the thickness of the skin by restoring the reparative capacity of the upper dermis. Consequently, the skin is better able to withstand the deformation imposed on it by the active contraction and relaxation of expression muscles, and micro-contractions within the skin itself. While the magnitude of skin smoothness is good with Matrixl™ and surpasses the retinoids (see "Matrixyl. In vivo Anti-wrinkle Test On Volunteers Using Retinol" Sederma research publication, Oct. 2000, vol 1), it is far less effective than Matrixyl™3000.

http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=2008020954&IA=US2007016444&DISPLAY=DESC

free skin care · Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:47 pm

NOTCH wrote:

Finally, just a word of advice (or caution) for you and I mean this in a total constructive way Septembergirl. Probably the very last place I'd ever go for technically accurate, scientifically based, cosmetic information is Paula Begoun on Cosmeticscop.com All the cosmetic chemists that I know in the US roll their eyes back in their head when they see something mentioned from that source.

The quote I provided from Cosmeticscop.com is identical to the information provided about matrixyl on Smartskincare.com. I accept that you don't trust these sources.

I still don't agree with you that matrixyl IS a proven effective anti aging ingredient. It's not proven effective before several studies are conducted and evaluated that have replicated the results from the first study. That is not the case here. BUT I think it's true to say matrixyl is a promising agent.

I think you know that it would be almost impossible for most laymen (-women!) to go through complicated studies on skin care ingredients conducted by dermatologist researchers. We need to trust websites, blogs and reviews from trustworthy, independent sources like Dr Tudorov (Smartskincare.com), Dermatology Professor Leslie Baumann etc. who have the qualifications and knowledge to review the quality of the studies, understand and interpret study findings, put them into context etc.

free skin care · Sat Dec 06, 2008 2:32 am

From what I have read about Matrixyl I think it has much more tested ability to reduce wrinkles than a load of other ingredients on the market.
Many products purchased by thousands of users have absolutely no testing yet they are still purchased. I find this subject extremely interesting and will certainly consider products containing matrixyl in my next purchase.

Question John, is there any added advantage to be gained by combining an otc 1% retinol product with a product containing matrixyl and what would you suggest be the minimum percentage of matrixyl to look for in a product?

free skin care · Sat Dec 06, 2008 5:58 am

<<SkinMedica Vitamin C Complex (in a polysilicone base) and CellularskinRX C+ are both very stable. It takes many months before they start oxidising>>

A quick check around the Web seems to show that the Skinmedica Vitamin C product is twice the price of the CellularskinRX C+ product.

Is there any specific reason to choose the Skinmedica product over the Cellularskin product? I am wondering what additional benefits I might get from it or additional efficacy I might achieve by paying twice as much for that one? Wink

Thanks

free skin care · Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:03 am

This thread is certainly interesting.

I am 48 and for the past few years, I have tried to hold the line with a regimin that that includes Retin A at night, broad spectrum suncreens during the day, occasional light TCA peels, twice annual injections of Botox and a dermal filler under the eyes.

I am always looking for improvement so adding Vitamin C in the mix somewhere is something that interests me.

I am now seeing some sagging under the chin and around the cheeks - so I suppose the only alternative left to me after all this is surgery Sad

BF

free skin care · Sat Dec 06, 2008 6:32 am

Barefootgirl wrote:

<<SkinMedica Vitamin C Complex (in a polysilicone base) and CellularskinRX C+ are both very stable. It takes many months before they start oxidising>>

A quick check around the Web seems to show that the Skinmedica Vitamin C product is twice the price of the CellularskinRX C+ product.

Is there any specific reason to choose the Skinmedica product over the Cellularskin product? I am wondering what additional benefits I might get from it or additional efficacy I might achieve by paying twice as much for that one? Wink

Thanks

Hi, Barefootgirl.
I think the quotes about vitamin C serums were taken from my post, so I will try to answer.

SkinMedica Vitamin Complex is one of very few skin care formulations that is proven in a scientific study to have anti-aging properties. It contains 10 % l-ascorbic acid, 5 % Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate (oil soluble form of vitamin C) and two forms of vitamin E in a polysilicone base. The consistency is like a white creamy gel, as opposed to the transparent, liquid vitamin C serums from Cellex-C, SkinCeuticals, CellularskinRX etc.

Here is the study showing the benefits of SkinMedica C Complex:
www.skin-medica.ru/docs/spesialist/VitC-Fitzpatrick-Low-Rez.pdf

CellularskinRX C+ is a simpler formulation without the added benefits of vitamin E. Vitamin C and E work synergistically and enhance the effects of one another. If you opt for a pure vitamin C serum like SkinCellularRX, you can use a moisturizer containing vitamin E on top in order to improve the antioxidant protection.

Smile

ETA: The SkinMedica study was published in Dermatological Surgery (a peer-reviewed journal) in 2002.

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.