Oxygen FOr the skin

The cosmetics industry is overflowing with people who have no clue what they are doing, and the issue of oxygen in skin-care products demonstrates that perfectly. After selling us products to ward off oxygen’s effects on the skin (the word antioxidant means anti-oxygen), the beauty industry then turns around and sells us products that claim to provide oxygen to the skin. Doesn’t the beauty industry have anything better to do? (No, it doesn’t, especially if there is an interested consumer willing to make a purchase.)

Many cosmetic products contain antioxidants, ingredients that keep oxygen off the face, such as vitamin C, superoxide dismutase, selenium, curcumin, plant extracts, and vitamin E, among dozens and dozens of others. At the same time, the cosmetics industry also sells products that contain hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) or some other oxygen-releasing ingredient that supposedly delivers an oxygen molecule when it comes into contact with skin. It makes sense to wonder if the extra oxygen would just trigger free-radical damage and cause more problems for the skin. But if you were also using products that contained antioxidants, wouldn’t they “scavenge” up that free-radical oxygen? The answer is that if the product could deliver extra oxygen to the skin it would indeed generate free-radical

damage and, based on data from almost every imaginable published study on the subject, that’s bad for skin.

So why the concern about supplying more oxygen to the skin? Oxygen depletion is one of the things that happens to older skin, regardless of whether it’s been affected by sun dam- age or any other health issue. Why or how that happens is a complete unknown, though it is thought to have something to do with blood flow and a reduction in lung capacity as we age. Nevertheless, delivering extra oxygen to the skin doesn’t reverse it. After all, there is plenty of oxygen in our environment. The earth’s atmosphere is 21% oxygen; the oceans, lakes, and rivers are about 88% oxygen. Oxygen is a constituent of most rocks and minerals, and makes up 46.7% (by weight) of the solid crust of the earth. Oxygen makes up 60% of the human body, and is in every cell and organ. It is a constituent of all living tissues; almost all plants and animals, including humans, require oxygen to maintain life. However, oxygen is utilized by the body almost exclusively through respiration. Oxygen on the surface may affect the very top layer of skin, but so what? How much extra oxygen does skin need? Again, no one knows. Can it be absorbed? No. Plus, none of this addresses the issue about oxygen generating more free-radical damage, which is one of the processes that makes the veins and capillaries of the body stop working efficiently.

That brings us to this question: How did the caprice of oxygen booths get started? Oxy-

gen booths (hyperbaric chambers) are used medically to repair skin ulcers and wounds that have difficulty healing. According to the American Diabetes Association’s Diabetes Forecast (June 1993, page 57), “When you have a stubborn [wound] that won’t heal, the white blood cells that fight the infection in the [wound] use 20 times more oxygen when they’re killing bacteria. Also, the more oxygen your body has to work with, the more efficiently it lays down wound-repairing connective tissue. Yet just when you need more oxygen, you may have less. If you have neuropathy (diabetic nerve damage), that may cause changes in blood

 

 

flow, resulting in islands of low oxygen levels in your foot. Less oxygen means slower healing, and a [wound] that doesn’t heal could eventually lead to an amputation. So it seems that you should try to get extra oxygen in your blood when you have a foot ulcer, to bring the oxygen levels in the tissues around the ulcer up to normal, or even higher. But sitting in your living room and breathing in 100% oxygen won’t do the trick. Under normal circumstances, only so much oxygen will dissolve in your blood.” Pressure is needed to allow the oxygen to be used by the body; and sitting in a hyperbaric booth serves that purpose. The article contin- ues, “But it is the inhaled oxygen, which is then absorbed by your blood after you breathe it, that speeds wound healing, not the oxygen drifting past the wound. You may have seen advertisements for devices that encase a person’s leg and deliver oxygen to the skin. This is not hyperbaric oxygen therapy, and it’s not effective—your skin doesn’t absorb oxygen that way. These devices may even reduce the amount of oxygen that gets to your leg.”

Moreover, leg ulcers and wounds are a temporary condition, but skin aging is ongoing. The notion that oxygen treatments affect aging, wrinkles, or any other skin malady is a joke. Nary a study exists anywhere to support those ideas, though there is a ton of research showing that the oxidative process generated by oxygen is partly responsible for wrinkles and skin aging in general.

 

PrOPylene glycOl

Propylene glycol (along with other glycols and glycerol) is a humectant or humidifying and delivery ingredient used in cosmetics, meaning it helps other ingredients absorb better into the skin. Despite research to the contrary, you can find Web sites and spam e-mails stating that propylene glycol is really industrial antifreeze and the major ingredient in brake and hydraulic fluids. These sites also state that tests show it to be a strong skin irritant. They further point out that the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on propylene glycol warns users to avoid skin contact because systemically (in the body) it can cause liver abnormali- ties and kidney damage.

As ominous as that sounds, it is so far from the reality of cosmetic formulations that almost none of it holds any water or poses real concern. It is important to realize that the MSDS sheets are talking about 100% concentrations of a substance. Even water and salt have frightening comments regarding their safety according to their MSDS reports. It is true that propylene glycol in 100% concentration is used as antifreeze, but—and this is a very big but—in cosmetics it is used in only the smallest amounts to keep products from melting in high heat or freezing when it is cold. It also helps active ingredients penetrate the skin. In the minute amounts used in cosmetics, propylene glycol is not a concern in the least. Women are not suffering from liver problems (as some Web sites have asserted) because of propylene glycol in cosmetics.

And finally, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, within the Public Health Services Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, “studies have not shown these chemicals [propylene or the other glycols as used in cosmetics] to be car- cinogens” (Source: www.atsdr.cdc.gov).

 

 

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is another ingredient “natural” Web sites have attempted to make notorious. They gain a great deal of attention by attributing horror stories to PEG. For example, several Web sites state the following: “Because of their effectiveness, PEGs are often used in caustic spray-on oven cleaners, yet are also found in many personal care products. Not only are they potentially carcinogenic, but they contribute to stripping the skin’s Natural Moisture Factor, leaving the immune system vulnerable.” There is no research substantiating any of this. Quite the contrary: PEGs have no known skin toxicity. The only negative research results for this ingredient group indicate that large quantities given orally to rats can cause tumors. How that got related to skin-care products is a mystery to me.

 

Phthalates

Dibutyl phthalate (DBP) was at one time a very common ingredient in many nail polishes. It is used as a plasticizer and is a key component in some fragrances because of its unique properties. But phthalates have become one of the demon ingredients in cosmetics since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, www.cdc.gov) published the National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals—Results for Mono-butyl phthalate [which is] (metabolized from Dibutyl phthalate). Basically, the CDC found measurable levels of phthalate in the urine of the participants in a study looking at the issue of phthalates. However, the CDC stated that “Finding a measurable amount of one or more phthalate metabolites in urine does not mean that the level of one or more phthalates causes an adverse health effect. Whether phthalates at the levels of metabolites reported here are a cause for health concern is not yet known; more research is needed” (Sources: CDC, www.cdc.gov/ nceh/dls/report/results/Mono-butylPhthalate.htm; and Environmental Health Perspectives, December 2000, volume 108, issue 12).

Adult health is one thing, but since then growing research has shown a far more serious concern when children have a detectable amount of phthalates in their system. A study published in the medical journal Pediatrics (February 2008, pages 260–268) was shocking to many women when it found a link between baby skin-care products and phthalates being absorbed by the infant; the report concluded: “Phthalate exposure is widespread and variable in infants. Infant exposure[s] to lotion, powder, and shampoo were significantly associated with increased urinary concentrations of monoethyl phthalate, monomethyl phthalate, and monoisobutyl phthalate, and associations increased with the number of products used. This association was strongest in young infants, who may be more vulnerable to developmental and reproductive toxicity of phthalates given their immature metabolic system capability and increased dosage per unit body surface area.”

In 1985, the Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) board (www.cir-safety.org/) deemed dibutyl phthalate safe for use in cosmetic products. In 2001, the CIR reviewed new data on the use of three phthalate esters (also known as phthalates) in cosmetics, and on November 19, 2002, the CIR board announced its decision to not reopen the safety assessment of the dibutyl phthalate group of ingredients. Their summary on this issue states that “New data on acute and short-term toxicity were consistent with previously available data.” They

 

 

went on to say that “The developmental effects of phthalates seen in rodents raise ques- tions about the potential for human health risk. However, these effects seen in rodents are at much higher exposure levels than humans are likely to encounter and they are subject to the species difference in the metabolism of phthalate diesters.” They also concluded that human exposure to dibutyl and diethyl phthalate was below the reference dose levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Other research concluded similarly, saying “that levels of concern are minimal to neg- ligible in most situations…” (Source: Reproductive Toxicology, August–September 2004, pages 761–764). And a study reported in Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, December 2008, pages 232–242, concluded that “The results of the cumulative risk assessments for both a US and a German population show that the hazard index is below one. Thus it is unlikely that humans are suffering adverse developmental effects from current environmental exposure to these phthalate esters.”

Despite the fact that the CTFA and CIR maintain that phthalates are safe, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada, and other governmental health agen- cies around the world remain suspicious. Though the FDA and Health Canada have not restricted the use of phthalates, both agencies have made strong comments regarding their risk and safety. An FDA report titled Aggregate Exposures to Phthalates in Humans stated that “Manufacturers consistently argue that there is no evidence that anyone has been harmed by phthalates. As we note, however, and as confirmed by the NTP [National Toxicology Program] panel and FDA, no study has ever examined the impact of phthalates [on human reproduction] … Lack of evidence can hardly be used as evidence of safety when no one has ever [studied the issue on humans].”

The report went on to observe, “The increasing incidence of hypospadias, undescended testes, testicular cancer, and declining sperm counts in the US and many other parts of the world suggests that a closer look at many reproductive tract toxicants and endocrine disrupters is urgently needed in people. With respect to phthalates, however, evidence from relevant animal studies and from limited studies of non-reproductive tract impacts in hospitalized patients is sufficient to require phasing out the use of many of the phthalates.” The Health Canada panel reached a similar conclusion, stating “the status quo is not an acceptable option” (Source: Aggregate Exposures to Phthalates in Humans, July 2002, www. fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/02/Dec02/120502/02d-0325-c000018-02-vol1.pdf ).

This explains why many cosmetics companies are actively seeking or have already begun using alternatives to phthalates. It could be argued that, at the levels presently used, phthalates pose no health risk. Although there is no concrete human evidence to suggest phthalates are harmful, the lack of studies in this area continues to leave the issue open to debate and perhaps does indicate that a “better safe than sorry” approach is wise.

 

sOdiuM lauryl sulFate

Are sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) serious problems in cosmetics? I have received more e-mails and letters than I care to count about this concern.

 

 

I believe that this entire mania was generated by several Neways members’ web sites, and has been carried over as if it were fact into other so-called “all natural” cosmetics lines.

It seems that most of this issue is based on the incorrect reporting about a study at the Medical College of Georgia. As a reminder, here is what is being quoted: “A study from the Medical College of Georgia indicates that SLS is a systemic, and can penetrate and be retained in the eye, brain, heart, liver, etc., with potentially harmful long-term effects. It could retard healing and cause cataracts in adults, and can keep children’s eyes from devel- oping properly.” This is supposedly quoted from a report given to a Research to Prevent Blindness conference. While the report on animal models extrapolates concerns about the use of SLS, it draws no hard conclusions, stating the amount of SLS used was 10% greater than that used in shampoos and that the research was done on animals, not people. The doctor who conducted the study and delivered the final report is Dr. Keith Green, Regents Professor of Ophthalmology at the Medical College of Georgia, who received his doctorate of science from St. Andrews University in Scotland. I had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Green, who stated that he was completely embarrassed by all this. He told me in a telephone interview back in 1997 that his “work was completely misquoted. There is no part of my study that indicated any [eye] development or cataract problems from SLS or SLES and the body does not retain those ingredients at all. We did not even look at the issue of children, so that conclusion is completely false because it never existed. The Neways people took my research completely out of context and probably never read the study at all.” He continued in a perturbed voice, saying, “The statement like ‘SLS is a systemic’ has no meaning. No ingredient can be a systemic unless you drink the stuff and that’s not what we did with it. Another incredible comment was that my study was ‘clinical,’ meaning I tested the substance on people, [but] these were strictly animal tests. Furthermore, the eyes showed no irritation with the 10-dilution substance used! If anything, the animal studies indicated no risk of irritation whatsoever!” That lack of outcome is in fact why, as of 1987, Green no longer pursued this research. When I asked if anyone has done any follow-up studies looking at SLS and SLES in this regard, Dr. Green said, “No one has done this because the findings were so insignificant.”

Yet the resulting mass e-mails continued for some time, carrying on the SLS and SLES myth with a slightly different bent. According to Health Canada, in a press release dated February 12, 1999 (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/), “A letter has been circulating [on] the Internet which claims that there is a link between cancer and sodium laureth (or lauryl) sulfate (SLS), an ingredient used in [cosmetics]. Health Canada has looked into the matter and has found no scientific evidence to suggest that SLS causes cancer. It has a history of safe use in Canada. Upon further investigation, it was discovered that this e-mail warning is a hoax. The letter is signed by a person at the University of Pennsylvania Health System and includes a phone number. Health Canada contacted the University of Pennsylvania Health System and found that it is not the author of the sodium laureth sulfate warning and does not endorse any link between SLS and cancer. Health Canada considers SLS safe for use in cosmetics. Therefore, you can continue to use cosmetics containing SLS without worry.”

 

 

Further, according to the American Cancer Society’s Web site, “Contrary to popular rumors on the Internet, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS) and Sodium Laureth Sulfate (SLES) do not cause cancer. E-mails have been flying through cyberspace claiming SLS [and SLES] causes cancer … and is proven to cause cancer. ... [Yet] A search of recognized medical journals yielded no published articles relating this substance to cancer in humans.”

That’s not to say that sodium lauryl sulfate isn’t a potent skin irritant, because it is. That’s why it’s considered a standard comparison substance for measuring skin irritancy of other ingredients. Thus in scientific studies, when they want to establish whether or not an ingredient is problematic for skin, they compare its effect to the results of SLS. In amounts of 2% to 5% it can cause allergic or sensitizing reactions in lots of people (Sources: European Journal of Dermatology, September–October 2001, pages 416–419; American Journal of Contact Dermatitis, March 2001, pages 28–32). But irritancy is not the same as the other dire, erroneous warnings floating around the Web about this ingredient!

 

steM cells in skin-care PrOducts?

You may have seen advertisements for skin-care products claiming that they use stem cell research or can somehow stimulate stem cells to fight wrinkles. What is absurd about this claim is that while stem cell research for any human benefit is only in its infancy, in the area of wrinkles or skin care it is nonexistent. These ads are a classic example of how a cosmetics company can take serious science and manipulate it to sell products. Scientific literature makes it clear that stem cells are indeed the basis for every organ, tissue, and cell produced in the human body, and it is possible that stem cells may be able to repair or replace dam- aged tissue, thereby reversing diseases and injuries such as cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and blood diseases, to name a few (Source: Experimental Gerontology, November 2008, pages 986–987). But notice the wording: “may be.” We just don’t know, and neither does any cosmetics company.

Research on adult stem cells, as well as on embryonic stem cells (though the latter is far more controversial) holds great potential. In fact, adult blood-forming stem cells from bone marrow have been used in bone-marrow transplants for over 30 years. Certain kinds of adult stem cells seem to have the ability to differentiate into a number of dif- ferent cell types, given the right conditions. If this differentiation of adult stem cells can be controlled in the laboratory, these cells may become the basis for therapies for many serious common diseases. Scientists are experimenting with different research strategies to generate tissues that will not be rejected, an unfortunate problem with some surgical procedures and transplants.

Many complicated questions remain to be answered about stem cells. The following are just a few posed by the National Institutes of Health (www.nih.gov). “How many kinds of adult stem cells exist, and in which tissues do they exist? What are the sources of adult stem cells in the body? Are they ‘leftover’ embryonic stem cells, or do they arise in some other way? Why do they remain in an undifferentiated state when all the cells around them have differentiated? Do adult stem cells normally exhibit plasticity, or do they only

 

 

transdifferentiate when scientists manipulate them experimentally? What are the signals that regulate the proliferation and differentiation of stem cells that demonstrate plasticity? Is it possible to manipulate adult stem cells to enhance their proliferation so that sufficient tissue for transplants can be produced? Does a single type of stem cell exist—possibly in the bone marrow or circulating in the blood—that can generate the cells of any organ or tissue? What are the factors that stimulate stem cells to relocate to sites of injury or dam- age?” As you can see, there are far more questions than answers, and the answers certainly aren’t found in any skin-care product any where in the world.

 

BOtanicals Or all natural?

Is it worthwhile to look for natural ingredients in skin-care products? Leaving aside the fact that the process of removing a plant from the ground, cleaning off the dirt and insects, getting the key parts of the plant extracted, and then stabilizing and preserving it in a cos- metic renders it fairly unnatural, the answer is yes and no. There are bountiful numbers of wonderful plants and plant extracts that have beneficial effects on skin—and there are plenty of plant extracts that present problems for skin, too. Even so, let’s say a natural or botanical ingredient is effective as a disinfectant; if so, that doesn’t make it better than a synthetically derived disinfectant, it just makes it an alternative. One shortcoming of natural ingredients in skin-care products that the cosmetics industry hasn’t addressed is that each natural ingredient has a large range of limitations. These include what happens as a result of the purification process it goes through to get into a product, which part of the plant is effective, bad crops, possible contamination with pesticides, and maintaining consistent concentrations. In many ways synthetic ingredients are often more reliable for the skin; chief among them is that developers have control over the outcome and functionality.

It is also important to reiterate that just because an ingredient is found growing in na- ture doesn’t mean it’s good for the skin. Lots of plants are poisonous if ingested and lots of plants can irritate the skin. While plants sound great—pure and natural and all that—and while sesame oil and licorice extract sound far better than capric/caprylic triglyceride (a fatty acid) and glycyrrhetinic acid (a derivative of licorice), they aren’t better or worse. Each individual ingredient, of which there are thousands, has its pros and cons, and it would be a delusion to assume otherwise.

 

drinking cOllagen tO Fight Wrinkles?

Most likely many of you have seen ads or spoken to women who are drinking or selling beverages laced with collagen. The sales pitch for these drinks is that drinking collagen will rebuild and enhance the collagen in your skin and that Japanese women have been doing it for years (so of course it must be valid, right? And of course women who don’t drink collagen must look wrinkled?). I can see why this would be easy to accept. For more than two decades women have believed that collagen added to skin-care products will add to the collagen in your skin, so why wouldn’t the same be true from the inside out? After all, if you drink dairy products rich in calcium you do get better bone growth. If you drink colas

 

 

and other soda drinks you lose calcium and have an increased risk of osteoporosis (Source:

Osteoporosis International, December 2005, pages 1803–1808).

Does drinking collagen offer similar possibilities for skin? Most of this attention is a result of a collagen drink called Toki. It is marketed in a pyramid-style business plan so your neighbor or co-worker may be the one tempting you with frivolous, scientific-sounding claims to get you to purchase the drink or the company’s associated supplements (there is always something else you need), or try to get you to sell the stuff yourself.

Aside from claims that are too good to be true, Toki asserts that they have impressive, independent studies demonstrating the success of their drink. At best, their research is du- bious. Despite the company’s contention about having unbiased research, it isn’t the truth. The studies they have were paid for by the company distributing their products, namely Lane Labs, based in Allendale, New Jersey. If you end up believing even a portion of their misleading sales pitch you will find yourself out $175 for a 30-day supply. Surely that kind of expenditure requires more than the claims Toki has cooked up.

It is also questionable whether or not Toki actually contains collagen at all. The ingredients on the label are rice germ extract, soybean extract, hijiki seaweed extract, lemon juice, citric acid, artificial lemon flavoring, magnesium stearate, silica, and soybeans. None of those sub- stances have anything to do with collagen. Plant-based sources of collagen are questionable at best, as humans and animals are the only known source of ingestible collagen.

Are Toki or other collagen drinks any better than collagen supplements (which also hap- pen to cost a lot less) at providing potential benefit? You’ll be happy to know spending more money will not enhance the outcome. Either way, you won’t see your wrinkles diminish or disappear with Toki, so keeping the $175 monthly cost (that’s $2,100 a year!) in your pocket may be far more helpful to you in the long run.

In this case, getting past the hype and marketing shenanigans takes information, because anything involving the human body is complicated. Just in case you don’t want to make your way through this section, the short answer is, Don’t waste your money. Collagen drinks are not miracles for your skin. The distance between the hype and the truth is just too big for any budget to handle.

The same complexity holds true for collagen as a beauty supplement, too, because there is some research showing the intake of collagen can have benefit for skin and bones. But there is no science showing it gets rid of wrinkles, at least not unbiased research.

What is collagen? Collagen is made of protein and functions primarily as a support structure in the body, comprising 30% of its mass. There are many forms of collagen in the human body but only four types account for over 90% of the total. They are: Collagen I, found in skin, tendons, capillaries and veins, bone, and organs. Collagen II is the primary component of cartilage, while Collagen III is the main component of reticular fibers, and Collagen IV is the mainstay of the cell membrane.

When collagen is broken down it can produce gelatin, which can be used in foods (think Jell-O), or in cosmetics (think products that claim to get rid of wrinkles or in nail-care products claiming to grow nails). Pure collagen can be used in skin-care products as a way to keep skin hydrated. But eating Jell-O no more adds collagen to your skin than applying

 

 

gelatin ever helped anyone grow a nano-inch of nail length. And no one has ever shed a wrinkle from putting collagen on their skin.

So does ingesting pure collagen translate to creating building blocks, the way eating calcium works on the body, or is it more akin to believing that if you feed a cow chocolate it will produce chocolate milk? The answer is that consuming collagen may have a good effect, as eating calcium-rich foods or supplements will, but NOT in terms of helping wrinkles. Thinking otherwise would be like assuming a broken leg will be repaired by eat- ing calcium.

When you eat or drink collagen (from meat or in supplements) it is digested and broken down into the individual amino acids it is made up of, just as it would be with any animal protein you eat. But regardless of the source the collagen would not be distributed directly to the collagen in your skin. It’s just not possible, any more than the chocolate in the cow analogy. Still, eating foods containing collagen does seem to be able to help the entire body’s formation of collagen, and that’s good news (Sources: Archives of Dermatological Research, Oc- tober 2008, pages 479–483; Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, and Arthroscopy, August 2006, pages 750–755; Journal of Nutritional Science, March 2006, pages 211–215; and American Journal of Physiology Endocrinology and Metabolism, June 2005, pages 864–869).

One other point that makes matters even more complicated: Some of these collagen drinks say they contain a form of or are able to stimulate the body’s production of collagen peptide (a fragment of collagen broken down by enzymes). Collagen peptides have been shown to improve general bone density, have anti-arthritic properties, and even anti-bone- tumor properties (Sources: Clinical Immunology, January 2007, pages 75–84; Matrix Biology, November 2006, pages S69–S70; and Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism, November 2004, 547–553). But this is a complex topic and there is no direct research indicating dosage, or information comparing modalities. There is also research showing that some forms of collagen can stimulate arthritis and that only specific forms can offer help (Source: Molecular Immunology, November, www.pubmed.gov). Medicating in this arena needs to be done with your physician’s advice.

Despite the confusion and the complex manner in which various forms of collagen work in the body (for better and, in some cases, for worse), what you need to know is that drinking collagen is not going to alter your wrinkles, firm your skin, or delay a trip to the cosmetic surgeon for any of the numerous corrective procedures that really do make an anti-wrinkle difference. I’ll drink to that!