197 replies to this topic

[Fredrik]

how do you go about getting your skin looking vibrant and glowing, without artifical tanners. (I'm talking ingested supplements).

Dull skin is accumulation of to many dead cells on the surface. It comes from uneven and slowed cell turnover, not from lack of color (pigmentation). Daily sunscreen, retinoids and acids (l-ascorbic and salicylic acid) will keep your skin looking vibrant and glowing.

[iforgotmyname]

how do you go about getting your skin looking vibrant and glowing, without artifical tanners. (I'm talking ingested supplements).

Dull skin is accumulation of to many dead cells on the surface. It comes from uneven and slowed cell turnover, not from lack of color (pigmentation). Daily sunscreen, retinoids and acids (l-ascorbic and salicylic acid) will keep your skin looking vibrant and glowing.

AHA, something in brain just clicked :D, umm how to put into words... well since you exfoliate to get rid of dull cells, the new ones should be pale right (if not exposed to sun) and the sunscreen would give it a oily glow I guess, but is there a way through supplementation to make your pigment/new skin cells naturally more "tan" like?

[Fredrik]

is there a way through supplementation to make your pigment/new skin cells naturally more "tan" like?

Lycopene and beta-carotene. But the yellow and orange color comes from the sub-cutaneous fat, not the skin cells. Carotenoids are fat soluble and they get stored in adipocytes.

This kind of carotenoid induced coloration is used by PINK FLAMINGOS and salmon to signal attractiveness/health so they can GET LAID. I guess we aren´t so different from animals after all.

I don´t recommend that you take any carotenoid supplements. Eat at least 500 grams of vegetables a day and you may get a nice change of skin tone gradually. It happened to me when I upped my intake and besides, sweet potatoes, tomato paste, carrots and leafy greens is probably good for you in many other ways.

"Lycopenodermia: High intakes of lycopene rich foods or supplements may result in a deep orange discoloration of the skin known as lycopenodermia. Because lycopene is more intensely colored than the carotenes, lycopenodermia may occur at lower doses than carotenodermia

Carotenodermia: High doses of beta-carotene supplements (30 mg/day or more) and the consumption of large amounts of carotene-rich foods have resulted in a yellow discoloration of the skin known as carotenodermia. Carotenodermia is not associated with any underlying health problems and resolves when beta-carotene supplements are discontinued or dietary carotene intake is reduced."

http://lpi.oregonsta...ls/carotenoids/

Edited by fredrik, 20 August 2007 - 11:42 PM.

[iforgotmyname]

Lycopene and beta-carotene. But the yellow and orange color comes from the sub-cutaneous fat, not the skin cells. Carotenoids are fat soluble and they get stored in adipocytes.
[/URL]

Great, now how do I determine which foods are rich in Lycopene, are there any foods with both *o0ps, cant be, to0 easy*. Also do I need a balance of both in my food for good skin color, or should I eat more of one kind, or one not at all, to get the right color. LycO-range, Carow-yellow

I cant tell if my skin is more yellow or more orange, looks like a pale offwhite- whimpy ass tan color to me. :O

random sortof on topic question: if you have huge veins popping out all over your arms and hands does this mean something wrong with my arteries etc, or just too skinny. *Is there a way to decrease the size of the veins by making whatever thier doing more effective and therefore need of less size?* idk what im talking about

Edited by iforgotmyname, 21 August 2007 - 12:28 AM.

[frederickson]

how important is diet in skin health and appearance?

i really cannot afford any topical products. and even if i could, my skin is very sensitive to just about any kind of product i have ever used. in line with the advice here, i do apply blue lizard spf 30+ zinc oxide/titanium dioxide (no fragrance and very few chemical irritants) whenever i will be outdoors for a prolonged period of time.

i try to take care of my skin internally, although i am not sure how much good it really does. features of my diet that would seem to protect the skin (and health in general) are the following...

- high intake of fish oil (2 tsps/day Carlson's Fish Oil)
- very high fruit and vegetable intake (basis of diet, 7-10 servings/day)
- take an EGCG (green tea extract) supplement
- eat 88% cacao dark chocolate every day
- very little refined carbohydrates or processed foods in general
- drink a cup of aloe vera juice every day

any other dietary based suggestions? or comments on how much difference the "internal" approach to skin care can make?

[Fredrik]

Just wanted to add this to my earlier post about topical antioxidants...it could be of interest for those using topical idebenone, kinetin or Q10. An older study by Beiersdorf showed decreased levels of collagenase with Q10 so I still think it could be somewhat useful in a moisturizer, but not as photoprotection.


Tournas JA, Lin FH, Burch JA, Selim MA, Monteiro-Riviere NA, Zielinski JE, et al..

Ubiquinone, idebenone, and kinetin provide ineffective photoprotection to skin when compared to a topical antioxidant combination of Vitamins C and E with ferulic acid. J Invest Dermatol. 2006;126:1185–1187

[sdxl]

Why nothing about those German UVA absorbers, respectively from Symrise and BASF?

[Fredrik]

Why nothing about those German UVA absorbers, respectively from Symrise and BASF?

Because I don´t want to mention the war You´re talking about Symrise:s Neoheliopan and BASF:s Uvinul A plus.

The answer is that I haven´t seen as many products with them and I haven´t seen enough literature on them. Maybe they´re as good as the tinosorbs or the mexoryls if combined with avobenzone. I don´t think so but I don´t know.

EDIT:
I did a little research and found the differences between these filters. The long wave UVA (340-400 nm) is responsible for most of the photoaging. Skin sagging peaks in about 340 nm.

Tinosorb S and M protects from 250-400 nm. Mexoryl XL from 290-400 and Mexoryl SX (FDA approved) 290-380 nm. Uvinul A plus protects from 320-390 nm and Neo Heliopan from 290-340 nm.

So the Tinosorbs and Mexoryls are more protective but you have to look at the whole formulation in the end, not just the single filters. I feel more comfortable using a combo of mexoryls and tinosorbs as I do.

BASFs z-cote, the zinc oxide filter you have in america, is not a good UVA-protector, no matter what some companies (including skinceuticals) are claiming. When the tinosorbs get approved in the US, every major company like Estee Lauder, Procter & Gamble and Beiersdorf will start using them instead (Beiersdorf already use tinosorb s in their european formulations).

Edited by fredrik, 23 August 2007 - 05:19 PM.

[sdxl]

Yes, those are the 2 I was talking about. BTW it's Neo Heliopan AP. They may not be used much, but they are approved in the EU and can be used by any sunscreen manufacturer unlike the Mexoryls. With the new EU guidelines they probably will be used more. And yes its the total formula that is important.

And why do you assume I'm in the US? I can buy horrid smelling Solar Expertise and other sunscreens locally. Now I can be protected and smell like a freaking flower garden. Cause I'm worth it. [mellow] Good thing some are fragrance free.

[Fredrik]

And why do you assume I'm in the US? I can buy horrid smelling Solar Expertise and other sunscreens locally. Now I can be protected and smell like a freaking flower garden.  Cause I'm worth it. [mellow] Good thing some are fragrance free.

Oh, I didn´t assume that you were in the US, sorry if I offended you I don´t think anyone without access to these two european filters would complain about me not mentioning them. But as BASF also manufacture Z-cote that is very popular in inorganic and organic/inorganic sunscreens, so I wanted to point out that Z-cote is not adequate compared to these european filters we´ve been talking about.

I totally agree, Solar expertise floral smell is unbearable. The kids spray works, but instead it is extra waterprood and therefore extra sticky. I hate sunscreens but I love that they prevent (and actually to some extent repair) sundamage. Of these Loreal brands I can only use fragrance free La Roche posay and vichy.

[antiscience]

my thoughts regarding sunscreen are to not use it at all, wear a hat, and to limit my sun exposure especially from 10am-4pm. There's just too many synthetic/artificial ingredients inside of sunscreen products that absorb into our skin, and this doesn't sit tight with myself.(The possibility of doing more harm than good, unless you sat outside all day!)

I have the same opinion as the author of this article, for the most part. http://www.delicious...s/sunscreen.htm



As for supplements? Since i added silica and fish oil to my supplement routine I've noticed tremendous skin improvements. My skin is more elastic and my sebum levels are so normalized throughout the day. Also I don't eat anything cooked or any processed/added sugars, and believe this has helped also.

[wydell]

my thoughts regarding sunscreen are to not use it at all, wear a hat, and to limit my sun exposure especially from 10am-4pm. There's just too many synthetic/artificial ingredients inside of sunscreen products that absorb into our skin, and this doesn't sit tight with myself.(The possibility of doing more harm than good, unless you sat outside all day!)

I have the same opinion as the author of this article, for the most part. http://www.delicious...s/sunscreen.htm



As for supplements? Since i added silica and fish oil to my supplement routine I've noticed tremendous skin improvements. My skin is more elastic and my sebum levels are so normalized throughout the day. Also I don't eat anything cooked or any processed/added sugars, and believe this has helped also.

Fredrik: What do you think of this? You seemed to have studied the issues. My guess is that no one really knows whether the chemicals in sunscreens can cause skin damage or other harm. It probably has not been studied enough.

I think I recall reading a theory from the Mercola website that the chemicals in sunscreens might cause oxidation and skin damage. I have stayed away from the high SPF sunscreens you referenced because I thought that the protection of a Sunblock by Aubrey SPF 20 might be more healthy and skin protective than the possible damage caused by chemicals in other sunscreens.

[Fredrik]

my thoughts regarding sunscreen are to not use it at all, wear a hat, and to limit my sun exposure especially from 10am-4pm. There's just too many synthetic/artificial ingredients inside of sunscreen products that absorb into our skin, and this doesn't sit tight with myself.(The possibility of doing more harm than good, unless you sat outside all day!)

I have the same opinion as the author of this article, for the most part. http://www.delicious...s/sunscreen.htm



As for supplements? Since i added silica and fish oil to my supplement routine I've noticed tremendous skin improvements. My skin is more elastic and my sebum levels are so normalized throughout the day. Also I don't eat anything cooked or any processed/added sugars, and believe this has helped also.

Fredrik: What do you think of this? You seemed to have studied the issues. My guess is that no one really knows whether the chemicals in sunscreens can cause skin damage or other harm. It probably has not been studied enough.

I think I recall reading a theory from the Mercola website that the chemicals in sunscreens might cause oxidation and skin damage. I have stayed away from the high SPF sunscreens you referenced because I thought that the protection of a Sunblock by Aubrey SPF 20 might be more healthy and skin protective than the possible damage caused by chemicals in other sunscreens.

This anti-science person does indeed seem to live up to his name by disregarding the scientific consensus of the Amercian Association of Dermatology and the skin cancer foundation etc that recommends daily use of at least spf 15.

Since the FDA regards sunscreens as drugs (your doctor can prescribe them) they´re very tightly regulated, more so than any other cosmetic ingredient. They are extensively tested on animals and man for mutagenicity, tetragenotoxicity, absorption etc.

What filters are you referring to that you think is more harmful than unprotected exposure to the proven carcinogen sunlight? The theoretical damage by using sunscreen is not an issue for me compared to the very real sun damage (wrinkles, sagging, hyperpigmentation and sometimes cancer) that unprotected exposure lead to.

I think Mercola is an alarmist. Some filters can cause oxidation under certain circumstances but the oxidation you get from not using them against UV-radiation is far greater. Sunscreens, properly used, decrease the risk of skincancer.

[smithx]

4. IPL treatments every 6 months to clear skin from redness and brown pigments and salicylic or glycolic acid peels monthly (or every second month) to remove past damage and thin the stratum corneum so that more of the retinoid and ascorbic acid serum can penetrate. TCA peels 15-30% are stronger than salicylic and glycolic and can be used every six months instead of the weaker peels. These peels have recently been proven to lessen the risk of certain skin cancers because you remove actinic keratoses (damaged cells).

Exfoliation has always seemed a really bad idea to me.

Remember the Hayflick limit. Remember that ever time a cell divides, it gets older. The more you force your skin cells to divide, the older and more damaged they will get.

I did some experiments many years ago with cultured human fibroblasts. When you look at the young ones under a microscope, they are elongated, stretched out, flat, with many tendrils. The old ones are bunched up, rounder, with fewer tendrils. "Old" in vitro is over 40 or so divisions. By the time they get over 50 divisions, they're basically useless.

The old cells don't respond well to stress. I did an experiment where I exposed young (17 passages) and old (53 passages) cells to concanavalin-A, a plant lectin that cross-links proteins on the cell membrane. The young ones easily pinocytosed (pinched off) the bunched-up portion of the membrane. The older ones... died.

So I think you probably don't want to exfoliate or otherwise damage your skin to force it to undergo extra divisions. You'll just end up with older skin.

(edit: "passages" means "divisions")

[wydell]

QUOTE]

This anti-science person does indeed seem to live up to his name by disregarding the scientific consensus of the Amercian Association of Dermatology and the skin cancer foundation etc that recommends daily use of at least spf 15.

Since the FDA regards sunscreens as drugs (your doctor can prescribe them) they´re very tightly regulated, more so than any other cosmetic ingredient. They are extensively tested on animals and man for mutagenicity, tetragenotoxicity, absorption etc.

What filters are you referring to that you think is more harmful than unprotected exposure to the proven carcinogen sunlight? The theoretical damage by using sunscreen is not an issue for me compared to the very real sun damage (wrinkles, sagging, hyperpigmentation and sometimes cancer) that unprotected exposure lead to.

I think Mercola is an alarmist. Some filters can cause oxidation under certain circumstances but the oxidation you get from not using them against UV-radiation is far greater. Sunscreens, properly used, decrease the risk of skincancer.[/quote]



Anyway, here is what some folks point out as being harmful

"Benzene, Benzol, Benzole, Annulene, Phenyl Hydride, and Coal Naphtha are known carcinogens (known to cause aplastic anemia) and is on the EPA's Community Right-to-Know list and the Clean Air Act as a hazardous air pollutant. Research has proven that benzene is highly toxic, harmful to the skin, respiratory, cardiovascular, blood, endocrine, and gastrointestinal/liver systems, as well as being a neurotoxin and immunotoxin. It is made from petroleum and coal and is commonly found in oven cleaners, detergents, furniture polish and spot removers.

Benzophenone, Benzophenone-3, and Oxybenzone is used in many sunscreens to protect us from harmful UV rays. It is readily absorbed into the skin and can cause skin irritation or allergic reactions. Benzophenone-3 mimics estrogen and is an endocrine disrupter. Homosalate, Octyl-Methoxicinnamate, Octinoxate, also used in sunscreens, are also endocrine disrupters. These chemicals are toxic and the ironic thing is that they are even worse when exposed to sun!

Benzyl Alcohol can cause upper respiratory tract irritation, headaches, nausea and vomiting, a depressed central nervous system and a drop in blood pressumer. Commonly found nail polish remover, air fresheners, bleach, laundry soap and fabric softener, deodorants, soap, and shampoo.

BHA - Butylated Hydroxyanisole is added to many food products (dry goods like cereal especially). It is a possible human carcinogen according to the National Toxicology Program (part of the Dept of Health & Human Services.)

Bisphenol A is a potential hormone disrupter as it mimics estrogen, like soy. Commonly used in canned foods as a lining and it is in polycarbonate, # 7 plastic. It leaches into food more easily when food is heated or fatty. Most baby bottles are made of polycarbonate. "

I did not copy the whole list, the whole list is here

http://www.delicious...tm#Benzophenone, Benzophenone-3, and Oxybenzone

They even had some negative things to say about ingredients in my Aubrey sunscreen. (e.g Titanium Dioxide possibly causing DNA issues. )

Well, I do use a Sunscreen, but it is only SPF 20, not the ones with perhaps less safe chemicals It's this one http://www.aubrey-or...t_id=253&cat=16. I say "perhaps" because I am certainly not qualified to judge.

I also use a topical antioxidant - olivenol. Jut because it comes in liquid form. For all I know, it may not be absorbed by my skin or have very little effect. I also have a decent intake of grape seed extract and polyphenols from regular dietary practices.

If you have more comments, I would appreciate them. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.

By the way, sometimes Mercola is way ahead of the curve (recommending practices that are later adopted by mainstream medicine at a much later time) and sometimes I think he is probably off the mark. I disagree with his non-sunscreen approach though.

[wayside]

By the way, sometimes Mercola is  way ahead of the curve (recommending practices that are later adopted by mainstream medicine at a much later time) and sometimes  I think he is probably off the mark.    I disagree with his non-sunscreen approach though.

Mercola doesn't recommend against sunscreen, in fact he sells it on his site. He is against most commercial sunscreens which he claims are loaded with toxic chemicals.

He is also big on some sun exposure every day to generate vitamin D, and claims to go to Hawaii for the winter every year in order to be in sunlight that will create vitamin D.

Wonder if I could write off a condo as a medical expense using that theory.

[Fredrik]

  Benzophenone, Benzophenone-3, and Oxybenzone is used in many sunscreens to protect us from harmful UV rays.  It is readily absorbed into the skin and can cause skin irritation or allergic reactions.  Benzophenone-3 mimics estrogen and is an endocrine disrupter.  Homosalate, Octyl-Methoxicinnamate, Octinoxate, also used in sunscreens, are also endocrine disrupters.  These chemicals are toxic and the ironic thing is that they are even worse when exposed to sun!
 

These sunscreen filters DO NOT change the hormone levels in HUMANS, even if used at the "excessive" amount required to get the spf on the bottle (2 mg per square cm). See the abstract below; "These differences in hormone levels were not related to sunscreen exposure".

Please people, do some research on your own instead of relying on commercial sites only. Of course they want you to buy their wholesome organic products without these "dangerous" chemicals. They are biased out of commercial interests and their judgemental non-scientific beliefs.

I would also like to point out that none of the good sunscreens that I have recommended have these filters. They´re obsolete compared to octocrylene + the european UVA-filters.


"Systemic absorption of the sunscreens benzophenone-3, octyl-methoxycinnamate, and 3-(4-methyl-benzylidene) camphor after whole-body topical application and reproductive hormone levels in humans."

J Invest Dermatol. 2004 Jul;123(1):57-61.
Janjua NR, Mogensen B, Andersson AM, Petersen JH, Henriksen M, Skakkebaek NE, Wulf HC.
Department of Dermatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. NRJ01@bbh.hosp.dk

Recent in vitro and animal studies have reported estrogen-like activity of chemicals used in sunscreen preparations. We investigated whether the three sunscreens benzophenone-3 (BP-3), octyl-methoxycinnamate (OMC), and 3-(4-methylbenzylidene) camphor (4-MBC) were absorbed and influenced endogenous reproductive hormone levels in humans after topical application. In this 2-wk single-blinded study 32 healthy volunteers, 15 young males and 17 postmenopausal females, were assigned to daily whole-body topical application of 2 mg per cm(2) of basic cream formulation without (week 1) and with (week 2) the three sunscreens at 10% (wt/wt) of each. Maximum plasma concentrations were 200 ng per mL BP-3, 20 ng per mL 4-MBC, and 10 ng per mL OMC for females and 300 ng per mL BP-3, 20 ng per mL 4-MBC, and 20 ng per mL OMC for men.

All three sunscreens were detectable in urine. The reproductive hormones FSH, LH were unchanged but minor differences in testosterone levels were observed between the 2 wk. A minor difference in serum estradiol and inhibin B levels were observed in men only. These differences in hormone levels were not related to sunscreen exposure.

Well, I do use a Sunscreen, but it is only SPF 20, not the ones with perhaps less safe chemicals It's this one http://www.aubrey-or...t_id=253&cat=16.  I say "perhaps"  because I am certainly not qualified to judge.

This sunscreen only has titanium dioxide as UVA-filter (isn´t it ironic that Abrey organics use a inorganic chemical filter [lol] ). Titanium dioxide is primarily against UVB, and a pretty lousy UVA-filter by itself. This sunscreen has a very low UVA-protection and will not afford good protection against skin damage at all.

If you want to use inorganic ("physical") filters, use one with Tinosorb M or zinc oxide + a good UVB-filter. Or just buy Neutrogena or Aveenos stabilized sunscreens with good UVA-protection.

Edited by fredrik, 26 August 2007 - 04:32 PM.

[Fredrik]

4. IPL treatments every 6 months to clear skin from redness and brown pigments and salicylic or glycolic acid peels monthly (or every second month) to remove past damage and thin the stratum corneum so that more of the retinoid and ascorbic acid serum can penetrate. TCA peels 15-30% are stronger than salicylic and glycolic and can be used every six months instead of the weaker peels. These peels have recently been proven to lessen the risk of certain skin cancers because you remove actinic keratoses (damaged cells).

Exfoliation has always seemed a really bad idea to me.

Remember the Hayflick limit. Remember that ever time a cell divides, it gets older. The more you force your skin cells to divide, the older and more damaged they will get.

(edit: "passages" means "divisions")

No. This is simply not true. Chemical and laser peeling can make your skin more beautiful and LESSEN the risk of non melanoma skin cancer (I´ll get to this later). You cant apply Leonard Hayflicks petri dish theories on a complex organism. This has turned into an urban skincare myth on the net.

Skin fibroblasts divide more or less continuously throughout life, they are unlikely to approach the limit of 50 divisions. Let me quote dermatologist Adrey Kunin (disclaimer, she sells her own line of products online. So please double check her references if you don´t feel you can trust her):

"Basically this urban myth for skin care stems from some old research from 1961 which looked at some cells in vitro (in a petri dish, not real life). It evolved the concept that there is a limit to the amount of division that skin cells can undergo and has led to unnecessary concern regarding the use of glycolic acid products.

In 1999 it was shown that certain cell lines such as bone marrow blood forming cells as well as exfoliating epithelial cells (skin and gastrointestinal mucosa) endure many more population doublings in vivo (in real life) than they do in vitro (in a petri dish)[Strehler, 1999)."

CHEMICAL PEELING (exfoliation is a department store cosmetics term)

If you use chemical peels you will look younger and remove skin damage like actinic keratoses, precancerous lesions, and this will reduce occurence of skin cancer. TCA and salicylic acid peels removes damaged cells that makes your skin unattractive, rough, dry and scaly and keep them from progressing to something worse.

This 5-year study from 2006 used TCA-peels and laser resurfacing. The peeling caused a 83% to 92% reduction in damaged skin cells (actinic keratoses) and a reduction of non melanoma skin cancer:

Arch Dermatol. 2006 Aug;142(8):976-82.

Facial resurfacing for nonmelanoma skin cancer prophylaxis.

Hantash BM, Stewart DB, Cooper ZA, Rehmus WE, Koch RJ, Swetter SM.
Department of Dermatology, Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System, Palo Alto, CA, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of facial skin resurfacing for treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) and prophylaxis against new primary basal and squamous cell carcinomas in individuals with previous nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or severe photodamage.

DESIGN: Randomized, prospective 5-year trial.

SETTING: Dermatology and otolaryngology clinics of a Veterans Affairs hospital.

PATIENTS: Thirty-four patients with a history of facial or scalp AKs or basal or squamous cell carcinoma were enrolled. Five of 7 eligible patients who declined study-related treatment were used as controls. Twenty-seven patients were randomized to 3 treatment arms; 3 patients were discontinued from the study.

INTERVENTIONS: Carbon dioxide laser resurfacing, 30% trichloroacetic acid peel, or 5% fluorouracil cream applied twice daily for 3 weeks.

MEASURES: Reduction in the number of AKs was measured 3 months after treatment. The incidence of new NMSC in treated areas was assessed between January 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005. Times from baseline to diagnosis of first skin cancer were compared between the treatment and control groups.

RESULTS: Treatment with fluorouracil, trichloroacetic acid, or carbon dioxide laser resulted in an 83% to 92% reduction in AKs (P< or =.03), a lower incidence of NMSC compared with the control group (P<.001), and a trend toward longer time to development of new skin cancer compared with the control group (P=.07). However, no significant differences were noted among the treatment groups.

CONCLUSION: All 3 modalities demonstrated benefit for AK reduction and skin cancer prophylaxis compared with controls and warrant further study in a larger trial.

PMID: 16924046

Edited by fredrik, 26 August 2007 - 04:01 PM.

[efosse]

Thanks, Fredrik for the posts. I'm a BIG fan of laser resurfacing (as well as retinoids) -- although the CO2 laser I wouldn't recommend for younger people (except in cases of melanoma or very, very, very severe photoaging).

Cheers,
efosse

[efosse]

Glucosamine: an anti-aging oral supplement for the skin?

Check these out:

Glucosamine: an ingredient with skin and other benefits.

Journal Innoventions
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 5(4):309-315, December 2006.
Bissett, Donald L PhD

Abstract:
Summary: Both glucosamine and its derivative N-acetyl glucosamine are amino-monosaccharides that serve key biochemical functions on their own and as substrate precursors for the biosynthesis of polymers such as glycosaminoglycans (e.g., hyaluronic acid) and for the production of proteoglycans. Glucosamine has an excellent safety profile and has been shown to provide benefits in several clinical disorders. Glucosamine compounds have been reported to have several beneficial effects on the skin or skin cells. Because of its stimulation of hyaluronic acid synthesis, glucosamine has been shown to accelerate wound healing, improve skin hydration, and decrease wrinkles. In addition, as an inhibitor of tyrosinase activation, it inhibits melanin production and is useful in treatment of disorders of hyperpigmentation. Mechanistically, glucosamine also has both anti-inflammatory and chondroprotective effects. Clinical trials have shown benefit in using oral glucosamine supplementation to improve symptoms and slow the progression of osteoarthritis in humans. Glucosamine has also been used to prevent and treat osteoarthritis in animals. Based on other observations, glucosamine has been suggested for additional clinical uses, including treatment of inflammatory bowel disease, migraine headaches, and viral infections. The current clinical uses for topical and oral glucosamine compounds and the mechanistic rationale for these uses are reviewed here.

Copyright © 2006 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

*****************************************

Edited by efosse, 26 August 2007 - 08:17 PM.

[Fredrik]

Thanks, Fredrik for the posts. I'm a BIG fan of laser resurfacing (as well as retinoids) -- although the CO2 laser I wouldn't recommend for younger people (except in cases of melanoma or very, very, very severe photoaging).

Cheers,
efosse

Agree! I would never risk having a CO2 procedure. The potential hypo- or hyperpigmentation and scarring is not worth it. As you say, if not severely photodamaged beyond any other means of repair and don´t want to wait for emerging technologies (stem cells + growth factors/non-thermal light etc). As I understand it full face CO2 is not as common as just using it on selected damaged areas, for example after a full face medium depth 35% TCA-peel.

[Fredrik]

Glucosamine: an anti-aging oral supplement for the skin?

Yes, thanks for posting that, Dr Murad (murad.com) has a patent on oral glucosamine for aging skin (but anyone can take just glucosamine without the other stuff). I would take straight glucosamine if I knew how it would affect my blood glucose levels.

Glucosamine have been shown to raise glucose levels in diabetics. But maybe it doesn´t do that in healthy persons.
Anybody knows?

Until I know more, I´d like to use it topically first. Estee Lauder/Clinique uses quite high levels of it in some of their products. Check out Cliniques Turn around concentrate or Estee Lauders Idealist pore minimizer.

Oil of Olay also use glucosamine in their Definity line, to increase hydration and lighten skin tone so you look younger (if it indeed lightens skin, who knows).

[neogenic]

I've spoke to someone who did a study and personal labs on himself on that and he stated it had an inconsequential effect. I'll look for his study. This was a presenter in Las Vegas at the International Society of Sports Nutrition.

[neogenic]

Well this is a new study with diabetics saying it has no effect on them...

Diabetes Care. 2007 Aug 6; [Epub ahead of print] Links
The Effect of Glucosamine on Serum High Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Apolipoprotein AI Levels in People with Diabetes Mellitus.Albert SG, Fishman Oiknine R, Parseghian S, Mooradian AD, Haas MJ, McPherson T.
Internal Medicine, Division of Endocrinology Saint Louis University School of Medicine, St. Louis MO.

Although, there is a new study as well stating this about diabetic/osteoporotics:

Am J Med Sci. 2007 Jun;333(6):333-9. Links
Oral glucosamine in doses used to treat osteoarthritis worsens insulin resistance.Pham T, Cornea A, Blick KE, Jenkins A, Scofield RH.
Endocrinology Division, Department of Medicine, University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA.

BACKGROUND: Glucosamine is used to treat osteoarthritis. In animals, the compound is known to cause insulin resistance, the underlying abnormality in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Insulin resistance in humans taking oral glucosamine in doses used for osteoarthritis has not been studied. METHODS: Volunteer human subjects (n = 38) without known abnormality of glucose homeostasis had fasting serum glucose, insulin, and lipids determined before and after taking 1500 mg glucosamine by mouth every day for 6 weeks. Fasting insulin and glucose were used to calculate homeostasis model assessment (HOMA-IR) and quantitative insulin sensitivity check index (QUICKI). Vascular elasticity was measured by pulse wave analysis. The paired Student's t test was used to compare baseline with posttreatment values. Pearson's correlation was used to determine the relation of baseline HOMA-IR with changes in other variables. RESULTS: We found a rise in HOMA-IR after 6 weeks of glucosamine (2.8 versus 3.2, P < 0.04). The fall in HOMA-IR among the subjects was statistically related to a higher baseline HOMA-IR by Pearson's correlation(P < 0.01). A rise in serum triglycerides and a rise in LDL cholesterol were statistically related to baseline HOMA-IR. Small artery elasticity fell, and the decrease was higher in those with the highest baseline HOMA-IR. CONCLUSIONS: Notwithstanding its efficacy remaining in question, glucosamine is widely used as treatment for osteoarthritis, which is a condition associated with both obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Our data indicate that persons with underlying poorer insulin sensitivity are at risk for worsening insulin resistance and vascular function with the use of glucosamine in doses used to treat osteoarthritis.

Another recent study:
1: J Fam Pract. 2006 Dec;55(12):1091-3.Links
Comment in:
J Fam Pract. 2007 May;56(5):343.
Clinical inquiries: Do glucosamine and chondroitin worsen blood sugar control in diabetes?Marshall PD, Poddar S, Tweed EM, Brandes L.
Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO, USA.

Despite theoretical risks based on animal models given high intravenous doses, glucosamine/chondroitin (1500 mg/1200 mg daily) does not adversely affect short-term glycemic control for patients whose diabetes is well-controlled, or for those without diabetes or glucose intolerance (SOR: A, consistent, good-quality patient-oriented evidence). Some preliminary evidence suggests that glucosamine may worsen glucose intolerance for patients with untreated or undiagnosed glucose intolerance or diabetes (SOR: C, extrapolation from disease-oriented evidence). Long-term effects are unknown; however, no compelling theoretical or incidental data suggest that long-term results should be different (SOR: C, expert opinion). Further studies are required to clarify the effects of glucosamine on patients with poorly controlled diabetes or glucose intolerance.

: Diabetes. 2006 Nov;55(11):3142-50. Links
Oral glucosamine for 6 weeks at standard doses does not cause or worsen insulin resistance or endothelial dysfunction in lean or obese subjects.Muniyappa R, Karne RJ, Hall G, Crandon SK, Bronstein JA, Ver MR, Hortin GL, Quon MJ.
Chief, Diabetes Unit, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, National Institutes of Health, 10 Center Dr., Bldg. 10, Rm. 6C-205, Bethesda, MD 20892, USA.

Glucosamine is a popular nutritional supplement used to treat osteoarthritis. Intravenous administration of glucosamine causes insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction. However, rigorous clinical studies evaluating the safety of oral glucosamine with respect to metabolic and cardiovascular pathophysiology are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial of oral glucosamine at standard doses (500 mg p.o. t.i.d.) in lean (n = 20) and obese (n = 20) subjects. Glucosamine or placebo treatment for 6 weeks was followed by a 1-week washout and crossover to the other arm. At baseline, and after each treatment period, insulin sensitivity was assessed by hyperinsulinemic-isoglycemic glucose clamp (SI(Clamp)) and endothelial function evaluated by brachial artery blood flow (BAF; Doppler ultrasound) and forearm skeletal muscle microvascular recruitment (ultrasound with microbubble contrast) before and during steady-state hyperinsulinemia. Plasma glucosamine pharmacokinetics after oral dosing were determined in each subject using a high-performance liquid chromatography method. As expected, at baseline, obese subjects had insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction when compared with lean subjects (SI(Clamp) [median {25th-75th percentile}] = 4.3 [2.9-5.3] vs. 7.3 [5.7-11.3], P < 0.0001; insulin-stimulated changes in BAF [% over basal] = 12 [-6 to 84] vs. 39 [2-108], P < 0.04). When compared with placebo, glucosamine did not cause insulin resistance or endothelial dysfunction in lean subjects or significantly worsen these findings in obese subjects. The half-life of plasma glucosamine after oral dosing was approximately 150 min, with no significant changes in steady-state glucosamine levels detectable after 6 weeks of therapy. We conclude that oral glucosamine at standard doses for 6 weeks does not cause or significantly worsen insulin resistance or endothelial dysfunction in lean or obese subjects.

Ann Pharmacother. 2006 Apr;40(4):694-8. Epub 2006 Mar 28. Links
Effect of glucosamine on glucose control.Stumpf JL, Lin SW.
University of Michigan Health System and College of Pharmacy, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, USA. jlstumpf@umich.edu

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature regarding the effect of glucosamine on glucose control. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles on the effects of administration of exogenous glucosamine on glucose control were identified through a search of MEDLINE (1966-March 2006), EMBASE (1988-March 2006), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-March 2006) databases using the search terms glucosamine, blood glucose, and diabetes mellitus. Abstracts of articles were then reviewed to determine relevance to the topic. Bibliographies of selected articles were screened for other pertinent references. DATA SYNTHESIS: Theoretically, glucosamine may alter glucose metabolism. Insulin resistance has been noted following intravenous administration of glucosamine in animal studies; however, these findings have not been confirmed in humans. Alterations in glucose control have not been documented in long-term efficacy studies using oral glucosamine for osteoarthritis or in trials of short duration conducted in healthy or diabetic subjects. The long-term effects of glucosamine in patients with diabetes have yet to be established in well-controlled trials. CONCLUSIONS: Small, short-term studies suggest that glucosamine may be used in selected patients without affecting glucose control; however, data in patients with diabetes mellitus are limited, and close monitoring for potential changes in glucose control is recommended.


Objective: Dietary and nutritional supplements are modulators of HDL cholesterol (HDLc) levels and production of apolipoprotein AI (apo AI). Previously, in vitro treatment of hepatocyte cell lines with glucosamine increased apo AI production by stabilization of apo AI mRNA. The hypothesis is that the neutraceutical, glucosamine, when given in conventional doses (1500g per day) may increase apolipoprotein AI and HDLc levels in subjects with diabetes and low HDLc. Research Design and Methods: Twelve subjects (3 men/9 women) with type 1(n=2) and type 2 diabetes (n=10), age 55 +/- 12 years (mean +/- SD) who had low HDL cholesterol 1.03 +/- 0.20 mmol/L were randomized to a double-blind placebo-controlled cross-over trial of glucosamine 500 mg or placebo orally three times daily for 2 weeks, followed by a 4-week wash-out, and 2-week cross-over to the alternate therapy. Results: Fasting serum glucose, fructosamine and total cholesterol remained stable during the drug and placebo phases. Glucosamine had no significant effect post therapy on serum levels of HDLc (from baseline of 1.02 +/- 0.15 mmol/L to 1.05 +/- 0.16 mmol/L compared with placebo from 1.04 +/- 0.21 mmol/L to 1.06 +/- 0.16 mmol/L), nor in changes in apolipoprotein AI levels (from baseline of 147 +/-15 mg/dL to 140+/- 126 mg/dL with glucosamine and 146 +/- 25 mg/dL to 142 +/-17 mg/dL with placebo). Conclusion: These observations suggest that glucosamine at commonly consumed doses does not have significant effects on glycemic control, lipid profile or levels of apolipoprotein AI in diabetic subjects after 2 weeks of supplementation.

[neogenic]

It looks like one study show it "worsening insulin resistance" in the obese, osteoporotic, aged, inactive, and borderline or actual diabetic.

All the other studies even with diabetics show this is a non-issue.

With a healthy adult or athlete saying 1.5 grams of glucose and an amine group daily will have a negative health impact is nearly proposterous to me. Most athletes use fructose/glucose/maltodextin and proteins around workout anyway...clearly in much larger doses. So. I wouldn't worry on that.

[Fredrik]

It looks like one study show it "worsening insulin resistance" in the obese, osteoporotic, aged, inactive, and borderline or actual diabetic.

All the other studies even with diabetics show this is a non-issue.

With a healthy adult or athlete saying 1.5 grams of glucose and an amine group daily will have a negative health impact is nearly proposterous to me.  Most athletes use fructose/glucose/maltodextin and proteins around workout anyway...clearly in much larger doses.  So.  I wouldn't worry on that.

Thanx for the references! I´ll pass on the glucosamine but it´s a good read for persons who is considering taking it. The topical retinoids increase both hyaluronic acid and collagen synthesis and I like multi tasking products.

[rodentman]

Maybe this is too esoteric a question, but I have a Hairmax laser comb, which seems to be somewhat effective at restoring hair growth. Its a low power (5mw laser) and its at 655 nm wavelength.

I was wondering if I could ever use it on my skin, as a potentially cheap alternative to the expensive skin laser treatments. The skin lasers use a variety of wavelengths (from 400 - 1450 nm) but the don't use low powered lasers. They are anywhere from 50 - 200 mw)

Thanks

RodentMan

[krillin]

Maybe this is too esoteric a question, but I have a Hairmax laser comb, which seems to be somewhat effective at restoring hair growth.  Its a low power (5mw laser) and its at 655 nm wavelength.

I was wondering if I could ever use it on my skin, as a potentially cheap alternative to the expensive skin laser treatments.  The skin lasers use a variety of wavelengths (from 400 - 1450 nm) but the don't use low powered lasers.  They are anywhere from 50 - 200 mw)

Thanks

RodentMan

Some kind of LED array might be more convenient. I have no idea about effectiveness.

[efosse]

Check out acnelamp.org. It appears to clear acne based on a handful of studies. It uses a combo of red/blue lights.

[rodentman]

The Acnelamp is interesting. ( its acnelamp.com ) Its a similar frequency to the lasermax but has versions that are 26 mw (tabletop) and 18. It also has way more LED heads, which explaina its higher mw/cm output. Anyone have experience with these?

I think this is a great emerging technology, and may be widespread in another few years.