Not a critique of retinoids but your post is not extremely convincing, I’ve looked into anti-aging anti-wrinkle cosmetics and the world of products is filled with marketing speak. Reading your post it seems no different from frontpage Google blogs for retinoids or skincare or supplements. Seeing those before and after pics is surprising on a site that loves talking about RCTs and statistical power! But it’s hard I’d like to challenge anyone to try googling “vitamin C wrinkles” and see if you can make a conclusion or understand which form or preparation is most effective if at all. Niacinamide, Ha, Ginseng, squalene, vitamins, caffeine… they can’t all work can they?
Cosmetics/health stuff marketing is the name of the game here, just slap a bunch of cheap actives into a bottle and your brand and budget will carry you.
I was unable to come to firm conclusions or cut through blog spam / marketing speak, I personally chose to go for “peptides” (aka Matrixyl, matrikines).
The first Matrixyl 3000 is patented/licensed by it’s inventors (Sederma/Croda), which makes me believe it’s ‘moat’ is its efficacy/trade secret compared with large cosmetics companies who’s competive advantage are marketing/brand. The are a ingredients supplier to these companies, since they are B2B they aren’t in the marketing game. There are also several similar newer competing ‘peptides’ that companies have spend R&D on
For an active ingredient, it doesn’t seem the trouble to make compared to many of the simpler ones if it didn’t work. It’s a triple amino acid that is later palmitoylated to increase topical absorption. That’s is just a guess of course, but Palmitoylated-KTTKS doesn’t roll off the tongue or look nice on a bottle
Even though they are licensed, they arent much more expensive than high end products with cheaper/ineffective actives. Anecdotally, my skin feels more supple. I have no idea which of the peptides works best
Not a critique of retinoids but your post is not extremely convincing, I’ve looked into anti-aging anti-wrinkle cosmetics and the world of products is filled with marketing speak. Reading your post it seems no different from frontpage Google blogs for retinoids or skincare or supplements. Seeing those before and after pics is surprising on a site that loves talking about RCTs and statistical power! But it’s hard I’d like to challenge anyone to try googling “vitamin C wrinkles” and see if you can make a conclusion or understand which form or preparation is most effective if at all. Niacinamide, Ha, Ginseng, squalene, vitamins, caffeine… they can’t all work can they?
Cosmetics/health stuff marketing is the name of the game here, just slap a bunch of cheap actives into a bottle and your brand and budget will carry you.
I was unable to come to firm conclusions or cut through blog spam / marketing speak, I personally chose to go for “peptides” (aka Matrixyl, matrikines).
It has been studied to aid wound healing. And this study in Molecular Pharmaceutical, a journal on drug delivery instead of skincare/aging/cosmetic, seems proper https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/mp300549d
The first Matrixyl 3000 is patented/licensed by it’s inventors (Sederma/Croda), which makes me believe it’s ‘moat’ is its efficacy/trade secret compared with large cosmetics companies who’s competive advantage are marketing/brand. The are a ingredients supplier to these companies, since they are B2B they aren’t in the marketing game. There are also several similar newer competing ‘peptides’ that companies have spend R&D on
For an active ingredient, it doesn’t seem the trouble to make compared to many of the simpler ones if it didn’t work. It’s a triple amino acid that is later palmitoylated to increase topical absorption. That’s is just a guess of course, but Palmitoylated-KTTKS doesn’t roll off the tongue or look nice on a bottle
Even though they are licensed, they arent much more expensive than high end products with cheaper/ineffective actives. Anecdotally, my skin feels more supple. I have no idea which of the peptides works best
There’s plenty of scientific evidence for the effectiveness of topical retinoids, going back several decades.