First I just wanted to start off by saying this is going to be a very long post. I’m very frustrated, sad, depressed ect! I’m sick of reading one thing about skincare then reading the complete opposite! I really don’t think I’ve been the only one who feels this way. I’m sure a lot of men and women are very frustrated and sometimes wonder what to believe. I’ve been reading about natural skincare. That led me to find this forum that states about “302 skincare” and its non acid approach...


WHAT IS 302'S PHILOSOPHY:
The philosophy of 302 is based on some very unconventional and controversial assertions. A lot of people (including most skincare companies) will adamantly disagree with these assertions. My intent here is to provide other possible theories, so you can do your own research and come to your own conclusions. For me, it works. My skin has responded very positively since I've been off acids and on their products and regimen. The following points are paraphrased from information I've read on the 302 and Osmosis websites and other articles:

1. The current practice of excessive exfoliation (whether by acids or manual means) is potentially damaging to the skin. The plumpness and glow you see immediately after exfoliation is temporary microinflammation, and actually compromises the skin's integrity in the long run. When you constantly exfoliate the epidermis, you compromise the skin's natural protective barrier. You are, in essence, inflicting minor injury to the epidermis in order to kick start the repair response in the dermis and, hopefully, build collagen. But the bad side of this process is that dermis senses this damage and also starts increasing melanocyte activity to protect you from the sun. This actually makes you more susceptible to sun damage and hyperpigmentation. Additionally, the constant state of microinflammation from acids and exfoliation can lead to accelerated aging with thin, crepey, see through skin. People who are chronic acid users for many years may eventually acquire a mannequin type appearance with a tight, shiny skin which is impermeable. According to 302 and Osmosis, a better skin model would be to prompt the skin's metabolic functions to work the way they did when you were younger. This involves providing good circulation (exercise, massage, ultrasound, cupping for example), nutrients (from food and supplements), and introducing actives which do not harm or irritate the epidermis, but instead can go down into the dermis to promote healthy collagen, elastin, and fibroblast production. BTW, the name "302" is taken from the molecular size of avocatin; it is small enough to penetrate to the dermis (especially with ultrasound or dermarolling).

2. When you overapply topicals (using 1 or more actives day and night on a continous basis), you can overload the receptors in your skin (causing skin fatigue). The skin's receptors will shut down and revolt after awhile. If you ever notice that you get great results from a certain topical in the beginning, but then it just stops working after a few weeks or months, this is probably due to skin fatique. Also, you might notice that if you stop a topical after prolonged use, sometimes an addiction response ensues, resulting in redness, irritation, return of pigment problems, dullness, or dryness. Excessive use of topicals and especially acids can eventually lead up to rosacea. This is why they suggest mixing up the routine and limiting actives to 1 a day. They really emphasize the "less is more" philosophy. If you see a immediate visible response on the skin from any active, they suggest that you should REDUCE its use instead of increasing it to reduce the chance of skin fatigue.

3. External barriers such as moisturizers or sunscreens which sit on top of the skin are bad for the skin. Especially if you are oily, you should never apply moisturizer or liquid sunscreen on a daily basis. Liquid makeup is also bad. It clogs the pores and creates whiteheads, blackheads, and inflammation. For normal daylight exposure, MMU with SPF is adequate. Only apply a physical sunscreen if you are in direct sunlight for a prolonged length of time. It should be washed off as soon as you go inside. If your skin barrier is intact, you shouldn't need to apply any stronger than a SPF 5-15 MMU or sunscreen for normal daylight exposure. Constant application of very high SPFs, especially chemical sunscreen, is not necessary or beneficial to your skin.

This statement comes from Dr. Ben Johnston:

So why do people keep coming back for more? It is a valid question. Does the skin look better with some of these exfoliants? Often times, yes, but that needs further explanation. AHAs, retinols and vitamin C are classic examples of ingredients that exfoliate and plump. Exfoliation is often discussed, but plumping isn’t. Plumping occurs when 98% of these ingredients sit in the epidermis and cause irritation, resulting in edema, or swelling. Edema makes lines look better. The problem is, the lines are not actually better, and the inflammation starves the skin even more. If you don’t use acids or retinols for one to two weeks, you probably will see the skin deflate to its actual state. You will notice more lines, more laxity and a dullness that is reflective of a skin that has been in survival mode for too long. As soon as you start back on these products, everything looks better almost immediately, which should be your first clue that the plumping isn’t new collagen formation. Because these products are epidermal and aging is dermal, it only makes sense that they have not been preventing the skin from aging.


Statement about antioxidants by Dr. Huber:
www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread...t=epigenetics#371636

As to antioxidants, the use of these as a dietary supplement seems to make some sense, especially as someone gets older. But for the skin it is not such a good thing. Realize that many of the so-called antioxidants are not that at all, but in fact, renamed and repackaged to reflect consumer beliefs. These beliefs arise out of oncology studies, many of which are seriously contradictory by the way, but as a topical matter, antioxidants become pro-oxidants by their very structure.

For example, if you use the skin’s own antioxidants, of which there are about a dozen at least, and simply synthesize them and apply these topically, you will get an irritation reaction. (!) Super Oxide Dismutase or SOD was the rage in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s as this amazing free-radical scavenger. It is a naturally occurring skin antioxidant. But when applied to the skin, it was terribly irritating. Now why is that? It takes a bit of biochemical knowledge to understand that these compounds when exogenously applied are reacted as irritants, but that is the case. You cannot force something into the cell if it is already saturated and forcing tends to cause damage, of the permanent type.

It is interesting, too, to note that in the skin, the level of antioxidant activity from youth to old age does not diminish by much more than 3%, even with people who have cancer, so the question is, what’s all the fuss about?

It was thought that supplementing, orally, Vitamin E would be of benefit to reducing incidence of breast cancer and this was a widely heralded ‘study’ in the 1980’s which by the early 2000’s did not pan out. In fact, Vitamin E supplementation was actually increasing the risk of breast cancer. The contradiction is possibly explained by the fact that additional antioxidant activity in younger women was pushing pro-oxidant response – or in other words, too much of a good thing. The decrease in antioxidant protection in non-dermal areas is most evident in the digestive system, where antioxidants do most of their work. Depletion of this function is to be expected in old age and rat studies that focused on age related antioxidant activity were positive in the use of supplementation. However, the ability to process the antioxidant supplement itself is interesting – as we age, that ability also deteriorates and too much loading of these ‘desirable’ compounds may actually be harmful.

The study of epigenetics in this area is crucial and will ultimately predict our individual needs and responses. But we are many decades away from that as the epigenetic code is not yet even mapped and dwarfs the genetic code mapping.

In the meantime, it is important to pay close attention to compounds, such as the epicatechins in green tea, which have an immune boosting property. The new criteria is to look beyond a simple free radical scavenging capability (antioxidant) and look to the global implications of a compound activity, of which antioxidant may only be a part and even a negative aspect – the pathways are more complicated than a marketing story.

Back to the skin, flooding the skin with these antioxidant focus compounds is the second mistake as skin cannot reservoir the amount of material provided, especially aging skin. The stuff simply wears out the skin in processing and housecleaning. In other words, the decreased metabolic response and poorly functioning repair mechanisms cannot deal with topical product loading. Building out receptors in order to improve metabolic response is best accomplished by prompting, not smothering, flooding and wearing out the skin with a lot of stuff. But you have heard that story.

Dr. Huber On Ascorbic Acid:
www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread...cyl+ascorbate#392908

There is no product on the market that contains ascorbic acid. None. Despite what you read, ascorbic acid degrades in seconds. One of the great hoaxes in skincare marketing is this fiction. Trace remnants of the acid will remain after oxidation, and satisfy the label, but it is an inherently unstable compound that requires chain lengthening to stabilize.

There are a few products that provide the consumer with a mix - a liquid (usually water) and powdered ascorbic acid, to be combined at the last second, to avoid this problem. But, all for naught. Ascorbic acid is a highly charged particle that is an irritant and is degraded by the time it has gone even a few micromils into the skin. Irritation will produce collagen by the way.

It is too bad that so many believe that the Holy Grail of ‘combating skin aging’ is collagen synthesis, sun protection and neutralizing free radicals. Aging skin produces lots of collagen. In fact, simply washing your face with warm water will equal the collagen synthesis of almost any skincare product. The problem is not quantity, it is quality and it is a fact that ascorbic acid does very little in eliminating the formation of collagen fragments, in fact, skin that has been irritated is a nest of collagen fragments. Acids are irritants.

A compound that degrades in seconds topically cannot possibly provide sun protection, in fact, it will potentiate ultraviolet damage. Consuming vitamin C internally is another matter. That does provide resilience to the skin, but not sun protection. There are no studies that show sun protection, there are observations that skin that has an uptake of ascorbyl compounds topically and dietically is healthier and therefore more resilient. Up to a point, because too much of a good thing on the skin – fast becomes a bad thing.

Neutralization of free radicals is a process that is instantaneous with sunlight exposure. Protect against that and you have a chance. Ascorbyl compounds are not proton donors and do not have this ability, as does say, zinc, to absorb ultraviolet energy and move it to a different state – free radical intervention is another fiction of skincare – the free radical inhibitors often become, themselves, free radical generators. Acids generate radicals – that is a chemical fact.

What is missing in all of this is a fundamental understanding of skin biochemistry. Every skincare product that claims it provides ascorbic acid also includes an ester or salt form of the compound. When a longer chain compound (and there are limits) that contains a biologically active substance within its structure goes on to the skin (or even a short chain compound) it will first migrate sideways and only slowly penetrate. Just below the visible surface is, in aged skin, a near impermeable, crosslinked layer that resists penetration. You can see this quite readily on old grandma – her skin is a sheer, thin, impenetrable gloss. People who apply acids form this crosslinked barrier very early on – but if they are young enough, it will not show as much. Though the sleek, plasticene look is quite noticeable – manikin -like and quite unnatural, especially for chronic users. Anyway, the skin compound will be met eventually by a gang of enzymes that begins to cleave off various hydrocarbon structures. That enzymatic cascade will eventually deliver to the cell door, in this case - ascorbic acid! That process minimizes irritation. For another example, retinoids are in various forms other than retinoic acid so they can reach the cell through different pathways that are hopefully not as irritating or target better specific areas, even though all of them ultimately deliver the same compound. The kinetics are undeniable and that is why you will tolerate Retinol better than Retinoic acid – even though the retinoic acid is what goes into the cell to do the work.

The receptors that mediate all of this activity trigger on specific compounds and ascorbic acid has a receptor population that will build out when the cascade has been completed – in other words, the skin ‘recognizes’ a benign substance simply by the ongoing enzymatic activity. A series of signals goes forth and the process itself provides the desirable activity. However, even that falls apart if the substance floods the area, through enzymatic activity or otherwise. In other words, the population will degrade and the receptors shrivel up.

The result is blah skin, with fragmented protein structures – usually you will notice this when a product works well for a few weeks and then your skin goes in the tank.

As far as independent studies, there is the work of Fitzpatrick et al who have detailed repeatedly the advantages of textrahexydecyl ascorbate over ascorbic acid, indeed of many other long chain ascorbyl products. The fiction of pure ascorbic acid exists in the minds of marketers and the consumers they are targeting. No real scientist will advocate its topical use, though for different reasons perhaps.

So if you read all this information you can see why I would be construed. I keep trying to tell myself that this is only one doctor's opinions. So for the past few days I haven't done anything to my face. :- Has anyone ever felt this way? I hope I'm not alone!