Glycerin for skincare

[mario91]

Hi everyone

As I've already posted in another topic, i had a second degree burn on my entire face and neck at one year and a half ago, and since then my face, which is all of it a scar, became very sensitive, dry, and with loads and loads of pimples!

So, after starting the Wai diet, which improved my acne a lot, I couldn´t use oil because my face is still too sensitive for that... it was a mid-deep burn. So I started using glycerin+water, and it has been working out much better than both oils+water and moisturizers did!

I started this thread because I didnt see any other about glycerin, so I wanted you guys to discuss, if you want, what you think about it for skin use, share experiences, etc.

And also have a question: If glycerin is hygroscopic, which means it atracts water molecules, wouldn't it be possible for this substance to end up on the true skin and atract water from the outer skin, causing dehydratation of the outer skin, such as moisturizers do?

[RRM]

I started this thread because I didnt see any other about glycerin

Thats because healthy skin does not need the glycerin.
Healthy skin only needs protection against dehydration (by applying fat to the skin).
Your skin is so thin that it needs something extra.
The glycerin will penetrate into the bottom layer of the outer skin, where it will make the water 'more sticky'.

If glycerin is hygroscopic, which means it atracts water molecules, wouldn't it be possible for this substance to end up on the true skin and atract water from the outer skin, causing dehydratation of the outer skin, such as moisturizers do?

Yes, it is hygroscopic, but its specific characteristic is that once it comes into contact with water (usually in the outer skin),
it makes the water sticky, and gets 'saturated' with water, so that it will not attract additional water.
Salt (and protein to a lesser extend) is much more hygroscopic, as it will continue to attract water by osmosis.

[mario91]

Thats because healthy skin does not need the glycerin.
Healthy skin only needs protection against dehydration (by applying fat to the skin).

I totally agree, but there might also be other people with skin problems here, like burn scars, psoriasis, eczema, etc, so I tought it should be good to discuss the use of glycerin

Yes, it is hygroscopic, but its specific characteristic is that once it comes into contact with water (usually in the outer skin),
it makes the water sticky, and gets 'saturated' with water, so that it will not attract additional water.
Salt (and protein to a lesser extend) is much more hygroscopic, as it will continue to attract water by osmosis.

Thank you a lot! Got it clear.

[Rivera]

RRM, what would be your criticism on this?: http://www.bioeffect.co.uk/bioeffect-serum.html

[dime]

Hormone therapy, along with the increased cell turn-over.. doesn't sound good at all to me.

EGF increases the risk for cancer (not very surprising), this alone should tell you it's a bad idea: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidermal_ ... GF_therapy

And "Epidermal growth factor can be found in human platelets, macrophages, urine, saliva, milk, and plasma" so you might try urine, milk, or just lick yourself and see how that works :))

[RRM]

I agree with Dime.

[Rivera]

Hormone therapy, along with the increased cell turn-over..

You mean that at one point, cells cannot reproduce anymore?

And "Epidermal growth factor can be found in human platelets, macrophages, urine, saliva, milk, and plasma" so you might try urine, milk, or just lick yourself and see how that works )

So why it's not bad in these things?

[dime]

You mean that at one point, cells cannot reproduce anymore?

That's the current theory, as far as I know.

So why it's not bad in these things?

It's naturally in them, but I was joking about applying them for that purpose.

[Rivera]

It's naturally in them, but I was joking about applying them for that purpose.

I know but why are they not, then, cancerous in saliva, urine, milk etc... ?

[dime]

Maybe because it's just enough that the cells need to divide, and anything more than that increases the risk for cancer? I don't know..

[Rivera]

Ok, thanks !

[RRM]

It's naturally in them, but I was joking about applying them for that purpose.

I know but why are they not, then, cancerous in saliva, urine, milk etc... ?

Actually, there are a number of studies that show a positive correlation between milk consumption and breast- and prostate cancer risk.