anyone visit the beauty brains?

[creativehoney]

I found a site beautybrains.com has anyone seen this site? Has lots of interesting stuff.
That's where I learned about co washing.

[free_hug]

For me it's defin itely the first time i see the page, thanks for posting.

It's also great you did, because now i can ask the long hair community: what do you think of these?

http://thebeautybrains.com/2009/05/09/more-natural-cosmetic-nonsense/
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1176913/Are-organics-Were-told-embrace-natural-beauty-products-REALLY-better-chemicals.html

[Milui Elenath]

For me it's defin itely the first time i see the page, thanks for posting.

It's also great you did, because now i can ask the long hair community: what do you think of these?

http://thebeautybrains.com/2009/05/09/more-natural-cosmetic-nonsense/ snip


I'll respond to the first link I am too outraged to proceed to the 2nd. Let me address the ingredients they disparage.

Soyabeans and its products are largely genetically modified these days which is of more concern to me that the phytoestrogens it contains, aside from that ALOT of vegetables contain estrogen. A balanced diet is what it is all about.

Olive Oil may slow skin repair but I have never read, seen or heard that before. Olive oil has a lot of other benefits on hair (I'm sure we agree! For health etc). When they use the word slow, what exactly does that mean anyway, slow in comparison to what?

The lavender and tea tree refers to a preliminary not yet conclusive study that Lavender and Tea tree are endocrine disruptors - increasing estrogen. Lavender is great for burns, skin conditions and high blood pressure. Conversely its terrible for low blood pressure. That is an already established fact.

But
I think by now everyone is aware that natural does not necessarily equal safe and as LHC demonstrates something that works for one won't necessarily work for all. Chemical, synthetic and man made do not equal safe either! Notice the concern of the article in regard to estrogen, Soyabean, Lavender, tea tree and also note their open admittance that parabens raise concern on this matter also. It seems to me this article is extremely bias in trying to turn one thing against another by saying. Parabens may be bad but natural products are bad too!

Personally I prefer to put natural ingredients on my skin because they are generally the sought you can eat! I have two other reasons for going natural - I believe natural ingredients are more easily broken down in the body than chemicals that may have been forced together through unnatural means such as extreme heat, various catalysts etc. The second reason is similar except it refers to them breaking down in the environment rather than the body not to mention the environmental impact of industrialised cosmetic manufacture in creating toxic byproducts that are not used in the jar/bottle but nonetheless are produced and require disposal of.

I just had to laugh at the mention of small companies trying to outcompete large companies. Large companies with so much more advertising funds, funds that could pay for something like this article perhaps. ;) Its especially ironic as the more natural you go the less likely you need any company large or small, you just make your own - or grow it.

Sorry Creativehoney but I haven't looked past that article yet!

and sorry for the long post it just pushed my button!

[free_hug]

Milui Elenath, wow, exhaustive answer! :) Sorry for outraging you, was totally not my intention...

Well, i also realized i have something more to add:

the problem with synthetic stuff, better or not, is that it's synthetic. With hundreds of millions of women using them, and more and more of them, i am totally willing to include environmental questions in the issue.
So - go for natural! And, as Milui Elenath points out, find the natural that suits you better.

[Milui Elenath]

No worries free hug. I feel better now I've vented!:D

[Phalaenopsis]

If you drink over 6 litre of water on one day, that's toxic too!
What's very good for somebody, might really be bad for another.

My ends look more healthy with silicones, but the shine of my hair is at its best with natural shampoos.

There are bigger dangers out there then stuff in shampoo. All the water is contaminated, we eat too much sugar,...

[florenonite]

I've seen the beauty brains a couple times when it's been linked from here, but that's it.


For me it's defin itely the first time i see the page, thanks for posting.

It's also great you did, because now i can ask the long hair community: what do you think of these?

http://thebeautybrains.com/2009/05/09/more-natural-cosmetic-nonsense/
and
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1176913/Are-organics-Were-told-embrace-natural-beauty-products-REALLY-better-chemicals.html

Well, the second one's from the Daily Fail (name stolen from Lady Verity), and the first one is linking to the Mail (and calling it excellent, no less!), and that alone means that I don't trust either. According to the Mail, everything and its wife gives you cancer; it's all just fearmongering.

Seriously, I have friends who accuse one another of reading the Mail as an insult! Things like "You're panicking, do you read the Daily Mail or something?" Don't believe anything you see there unless it's been verified by other independent sources (ie sources that as far as you can tell haven't read the Mail's article). The only thing it's good for is for laughs. Or kindling for fire :p

ETA: with regards to the BB article, I would say I agree insofar as, yes, most commercial products have been tested and are safe. However, that doesn't mean that natural products are inherently bad for you. Personally, I try to limit the amount of stuff I wouldn't consume that I use on my skin simply because stuff can and is absorbed through the skin. That said, the purpose of the skin is to form a barrier, so obviously not everything put on the skin is absorbed and hence once doesn't need to be as careful with what one puts on one's skin as what one' consumes.

ETA2: there is danger with natural products in that they can be improperly preserved, but beyond that I don't see how they can be any more dangerous than synthetic ones.

[Unofficial_Rose]

Seriously, I have friends who accuse one another of reading the Mail as an insult! Things like "You're panicking, do you read the Daily Mail or something?" :p

Oh I love that! :spitting:I was once reading a discarded copy of the DM on the train and an ex-colleague got on, whereupon I said "I didn't buy this, honest". I think I'd have been less embarrassed if I'd been reading a copy of Naked Men Monthly or something.

[Fethenwen]

Oh man, there was a article about mineral oils and their myths. Whatever the article says, I with personal experience am much happier without using mineral oil thank you very much. Mineral oil in body lotion, hand lotion and lip balm have the effect which causes me to get addicted to the product. Now that I have avoided that stuff, I don't have such problems anymore.

[Wavelength]

I've looked at beautybrains.com occasionally, but they've never impressed me with their braininess.

[creativehoney]

Wow, I was just talkin about all the great info on hair products like coconut oil, evoo, etc
I didn't mean to offend anyone, I looked through a few articles there and it seemed ok to me.
I personally prefer more natural products,
The BB did say that the natural products aren't as good and that's why they have to "lie to consumers" so they'll buy it.
Crazy huh?
But I'm not trippin on that, because that's just their theory,
And I personally think natural works better, in most of my experiences. For instance I just bought all natural coconut oil to replace my vo5 hair dressing which has mineral oil in it, and found the cco works way way better!

I like the responses from people after an article.
Its interesting. Funny too.
Its not all bad there. I don't really listen to all their theories.


Braids mistress lae.....(don't know how to spell that name)
When I was pregnant my Dr. told me to drink a gallon of water a day.
Hmmm I wonder if he just said that so I would drink more water.

[spidermom]

I notice a tendency to make choices based on emotional reasons rather than scientific fact. I used to do the same. I was alarmed at what I saw as steady degradation of the natural environment. I wanted to go back to a simpler time when everybody ate raw natural food and used only products that come directly from nature.

I think the last time mankind ate only a raw, natural diet, the life expectancy was about 30 years. And we're a lot more likely to be allergic to a natural product than a synthetic one. Coconut oil, for example, could kill my daughter. She gets it accidentally in food and it swells her throat and tongue immediately. Synthetic coconut flavoring? Not a problem.

We need to move forward, not backward, and I think the Beauty Brains research their material well. I feel that I can trust the information that I find there.

[creativehoney]

I love your hair spidermom...totally beautiful, and I keep seeing ur picture around the threads and I had to let you know.

I'm not all a natural products only type of person, I just needed to try something better for my hair it wasn't responding to anything, but now its looking better everyday.
So in my experience natural for my hair care is better.

Like I don't want to use mineral oil on my hair anymore ktani educated me on another thread about that, but I have been using vasseline which contains mineral oil on my eyelashes. I came across a site where people swear by it for long fuller lashes over time.
Although I don't do it everyday just occasionally when I think of it.
And I do use soap on my face so it should cleanse it off well.
I also use it on my lips sometimes, really helps removing chapped skin.
I don't know.... All things in moderation, right?

[Anje]

I often like the Beauty Brains, but I don't read it that often. They're good at digging up useful research that I'm not likely to come across, like what oils absorb best into hair. (I just wish they'd give the citation! I like to find the original articles.)

Regarding their blurb on natural ingredients, yes, a lot of the points are good. There isn't necessarily anything inferior about a synthetic product, but there isn't necessarily anything healthier about it, either. In any case, natural products usually break down more quickly in the environment (usually a good thing, though it also means your natural stuff is more likely to turn nasty). Trans- vs cis- fats are a good example. Both are unsaturated, but the shape is a bit different, and the enzymes in our bodies and in environmental organisms are much better at handling the more natural cis variety. That said, neither of them is great for you in excessive quantities, and excessive anything is probably a bad idea. Humans seem to do best living in moderation.

As for me, I tend to think that a short ingredients list is better than a long one. If you have n items that have not been tested well, you're more likely to encounter something harmful if n=40 than if n=4.

[bjjowett1993]

I'll respond to the first link I am too outraged to proceed to the 2nd. Let me address the ingredients they disparage.

Soyabeans and its products are largely genetically modified these days which is of more concern to me that the phytoestrogens it contains, aside from that ALOT of vegetables contain estrogen. A balanced diet is what it is all about.

Olive Oil may slow skin repair but I have never read, seen or heard that before. Olive oil has a lot of other benefits on hair (I'm sure we agree! For health etc). When they use the word slow, what exactly does that mean anyway, slow in comparison to what?

The lavender and tea tree refers to a preliminary not yet conclusive study that Lavender and Tea tree are endocrine disruptors - increasing estrogen. Lavender is great for burns, skin conditions and high blood pressure. Conversely its terrible for low blood pressure. That is an already established fact.

But
I think by now everyone is aware that natural does not necessarily equal safe and as LHC demonstrates something that works for one won't necessarily work for all. Chemical, synthetic and man made do not equal safe either! Notice the concern of the article in regard to estrogen, Soyabean, Lavender, tea tree and also note their open admittance that parabens raise concern on this matter also. It seems to me this article is extremely bias in trying to turn one thing against another by saying. Parabens may be bad but natural products are bad too!

Personally I prefer to put natural ingredients on my skin because they are generally the sought you can eat! I have two other reasons for going natural - I believe natural ingredients are more easily broken down in the body than chemicals that may have been forced together through unnatural means such as extreme heat, various catalysts etc. The second reason is similar except it refers to them breaking down in the environment rather than the body not to mention the environmental impact of industrialised cosmetic manufacture in creating toxic byproducts that are not used in the jar/bottle but nonetheless are produced and require disposal of.

I just had to laugh at the mention of small companies trying to outcompete large companies. Large companies with so much more advertising funds, funds that could pay for something like this article perhaps. ;) Its especially ironic as the more natural you go the less likely you need any company large or small, you just make your own - or grow it.

Sorry Creativehoney but I haven't looked past that article yet!

and sorry for the long post it just pushed my button!
I don't even want to reply due to how long my response will be, only to the first link. It is, quite honestly, a slander, and a sort of biggotry that these companies try to "debunk" the "organic con", which is absolutely BS! Organic is better! I believe, that however we humans became unto this Earth, that it was originally abundant with minerals, foods, plants, and any other resource that could sustain, nd keep us healthy, and well. Also, I've been on the BeautyBrains website a few times before, and I personally was not impressed with them. I would not doubt if they were paid to post their information.

[akurah]

I don't even want to reply due to how long my response will be, only to the first link. It is, quite honestly, a slander, and a sort of biggotry that these companies try to "debunk" the "organic con", which is absolutely BS! Organic is better! I believe, that however we humans became unto this Earth, that it was originally abundant with minerals, foods, plants, and any other resource that could sustain, nd keep us healthy, and well. Also, I've been on the BeautyBrains website a few times before, and I personally was not impressed with them. I would not doubt if they were paid to post their information.

http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/10/08/how-honey-helps-acne/

We can understand how you might assume that because we’re scientists that we are “pro-chemical.” The truth is, we’re pro-scientific method. If we find reliable studies that prove natural ingredients work, we mention them. But most of the time, natural claims are exaggerations to try to trick you into buying products. Now, on to your question about honey.

http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/07/24/the-latest-breakthrough-in-skin-care-from-the-produce-department/

http://thebeautybrains.com/2007/06/06/are-you-confused-by-organic-products-too/

The Beauty Brains are an EXCELLENT resource because they will give it to you straight, they're unpaid by any cosmetic company (I've been reading them a long time, and I can find just as many times where they are trashing a conventional cosmetic company as they are your precious "natural" and "organic" companies).

Rather than calling it slander, you really ought to put your money where your mouth is and either debunk them using the same method they use (the scientific one, and referencing sources), or just ignore them. Otherwise, YOU'RE the one engaging in this so called slander. Can they get it wrong? Absolutely. Because they are a small group of bloggers, they are by and large dependent on the studies put out by others, and their own tests that they can run are highly limited because their resources are limited. But I can also guarantee you, that as scientists, they will retract any claims that are proven incorrect. They're not in this for what you're assuming, they're in it for the science, and frankly, I'm disgusted by the amount of outrage people here are claiming.

[bjjowett1993]

Whether or not the Beauty Brains are non-biased, and they are not paid to advertise their information, and even if they do endorse some naturally occuring flora or fauna, they are getting their information from studies, that may have been paid for, biased, or improperly carried out. Or, the studies that they are basing their information off of used (let's use soya for example) soya, that was not in any way organic, and possibly genetically modified, which would absolutely negate these claims. Same goes for tea tree and lavender oil, and the other things listed in the original link.

If there was a fully published study, on any of these natural items, by a non-profit, 3rd party research group, using USDA certified organic flora or fauna, THEN I will stand corrected, and will change my opinion. (Btw, USDA prohibits GMO {genetically modified organisms} by rule of their certification standards.)

Also, organic chemistry does have some fallacies, as hydrocarbons, which areessentiall fossil fuels, AKA Petroleum, are FAR from being organic. Also, saying that a company's product, that is organic, or natural, is "functionally inferior", is a low blow. Not true. Have you ever heard of castile soap? Also, even if they were not targeting Burt's Bees with this comment per sé, I have personally used their shampoo and conditioner, and A) They are NOT natural, or organic, and B) their functionality is absolutely no more inferior than any other commercial shampoo or conditioner. That statement is just not feasible, I'm sorry. And as far as the price is concerned, Health is Our Greatest Wealth.

I thank you for your opinion, though. :)

Each to their own. If you, and others can keep a clean conscience, and just shrug the health, and environmental factors and effects off your shoulders, then the best to you. I however, cannot.

[fishwich]

....

Well, gracious.

Me, I love me some Beauty Brains, mostly because I'm very pro-scientific method myself. I like studies, I like proof, I like puffery debunked. I used to be in marketing: call it schadenfreude. But I'm lazy, so I let them round up all that for me. :D I trust them--they're obviously very keen on cutting through a product's romance to see what it actually does and how.

[bjjowett1993]

....

Well, gracious.

Me, I love me some Beauty Brains, mostly because I'm very pro-scientific method myself. I like studies, I like proof, I like puffery debunked. I used to be in marketing: call it schadenfreude. But I'm lazy, so I let them round up all that for me. :D I trust them--they're obviously very keen on cutting through a product's romance to see what it actually does and how.
Please don't misinterpret what I am trying to say, I too am very science oriented, but I do not agree or find it ethical when a research study has been done with bias, malicious intent, or that was unwholy, or inproperly researched, to in turn slander or "debunk" something that does not need to be debunked.

[fishwich]

I'm not interpreting what you're saying, mis- or otherwise. My response is to the first post, i.e. whether or not I visit the Beauty Brains and what I think. Use what you think ought to be used and rock on with your bad self.

[bjjowett1993]

Oh, I am sorry, fishwich, I misinterpreted your "Well, gracious." as being directed towards me, and thought it to be in a condescending tone. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :) It isn't as feasible to interpret emotion and tone through text then as through speech.

What do you mean by "Your bad self" though? :S

[akurah]

Whether or not the Beauty Brains are non-biased, and they are not paid to advertise their information, and even if they do endorse some naturally occuring flora or fauna, they are getting their information from studies, that may have been paid for, biased, or improperly carried out. Or, the studies that they are basing their information off of used (let's use soya for example) soya, that was not in any way organic, and possibly genetically modified, which would absolutely negate these claims. Same goes for tea tree and lavender oil, and the other things listed in the original link.

If there was a fully published study, on any of these natural items, by a non-profit, 3rd party research group, using USDA certified organic flora or fauna, THEN I will stand corrected, and will change my opinion. (Btw, USDA prohibits GMO {genetically modified organisms} by rule of their certification standards.)

Also, organic chemistry does have some fallacies, as hydrocarbons, which areessentiall fossil fuels, AKA Petroleum, are FAR from being organic. Also, saying that a company's product, that is organic, or natural, is "functionally inferior", is a low blow. Not true. Have you ever heard of castile soap? Also, even if they were not targeting Burt's Bees with this comment per sé, I have personally used their shampoo and conditioner, and A) They are NOT natural, or organic, and B) their functionality is absolutely no more inferior than any other commercial shampoo or conditioner. That statement is just not feasible, I'm sorry. And as far as the price is concerned, Health is Our Greatest Wealth.

I thank you for your opinion, though. :)

Each to their own. If you, and others can keep a clean conscience, and just shrug the health, and environmental factors and effects off your shoulders, then the best to you. I however, cannot.

They actually LIKE Burts Bees, but I personally can't use that brand for stubborn ethical reasons. But thank you for your above response, it pleases my scientific inclinations (and its a response I can get behind more readily) than simply saying "they slander organic products". That gets my goat something fierce, because in my observations, they do no such thing.

[bjjowett1993]

Ah, Akurah, I am glad that we have have reached a point of mututal (agreement?), and I do not in any way mean to target Beauty Brians themselves, as that would be slander on My part, and it is not in my intentions to do so in the least. I guess because of my strong opinions and beliefs, I may have generalized what I was trying to get across too much. I do respect your scientific point of view, and I too share it, I would just like it to meet ethical/moral criteria, and ideally what I said in my previous comment.

Brandon. :)

[shadowclaw]

Just adding my two cents...

I've never looked at Beauty Brains before, but it does seem to be an interesting website. Some of the information does seem worthwhile, and they do bring up valid points. However, in general, after browsing through a few articles (including the ones posted in this thread), I would never consider the website my number 1 trusted resource.

While they claim to support science (and probably do), the folks at Beauty Brains would fail every English course I ever took in college (and high school, for that matter) and possibly be thrown out of school for plagerism. I haven't seen one proper citation on any article, so it is impossible for me to verify the information they present. Occasionally they mention a study done in such and such a year, but once again, they don't mention who did the study or from where the information/raw data can be obtained. So for all I know, the authors of these blogs could be referencing a study done by a sixth grader. Now I understand that the articles aren't being written for a peer-reviewed science journal, but the authors should be telling the audience a little bit about where they got their supporting information.

As for the Daily Mail article, it has good intentions. The author doesn't want us to blindly accept a product or solution simply because it is natural. She wants us to do a little research before jumping onto the gravy train. However, the tone of the article is very unfriendly towards natural products and will most likely instantly turn off anyone who uses natural products. Addtionally, some of her reasoning is very backwards, such as stating that Nightshade and lead are natural, but are toxic, so therefore all natural products are probably not good for you. I'm sure we can all agree that reasoning such as this is ridiculous.

So to conclude, the two articles posted by free_hug are not very good in my opinion, but the Beauty Brains do have some useful information available, even though there's no way to prove if it's true or not.

[bjjowett1993]

I agree, and yes, I am pretty sure they would be accused of plagiarism.

[SimplyLonghair]

The only problems that I have with articles and websites like those posted are the lack of citations and such. I cannot decide for myself based on the information that was given, whether it is valid or not.

I have seen way too many "studies" that were simply a gathering of info from other studies but touted as new research. And the findings that were reached from the last "study" were simply not supported by the evidence.

I do like websites that have info gathered in one space for me to study, however I prefer ones that give their sources in a better manner so that I can find out if the source that they use is a trustworthy source.

Just my :twocents:

I do agree that natural isn't always better or safer,:p but I judge on a case by case basis.
However I prefer natural if it is at all possible with as few ingredients as possible.:rolleyes::D

[Shandra]

I'm not pro-natural or pro-chemical, I'm pro-"what's safe to use" with a leaning towards natural products if they give similar results with similar "hazards"...

I have a little saying I use with people that are of the mindset that it must be safe because it's natural... or that it must be better for you because it's organic...

"Arsenic is natural; Hemlock is organic."

It doesn't matter what it's made of, but just do your research before using it.

And that's what kinda bugs me about the Beauty Brains... For saying they do/review all this research, but they never site the original studies, which highly irks me... :/

[Buddaphlyy]

I like the Beauty Brains. I do think they are unbiased, but I still cross check everything with something else.

[SimplyLonghair]

I like the Beauty Brains. I do think they are unbiased, but I still cross check everything with something else.
I do think that they may have valid points, my issue is that it would be so much easier to check and cross check with sources and citations.