Most likely to no one’s surprise, Perricone’s Cold Plasma moisturizer now has an eye-area counterpart. Other than the inclusion of an emollient thickening agent suitable for dry skin, the ingredient list and incredibly tempting claims for Cold Plasma Eye is remarkably similar to the original Cold Plasma, which of course begs the question of why a separate version for the eye area was needed, though it does help sell more products. Regarding the "cold plasma" portion of the name, it refers to an ionized gas that has low energy. What that has to do with skin care is anyone's guess; most likely, Perricone chose the name because it sounds novel and new.
Nothing about this product is ideally poised to address signs of aging around the eye. In fact, there’s no practical reason why the original Cold Plasma couldn’t be used around the eye, too. Why you’d want to do that is another story, because both versions have their share of problems. Chief among them is jar packaging, which won’t keep the many light- and air-sensitive ingredients stable during use. In the case of Cold Plasma Eye, for almost $100, you’re getting an eye cream whose key anti-aging ingredients won’t last for more than a few weeks after opening at best. Secondary to the jar packaging is the inclusion of fragrance chemicals such as farnesol and linalool. These ingredients are bad news for all skin types because the irritation they cause can diminish healthy collagen production—and that’s not the way to look younger. Curiously, the original Cold Plasma product is fragrance-free (so the eye area gets fragrance but the rest of the face doesn’t?)
Without question there are some intriguing ingredients in Cold Plasma Eye; it’s just not the breakthrough product it’s made out to be and Perricone hasn’t published any research to support his claims. The third ingredient, phosphatidylcholine, deserves some explanation. Phosphatidylcholine is the active ingredient in lecithin. Every cell membrane in the body requires phosphatidylcholine (PC). It is also a major source of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Acetylcholine is used by the brain in areas that are involved in long-term planning, concentration, and focus, but all of that information is associated with ingesting PC, not putting it on the skin. PC is considered a very good water-binding agent and aids in the penetration of other ingredients into the skin. It absorbs well without feeling greasy or heavy (although other ingredients can perform similarly, including glycerin, ceramides, and hyaluronic acid) (Sources: Skin Pharmacology and Applied Skin Physiology, September–October 1999, pages 235–246; and Journal of Controlled Release, March 29, 1999, pages 207–214.)
Lastly, consider this: if Cold Plasma Eye is such a miracle, why is Perricone still selling numerous other eye-area products, all with similar amazing claims? Wouldn’t it be best to admit that those don’t work as well and that Cold Plasma Eye is the one to buy? Of course, that won’t happen and none of this nonsense will stop many women from buying (literally and figuratively) into the too-good-to-be-true claims.
A breakthrough eye product utilizing four patented technologies to comprehensively address the visible signs of aging skin--including lack of radiance and fine lines and wrinkles on the eye area.
Water, Cetearyl Alcohol, Phosphatidylcholine, Isopropyl Palmitate,Glycerin, Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate, Glyceryl Stearate, PEG-100 Stearate,Docosahexaenoic Acid, Squalane, Butylene Glycol, Benzyl Alcohol,Ceteareth-20, Magnesium Aspartate, Zinc Gluconate, Olea Europaea (Olive) Fruit Oil, Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil, Disodium EDTA, Farnesol,Oligopeptide-17, Elaris Guineensis (Palm) Oil, Carbomer, Copper Gluconate,Tocotrienols, Polysorbate 20, Tocopherol, Sodium Hyaluronate, Fragrance, Linalool, Palmitoyl Oligopeptide, Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7
Perricone MD Cosmeceuticals At-A-Glance
Strengths: A handful of good cleansers; a couple of worthwhile moisturizers for the eye area; several fragrance-free products; a few impressive makeup products.
Weaknesses: Expensive; long on claims not supported by evidence-based science; use of controversial ingredients throughout the line; several antioxidant-rich products are packaged in jars, which renders those beneficial ingredients less effective.
This dermatologist-developed line is perhaps the best known in an increasingly crowded field. The frenzy began with Nicholas Perricone's first book, The Wrinkle Cure, and continued when he appeared on PBS to discuss his book and namesake products, all of which seemed incredibly legitimate to consumers worried about how to look younger longer. PBS reaped a financial windfall from his appearance, netting millions of dollars between 2001 and 2002 (Source: www.quackwatch.org). Originally all the fuss centered around vitamin C and alpha lipoic acid, but as his success continued, Perricone wrote half a dozen more books and expanded his product line to include other over-hyped ingredients, each with claims (and price tags) more inflated than the last round.
We sourced the Web site Quackwatch.org because they have an excellent, unbiased report on the Perricone phenomenon. This non-profit site is operated by consumer advocate Dr. Stephen Barrett, and, to quote the Quackwatch Mission Statement, their purpose is "to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct." That's where Perricone comes into play. According to Quackwatch, Perricone's books "contain many claims that are questionable, controversial, fanciful, unsupported by published evidence, or just plain wrong. Although he mentions standard skin-care treatments, sometimes favorably, his books provide little guidance about when they might be appropriate or sufficient. Although he provides long lists of references, practically none of them directly support what he promises." Those sentiments are exactly what we felt and wrote after reading The Wrinkle Cure.
The site goes on to state: "Perricone's books are sprinkled with statements that his ideas are based on his own research. However, the extent and quality of this research is unclear. A PubMed search for his name brought up only six citations, of which only two appear to be original research, both on topical glycolic acid. His books describe situations in which he tested various ideas in a few patients, usually over a short period of time, but he provides few details and apparently published none of those findings in medical journals." Does that sound like the kind of products you'd like to spend (a lot of) your money on?
They go on to conclude (and we agree completely with the following text): "Dr. Perricone has mixed a pinch of science with a gallon of imagination to create an elaborate, time-consuming, expensive, prescription for a healthy life and younger skin. There is no reason to think his program is more effective than standard measures. Although some of his advice is standard, most of his recommendations are based on speculation and fanciful interpretation of selected medical literature. He makes lots of money by convincing patients and consumers, but he hasn't succeeded in convincing critical thinkers, doctors, scientists, or anyone who wants to see hard evidence. Perricone's prescription isn't science; it's creative salesmanship." And which ingredient is the answer for healthy skin? Perricone can't seem to make up his mind, because one group of products contains alpha lipoic acid, another group olive oil, another vitamin C, and still another neuropeptides. Come on, doctor, which is it?
One ingredient Perricone uses deserves some discussion because it is present in all of his products, and that's dimethyl MEA, also known as DMAE (chemically 2-dimethyl-aminoethanol). DMAE has been around for years as an oral supplement that's popularly believed to improve mental alertness, much like Ginkgo biloba and coenzyme Q10. However, the research about DMAE does not show the same positive results as the other two supplements. Because DMAE is chemically similar to choline, DMAE is thought to stimulate production of acetylcholine. And because acetylcholine is a brain neurotransmitter, it's easy to see how it could be associated with brain function. However, only a handful of studies have looked at DMAE for that purpose and they have not been conclusive in the least, while some have shown that DMAE may be problematic or not very effective (Sources: Mechanisms of Aging and Development, February 1988, pages 129–138; Neuropharmacology, June 1989, pages, 557–561; European Neurology, 1991, pages 423–425; and European Journal of Medical Research, May 2003, pages 183–191).
How does any of this translate into skin care, or, more to the point, suppressing the signs of aging? Perricone claims DMAE restores muscle tone to skin that has lost firmness and has begun to slacken, as well as conveying an antioxidant benefit. Johnson & Johnson uses DMAE in a few of their Neutrogena products, and a study they paid for appeared in the American Journal of Clinical Dermatology (June 2005, pages 39–47). The conclusion was as follows: "the benefits of DMAE in dermatology include a potential anti-inflammatory effect and a documented increase in skin firmness with possible improvement in underlying facial muscle tone." The study examined topical application of 3% DMAE over a period of 16 weeks, but it was not done double-blind and was not placebo-controlled, which makes the results, at best, questionable. Moreover, the study didn't examine whether a 3% or lower concentration of other ingredients, such as green tea, glycolic acid, vitamin C, or myriad others (many of which Perricone has extolled in his other products, and the amount of DMAE he used varies widely from product to product), might have had the same or better results.
Is there any reason to get excited (and drain your pocketbook) for products with DMAE? Apparently not; a study published in The British Journal of Dermatology (May 2007) has shown contrary evidence that it may actually pose risks for the skin. In vitro tests of the pure substance, as well as creams that contained DMAE, demonstrated a fairly fast and significant increase in protective elements around the skin cell. However, a short time later the researchers observed an important reduction in cell growth and in some cases they found that it halted cell growth altogether. So, while you may initially experience a kind of swelling of the skin because of the expanding effect caused by topical application of DMAE, the long-term results appear to be far from desirable.
Interestingly, even though this ingredient is present throughout Perricone's line, he has yet to publish his own research discussing the claims and explaining how topical DMAE works. The bottom line is that as more research comes to light, DMAE may prove more problematic than helpful for aging skin. But in the meantime, Perricone is raking in lots of money by convincing consumers otherwise.
For more information about Perricone MD Cosmeceuticals call (888) 823-7837 or visit www.perriconemd.com.
The Beautypedia and Paula’s Choice Research teams have one mission: To help you find the best products for your skin, whether they’re from Paula’s Choice or another brand. By combining efforts, we’re able to share scientific research and remain committed to the highest standards based on our decades of experience objectively reviewing thousands upon thousands of skincare and makeup formularies in all price ranges.
Beautypedia cuts through the hype to bring you product insights and recommendations you won’t find anywhere else!