Loading...

Question of the Month

Loading...
September 2006

Dear Paula,
Your reviews are great, and I appreciate how you reference sources to back up your opinions. In your books you consistently disparage bar soaps, saying the ingredients that make them into bars can clog pores, but I've never seen a reference for this. With virtually any other ingredient present in a cleanser, you say "any benefit from this would be washed down the drain before it can do any good." Why wouldn't the ingredients that make soap into a bar wash away, too? I've used Irish Spring, body and face, for 25+ years, and never noticed any "clogs." Body washes, even ones that say "clean-rinsing," leave me feeling slimy. And non-deodorant soaps, by the end of the day, leave me with (ahem) body odor. So, why do you think deodorant soaps are unnecessary?

Marilyn, via email


Dear Marilyn,
What an insightful question, and I can see why you are confused. In essence, there are some ingredients that cling to skin more than others. The ingredients that keep bar soap or bar cleansers in their bar form are only somewhat water-soluble, which is why a soap film can be left behind on your sink or bathtub. Other ingredients--such as vitamins, plant extracts, antioxidants, and other more fragile ingredients (like peptides)--don't like water and are easily broken down by splashing well before they would have a chance to either absorb into skin or have benefit. For example, antibacterial agents in soaps and cleansers can kill bacteria on skin, but they have far less benefit unless you leave them on the skin for a period of time. That's why leave-on hand disinfectants are more effective, and why surgeons scrub their hands for several minutes.

One way to think of it is by comparison to food substances like oil, lard, and butter, which are difficult to rinse away, while other foods are far easier to wash off a plate or your counter top. To some extent, the same concept carries over with skin-care cleansers. In terms of bar cleansers, the issue of receiving skin-care benefits other than cleansing and some deodorizing is clear. I'm not sure why there aren't studies to cite on this, but I assume it's because this concept of cleansing is well understood with no contradictory information to be found. Regarding clogged pores, there is research showing that certain trans-fatty acids (such as the ones found in most bar soaps and bar cleansers) can make matters worse inside a pore (Sources: Experimental Dermatology, 2005, volume 14, pages 143-152; and International Journal of Dermatology, October 2001, page 640). Additionally, a higher pH (over 8) can increase the growth of bacteria in the pore (Sources: Advances in Skin & Wound Care, July-August 2002, pages 176-178; and American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, April 2004, pages 217-223). That you, personally, haven't experienced skin-care problems (clogged pores) is completely understandable because while a problem is likely, that doesn't mean it happens to everyone.

One other point: My main issue with bar soaps and cleansers is not so much that they clog pores (though there is that potential), but that they are extremely drying and irritating. When skin is repeatedly irritated, it is less able to build new collagen and elastin, heal itself or keep its structure intact. This is far more of a concern from the neck up than from the neck down. That's because from the neck down, skin is usually less fragile since it hasn't been as exposed to the environment (meaning the sun) like the face.

By the way, in terms of soaps being drying and irritating for skin and causing problems for barrier repair, preventing dryness, healing, and reducing or eliminating sensitizing reactions, there is a great deal of research. Some of those sources include Skin Research and Technology, February 2005, pages 53-60; Skin and Hair Cleansers, March 9, 2005, www.emedicine.com/derm/topic508.htm; Dermatologic Therapy, January 2004, pages 16-25; Contact Dermatitis, August 2003, pages 91-96; Global Cosmetics, February 2000, pages 46-49; and Cosmetics & Toiletries Magazine, November 2003, page 63.


Archive:
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
September 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001