# Comedogenic Ratings



## cdmusic68 (Feb 3, 2015)

Hi!   I don't know if someone already posted something like this,  but I have always looked for an all inclusive list,  but hadn't found one so good until now.   Thought I'd share, if anyone else was excited as I am!    

Master List of Comedogenic Ratings

http://www.acne.org/messageboard/to...ogenic-ingredients-and-products/#entry3278839


----------



## snappyllama (Feb 3, 2015)

Thanks for posting!


----------



## Cindy2428 (Feb 3, 2015)

A couple of additional sites posted by a friend on FB that may be helpful

https://www.beneficialbotanicals.com/facts-figures/comedogenic-rating.html
https://bellanina101.wordpress.com/.../oils-101-non.../


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 15, 2015)

How exactly are these worked out?  Is it simply trial and error?  Is it he lipid profile of oils?

How does it work that Cocoa and Coconut are 4 but Shea is 0?

Are these ratings to be trusted?


----------



## MrsSpaceship (Aug 18, 2015)

I believe it in part has to do with the size of the molecules that the oil is comprised of.  
Oils with larger molecules don't penetrate like those with smaller ones and so are less likely to plug thing up.  That's why oils that aren't readily absorbed by the skin are recommended for the oil cleanse method. 
That's just my very basic understanding though, someone with more science knowledge can validate or refute this.

Edit: I found this article on how the levels are determined.  It's not a perfect source, but will give you a starting point. 
http://www.oocities.org/nawo_chemicalsandbeauty/how_is_comedogenicity_determined.htm


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 18, 2015)

MrsSpaceship said:


> I believe it in part has to do with the size of the molecules that the oil is comprised of.
> Oils with larger molecules don't penetrate like those with smaller ones and so are less likely to plug thing up.  That's why oils that aren't readily absorbed by the skin are recommended for the oil cleanse method.
> That's just my very basic understanding though, someone with more science knowledge can validate or refute this.
> 
> ...



Thanks for the information.

While you have offered the only explanation so far (and the link does indeed explain how it is worked out) I'm not sure it is to do with molecular size.  Never the less that link is very useful.

My thanks,

Ferris.


----------



## spenny92 (Aug 18, 2015)

FerrisWheel said:


> Thanks for the information.
> 
> While you have offered the only explanation so far (and the link does indeed explain how it is worked out) I'm not sure it is to do with molecular size.  Never the less that link is very useful.
> 
> ...



Why ask if you already partly know the answer - enough to refute someone else's explanation, at least?


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 19, 2015)

spenny92 said:


> Why ask if you already partly know the answer - enough to refute someone else's explanation, at least?



Please read what you just wrote.

Even if I partly knew the answer.  The fact I only partly know is surely reason enough to ask isn't it?

All the websites so far that I have found simply provide the rating system with no explanation as to how they are derived.  Furthermore I actually thanked MrsSpaceship for her reply if you look closely, because she provided a useful link.

I don't know the answer.  I am trying to find out, that's why I asked on a forum specifically about bath and body products where one might think others know.

I then applied logic (the conclusion of an inductive argument that is probable) and looked at two contrasting butter that have similar properties.

In this instance Shea (rating = 0) vs Cocoa (rating = 4)

Shea







Cocoa







The constituent make up is basically the same.  Varying amounts of different fatty acids.  Take a look at those two images, barely any difference in size of their primary constituent molecule.  And yet Shea is 0 rating and Cocoa is 4.

I also applied a bit of logic that indeed if we can see our own pores and we can't see oil molecules then it is unlikely that they are big enough to clog them.  I suppose it is like marbles clogging a storm drain.

Now if it is something to do with the molecules sticking together and clumping in pores then that would make sense.  And that would hold up.  But no where explains that.

Additionally Sodium Chloride (Salt) is given a comedogenic rating of 5.  Here is that molecule next to water (Rating 0).






Is there really that much of a size difference to yield such a difference in rating?  I don't know.  But I can say with an educated guess that I * don't think that is the cause.*

Never the less, thanks for the constructive response.  If you happen across the actual answer I will be very grateful if you could share the knowledge (as I am sure the rest of the community would).  If not, then never mind!

Best,

Ferris.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Aug 19, 2015)

I think that your longer answer was what might have helped first time round for Spenny (and any others) - replying to a suggested explanation with 'I don't think it's that' with no further comment can kill a discussion and put off further replies. 

Now, while we can indeed see our pores, we know that they are not open holes direct in to our bodies. Like your plug hole analogy, while we can see the plug hole, how big is the pipe behind it? We might be able to put marbles down the hole, but if the pipe itself is too small for a marble to get through........not even lye will help there!

While the pours are a certain size, how big are the actual channels through which things are absorbed?


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 19, 2015)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> I think that your longer answer was what might have helped first time round for Spenny (and any others) - replying to a suggested explanation with 'I don't think it's that' with no further comment can kill a discussion and put off further replies.
> 
> Now, while we can indeed see our pores, we know that they are not open holes direct in to our bodies. Like your plug hole analogy, while we can see the plug hole, how big is the pipe behind it? We might be able to put marbles down the hole, but if the pipe itself is too small for a marble to get through........not even lye will help there!
> 
> While the pours are a certain size, how big are the actual channels through which things are absorbed?



So how was the other response any different?!!  I thanked MrsSpaceship for her contribution!  In addition to killing a conversation- this thread was already dormant for months.  I revived it to try and help others.  This place is bonkers...


----------



## spenny92 (Aug 19, 2015)

FerrisWheel said:


> So how was the other response any different?!!  I thanked MrsSpaceship for her contribution!  In addition to killing a conversation- this thread was already dormant for months.  I revived it to try and help others.  This place is bonkers...



I don't know the answer, I just found it a little odd that when someone offered an explanation, you refuted it even though they tried to answer the question which you asked. Had you explained what you already thought/knew, that would have been different.

Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as rude or "bonkers" in any way, but maybe you should refrain from calling this place "bonkers" - people are only trying to help and give you information that you asked for...


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 19, 2015)

spenny92 said:


> I don't know the answer, I just found it a little odd that when someone offered an explanation, you refuted it even though they tried to answer the question which you asked. Had you explained what you already thought/knew, that would have been different.
> 
> Sorry, I didn't mean to come across as rude or "bonkers" in any way, but maybe you should refrain from calling this place "bonkers" - people are only trying to help and give you information that you asked for...



Can you not read?

I said it is a very useful link and thanked her twice!!!

I then said IN RESPONSE to her comment posted after my question that I'm not sure that is the reason for the ratings.  How could I have predicted before she posted that would be said?

This place is bonkers because apparently thanking someone for their contributions and then stipulating that it might not be the full story isn't allowed and isn't constructive.  But responses like yours and the gentlemen are?

Madness.


----------



## green soap (Aug 19, 2015)

Getting back to the discussion, do you think the difference lies in the unsaponifiable portion?  Shea and cocoa butter are so similar in soap, at least soapcalc considers them so.  However, they might have totally different waxes and/or other non saponifying lipids?

Also, the salt is given a low comedogenic rating in one list, and a high one in another.  What gives?  I am talking about the first link.


----------



## not_ally (Aug 19, 2015)

Ferris, I understand how maybe some people thought your first response was terse (although I personally did not, I just assumed you were not spelling out your reasoning for whatever reason.)  I really liked your longer post, I haven't really thought about the comedogenicity aspects of soap that much, so all carefully considered input is great.  

It's really not that bonkers here, honestly, you just hit a rough patch early on - most of us do at some point, you just did it kind of early.  I hope you stay and continue to post.


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 19, 2015)

not_ally said:


> Ferris, I understand how maybe some people thought your first response was terse (although I personally did not, I just assumed you were not spelling out your reasoning for whatever reason.)  I really liked your longer post, I haven't really thought about the comedogenicity aspects of soap that much, so all carefully considered input is great.
> 
> It's really not that bonkers here, honestly, you just hit a rough patch early on - most of us do at some point, you just did it kind of early.  I hope you stay and continue to post.



Thank you.

I will don't worry.  I will contribute whatever I can and there are loads of great members on here who contribute brilliant content.  Just remarkable how I thanked someone twice and got pulled up on it.

Truth be told I still don't know if it is a molecular size issue.  It just didn't sound right to me.

But cheers for jumping in.  It means a lot!


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 19, 2015)

green soap said:


> Getting back to the discussion, do you think the difference lies in the unsaponifiable portion?  Shea and cocoa butter are so similar in soap, at least soapcalc considers them so.  However, they might have totally different waxes and/or other non saponifying lipids?
> 
> Also, the salt is given a low comedogenic rating in one list, and a high one in another.  What gives?  I am talking about the first link.



Well I am specifically interested in their uses as moisturiser however the end information will be useful to all.

I suspected it was to do with the fatty acid make up of each oil/butter - just like I learnt that those heavy in certain fatty acids spoil quick (e.g. Hemp Seed Oil).

However good luck finding out any actual explanation- hence my confusion!

MrsSpaceships link has been the best so far because at least that said how the test things but again offers no information as to WHY each behaves in the way it does.

I will compare acid profiles of low comedogenic oils/butter with those higher and see if there is any correlation.

Cheers for your post.

Ferris.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Aug 19, 2015)

Now hold on one minute - you accuse others of not reading posts and then totally miss the point of mine. I was pointing out why people might have thought your reply was odd, not that I agreed with them. I then went on to the discussion itself. 

As an example, I ask someone for directions and they suggest a route, if I then politely thank them for their suggestion but say that I think it is wrong and then just wander off.........well, that would be bonkers. 

Now, back to the blockages at hand-

http://colinsbeautypages.co.uk/comedogenic-scale-ignore/

So it seems to be named after the result of a pore blockage, a black head, so has something to do with pore blocking, clearly. But doesn't really tell us WHY certain oils are more likely to block pores than others. It might be for various reasons depending on the oil in use. Maybe there is no one answer, no one reason why all high resulting oils are so high on the scale


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 19, 2015)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> Now hold on one minute - you accuse others of not reading posts and then totally miss the point of mine. I was pointing out why people might have thought your reply was odd, not that I agreed with them. I then went on to the discussion itself.
> 
> As an example, I ask someone for directions and they suggest a route, if I then politely thank them for their suggestion but say that I think it is wrong and then just wander off.........well, that would be bonkers.
> 
> ...



Thank you.  That link looks interesting.  Will look at it in more detail.

Edit:  Just read through it- seems to confirm a lot of what I feared - might not be wise to trust them.

Cheers T.E.G!

Ferris.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Aug 19, 2015)

What did you fear, and in what way did it confirm it? You're like a doctor examining a patient, making all sorts of concerned noises and head shaking, serious expressions, but not actually saying anything to the patient. It is unconscionably irritating


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 19, 2015)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> What did you fear, and in what way did it confirm it? You're like a doctor examining a patient, making all sorts of concerned noises and head shaking, serious expressions, but not actually saying anything to the patient. It is unconscionably irritating



Great.

Well in my first post in this thread I said "can they be trusted".  Because I wasn't sure they made any sense- no where actually said why/how they are so high or low on the rating scale.  This is why I asked a community with a lot of background and knowledge of such oils/butters.

I also said that certain ideas didn't add up in my head.  Then got pulled up on that an explained why they didn't make sense.

To your credit you then provided a link discrediting the rating system.  Confirming that my initial concern that they cannot be trusted is justified.

Your username betrays your actual interaction by the way.  I find you condescending and anything but a gentleman.  I don't see what head tutting I did?  This is getting beyond boring now.  Thank you for the link.  It did clear things up- I genuinely mean that, but for now I am done with this to and fro of people getting their underwear in a twist over me saying thank you to a members response and adding my comment to it.  Which is ultimately all I did to start this off.


----------



## spenny92 (Aug 19, 2015)

Seriously? I think you're taking things too personally. I apologized for the way in which my first post might have come across not as it was intended, but you react to that by making a condescending comment about my ability to read.

Again, people are trying to help you. You could do with being a little bit more grateful.


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 19, 2015)

spenny92 said:


> Seriously? I think you're taking things too personally. I apologized for the way in which my first post might have come across not as it was intended, but you react to that by making a condescending comment about my ability to read.
> 
> Again, people are trying to help you. You could do with being a little bit more grateful.



Remind me again where you were trying to be helpful?

Remind me again where those that have actually been on topic were not thanked for their input?

I'm fairly sure you won't be able to point to an instance of either- 
bringing us full circle to your inability to read.


----------



## spenny92 (Aug 19, 2015)

FerrisWheel said:


> Remind me again where you were trying to be helpful?
> 
> Remind me again where those that have actually been on topic were not thanked for their input?
> 
> ...



There's really no need to be so rude. My only comment was that I found it odd that you dismissed someone's explanation of what you asked in your original post - like I said before (or do you have trouble reading, too?) had you explained further like you did later in the thread, I would have understood why you didn't agree with that person's explanation.

Anyway. I'm not here to argue or be belittled, so good luck with your quest to find the answer to something which you seemingly already know.

EDIT: What I meant by you not being grateful was initially thanking TEG for his input, then going on to call him condescending and boring after he has spent his time offering you information (yes, you thanked him for the information, but your other words don't quite match up with being grateful). That's all.


----------



## kchaystack (Aug 19, 2015)

I think maybe it's best if we just let this thread die.


----------



## The Efficacious Gentleman (Aug 20, 2015)

FerrisWheel said:


> .........Well in my first post in this thread I said "can they be trusted".  Because I wasn't sure they made any sense- no where actually said why/how they are so high or low on the rating scale..........




Now there is the source of the misunderstanding- I of course do not remember the exact wording of every post. Personally, I refer to a rating system as whether or not "it" can be trusted, rather than the ratings themselves, unless the system itself was in theory sound but some ratings were questionable. So your comment about having read the link and it confirms that you can't trust THEM suggested to me that the source couldn't be trusted, hence why I wanted to know why you thought that. 

I apologise, a misunderstanding on my part for which I am sorry.


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 20, 2015)

The Efficacious Gentleman said:


> Now there is the source of the misunderstanding- I of course do not remember the exact wording of every post. Personally, I refer to a rating system as whether or not "it" can be trusted, rather than the ratings themselves, unless the system itself was in theory sound but some ratings were questionable. So your comment about having read the link and it confirms that you can't trust THEM suggested to me that the source couldn't be trusted, hence why I wanted to know why you thought that.
> 
> I apologise, a misunderstanding on my part for which I am sorry.



Not to worry!  I recognize you're a knowledgeable source here!  Even checked out some of your products, those jars of creams look great!  Sorry we got off on the wrong foot!


----------



## FerrisWheel (Aug 20, 2015)

spenny92 said:


> There's really no need to be so rude. My only comment was that I found it odd that you dismissed someone's explanation of what you asked in your original post - like I said before (or do you have trouble reading, too?) had you explained further like you did later in the thread, I would have understood why you didn't agree with that person's explanation.
> 
> Anyway. I'm not here to argue or be belittled, so good luck with your quest to find the answer to something which you seemingly already know.
> 
> EDIT: What I meant by you not being grateful was initially thanking TEG for his input, then going on to call him condescending and boring after he has spent his time offering you information (yes, you thanked him for the information, but your other words don't quite match up with being grateful). That's all.



This is me letting you have the last word.  In the spirit of the community.


----------

