help me scientifically respond to the "soap is bad for skin pH" claim

[coffeetime]

Just thinking out loud here but the oils we use are considered acidic, yes? In the soap reaction (acid/base), the fat is the acid and the lye is the base. Could the fact that handmade soap has a %-age of free fats be leaving a slight acidic residue which helps the acid mantle to re-assert itself? That, in addition to the glycerin that is produced, could be the difference? I don't know what sort of alkaline soap was used in those studies and what the superfat was (if there was one).

 

[MorpheusPA]

Just thinking out loud here but the oils we use are considered acidic, yes? In the soap reaction (acid/base), the fat is the acid and the lye is the base. Could the fact that handmade soap has a %-age of free fats be leaving a slight acidic residue which helps the acid mantle to re-assert itself? That, in addition to the glycerin that is produced, could be the difference? I don't know what sort of alkaline soap was used in those studies and what the superfat was (if there was one).

Regrettably, no. To turn most of the fat to soap requires a certain number of molecules of lye. That number is way more than enough to balance the reaction resultant on the alkaline side.

Although superfatting decreases the effective pH* of your soap, it doesn't render it neutral or acidic. If it did, the soap would be a gelatinous, slimy mess. The same with additives that are acidic, like lemon juice or citric acid. If you drop the pH low enough to be neutral, the soap will fall apart.

* pH is a complex issue and technically fats don't have a pH as they aren't miscible in water. But in this case, the difference is academic...mostly.

 

[coffeetime]

I wasn't suggesting the soap is acidic. But when you are done washing with the soap, there is in some cases a tiny bit of oil left on the skin. That oil is not soap, but oil.

 

[Jstar]

The commercial soap makers will 'always' put out articles and 'research' papers designed to kill out the competition....ie; natural soap makers products.

Let's not forget, your skin sloughs off hourly, so where are the commercial soap makers theories on that? :think: they don't want you knowing that the top 18-23 layers of your skin are 'dead skin cells' and that the skin you have now is not the skin you will have next month..

Here's a little factoid or 3

https://www.aad.org/dermatology-a-to-z/for-kids/about-skin/how-skin-grows

And then something else I found

http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/information/anatomy/shed-skin-cells.htm

Basically tho, don't go to the commercial soap manufactures for fuel to fight them with...you wont find it there..no way they will shoot themselves in their own feet

 

[jules92207]

Good point! Yes, these studies were all funded by (and mostly in-house at) Glaxo Smith Klien and Colgate and Biore and Johnson & Johnson, etc.!

Ok, well that pretty much says it all to me.

 

[jnl]

J&J admits to putting known toxic chemicals in their baby soap because they say they havnt found a good alternative yet. i have not looked into that in the last couple years, its possible they have changed their formula by now. but they had set a date long into the future to get rid of the toxic chemicals they put in their baby soaps instead of just pulling them out soon as studies showed those chemicals were bad.

even if soap is a little more harsh on my skin, i would rather use that then nasty synthetic chemicals.

anyone with skin issues will tell you that those synthetic bars and face washes and lotions etc are HORRIFIC on our skin. i swear Dove is one of the WORST bars of soap. absolutely awful. makes my skin shrivel up and want to die.

i am new to using natural soaps, and its the first time every in my life where my skin is not totally dry after showering. and i can actually WASH MY FACE without breaking out.
even just plain water makes my skin dry and itchy and i have to slather with lotion. synthetic chemicals make it much worse. i still have to use lotion after using my soap, but not as much, and thats only because the water is full of chlorine.

but the BIGGEST effect i have seen is on my dog. my dog has the worst skin issues ever and is very allergic to all dog shampoos and most human ones too. there was only ONE human shampoo that was "ok" on her, and that would just make her medium itchy for a couple days and shed tons of fur. any other soap/shampoo would make her so itchy she would be freaking out panicking trying to rub her skin off for like a week or more. a month or so ago i tried one of my bars of soap on her and it was literally the first time ever in her life (8 years) where she was not itchy after being bathed. not even a tiny little bit. and she was soooo shiny and silky and everyone was commenting how nice her coat was (strangers who had never seen her before). and then i washed her again 2 more times with the soap and each time NO ITCHING!!! and no shedding after bathing either. its amazing. i feel so bad for torturing her for 8 years, but i had no idea. the soap i used was an oatmeal/goats milk/honey soap superfatted at 5%.

 

[autumngirl27]

Although superfatting decreases the effective pH* of your soap, it doesn't render it neutral or acidic....

* pH is a complex issue and technically fats don't have a pH as they aren't miscible in water. But in this case, the difference is academic...mostly.

Aha, yes, of course! This just underscores the difficulty with taking a rigid approach to pH in assessing skin irritability. The pH of our soaps will stay alkaline, even if superfatted, from the very nature of being soaps. Because the oils we superfat with don't technically have a pH, their moisturizing properties and mildness will not be reflected in the pH reading.

 

[MorpheusPA]

Aha, yes, of course! This just underscores the difficulty with taking a rigid approach to pH in assessing skin irritability. The pH of our soaps will stay alkaline, even if superfatted, from the very nature of being soaps. Because the oils we superfat with don't technically have a pH, their moisturizing properties and mildness will not be reflected in the pH reading.

I've seen enormous arguments about pH moderation of adding fats or fatty acids (which I'm not interested in joining in the slightest!)

While an accurately measured pH actually IS that item's pH, most of the question here is how much it matters. And the studies seem to show "not much" while stating the exact opposite as their conclusion.

Mind you, very irritated or damaged skin would be best treated as mildly as possible. But for most of us most of the time, that's a non-issue.

 

[lakelady]

Hi Autumngirl, I'm new to the forum, but not new to soapmaking (over 17 years)...my first thought is who this person might be. I'd be tempted to ask her where she got her PhD in chemistry or her medical degree? Sounds to me like she is either one of those debby downer types, or jealous of the joy and beauty that soapmaking brings to you. Ugh, I can't stand people like that. I think there are a lot of good responses for you, and DO NOT let her get to you, I'm sure that was her intention.

 

[TeresaT]

Hi everyone! I'm new here, but I've been lurking for years and selfishly absorbing everyone's wisdom. And now I selfishly need your direct help (but I imagine this will be helpful to many of us, so please hang in there during my long story)...

A person recently approached me with the claim that the skin's acid mantle is between a 4.5 pH and a 6 pH, and that any skin product outside that range would irreparably damage the acid mantle and make the pH spike before settling again, leaving the skin not only dry and acne-riddled but also a hot-bed of bacteria. She said I was "irresponsible" for making and selling soap and that suggesting that people use it was "bad advice." She cited medical papers about skin pH (which, honestly, ARE legit) (see for example "The Concept of the Acid Mantle of the Skin") (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8573921) and demanded that I provide "good science" to the contrary. When I told her my experience with CP soap and what I've heard from many other people, she laughed me off because my evidence was "simply anecdotal."

My blood has been boiling for over 24 hours now. I hit the internet to see what was up with this, and there is turning out to be a GROWING community jumping on the acidic skin bandwagon and bad-mouthing soap.

So I came here. I've clicked around and found a few discussion threads (http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?t=8928) (http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?t=25802) about soap allegedly being damaging to the skin simply because of its alkalinity. We here all pretty much agree that pH isn't the end-all-be-all, superfatting is important, the oils you use make a difference, etc.

BUT we need something good to have at the ready for these hard-and-fast pH people, because although their science sounds "right," something about this smacks of marketing to me, and I can't discount our positive experiences with CP soap.

Thus far, this is all I have found: "The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of the Human Skin" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073884)

So (long story short! too late!), does anyone have any cites to fancy-sounding science-y sources explaining our awesome experiences with our soaps and why we would use them over syndets? Estheticians out there -- what do your books and continuing education classes say? Any cosmetic scientists lurking about?

Thank you in advance! I've loved lurking here for so many years, and I hope to become active in the community.

Wow! I know this is old, and I haven't read the whole thread; however, all I could think of was what an ***. People have been using good old fashioned SOAP, made with fats and lye, for millennia and they haven't irreversibly damaged their "acid mantle" or caused acne-riddled bacterial colonies to form all over their skin. My skin is better when I wash with the soap I have made instead of a commercial product. My skin over-all is much better with my homemade soap than the commercial stuff out there. Some people are not happy unless they are miserable and making everyone around them miserable, too. DON'T GIVE IN TO THE DARK SIDE!!

 

[soapmage]

Autumngirl, I took your post on your results and posted them on this site I found praising syndets and bashing handmade (I hope you don't mind)...

http://www.thehealthyskinblog.org/syndets-soapfree-soaps/#comment-7167

 

[jules92207]

Not surprised, that institute is part of Colgate-Palmolive.

 

[hozhed]

Hi everyone! I'm new here, but I've been lurking for years and selfishly absorbing everyone's wisdom. And now I selfishly need your direct help (but I imagine this will be helpful to many of us, so please hang in there during my long story)...

A person recently approached me with the claim that the skin's acid mantle is between a 4.5 pH and a 6 pH, and that any skin product outside that range would irreparably damage the acid mantle and make the pH spike before settling again, leaving the skin not only dry and acne-riddled but also a hot-bed of bacteria. She said I was "irresponsible" for making and selling soap and that suggesting that people use it was "bad advice." She cited medical papers about skin pH (which, honestly, ARE legit) (see for example "The Concept of the Acid Mantle of the Skin") (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8573921) and demanded that I provide "good science" to the contrary. When I told her my experience with CP soap and what I've heard from many other people, she laughed me off because my evidence was "simply anecdotal."

My blood has been boiling for over 24 hours now. I hit the internet to see what was up with this, and there is turning out to be a GROWING community jumping on the acidic skin bandwagon and bad-mouthing soap.

So I came here. I've clicked around and found a few discussion threads (http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?t=8928) (http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?t=25802) about soap allegedly being damaging to the skin simply because of its alkalinity. We here all pretty much agree that pH isn't the end-all-be-all, superfatting is important, the oils you use make a difference, etc.

BUT we need something good to have at the ready for these hard-and-fast pH people, because although their science sounds "right," something about this smacks of marketing to me, and I can't discount our positive experiences with CP soap.

Thus far, this is all I have found: "The Long-Term Use of Soap Does Not Affect the pH-Maintenance Mechanism of the Human Skin" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25073884)

So (long story short! too late!), does anyone have any cites to fancy-sounding science-y sources explaining our awesome experiences with our soaps and why we would use them over syndets? Estheticians out there -- what do your books and continuing education classes say? Any cosmetic scientists lurking about?

Thank you in advance! I've loved lurking here for so many years, and I hope to become active in the community.

I would have to guess that soap has done more to prolong the lifespan of humans than we know. After looking at that video of the 80 year old man, its nothing short of a miracle he lived so long. He must have a cast iron immune system that if studied and cloned,could prolong lifespans more than the soap and water he hates so much did. Amazing.

 

[cm4bleenmb]

Well, I for one would rather temporarily disrupt the acid mantle of my skin with an occasional application of soap than to leave a perpetual layer of dirt on it.

 

[not_ally]

Jules, wow, is that *ever* a syndet lobby site. Ugh. I guess we are all a bunch of dummies, making all this dangerous, anachronistic, ugly, stinky soap stuff. Of course, the site is called "The Healthy Skin Blog", and there is no mention of its connection with the industry, although the commentators are touted as "chemical engineers" and "science journalists". Mage, I think they censor comments, there is only one and if it is yours I cannot tell, because when you click on it nothing comes up.

Y'all, for your reading pleasure, selected quotes from that link:

"[T]he cosmetics industry has managed to develop “soapfree soaps”. We wash our hands with bars that contain no soap and our gels are “soapfree”. Soap’s day has passed: welcome to the “syndet”.

"sing soap on an ongoing basis removes oil from our skin and the resulting destruction of the lipid mantle undermines the skin’s barrier function."

"From a technical viewpoint, syndets have other advantages over soap, such as the fact that they admit the possibility of using additives (colorants and fragrances) that are not suitable for soaps."

"Nonetheless, even though syndets might prove to be a source of irritation for a small segment of the population, they are undoubtedly much more recommendable than traditional soaps."

"Soap itself has been relegated to the traditional crafts sector – a memory of a time when cosmetics were not widely used and when people used the same soap for their bodies and their clothes."

 

[jules92207]

Scary, huh, not_ally!

 

[not_ally]

Definitely. Although I hope/think that the kind of people that read this will either be people that actually believe it or totally disagree w/it, ie; it won't change many minds. I just wish there was an equally well-funded lobby on our side, but if wishes were horses ....

 

[galaxyMLP]

Actually, Im one of those people who neither agrees nor explicitly disagrees with the posting.

I truly believe that there are many people who can not use soap (at least not commercial soaps) and thus have turned to syndet bars. Many many people swear by their syndet bars and I know I'm one of those people that is actually is better off using syndets in general. I love my soaps though and worked very hard to find recipes that actually work for me. Of course, that took time. Now I love my soaps! But, I still find myself using syndets (the ones with added moisturizers) b/c every once in a while my skin gets mad at me for using real soap (even with my 100% oo or mostly lard soap with no coconut oil)

I'm sure there are many people out there that try real soap, get dried out, and just stop using it. I used to HATE real soap.

Mind you, I really don't like the way that the article is written. It's snobbish and downplays the fact that some people (actually a large portion) can't use syndets. And that soap is " for crafters". It's definitely not only for cragters and has quite a large market today.

I guess I'm one of those weird people that likes both real soap and syndets. I must just be sensitive to cleansers in general.

 

[not_ally]

Thanks for posting, Galaxy. That is good to know, I pretty much assumed most of that was industry propaganda. It makes sense that there are people who cannot use soap, just like there are people who cannot use syndets. I guess blanket statements are best avoided on both sides. The thing that bothered me the most was the sort of blanket approach on that site.

And the fact that there was no disclosure that it was industry sponsored, I hate it when industry lobbying (on any topic I am interested in, not just soap) is disguised as objective/impartial information without disclosure, I respect the information, and trust it more, when the source is honestly presented, even when I disagree with the content.

 

[galaxyMLP]

Thanks for posting, Galaxy. That is good to know, I pretty much assumed most of that was industry propaganda. It makes sense that there are people who cannot use soap, just like there are people who cannot use syndets. I guess blanket statements are best avoided on both sides. The thing that bothered me the most was the sort of blanket approach on that site.

And the fact that there was no disclosure that it was industry sponsored, I hate it when industry lobbying (on any topic I am interested in, not just soap) is disguised as objective/impartial information without disclosure, I respect the information, and trust it more, when the source is honestly presented, even when I disagree with the content.

I tend to like to articles that come from REPUTABLE journals. I stress reputable because one of my professors let me know that bogus journals are popping up all over the place lately. That makes it even harder for your average person to discern a good article from a bad one. Apparently they seek out anyone and simply make them pay to have their article featured. You should never pay to have your article featured. And it's usually suuuuper hard to get published in a good one!

Obviously, this "blog post" was propaganda for the company that funded it. I don't like how it was written at all. Not all blog posts or industry funded research is as such though. Even if a company originally funds research, good science should prevail. This is the case with many reputable journals. Research is never free and its OK for "big pharma" and big industry to fund stuff. That's how innovation is sometimes made. What's not OK is a company skewing information into their favor. This is my opinion on the matter! Sorry for hijacking post! Also, the lady referred to in the beginning was just being a big -you know what-.