I’ll keep this short, what nutrients can be absorbed fully or partially by the skin, and thus would be a concern to one’s dietary intake?
I have heard that magnesium can be absorbed fully through the skin, and Vitamin D is an obvious one; but what about skin care products containing Vitamin A, C, or E?
Can a nutrient work on the skin but fail to be absorbed deeper (thus no worries of toxicity)?
There is no actual evidence of magnesium being absorbed in any significant quantity through the skin and it’s an extraordinarily unlikely claim. Compounds with zero lipid solubility, as it the case for any magnesium compound, have near-zero transdermal flux. However you are right that there are people that claim it: they just claim it without having any measured evidence at all.
Each of the vitamins you mention can be absorbed transderamlly but the amount absorbed from skin care products would be a small percentage of RDA and there really is no need to try to account for that when trying to figure how much to supplement orally.
I was writing a response earlier and then I decided to wait for you Bill lol.
Is it possible to make a topical cream from pills?
I was reading about a study involving a forskolin cream being rubbed in to the skin of red-haired mice, allowing them to tan. It may not work on humans due to the relative thickness of our skin, but thought it might be interesting to try.
I found no tanning effect from forskolin carbonate (which almost certainly would be hydrolyzed to forskolin before reaching the epidermis, so although it’s true it’s not the same thing, it should be a good predictor.)
The “scientific” bias that most scientists have against testing something on themselves is really a little silly, resulting in silliness such as the authors in the article you mention adding an excited-seeming comment about perhaps having applicability to humans.
It would have been easy enough for them to try personally and then finding nothing, avoid writing such a thing.
For tanning, Melanotan II is highly effective, although sun or other UV is still required.
Thanks for the reply.
I have actually been trying to do some research into Melanotan recently. I have been to a few websites, and it is very expensive! I am also concerned since it is unregulated and I keep reading how the long-term side effects are unknown.
The chances of getting skin cancer by not using the product might be greater than the risks associated with the drug itself though, since I live in Australia.
It’s not terribly expensive. I think I have paid $40 per 10 mg. While people vary, an average figure seems to be about 30 mg total needed for excellent results.
Myself, I think (I don’t remember exactly) that I allowed 2 months to go through the first 30 mg. This was probably unnecessarily cautious: 1 mg/day is generally thought a reasonable rate and is half the rate used in the clinical research.
I don’t know what maintenance is, but it’s pretty low. I was going through probably 10 mg per 2 months for a while, and then quit entirely. It was at least 6 months before there was any sign of needing to restart. Actually I’ve maintained a pretty decent tan without even bothering with any sun during that period.
Though UV exposure is required to activate the process, so to speak, and certainly there’s a reduction in tan if not getting sun for an extended period, but nowhere near back to baseline, in my case.
Personally I surely would do it if I lived in Australia. I will admit though that that is me personally: it’s conceivable there could be a long term adverse effect that is now unknown but personally I think that is very unlikely and I don’t worry about it.
Thanks Bill. I sent you a PM.