Hype vs. Evidence - the truth about raw materials

4 days ago
8 min read

The Hype Cycle of “Breakthrough” Ingredients

Every few months, a new “miracle” ingredient lands in the cosmetic world, complete with glowing claims, glossy marketing and the promise of being the next big thing. You’ll see bold phrases like “clinically proven,” “patent-pending,” and “five times more effective than niacinamide.” The problem? Most of these ingredients launch before there’s any real data to back them up.

Here’s how the cycle usually goes:

A raw material supplier develops or licenses a new compound.
A brand picks it up, builds an entire marketing campaign around it, and releases a product touting “revolutionary science.”
Influencers and formulators start talking about it, posting early reviews.
By the time independent researchers actually publish a study—if they ever do—the marketing machine has already moved on to the next shiny thing.

This isn’t necessarily malicious; it’s just how the beauty industry works. R&D teams want to be first to market, not last to publish. Unfortunately, that means consumers and indie formulators are often the test subjects long before any peer-reviewed validation exists.

A perfect example of this cycle is Disodium Succinoyl Farnesylcysteine (SFC)—the new buzzword active featured in Bryan Johnson’s Blueprint skincare line. According to marketing claims, SFC is “five times more powerful than niacinamide” for reducing visible signs of aging. Sounds impressive, right?

But here’s the catch: those numbers come from brand-funded studies, not independent, peer-reviewed research. There’s no published human trial comparing SFC head-to-head with niacinamide under controlled conditions.

The studies that do exist are internal, small in scale, and designed to promote commercial use of the ingredient.

Contrast that with niacinamide—a humble, unassuming B-vitamin that’s been studied for over 40 years across hundreds of independent papers. Its benefits are documented through randomized, double-blind human trials. We know how it behaves at different concentrations, what skin types it suits, how it interacts with other actives, and where its limits are.

Niacinamide doesn’t need to shout from the rooftops to be credible. Its results speak through decades of reproducible science.

SFC, on the other hand, is the new kid on the block—intriguing, yes, but still waiting for validation. Until we see independent data, it belongs in the “promising but pending” category, not the “proven powerhouse” shelf.

The Real Science: What Actually Counts as Proof

When you read “clinically proven” or “scientifically tested” on a product label, it sounds reassuring — but not all testing is created equal. In cosmetic chemistry, there’s a massive difference between a promising lab result and a proven human result.

Let’s unpack the three main tiers of evidence you’ll see tossed around:

In vitro (“in glass”) studies
These are laboratory tests performed on isolated skin cells, enzymes, or synthetic membranes. They’re valuable for exploring a molecule’s potential — for example, showing antioxidant activity or enzyme inhibition — but they don’t tell you how that ingredient behaves on actual skin.
Think of it as the ingredient auditioning for the role, not performing on stage yet.
Ex vivo (“outside the living body”) studies
Here, researchers test the ingredient on donated skin samples or reconstructed skin models. It’s a step closer to reality because there’s a full skin structure, but it’s still not the same as living human tissue with blood flow, microbiome, and daily environmental exposure.
In vivo (“in the living”) studies
This is the gold standard — real humans, real conditions, and measurable outcomes like hydration, wrinkle depth, or transepidermal water loss (TEWL).
Peer-reviewed in vivo studies are where an ingredient officially graduates from “theory” to “trusted active.”

Now, here’s where many brands blur the lines. They’ll highlight in vitro data as though it’s human proof, or reference a single unpublished internal trial and call it “clinically tested.”

For example, those glowing claims around Disodium Succinoyl Farnesylcysteine? They likely stem from short, in-house in vivo trials — perhaps ten or twenty volunteers, no control group, and data that’s never been published for scrutiny. That doesn’t make the ingredient fraudulent — it just means the evidence sits at the lowest tier of reliability until more robust studies appear.

Contrast that again with niacinamide. Its benefits — improved barrier function, reduced sebum production, diminished hyperpigmentation — have all been confirmed repeatedly through peer-reviewed, double-blind, placebo-controlled human trials across diverse demographics. That’s what “proof” looks like.

So the next time you see a new “bio-peptide” or “quantum antioxidant” claiming impossible results, ask yourself:

Has it been tested on skin cells or on people?
Who paid for the study?
And most importantly, where was it published?

If you can’t trace the citation back to a legitimate journal — like the International Journal of Cosmetic Science or Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology — it’s marketing, not evidence.

How to Research Like a Pro (a.k.a. The 5-Step Reality Filter)

So, how do you separate science from spin? The truth is, you don’t need a PhD or a $1,000,000 lab — just a process.

Here’s the exact system I use to research, every time a shiny new raw material hits my inbox:

Step 1: Start with PubMed or Google Scholar

Search the INCI name first — not the trade name. If nothing comes up, try the CAS number, if available.

Look for peer-reviewed journals, not brand blogs or sponsored white papers. If the only hits are press releases, Pinterest charts, or supplier brochures, that’s your first red flag.

Step 2: Follow the Paper Trail — Patents & Technical Sheets

If you can’t find journal data, hop over to Google Patents or WIPO Patentscope.This is where you’ll often find:

Suggested usage levels
Solvent systems and pH ranges
The real “method of action” behind the marketing buzzwords

A patent isn’t proof of efficacy, but it does show how the manufacturer intends for it to be used — which helps you decide whether it fits into your own formulation style.

Then, grab the supplier’s TDS (Technical Data Sheet) and SDS (Safety Data Sheet). These are your practical blueprints: solubility, compatibility, preservation needs, and stability notes.

Step 3: Cross-Check with Regulatory Databases

Even if an ingredient is exciting, it has to be legally usable where you sell. That’s where regulatory resources like the following, come into play:

CIR (Cosmetic Ingredient Review, U.S.)
SCCS (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, EU)
IFRA (for fragrance limits)
Health Canada Hotlist

If your ingredient doesn’t appear anywhere, that doesn’t mean it’s unsafe — it just means it’s new. Proceed cautiously.

Step 4: Evaluate the Evidence Hierarchy

Once you’ve gathered everything, sort it like this:

Peer-reviewed, human study → gold standard.

Supplier clinical data → interesting, but unverified.

In vitro / cell culture only → theory stage.

No published data → pure marketing.

You don’t have to reject a new ingredient outright — just label it correctly in your notes. I literally tag mine as Verified, Questionable, or Hard Pass so I remember where each one stands.

Step 5: Track Real-World Behavior

Finally, lab-test it yourself. How does it perform at different concentrations? Does it destabilize your emulsion? Affect clarity? Trigger odor or color shifts? The real science happens when data meets your beaker.

When you compare your own lab results with the evidence you found, you’ll instantly know whether the hype holds up.

That’s how I approach it — methodical, repeatable, and 100% drama-proof. Because as fun as buzzwords are, nothing beats the quiet satisfaction of saying:

“Yes, I checked. The data supports it.”

Red Flags to Watch For (and What They Really Mean)

Let’s be honest — the cosmetic industry is a playground for creative marketing.Between buzzwords, pseudo-science, and selective data, it’s easy to get swept up in the sparkle.Here’s how to spot the warning signs hiding behind the pretty packaging:

🚩 “Clinically Proven”

Translation: “We tested it… probably on 10 people, maybe once.” If the study isn’t published or peer-reviewed, it’s just an internal marketing trial. Always look for who conducted the test — and how many people were involved. Real clinical data includes control groups, blinding, and statistics. A brand blog saying “participants noticed smoother skin” doesn’t count.

🚩 “Dermatologist Approved”

Translation: “At least one dermatologist didn’t hate it.” There’s no governing board of dermatologist approvals. Most of the time, it just means a single consultant reviewed the product or the ingredient didn’t cause visible irritation in a small patch test.

🚩 “Patented Technology”

Translation: “We filed paperwork.” A patent means an idea is unique enough to claim, not effective enough to prove. You can patent a mixing method, a delivery system, or even a specific ratio — none of which guarantees real-world performance. Check the patent itself (Google Patents) to see if it’s an ingredient, a marketing spin, or just packaging engineering.

🚩 “Proprietary Complex”

Translation: “You’ll never know what’s in it.” “Proprietary blends” hide the actual composition, concentration, and often the key actives. That’s fine if it’s flavoring in toothpaste — not fine if it’s a skincare serum with unknown irritation potential.

🚩 “Natural” or “Clean”

Translation: “We’re using feel-good words.” Nature makes plenty of irritating, unstable, and allergenic compounds. Synthetic doesn’t automatically mean “bad,” and natural doesn’t automatically mean “gentle. ”In formulation, it’s all about purity, stability, and concentration, not the origin story.

🚩 “Results You Can See Instantly”

Translation: “We added dimethicone, mica, or menthol.” Immediate visible changes are usually cosmetic effects — not biological improvements. Real skin benefits take weeks, not minutes.

🚩 “Miracle Ingredient”

Translation: “We ran out of evidence, so we used adjectives.” Science doesn’t deal in miracles — it deals in mechanisms. If the brand can’t tell you how it works, or cites vague claims like “cell rejuvenation” without details, move on.

Reminder:

Good marketing makes you want the ingredient. Good science makes you trust the ingredient.

Before you buy the hype, ask for the data. If they can’t show it — it probably doesn’t exist.

Why Makers Fall for Hype (And Why It’s Totally Normal)

Let’s be honest — we’ve all been there. You’re scrolling through supplier updates or ingredient spotlights and there it is: the next “revolutionary active.” It promises radiant skin, DNA repair, and probably enlightenment if you mix it at 1%. You feel that familiar tingle of curiosity… and before you know it, you’ve added it to your cart.

That rush isn’t ignorance — it’s chemistry at heart. We’re makers. We’re creators. We’re wired for curiosity. The same excitement that makes you grab a new ester “just to see what it does” is the same drive that makes good formulators great.

Curiosity is great, but it needs to walk beside caution, not run past it.

The cosmetic industry knows this. Marketing teams understand that formulators and indie makers are hungry for innovation. So they don’t just sell ingredients — they sell hope. Hope that you’ve just found the molecule that will set your next product apart.

The truth? Every “breakthrough” ingredient has to survive the same tests: solubility, stability, compatibility, safety, and efficacy. And most? They don’t make it past formulation reality.

But here’s the key: falling for hype isn’t a failure — it’s a learning opportunity. Every time you test an over-promised ingredient and see the truth for yourself, you sharpen your instincts. You learn how to read between the marketing lines, spot weak data faster, and design smarter formulations next time.

So don’t feel bad if you’ve been seduced by the next “quantum peptide” or “smart hydration molecule.” We all have our ingredient crushes. The difference is — you’re now learning to date with data, not drama.

FINAL THOUGHTS

At the end of the day, the beauty industry will always run on excitement — and that’s okay. Curiosity keeps us creative. Innovation keeps the craft alive. But here’s the truth every serious formulator eventually learns:

Research doesn’t kill creativity — it protects it.

When you understand how to separate marketing from molecules, you don’t have to chase trends — you lead them. You decide what deserves a place in your beaker and what belongs in the recycle bin of broken promises.

The next time you see a “revolutionary new active,” ask yourself: