squidstings
Well-Known Member
Disregarding superfats and post trace a dditives that aren't bound up by saponification... If one recipe can "strip" nutrients from the skin, why couldn't other recipes give nutrients to the skin?I don't believe in the term 'conditioning' when it comes to soap. Those were my 2 cents about soap with cleansing number of 24 being theoretically too harsh, as mentioned earlier in the thread. My theory is it shouldn't if it's with FCO instead of regular CO. There are still a lot of contradictions in the database of the calculators we use, and the supposed qualities of a bar are subject to interpretation.
'"Soap is soap" it cleans...That might explain "cleansing". Would be a nice, simple, explanation. I can dream'
While all properly made soap cleans, some bars are more stripping than others. So it makes sense to say that some clean more. The cleansing number in the calculator is there for a reason. While I don't mind soap high in lauric/myristic (with CO as high as 33% of oil weight, or even 100% with high SF), there are people whose skin is sensitive and doesn't react well to CO even at 15%. So that's something to consider.
'I find info like "i got this result..." FAR more valuable and reliable. Everyone I've spoken to, who knows chemistry, keeps saying that polarity should be a problem for me, after I've already shared anecdotes about years of successful incorporation of colloidal silver, and more recently gold.'
To me, adding gold to soap is the same as adding silver to toothpaste and diamonds and rubies to shampoo. To those who claim otherwise and see actual benefits, I say 'placebo'.
Since you bring up "silver in toothpaste" after experiencing the type of oral health from both commercial products compared to simple distilled water with colliodal silver in it, post buckle bar damage... Well, I just hope your armchair is REALLY comfy! But This isn't an oral health thread.
Last edited: