Debate

[Chrishaglerr]

So i'm sure this will cause quite the debate but it's something I have been pondering the last few months after reading some reply to threads on here regarding melt and pour soap additives.

So, a while back I made a post asking about additives and how much to add (I think it was rose hip oil) to my melt and pour base. I received multiple replies with the same outlook... "The additives won't really have a effect on the skin because as soon as you lather up, you rinse all of the suds off thus not leaving enough time for the additives to really work".

Now, this was for Melt and Pour but when I searched the Cold Process threads, everyone is raving about how they use additives for the benefits it could have on skin.

My question is, what is the difference? Melt and Pour soap and Cold Process in the end both lather up and rinse off the same.

Hopefully I can hear your input and we can discuss this.

PS: I use tons of additives in my melt in pour without cutting lather and I can see/feel a difference than just using the base itself without additives.

Thanks!

 

[DeeAnna]

I don't see a big difference in the attitude about additives in CP or HP soap vs. M&P if you're talking about additives that "nourish" the skin. There are plenty of responses on the lye-based forum to use such additives in a lotion or leave-on product rather than a wash-off product like soap, but perhaps you've missed them due to the much higher traffic. ETA: Here's a good example: http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?p=561363

There's the additional issue with lye-based soap that the lye itself reacts with additives (such as the rosehip oil you mentioned), sometimes in unpredictable ways. There is no way to know (short of hiring an analytical chem lab) whether the "nourishing" benefits even survive the lye.

Now if you're talking about additives that modify the amount or quality of the lather, the skin feel of the soap during use, the hardness of the soap, etc. then that's a different story. We know some additives do create those benefits in CP or HP. But those kinds of additives generally don't work in M&P.

 

[Navaria]

Different people have different beliefs on the benefits of additives in soaps. Some will say there is no benefit to adding silk/jojoba/clays/EO's or anything else to any wash off product. Or that there is no benefit to using more expensive oils. Others will say there is a benefit and they wouldn't dream of making soap without their additives of choice. If YOU feel they make a difference in your soap, then by all means use them. If people who you've given your soap to think they make a difference, use them!
As far as your question, you're right. There wouldn't be a difference between the way the end products work. soap is soap is soap as far as how it behaves.

 

[Chrishaglerr]

I don't see a big difference in the attitude about additives in CP or HP soap vs. M&P if you're talking about additives that "nourish" the skin. There are plenty of responses on the lye-based forum to use such additives in a lotion or leave-on product rather than a wash-off product like soap, but perhaps you've missed them due to the much higher traffic. ETA: Here's a good example: http://www.soapmakingforum.com/showthread.php?p=561363

There's the additional issue with lye-based soap that the lye itself reacts with additives (such as the rosehip oil you mentioned), sometimes in unpredictable ways. There is no way to know (short of hiring an analytical chem lab) whether the "nourishing" benefits even survive the lye.

Now if you're talking about additives that modify the amount or quality of the lather, the skin feel of the soap during use, the hardness of the soap, etc. then that's a different story. We know some additives do create those benefits in CP or HP. But those kinds of additives generally don't work in M&P.

Thanks for the quick response! I was leaning more towards how the additives nourish the skin. I've just seen so many people saying how additives nourish the skin in CP but as soon as I talk about additives nourishing skin in M&P, it's like the world flips upside down haha. From the knowledge that I have about soap making, I can't see there being a difference.

But I like to keep my mind open and learn from others so I wanted to see if anyone had any more input on this.

I never thought about the additive possibly not "surviving" with the lye in CP.

Thanks for the reply! :mrgreen:

Different people have different beliefs on the benefits of additives in soaps. Some will say there is no benefit to adding silk/jojoba/clays/EO's or anything else to any wash off product. Or that there is no benefit to using more expensive oils. Others will say there is a benefit and they wouldn't dream of making soap without their additives of choice. If YOU feel they make a difference in your soap, then by all means use them. If people who you've given your soap to think they make a difference, use them!
As far as your question, you're right. There wouldn't be a difference between the way the end products work. soap is soap is soap as far as how it behaves.

Navaria,

Thanks for your reply! That's my thoughts as well. My customers have seen great results from using my soap w/ the additives but I got to thinking maybe they would see even better results with CP and the same additives. But as you said, in the end result. Soap is soap.

Thank you!

 

[earlene]

I think the only way an additive that purportedly provides nourishment or other additional benefits in addition to getting the skin clean would last at all is in a bathtub with a good long soak. Granted, it would become very dilute in a tubful of water, but the the immediate 'wash off' as with a quick hand wash is not the same.

Or no rinse at all, which I would never suggest to anyone, even thought that's basically what happens when I get out of a tub. Rarely have I showered after a tub bath to get all the residual soap off. But then rarely do I take tub baths.

 

[IrishLass]

I was leaning more towards how the additives nourish the skin. I've just seen so many people saying how additives nourish the skin in CP but as soon as I talk about additives nourishing skin in M&P, it's like the world flips upside down haha. From the knowledge that I have about soap making, I can't see there being a difference.

Sounds like you may have been spending too much time over on some of the FB soap-making groups. lol :mrgreen:

Anyway, I 100% ditto every point that DeeAnna made.


IrishLass

 

[Arimara]

I'm one of those of a different camp. Soap is soap but not all soaps are equal. All soaps may rinse off and clean you but some additives do have effects that last. Coffee soap is the best example I have as, to my fuzzy knowledge, it's the only soap I can trust when I don't want to smell like I've been cutting a 25 lb bag of onions. Soaps with certain clays and even some EOs have don't a better job at managing my facial breakouts, even when I use different soaps within the same brand. Some additives have ill effects on my skin like certain micas and oxides. I really think this is something that just boils down to how sensitive some people are to soaps.

 

[dixiedragon]

I know that I generally respond with "soap is a wash-off product, if you want it to stay on your skin, use it in lotion". It really depends on the additive. IMO, rosehip oil is too expensive to put in a wash-off product. If I was making a rosehip oil soap, I would definitely hot process. But that's me. It may be very possible that your skin loves it.

 

[Arimara]

I know that I generally respond with "soap is a wash-off product, if you want it to stay on your skin, use it in lotion". It really depends on the additive. IMO, rosehip oil is too expensive to put in a wash-off product. If I was making a rosehip oil soap, I would definitely hot process. But that's me. It may be very possible that your skin loves it.

Rosehip oil is a premium oil? In that case, it would be a sheer waste. Lotions and whipped creams are better for that sort of oil.