Kalisa’s Quest:
The last time I was having my hair done, I asked my stylist to help me find some product for my hair. I told him that I’d tried several different things, but I just can’t achieve the look I’m going for. I want to know how to get that slightly wet, slightly “greasy” look, without it being “crunchy,” and he said, “You need a product with silicone” and sold me something [Bumble & Bumble defrizz] with “cyclopentasiloxane” as the main ingredient. Why do you suppose he recommended silicone and what purpose does it serve in a hair product?
The Right Brain Says:
We’re glad your stylist recommended this silicone because it’s one of our mostest favorite ingredients in the whole wide world! In fact, the Left Brain has even written a short musical tribute to Cyclopenatasiloxane (or ‘Siloxane, as we like to refer to it.) I’m not really supposed to share it with you, but what the heck….
(sung to the tune of the “Troggs’ Wild Thing”)
‘Siloxane…you make my hair shine…
You make everything
Shiny
I said ‘Siloxane…
‘Siloxane, I think I love you
But I wanna know for sure
Comb in, hair is bright
I love you
It kind of brings a tear to your eye, doesn’t it? Now, on to your answer.
Cyclopentasiloxane (or CPS for short) is one of many types of silicones. In general, silcones are known for their ability to lubricate, waterproof and provide shine. (Think “Armor All” for your head.) There are many types of silcones – some have a very heavy, sticky consistency and others are very lightweight. CPS is a water-thin so it’s very good at dispersing thicker, greasier silicones. For this reason it’s often used in combination with dimethicone. It is also volatile, which means it will evaporate. So, not only does it help spread heavier silicones but it doesn’t leave your hair feeling weighed down after it’s done.
In rinse off products CPS is used to create a very lubricious, wet slippery feel. In the kinds of leave on styling products that you asked about, it can give you the wet but not crunchy look you’re seeking. Of course, the other ingredients in the formula make a difference too, but that’s why your stylist recommended something based on CPS.
The Beauty Brains bottom line:
CPS is one of our fave ingredients – it provides a very elegant feel on the hair, it works well with other ingredients, and it can be used in leave on and rinse off products. What more could you ask for from an ingredient?
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 82 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
@crazylady, we don’t care if you buy cyclomethicone or not. You don’t need it (or any cosmetics for that matter) so if you’re frightened of it, don’t buy it. There is just no good scientific reason to avoid it. You do so out of fear and unsubstantiated beliefs. But if that’s how you want to make decisions in your life, go ahead.
I personally use pure jojoba oil on my skin. It works wonders and absorbs quickly. I also mix it with a bit of pure aloe vera and royal jelly for an awesome tightning face cream. The funny thing is that most of these large companies have you paying top dollar for a product that contains very little of the good stuff (jojoba, or other fine oils). So I prefer to buy it in it’s pure form. It’s cheaper, very accesible (any natural foods store has it, I go to Whole Foods) and you know exactly what you are putting on your skin.
Why risk cancer? We women have enough cancer threats to worry about as is!
@Jules – why would you think jojoba oil poses any less cancer risk than cyclomethicone?
Only natural ingredients or certain drugs sink into the skin, it’s why natural oils are used with aromatherapy massage, so the plant oils sink in. Products made from crude oil such as paraffin or baby oil stay on top of the skin to give a plastic coating and it’s why baby oil is used with most massage because it keeps the hands gliding. Products made from the production of crude oil don’t nourish the skin or hair, but give it a coating to keep moisture in or in the case of baby oil, it protects the skin from urine.
The level of ineptitude here is astouding, and I’m not talking about the Brains, who have ably defended their take on this issue. After years of working in this industry and talking to thousands of consumers, it’s very sad how ignorant so many of them are. But it’s what the cosmetics industry counts on to a large extent, and why so many “natural” and “organic” lines are sprouting.
Oi, I dunno how long since this was posted, but I just have to say BRAVO, Brains, for standing up against the flood of Ignorant People Who Never Took Basic Science.
And then I want to chime in with my love for organosilicones. Love, love, love
Works so well for my hair, keeps it quite tangle-free and neat – as far as thin, wavy, waist-long hair ever stays neat when loose, of course 
Speaking of the level of ignorance, it pertains to those who advocate cancerogen (and reproductive-, neuro-, immuno-, etc toxicants) to be used in cosmetics and poison people.
If you are using them yourself.. that’s fine, use them more and there’ll be less ignorant people on this Earch. But please don’t suggest them to others.
Regarding why jojoba oil is less likely to cause cancer than cyclopentasiloxane: because animal studies have been done. This and many other chemicals poison your system on many levels, as many of them have the ability to enter the bloodstream; they don’t just damage your hair and your skin.
@Xanix – show me the studies both the ones demonstrating cyclomethicone to be a carcinogen & jojoba oil being safe.
It amazes me how everyone seems to be an expert. Ann, if you know so much about rosehip oil, and create your own line of products to use on your skin, why don’t you have your own website where you can tell people how to make it themselves? Instead you come here, and continually bicker about CPS. The internet has all kinds of information about anything you can possibly imagine and there are websites that will disagree with other sites on how beneficial a product is. Instead of looking through magazine sites and Wikipedia, find scientific research sites and use them as your argument. Otherwise, you’re just giving another opinion, and nothing that can benefit this topic.
In response to this ingredient causing cancer: Everything and your mother can cause cancer now-a-days. Breathing can give you cancer, eating can give you cancer, shampoo can give you cancer, your genes can give you cancer, what you drink can give you cancer, the sun can give you cancer, viruses can give you cancer. I bet they’ll come out with a study soon saying milk can give you cancer. Man, I should get me a bubble with a filtration system that can keep sub atomic particles from getting through so the electricity in protons don’t give me cancer.
Grow up people. This site helped me to understand exactly how this ingredient effects hair and skin, much better than Wikipedia who just said that it has the ability to lubricate, waterproof and provide shine. I have a body butter by the brand Hempz, and it is the best moisturizer I have ever used. I notice that my skin stays softer for longer by using this product. CPS is the 6th ingredient on the list. I’m using it to keep my new tattoo from drying out. Uh oh, that’s a fresh wound, is it really healed yet? Oh no! It’s going to absorb into my skin and give me cancer! *end sarcasm* I’m still amazed at the constant debate of opinion. We all know what they say about opinions, right?
Why is everyone trying to tell the Brains that they are wrong when clearly they have studied this subject way more then the average citizen. And for the debate on the ability of the skin to absorb everything, first of all yes skin is the largest organ, but it is there as a PROTECTIVE BARRIER. Why would a protective barrier that is supposed to PROTECT the inner chemical reactions let every chemical applied to it go into the body and interfer with those chemical reactions that makes you in good health? duh… some people need to read a little bit about biology first.
+1 for the brains
-1 for the stupid b…. yes it ends with an h
To the “brains” behind this operation,
Wow. Firstly, of course things are absorbed into our skin. Ever heard of mercury poisoning? It can happen simply by holding a drop of it in your hand. Secondly – the reason why we don’t directly absorb food? That’s called absorption – done by fungi – and only made possible because they secrete enzymes to digest the food outside of themselves. Why? Some molecules are bigger than others – some are too big to fit through our skin barrier completely, and we can’t use nutrients that are not broken down into base components. If you need proof of these facts, try higher education – it may help you understand things a little more. Buy a biology text, or take a gander at some organic chemistry.
Skin is fatty and protective, yes, but it is porous. Also, organic compounds are soluble in oil and fat, and so have an easier time penetrating. No biological barrier is absolute. Max – maybe you should do more than read a little bit about biology. You probably think that that high school course makes you a semi-expert. Chemistry could help you out there, too.
Bottom line: the fact that the “brains” are fighting so hard to justify the use of this compound demonstrates their own denial and inability to let go of some of their favorite cosmetics. What we do know about it is that it is definitely an environmental risk.
Lastly, I would like to say this:
I find it hilarious that you people are asking for proof – proof that you wouldn’t even understand given a reaction mechanism or a report. Pathetic. What kind of proof could be given that you would both understand and accept? The government is actually the most trustworthy place to get such scientific assessments, as the scientists and researchers and council members (I know they exist – I’ve taken classes from them) are not being bribed by companies. If you get information from private companies, it will be biased. Check out the plastic baby bottle scandal, and all of the false research going on there. Get your facts straight.
@Biology Major – thanks for your comments and your ever-so-helpful ad hominem logical fallacies. Maybe when you graduate you’ll be able to think more scientifically rather than dogmatically about chemicals.
We would be happy to let go of using any chemical that is proven unsafe. Where’s your evidence? You fill these pages up with nothing but opinion and attacks on other people. How about using your brain, doing a little research and positively contributing to the conversation.
You have a perspective and claim to be a scientist. Now prove what you’re saying. We accept what the government says as proof (until other evidence changes that position). The US FDA has no problems with Cyclomethicone in cosmetics. Why do you?
People if you do not want to use paraben or chemical shampoo’s makeup etc. You can use organic shampoos that are amazing and will not strip your hair color and it leaves your shiny and soft. You do not need all those nasty chemical products. eg: Alba, Avalon Organics,Giovanni organic Hair Care, Live clean hair care. Makeup Zuzu Luxe makeup, Fresh Minerals and Pur minerals. Creams derma E and Avalon, Kiss my face are all great products that I like and recommend to other people all the time.
If you want to rate your products check out this web site:
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/
Beautybrains you have a lot of nerve to say that. Corporations run the FDA/ govt they are call lobbyist. Why is it when you look up chemicals they phrase it in a certain way that they are doing on going research! It may cause cancer but not for sure?? They do this to save there asses so we the people cannot sue these corporations. It’s all about profit. Parabens are bad. Parabens are found in breast cancer lumps. Why is cancer on such an upraise? My mother is a nurse on a cancer floor so don’t tell me Missy that everything is all good. If you believe these chemists and govt 100% you are the fool….
Corporations don’t run the FDA and beauty corporations are not out to kill their customers.
You may believe parabens are bad but reasonable, non-evil scientists who have examined all the actual scientific evidence wouldn’t agree with you.
p.s. Here are some more facts for you fact-hungry babes. The FDA’s “approval” of parabens is based SOLELY on two (2) studies by the Cosmetics Ingredients Review. This ‘independent’ body was co-founded by the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmetic,_Toiletry,_and_Fragrance_Association). How much are you going to trust its findings?
You also need to think about where most of these studies are coming from. Who is more likely to be studying these ingredients, cosmetics companies or independent scientists?
On an unrelated subject, the ‘biology student’ above made some valid points about absorbtion of chemicals through the skin — which you dismissed as an ‘ad hominem’ attack. Not very professional. I can’t believe you didn’t call up ‘Max’ on his total ignorance of how the skin functions!!
“Non-evil scientists”???? Are you girls for real?? Oh right, you are the ‘good’ scientists because you work in the cosmetics industry (they do, my friends, just check out their ‘about’ page). But not to worry, we can trust you because you stay ‘anonymous’ in order to be ‘unbiased’. Since when does anonymity magically confer lack of bias? Your angry and unfounded posts on this page and elsewhere, show just how biased you are. As does the fact that you deleted my original post (thanks, by the way…i expended more than the usual modicum of effort i put into online meanderings, not that it matters to you).
Let me try to summarise what I wrote in the deleted post.
I would suggest that you read about the history of the FDA and witness the extent to which it rushes through approval of substances due to industry lobbying. In any case, the FDA does NOT actually regulate cosmetics ingredients, so this is a moot point. Given limited resources, how much time do you think the FDA will spend on verifying the claims of industry-funded research (see also my “p.s.” below)? Also, you seem quite happy to point out that the FDA finds parabens ’safe’, whilst further up in this thread you say that “Regulatory agencies are run by lawyers not scientists. So, the decisions made by governments are not scientific ones”. I’m sorry, but that’s just too funny!
The bottom line is that silicones and parabens are cheap, unnecessary ingredients. Sand may be ‘natural’ but do you seriously imagine that it has benefits for your hair or your face? Besides, by claiming that silicones are essentially ’sand’ you betray yet again your lack of scientific nous. Silicon (the correct spelling) is not sand, it’s a metalloid, with its own classification as an element in the periodic table (Si). Silicones for cosmetic and other uses are derived from Silicon via chemical processes. One of the most common precursors to silicones is the industrially-produced Dimethyldichlorosilane, formed by reacting silicon with methyl chloride using a copper compound as a catalyst. Does that sound natural to you? Besides, by-products of these processes are harmful to the environment, another good reason to boycott them.
Ultimately, silicones are fillers whose only purpose is to make your skin “FEEL” smooth so that the companies can pretend that the product is actually doing something. It doesn’t ‘moisturize’ your skin, it coats it in an occlusive barrier that allegedly prevents moisture from ‘escaping’ (I haven’t seen any proof that this surface moisture does anything useful for your skin in any case, and moreover, why would you want to trap comedogenic oils next to the skin?) — but also by the same token stifles your skin and prevents it from breathing, potentially leading to cell death. Whenever I’ve used a high-silicone product like a primer, my skin has felt prickly and unpleasant, and I couldn’t wait to wash it off.
As for parabens, since they are preservatives that do nothing for your skin, my recommendation would be to avoid them.
Here are some more facts about your favourite ingredients (see the scientific studies cited at the bottom of these pages):
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/ingredient.php?ingred06=704450&refurl=%2Fwordsearch.php%3Fquery%3Dparabens%26
ah i see that my original comment has reappeared, although it’s still awaiting moderation. thanks very much! xxx
Delay has to do with our Spam filter. Whenever someone puts more than one link in a post, it automatically gets put into moderation for us to check later.
Your inability to make an argument without employing logical fallacies like ad hominems and straw man arguments makes it difficult to take you seriously. The Skin Deep cosmetic “database” is not based on science, rather it is a collection of skewed data and isn’t taken serious. It would be a great resource if they had a better filtering method for collecting data. But it’s not an organization run by scientists. It’s run by lawyers & politicians so the manipulation of data is not surprising.
Incidentally, the silicon used to make silicones in the cosmetic industry comes from sand.
If you don’t like silicones or parabens, don’t use them. But don’t pretend your objection to them is based on science. It’s based on your personal belief that “chemicals are bad” and “natural things are good”. We prefer to make decisions based on science, rather than irrational beliefs.
Biology students points are not supported by any scientific research.
The difference between you and us is that if we were shown valid scientific evidence, we would be more than happy to change our view. We don’t have any stake in whether people use cyclomethicone or parabens or any other chemical. If something is demonstrated to cause problems, we’ll look for alternatives.
I doubt there is any data you could ever see that would convince you silicones or parabens are safe. Your knowledge is not based on logic but based on belief. You are so committed to your belief that you reject any conflicting information. We are not hampered by such limitations.
If you have some scientific proof that these chemicals are harmful, where is it? (Try looking somewhere beyond the non-scientific Skin Deep database). How about something in a peer reviewed, scientific journal?
By the way thebeautybrains how is your skin doing? Do you look like plastic barbie yet? Since you swear by all these toxic chemicals. Do you use botox as well?
My skin is great! Thanks. I eat well, don’t smoke, and make liberal use of chemical sunscreens.
I would never use botox. That’s a natural toxin.
Recently a brand called “Red Earth” decreased their prices from $67 to
$9.90. It contained lead. Lead is a chemical which causes cancer.
The Brands which contain lead are:
1.. CHRISTIAN DIOR
2. LANCOME
3. CLINIQUE
4. Y.S.L
5. ESTEE LAUDER
6. SHISEIDO
7. RED EARTH (Lip Gloss)
8. CHANEL (Lip Conditioner)
9. MARKET AMERICA-MOTNES LIPSTICK.
*The higher the lead content, the greater the chance of causing cancer*.
After doing a test on lipsticks, it was found that the Y.S.L. lipstick
contained the most amount of lead.
Watch out for those lipsticks which are supposed to stay longer. If your
lipstick stays longer, it is because of the higher content of lead.
This information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center Dioxin Carcinogens causes cancer, especially breast cancer.
I do believe this. Do you believe this?
Where is your proof? Can you provide a link to any scientific journal, paper or other reference for the things you have claimed? Where is the test on lipstick that found YSL contained the most amount of lead?
Incidentally, higher lead content is not how chemists make lipsticks stay on longer. It is done by using film forming polymers which do not contain lead.
I don’t how I can get back the last 10 minutes of my life (spent reading the comments on this page), but I have to say – I don’t understand why all of these, ahem, idiots, make claims but fail to back them up with references to genuine scientific studies.
That said, I believe it is healthy to have a bit of distrust for anything you read anywhere, because there are forces that are out there that do not have your best interests in mind. To cite just one source for evidence of this fact, check out the book “The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What to Do About It” by Dr. Marcia Angell; she was an editor-in-chief at the New England Journal of Medicine.
Also, we now know that the tobacco industry was willing to lie to continue slowly killing their customers, so I don’t put any faith in the idea that companies “look out” for their customers.
Remember: You can buy anything in this world with money. Anything.
I think the best answer is this: assume responsibility for yourself and the chemicals you use. Don’t abdicate this to others and then complain when things don’t work out.
To: Beauty “Brains”
Those wonderful chemical sunscreens that you love..have a warning on the label. Not to administer on the skin of children under 6 months of age, because
of the chemicals that are absorbed into the skin. Want proof?..look at your tube of sunscreen. It really is o.k.
to learn something new!
Because of these comments I have chosen not to purchase a
moisturizer that had the 2nd ingredient as CPS…Thank you!
I have researched some ingredients in the past and sometimes the beauty brains comes up and I’ll read your article and the comments. It seems that thebeautybrains gets into fights quite often when someone disagrees.
“Your knowledge is not based on logic but based on belief. You are so committed to your belief that you reject any conflicting information.”
I really think this applies to yourself more than anyone else.
My hair stylist says that people with curly hair should not use any hair products with silicon in them because curly hair can break more easily and tends to be dryer than straight hair; and its better to use a leave in conditioner. The silicon causes curly hair to over tangle and causes the curl to be weighted down, thus destroying to real shape and bounce of the curl.
LOL @ the ‘hiding behind the chewing gum’ comment…well….i just bought a new conditioner and CPS is the third ingredient listed- , which means its one of the major components of the product…i was super excited when i saw that its an emollient…i must say that after reading these responses, i do have soem misgivings now BUT —how many other alledgedly bad things have i used on my skin and hair over the past many years that I dont even know about? Countless, i suppose.
So therefore, i’m going to use this conditioner, adding soem natural oils to it to increase its…beneficial value…if I find it to work for MY hair, then i’ll buy another bottle, if not, I wont. But thanks for all the info here —this just made me think, remember at one point coconut oil was the black sheep of natural oils? Well, well….what are we hearing now? Now its the miracle oil for skin and hair?
I live in the tropics where coconut and coconut oil is used in abundance, and we are now just smiling at this ‘new find’ in the industry, cause we’ve been consuming coconut and its byproducts for years, with great results and healh benefits. Sometimes we just need to try things for ourselves before we judge.
If you put the conditioner on your hair, and makes sure that none of it touches yoru scalp….would the alledged danger of the CPS matter? since hair is dead anyway? I think this is what i’ll do, since its hardly likely that i will be throwing out my conditioner.
← Previous Comments