Review! Algenist with Alguronic Acid Regenerative Anti-Aging Moisturizer

I got this as a sample from Sephora.  The sample only had enough for one use.  A full-sized tub costs $90.

They say:
"While pursuing renewable energy solutions, a biotechnology laboratory in San Francisco unexpectedly discovered the powerful regenerative properties of alguronic acid, the bioactive compound available only in Algenist products."

I thought it smelled really bad - almost like nail polish remover.  It also stung a little bit when I first applied it (yes, I applied it even though it smelled bad).  As it was a sample, it shouldn't have been expired, and some of the reviews on Sephora mention a bad smell, but some say that it doesn't smell at all, or smells pleasant.


I'd like to smell a bottle of it in-store, to see if the smell of the sample I got was a fluke.  I am extremely interested to try this for a longer period of time, but it's a pretty steep price tag for a product that you won't really know if it works until you've used it constantly for several weeks.

I also noticed that there is a distinct lack of other bloggers with before and after photos using this line of products.  It seems as if, were this a miracle in a bottle, the blogger world would have gone crazy by now and reviews wouldn't be vary sparse.


Additionally, the claims made on Sephora for the research results say:
Research results:
In comparison testing, Alguronic Acid outperformed other well-known active antiaging ingredients, demonstrating superior antiaging benefits. Average results measured following an in vitro test with Alguronic Acid:
- 55% increase in cellular regeneration
- 32% increase in elastin synthesis
- 26% decrease in melanin production
Following a self-assessment of 100 women, within 10 days of daily use:
- Skin density (suppleness, elasticity) is restored in 86% of subjects.
- Skin radiance is boosted in 93% of subjects.
Within 4 weeks of daily use:
- Deep wrinkles are minimized in 78% of subjects.
- Skin is noticeably tightened and lifted in 81% of subjects.

The issue I have here is that the results that showed the 55% increase in cellular regeneration, the 32% increase in elastin synthesis, and the 26% decrease in melanin production were all done in vitro, which means the product was performed on cells within a test tube, basically, and were not performed on skin actually living on a person's face.

Furthermore, the results of actual people were all done by self-assessment, and the percentage of change is the percentage of people who noticed any change at all, and not the average percentage of actual improvement.

This type of percentage reporting is pretty common in the cosmetics industry, but I think it bothers me more here, because this brand is purporting itself to be extremely science-based.  All big-name cosmetics companies have chemists employed, so science (at some level) is employed in most cosmetics.  But, this brand is really upping the science factor, and I think percentage reporting of this type relies on the typical consumer to not be savvy enough with technical grammar to catch the subtle differences from the in vitro tests to the self-assessments.

Finally, I searched for the clinical trials results, but I haven't been able to find them online. 

Overall, I'd have to call this review inconclusive.  The sample wasn't big enough to get results from, and the information I found online wasn't convincing enough to place reliance on.