Defense Soap: How effective is it, really?

[ignignokt]

There's a soap marketed at grapplers that claims it can prevent staph and ringworm:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/19/bu...rssnyt&emc=rss

I kind of doubt there is any, but has anyone seen any scientific studies done with this stuff? There's a study on the company site that proves it's effective against E. coli, but that's about it.

Failing that, any anecdotal evidence about its efficacy outside of the Defense Soap web site?

[adouglasmhor]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/791934.stm

[WhiteShark]

My sister is in med school. She told me to used Head and Shoulders dandruff shampoo as a body wash after rolling because it kills ringworm. I usually wash up with that real quick then use regular old soap. If you buy the generic version its only like $1.50 a bottle and it lasts a long damn time. As far as anecdotal evidence goes, I watched a patch of mild ringworm I had on my hip for a long time go away in a couple of washes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrithione_zinc

[TheRuss]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/791934.stm

This. Also, if you look at the instructions for a lot of "antibacterial" products, they include something like "let sit for ten minutes" and such. Nobody actually does that, but they still expect to reap the added benefits of whatever added chemicals get tossed in there.

My understanding is that soap is probably antibacterial "enough", in that it rips apart the lipid layer that makes up bacterial cell walls.

Edit: And yeah, Head and Shoulders for ringworm (fungi) makes sense, I suppose.

[JP]

I was in a stretch where I was getting this **** all of the time.

It really sucked and took a while to go away.

My dermatologist's exact words were "this is the most perfect example of tinea I've ever seen."

Yuck.

So he recommended an anti-fungal shampoo after I trained because, apparently, in addition to living in the skin Ringworm can "colonize" in the body and flare up unless you're really diligent about killing it.

I had some good luck with using Nizorel anti-dandruff shampoo. But its more expensive than head and shoulders.

[TheRuss]

In terms of what's actually in this soap:

He instead turned his attention to what are known as natural remedies, finally settling on a combination of tea tree and eucalyptus oils.

I looked into tea tree oil a while ago - it's an ingredient in the liquid bandage I was using. Wikipedia points to this study, which indicates that tea tree oil is legitimate in terms of antifungal action.

Still, five bucks a bar is pretty damn steep, particularly if there are cheaper options available.

[EmetShamash]

Their website claims that it is clinically proven to be effective against MRSA. I would like to find some ingredient lists for their stuff. It sounds pretty impressive if they are not full of ****.

[jnp]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/791934.stm

The anti-bacterial ingredient in these soaps is triclosan, which is not present in the defense soap. Therefore, your post is comparing apples to oranges.

Furthermore, the term anti-bacterial means that it only inhibits bacterial growth. Bactericidal is the term used to denote that a product actually kills the bacteria. The same goes for fungicidal and germicidal.

Links on triclosan:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114795.php
http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/122/antibacterial
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170188,00.html

[Snake Plissken]

In terms of what's actually in this soap:



I looked into tea tree oil a while ago - it's an ingredient in the liquid bandage I was using. Wikipedia points to this study, which indicates that tea tree oil is legitimate in terms of antifungal action.

Still, five bucks a bar is pretty damn steep, particularly if there are cheaper options available.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6318043.stm

You know what sucks:

no matter what you do, it seems like you are fucked.

use this to cure that and the other thing happens.

Anyhow, let us know how your rack develops and pix if it develops nicely.

Thus far, WhiteShark's suggestion of the Head and Shoulders, which I recall him making several months ago, is the most sound I have read.

Unless you wish to bathe in vineager, bleach and rubbing alcohol.

[TheRuss]

The anti-bacterial ingredient in these soaps is triclosan, which is not present in the defense soap. Therefore, your post is comparing apples to oranges.

I can't speak for him, but my point was that the soap itself kills bacteria, so adding another agent (be it triclosan or something else) to kill more bacteria is unproductive unless it does so better in some way.

However, they're also adding ingredients (e.g. tea tree oil) to kill fungi (e.g. ringworm), so it'd behoove us to look at soap's effects on fungi as well.

Furthermore, the term anti-bacterial means that it only inhibits bacterial growth. Bactericidal is the term used to denote that a product actually kills the bacteria. The same goes for fungicidal and germicidal.

Source, please?

Links on triclosan:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114795.php
http://www.thegreenguide.com/doc/122/antibacterial
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170188,00.html

Your choice of sources are curious - specifically, that the second and third are at loggerheads.

In a review of recent studies, researchers at the University of Michigan School of Public Health have found that the ingredient commonly used in these products, triclosan, provides no additional benefits beyond those of plain soap; it also may contribute to the rise of many different drug-resistant bacteria, including a relative of tuberculosis.

While the researchers also reported that they found no evidence indicating triclosan-containing antibacterial products work better than soap and water, the key point here is that there’s no evidence that triclosan is contributing to the development of “supergerms” that would be resistant to antibiotics.

At least one (and probably both) of those sources are dissembling. I'm going to go with both - and given that it's the "Green Guide" vs. "Junk Science", the slants should be obvious.