Ingredient evidence ≠ product proof 成分研究等於成樽有效？

先填四格資料

見到產品寫「成分有研究」，下一步可以問：研究測試嘅，到底係邊個配方？一個熟悉嘅成分名，未足以證明手上成樽產品有同樣效果。

例如一項 2005 年人體研究，將含 pal-KTTKS 嘅保濕配方，同冇加呢個成分嘅同款基底比較。[1] 呢種比較，回答嘅係指定配方喺研究條件下嘅問題，唔係所有含 peptide 產品嘅共同保證。

另一項 2020 年研究，測試 serum 配合激光療程。[2] 如果你買返屋企只搽精華，就已經同試驗情境唔同。外用護膚研究亦唔可以當成注射 peptide 嘅證據。

可以整張四格卡：配方、參與人群、比較對象、使用時間。再加一句：量度咗乜結果？品牌提供嘅研究，有冇真正對應你想知嘅效果？

搵唔到資料，可以寫「未提供」；唔好自動填成「已證實」，亦唔等於已證明無效。今日揀一個產品聲稱，試填四格。Project 46 同樣唔會將其他配方嘅研究當成自家產品功效證明。

Start with four boxes

When a product says an ingredient is backed by research, ask which formula was actually tested. A familiar ingredient name alone does not establish the same effect for the bottle in your hand.

For example, a 2005 human study compared a pal-KTTKS moisturizer with the same base without that ingredient. [1] That comparison addresses a particular formula under particular conditions, not every peptide product.

A 2020 trial tested a serum alongside laser treatment. [2] Using a serum alone at home is a different setting. Evidence for topical skincare also cannot establish benefits from injected peptides.

Try four boxes: formula, participants, comparator and duration. Then ask what outcome was measured. Does the study offered by the brand actually address the effect you are interested in?

If information is missing, write “not provided.” That is neither proof of effectiveness nor proof of no effect. Pick one product claim and try the four boxes today. Project 46 will not treat research on another formula as proof for its own products.

Sources / 資料來源

1. Robinson et al. (2005)
2. Wang et al. (2020)

Checked 6 November 2026