| |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:19 pm  |
Hi EDSers,
I've been reading this board for months, love it, can't believe how much you all know about skin care! Anyway the time has come for me to ask you for some advice as I'm really struggling to come to a conclusion about this and there is just sooo much information, a lot of it conflicting.
I decided some time ago that I wanted to start using Retin A/tretinoin. I have researched the **** out of this, when to use it, how to use it, why to use it etc.. so no problems there! 
However I'm still really, really confused about sunscreen and because of this have been delaying using the tube of Retin A I purchased months ago, because I still haven't decided on a daily sunscreen to use. From info on this forum and elsewhere I've concluded that natural sunscreens are the way forward and zinc seems to be the best ingredient (correct me if I'm wrong at any point).
But, are zinc only formulas best or is it better to have a mix of ZnO and TiO2? A lot of EDSers seem to swear by high zinc sunscreens and many seem to think zinc only is the most reliable option... But I've read some other posts and extracts from studies which claim that zinc is nowhere near as effective alone as it is when combined with another ingredient (e.g. TiO2).
I want the best protection possible and the info about zinc being less effective by itself is making me think the best option would be a sunscreen with high zinc (i.e. 18%+) PLUS at least a little bit of TiO2. But they seem difficult to come by compared with high ZnO alone. And to add to all this a) I'm in the UK so sunscreen in general is more difficult to come by (although I don't mind ordering from abroad unless the shipping costs are ridiculous!) b) I don't want to be paying stupid amounts of money so certain brands are out of the question and c) I need to consider cosmetic elegance as well as I HATE that sticky/greasy feeling I've experienced in the past from chemical sunscreens...
That last part was a bit of a rant, but my main question for now before I consider other factors is, does ZnO plus TiO2 provide better protection than high zinc only??
Thanks in advance for your input! |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:59 pm |
I think Zinc Oxide alone is more than enough adequate to protect your skin from both UVB and UVA rays. Tio2 added will add more UVB protection than zinc oxide alone but like you said, they are hard to come by. Plus you also have the issue of Tio2 generating free radicals depending on what kind it is (coated, uncoated, etc.)
This sunscreen comes to mind. I've never tried it but would like to.
http://www.mexitanproducts.com/SPF50.html
I would not delay using Tretinoin because of any fear.
A much bigger issue, IMO, than worrying about adding TiO2 or not is how much sunscreen your actually applying. We always hear about re-applying in the sun, sweating, etc. every 2 hours. Although once a day is fine IMO, for a Zinc Oxide sunscreen if your inside mainly or not sweating. Maybe top it off a little later in the day, or not.
Basically no one uses the right amount and they are selling themselves short on the #1 anti-aging product one can use. Very short in most cases. One needs to use aprox. 1/4 tsp. for the face as well as 1/4 tsp.for the neck. Many will find this too whitening but it's what you have to do to get ALL the benefits. Tinting the sunscreen is an option. Scroll down to "Dosage" for more detailed info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen
I know I'm preaching to the choir here for many but it needs to be preached.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:12 pm |
| sula83 wrote: |
does ZnO plus TiO2 provide better protection than high zinc only??
|
Yes and no. Yes, it blocks UVB better. No, it won't block UVA and better than only zinc oxide.
You know how it goes. No easy answer.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:30 pm |
| Quote: |
| I think Zinc Oxide alone is more than enough adequate to protect your skin from both UVB and UVA rays. |
| Quote: |
| Yes and no. Yes, it blocks UVB better. No, it won't block UVA and better than only zinc oxide. |
Thank you both! This is pretty much what I wanted to hear (I should have mentioned in my original post it is UVA I'm mainly concerned about, as I'm sure most people around here are too). Sooo I was all ready to order my zinc only sunscreen (thought I'd either go with Pratima or Purple Prairie), HOWEVER, I've just come across the following info:
Re physical sunscreens not providing as much UVA protection than chemical ones:
www DOT skinacea DOT com/sunscreen/physical-vs-chemical-sunscreen dot html# DOT UwQXuPl1-So
..and this thread which mentions physical sunscreens not having high PPD protection. Main quotes: "If its true that... physical sunscreens have low PPDs (up to 8 ) - what is a girl to do??"... "Why do people seem to be less concerned with the PPD? If its aging you want to prevent, then isn't this an important factor?"... "Well but physical sunscreens like TiDo and ZnO have a low PPD of 8 at the most and they don't protect against the full spectrum of UVA":
www DOT essentialdayspa DOT com/forum/viewthread dot php?tid=33919&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=0
So yeah, probably goes without saying I'm still really confused. 
WHY OH WHY do so many people rave about ZnO as as a protector against UVA when it can only achieve a PPD of 8?? (8 Isn't very high right??). Is this info wrong? Does ANYBODY know?? I feel like my head is gonna explode! 
The way I see it, either this info is wrong or somehow misleading, or... There are hundreds of people on this forum and elsewhere walking round wearing physical ss thinking they are getting good protection from sun damage and they're not. 
If anyone could shed some light on this I'd really appreciate it 'cause I'm now thinking I need to look for a sunscreen with chemicals in it as well as minerals which I reeeally don't want to do as a) Don't particularly like the idea of applying ss chemicals to my face daily and b) That's gonna open up another huge can of worms trying to work out which chemicals are stable/which ones are compatible with which type of make up/do they need to be coated, etc etc aaaugh!
Sorry for the rant. |
|
|
|
|
 |
Fri Feb 21, 2014 11:03 am |
Your thinking too much into this which I totally understand. I used to think the same way a few years back. 
This might clear it up some. Or not. 
With this in mind, I feel that each individual must make her own risk-benefit analysis of what SPF/PPD to wear. Please refer to this post for quotes from various publications with recommendations for minimum SPF. I have never seen any peer-reviewed publication make a recommendation on a minimum PPD. Please note that PPD is analogous to SPF in that PPD X absorbs 1 - 1/X UVA rays. However, this is a bit of an over-simplication because UVA rays between 320 and 360 nm are higher energy and thus contribute more to the PPD response than UVA rays between 360 and 400 nm, which are lower energy but more penetrating. Thus, PPD correlates more to protection between 320 and 360 nm than protection between 360 and 400 nm. It is virtually impossible to get PPD > 10 and excellent UVA-I protection from sunscreens currently available in the US. Please refer to this post for information on research that has demonstrated the superior efficacy of non-US formulations with Mexoryl and Tinosorb, as well as personal accounts from MUAers. Ultimately, the best approach may be to wear the highest SPF/PPD formulation that you feel comfortable applying liberally and that you can tolerate, afford, and obtain.
http://www.makeupalley.com/account/sn.asp?username=sunscreenFAQ
Protection between 360 and 400 nm is what we are most concerned with (UVAI rays), and that is exactly where Zinc Oxide shines so PPD is of little concern. That link is obviously biased toward chemical sunscreens or just fails to understand this. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Feb 26, 2014 3:30 pm |
| Pandax12 wrote: |
Your thinking too much into this which I totally understand. I used to think the same way a few years back.
This might clear it up some. Or not.
With this in mind, I feel that each individual must make her own risk-benefit analysis of what SPF/PPD to wear. Please refer to this post for quotes from various publications with recommendations for minimum SPF. I have never seen any peer-reviewed publication make a recommendation on a minimum PPD. Please note that PPD is analogous to SPF in that PPD X absorbs 1 - 1/X UVA rays. However, this is a bit of an over-simplication because UVA rays between 320 and 360 nm are higher energy and thus contribute more to the PPD response than UVA rays between 360 and 400 nm, which are lower energy but more penetrating. Thus, PPD correlates more to protection between 320 and 360 nm than protection between 360 and 400 nm. It is virtually impossible to get PPD > 10 and excellent UVA-I protection from sunscreens currently available in the US. Please refer to this post for information on research that has demonstrated the superior efficacy of non-US formulations with Mexoryl and Tinosorb, as well as personal accounts from MUAers. Ultimately, the best approach may be to wear the highest SPF/PPD formulation that you feel comfortable applying liberally and that you can tolerate, afford, and obtain.
Protection between 360 and 400 nm is what we are most concerned with (UVAI rays), and that is exactly where Zinc Oxide shines so PPD is of little concern. That link is obviously biased toward chemical sunscreens or just fails to understand this. |
Thanks so much! This is exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for, I thought there must be a more scientific/in depth consideration. That link is really helpful, I've read through it but will probably have to read through it a few more times before I fully understand it all! I had previously read about the UVA1/UVA2 thing but couldn't quite get my head around it, but your explanation has really helped. I've definitely decided to just stick with high zinc formulas, I'm now realising however that finding a suitable one that ships to the UK is going to be problematic.  But at least I'm on the right track!
I also forgot to add in my last post.. I'll definitely make sure I use enough. I tend to "overdo" things if anything so don't think that will be a problem.
Thank you! |
|
|
|
|
| Thu Oct 31, 2024 8:51 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
