| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:23 pm  |
Hi there,
I posted on another thread that my friends website (that JUST openened about 5 minutes ago) would be selling European sunscreens. And that she would have good info. about sunscreens. She knows the most about that subject of anyone I know!
Anyway, there's still a couple glitchy things on the website and I can't see the graphs in this article, but I wanted to post it anyway--it's a great article.
http://www.skincarecentral.biz/sunscreens-about-.html
P.S. She also offers a 20% discount on her other (non-sunscreen) products.... 
P.S.S. I am not affiliated with this company in any way and receive no benefit from posting this information, except the joy of passing on good info. that is... |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:52 pm |
Hi Pocoloco
Thanks for posting. It does clarify a lot of the important points simply and I think it's a really good read for anyone new to sunscreens.
But I've read SO much myself over the past couple of years and there are a few points which I have different information on.
Mostly, it's detail and not important, but this quote struck me
"Interestingly, the amount of UVA reaching the earth, unlike UVB, retains essentially the same energy level every day of the year, morning, noon, and afternoon. Deeply penetrating UVA radiation presents the same damaging effect to the skin in mid-December at 9 am as it does in mid-July at 4 pm"
People often say this, but actually if you look at a graph of UVA and UVB levels over a year they fluctuate in a similar way.
http://makeupalley.com/user/notepad/sunscreenFAQ/#UVAday
I'm very pleased with that fact because it means if I'm in a low UV index area like Northern Europe I can give my skin a bit of a break and try the anti-oxidant route in the winter.
Do you know where she got this information from? The thing with UVA/UVB/sunscreen protection is that there is so much conflicting and innacurate information that I'm never sure what is absolutely true so she could have something.
Molly  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 7:59 pm |
Molly, you said a mouthful there about all the conflicting information about sunscreen out there! I don't know where she found this part of the article...I do know that she has done a lot of research over the past couple of years. She and Debbie-the-forum-host used to have quite a few healthy disagreements about sun protection (over on the Skincareboard). They decided to agree that it's okay to disagree.
Maybe I'll ask her to come over here and respond to this question herself. I know that my husband's dermatologist told him a similar thing, that living in Seattle it's not necessary to wear sunscreen in the winter time. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:21 pm |
Yes, good idea, ask her to respond. I wouldn't want to send an email asking her. I think it might seem a little hostile, especially when she's done a good job of explaining the basics, which ain't easy.
As far as conflicting information goes I think there's an awful lot of really outdated web pages about old chemical filters. Then there's pages of oversimplified stuff about UVA/UVB which can be quite misleading and so much of this seems to just be copied from site to site, which seems to give it more weight because of its shere quantity - it's a jungle. Plus, like you say, even experts seem to disagree.
I haven't given up, but I'm not sure there are any definitive answers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:34 pm |
Hi Molly,
I will see if I can find more on the topic of the UVA being more or less constant. I do have a source for that, but I think you're correct that might be a somewhat misleading statement and I should remove it from the article. It also goes against what I personall have read about needing to ramp up protection in the summer months. Also, I believe that the sun is more damaging between the hours of 10 and 2. I think this is a matter of bad editing on my part. Already discredited!  I hope the rest of my article went over a bit better... and I will remove that info as I do think it's not accurate. Please accept my apologies!
I merely meant to impress the importance of year round protection.
I definitely do not agree you don't need to wear a suncreen in the Winter in Seattle.  I believe if it's light out, you need your sunscreen! In that regard, the statement is true that if its December or July, if you can see light, the UV that is getting deep into your skin IS damaging it.
I hope this makes sense.
Kathleen
My statement really should be that the rays that hit your skin REGARDLESS of the time of year are damaging. Period.
I actually agree that oral supplements are great and one can maybe achieve a PPD of 8 with them, if you take LOTS. But I still think that isn't enough to protect your precious skin from the UV rays. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:37 pm |
| Kathleen: Do you ship products to Canada? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:38 pm |
| Molly: I know you are quite knowledgeable on the sunscreen issue- do you mind me asking what your fav sunscreen for the summer months is? |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:41 pm |
(edited to say - I wrote this before I saw your answer above).
I see - it's Kathleen from theskincareboard. I feel like I know her, but she won't know me.
I feel more comfortable adding an additional piece of conflicting information then (it's only meant in the spirit of finding the truth )
It's just you say on your site that UVB is responsible for burning and UVA for tanning and aging. I find this a bit misleading. From what I now know; the tanning process is two step. You need a little tiny sprinkling of UVB to release the melanin and then UVA radiation later (hours/days later) oxidises the melanin and turns it brown. (Although, slight caveat, I did read somewhere that if you hit a certain part of the UVA spectrum you can tan slightly without UVB.)
I think it's important to make this clear because people who are using light mineral screens with low UVA protection (PPD8 or so) stay very white and think that they are therefore doing no damage to their skin. In my experience minerals are very good at screening out UVB, but no tan does NOT equal no damage. You just can't see it because there's no melanin to be oxidized. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 8:48 pm |
Hi Lily
Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to sample many sunscreens so far the only ones I find really effective are the Avene range (lait or spray not physical), but I'm not in love.
I think PocoLoco and Keikholt have sampled many more than me.
I know Pocoloco has a particularly useful list of matt to greasy high PPD screens. she might post it again here, if you ask nicely |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:15 pm |
| lily wrote: |
| Kathleen: Do you ship products to Canada? |
Yes, I do, but I just discovered I programmed by "add to cart" buttons in such a way that Canadian customers can't checkout! 
So that's my project for tonight. GRRRH.
Sorry! |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:19 pm |
| Molly wrote: |
(edited to say - I wrote this before I saw your answer above).
I see - it's Kathleen from theskincareboard. I feel like I know her, but she won't know me.
I feel more comfortable adding an additional piece of conflicting information then (it's only meant in the spirit of finding the truth )
It's just you say on your site that UVB is responsible for burning and UVA for tanning and aging. I find this a bit misleading. From what I now know; the tanning process is two step. You need a little tiny sprinkling of UVB to release the melanin and then UVA radiation later (hours/days later) oxidises the melanin and turns it brown. (Although, slight caveat, I did read somewhere that if you hit a certain part of the UVA spectrum you can tan slightly without UVB.)
I think it's important to make this clear because people who are using light mineral screens with low UVA protection (PPD8 or so) stay very white and think that they are therefore doing no damage to their skin. In my experience minerals are very good at screening out UVB, but no tan does NOT equal no damage. You just can't see it because there's no melanin to be oxidized. |
Hi Molly, yes it's Kathleen.
It's easier for most people to associate B for burn and A for age. But yes, you're correct that A rays can tan you also, but they are also the ones primarily responsible for aging the skin. You're also correct that people think if they're not getting dark, they must be protected. In fact, I use to feel this way!
I will edit my article...after I fix all the "add to cart" buttons that won't allow Canadians to checkout at my store! 
Kathleen aka "Natalia" from skincarecentral.biz |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:25 pm |
| Quote: |
| My statement really should be that the rays that hit your skin REGARDLESS of the time of year are damaging. Period |
Hi Kathleen, I don't think we're really disagreeing here about anything. There will always be UVA radiation, but sometimes minimal.
We've discussed this a lot here. In the end it boils down to peoples' personal choices. I make my judgement based on not liking a lot of what is in sunscreens and the damage it might be doing to my skin using it long-term and balance this out with the minimal damage I'll get from UVA in some places in winter. I think you can also use topical anti-oxidants, doesn't that bump it up a bit?
| Quote: |
| Please accept my apologies! |
Your article came across well and answered some very common questions that get asked here every day. I didn't mean to just criticise. Nice to see you change it, but no need to apologise - now I'm all embarrassed because I'm English.
Molly  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:34 pm |
| Thanks Poco...Thanks Kathleen....I've been wanting to get a sunscreen that may protect me better. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:07 pm |
Oh, Molly, I appreciate your feedback, honest!
What you pointed out was correct. B does indeed induce tanning as well and just because you aren't tan doesn't mean you have not been subjected to skin damage.
It's good to have another person's perspective because I just take these facts for granted and can't see them through others' eyes.
Kathleen |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:08 pm |
| skincarefreak wrote: |
| Thanks Poco...Thanks Kathleen....I've been wanting to get a sunscreen that may protect me better. |
Well, I have tons of samples to try! |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:15 pm |
Molly: the chemicals in sunscreens are a concern to me as well. Do you find that Avene has less chemical stuff or is it just that you can tolerate the Avene one?
I have used the Avene physical block but then read that physical sunscreens don't block out all the UVA rays. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:33 pm |
Lily, I'm afraid so far in rather atypical conditions (97% humidity some days and hot) it's the only one that seems to stick to my face . That's the number one reason I've gone back to it. Secondly I always spray or put a bit on my wrist before I apply it on my face and OMG my skin looks a lot healthier on that wrist than the other. Just been using up other stuff on the rest of my forearms.
I don't think (my reading anyway) that Tinosorb or Mexoryl are that bad for you, not like earlier sunscreen chemicals which had the potential to create free radical damage on the skin when they broke down because they were not photostable, but what I really worry about is sensitising my skin by using something like this daily because it contains lots of other unwelcome ingredients in it. And my skin has felt quite sensitive this year for the first time in my life - first time I've used SS every single day too. I mean I would never choose a moisturiser with half this stuff in it. That's why I've been so interested in finding out about the actual process of tanning and UV radiation because I want to know whether I really need this and need it every day so I've done a lot of reading, but not much sampling because I'm broke. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:12 pm |
| thanks for the information. I'm guessing none of these sunscreens can be used under mineral foundation? That is a complete bummer. There are very little foundations that can be applied over these kinds of sunscreens since so many contain oxides of some kind. If anyone knows of any makeups that do not contain them, i like to know. either way i'm going to look into purchasing some of these. |
_________________
Extremely fair/sensitive skin(mild rosacea)that burns very easy.acne is rare/skin is dry.27 years old. |
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:21 pm |
Molly,
I understand how you feel. I actually take boatloads of supplements that fight free-radicals and don't even wear sunscreen except on my face, neck and hands--unless I'm in intense exposure. I also have tinted windows on my car and house, so I don't have to wear sunscreens except when I go someplace. Since I work at home, that leaves a lot of time I don't have to wear it, really.
I think the sun can be healthy to a point, too, but I don't want to age. So I let my arms get the rays and take lots of supplements.
There ARE some physical sunscreens that can give you an SPF of about 8 or 10, but you have to use sooo much you look like you're wearing clown makeup.
Clinique SPF 40 is mostly physical with SOME chemicals and you can actually apply quite a generous amount without looking weird. For you, maybe it's better than nothing? Of course, Clinique has tons of stuff perhaps you don't like putting on your face...
Professional Solutions sells a pure ti02. One application is SPF 15 with PPD of maybe 4. But the stuff is so sheer I think one could layer it and increase the protection. Again, not great UVA protection, but better than nothing and maybe you could use it in the winter at least? At least it's "clean" ingredients for your face. Unfortunately, it's expensive...
Sorry I can't be of more help.
I don't think the sun is evil and going to kill you. My goal is stay as young looking as possible as long as possible. I think sun bathing a lot is likely dangerous because there is too much of a good thing and I do believe the sun-cancer connection. But unprotected daily exposure will not kill you and may even be healthy to an extent. But...it will age you, that's the unfortunate part. You will look worse than the people using all the sunscreen.
I have been terrified of chemicals and I am estrogen dominant, so it was very important to me to avoid things that were harmful. I eat organic foods, for instance and drink only purified water! That is what I like about the European sunscreens; Mexoryl and Tinosorb are not estrogenic. Moreover, the sunscreens are designed to stay on the surface and not absorb too much. And I limit use to face, neck and hands. If I had to use sunscreen on my entire body every single day, I would probably use a physical one and take loads of supplements and just use the chemicals on my face, neck and hands. I also have pigmentation problems, so susncreens become essential.
So I am actually somewhere in the middle of sunscreen extremists, believe it or not.
My goal is not to sell people on what I'm using, but to provide information so people can decide what is right for them.
I am personally happy now with my sunscreen choices, but I do try to help those who don't want to go my route as well.
As for money, that's a toughie because no matter what you try, oral supplements, etc., it all gets expensive. Sigh.
Katleen |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:35 pm |
| PurpleTurtle - the Avene range (Tinosorb based) SS can be used under MMU. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:37 pm |
| purpleturtle wrote: |
| thanks for the information. I'm guessing none of these sunscreens can be used under mineral foundation? That is a complete bummer. There are very little foundations that can be applied over these kinds of sunscreens since so many contain oxides of some kind. If anyone knows of any makeups that do not contain them, i like to know. either way i'm going to look into purchasing some of these. |
No, they can't be worn under a mineral makeup EXCEPT Aromaleigh. Her minerals are coated in a way that prevents interaction with the chemicals. You might want to try those.
Also, the SVR 50B is 100% physical sunscreen. It's very elegant, but if you apply 1/4 teaspoon, you will look ghastly. It may not have the protection you are looking for as it is extremely hard to apply enough to your face.
But, as for makeup goes, this is another area I am just not that anal about anymore. I personally use Revlon New Complexion makeup over my chemical sunscreens for everyday wear and don't worry about it. They do not contain sunscreen and are silicone base, which means the ingredients won't interact as much with your chemical sunscreen.
Something else you can do is to just mix the Bioderma Tinted Cream with one of the other bioderma sunscreens. I love the AKN Spray with the Tinted Cream. I often wear this as a "foundation." Then you could apply a powder foundation on top if you want more coverage.
But the only chemical that has the potential to break down in any of these is the avobenzone, and they have stablized it very,very well. So I don't worry too much about applying makeup on top. A makeup which is heavier on silicones is less likely to break down avobenzone and Revlon New Complexion has a lot of silicones in it, which is why I recommend it. So it not only glides on nicely (another reason I love it!) it is less likely to distrub your avobenzone. And not ALL the avobenzone would be destroyed, anyway.
So, in general, I only advise people to avoid makeup that has an SPF given. Those are heavily laden with ingredients that will break down your avobenzone as you not only have oxides, you have large amount of either tio2 or oxtinoxate or both (which break down avobenzone).
I hope this helps.
Kathleen |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 07, 2006 11:42 pm |
| Molly wrote: |
| PurpleTurtle - the Avene range (Tinosorb based) SS can be used under MMU. |
I'm sorry, that's correct. I was referring to the sunscreens I usually recommend, that is, Bioderma and Anthelios.
I have used Avene, but I didn't like the texture. I found it heavy and greasy and hard to apply makeup on top.
When I said I was only recommending/selling ones I had personally tried and found the texture to be good, I meant that. Except for Anthelios.I don't actually like this, but so many of my friends and others do, I figure I must just be odd in that regard, so I am selling that one, too.
But I still have a bit of Avene left if anyone wants to sample it. I have the Ultra Spray, I believe, PPD 20. then you could buy a full-size bottle somewhere else if you like it.
Kathleen |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:10 am |
| wow, by chance i use aromaleigh as my foundation and refuse to chuck it. This makes me SO happy to know I can use chemical or mineral sunscreens now. I am going to go to bed a very happy girl now:) |
_________________
Extremely fair/sensitive skin(mild rosacea)that burns very easy.acne is rare/skin is dry.27 years old. |
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 08, 2006 12:39 am |
| purpleturtle wrote: |
| wow, by chance i use aromaleigh as my foundation and refuse to chuck it. This makes me SO happy to know I can use chemical or mineral sunscreens now. I am going to go to bed a very happy girl now:) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 08, 2006 7:19 am |
OMG! This is confusing!
If I am using a European sunscreen and then use Aveda SPF 15 tinted moisturizer or the Juice Beauty SPF 30 tinited moisturizer (both of them have titanium dioxide in them as their sunscreens) is that breaking the sunscreen down and creating free radicals?
What about sunscreens that combine titanium dioxide and chemical sunscreens like LRP?
Or is it the iron oxides in the make- up???  |
|
|
|
|
| Thu Nov 28, 2024 10:28 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. |
|
 |
|
