| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 3:55 pm  |
He said to apply sunscreen before moisturizer so that it "sticks" to the skin.
What does everyone think about this? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:06 pm |
I've always heard and read to apply it after all treatments, including moisturizer, but before foundation, if you wear it.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 5:24 pm |
| I reckon he could well be right. I mean none of the testing uses other products under it. It's all done on bare skin. I think I might do this if I was facing an optimal sun damage situation like on the beach or hiking, but for daily use I really don't like it first against my skin and you can tell if it sticks or not because your face looks sunscreen shiny and it's difficult to wash off at the end of the day. |
|
|
Mabsy
Moderator
 
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Posts: 9644
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:17 pm |
| I've read before that chemical sunscreens should be applied first, before anything else as they need to absorb into the skin, and physical sunblocks should be applied last. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:44 pm |
Interesting.... 
Because I am prone to more breakouts/acne in the summer, I don't use moisterizer during the day that much. In fact, I use my sunblock as a moisterizer. But I will not skip my eye cream.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 6:58 pm |
Hi Mabsy
I'm not sure what kind of chemical SS you're talking about maybe the earlier kind because my reading is that the Euro SS are designed as far as possible to *not* absorb into the skin. Although they need to adhere well to the skin which is why they're so tacky they do their work on the surface not after absorption.
M  |
|
|
Mabsy
Moderator
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Posts: 9644
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:07 pm |
| Molly wrote: |
Hi Mabsy
I'm not sure what kind of chemical SS you're talking about maybe the earlier kind because my reading is that the Euro SS are designed as far as possible to *not* absorb into the skin. Although they need to adhere well to the skin which is why they're so tacky they do their work on the surface not after absorption.
M |
It could well be outdated info. I read this a few years back. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:21 pm |
I always heard to apply ss as late as possible, even after makeup! Imagine that... I put on moisturizer where needed, give it a minute then ss. After that dries, then *poof* *poof* on the makeup  |
_________________
20's: rare pimples and oily T-zone..annoying little blackhead buggers on nose |
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 7:24 pm |
| On re-reading I think that's somewhat flawed in terms of use. I mean, who would need to apply moisturiser *after* SS. It's so goddamn sticky and wet. Besides, it could be detrimental considering how many moisturisers contain SPF ingredients of their own these days you have to be very careful about degrading the SS chemicals. |
|
|
Mabsy
Moderator
Joined: 17 Aug 2003
Posts: 9644
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:01 pm |
Molly - I found another definition that talks about "interaction" rather than absorption. I guess based on that it makes sense to keep the chemical sunblock as close to the skin as possible, and not obstructued by other products, so that it can adhere well to the skin. The physical sunblocks can sit on top of anything as they physically block, rather than relying on chemicals and adherance to the skin. I have not kept up to date with sunblock research but that seems to make sense on the surface.
| Quote: |
Chemical sunblock: Interacts with skin to absorb UVA and UVB rays. It takes 30 minutes for the chemical ingredients to react with your skin and start working so apply BEFORE you head outside. An example of a chemical sunblock is Parsol 1789.
Physical sunblock: Creates a reflective barrier between skin and the sun blocking both UVA and UVB rays. A good choice for sensitive skin, they provide less irritation than chemical blocks. Physical sunblocks also stay on the skin better and start to work immediately, so they are a great option for people with fair skin. Examples are zinc oxide and titanium dioxide. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:18 pm |
Hi Mabsy
These are first generation SS chemicals and I remember too you were always told to wait 20 minutes before you went in the sun.
I'm certain this doesn't apply to euro SS - there's no wait time for absorption, although some people like to wait until it's 'settled and spread' so to speak.
Molly |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:21 pm |
| I wonder if this seals the sunscreen so it lasts longer?? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 8:26 pm |
Hi Daniel
I'm afraid from a lot of previous discussions I don't really think so. These SS, certainly the Euros, are designed to seriously adhere to the face already which is why they're so icky to use and besides, like I say, there are serious issues with moisturisers containing SPF ingredients degrading SS.
I think on bare skin is probably the best way to repeat how they are tested, but then they wouldn't be tested with moisturiser over the top either.
M  |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:31 pm |
Hi Mabsy
How can you tell whether a sunscreen is chemical or physical? |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 15, 2006 11:40 pm |
Physical is protection like titanium dioxide and zinc.
I had also read this interview and was going to post up today about it.
I was confused - as if I need more confusion where SS is invloved. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 16, 2006 12:27 am |
It's my personal theory only, but I do believe that sunscreens are one of the biggest hoaxes ever foisted on the public by the cosmetics companies and one day, hopefully soon, they are going to be hit by a swathe of product liability claims. It's one thing to make vague claims for other skincare products, such as removing wrinkles, improving texture, etc, however sun damage and skin cancer is a serious medical issue.
Of course readers of this forum are smarter, but there are more gullible people out there who actually believe they are "protected from the sun", whatever that means, by wearing a sunscreen.
Don't get me wrong, I love spending money on skincare products, but I'm only expecting my Valmont Renewing Pack, C serums, acids, etc, to hopefully improve my skin's appearance - not save my life. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 16, 2006 1:19 am |
I was very angry when I found out that the Lura Mercier tinted moisturiser spf 20 is not a broad spectrum.
I feel that the cosmetic companies only put an inadequate sunscreen in their products so that we'll need to buy their anti-ageing products in later year. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:00 am |
| Emma2006 wrote: |
| I feel that the cosmetic companies only put an inadequate sunscreen in their products so that we'll need to buy their anti-ageing products in later year. |
That made me smile. Hadn't thought of that.
And I thought I was the only one here who gives credit to the conspiracy theories regarding those huge corporations that make millions flogging their "sun protection".
Just did a quick google and apparently a class action suit has been launched in the States this year against five sunscreen manufacturers, regarding lack of UVA protection, waterproofing and other "misleading claims". Will be interesting how that turns out, but they'll be needing good lawyers with deep pockets as they're up against transnationals like Schering Plough and Johnson & Johnson.
Well, after the famous McDonalds coffee case, it seems anything is possible in a US civil suit. |
|
|
|
|
| Mon Feb 10, 2025 10:57 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. |
|
 |
|
