| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Fri May 06, 2011 11:56 am  |
I was just wondering if anyone is using Skinceuticals new Physical Fusion UV Defense SPF 50. It's a tinted sunscreen. Here's a description:
An amazing chemical free, light weight, tinted broad spectrum sunscreen! Contains physical blocks : zinc oxide (Z-COTE®) and titanium dioxide, as well as artemia salina, a plankton extract, as an anti-oxidant.
Applies as a silky sheer fluid that dries quickly and leaves no residue Color can be used by all skin types Water/Sweat Resistant
High SPF and UVA protection, PPD 21
Active Ingredients:
5% zinc oxide (Z-COTE®) 6% titanium dioxide Artemia salina |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 06, 2011 10:45 pm |
| I'm amazed that they've managed to get such a high PPD with a physical sunscreen containing those percentages of active ingredients! |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 12, 2011 12:36 pm |
| Josh wrote: |
| I'm amazed that they've managed to get such a high PPD with a physical sunscreen containing those percentages of active ingredients! |
They just printed the label... Since in the US, we don't even have PPD ratings but we do know that physical sunscreen offers the best PPD, we should just go by the %'s. In this case, I am not impressed by 5% zinc oxide. But if I had a choice of using this or one of their chemical sunscreens, I'll certainly choose this one. |
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 12, 2011 8:15 pm |
| I'm surprised too by the high ppd with tat little % of active ingredients. I think it's the anti oxidant artemia salina that boosts the ppd level. But I personally dont like tinted sunscreen cuz if applied the 1/4 amount as suggested, it's too thick and cakey. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu May 12, 2011 8:28 pm |
| Nimue wrote: |
They just printed the label... Since in the US, we don't even have PPD ratings but we do know that physical sunscreen offers the best PPD, we should just go by the %'s. In this case, I am not impressed by 5% zinc oxide. But if I had a choice of using this or one of their chemical sunscreens, I'll certainly choose this one. |
"Physical sunscreen offers the best PPD"... where did you get that information from? Physical sunscreens generally don't offer any more than about PPD 8. Chemical ones go up to... well, the LRP one I've just purchased PPD 42 (on an SPF 50+) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 13, 2011 1:00 pm |
| hhm I'm interested in the Cliniderm SPF 45 sunscreen and it too contains about 6% each of both Titanium Dioxide and Zinc Oxide. So does that mean it has a PPD of 21 also? If anybody knows, pls verify? Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 13, 2011 2:31 pm |
hhm Josh, so if we apply a good antioxidant prior to sunscreen, then that's gonna boost the PPD level? In that case, we don't need a sunscreen with a high PPD level then? It's so hard to find a high PPD sunscreen that doesn't irritate my skin or clog my pores! Thanks! |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 13, 2011 10:34 pm |
Bingo! 
Although they can't claim that antioxidants ( and there are some other ingredients too like polysilicone-8 ) can provide protection on their own, when used in a formula containing approved UV filters/blockers they can add to the overall UVB and UVA protection. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri May 13, 2011 11:22 pm |
Yeah, the antioxidants basically "clean up" whatever was able to get past the sunscreen.
I wish they made a zinc oxide one instead... doesn't Titanium dioxide have the potential to clog pores? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 14, 2011 12:39 am |
ok then.... So would an antioxidant itself offer any ppd or uv protection? I'm sry for sounding stupid but just wondering....  |
|
|
|
|
 |
Sat May 14, 2011 2:20 am |
They can Stardustdy, though most have not been tested. An example though of one which has been tested is SkinCeuticals CE Ferulic, which has been found to offer about the equivalent of SPF 8.
Even many oral antioxidants have been shown to provide some measurable protection. Heliocare is a quite famous one, providing somewhere around an SPF 4. Though that may sound low, when you think about the fact that it's protecting your whole body, it's actually not bad! Others include lycopene, beta-carotene and green tea. All have been shown to provide some level of cellular protection.
I have always (since I was about 14 years old - now 41) consumed large doses (in diet and through supplementation) of lycopene, beta-carotene and green tea (Heliocare over the past few years too) and despite sunbathing under the Australian sun for most of my life and not wearing sunscreen, have pretty good skin. Also, according to all my derms, I am a low risk candidate for skin cancers (this, also in spite of the fact that I have had a chronic immune disorder for more than 26 years now). Of course I can't say with any certainty that the good condition of my skin is due to the antioxidants, but I'd be surprised if they didn't play a significant role in it!
I have had such trouble with sunscreens, these days I only wear them when I know I'm going to be in the sun for a prolonged period of time with no chance of escape (like if I'm out sailing for the day). Otherwise, I rely upon topical and oral antioxidants, hats, wearing sensible clothing and staying in the shade at peak times (important as I now live in Malta, where the UV index is high during the winter and extremely high during the summer). |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat May 14, 2011 10:16 am |
| Josh, I guess u r rite....just slathering on sunscreen but neglecting the diet is not good enough. I guess I have to up my intake of oral antioxidants too. I'm sure your skin is good at 41 compared to my 29 skin! |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun May 15, 2011 9:34 pm |
Well that statement wasn't that precise. PPD is not an american thing, but I know that it's supposed to measure UVA protection. I do know that zinc oxide is great for UVA protection, so putting 2 and 2 together it only makes sense for zinc oxide to offer good ppd.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9922017
Unfortunately, ppd is something used by the large companies that manufacture chemical sunscreens. The ppd calculator floating around is not by an unbiased source... *But* here they have a product with very little titanium dioxide and zinc oxide and they say it has a high ppd- how is this possible if zinc oxide cannot give high ppd? Suspicious!
And just for fun, while I was over at pubmed, here's a study on the toxicity of nano particles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21485775
| Josh wrote: |
"Physical sunscreen offers the best PPD"... where did you get that information from? Physical sunscreens generally don't offer any more than about PPD 8. Chemical ones go up to... well, the LRP one I've just purchased PPD 42 (on an SPF 50+) |
|
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
|
Mon May 16, 2011 9:19 am |
| Nimue wrote: |
| Well that statement wasn't that precise. |
How so?
| Nimue wrote: |
| I do know that zinc oxide is great for UVA protection, so putting 2 and 2 together it only makes sense for zinc oxide to offer good ppd. |
Flawed logic there. Particle size, dispersion and a host of other factors come into play. 3% zinc oxide gives an approximate PPD of 3. 10% zinc oxide an approximate PPD of 4-5 (source: http://www.skinandaging.com/article/2285).
| Nimue wrote: |
| Unfortunately, ppd is something used by the large companies that manufacture chemical sunscreens. The ppd calculator floating around is not by an unbiased source... |
PPD is calculated in much the same way as SPF, using in-vivo testing. In European Union countries (where PPD is mostly used), there is the new UVA standard where a product must provide UVA protection (specifically using the PPD method of measure) of at least 1/3 the SPF. Thus, there are guidelines and standards for measuring PPD, which are not just used by the chemical sunscreen manufacturers (Lavera being one, for example).
| Nimue wrote: |
| *But* here they have a product with very little titanium dioxide and zinc oxide and they say it has a high ppd- how is this possible if zinc oxide cannot give high ppd? Suspicious! |
As mentioned earlier, other ingredients can be used to boost both UVB and UVA protection. There are quite a few currently being used and dozens in the pipeline from the news articles I've seen on various industry news sites. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon May 16, 2011 11:04 am |
| Josh wrote: |
| Nimue wrote: |
| Well that statement wasn't that precise. |
How so? . |
I meant my original statement wasn't precise.
| Josh wrote: |
| Nimue wrote: |
| I do know that zinc oxide is great for UVA protection, so putting 2 and 2 together it only makes sense for zinc oxide to offer good ppd. |
Flawed logic there. Particle size, dispersion and a host of other factors come into play. 3% zinc oxide gives an approximate PPD of 3. 10% zinc oxide an approximate PPD of 4-5 (source: http://www.skinandaging.com/article/2285).
PPD is calculated in much the same way as SPF, using in-vivo testing. In European Union countries (where PPD is mostly used), there is the new UVA standard where a product must provide UVA protection (specifically using the PPD method of measure) of at least 1/3 the SPF. Thus, there are guidelines and standards for measuring PPD, which are not just used by the chemical sunscreen manufacturers (Lavera being one, for example).
As mentioned earlier, other ingredients can be used to boost both UVB and UVA protection. There are quite a few currently being used and dozens in the pipeline from the news articles I've seen on various industry news sites. |
If the skinceuticals product has other ingredients that provide UV protection, they have to be explicit about what they are, how much of it is in there and back up their claims. Those ingredients would be listed as active ingredients. I definitely agree that particle size plays a factor. I did see some kind of ppd calculator that people refer to when they say that physical sunscreens don't offer great ppd but the calculator simulated zinc oxide particles of 60 nm.
I know that nano size zinc oxide is not as great for UVA as micro sized zinc oxide- that's why I use sunscreen with the micro sized zinc oxide. For example, the zinc oxide particles in burnout are all 1 micron or larger. Yes I agree that dispersion methods play a part and it's important that the sunscreen ingredients stay on the skin and are well spread out. However, different dispersion methods aren't going to create additional UV protection on their own. All they can do is make sure you're getting the most of the actives in the formula.
If you have a popular widely disseminated sunscreen simulator that tells people that zinc oxide does not and cannot provide high ppd, and then you have a company that you trust make a sunscreen with 5% zinc oxide and they say that it has a high ppd, isn't that the least bit suspicious?
You have to follow the money. Chemical sunscreens are a lot cheaper to produce, by a magnitude. They're easier to sell to the public that would balk at the consistency, feel, etc of physical sunscreen. The minority that is obviously allergic to the chemical sunscreens or is concerned about the toxicity and harmful effects will seek out physical sunscreen alternatives no matter what anyway. |
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
| Fri Jan 31, 2025 1:57 pm |
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. |
|
 |
|
