| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Wed Aug 18, 2010 8:32 am  |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| RussianSunshine wrote: |
Can anyone compare it to Clarins or Neutrogena or Shiseido sunblocks? |
I have used the Neutrogena ultra sheer dry touch and a sample of Clarins Brightening Day Lotion. Quite honestly, both of those "feel" a lot better on my skin than the Burnout. To my skin the Neutrogena and Clarins are both "lighter" feeling and neither of those 2 leave any sort of tacky feeling on my skin. Have you ever used the Dermaquest sunscreen? To me the Burnout is very similar, only slightly "heavier" feeling. (ETA that I am only taking about the Burnout Kids version with these comparisons.) |
rileygirl, I have not tried Dermaquest, but I'm using Clarins High Protection Screen now and quite like it.
Why did u stop using Neutrogena ultra sheer? |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:41 am |
| RussianSunshine wrote: |
Why did u stop using Neutrogena ultra sheer? |
Because I want to use a physical sunscreen for my face! I do use the Neutrogena for my body still, though! |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 18, 2010 9:51 am |
| I don't think it makes sense to compare burnout, which is a purely physical sunscreen, to chemical sunscreens like Neutrogena. It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like ice cream and oranges. Sure ice cream may be a little bit more delicious in the short term (unless you have lactose intolerance or you're sensitive to dairy) but it's not good for you! |
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:50 am |
This sunscreen sounds good. Nimue, is it micronized zinc?
The official site says they stock at wholefoods- I hope that means international wholefood stores  I'm in London. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:11 pm |
| Nimue wrote: |
| I don't think it makes sense to compare burnout, which is a purely physical sunscreen, to chemical sunscreens like Neutrogena. It's not even apples and oranges, it's more like ice cream and oranges. Sure ice cream may be a little bit more delicious in the short term (unless you have lactose intolerance or you're sensitive to dairy) but it's not good for you! |
Nimue, we were comparing the "levels of tackiness" of the sunscreens, not their harmful effects.
Also, as far I understand, Clarins Day Screen High Protection emulsion is a physical sunscreen with Titanium dioxide as its main ingredient. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:24 pm |
Hi,
Is there a way of knowing how protective this particular formula is against UVA spectrum?
Thanks, BF |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Aug 19, 2010 9:23 am |
Burnout has 18.6% micronized zinc oxide and yes it is very effective against both UVA and UVB. I've been using it all summer in very sun heavy activities and it has protected me perfectly.
It's not about the harmful effects of chemical sunscreens, it's more that a chemical sunscreen is a completely different product than a physical sunscreen. On the subject of clarins, I looked for it online and I can't find the % of titanium dioxide. In any case, it has no zinc oxide and that's what matters for UVA protection anyway. Earlier in this thread, I dismissed NIA24 sunscreen because of the low % of zinc oxide. By the same logic, I'm dismissing clarins and chemical sunscreens like neutrogena go without saying.
Why in the world would a chemical sunscreen *ever* be tacky? It has no minerals in it! It only makes sense to compare physical sunscreens with high zinc oxide content to other physical sunscreens with high zinc oxide content.
I’m all for comparative reviews, and I usually frame my experience of a product in terms of other similar products. However, a physical sunscreen with 15-20% zinc oxide is just not comparable to a sunscreen with no zinc oxide at all. Dermaquest, on the other hand, is also a physical sunscreen with a high zinc oxide content (although for me it’s too expensive) and a comparison of burnout and dermaquest is certainly appropriate and relevant.
If you’re not familiar with physical sunscreens, then you try burnout and you say that it’s tacky or white, you may be giving a false negative impression to someone who uses physical sunscreens and is wondering about trying burnout. This person will hear tacky and think it’s tacky relative to other physical sunscreens.
(that’s not to say that your opinion and feedback isn’t valid or important if you’re not familiar with physical sunscreens- I just don’t think it’s relevant to bring chemical sunscreens into this thread) |
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
|
Thu Aug 19, 2010 4:49 pm |
Thanks Nimue.I'm using Invisble Zinc spf 30 which contains 18 % micronized zinc oxide. I will stick to that as its easy to get hold of in London.
I wanted to try out the IZ Environmental Skin Protector but it contains Citrus Medico Limonum (Lemon) Fruit Extract. |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Aug 20, 2010 9:47 am |
| Nimue wrote: |
Burnout has 18.6% micronized zinc oxide and yes it is very effective against both UVA and UVB. I've been using it all summer in very sun heavy activities and it has protected me perfectly.
It's not about the harmful effects of chemical sunscreens, it's more that a chemical sunscreen is a completely different product than a physical sunscreen. On the subject of clarins, I looked for it online and I can't find the % of titanium dioxide. In any case, it has no zinc oxide and that's what matters for UVA protection anyway. Earlier in this thread, I dismissed NIA24 sunscreen because of the low % of zinc oxide. By the same logic, I'm dismissing clarins and chemical sunscreens like neutrogena go without saying.
Why in the world would a chemical sunscreen *ever* be tacky? It has no minerals in it! It only makes sense to compare physical sunscreens with high zinc oxide content to other physical sunscreens with high zinc oxide content.
I’m all for comparative reviews, and I usually frame my experience of a product in terms of other similar products. However, a physical sunscreen with 15-20% zinc oxide is just not comparable to a sunscreen with no zinc oxide at all. Dermaquest, on the other hand, is also a physical sunscreen with a high zinc oxide content (although for me it’s too expensive) and a comparison of burnout and dermaquest is certainly appropriate and relevant.
If you’re not familiar with physical sunscreens, then you try burnout and you say that it’s tacky or white, you may be giving a false negative impression to someone who uses physical sunscreens and is wondering about trying burnout. This person will hear tacky and think it’s tacky relative to other physical sunscreens.
(that’s not to say that your opinion and feedback isn’t valid or important if you’re not familiar with physical sunscreens- I just don’t think it’s relevant to bring chemical sunscreens into this thread) |
What if a person has nothing else to compare it with i.e. has only tried chemical sunscreens? Some of the chemical ones can be very sticky. I think, it does not matter what substances you're comparing if the comparison is with respect to just one characteristic. I can even compare it to vaseline and say "the cream feels as greasy as vaseline" and everyone will know this feeling. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2010 5:02 am |
| I think the "feel" of sunscreens with high zinc oxide (more than 15%) is distinctive. In comparison to chemical sunscreens, they do have a somewhat "tacky" feel, especially if you live in a country with high humidity. This seems to be a characteristic of high zinc oxide sunscreens. Perhaps those living in drier climates wouldn't feel the "tackiness" so much thus resulting in differing reviews from people in different countries. However, people who prefer physical sunscreens for their mechanism of action and better safety profile might well be prepared to tolerate the tackiness. It does pose a bit of a problem for those who apply a lot of make up though. Especially powder make up. Skin isn't so smooth and the powder doesn't apply evenly, tending to "stick" in certain areas because of the friction caused by the tackiness. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2010 1:30 pm |
Why do posters on MUA claim that physical ss does not offer good uva protection? I thought zinc was one of the best sunblockers around  |
|
|
|
|
|
Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:13 pm |
| LondonJamie wrote: |
| Why do posters on MUA claim that physical ss does not offer good uva protection? I thought zinc was one of the best sunblockers around |
I am always confused by this, too, LondonJamie. The chart that was posted here on EDS somewhere showed that zinc had the widest range of protection. And, I was just on a site yesterday (sorry, can't remember which one) that said zinc covered uvb, uva1 and uva2. I am fairly certain that mexoryl only covers one of the uva's and not both ranges. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2010 7:52 am |
| rileygirl wrote: |
| LondonJamie wrote: |
| Why do posters on MUA claim that physical ss does not offer good uva protection? I thought zinc was one of the best sunblockers around |
I am always confused by this, too, LondonJamie. The chart that was posted here on EDS somewhere showed that zinc had the widest range of protection. And, I was just on a site yesterday (sorry, can't remember which one) that said zinc covered uvb, uva1 and uva2. I am fairly certain that mexoryl only covers one of the uva's and not both ranges. |
I'd say different perspectives.
If you are using the PPD to determine the level of UVA protection, then yes, physical sunscreens do not offer good UVA protection. Zinc oxide is not very efficient and will not give as high a PPD level as chemical sunscreens. The maximum a physical sunscreen can achieve is a PPD of around 8. That's compared to the chemical sunscreens of eg Bioderma with PPD 38.
I *personally* do not like stressing myself over PPD levels. I thought i read somewhere (one of the MUA notepads?) that PPD doesn't really measure UVA-I protection that well. So there's only this much those PPD numbers mean. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:19 am |
The CIBA generator gave 18.6% of zinc oxide a PPD of 9.1
I'm sticking to zinc. Although zinc doesn't have a very high PPD it is stable and doesn't put the skin under oxidative stress to work. Chemicals may have a higher PPD but for everyday use I think the negatives outway the positives.
For those who don't put their face in the sun but do apply chemical sunscreens everyday, how are you sure you aren't creating more free radical damage than you would have from not applying anything?
This is the conclusion I have drawn from continually using chemical sunscreens for the last couple of years. My cheeks look plumper and the skin around my eyes doesn't feel tired when I have a zinc sunscreen on. Just my personal experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:22 am |
That is it, summer2004. Am I reading it wrong? |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:25 am |
| circus wrote: |
| I thought i read somewhere (one of the MUA notepads?) that PPD doesn't really measure UVA-I protection that well. So there's only this much those PPD numbers mean. |
Here's the link:
http://makeupalley.com/account/vn.asp?u=sunscreenFAQ#protective
LondonJamie i must have remembered wrongly. It might be a max of PPD 10 that a physical sunscreen can achieve, not 8. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:53 am |
I keep reading and reading everything I get my hands on - and cannot determine which formula wins the prize for *protection across the broad spectrum of rays, all rays*.
Appears that the Tinsorbs are best, but what are their drawbacks?
Thanks, BF |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:05 am |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
I keep reading and reading everything I get my hands on - and cannot determine which formula wins the prize for *protection across the broad spectrum of rays, all rays*.
Appears that the Tinsorbs are best, but what are their drawbacks?
Thanks, BF |
Tinosorbs are chemical filters, meaning they convert light energy to heat energy. There *might* be some people whose skin cannot take the heat. I personally find that i turn red with Tinosorbs when i do sports.
Zinc oxide is also broad spectrum protection. I don't use it regularly because like what m1rox says, the high zinc oxide sunscreens have a tacky feel in the hot and humid climate i live in.
So there you go. Pros and cons. I'd think it is best to go experiment and go with what your skin *likes*.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:23 am |
My crazy method that's working wonderfully here in hot, humid and super sunny Florida.
I have been using the Burnout Kids formula followed by Colorescience Orb powder SS and then if I am making up that day my MMU. I have found not only am I getting great protection with the Burnout/Orb combination but also the Orb acts like a primer that counteracts any "tacky" feel but also allows my MMU to apply beautifully! |
_________________
I'LL SEE YOU ON THE DARKSIDE OF THE MOON.... |
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 23, 2010 12:30 pm |
| circus wrote: |
| Barefootgirl wrote: |
I keep reading and reading everything I get my hands on - and cannot determine which formula wins the prize for *protection across the broad spectrum of rays, all rays*.
Appears that the Tinsorbs are best, but what are their drawbacks?
Thanks, BF |
Tinosorbs are chemical filters, meaning they convert light energy to heat energy. There *might* be some people whose skin cannot take the heat. I personally find that i turn red with Tinosorbs when i do sports.
Zinc oxide is also broad spectrum protection. I don't use it regularly because like what m1rox says, the high zinc oxide sunscreens have a tacky feel in the hot and humid climate i live in.
So there you go. Pros and cons. I'd think it is best to go experiment and go with what your skin *likes*. |
I can't speak for Burnout, becuase I haven't tried it. However, I picked up a new tube of Invisible Zinc's Face and Body spf 30 (18% zinc) and they have reformulated it. The newer version is much creamier and easier to apply. Definitely not as tacky as the previous version (but that wasn't that bad to begin with). It's also paraben free now. Its my staple. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Aug 23, 2010 6:34 pm |
| LondonJamie wrote: |
I can't speak for Burnout, becuase I haven't tried it. However, I picked up a new tube of Invisible Zinc's Face and Body spf 30 (18% zinc) and they have reformulated it. The newer version is much creamier and easier to apply. Definitely not as tacky as the previous version (but that wasn't that bad to begin with). It's also paraben free now. Its my staple. |
Hey,
Do you have an ingredients list?
(I hope they started disclosing ingredients besides the % of zinc oxide and parabens!) and the price and size?
Do you, by any chance , want to try burnout to tell me how it compares to the reformulated invisible zinc? Since invisible zinc and burnout have about the same % of zinc oxide, it would be great to have them compared. |
_________________
24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:35 am |
I bought the The Environmental Skin Protector of Invizible Zinc which contained 20% of Zinc Oxide.
My friends & I all find this sunscreen too tacky for us who living in Asia.
I put it the drawer after using it 2 times.
The ingredients are as follows:
Aqua, Zinc Oxide, C12-15 Alkyl Benzoate, Isostearyl Neopentanoate, Cyclopentasiloxane, Glycerin, Methyl Glucose Sesquistearate, Cetearyl Alcohol, Cetearyl Glucoside, PEG-20 Methyl Glucose Sesquistearate, Xanthan Gum, Diazolidinyl Urea, Benzyl Alcohol, Butylene Glycol, Citrus Medico Limonum (Lemon) Fruit Extract, Fumaria Officinalis Extract, Fumaric Acid, Disodium EDTA, Tocopheryl Acetate |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:39 am |
| LondonJamie wrote: |
| I can't speak for Burnout, becuase I haven't tried it. However, I picked up a new tube of Invisible Zinc's Face and Body spf 30 (18% zinc) and they have reformulated it. The newer version is much creamier and easier to apply. Definitely not as tacky as the previous version (but that wasn't that bad to begin with). It's also paraben free now. Its my staple. |
Hey thanks! I must say it is very frustrating how manufacturers like to reformulate sunscreens every now and then (for better or worse). I swear it is just part of their evil plot to make us keep on buying and trying.  |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue Aug 24, 2010 10:57 am |
Dark Moon,
Have you come across any research showing the effectiveness of zinc oxide (and at various strengths) across a broad UV spectrum?
I have not been able to - and usually you have more success 
BF |
|
|
|
|
| Thu Jan 02, 2025 6:17 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. |
|
 |
|
