| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Mon May 09, 2005 10:33 am  |
Granted one is SPF 58 and the other is 65, but they are both by the same company, and both use chiefly Zinc Oxide & Titanium Dioxide. What am I missing?
  |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon May 09, 2005 11:08 am |
One will block 98.3% of UV rays and the other 98.5%. UVA protection unknown for both.
If both minerals are not micronised, then you are going to get a white cast. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon May 09, 2005 12:25 pm |
| I've just checked the sunscreen actives for both. The SPF65 contains additional chemical agents which are not photostable whilst the SPF58 is a purely physical sunscreen. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue May 10, 2005 4:19 pm |
Thank you so much for responding. I have noticed that the SPF 65 burns my face a bit if I'm using prescription retinoids and glycolic acid. Can't wait to try the Fallene COTZ SPF 58 next.
However, here's the thing: both claim to be "ultra-micronized," but the Fallene Total Block SPF 65 has me looking like a Kabuki princess for the rest of the day. I'm willing to give the COTZ a shot anyway ... |
|
|
|
|
|
Tue May 10, 2005 6:41 pm |
Well, the burning from the SPF65 could be from the chemical agents.
Even when minerals are ultra fine, when in higher concentration to achieve a higher SPF, they will still be a little opaque and thick. That's why you still get the white cast. |
|
|
|
|
| Thu Jan 23, 2025 1:27 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. |
|
 |
|
