Smart Skin Care Forums
Home  -   Forum Index  -   Search  -   Register  -   Profile  -   Log in  -   FAQ  -   Contact Us

mattifying sunscreens ?
Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Smart Skin Care Forum Index -> Basic Skin Care / Skin Health Maintenance
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
akelly



Joined: 22 May 2005
Posts: 26

PostPosted: Sun Sep 18, 2005 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orangehrzn wrote:


I ordered Paula's choice mineral sunscreen. Will post an update when I get it.


Did you get Paula's choice sunscreen yet? What is the verdict?
Back to top
View user's profile
orangehrzn



Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 1005

PostPosted: Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't recommend the Paula's choice mineral sunscreen. It has drier finish than the regular sunscreens but not as matte as I would want. It looks like white paint and has the same consistency - it is a little hard to smear on face cause it is a little dry. My face looks whitish with it when I put it on. That white diminishes after 20 mins cause it 'blends' but not totally. Paula herself says 'Careful blending is required to avoid a whitish cast on skin ....'. Another unpleasant property is that it tends to collect in skin imperfections like flakes and to emphasize them ....


Currently I use Nucelle 10% Mandelic acid exfoliator. It has a very nice base (partially silicones) and after it dries out it's perfect matte. Then I apply on top Olay complete all day moisture SPF 15 for sensitive skin and after it dries out the Nucelle bellow MATTIFIES IT. It stays matte all day.

After I finish the Olay sunscreen I am going to try the Nucelle SunSense SPF30:

http://skincarerx.com/shopping/review_box.html?pid=258

It has a similar base to the 10% Mandelic exfoliator which I know give pretty good matte. The price is kind of inflated but not astronomical. I hope the other manifactures make a copycat lol
Back to top
View user's profile
vanyel5



Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 39
Location: york, pa

PostPosted: Sat Oct 15, 2005 12:32 am    Post subject: may i beat a dead horse? lol Reply with quote

ultra sheer dry touch sunblock from neutrogena works great and doesn't leave any shine and definitely no heavy feeling to my skin..coppertone also has their version in 'endless summer' line...they are both silicone based and light as a feather, and both provide adequate uva and uvb protection..oh and the best part is they are very nicely priced!!!(though you get a slightly better quantity for your money from the coppertone variety)
Back to top
View user's profile Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
orangehrzn



Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 1005

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree about the Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry touch - it is the most matte sunscreen I have. The only problem is that it is entirely CHEMICAL sunscreens. It is known these are not stable and can be irritable to some people - causing bumps. On the other hand if you are looking for SPF 30 and up, physical sunscreens like ZnO will give whitish cast ....
Back to top
View user's profile
orangehrzn



Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 1005

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I got the Nucelle SunSense SPF 30. It really gives drier matte finish. The problem is though it is too thick and gives whitish cast on skin - that's a common problem to any sunscreen based on ZnO2 and having SPF 30 or higher.

Perhaps it would be better if Nucelle makes SPF15 and tries to rarefy the texture of the suncreen - Olay has sunscreens with SPF15 that run like lotions.

I'm returning the SunSense.
Back to top
View user's profile
vanyel5



Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 39
Location: york, pa

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orangehrzn wrote:
I agree about the Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry touch - it is the most matte sunscreen I have. The only problem is that it is entirely CHEMICAL sunscreens. It is known these are not stable and can be irritable to some people - causing bumps. On the other hand if you are looking for SPF 30 and up, physical sunscreens like ZnO will give whitish cast ....


i was curious in what manner chemical sunscreens were unstable? they definitely can cause more irritation..i use retin a and applying my sunscreens is always irritating..and of course if it gets in your eye at some point...but i break out with any physical sunscreens, as they can be occlusive to the skin for anyone prone to acne/blemishes.. so that is what i am left with...but i don't know you can get that light matte finish with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide sunscreens...
Back to top
View user's profile Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
orangehrzn



Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 1005

PostPosted: Sun Oct 16, 2005 11:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know the details but I've talked to people that are self-taught experts on sunscreens - people with melasma. And they always prefer physical sunscreens to chemical ones cause supposedly the physical ones are longer lasting. Probably the chemical ones disintegrate or something with time ...
Back to top
View user's profile
vanyel5



Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 39
Location: york, pa

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

perhaps they mean that they don't have to reapply...if i understand correctly the chemical ones break down during the amount of time in which you are wearing them which is why they say to reapply frequently...as far as i can see there isn't anything unstable about them...but of course the mineral ones are less irritating
Back to top
View user's profile Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
maxxilla



Joined: 07 Jul 2005
Posts: 33

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:21 pm    Post subject: Fairly Exhaustive re:sunscreens and photostability Reply with quote

The top 2/3s discuss all things suncreen- and photostability-related. The bottom 1/3 (after the ****s) lists sunscreens with good protection.

Here is a good FAQ on sunscreens that addresses photstability:
http://www.makeupalley.com/user/notepad/sunscreenFAQ/

From nora80(on MUA)
Info on Sun Allergies - http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/9339/25934.html#symptoms

Critical wavelengths of sunscreen filters, some N. American sunscreens, general info - http://www.dermatology.org/skintherapy/stl0205.html#TABLE_1.

Quite a comprehensive sunscreen resource, also info on antioxidants - http://www.roche.com/vitamins/pdf/skin_and_sun.pdf

A very happy rave + info on meroxyl SX from L'Oreal research (when a new filter) - http://www.makeupalley.com/board/m.asp?id=7277861

Info on parsol1789, estrogenicity, mutagenicity, other sunscreen flotsam (sillysilly) - http://med-nutrition.e-banshee.net/030819/Parsol.html

Studies on UVA protection, photostability, broad spectrum protection, topical ascorbic acid, etc.- http://www.larocheposay.net/page13.html#

Various findings regarding inorganic filters (zinc oxide/titanium dioxide) - http://www.makeupalley.com/board/n.asp?Boardid=6&iPN=3&id=7594404&ThreadID=73521

Dermatology Times, ‘Shining Light on UVA Importance’ - http://www.dermatologytimes.com/dermatologytimes/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=50923

A very useful study (see Discussion) regarding sunscreen formulations, stability - http://www-med-physik.vu-wien.ac.at/adobe-pdf/Sunscreen_JInvestDermatol2001.pdf

A thread on UVB vs. UVA filters - http://www.makeupalley.com/board/m.asp?id=7275904

Photounstable Sunscreens (see: Change of Ultraviolet Absorbance of Sunscreens by Exposure to Solar-Simulated Radiation, link above)



Photounstable UV filters may damage human skin by two mechanisms which, at the end, are closely related and most likely boost each other. First, UV filters may behave as exogenous UVA sensitizers. During photolysis of photounstable UV filters reactive intermediates are produced (Chignell et al, 1980; Gasparro, 1985;

Dalle Carbonare and Pathak, 1992; Schwack and Rudolph, 1995;

Allen et al, 1996; Schallreuter et al, 1996; Tarras-Wahlberg et al, 1999). Free radicals may induce formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (Dalle Carbonare and Pathak, 1992; Allen et al, 1996) which have toxic effects (Dalle Carbonare and Pathak, 1992;

Shindo et al, 1994; Schallreuter et al, 1996; McHugh and Knowland, 1997) or may bind to proteins or DNA (Dalle Carbonare and Pathak, 1992). Second, a dose-dependent decrease of the UVA absorptive capacity results in an increase of the direct UVA-induced skin damage.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to top
View user's profile
drtodorov
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 3177

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, the previous message had to be truncated. It seems that very long posts (many pages in length) may interfere with forum software.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
orangehrzn



Joined: 23 Feb 2005
Posts: 1005

PostPosted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the info. I've read the makeupalley FAQ on sunscreens and finally understood what SPF is. It's simple but I haven't seen it explained so clearly at other places.
Back to top
View user's profile
Dee



Joined: 09 Jan 2005
Posts: 21

PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for those links Maxxilla. Very informative.
Dr. T, would appreciate your opinion on chemical sunscreens such as Parsol, tinosorb and Mexoryl. I've been hearing a lot of people saying that the chemicals in these sunscreens are very nasty and could be causing more harm than good and the risks outweigh the benefits. No doubt they are effective in preventing premature aging, but are we doing more harm by using them? What's your opinion?
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
drtodorov
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Posts: 3177

PostPosted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tinosorb is approved only for clothing. Apparently it can be toxic if used on the skin.

The orther two are not absorbed enough to have systemic toxicity. They also do not seem to have significant short-term toxicity for the skin. However, long-term skin toxicity of Parsol or Meroxyl has not been studied (and it is hard to study anyway) so this possibility remains. If you want to play it really safe, use physical suscreens that are not absorbed - e.g. zinc oxide.
Back to top
View user's profile Send e-mail
vanyel5



Joined: 14 Oct 2005
Posts: 39
Location: york, pa

PostPosted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

as far as toxicity i know i have no answer but i bought some sunscreen with mexoryl after i heard about how it was as good/better than parsol and when the stability of parsol was being discussed in the general media...i do like the mexoryl as opposed to the avobenzone/parsol as it doesn't seem to sting my eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Smart Skin Care Forum Index -> Basic Skin Care / Skin Health Maintenance All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group