Consumer Reports - Wrinkle Creams Do Little or Nothing

[drtodorov]

Of course, there are companies that make worthy products, and occasionally at reasonable prices. What I am suggesting is to keep in mind that any materials publicly released by a skin care manufacturing company tend to be biased towards their own products and hence should be evaluated against other research.

[alarson]

I for one, appreciate most ALL the posts on here. The posts (like from Blueyes telling us about the Syn-ake cream....even if it's costly, it's working incredibly well for them and they were willing to take the time to report their experience with this cream) and also the posts about the DIY or inexpensive alternatives (I posted about the Syn-ake products available on ebay as an alternative for those who can't afford the more expensive creams, but still want to try something containing this ingredient) are all helpful information and posts.
It's up to each of us, to read the information on here and then decide what's going to work for us or what we're willing to try and what we can afford to try.
I have to agree with James, though, about SkinBiology...I've used their products for some time now and I'm impressed with them. But, I also use Renova and other products too.
You just have to research for yourself and then go ahead and try what you think might apply or might work for you and go from there.
Cost shouldn't enter in too much....except I do agree that there are creams out there that are WAY, WAY over-priced. And there are some "scams" out there that I appreciate being warned about on here.
We're all on here, hopefully, to learn from each other's experiences.

[blueyes]

alarson,

Spoken like a true gentleman... :)

[jamesherried]

It could be that the Consumer Reports approach is flawed in that it focused too much on "creams" and not enough on serums or gels(if those were tested at all). It may well be that the creams tested did little or nothing, partly because creams in general may not be the best way to deliver active ingredients to the skin. According to Dr. Denese in her book on skin care, creams are not the best way to to deliver active ingredients into the skin. According to her, creams are intended to moisturize the skin by locking the water into your skin. But the properties that give the cream its moisturing ability (the ability to lock in water) will also "lock out" or block the delivery of active ingredients into the skin. So for delivery of active ingredients, serums and gels are best, according to Dr. Denese, then if you need need a moisturizer on top of that, you can use a cream (if it's the right one). I doubt that the Consumer Reports focused on serums or gels, it appears that they just focused on creams. And if what Dr. Denese says is true, creams for the most part will not repair or rejuvenate the skin effectively, they will only moisturize the skin.

[claudek]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20061204/pl_usnw/consumer_reports_tests_wrinkle_creams_for_first_time__results_find_no_miracles_and_no_correlation_between_price_and_effectivene

[jamesherried]

I read the CR article, and the results they found are not surprising. La Prairie is, like Creme De La Mer, just another overpriced moisturizer. If you look at the ingredients, it doesn't really have any that have been shown to repair or regenerate or rejuvenate the skin in any way, and even if it did, the active ingredients might degrade (while the product sits on the shelves) and no longer be active by the time you actually use the product. Also, even if it did have those active ingredients, it is a cream, and according to Dr. Denese, creams are generally not the most effective way to deliver active ingredients to the skin anyway. The best way to deliver the active ingredients to the skin, according to her, is through the use of serums and gels, then after that you use creams for moisturizing. So one obvious problem with the CR study is that focus was probably too much on creams. Another obviouos problem is that it lasted only twelve weeks, and often that's not really long enough to see "significant" results in skin improvements. Sometimes you need more than 12 weeks, you may need six months or even a couple of years to see significant results. Also it depends on the individual and the ingredients and products used. A person who is 80 years old will almost certainly take longer to see improvement than a person who is 30. And the CR study only tells us so much, because I'm sure it didn't test every skin product out there, and they seem to have chosen products that are just marketed in the most effective way to the consumer (such as La Prairie Cellular Day Cream), not products that have scientific evidence to back them up(such as Skinceuticals C + E + Ferulic Acid Serum).

[jamesherried]

Another reason that a lot of the creams on the market won't work is that often the active ingredient(s) they contain are present in such small amounts as to have little or no effect. A good example is a CoQ10 cream by Nivea. The only active ingredient in the cream is Coenzyme Q10, but the cream is white. Well the color speaks for itself that the prodcut has vey little CoQ10, becuase CoQ10 is orange, and if you ad it to any white cream in a significant amount, it will turn the cream yellow. Not surpringly, CoQ10 is towards the bottom on the list of ingredients for that Nivea product. But the CoQ10 is the main reason people buy that cream, so it's a waste of money, although it's not expensive.

[jamesherried]

[robertchoi]

I've just now read this thread, and I must say that the opinions
are buzzing around like flies here.

Is everyone looking for the "miracle creme" or something?

Let's be honest with ourselves, and admit that what all of
these moisturizers and cremes do is to give us a topical
remedy for something that may have deeper roots,
what do you think? In a movie I recently watched, there
was a quote, "rays now, raisin later".

The science behind skin care is so varied and controversial
that it's hard to know whom to believe. One truth is that
good nutrition and reduced sun exposure both contribute
to healthier skin.

Consumer Reports is great for products like washing machines
and cars, but how can they expect to be able to "test" skin
cremes? I believe the results that they attained are true,
but who's to say what kind of skin these test subjects had?
And do they all have skin that is similar to us, or even similar
with each other?

Skin is so personal, better to trust your doctor or best friend
than a magazine, in this case.

[George]

As mentioned - the article does point out that some subjects had good results - this was not a negative review.

Something not addressed in the article (I don't think - I read it a couple weeks ago) is that none of this means anything in a vacuum.

I am willing to bet that no wrinkle cream at all works one little bit if it is not accompanied by a solid daily skin care regimen, that is appropriate for the individual skin condition. Applying anything to dirty, dehydrated skin won't do a darn thing. However - many products (regardless of price as CR points out) can have nice supplemental effect if used in conjunction with a sensible daily regimen.

It's my mantra and I'm sticking to it...Cleanse, Tone, Moisturize, Sun-protect - it'll get you farther than any new super-cream.

G

[robertchoi]

Thanks for the clarification, George!
Still wonder about the usefulness of a CR article on skin cremes, though.

Glad to know that it was not a negative review, I may have misunderstood
your post. And I fully agree about your comments on having first and
foremost clean, well-cared for skin.

[jamesherried]

BlueEyes...this is for you! Since you don't seem to mind spending a lot of money on skincare products, do yourself(and the rest of us on here) a big favor, buy this growth factor product by ReVive, see what results you get, and let us know. The cost is $600, but then how much is your skin worth anyway? I've always wondered if this product really works...I hope so for the price. But I've never heard any reports from people who have actually tried it. Read below:

INTENSITÉ
VOLUMIZING
SERUM

Wrinkles are not the enemy of youth. More insidious is the subtle loss of facial volume that dramatically ages a face. Volume loss could never be managed with a skincare cream...until now. RéVive introduces its most potent molecule yet, KGF (Keratinocyte Growth Factor). Intensité Volumizing Serum with KGF augments the subtle loss of facial volume and plumps trouble areas (i.e. puppet and frown lines). KGF halts the aging process by turning over dying skin cells 8 times faster and hinders DNA fragmentation. Skin is immediately dewy and vibrant. KGF’s dynamic activity allows for a molecular dialogue with underlying layers of skin that contributes to increased volume after several weeks. Whitening Tri-Complex depigments the skin eliminating blemishes and dark spots associated with aging. Powerful anti-radical defense system shields against pollution, stress and damaging UVB rays. Intensité Volumizing Serum is the optimal solution before considering or in preparation for a surgical procedure.

SKIN TYPE: Intensive repair and volume enhancement for mature skin.

APPLICATION: Use sparingly, am and/or pm over the entire face or as a spot treatment, under a RéVive moisturizer.

NET WT 1.0 OZ / 30 ML



$600.00

[blueyes]

You must be out of your mind James. I'm not made of money, and even if I was, I'm not stupid.

I weigh the pros and cons and make an educated decision. If I didn't buy the $400+ euoko product what makes you think I would buy something for $600...? And who said I don't mind spending large summs of money on my skin? FYI, I DO mind!

If you want me to try this thing (which BTW it seems is for mature skin... not like mine) why don't you send me the money and I do exactly what you want me to... :P