Consumer Reports - Wrinkle Creams Do Little or Nothing

[needhelp]

Just finished reading Consumer Reports - as well as hearing this all over the news. All creams tested did little or nothing. Interestingly the more expensive ones did less. I'm starting to wonder .... is this just is a billion dollar rip-off industry ???

[claudek]

amazing isn't it. I would love to read this but cannot find the entire article.
Which were tested and how long?
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/health-fitness/index.htm

[orangehrzn]

Nothing new to me.

Creams at most can exfoliate epidermis making it look nicer, removing faint lines, or prevent pimple formation if you are not sensitive to acids. If you have sagging, enlarged pores, loss of fat or collagen, deep wrinkling, broken capillaries, dark circles - forget about the topicals.

Cheap moisturizers will do exactly the same job as the ones that are $100/oz. Yes cosmetics is a rip-off industry supported by the stupidity of its consumers. It is enough to read most consumer reviews online to see that the negative or neutral reviews may contain some usefull information while the ones of type 'it works wonderfully for me' are pure gibberish. Even the 'medical' articles often have ridiculously biased methods of evaluation, not to speak of the manifacturers articles that often contain 'doctored' results.

[drtodorov]

As I always say - look at clinical studies (especially double-blind ones) rather than at the commercials.

[claudek]

I am a little buffled by this but thena again I am not.
I always thought a good VitA, C, Vit E creams/serums , Glycolic Acids & etc.. help prevent and protect the skin. If creams do nothing, how can many celebs look so good
and not even use Botox all the time? I can undertsand maybe these Loreal wrinkle creams are scams but what about like ones like Skinceuticals , 3Lab,or Jason Beckett.. I guess I am not the only one confused..
I read this too about StrVectin..
http://www.cosmeticsdesign-europe.com/news/ng.asp?id=70958-strivectin-anti-wrinkle-france

[drtodorov]

I don't think that a blanket statement that all creams do nothing is warranted, even thou many indeed do nothing. But studies show that some topicals can make a difference. So, the trick is to either find creams that are as close as possible to what is proven in clinical research, or DIY.

Furthermore, while consumer report is more objective than commercials, they don't really perform properly designed reliable clinical trials, do they?

Look at the research, especially from peer reviewed journal and not paid for by the industry. Is is not abundant but it exists. See http://www.smartskincare.com/resabstracts/

Biology is messy. I wish it were like classical physics where you can predict the bahavior of a simle system thru a few equasions that always work. But, alais, living sytems are complicated, diverse and confusing. Educate yourself as much as you can!

[jamesherried]

Of course a lot of this is a billion dollar rip-off industry! So what else is new? Why for example, would a company use "before and after" photos of a person who's actually had a deep peel done, if not to lead you on to believe that the results were due entirely to their skin product alone, thereby getting you to buy their product? But that doesn't mean all of it is a ripoff. We just have to constantly fine-tune and heighten our awareness as to what ingredients have been shown to work scientifically (or even theoretically or hypothetically)and make our decisions accordingly. Try to remember that the skin care industry is out to make money first, and they will use every marketing strategy they can to do that. They know that if they market a product that makes the skin feel good(or even "temporarily" look good) immediately, people will buy more of it(especially if the company pays for fancy packaging and advertising), even if the product does not have any effect on reparing or rejuvenating the skin. Repairing and rejuvenating the skin is generally a "long term" process and can take weeks , months or even years, depending on the individual. Most of the skin care products on the market (like L'Oreal, Lancome, Estee Lauder, SD-StriVectin, etc.) are just overpriced, glamourized moisturizers that are meant to make your skin look and feel good instantly, but the effects are temporary and short-lived. But the companies know that above all, most people want instant results (even if they are misleading results), and if you give people what they want , they'll make you rich! This is not to say that moisturizers aren't useful, but you certainly don't have to pay a ton of money to get a good one, and remember that moisturizers won't repair or rejuvenate the skin. Even the best moisturizers will only temporarily moisturize the skin, and make the skin look and feel better, but the effects are short-lived. If you want to avoid getting ripped of, go for the DIY approach. And when that's not feasible(as in the case of copper peptides), opt for companies like www.skinbiology.com, whose main priority seems to be providing quality skin products at a resonable price, not spending money(that you the consumer would pay for) on fancy packaging. You also have to remember that if people learn to link "prestige" with a certain skin-care line, you are paying extra money for that prestige, just as you would pay extra money for the prestige associated with buying a Mercedes. But that extra prestige you pay for doesn't improve the quality of the product...you just pay extra for the prestige. Maybe that's why Dr. Perricone decided to market his products using the "exclusive distribution" approach: he markets his products only at high-end, expensive stores like Nordstrom's and Saks 5th Avenue to lend more prestige to the product, and you pay extra for that.

[blueyes]

Jamesherried,

Dude, if it's true, then why are you here giving us advice on what creams to make ourselves, and what ingredients to use.

According to Consumer Reports (and you) it seems NO skin care works. So, why are YOU bothering with it then? :)

[drtodorov]

Firstly, consumer report didn't say that nothing works. Basicaly, it said that expensive stuff is generally no better than less expensive stuff and that while on average improvements are rather modest, individual results vary a lot, i.e. some people get significant results while others none (see quote from CR below). And its no secret that no topical can eliminte wrinkles completely.

"But every product performed better than that for at least some test subjects and failed completely for others. All the creams worked better for some women than for others, but none came close to completely eliminating fine lines and wrinkles. Consumers may need to try more than one wrinkle cream to find one that works for them. CR suggests starting with the top-rated product line and moving on only if it's not helpful to the skin's appearance."

[jamesherried]

[jamesherried]

Here's a quote from www.skinbiology.com regarding the companies that produce many of the skin products on the market:

The primary problem with most of these products is the lack of serious scientific studies and independent studies by reputable experts in dermatology. Many use uncontrolled studies that are never published, and could not be published, in reputable journals. Even many, very large corporations are unwilling to sponsor serious studies of the their products. As an executive of a large cosmetic company told me, "We pay our top scientist $180,000 a year and our top model $4,000,000 a year".

[drtodorov]

Just keep in mind that while copper peptide's wound healing effects are supported by research, out of those publications very few are properly designed clinical trials in humans and practically none are double-blind human studies for treatment of wrinkles. (Even thou that is likely to be due to lack of funding rather than due to lack of effect.) Still, skin biology is a for profit company and should be viewed with the same prudence as others.

[needhelp]

What I found most disturbing about the CR article was -

Quote - "... even the best performers reduced the ave depth of wrinkles by less than 10 percent,
a magnitude of change that was barely visable to the naked eye"

That said, a claim of "reduces wrinkles" is meaningless since no one (even you) will ever notice.

I suggest everyone read the article for themselves.
it's the latest edition and should still be available.

[blueyes]

I doubt that anyone here is so naive as to think that cosmetics companies don't use hype. EVERY COMPANY DOES.

The Consumer Reports article talks about a handful of products, even though there are thousands out there. While in the past skin care was fluff and nothing else, nowdays it's no longer true. There are some good ingredients that are being discovered in the labs, and while they may not be a cure it all, as the big cosmetic companies are trying to make them out to be, they are effective to a degree. Capitalism being capitalism, I have no qualms about what most companies do, as long as they don't lie outright, or put harmful products on the market. Now, both of these points are debatable, but the fact of the matter is that it's up to each and every one of us to do our research, and make a decision that's best for us.

James... why do you worry if someone buys a $350 dollar creme? If they have the money, do it freely, and feel that it helps them, it's their business. As long as the product does not cause harm, or contains ingredients that do, it's not your place to police their wallet, or tell them that their stupid for doing it... I mean, you can express your opinion (it's a free country) but why do you care so much about what other people do? It's not YOUR money they're spending...

[jamesherried]