The Beauty Brains

Kim Ray’s question… I was wondering if mixing equal parts of sunscreen with lotion would yield the same benefit as applying both separately.  I want the higher SPF of actual sunscreen and the stronger moisturizer of the lotion. It is really hard to find a product that delivers on both.

The Right Brain responds:

We appreciate how tough it is to find SPF lotions that strike the right balance of moisturization and protection but we don’t recommend that you mix sunscreens with lotion. Here’s why…

Two reasons not to mix SPF lotion

First, as we pointed out in our post on The Wrong Way to Apply Sunscreen, certain ingredients that are commonly used in skin care products can interfere with the way UV absorbers deposit/spread on the skin. The last thing you want to do is compromise the performance of the active ingredient in a sunscreen. Not only are you wasting money but more importantly you’re increasing your risk of sunburn or worse!

Second, as Vananners pointed out in our Forum, if you mix an SPF lotion with a non-sunscreen product you’re essentially diluting the sunscreen. So if you mix your products 50/50 you’d have to use twice as much of the mixture to get the same protective effect. And that’s going to make your skin greasy feeling.

The Beauty Brains  bottom line

We’d recommend you keep looking for a sunscreen that provides the right level of moisture for you. Does anyone out there in the Beauty Brains community have any suggestions for Kim Ray?

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Brenda is bemused….Do products that claim to reduce shiny skin oiliness really work? I was thinking of buying Murad Oil Control but I don’t want to get scammed. Can the Beauty Brains please enlighten me?

The Right Brain replies:

We always encourage the Beauty Brains community to be on skeptical alert for products that sound too good to be true, so we’d be glad to try to shine some light on the shine control claims of Murad.

Oil Control Claims

This product is a lotion that claims to provide sun protection and oil control. The sun protection part is easy: it contains 3 different FDA approved sunscreens so there’s no issue there. Understanding oil control is a bit more slippery.

According to Murad’s website, Oil-Control Mattifier SPF 15 “reduces shine on contact and keeps skin free of excess oil by up to 78% for 8 hours. Oil-Control Complex helps regulate oil production while preserving moisture to provide a long-lasting matte finish.”  That’s a pretty impressive claim, but is there any science behind this so called oil control complex?

Active ingredients

Three of the ingredients in Murad Oil Control (Argania Spinosa Kernel Extract, Serenoa Serrulata Fruit Extract, Sesamum Indicum (Sesame) Seed Extract), comprise a complex sold by the Centerchem company called “Regu-Seb.”  According to their website Regu-seb is made of  “polyphenolrich fractions from the fruits of the North American saw palmetto and South American sesame seeds in a Moroccan argan oil base. Its perfectly balanced polyphenol formula, consisting mostly of lignans and phytosterols, helps to control and reduce sebum production, especially in the T-zone area of the face.”  Centerchem cites  two research studies. The first is an in vitro study done on reconstructed epidermis that shows a dose-response-dependent inhibition of dihydrotestosteron (DHT) synthesis by Regu-Seb. Results showed that at 1% the complex could inhibit DHT synthesis 35% vs. control.  (DHT is a chemical that’s involved in oil production in skin.) The second study was done in vivo and showed that at 5% concentration, a cream with 5% of the complex reduced  the severity of seborrheic skin condition by 46% (after 30 and 90 days.) If this data is valid, there does appear to be some basis for this complex reducing oil production.

Does Murad Oil Control really work?

The fact that the supplier has data showing the complex has some effect between 1% and 5% is very encouraging but it isn’t conclusive proof of efficacy. We have no way of knowing the concentration of Regu-seb in the Murad product and we don’t know how the Murad base might effect the efficacy of the complex. But there does appear to be some science behind this proposition so we’d give Murad Oil Control a rating of:

3 Brains

The Beauty Brains bottom line

Unlike products that make “magic” claims like erasing deep wrinkles, Murad Oil Control Mattifier claims seem to have some basis in science considering the data we’ve been able to find. If you have an oily skin problem it may be worth a try.

The Beauty Brains Product Rating Scale

No Brainer
A dumb-ass ridiculous product making crazy claims without any scientific basis. Don’t waste your money.

1 Brain
We can’t find enough information from the company or in the scientific literature to indicate this product might be any better/different or not. Try at your own risk, and if you do happen to come across any legitimate technical data, let us know and we’ll blog about it.

2 Brains
A nice, basic product but with nothing to indicate it does anything special. If you can afford it, try it and you might like it. But don’t expect any extraordinary results.

3 Brains
A product making extraordinary claims which at least appear to be grounded in real science.  May be worth trying but make sure you don’t spend too much.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Mid Brain muses:

Blondes allegedly have more fun but brunettes are healthier because their darker coloration protects them from getting skin cancer, right?

Sun tan and skin cancer

Wrong. According to a report at Science Daily new genetic research indicates that hair color is NOT a good predictor of skin cancer.  Historically scientists thought that certain characteristics associated with having dark hair (dark eye color, not prone to freckles, tanning after repeated sun exposure or tanning without burning meant that you were less likely to develop melanoma. But now they’ve found that regardless of hair color, people with certain MC1R gene variants have a more than two-fold risk of melanoma.  Science Daily says: “Traditionally, a clinician might look at a person with dark hair who did not sunburn easily and classify them as lower risk for melanoma, but that may not be true for all people in the population.”

Unfortunately, as of now, there is no simple screening test for the MC1R gene.  But if one is developed it could be a powerful tool in the battle against melanoma.

The Beauty Brains bottom line

I was suprised to read this study because I thought increased risk of skin cancer could have explained the report from the World Health Organization that predicts that blondes will become extinct within 200 years.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Katie needs enlightening…I recently saw a billboard advertising that one session of indoor tanning was equal to 100 glasses of milk.   Is that really true?  Should I ignore all the warnings I hear about indoor tanning and just do it?  Could it be that indoor tanning is actually healthy?

The Left Brain burns bright:

I have to say that I find this whole effort by the indoor tanning industry to be disgusting.  Encouraging people to expose themselves to UV radiation to get vitamin D is like telling people to smoke cigarettes to help them lose weight.  Both can work, but both are awful ideas.

UV and Vitamin D

In answer to your first question, Yes, it is true that UV exposure does stimulate your body to naturally produce vitamin D in your skin.  It’s the UVB light that does it however, not the UVA.  UVB are the rays that also cause sunburning.  In indoor tanning booths, the UVB rays are typically reduced to low level to prevent burning.  The UVA (tan producing rays) are turned up.

Indoor Tanning Industry

The indoor tanning industry is taking this fact and using it to claim that exposure to UV is actually good for you.  They even go as far to suggest that it’s a myth that UV exposure causes cancer.

They post some interesting findings in this report on the “truth about tanning” which can be summarized as follows.

1.  People are deficient in Vitamin D and that’s causing health problems.
2.  UV exposure is the best way to get your dose of Vitamin D.
3.  Doctors warning against UV exposure are unscrupulous liars who are getting paid off by the sunscreen industry.
4.  Tanning is safe & healthy as long as you don’t burn.
5.  Indoor tanning is best because you can control whether you burn or not.

Unsupported Conclusions

Their conclusions about vitamin D deficiency are supported by recently published studies in peer reviewed science journals.  Even the American Academy of Dermatology would agree.  However, none of their conclusions after point 1 has any objective support at all.

For example, they say UV exposure is the best way to get Vitamin D.  The opinion of dermatologists and researchers is that dietary supplementation is a better idea.  Who should you believe, the doctors & scientists who study the subject or the tanning industry who is trying to convince you their product is safe?

Of course, I’m skeptical of experts, but I’m even more skeptical of sales people.

Are Doctors Liars?

The implication that dermatologists tell people to avoid UV exposure because they get kickbacks from the sunscreen industry is just ridiculous.  Even if there were a few unscrupulous doctors are we really supposed to believe that the sunscreen industry is paying off everyone!?  Isn’t it more likely that these people are doing their job by giving advice that they believe will best keep them healthy?

As long as you don’t burn

The indoor tanning industry prides itself on its campaign to “prevent burning”.  They contend that if you don’t burn, you’re getting a healthy dose of UV exposure.  Again, researchers dispute this.  The fact is that there is a correlation between people who use tanning beds and increased risk of skin cancer.  Whether you burn or not does not necessarily matter.

Darkside of UV exposure

It is true that no one has yet found a direct link between UV exposure and cancer.  But according to doctors “the link between ultraviolet exposure from the sun or tanning beds and melanoma is indisputable.”

But in addition to the likely cancer risk, there is plenty of evidence that shows UV exposure results in faster aged, leathery-looking skin.  Do you really want to risk tanning only to have to worry about wrinkles, age spots, and a leathery complexion?  Better is to get your vitamin D from your diet and your tanned look from something containing DHA.

The Beauty Brains Bottom Line

While the question of the safety of indoor tanning is not cut and dried, it’s pretty clear that the people who are using tanning booths are not motivated to do so to get more vitamin D.  According to the opinions of doctors, the safest option for ensuring you get the proper amount of Vitamin D is to get incidental sun exposure plus dietary supplementation.  Baking in a booth for vitamins is crazier than a prion-loaded bovine.

What do you think of indoor tanning?  Should people start doing it to make sure they get enough vitamin D?  Leave a comment and let the rest of the Beauty Brains community know.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Left Brain gets loquacious…

When we wrote about the dangers of indoor tanning, some people that posted comments suggested that sunscreen use was leading to Vitamin D deficiency. They sited a few studies that indeed suggest Vitamin D deficiency is a risk factor in a number of health issues.  They then went on to say that indoor tanning and UV exposure was actually healthy because it helps increase your Vitamin D levels. They also said using sunscreen was bad and might be responsible for Vitamin D deficiency. The argument sounded like a stretch, but it was an interesting hypothesis.

Vitamin D and Dermatologists

Recently, the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) issued a position paper on the subject. They reviewed the scientific literature on the subject and concluded that

the public (should) obtain vitamin D from nutritional sources and dietary supplements, and not from unprotected exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun or indoor tanning devices, as UV radiation is a known risk factor for the development of skin cancer.

They recommend that the public use the National Academy of Sciences guidelines for Vitamin D for the proper level of intake.  This is 200 IU for adults up to 50 years and 400 IU for adults 51-70. For the lucky ones who last even longer, you should be taking 600 IU daily.

Vitamin D rich foods

Longtime Beauty Brains community members know how we do not encourage the use of vitamin supplements. In the US, these products are not regulated and can be dangerous. And Vitamin D is especially dangerous because it can be toxic at high levels. Your best bet is to avoid supplements and eat real food. So instead of recommending vitamin supplements, we thought we’d list the best foods you can eat to get your vitamin D. Included are the amount of IU and the serving size.

Cod liver oil – 1 TB – 1360 IU

Salmon – 3.5oz – 360 IU

Mackerel – 3.5oz – 345 IU

Sardines – 1.75 oz – 250 IU

Tuna – 3 oz – 200 IU

Milk – 8oz – 98 IU

Margarine – 1 TB – 60 IU

Dry cereal – 1 cup – 40 IU

Egg – 1 – 20 IU

Liver – 3.5 oz – 15 IU

Swiss Cheese – 1oz – 12 IU

Eat up!

For more nutrition information on foods see the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Nutrient Database Web site, http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Jamie Wants To Know:  I recently bought a new moisturizer which contains SPF. Is it alright to use this as a night cream as well? Will applying SPF to your skin day and night cause any harm? Or should I just go get myself a night cream?

The Right Brain Says:
Applying an SPF (Sun Protection Factor) cream to you skin at night versus during the day won’t make any difference.  Any cosmetic CAN be irritating if you have very sensitive skin, but if you’ve used the product during the day and it’s ok, you won’t have any problems at night.  At least your face won’t have problem. Your bank account might because SPF products tend to be more expensive!

The Beauty Brain’s Bottom Line:

There’s nothing wrong with applying sunscreen at night but if you invest in a good night cream without SPF, you’ll save some money.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Diana dares to ask: Do cheap sunglasses provide the same amount of UV ray protection as more expensive sunglasses? Does it matter? I understand the FDA does not regulate this (not that I think they should…) but how can we tell if the shades we’re buying will protect our eyes or potentially harm them?

The Right Brain’s squinty replay:

This is a very important question Diane! Ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the sun can burn your skin AND the corneas and conjunctivas of your eyes. Plus, long-term UV exposure can lead to eye disease like cataracts (clouding of the lens) and macular degeneration (breakdown of the macula) Sunglasses that block this UV light are a great way to help protect your vision, but you don’t need to spend a bundle to do it.

Good guidelines

You’re right that the FDA doesn’t regulate sunglasses. But the American National Standards Institute has set some guidelines that can help you pick the right pair. They say that glasses should block UVB by 99% and UVA radiation by 95 percent. Here’s the important part – the glasses should indicate the level of protection they provide. If the glasses aren’t labeled with a specific UV claim then DON’T BUY THEM because it’s impossible to know how much protection they will provide. And don’t assume that “special” lenses block UV. Blue blockers, polycarbonate, and polarized lenses may block SOME UV light but without special coatings these lenses DO NOT meet the UV minimum blockage requirements. Make sure the glasses are clearly labeled with the type of protection the offer.

What to look for

Look for these voluntary industry labels that (hopefully) manufacturers are using:

• “Cosmetic” = 70% UV reduction
• “General purpose” = 95% UV reduction
• “Special purpose” = 99% UV reduction
• “UV-400″ and “UV absorption up to 400nm” = 99% to 100% UV reduction

Also, you should know that the UV protectant coating doesn’t have a color, so don’t be tricked into thinking that darker lenses provde better protection. Also, remember that the tint or color of the lens doesn’t matter.

Cost is not critical

UV labeling is what you should look for, not a high price tag. We quote the Glaucoma Research Institute

The good news is that sunglasses don’t have to be expensive to protect your eyes and they can often be found at the local drugstore. Unfortunately, a high price is not always a guarantee of high quality and protection. Part of the difficulty is that standards and labeling regarding UV protection are voluntary, not mandatory-and can be confusing.

The Beauty Brains bottom line

Don’t be cheated by Chanel, fooled by Fendi, or duped by Donna Karin. Look for proper UV labeling and save some money!

What do YOU think? Do you buy expensive sunglasses because you think they work better? Leave a comment for the rest of Beauty Brains community.

References:
Mayo Clinic
Glaucoma Research Institut

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Renee requests: Does the light that comes from your computer screen cause any kind of UV damage???

Mid Brain Removes the Shades:

No.

Computer screens do not emit UV light so there is no need to worry about UV damage. They emit visible light which is not harmful to skin. Rest assured that the hours spent in front of your computer perusing the Beauty Brains archives will not contribute to facial lines and wrinkles.

For more info, see what the Physics society has to say about it.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Andrea’s stumped by sunscreen: I was shopping today and realized just how many sunscreen options are available today. Neutrogena has a whole line of face sunscreens with SPF ranging from 45-80! How do I know how much SPF I really need?

Fore Brain’s fast answer:

The quick answer is that SPF (aka Sun Protection Factor) is generally a multiplier of your skin’s ability to resist burning. So if normally your skin burns after 12 minutes of sun exposure, applying sunscreen with an SPF 10 will increase the exposure time to 120 mins before you will get burned. This should help you pick out a proper SPF for your skin. Unfortunately sunscreen quality isn’t all in the SPF, so read on for other factors you should look for in a good sunscreen.

UVA UVB UVWhat?

Sunlight in outer space is composed of radioactive rays, which get filtered out by the atmosphere layers of the Earth. Of all the dangerous rays that the sun emits, the only ones that reach our skin are the UV rays. These rays fall into many categories but the ones we care about when discussing skin damage are UVA and UVB.

When they reach our skin, UVB rays stimulate Vitamin D production, appearance of moles, and can lead to sunburn with overexposure. There are more UVB rays in sunlight in the summertime when the sun is closer to the earth. UVA rays, are not as well known as UVB, and are responsible for tanning of the skin, as well as negative effects of sun exposure like as skin ageing and melanoma (a dangerous type of skin cancer). Unlike UVB, UVA rays are generally present at consistent levels throughout the year.

How do we protect ourselves from UVA and UVB?

This is where sunscreen comes in. Developed in the mid 1900s the aim of sunscreen is to limit sun overexposure and therefore minimize the negative effects and risks associated with sunbathing. The SPF rating that comes on sunscreen bottles is determined by an FDA required in vivo test which involves exposing volunteers’ skin to the sun until it sunburns and then evaluating the protection factor that the sunscreen gave that skin. The general rule is that the SPF is the multiplier of your skin’s normal resistance to sunburn, so if normally your skin would be sunburned after 12 minutes of direct sun exposure, with proper application of and SPF10 sunscreen, it will only get sunburned after 120 minutes.

A note about SPF ratings though. Some studies have shown that sunscreen’s protection factor doesn’t rise as evenly above SPF30 as it does in the ratings below. So for a long time sunscreens in the US were only allowed to be labelled 30+ because the numbers above 30 don’t represent sunscreen’s effectiveness the same way that SPFs 30 and below do. Recently this number has been raised to 50; however, you do need to keep in mind that still SPF50 isn’t twice as good as SPF25 as the number might have you believe.

But what about UVA?

Unfortunately, since the SPF test is mainly for the sunburn prevention properties of sunscreen, and those arise only from UVB, the official FDA test doesn’t shed any light onto how much UVA protection a sunscreen provides. Currently there are several skin pigmentation change tests available to test UVA activity and protection (since tanning is a result of the UVA rays stimulating melanin production and release), but they are not a requirement for sunscreen labelling in the United States. This is quite unfortunate, since UVA rays cause more long-term damage to skin like ageing and melanoma which is quite dangerous.

If you do want UVA protection in your sunscreen, look for products labelled as UVA/UVB broad spectrum, and don’t forget to check the ingredients; zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, avobenzone, and ecamsule (aka Mexoryl) are all effective at blocking UVA and have been approved by the FDA.

The Beauty Brains bottom line

So what is the recommendation here? In my research of sunscreen ingredients, I was very disappointed to come across many theories of some sunscreen compounds being carcinogenic, photomutagens, and reactive oxygen species, meaning that upon deep penetration into the skin they can cause some serious harm to us. This, combined with the fact that many sunscreens are poor UVA blockers, means that sunscreen doesn’t give us the ultimate sun protection which we have all come to rely on so heavily. So my recommendation is this: Try to find a facial moisturizer with UVA blocking compounds I listed above to use year-round to avoid signs of skin ageing, pick a skintype-appropriate sunscreen containing both UVA and UVB protection for the summer, and remember: the best way to minimize skin damage associated with sun exposure is to avoid it all together so wear clothing to shield your skin since the best sun block is a physical one.

Fun Fact: UV rays can be used to kill bacteria and are sometimes used to disinfect drinking water.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunscreen

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=46376

http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/sunscreens/summary.php

Hansona, K.M., Grattonb, E., Bardeena, C.J., (2006) Sunscreen enhancement of UV-induced reactive oxygen species in the skin. Free radical biology and medicine, 41, (1205-1212).

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Sandy says:
I was reading this article at National Geographic and wondered what kind of sunscreen you recommend that won’t kill the coral reefs.  Can you help?  And is this really a problem?

Right Brain retorts:

Who doesn’t love the colorful and diverse ecosystem found at coral reefs? Even a logician like Left Brain can appreciate the beauty of these sites. Unfortunately, coral reefs are dying around the world. There are a variety of reasons like coastal development, overfishing, pollution and global climate change which individuals have little ability to change.  However, the article you cite says some environmental scientists think the sunscreen you use may also be killing these systems.

Death by sunscreen

According to a recent paper published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, certain sunscreen ingredients have been shown to cause destruction of the coral reefs. In their experiments, they showed that chemicals like parabens, ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate, benzophenone-3 and 4-methylbenzylidene camphor induce a viral infection of algae living in the corals which leads to bleaching. The authors go on to say that 4000 – 6000 tons of sunscreen is washed off beach goers annually and that this may be part of the problem. They recommend avoiding sunscreens that contain ingredients harmful to coral.

Not all scientists are convinced

While most of the media will report this as definitive news, some scientists question the conclusions made by this limited study. Specifically, they have four primary criticisms.

1. Concentration issues. The amount of chemicals shown to have an effect is over 10x that which is likely to occur in seawater around reefs.
2. No detection. They didn’t actually test the water near coral reefs for sunscreen chemicals.
3. No correlations. Researchers haven’t shown a correlation between popular sunbathing/snorkeling reefs and bleaching levels. If it were a problem caused by people’s sunscreens, places with more people would have more bleaching than those with less. They don’t.
4. Forgot pollution. They also forgot that the same chemicals are found in other personal care products that get washed down the drain and eventually end up in the ocean. Sunscreen use may be a much smaller contributor.

So, your sunscreen use may not be as much of a problem as the original paper’s authors suggest. Don’t you just love science?

Beauty Brains bottom line:

Right now there is not enough information to tell whether sunscreens are really killing coral reefs. The effect is probably overblown in this paper. However, there is proof that some ingredients can theoretically harm them, so if you want to remove this as a concern for you, avoid sunscreens that contain the following (if you’re going anywhere near a coral reef).

Butylparaben
Methylparaben
Ethylhexylmethoxycinnamate
Benzophenone-3
4-methylbenzylidene camphor

Instead, consider using products that contain zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!