Confused about SPF ratings in physical / mineral sunscreens

Learn what is really real, in an industry full of fake Forums Ask the Beauty Brains Confused about SPF ratings in physical / mineral sunscreens

  • This topic is empty.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #92260
    ginan
    Member
    Hi everyone – this is my first post on this forum – feel lucky to have found you.

    One of the things I’ve noticed lately is that sunscreens’ SPF ratings “seem” all over the place by looking just at the active ingredient concentrations. For example:
    Titanium Dioxide 4% and Zinc Oxide 6% 
    rated at 50+ (Avene Face & Body)
    Titanium Dioxide 5% and Zinc Oxide 10% 
    rated 30+ (Blue Lizard Sensitive)
    Titanium Dioxide 2% and Zinc Oxide 17% 
    rated 30 (MDSolarSciences Mineral Creme)
    What am I not understanding or taking into consideration? Is it the inactive ingredients that could be making the difference in the SPF rating?
    Can we trust SPF ratings? Or should we ignore ratings and always look for high concentrations of Zinc Oxide (how high is “enough”) and Titanium Dioxide (how high is “enough”?)
    I am referring only to physical sunscreens because those are the only ones I try to use (I like that they scatter the rays rather than letting them through…wish I could find one that does not leave a white cast though…or leave you greasy…)
    Thanks!
    #94890
    RandyS
    Member

    Excellent question! My guess is that some companies under-report their SPF. (It’s always better to underrate rather than over rate.) That could explain some of these differences. The other ingredients can make a difference in the formula. 

    Try a micronized physical sunscreen if you want to get away from the white cast. 
    #94894
    sarahf
    Member

    FYI, I think mdsolarsciences changed their rating to spf 50. I have noticed this too! If you want one matte with a light tint, try skinceuticals physical fusion. Very matte. I actually found it drying.

    #94952
    ginan
    Member

    Thanks Randy!

    When I went to the post that sarahf linked to, the author actually talked about this too…she says that lower levels of active ingredients like Zinc Oxide or Titanium Dioxide likely means the ingredients are micronized…but as far as I can tell she’s not a doctor or chemist, even though she seems very knowledgeable. Would you agree Randy that is a likely explanation? 

    And speaking about micronized, I read in one of your comments that you said micronized doesn’t always = that it will penetrate the skin…is there a fairly quick/easy way to determine whether a micronized sunscreen would protect yet *not* penetrate the skin?
    #94953
    ginan
    Member

    sarahf, mdsolarscienes has 3 sunscreens, 2 are SPF 30, 1 is SPF 50 (I own all three).

    See, that’s the thing…now that my skin is older, it doesn’t like to be matte…I want *more* moisture, just not a shiny/greasy look, you know? That doesn’t look good either.
    #94955
    RandyS
    Member

    Ginan: To my knowledge there is no scientific consensus saying that any of these ingredients pose a danger from penetrating skin. If there was such data the ingredients wouldn’t be allowed as over the counter drugs. 

    #94957
    sarahf
    Member

    Yes, you are correct Ginan–I stand corrected.  Weird.  But still, try the skinceuticals.  You might like it.  A lot of people love it, just my skin finds it drying.

    #94958
    sarahf
    Member

    You can get a free sample if you live near a Blue Mercury store (or you could probably request one on line).

    #94959
    ginan
    Member

    OK – that’s good to know I don’t need to worry about micronized ingredients.

    So do you agree that if Zinc or Titanium is micronized it would require less of it to yield similar SPF to non-micronized? 
    sorry if I’m beating this topic to death – I’m kind of a sunscreen / want to protect my skin nut, and lately I just don’t feel confident with SPFs :/
    #94960
    sarahf
    Member

    Randy–I have a question.  Paula contends that this product does not moisturize your skin with the silicone base it has.  I agree with Gina(n), I find it greasy, so much so that I feel I could skip moisturizer underneath it and just use it as a makeup primer on its own.  I got a sample of it at Sephora (yes, I know, I’m going crazy with products right now…) Is Paula right?  http://www.paulaschoice.com/beautypedia-skin-care-reviews/by-brand/mdsolarsciences/_/Mineral-Creme-Broad-Spectrum-SPF-30

    #94962
    ginan
    Member

    sarah, for me, none of the mdsolarsciences are moisturizing – and I notice that if I wear them for a few days in a row, my skin starts to look drier (I don’t often do this because this sunscreen is expensive!)

    What I usually do – because I actually *do* love the finish on these sunscreens, even though they are slippery – is moisturize my skin well underneath. But…my skin may be drier than yours and able to tolerate it. For me the finish is NOT greasy with these sunscreens – a little tiny shiny, a little slippery (although I cut that down by rubbing it in well and waiting 20 minutes if I can before putting on foundation) – but not greasy.
    #94965
    sarahf
    Member

    Gina–is your name Gina?  For reference, I find that the mdsolarsciences tinted sunscreen plays really well with Benefit’s Hello Flawless powder, which takes down the shine.  In case you’re curious to try that one.

    #94967
    RandyS
    Member

    One could certainly argue that this product is not as moisturizing as other comparable lotions because 1) it doesn’t contain water and 2) the main occlusive agent is dimethicone which is a good skin protectant but does not reduce TEWL as much as, say, petrolatum. 

    Is she actually right? I don’t know. Someone would have to show TEWL (Transepidermal Water Loss data) comparing this product to a suitable control.  
    #94969
    sarahf
    Member

    Thanks, Randy! :)

    #94974
    ginan
    Member

    sarah (yes, you can call me gina :) I own all 3 mdsolarsciences sunscreens – including the tinted one. I do use it once in a while and it’s probably my favorite of the tinted sunscreens (I realized today I should make a list of all the sunscreens I tried! Otherwise I’m bound to run into them again, forget I tried them, and order them again :/ today I “ran” into Green Screen in my drawer and I didn’t at all remember I had tried that one…)

    I’ve also been getting away from wearing SPF 30 and wanting to wear only SPF 50 – I really want to keep those UVA rays off my skin.
    But this whole issue of SPF ratings and how all over the place they are with the actives content makes me question SPF ratings…but may just be due to not understanding the technology (e.g., micronized). That’s why I’m really hoping Randy can give me *some* reassurance that yes a sunscreen can have have low levels of ZO and TD and still provide the full SPF rating it says…because of course lower levels mean less white cast. 
    I might also write the manufacturers of these sunscreens…but in the past, when I’ve reached out to companies with questions about their specific ingredients I don’t find the customer service reps to be that knowledgable.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 39 total)
  • The forum ‘Ask the Beauty Brains’ is closed to new topics and replies.
The Beauty Brains