Hi Jeff – I loved your question and comment above.
I’m still looking into this. So far…..and I’m keeping an open mind, this seems like an expense ploy to me. I talked to our rep, regional sales manager, and sales director 2 weeks ago on a conference call. The formula looks cheaper (the base) and they added 3% more zinc. It’s not a good trade in my mind. And are we really quibbling over 18% versus 21% zinc, except as a marketing tool? It matters so much more if it’s applied correctly and often.
Why do I think this? Zinc oxide is zinc oxide! The differences are in the percentages, and in it’s “cosmetic elegance,” which is related to whether it’s a microparticle or a nanoparticle. And the base makes a difference with how pleasant it is to use. One of our key battles, even with active skin cancer patients, is getting them to use their sunscreen consistently!
Table of Contents
What makes a great sunscreen!
- High zinc (9-20%) – higher is better depending on your outdoor activities. 9% might be fine with an indoor job and an early morning walk, and not great if you lead trail hikes all day or surf.
- Pleasant to use – light or no fragrance, moisturizing without being sticky for normal to dry. And a gel or non-comedogenic form for those with oily skin or acne.
- Easy to spread – not too stiff, too runny, or too sticky.
- Cosmetic compatibility – Not chalky, can go under makeup and not “pill,” and a universal tint version is nice.
- Clear instructions for use.
- A label that’s readable.
Why the Image sunscreen change isn’t great
- Not clear why this is so great for blue light. The extra 3% zinc is not enough different to make a difference
- Chalkier and less spreadable
- A base that contains fewer chemicals would be good, not the same or more. They aren’t great for us or the environment
- Why add Shea nut extract?
Comments and observations always appreciated!
The post The “Best” Sunscreen (and what about the Image sunscreen change?). appeared first on Skintour.
.){kind=link}