Monday, September 17, 2007
The "Wrinkle" on Wrinkle Creams
In December 2006, Consumer Reports weighed in with their first-ever test concerning the efficacy of wrinkle creams. Their report found that the handful of products they tested made little to no difference in the skin's appearance and that there was no correlation between price and effectiveness.
The creams ranged from Olay Regenerist at the low end ($21 for 1.7 ounces) to La Prairie Cellular at the high end ($335 for 1.7 ounces). Ironically, La Prairie Cellular ended up with the least impressive results after 12 weeks; the creams with the best results (Olay and Lancome were the winners) showed only a 10% improvement in wrinkles. That's a far cry from the 85% and 90% improvement heralded in cosmetics advertisements.
My readers will know that the studies cited in advertising are hardly independent-but that is something many consumers often overlook. Though I would love to say I told you so, and despite the fact that I am a loyal Consumer Reports subscriber (and have been for years), their testing protocol left much to be desired. Each tester used one of the chosen test products on one side of the face and a standard moisturizer on the other side for comparison. But for some reason, the standard moisturizer they used contained sunscreen! Using a sunscreen at night makes no sense, and the active ingredients can cause irritation. But what was perhaps more confusing about the study was that during the day, the side of the face with the sunscreen would have been protected from sun damage and the other side wouldn't have been, which could have skewed the results. There was also no rhyme or reason given for selecting which moisturizers to test, other than to test the claims (all of which were anti-wrinkle). Formulation differences are important, and ignoring them makes it difficult to compare the results of such a study.
In addition, products in jar packaging are already problematic, because if there were beneficial ingredients that could have produced positive results, then they would have deteriorated well before the test period was over (and several products fell in this category). Without question there is insanity in cosmetics advertising, yet there are also skin-care routines that can make a huge difference in the appearance of your skin. Even so, depending on one product alone will never be the answer. In addition, cosmetics won't ever replace cosmetic surgery or medical cosmetic corrective procedures. However, there is a game plan for skin that makes sense, and there is plenty of objective research indicating that to be the case. Such a routine includes gentle skin-care products, effective sunscreens, gentle exfoliants, moisturizers loaded with antioxidants, and ingredients that have skin-identical components, along with a lifestyle with no tanning or smoking, but that's backed up with a diet filled with healthy oils (e.g., flax, salmon, olive) and lots of fruit and vegetables.
Now that would be worthy of a Consumer Reports test.
SOURCE
The creams ranged from Olay Regenerist at the low end ($21 for 1.7 ounces) to La Prairie Cellular at the high end ($335 for 1.7 ounces). Ironically, La Prairie Cellular ended up with the least impressive results after 12 weeks; the creams with the best results (Olay and Lancome were the winners) showed only a 10% improvement in wrinkles. That's a far cry from the 85% and 90% improvement heralded in cosmetics advertisements.
My readers will know that the studies cited in advertising are hardly independent-but that is something many consumers often overlook. Though I would love to say I told you so, and despite the fact that I am a loyal Consumer Reports subscriber (and have been for years), their testing protocol left much to be desired. Each tester used one of the chosen test products on one side of the face and a standard moisturizer on the other side for comparison. But for some reason, the standard moisturizer they used contained sunscreen! Using a sunscreen at night makes no sense, and the active ingredients can cause irritation. But what was perhaps more confusing about the study was that during the day, the side of the face with the sunscreen would have been protected from sun damage and the other side wouldn't have been, which could have skewed the results. There was also no rhyme or reason given for selecting which moisturizers to test, other than to test the claims (all of which were anti-wrinkle). Formulation differences are important, and ignoring them makes it difficult to compare the results of such a study.
In addition, products in jar packaging are already problematic, because if there were beneficial ingredients that could have produced positive results, then they would have deteriorated well before the test period was over (and several products fell in this category). Without question there is insanity in cosmetics advertising, yet there are also skin-care routines that can make a huge difference in the appearance of your skin. Even so, depending on one product alone will never be the answer. In addition, cosmetics won't ever replace cosmetic surgery or medical cosmetic corrective procedures. However, there is a game plan for skin that makes sense, and there is plenty of objective research indicating that to be the case. Such a routine includes gentle skin-care products, effective sunscreens, gentle exfoliants, moisturizers loaded with antioxidants, and ingredients that have skin-identical components, along with a lifestyle with no tanning or smoking, but that's backed up with a diet filled with healthy oils (e.g., flax, salmon, olive) and lots of fruit and vegetables.
Now that would be worthy of a Consumer Reports test.
SOURCE
Labels: Consumer Reports, skincare, wrinkles
Post a Comment