Thursday, April 10, 2008
Consumerist: Cheaper Bras Are More Satisfying Than Expensive Ones
The next time you head to Target to shop its latest Go line, don't forget to hit up the bra department. According to Consumer Reports they carry some of the most satisfying breast supports. A poll revealed 22 percent of women are unsatisfied with their bra purchases, so the magazine, justifiably disturbed, took a break from frozen dinners and mini–food processors to test-run three bras of the same style at three different price levels.The test involved hand-washing each bra three times and having a panel of women with 34B breasts wear and critique each. They included a $127 La Perla Vintage, a $45 Victoria's Secret Ipex demi, and an $11 Gilligan & O'Malley padded demi.
What did they find? The cheapest bra was the best:
Bra-vo! [The Gilligan & O'Malley padded demi] has better cup molding than the Victoria's Secret bra; the underwire is flexible and well padded, so it won't pinch or poke. This bra (sold at Target) also held up better after washing. All three panelists found it comfortable, with a good fit.
And you can spend the cash you saved on some stylin' new shoes. Everyone wins!
3 bras, 3 prices [Consumer Reports]Source
Labels: bras, Consumer Reports, Consumerist, underwear
Friday, December 14, 2007
Price Is Not Always an Indicator...
Consumer Reports says you are wasting your money if you buy expensive wrinkle reducing face creams. According to CR, there is no connection between price and effectiveness.
Of course, it’s not surprising to the Beauty Brains. Since we know the raw materials that go into both ultra expensive and ultra cheap beauty products, we can sincerely report retail price doesn’t always reflect formula quality.
Most interesting about the study was the conclusion that no cream was noticeably effective. Some had slight improvements but none were deemed worth it. In lab studies, CR found the most effective product was Olay Regenerist (Enhancing Lotion, Perfecting Cream and Daily Regenerating Serum).
One surprise was a $335 product scored among the lowest of all the products tried.
The full list (in order of performance) is as follows:
Best to Worst - Wrinkle Reducing Creams
1. Olay Regnerist : $57
2. Lancome Paris Renergie: $176
3. RoC Retin-Ox+ : $135
4. Neutogena Visibly Firm Night Cream w Active Copper : $38
5. Avon Anew Alternative Age Treatment : $64
6. L’Oreal Paris Dermo-Expertise Wrinkle De-Crease : $40
7. StiVectin-SD Intensive Concentrate : $135
8. La Prarie Cellular : $335
9. RoC Retinol Correxion Deep Wrinkle : $40
Of course, it’s not surprising to the Beauty Brains. Since we know the raw materials that go into both ultra expensive and ultra cheap beauty products, we can sincerely report retail price doesn’t always reflect formula quality.
Most interesting about the study was the conclusion that no cream was noticeably effective. Some had slight improvements but none were deemed worth it. In lab studies, CR found the most effective product was Olay Regenerist (Enhancing Lotion, Perfecting Cream and Daily Regenerating Serum).
One surprise was a $335 product scored among the lowest of all the products tried.
The full list (in order of performance) is as follows:
Best to Worst - Wrinkle Reducing Creams
1. Olay Regnerist : $57
2. Lancome Paris Renergie: $176
3. RoC Retin-Ox+ : $135
4. Neutogena Visibly Firm Night Cream w Active Copper : $38
5. Avon Anew Alternative Age Treatment : $64
6. L’Oreal Paris Dermo-Expertise Wrinkle De-Crease : $40
7. StiVectin-SD Intensive Concentrate : $135
8. La Prarie Cellular : $335
9. RoC Retinol Correxion Deep Wrinkle : $40
Labels: anti-aging, Consumer Reports, myths, skincare
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
