Sunscreen 101
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » Skin Care and Makeup Forum

free skin care · Sun Jun 04, 2006 6:15 am

Inspired by the folks here, I have really buckled down on using sunscreen. I've started to embrace the concept "tan is bad."

But here's my problem/ignorance.

Last Memorial Day weekend, I spent only two hours in the sun, in the late afternoon when the sun is less strong. I was loaded from head to toe with various sunscreen faves, from SPF 30 to 55, all with UVA and UVB protection.

Although I didn't burn one bit, I tanned - quite deeply. Everyone at work assumed that I had gone away for the holiday weekend. I have golden/olive skin and tan easily, although it used to be after a slight burn. I don't want to tan, and certainly not deeply.

I asked my esthetician about it and she explained that sunscreens will never prevent a person from tanning if they are prone to tan. It will just prevent burning.

But since even tanning is bad, how can I prevent tanning, too? More broadly, what is the purpose of sunscreen?

I'm simply not going to stay inside all summer or wear clothes head to toe at a pool party.

Any educators out there?

free skin care · Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:54 am

Frankly LandB I'm amazed! I tan amazingly easily too and I'm as white as a sheet lately. Which raves do you use exactly?

I have realised or noticed something lately though. It seems to me the parts of my face that I only cover with a mexoryl based sunscreen are darker than parts I have to cover with minerals for cosmetic reasons.

Then I was looking at the ranges as follows:

The UVB range is 280 to 320 nanometers, and the UVA range is 320 to 400

Mexoryl protects against UV wavelengths in the 290–400 nanometer range.

So it occurs to me that mexoryl leaves a little unprotected gap from 280 to 290 where the UVB gets in. Also nothing protects 100% from UVA so you're getting a little UVA and a tiny amount of UVB. Apparantly that is what is needed to tan.

Previously I thought UVA tanned and UVB burnt, but apparantly you do need both to tan.

I'm not a scientist maybe what I'm saying is simplistic and somehow wrong, but I reckon you need mineral protection too.

In fact if I'm out all day in really strong sunlight I'll use a mineral screen. It stops burning and tanning for me (but it might not stop long-term UVA damage).

The sunscreen story just goes on and on.

M Confused

free skin care · Sun Jun 04, 2006 10:06 am

I agree with Molly. I firmly believe that if you want to avoid a burn or a tan, the absolute best coverage you can get is with a mineral-based sunscreen, either zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, or a combination. I'm super-fair (see the white background on this screen? That's about the color of my skin, LOL!), but when I went on my honeymoon to Hawaii, I used mineral-based sunscreens when I hit the beach and I did not get even a whisper of a burn or tan. I'm pretty sure that minerals also protect against long-term damage, but if you want extra insurance, after you shower and wash off your sunscreen you can always apply an antioxidant-packed after sun lotion. I use Alba Hawaiian's Kona Coffee After-Sun lotion. It contains aloe, green tea, kona coffee, and EGCG, so it's a great way to banish any lingering free radicals. (I also use it after I come home from somewhere where there was a lot of smoking...)

free skin care · Sun Jun 04, 2006 12:20 pm

EUREKA! Thanks folks!

I looked at all of the products and considered where I used them and yes, in fact, the tanning occurred more in the areas where the sunscreen did not contain zinc oxide.

The two products that I used with zinc oxide were Shiseido SPF 36 on my face and neck and Ocean Potion Clear Zinc SPF 45 on my chest and shoulders. These areas did not tan as much as my arms, legs, and stomach, where I used Neutrogena Ultra Sheer SPF 55 and Aveeno Continuous Protection SPF 30.

Looks like the Neutrogena and Aveeno will be for every day protection, and I'll need a mineral based sunscreen for days out in the sun.

Thanks again.

free skin care · Sun Jun 04, 2006 4:08 pm

i wear mineral makeup every day on my face and i have not gotten a sunburn or freckling since using it. Previously i got a couple of freckles on my skin with other foundations with so called sunscreen...when i know im getting a lot of sun i wear an SPF 30 mineral sunblock underneath..It's a little obvious im wearing it at times but i'd rather deal with that then to have an obvious sunburn:( i don't tan at all but i don't get any freckles which gives me a sign that minerals are definitely working.

free skin care · Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:03 pm

Hello, I'm back.

I'm always thinking about sunscreen and UVA/UVB and sundamage because the theory and the practice just doesn't click for me.

I know the current orthodoxy is UVA = aging and Mexoryl or Tinsorb are the greatest protectors against that and there is this idea that UVA = tanning and UVB = burning (which is an over-simplification from what I now know) but......

My, admittedly anecdotal, observations all go against high UVA protection and pro high UVB protection for anti-aging.

Anecdotal observation one: People so often say 'my derm or such and such a person' has the most beautiful skin I've ever seen and she's 40 odd and she's used sunscreen all her life. But...these modern UVA blockers were not available for most of their lives so they must've been using mineral screens which are great for blocking UVB but don't cover nearly the same UVA range.

Anecdotal observation two: My younger sister is a total believer in the power of make-up (and handbags Laughing

unlike me. I'm more casual). She uses all kinds of the worst drug-store products on her face, BUT she would never leave the house throughout her twenties and thirties without total make-up coverage. I think a lot of these must contain physical screens because now she's forty everyone's asking her what she uses on her face because really she's got amazingly creamy, undamaged skin and she tans at least twice a year. Her chest is another matter that's obviously suffered from a lack of protection.

Anecdotal observation 3: My other sister is ginger so has to avoid strong burning rays, but she's never worn chemical sunscreens the rest of the year round and her skin's great for her age too.

I have other observations but those are enough to start with.

Is there really the evidence that mexoryl/Tinsorb are anti-aging in practice rather than in theory and lab tests?

I'm open-minded so I try things out. Some people rave so much about the improvements to their skin with the new ss that I've done the full indoors/outdoors mexoryl thing for one year, but personally I'm not convinced it's improved my skin, though of course there could be other factors involved. I've been switching to just mineral coverage on and off over the past couple of weeks and I'll see what happens.

I was also recently very intrigued to read over onwww.theskincareboard.com that the forum host, who is very up on the science behind things, refuses to use sunscreen. Some of them there are using all kinds of actives and boosting their anti-oxidants to theoretically pretty acceptable PPD levels to (hopefully) limit any daily damage.

I'm happy to hear your thoughts and observations. (After last year I should add, I really don't want a fight I just remain intrigued by this minefield and think it's worth discussing.)

Thanks M Confused

free skin care · Sun Jun 04, 2006 9:13 pm

I think the purpose of a well formulated sunscreen that prevents UVA rays such as mexoryl or tinosorb is to prevent, not improve the skin. Sort of like how an antioxidant is used to prevent free radicals, but you won't necessarily see an improvement in the skin. I think wearing makeup can provide a barrier for the skin against pollutants and some UV rays which makes sense why your sisters skin probably looks relatively good for her age.

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:52 am

Actually Molly, I've looked at various charts conerning mineral sunscreens, and they cover almost the entire UVA spectrum. So, since they protect against both UVA and UVB rays, that's probably why these people you know who have used mineral sunscreens have such nice skin.^-^

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:12 am

IMO the UVB rays from 280-290nm that some sunscreens expose you to would cause burning not tanning. Maybe Mexoryl does not protect against this range but most sunscreens containing Mexory have other chemical sunscreen ingredients that protect in this UV range. Just to note zinc oxide and titanium dioxide also offer protection from 290nm and up, so they don't protect against the 280-290nm range either. I don't believe that there is any sunscreen that will screen out 100% of the UVA or UVB rays and that is why you can get a tan or freckles even when using sunscreens, even sunscreens that have good UVA blockers (there are some that have poor UVA blockers) Part of it depends on the percentage of UVA blocker in the sunscreen. For instance regardless of the SPF ( which only tells about UVB protection) you stand a lot better chance of getting a tan using a sunscreen containing 3% zinc oxide than you would using one containing 6% zinc oxide. And so on, the same could be said for titanium dioxide, avobenzone or Mexoryl. Then there are combinations of UVA blockers but lets not go there, I hope you get the picture!

Also, I don't think that chemical and physical sunscreen should necessarily be applied to they same area because some chemical sunscreen ingredients are degraded by physical sunscreen ingredients. I know avobenzone is a no-no with physical sunscreen but you would have to look into others as I don't know.

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:26 am

Hi Theresa
Hi manslayerliz

I think I went on a bit and it wasn't very clear. Neither of my sisters ever wore sunscreen except on holidays. One avoided burning rays because she burns but never protected herself on a daily basis and the other always wore make up, but I doubt it was very high in UVA protection, high UVA protection wasn't even around when she was in her twenties. So what I'm saying is UVB protection seems to be more crucial to anti-aging.

Yes, the aforementioned 'derms' etc who have always worn sunscreen must have been using physical not chemical that was my point.

But physical screens really don't protect against UVA to the same degree as mexoryl that's why it's so radical. I'm not sure where you got your information but Mexoryl protects to 400 nanometers and zinc oxide to 380 - small difference, maybe.

Hi Theresa
Yep, I was just checking all the same nanometer ranges that you've just quoted.

None of the three major blockers (zinc oxide, titanium dioxide, mexoryl) start at 280 which I find surprising seeing as in my experience zinc oxide based screens stop burning so well. I'm slightly baffled by that because they don't add other sunscreen ingredients, though I see that Mexoryl based screens must to be approved for SPF ratings.

Or do they?
I'm confused.

M

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:54 am

Molly,
One place where read it was Paula Begoun's website. I know she says that zinc oxide and titanium dioxide protect up to 700nm! I have read this elsewhere too but I cannot recall off the top of my head where.

However, I just checked the BASF (company that makes Z-cote) and their information says zinc oxide protects up to 380nm like you said. I am really going to have to look into this!! Can I ask where you got your info on the zinc oxide?

In reference to the 280-290nm range I honestly do not know if it matters or not but that too would be something worth looking into. I really have no experience with sunscreens containing Mexoryl. I though they contained other chemical sunscreens as well but you seem to be saying that they don't. I did not know that.

EDIT: I was just looking some more at the BASF website and while they say that zinc oxide protects up to 380nm, it seems from some of their charts that zinc oxide offers protection to 400nm. I will do more research when I get a chance and see what I find. BTW does anyone know the chemical name for Mexoryl?

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:12 am

Hi Theresa

I got a lot of my nanometers from a big PDF attachment about Z-cote on the Skinceuticals website. And some from a report by Paula Begoun (?!) and others from encyclopedia style websites.

Sorry, I've confused you. *I* didn't realise Mexoryl has to have additional screens for SPF approval until just now, but it's clear they do. That's only my ignorance.

It's the fact that the mineral screens don't protect between 280-90 and don't have to that surprised me. I mean they can't because then they'd have to use chemical screens and a lot of them sell themselves on not being chemical screens don't they?

Sometimes they're combined sure, but others aren't.

It's all very confusing (but interesting).
M

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:16 am

you are all confusing me..i always thought chemical sunscreens such as mexoryl were better than minerals...but minerals are all my skin can handle for the most part. No sunburn as of yet, and no freckles either. If it is true that mineral sunscreens can be just as good if not better than most chemical, i will be more than satisfied slapping on a thick layer of white gunk...i use the z-cote with titanium dioxide and what i have noticed over the past couple years with it is how soft and smooth my skin looks when I wash it off at night. It does contain antioxidants and moisturizing properties though, so maybe it has helped my skin stay so nice. I can't say the same to any chemical suncreens ive used as my skin always flakes and looked red and horridly burnt/irritated.

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:45 am

Molly just took a quick look at the Skinceuticles PDF to see about the UVA wavelengts and interestingly they have the UVB range listed as starting at 290 nm. If that is true then most of the sunscreens that we have been talking about do cover the complete UVB range! Arrgh, something more to research!!

About the mineals being combined with chemical sunscreens actually a lot of them do. Most of my sunscreens are a combination of zinc oxide and octinoxate. I read somewhere that octinoxate protects from 290 nm and up, not from 280 nm and up.

purpleturtle I agree that this can be confusing but I feel that both mineral sunscreens and sunscreens containing Mexoryl are good options. I know what you mean about not being able to tolerate chemical sunscreens because aside from octinoxate I cannot tolerate chemical sunscreens either. I tried a sample of LRP Anthelios XL and it irritated my skin a little, so I am debating whehter I should use that for days when I am really in the sun for a while or whether it would be best to stick with zinc oxide. IMO if your skin is reacting negatively to chemical sunscreens DO NOT use them no matter how effective they might be! Irritation can be bad for your skin too, they are even starting to link chronic irritation/imflammation of the skin with aging! This is why I debate the Mexoryl thing. Is the better UVA protection doing me more good that the irritation from the sunsceen is causing me harm? I have yet to decide on that one which is why for now I am sticking with zinc oxide or titanium dioxide.

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:05 pm

Like Molly's sister, one of my sister never wears sunscreen but always wears makeup whenever she goes out. She does not have one single freckle or sun spot. She has an even tone skin and looks very young for her age. I rarely wears makeup because of fear of breakouts. I have some freckles and spots. So, I think the makeup must provide some sort of protection.

I am confused with this whole sunscreens things because I see many with beautiful skin who do not wear sunscreen at all. It must be the gene as well. None of my sisters wear sunscreen. I am the only one that use sunscreen but I have the worst skin. It will be worse if I don't use sunscreen. I don't know if it because my skin has became dependent on sunscreen for protection.

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:18 pm

Most make-up or foundation rather, has a base of titanium dioxide, and has done for years. I think another thread discussed this a while back, and it was suggested that wearing foundation everyday offered a level of protection to most women wearing it, who didn't even know it Wink

! I guess something is always better than nothing!
That would explain part of the anecodotal effects seen and makes sense.....I think Very Happy

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:48 pm

Hi Melissa

Absolutely, it would seem some physical protection daily is a good thing.

But if you were here a year ago you would have been slammed for saying that. Tinsorb or Mexoryl were the only possible choices unless you had sensitive skin. Looking more closely at the nanometers it seems to me that having a face covered in sticky crud all year round simply isn't worth it for the extra 20 nanometers, which I have to say was also my 'feeling' last year but I couldn't make any sense of the scientific details presented.

Like I say, I've been on the lightest Mexoryl (Vichy) I could find - daily. And although I've experienced no irriation my skin texture looks bad. It's lost any kind of sheen or glow to it and feels rough despite regular exfoliation and the rest. I've left it off a few days now since I've been reconsidering this whole thing and for the first time in a long while it's feeling soft again and the sheen is returning. I'm just using mineral make-up for the moment and some cover-up on some blotches.

My feeling is that for that extra 20 nanometers protection you can degrade your skin barrier and maybe cause more harm than good doing this complete UVA blocking on a daily basis. Skin has to breathe sometime or it seems mine does at least.

Hi Theresa

Yes, I notice that my Skinceuticals also contains some Octinoxate. I'd never noticed before. I wonder if the ones which make totally 'non-chemical' claims like Dr H also do. I'll have a look later plus try and establish what happens in the 280-90 nanometer range, maybe it's harmless.

It's interesting chatting about this to you. It's all becoming much clearer in my mind at least.

Thanks
M Cool

free skin care · Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:01 pm

Wow - this page makes for interesting reading if you're interested in the specifics of the nanometer range and what range is responsible for what response from the skin.

http://www.tantoday.com/forums/manufacturer-speak/500-tanning-lamp-basics.html

free skin care · Tue Jun 06, 2006 3:03 am

http://www.wipo.int/ipdl/IPDL-CIMAGES/view/pct/getbykey5?KEY=03/72077.030904&ELEMENT_SET=DECL

my brain aches.

For anyone who cares Laughing

last weekend I used the sunscreen from Green People and didn't burn up at all while the other lady in our office used somes factor 50 and looks like a lobster. Must have been out of date or she's lying I'd be furious to use a spf50 and still burn! But I guess it also comes down to how much screen we use as most people does use enough to get the full benefit or fail to reapply it.

free skin care · Tue Jun 06, 2006 8:24 am

Molly I agree it has been interesting chatting with you too. I am actually learning things here!

Your quote sort of echos what I was saying to purpleturtle about irritation and chemical sunscreens. I suppose it is possible that even without experiencing irritation chemical sunscreen might not be the best for your skin.

Quote:

Molly said My feeling is that for that extra 20 nanometers protection you can degrade your skin barrier and maybe cause more harm than good doing this complete UVA blocking on a daily basis. Skin has to breathe sometime or it seems mine does at least.

Although I am not totally convinced that zinc oxide does not protect up to 400nm as I seem to be encountering conflicting information on this, so I am trying to research this more.

Dr H sunscreens contain only titanium dioxide and I believe that Skinceuticles makes one with only zinc oxide and titanium dioxide, no octinoxate. I think that UVA protection wise an all physical sunscreen would be better that one with octinoxate since oxtinoxate is not as good a UVA protector as the minerals.

Eve interesting link, I will have to read it all sometime!

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.