Suggestions - Face Cream/Moisturiser with SPF & is 'anti wrinkle'

Hi gupts,

SPF creams are about wrinkle prevention. For reversing the signs of ageing the only proven cream is vitamin A which is prescription only.

My daily moisteuriser is this:
http://www.skincarestore.com.au/ultr...30-p-5072.aspx

Expensive but works great.

Gupts - this one depends a bit on how much you're prepared to spend.

If you want to stay in the current price bracket, I'd suggest Natio's SPF 30+ Face Moisturiser. You could team this with Natio's other moisturisers - there's a couple to choose from.

If you want to spend more, I'd suggest Clinique Skin Supplies for Men - Age Defence Hydrator SPF 15


From a sun protection point of view, 30 is obviously better than 15; and notwithstanding your complexion, in this country 15 isn't enough.

An alternative is to stay with the L'Oreal and wear a separate sunscreen. One of the 'invisible zinc' products would be my recommendation.

I found a new one this summer I was impressed with made by Vichy. It's a moisturizing, oil-free sun lotion - SPF 15 I believe.

I use Khiels spf

Bump

Gupts - I found one which may be just what you're looking for. Sunsense Anti Ageing Face SPF30+

http://www.sunsense.com.au/SunsenseR...ce/AAFACE.html

http://www.sunsense.com.au/SunsenseR...FACEMATTE.html

This has AHAs in it which will work on the lines and wrinkles - there's also a tinted finish which might suit your complexion better ? Available at pharmacies for about the same price as the L'Oreal.

I'm actually buying some of this myself, since the Ambre Solaire I prefer has been discontinuted in Australia.

Hope I'm not too late !

Cheers

I would seperate the exfoliating / retinoid part from the sunscreen, because on days when your skin is a bit irritated, you can just opt for the sunscreen.

For OTC retinoids, I like the Neutrogena Anti-Wrinkle (Intensive) Night Cream.

For Sunscreen, make sure your sunscreens has proper UV-A protection, as those rays are mostly responsible for DNA damage and ageing. The best sunscreens have non-US formulations, with ingredients as Tinosorb M or S, or L'Oreals Mexoryl XL/SX. The best US-based sunscreens have stabilized avobenzone, and will indicate on the packaging somehow it's stabilized (look for tradenames as Helioplex, Avo-Triplex, etc.).

Many, many sunscreens today still have inferior to no UVA-protection, which is downright stupid and ancient. Governments are partly responsible for this, for failing to come up with a proper rating system for UV-A protection. The 'Australian standard' is very archaic, for example. It stems from the time where only UV-B radiation was considered dangerous, so UV-A was mostly being left alone.

You shouldn't have any problem finding it in a 'larger' pharmacy - and you'll pay closer to $15 than $20 retail. And yeah - each of the three pharmacies I saw it in had testers available.




Firstly, gupts has asked for an anti-wrinkle moisturiser with SPF 30. So, we're not talking about separate sunscreens and exfoliators.

Now, look, we are the skin cancer capital of the world, so we take our sun protection very seriously. "Broad spectrum" sunscreens offer protection against UVA and UVB. Understand? That's very simple. The Australian standard specifies this - UVA has not been left behind.

The maximum SPF rating available under the Australian standard is "30+" because we're unconvinced about evidence that the testing regimes can accurately measure anything above that. We all understand that the SPF rating is about UVB.

When sunscreens are tested, the solar simulators emit UV up to 360-370 nm which is well into the UVA-1 region and takes into account all of the UVA-II. The SPF number is a measure of protection from erythemally effective (sunburning) energy. Sunburn is the inflammatory skin response to a generalized tissue damage including DNA damage, and is the sign that repair and recovery is underway. UVA ( > 320 nm – 400 nm) is very much less erythemally effective than UVB but when a sunscreen contains mostly UVB filters then should a sunburn develop then the contribution to it by UVA will be significant. It has been said that for any product to perform above SPF 10 the UV filters must extend absorption into the UVA region. UVA does penetrate the skin more readily and may reach deeper. It has been implicated in both premature photoageing and skin cancer.

The Broad Spectrum claim current in Australia attests to a measure performed which indicates that there is some UVA filtering between 320 – 360 nm. Australia is the only country which includes such a test and claim in its mandatory Standard. (As far as I know).

Much international debate is focused on this Broad Spectrum issue and which is the best test for it. Some believe that the test should be performed in vivo on human subjects like the SPF test but with skin pigmentation as the endpoint rather than skin reddening. The Japanese have adopted this approach. Others believe that the test should be in vitro to reduce the hazard to human test volunteers, and everyone in Australia is of this persuasion.

At the end of the day, having a separate measure for UVA protection doesn't mean anything if the population doesn't heed the message about sun protection - enough sunscreen every day, hats, long sleeves, sunglasses, and getting out of the sun. Australia widely publicises the daily UV Index in the capital cities, and I doubt that 95% of the population knows what it means.

Dr_Rudi, I disagree on almost everything in your post, mainly on the topic of UV-A protection.


I disagree strongly.

In my previous post I argued why it would be beneficial for Gupts or anyone to seperate the anti ageing products (e.g. retinoids to stimulate collagen production and/or AHAs/BHAs for skin exfoliation) and the sunscreen product.

AHAs can give irritation to your skin, and therefore it's only practical to have a seperate, non-exfoliating sunscreen on those days when your face needs to recover a bit. As you know, using chemical exfoliants every day can very well lead to over-exfoliation and acid irritation. The method of seperately applying your AHAs and your sunscreen is a much more prudent option to suggest, exactly because that was not what was being asked.


Wrong again. It's not as simple as picking any sunscreen with 'broad spectrum' on it.

Have you ever wondered why the measure of UVB protection is quantified on the tubes of sunscreen (a number in SPF), and UVA isn't? In Australia, it's either it complies to the Australian standard, or it doesn't.

If it complies, it means that less than 10% of the incoming light between the wavelengths of 320nm and 360nm is transmitted, and nothing more. It means that people with high photosensitivity don't have the quantitive information to make a choice out of products with stronger UVA-protection, as well as it does not report anything on UV-A radiation between 360-400 nm, that can penetrate skin deeper than shorter wavelengths.

Actually, it basically means that the Australian standard approx. only measures up to a PPD (Persistent Pigment Darkening, a way to measure UVA-protection) of 6. Which is even worse than the Japanese rating, as its maximum PA+++ tops out at a PPD of 8. Though nobody beats the US system, which has no UVA-measurement standard to put on packaging.

In Europe, you can get an UVA logo when the PPD is at least a third of the specified SPF. The Boots-system that is used in the UK, has a star system in which for example 5 stars it means that the PPD is at least 91% of the SPF number.

So you see, almost every system in the world except for the United States is more detailed than the Australian Standard in terms of quantifying UVA-protection. More information = more knowledge = better informed choices.

Oh and, just a little rant about USA 'broad spectrum' sunscreens: due to FDA regulations, avobenzone is basically the only UVA-absorbing organic sunscreen ingredient allowed, and it breaks down rapidly under sunlight when irradiated when it's not stabilized by for example octocrylene. In the US there are many 'Broad Spectrum' sunscreens that contains unstabilized avobenzone and it's just as useful as buying an umbrella that dissolves under rain.

Dear American friends, remember this next time you shop for sunscreens!


Thank you for saying this, and proving that a sunscreen's compliance with the Australian Standard does not say anything about its performance between 360-400nm (Australian standard goes up to 360nm, not 370) within the UVA-spectrum. That is a missed opportunity for the standard, and again, it should be modernized.


True, and I agree. I believe proper UVA-protection is at least as important as UVB-protection as a measurement against photoageing. In fact, since UVA-rays can penetrate clouds and are there the whole year, cumulatively they are more responsible for DNA-damage than UVB-rays, that only really make a mess when someone gets sunburned.

In practical terms, whenever I select a sunscreen, my concern is not UVB-protection. I can read my bottle has SPF 30 or such, and it's all clear to me. Getting the best UVA-protection out of several products often requires a better read and often picking out the active sunscreen ingredients for a better understanding.


Wrong again. Other countries such as Japan and also the EU have their ways with UVA protection measurements as described above, and are generally more informative and quantitative than the '< 10% transmission 320-360nm block = yes/no-sign' of the Australian Standard regarding UVA-protection.

People are quantitatively more informed about the level of UVA-protection when reading Japanese or EU-labels than the Australian Standard.

Also, I have to say, the Australian Standard for UV-A protection is quite low, simply because at the time the rule was invented, there were not that many proper organic UVA-blocking ingredients approved for use! Newer sunscreen formulations with modern UVA-blocking ingredients such as Tinosorb S/M, Mexoryl XL/SX, Neo Heliopan AP or stabilized Avobenzone allow for formulations that offer much much superior UVA protection than the Australian Standard specifies.

Many of these modern ingredients were only approved after the introduction of the Australian Standard, so perhaps it's time to reconsider and modernize this old (I would almost say: out-of-date) standard, and to put it in line with technological possibilities that just weren't there when the Standard was put in use.

So yup, the Australian standard is not really the most informative out there regarding UVA protection.

Ideally, there should be a clear, quantitative, worldwide standard for indicating several levels of UVA-protection on any product. Just as UVB-protection has its own SPF indicator. I hope that we can see that in the future.

And to give my practical suggestion to Gupts who has to wade through this scientific mumbo-jumbo : currently I'm using RoC Minesol SPF 40 Velvet Lotion. It has everything I want in a sunscreen:

1) Great UV-B and UV-A protection. Boots rating of 5 stars, which means at least a PPD of 36, which is extremely high UVA-protection. Approx six times as high as required to pass the 'Australian Standard'. UVA-protecion is very important and still underrated compared to quantifying UVB-protection, as UVA-rays penetrate deeper into the skin and can damage DNA in cells, promoting photoaging.

2) Relatively cheap, at 15 EUR for 150 ml, so you can just slap it on and don't worry about costs.

3) Contains anti-oxidants, which have proven beneficial in avoiding DNA damage by UV-rays.

I hope it's available Down Under.

It does not contain any exfoliating products or retinoids, though. But for the love of my life I wouldn't know why anyone would put retinol in anti-aging sunscreen formulations, as retinol degrades under sunlight and therefore, imho, should be a nighttime product only. And as I've argued before, I think it's more wise and healthy for your skin to seperate the exfoliants (AHAs or BHAs) from your sunscreen. Simply because so you can wear sunscreen every day and avoid over-exfoliating. I recommend exfoliants from Paula's Choice (but NOT her sunscreens that all offer very inferior UVA protection... US product ).

Just briefly, because this isn't helpful to anyone.

1) The RoC won't be under that label here (if it's available at all) because we don't approve anything above SPF30+. A sunscreen might be SPF 100, but in this country, it will only get SPF 30+

2) There are very few UVA rated suscreens available in Australia - one is THANN Oil-free sunscreen SPF 30 PA +++ with Shiso and White Tea Extracts, which is rated on the Japanese PA rating system.

3) You are wrong. In this country "broad spectrum" means exactly what I said - it protects against UVA and UVB - it is included in the test and mandatory in the standard. Putting "broad spectrum" on the labelling in this country actually means something. What to look for buying a sunscreen in this country ? a) Broad Spectrum b) SPF 30+ c) complies with Australian Standard AS/NZS 2604:1998 d) has an AUSTL number.

In Australia, primary sunscreens with an SPF rating of 4 and above must be listed on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. Products can only be listed on the register if they are tested in accordance, and comply with, the Australian/New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 2604: Sunscreen Products – Evaluation and Classification

4) Gupts specifically asked for "a moisturiser, gives adequate sun protection, has anti wrinkle properties, smells nice and is 'non greasy'?" So, I've identified a product which does exactly that. In my first post, I suggested gupts could stick with his current product a use a separate sunscreen - that's not what he wants to do - okay?

5) Sun protection is about more than just the sunscreen.

If you're really a doctor, Rudi, I'm shocked at your carelessness for other peoples' well being.

Instead of trying to find the best solution for someone, you just try to say: 'Look, it's in regulations, so just close your eyes and drive'. It sucks. It might also as well be plain ignorance where biophysics and numbers are involved. But as a biomedical engineer, I'm used to this from doctors. So don't take it personally.

If I formulate a product with UVB blockers and only 3% avobenzone as my UVA blocker, Australian regulations tell me I can put 'Broad Spectrum' on my label in Australia. Yay and rejoice? Does that help anyone who uses my products? No, because although avobenzone has a full UVA-absorption spectrum, it is extremely photo unstable, and is of no use in unstabilized form. Still it can earn me the 'Broad Spectrum' label! That's why as a prudent consumer, you should look further than that.

So telling anyone that 'Broad Spectrum' is the definite UVA/UVB story, is wrong: you must also look for photostable (UVA) ingredients, a fact that companies who supply such formulations will make an effort to mention that on the labels. So this is a valid suggestion for anyone looking for a sunscreen. A Broad Spectrum sunscreen without stable UVA blockers is next to useless, despite the 'Broad Spectrum' label.


OK, basically you're just telling me you don't understand how the Australian Standard only poorly tests for UVA blocking capabilities of a sunscreen formulation. That's fine, I'm glad you're honest. I stand by my opinion and arguments that the Australian Standard is long overdue for a revision, primarily on their UVA-criteria, as many new sunscreen ingredients have been approved in the meantime. One can only be glad about that.

Also, politely informing Gupts why seperating exfoliants / retinoids and sunscreens will benefit his skin and comfort, is worthwhile. If you have useful advanced knowledge, share it with him and explain why. Instead of playing the 'hey, that's not what he asked for' - card. When you offer information, someone can still choose based on that information.

My list for Gupts:

1) Use a plain sunscreen as moisturizer during the day. If you need, use a seperate exfoliant (AHA or BHA) to ease out wrinkles and improve complexion. Use retinol products at night if you want to increase collagen production. This way you can use sunscreen every day, seperately from any chance of over-exfoliating or irritating your skin by the anti-aging ingredients! This way, you'll look the best now *and* in 10 years.

2) As dr_rudi said, SPF 30+ is the way to go

3) Broad spectrum with photostable ingredients is important, the label will probably mention that.

4) Anything your mom told you, such as wearing a hat, avoid mid-day sun, go for the shadows, is sound advice.

Ho hum.


To earn the words 'Broad Spectrum' you'll need to satisfy the performance criteria demanded by the standard. Your product will need to show, using an in-vitro method, that it provides protection against certain of the sun's UV-A rays as part of the protection of a moderate, high, or very high protection sunscreen product.




Which I never did.




Here you have my sympathy. I understand a review by Standards Australia of AS 2604 is in train which will almost certainly include an update to the method for Broad Spectrum Testing. This is most likely to be based on in-vitro measurement of a thin film of dried down sunscreen. At both ISO and in Australia, there is currently a preference expressed for a pre-irradiation step in the methodology so as to identify those products which are photo unstable. However, the review will be held over until the ISO completes its SPF and UVA in-vitro work, so I suspect any new standard is at least 12 months away.



I'll say this again. In my first post I suggested that Gupts could stay with his current product since he was happy with it, and add a separate sunscreen - I proposed one of the invisible zinc products. I later made an additional post specifically addressing his request for an anti-wrinkle moisturiser, with SPF.

I presume if we were having dinner at your favourite restaurant and I sought your recommendation for dessert, you'd tell me to have the salad because it was better for me. Well perhaps - but it would be neither what I asked for, nor what I wanted.