[ad_1]

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!

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.

[ad_2]

Source link