SPF on a budget?

yesnow

Want a good facial spf for daily use that will keep uva and uvb at bay. Do not want a suncream or anything greasy as I’m prone to breakouts. Would prefer it to be seperate, not included in a moisturiser. Was looking at the ordinary one but saw the white/grey colour it turned some poor girl’s face, can’t be any quare colour as I don’t wear makeup most days. Nothing too dear either.

Salthillprom

yesnow wrote: »

Want a good facial spf for daily use that will keep uva and uvb at bay. Do not want a suncream or anything greasy as I’m prone to breakouts. Would prefer it to be seperate, not included in a moisturiser. Was looking at the ordinary one but saw the white/grey colour it turned some poor girl’s face, can’t be any quare colour as I don’t wear makeup most days. Nothing too dear either.

Clarins SPF 50+ moisturiser

HeidiHeidi

The ones that dye you white usually fade back to normal after a while.

A lot of ranges do tinted spf50 creams/fluids - I use La Roche Posay tinted fluid and it's brilliant, fairly light as those cream go and I've never burned with it.

pwurple

SPF 30 max.. and keep in shade, anything above that is added ingredients your skin can react to, and extra cost for very little additional protection. SPF 30 blocks 97%, spf 50 blocks 98%.

That will keep the price down too.

Daisies

yesnow wrote: »

Want a good facial spf for daily use that will keep uva and uvb at bay. Do not want a suncream or anything greasy as I’m prone to breakouts. Would prefer it to be seperate, not included in a moisturiser. Was looking at the ordinary one but saw the white/grey colour it turned some poor girl’s face, can’t be any quare colour as I don’t wear makeup most days. Nothing too dear either.

I have the Ordinary and while it is white when I put it on, that's gone after maybe 2mins.

Lotus Flower

pwurple wrote: »

SPF 30 max.. and keep in shade, anything above that is added ingredients your skin can react to, and extra cost for very little additional protection. SPF 30 blocks 97%, spf 50 blocks 98%.

That will keep the price down too.

That is a misconception. Here is an excellent scientific article about sunscreen:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phpp.12112

GingerLily

Lotus Flower wrote: »

That is a misconception. Here is an excellent scientific article about sunscreen:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phpp.12112

Can you summarise?

From what I understand spf50 everyday is probably not great for your skin unless you actually need it.

Lotus Flower

Here you go!


Myth #3: SPF 30 protects only marginally better than SPF 15 sunscreen

Another popular misconception is that SPF 30 is not twice as effective as SPF 15 sunscreen, or SPF 60 not twice as effective as SPF 30, etc. To be precise, ‘SPF’ refers to preventing sunburn under laboratory conditions, for example, at 2 mg/cm2 application amount, protection against other endpoints or against erythema under real‐life conditions may indeed be different. The argument goes: an SPF 30 sunscreen filters 96.7% of the erythemogenic UV rays, whereas an SPF 60 sunscreen filters out 98.3%; meaning only 1.6% more. For the impact on humans, it is, however, not relevant how much is filtered out, but rather how much is transmitted onto the skin. An SPF 60 sunscreen transmits 1.7% compared with 3.3% by an SPF 30 sunscreen, that is, half as much. The 1.6% difference thus corresponds to a factor of 2, which is what we expect. Illustration and animation of these facts can be found in Osterwalder and Herzog 65 and animated on YouTube 66.

Furthermore, there is another argument for choosing the sunscreen with the higher SPF. Pissavini and Diffey show in their paper entitled: ‘The likelihood of sunburn in sunscreen users is disproportionate to the SPF’, that depending on how well a sunscreen is applied, the SPF 30 sunscreen may, in fact, protect disproportionally better than SPF 15 67. Their simulation reveals that especially if sunscreen is not applied uniformly on the body in the right quantity, the SPF 30 sunscreen protects more than twice as well against sunburn and thus, by implication, against skin cancer.

TLDR: For the impact on humans, it is not relevant how much is filtered out, but rather how much is transmitted onto the skin.

Also, I wear SPF50 every single day I'm outside, even winter. It doesn't need to be sunny for UVA and UVB to cause harm

SozBbz

I wear spf 32 matte from Image every day. I tend to use a serum underneath for extra hydration.

I also have their spf 50 product which i use in summer or on holiday - typically wtih lighter makeup.

I'd love if they could make their matte formula in spf 50.

Anyway, probably not as affordable as the OP possibly wants. I'd try Bioderma or La Roche Posay or similar as I find them generally good brands. In my experience, everyones skin is different so its hard to give a totally generic recommendation, so you're probably best off with trial and error until you find one that sits nicely on your skin.

GingerLily

I've heard Olay recommended for SPF as an affordable brand, obviously for every day and not for holidays!

pwurple

Lotus Flower wrote: »

That is a misconception. Here is an excellent scientific article about sunscreen:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phpp.12112

Em, How is “keep in the shade” a myth?

Article confirms what I said, sunscreen factor increase provides protection for a number of additional minutes. Best policy is shade.

Lotus Flower

pwurple wrote: »

Em, How is “keep in the shade” a myth?

Article confirms what I said, sunscreen factor increase provides protection for a number of additional minutes. Best policy is shade.

You know well I was not referring to staying in the shade as being a myth, it was the comment about SPF30 being better than SPF50 that's the misconception

yesnow

Salthillprom wrote: »

Clarins SPF 50+ moisturiser

Is that the UV Plus Antipollution? I notice they have a few factor 50 options

yesnow

Has anyone here tried the Benefit Dream Screen spf45? Not exactly cheap at €36, but would be willing to give it a try if they included it in their minis range (unfortunately from what I can tell they do not). Is it worth it for 45ml?

SozBbz

yesnow wrote: »

Has anyone here tried the Benefit Dream Screen spf45? Not exactly cheap at €36, but would be willing to give it a try if they included it in their minis range (unfortunately from what I can tell they do not). Is it worth it for 45ml?

Few thoughts... (full disclosure, no I've not tried it)

I use image, mostly spf32 which i think is about €45. Their SPF 50 is maybe a few € more, but in the same range.

They're 3.2 fluid ounces, which I think is about 93ml or thereabouts, so twice the size. I'd easily get 4+ months per bottle.

Secondly they're wildly popular and for good reason. I was away recently on a hen and it transpired that 10 of the 12 of us used one of the Image SPF range.

Finally, benefit is primarily a make up brand that does a bit of skin care. My preference would always be for a skincare focused brand.

lubie76

In my experience Korean/ Japanese brands have the best and less greasy SPF 50's such as Etude House Sunprise or Canmake Mermaid gel which are both available on Amazon UK.

Both come in around 12 pounds and the texture is light, more like a gel than a cream so no white cast or greasiness. I'm a big follower of beauty forums/groups and these 2 brands are always recommended so I stocked up while in japan last year as well with other beauty products such as Hado Labo and Shiseido which were so cheap over there.

Ran out of SPF last month though so was delighted I could order same products on amazon for not much more price-wise.

SozBbz

lubie76 wrote: »

In my experience Korean/ Japanese brands have the best and less greasy SPF 50's such as Etude House Sunprise or Canmake Mermaid gel which are both available on Amazon UK.

Both come in around 12 pounds and the texture is light, more like a gel than a cream so no white cast or greasiness. I'm a big follower of beauty forums/groups and these 2 brands are always recommended so I stocked up while in japan last year as well with other beauty products such as Hado Labo and Shiseido which were so cheap over there.

Ran out of SPF last month though so was delighted I could order same products on amazon for not much more price-wise.

Oh amazing, I'm going to Japan later this year so would love to know whats good to buy over there beauty wise?

pwurple

Lotus Flower wrote: »

You know well I was not referring to staying in the shade as being a myth, it was the comment about SPF30 being better than SPF50 that's the misconception

I also didn’t say that, I said it offers very little extra. but thanks for correcting what you misread I guess.

MissElle

Salthillprom wrote: »

Clarins SPF 50+ moisturiser

+1 for this! I bought it 2 years ago initially and I’m on my second bottle now. It doesn’t leave a white/grey tint on the face and doesn’t cause me to break out

Lotus Flower

pwurple wrote: »

I also didn’t say that, I said it offers very little extra. but thanks for correcting what you misread I guess.

You were advising SPF30 instead of 50, is that not the same thing as saying it's better or are you just getting into a semantics debate for the sake of it?

jeonahr

Lotus Flower wrote: »

You were advising SPF30 instead of 50, is that not the same thing as saying it's better or are you just getting into a semantics debate for the sake of it?

Pretty sure they were saying since there’s only a very marginal difference in protection you might as well just get the SPF 30 than 50. Not necessarily that it’s actually better, but not worth the hassle and €.

ams

I'm using this one at the moment and I like ti - for blemishes!

https://www.vichy.ie/ideal-soleil-anti-blemish-spf30-50ml

pwurple

Lotus Flower wrote: »

You were advising SPF30 instead of 50, is that not the same thing as saying it's better or are you just getting into a semantics debate for the sake of it?

SPF should be the last resort full stop. The lower the factor, the less of the penetration enhancers they contain. Whether you want to call it better or worse is up to you, that all depends on your point of view. I am presenting the facts.

Shade, sunglasses, clothes, avoiding the sun are all safer policies than lashing on SPF and thinking it is a panacea . Especially for women. The higher the SPF, and the longer they claim to last, the more chemicals they contain for things like ‘adherence’.

The stronger SPF ingredients are found in the bloodstream, breast milk, urine after use. The chemicals in high SPF sunscreens also contains weak hormone disrupters, and hormone disruption in women is something we need to be aware of, as that can be a risk factor from all sorts of stuff, from difficulty getting pregnant, changes in pregnancy (birth weight, length of pregnancy) to breast cancer. Some of the inactive ingredients in sunscreen can act as skin sensitizers over long periods. Causing dry skin, eczema etc.

I have heard this over and over again from my children’s consultant dermatologists for years for the above. Keep the factor as low as possible to minimize the exposure while giving enough protection, and keep to shade.

Here is a link, with the studies referenced.

https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/

This will also suit the OP, as the lower factors are also cheaper

Gael23

I use La roche posay SPF 50 non tinted. €19 for 50ml

BlondeBomb

To those using Image SPF 32, on the tube it says broad spectrum UVA/UVB Sun Protection, it doesn’t give any star rating for the UVA or it doesn’t have the UVA in a circle.

Does anyone know why this is? I thought it was required.

I love it but I want to know I’m getting protection from both UVA / UVB.

I know the star rating was developed by Boots but a lot of brands now use it. I think the EU insist for a basic level of UVA in the product that UVA must be within a Circle in the packaging.

Thanks

SozBbz

BlondeBomb wrote: »

To those using Image SPF 32, on the tube it says broad spectrum UVA/UVB Sun Protection, it doesn’t give any star rating for the UVA or it doesn’t have the UVA in a circle.

Does anyone know why this is? I thought it was required.

I love it but I want to know I’m getting protection from both UVA / UVB.

I know the star rating was developed by Boots but a lot of brands now use it. I think the EU insist for a basic level of UVA in the product that UVA must be within a Circle in the packaging.

Thanks

I don’t know for sure but it’s an American brand so perhaps that’s why the labelling is different, especially if the star rating system is from Boots.