Viva Woman

Most of us tend to select sunglasses based on design but it is actually more  important to wear shades that provide proper UV protection.  It should also be noted that the degree of darkness has no effect on UV rays and in fact, dark lens can cause our pupil to dilate and without that UV protection behind it, we’re just allowing more UV light to come into our eyes.  Such unprotected exposure to the sun can potentially damage the retina and affect our vision in the long term.

Hence, for adequate protection, buy sunglasses that are labeled as “UV 400″ which block all light rays with wavelengths up to 400 nanometers and protect you from 99 percent to 100 percent of both UVA and UVB light. Also, the larger the frame, the greater the protection thus you may want to consider wraparound sunglasses to prevent harmful UV rays from entering around the frame.

You may also take comfort in the fact that while expensive sunglasses are usually high quality, cheaper sunglasses can still provide adequate protection from UV light and are free of distortions.

And like sunscreen, sunglasses should be worn all year round, rain or shine since UV rays are alway present. 

Hey, they make great fashion accessory anyway!

© Copyright Notice

Effective chemical sunscreen
My husband had  La Roche-Posay Anthelios XL 50+ Lait Veloute Face & Body Lotion  to thank for saving his skin from sunburnt last week.  I applied it liberally on him twice over the four hours we were at the pool under scorching heat from about 10am to 1pm and his skin didn’t look any different afterwards.  In fact, it wasn’t even red.

So I have to say that if you’re in the market for a good chemical sunscreen, La-Roche-Posay Anthelios XL 50+ is worth considering as it contains both Mexoryl SX and Merxoryl XL, a combination that is said to be the most potent photostable anti-aging sun filters for UVA and UVB rays.  Those that contain Mexoryl SX (aka Ecamsule) alone may not provide complete protection going by the following rating compiled by Environmental Protection Agency.

If not for the fact that this is a chemical sunscreen, I really like it quite a lot as I have reviewed previously.  It’s got a great texture and is really water resistant. 

Chemical sunscreens generate free radicals
Anyway, I just came across another piece of information which reinforced my resistance towards chemical sunscreens (source). 

Chemical sunscreens protect the skin by absorbing the light particles (photons). When this energy is absorbed, the molecules of the sunscreen are destroyed, rather than a skin component. This still results in chemical reactions and the process generates free radicals that produce the same type of secondary free radical damage that unprotected sun exposure produces. Subsequently chemical sunscreens are not the most complete or effective form of sun protection. They prevent a larger degree of the initial sun damage but allow secondary free radical damage, which adds to the speed of the skin aging process.

The article goes on to say that physical sunscreens containing titanium dioxide and zinc oxide work by reflecting the photons of light up and out of the skin so there is no absorption of energy. Hence, no chemical reaction and no free radicals are produced. 

Although I can’t say for sure that this is not a marketing message to promote physical sunscreens, but I do remember my dermatologist specifically pointing out that I should always check for titanium dioxide and zinc oxide when looking for a sunscreen.  So there must be some basis for that recommendation right?

Physical sunscreens not offering sufficient protection
However, the main problem with most physical sunscreens seems to be that people are not using enough of it because their formulation makes it impossible to apply the sufficient dosage.  Hence, this is one of the key reasons why many think that chemical sunscreens offer better protection.  Moreoever, with newer chemical formulations containing Mexoryl which are said not to absorb the UV light into the skin and therefore, doesn’t do all that free radical damage, it is no wonder chemical sunscreens are still a favorite of many. 

© Copyright Notice

The answer appears to be yes, going by this table compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency featuring chemical and physical sunscreen ingredients as well as the type and amount of ray protection that they provide and their class.

Do you see what I see?  Zinc Oxide provides the best broad spectrum protection against both UVA and UVB rays!  It looks to be better than Ecamsule, which is commonly known by the trade name Mexoryl.  Which means, the industry claims that Mexoryl is the most potent photostable anti-aging sun filters for UVA and UVB rays may not be so true afterall.  In fact, I found an article refuting that claim and stating that Mexoryl is an inferior sunscreen active ingredient compared to zinc oxide although I have to qualify that the source is a company that sells sunscreen using zinc oxide.

I find this information both to be intriguing as well as perplexing.  Can this be 100% true?  Is this part of the ongoing debate between physical sunblocks vs chemical sunscreens? 

For those who are confused, physical sunscreens contain either Zinc Oxide or Titanium Dioxide and form a film on top of the skin that reflects or scatters UV light while chemical sunscreens absorb UV rays before they can do any damage.  But whether you pick a physical or chemical sunscreen, the most important consideration is that your formula is broad spectrum and offers protection against both UVA and UVB rays.  And you may like to know that UVB rays are the primary cause of skin cancer while UVA rays cause wrinkling, skin sunspots and are also now implicated in skin cancer.

More research is definitely required to find out if Zinc Oxide is indeed better than Mexoryl but my first thoughts were, if this is true, my earlier entry about Mexoryl sunscreens no longer holds water.  And my second thoughts are, my Keys Solar RX SPF30 Sunblock is good and I can junk my Mexoryl chemical sunscreens! 

© Copyright Notice

Burt’s Bees is a brand of affordable natural personal care products that I loved until last year when the local distributor shared with me some bits of information about the line.  The information, along with news that the company was acquired by the bleach producing company Clorox,  created some unease for me and sort of killed my interest in their products.  I still use some of their lip balms and body lotion but I stopped buying anything new from them.   

But today, I gave them a look-over again, after learning that they’ve introduced the new Burt’s Bees Chemical-Free Sunscreen SPF 30, described as a 100% natural, non-whitening formula that provides broad-spectrum UVA/UVB protection using titanium dioxide.  

I was curious as to how the new Burt’s Bees Chemical-Free Sunscreen SPF30 measures up against Badger SPF30 Sunblock, currently rated the safest and most effective sunscreen by the Environmental Working Group since I view both of the brands in the same market positioning.

Zinc Oxide Vs Titanium Oxide
Without testing the new Burt’s Bees sunscreen, I can only compare based on their active ingredients and it looks like Badger SPF30 Sunblock provides better broad spectrum UVA and UVB sunscreen because the sunscreen contains 20.5% zinc oxide while Burt’s Bees Chemical-Free Sunscreen SPF30 contains 8.58% titanium dioxide. 

While both are physical sunscreens (also referred to as mineral sunscreens) which means they use titanium dixoide and or zinc oxide as active ingredients to form a film on top of the skin that reflects or scatters UV light and are effective immediately upon application, the mineral zinc oxide is a more superior sunscreen ingredient compared to titanium dioxide to provide the best broad spectrum UVA and UVB sunscreen (source).   And by looking at the concentration, Badger SPF30 Sunscreen is definitely more protective against long-wave UVA.  Just refer to the following rating compiled by Environmental Protection Agency.

However, even though zinc oxide is less white compared to titanium dioxide at a given concentration, Badger SPF30 Sunblock does not do better in that regards because of the high concentration with 20.5% zinc oxide.  I have also tested the product and it left an unsightly white cast upon application.     

Well, I’m currently use the Mexoryl-based sunscreens but I really prefer physical sunscreens over chemical sunscreens because much research have revealed the latter to be free radical generators containing gender-bending estrogenic chemicals.  But would I buy the new Burt’s Bees SPF30 Sunscreen just because it’s chemical-free? 

I think the answer is obvious.

So what would you buy since both products cost about the same?

© Copyright Notice