Join 3,501 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Moisturizer with SPF or separate sunscreen?
March 9, 2009 8:24 AM   Subscribe

Men's moisturizer with SPF or separate moisturizer and sunscreen?

Is there any difference, advantage, or disadvantage to using a single moisturizer with SPF versus a separate moisturizer and then sunscreen? I've noticed that the range of mens moisturizers tend to be quite limited, and when I do find one with SPF it seems to be substantially more expensive than a regular one. Thoughts?
posted by modernnomad to Health & Fitness (12 answers total) 4 users marked this as a favorite
 
As a woman, I prefer to use a single moisturizer with SPF because it is easier and cheaper. It seems to absorb better as well. I think your best bet is to buy one that is gender neutral because they are cheaper that way. I buy Olay's multipurpose moisturizer with SPF 30 for my husband. It is non-greasy and not girly scented while being reasonably priced.
posted by maxg94 at 8:32 AM on March 9, 2009


I'll put in a good word for Eucerin's face lotion with SPF 30. Yeah, it's got a pink lid, but that's not going to shrink your junk any.

It's formulated for sensitive skin, which might make it gentler on a freshly-shaved face.

It seems to me that most personal care lines aimed specifically at men are (like most personal care lines aimed specifically at women for that matter) largely made of marketing and packaging. There's nothing inherently "man" about them.
posted by padraigin at 8:50 AM on March 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


My husband and I both use the Olay Complete 15-spf, and he's never remarked that it's particularly feminine (there is also a line for dry skin or sensitive skin: whatever your preference). I prefer to use just one product because I feel like most sunblocks aren't formulated to be used everyday on skin (which means they cause my husband to break out).
posted by muddgirl at 9:19 AM on March 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


I use Neutrogena Men Triple Protect Face Lotion, SPF 20 which comes at $6.99 a bottle or so. It isn't very greasy, is unscented, and come in a dark grey/black bottle. It usually lasts me for about 3 or 4 months. I use a small amount mostly on my nose, cheeks, some around my eyes, around my mouth, and my neck (it's a nice after shave as well).

The advantage, of course, is that you only have to apply one product rather than 3 and unless you need 3 different products (need a higher spf due to ease of sun burns on your nose, etc) , I don't see the point of using 3. SPF is useful and you should be wearing it. It'll cut down on sun spots, protect wrinkles, make you look younger, keep your face looking adorable. Muddgirl makes a good point that face lotions are specifically designed to be used on your face and used every day. A sun screen might work great on your body when you're at the beach but isn't formulated to work every day on your face.
posted by Stynxno at 9:40 AM on March 9, 2009


Nthing looking at a gender-neutral moisturizer; you'll find much more variety, and the only difference is marketing. You need a men's formula about as much as I need my razor to be pink. Face moisturizers are generally unscented or lightly scented, so you don't need to worry about smelling like girl.

I like Aveeno Ultra-Calming Daily Moisturizer for a combo product; don't know if you have sensitive skin, though.

If you're looking for a separate sunscreen, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer is one of the best face sunscreens I've tried, it has some of the highest SPFs available, and it's good for the body too. I've also used it in place of a moisturizer and it's worked for me.
posted by Metroid Baby at 10:24 AM on March 9, 2009


I'm a bit of sunscreen fantatic, and I recommend Anthelios Fluid to men, women, children, hamsters, and anyone else who asks. You won't smell like you're headed to the beach.
posted by the jam at 11:01 AM on March 9, 2009


The "rich-girls'" stuff (like La Mer) works better than the mass-produced supermarket brands like Neutrogena.

Things are more expensive because they actually do what they say they do. They are more expensive because they are not mass-produced with inferior (and sometimes more damaging) ingredients and they are not formulated to sit on supermarket store shelves for years.

Companies like Neutrogena will say their stuff is "dermatologist tested" because they hire dermatologists to test them. It means nothing. It's just that the phrase looks really good on the label.

I usually just "borrow" what's in the gf's medicine cabinet. Abyssine Cream from Kiehl's is highly recommended. La Mer is expensive. Kiehl's is the cheap alternative (and it works).

Look at Kiehl's ingredients and then look at the ingredients in stuff like Neutrogena or Oil of Olay. You get what you pay for.
posted by Zambrano at 11:01 AM on March 9, 2009


I disagree with Zambrano, actually. I've used face and hair treatments ranging in price from $1 to $60, and while there are definitely products that are worth the money, there's not a strict dollar-to-effectiveness correlation. For instance, I like Kiehl's a lot, but I've found Neutrogena products to be better in terms of performance and value.

If you can get past the pinkness and girliness of the site, Makeup Alley is one of the best resources for figuring out which products are worth it and which are bunk.

Of course, everyone's face is different and YMMV. Some people find Creme de La Mer to be a miracle product, some find it actually worsens their skin.
posted by Metroid Baby at 11:20 AM on March 9, 2009


Zambrano: I'll take you up on your offer.

The ingredient's list for Olay Complete 15 SPF. Active Ingredients: 6% Octinoxate, 3% Zinc Oxide. Price: $9 for 4 fl. oz.

The ingredient list for Kiehl's Abbyssine Lotion +15 SPF.Active Ingredients: 7.5% Octinoxate, 3.0% Oxybenzone, 1.5% Titanium dioxide. Price: $45 for approximately 2.5 fl. oz.

Which ingredients are worth an extra $16 per ounce? Keeping in mind that we are looking for a facial moisturizer with SPF, and may not care about "reducing the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles".
posted by muddgirl at 11:25 AM on March 9, 2009


I've used the Neutrogena one that Stynxno mentions and I like the product. Ease of use is important for me and this does the trick, as well as being easy to find in most chemists.
posted by arcticseal at 11:28 AM on March 9, 2009


Is there any difference, advantage, or disadvantage to using a single moisturizer with SPF versus a separate moisturizer and then sunscreen? I've noticed that the range of mens moisturizers tend to be quite limited, and when I do find one with SPF it seems to be substantially more expensive than a regular one. Thoughts?

Definitely use moisturizer + sunscreen on your face--I'm not particularly breakout prone, but I still get zitty from sunscreen if I put it on my face. However, keep in mind that you still should be sunscreening any exposed part of your body (arms, legs), and that a regular sunscreen should work find on those, unless you're prone to bodily breakouts.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 1:09 PM on March 9, 2009


For the benefit of anyone who comes into this thread later and is looking for helpful, truthful information about skincare, I'd like to point out that pretty much all of this:
Zambrano said: "The "rich-girls'" stuff (like La Mer) works better than the mass-produced supermarket brands like Neutrogena. ...Things are more expensive because they actually do what they say they do. They are more expensive because they are not mass-produced with inferior (and sometimes more damaging) ingredients and they are not formulated to sit on supermarket store shelves for years.

Companies like Neutrogena will say their stuff is "dermatologist tested" because they hire dermatologists to test them. It means nothing. It's just that the phrase looks really good on the label. ... You get what you pay for.
"
...is silly and unproven. No one's skin is exactly like anyone else's, to start with, so statements like "more expensive = it works better" are as meaningless as the marketing material on any other bottle.

Skincare products like La Mer are more expensive for a multitude of reasons, but "because they work better" hasn't been proven to be one of them, by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, lots of cosmetic companies use the exact same development teams for the products that go into their drugstore brands as they do for the products that they package expensively for the department stores. (Viz. L'Oréal and Lancôme)

I've used La Mer, Sisley, Kiehl's, Kinerase... and St. Ives, Target's store brand, and Boots store brand. There's no one miracle price point and there's no one miracle regimen. There is only learning about what works best for your own skin, through an effort of trial and error.

It would be a shame to see men start to fall prey to the same "expensive = better" marketing ploys that the beauty industry has been plying women with for decades.
posted by pineapple at 1:37 PM on March 9, 2009 [1 favorite]


« Older After deciding not to apply fo...   |  What are the current best prac... Newer »
This thread is closed to new comments.