£3 (approx) cream tops the anti-ageing charts

Tibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter

tara747 wrote: »

Give that poster a prize!!:money:

Please direct all thanks to the busy researchers and participants in such important moneysaving research.

Thanks must also be given to the M-man for allowing us a central forum, in which to share our experiences and assist in fattening up our purses/wallets.

Amen to avoiding size zero pockets.

likestosavemoney

i actually already use this but only started recently, before i read this article. but im far too young for wrinkles. have quite a few years ahead of me will tell my mother though.
i bought mine from boots when it was on 342 along with other items.

i am pretty sure its about £2 in bodycare so even cheaper than the article.

Tibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter

akh43 wrote: »

Main points taken from akh43's post:

Anti-wrinkle eye creams compared.

The cost of an anti-wrinkle eye cream is no indicator of effectiveness.

The Simple moisturiser worked just as well as more expensive creams, including one that costs almost £49.

Anti-wrinkle eye creams
Better performers, but no better than our cheap moisturiser

Simple Kind to Skin Replenishing Rich Moisturiser 125ml £3.21 (£0.26 per 10ml) This moisturiser was our control product.

Simple didn’t make an anti-wrinkle eye cream when we began testing, but it does now [hence why they used the available moisturiser, which was stated as being just as effective as products asserting outlandish claims that were as inflated as their price tags].

What really works?

A pricey eye cream can equal better packaging and more luxurious ingredients, but won’t necessarily work better.

tara747 wrote: »

To those who said that this was an eye cream trial... it seems that they were all eye creams EXCEPT the Simple one. Even in the DM pic!

Does anyone know?

The reason why they didn't use Simple eye cream is because there was no such product at the time of testing. There is now, and Tibbs' mum swears by it - well, so she told me on the dog and bone tonight.

So, by using such a 'simple' product (without being tainted with chemicals, etc, i.e. one that is essentially basic) and the fact that they used a mere moisturiser (rather than an eye cream) makes the results even more significant.

If you compare it to the Ronseal ad - the products they tested didn't do exactly what they said on the tin, but the Simple product (basic moisturiser) was just as good as using the expensive stuff.

Without seeing the full research paper on how testing was performed, I can only surmise the following:

Neither the women tested, nor the analysts knew which moisturisers were being tested. Therefore, they would be advised to use/apply the cream in the same consistent manner to ensure accuracy of results (e.g. it might even have been a patch test on their arms). I mean, it wouldn’t be of any use if the cream was applied on one person’s toes, and yet another on their ear lobes. Also, since even the analysts didn’t know which one was the control, then the application of this would also have to be the same. Bearing this in mind, and the fact that the measure being tested was wrinkle improvement (not a test for best eye cream – that’s something that Marie Claire does by sending you a questionnaire - lol), and so this could effectively be tested by applying to a specified area of aged skin as a moisturiser rather than being administered as an eye cream.

I hope this alleviates some of the understandable confusion that has arisen with use of a moisturiser and not an eye cream as the control. Effectively, use of a basic moisturiser shames the rest of the products tested more so than it would have if the Simple product was also an eye cream, which is often more concentrated than a moisturiser. Perhaps if the Simple eye cream had been tested, then this might have been considered the best. Easy for us to test ourselves – over to you…

TopCat100

hadn't seen this which test

runs out to go buy simple

the joys of getting older

katthehat

TopCat100 wrote: »

hadn't seen this which test

runs out to go buy simple

the joys of getting older

At least you can still run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Februarycat

I have been using this for awhile and find it suits my skin. Went into Superdrug today and got some more whilst its on offer at £2, they had plenty in stock.

onefootmotu

Tesco have this on offer as 3 for GBP5 with other products from the Simple range. Offer on from 18/08 to 08/09. Their usual price for the 125ml is GBP2.91
HTH

Tibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter

onefootmotu wrote: »

Tesco have this on offer as 3 for GBP5 with other products from the Simple range. Offer on from 18/08 to 08/09. Their usual price for the 125ml is GBP2.91
HTH

Thanks for this. I did see the 3 for £5.00 deal at Tesco for Simple, but couldn't find an SEL for that particular product, hence why I didn't post. Thanks again.

avisk

Found this cream for £1.99 in Lloyds Pharmacy yesterday.

jellyhead

skibster wrote: »

Does anyone know what, if any, spf factor the Simple moisturiser has? From what I can find, the product states it has "UV filters", but mentions nothing about what spf it is?

I was going to ask that too - and do the expensive eye creams have an SPF factor? There's more to anti-ageing than visible improvement in the short term, it's the long-term sun damage that most people buying these products are hoping to avoid.

I was talking to staff in Boots about this recently, they were horrified that I just use baby lotion on my face, and no SPF - no wonder I'm getting wrinkles