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

Westywoodpecker

perplexed.com wrote: »

Here's a very MSE thought if no-one's pointed it out already; don't bother with any of these creams as the main factor in whether you wrinkle early or late is your genes!

I take it your male, yes

timmmers

Westywoodpecker wrote: »

I take it your male, yes

I'm male too, and recently watched an hour long documentary which stated the blindingly obvious...the creams that actually worked had two ingredients.

Sun block ...THAT sun up there much of the causes wrinkles and skin damage.
Moisturiser.

The rest of it ("pentapeptides" were funny, as they are meat proteins and akin to holding a raw steak on your face) was bells and whistles to attract the guillable.

harryharp

Ladies, PLEASE use your eyes and your common sense!!!

Here is the key phrase:

'We found none of the creams worked on all of our testers, but the Simple moisturiser worked just as well as more expensive creams.'

Don't just read the article headline and assume this is some sort of miracle cream!! The point is, NONE of the creams actually work in terms of getting rid of wrinkles. The article is saying they are all JUST MOISTURISERS, so you might as well just buy the cheap one which does the job of moisturising just as well as the expensive creams.

I have been saying this for ages (and I am female!!). Like the poster further up said, how many wrinkles you have and how soon your skin ages is mostly to do with GENES. And I would add to that, how much exposure to the sun it has had.

Minxy_Bella

perplexed.com wrote: »

Here's a very MSE thought if no-one's pointed it out already; don't bother with any of these creams as the main factor in whether you wrinkle early or late is your genes!

I have to agree - I've spent a bliddy fortune on face creams in the past and none of them have made a blind bit of difference to the onset of age/wrinkles (only when I smile though, so I try not to do that too often ).

I'm currently using a moisturiser I got for nothing on Ideal World shopping telly (Skin Naturally Miraculous Moisturiser) and it's just as lovely as Philosophy's Hope in a Jar which is £30odd for a small pot.

I think the basic rules are 1) drink lots of water 2) stay out of the sun 3) don't smoke (oops!) 4) moisturise with something 5) look at your mother's skin and only compare yourself to how she looked at your age.

tara747

Thanks for the posts boys, however I shall carry on with my moisturising routine! :rotfl:

Minxy_Bella, you have it spot on. We should certainly moisturise, but all the other stuff is vitally important too - staying out of the sun, not smoking, drinking lots of water, eating well (including good fats!!), moderating alcohol intake, get plenty of sleep etc. Moisturising plays its part of course, but there is no point in slathering yourself in Creme de la Mer if you smoke, eat junk, sunbathe and don't hydrate yourself properly. :T

Tibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter

harryharp wrote: »

Ladies, PLEASE use your eyes and your common sense!!!

Here is the key phrase:

'We found none of the creams worked on all of our testers, but the Simple moisturiser worked just as well as more expensive creams.'

Don't just read the article headline and assume this is some sort of miracle cream!! The point is, NONE of the creams actually work in terms of getting rid of wrinkles. The article is saying they are all JUST MOISTURISERS, so you might as well just buy the cheap one which does the job of moisturising just as well as the expensive creams.

I have been saying this for ages (and I am female!!). Like the poster further up said, how many wrinkles you have and how soon your skin ages is mostly to do with GENES. And I would add to that, how much exposure to the sun it has had.

This has already been discussed in length.

The nature of your post obviously indicates that you have not read the thread in it's entirety. Please take the time to read it. There is no mention of the word 'miracle' cream (only in your post). That's why I'd like you to take the time to actually read the thread.

The discussion of the sun and genes has also already been mentioned.

In the event that you don't read the entire thread, Roger_Rampant has already provided a purposeful summary of the crux of the discussion:

Roger_Rampant wrote: »

I thought you would have understood my comment if you'd read the OP, but the point I think Which? are trying to make is that products described as anti-wrinkle or anti-ageing and given claims of "visibly reducing the signs of ageing" and so forth, and having premium price tags, are actually a con. A product which simply describes itself as "moisturiser" can be equally effective, if not more so. So it's not really about what it is, it's more about what it is claiming to be.

Anti-wrinkle creams are a con!

In essence, this summary provides the basis of what we were trying to discuss. Therefore, again, I stress please read the entire thread before it takes a comical U-turn.

harryharp

Tibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter wrote: »

This has already been discussed in length.

The nature of your post obviously indicates that you have not read the thread in it's entirety. Please take the time to read it. There is no mention of the word 'miracle' cream (only in your post). That's why I'd like you to take the time to actually read the thread.

The discussion of the sun and genes has also already been mentioned.

In the event that you don't read the entire thread, Roger_Rampant has already provided a purposeful summary of the crux of the discussion:



In essence, this summary provides the basis of what we were trying to discuss. Therefore, again, I stress please read the entire thread before it takes a comical U-turn.

Keep your hair on. Of course I haven't read the entire thread- it's 4 pages long!!!!

However, I think I'm still making a good point- the fact that it's already been made is irrelevant- it would seem that it is a point that needs to be continually reinforced otherwise people will continue to be taken in.

Tibbs,The_Freebie_Hunter

harryharp wrote: »

Keep your hair on. Of course I haven't read the entire thread- it's 4 pages long!!!!

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl: