Is SPF 100 Worth the Cost?
Posted on June 6, 2011 11 Comments
Summer is officially upon us, and not a moment too soon! We Midwesterners have been craving a little sunshine, and now that it’s here, nothing — except maybe a little tornado every now and again — can keep us away from the outdoors. Our party dresses are unpacked from winter storage, our sunglasses are in use, and Al Fresco cafes have popped up all over the city. Ahhh… my favorite season has begun.
Unfortunately, being my particular shade of pasty white porcelain, I can’t ever truly enjoy the outdoors without a full layer of sunscreen coating me from head to toe. If you’ve every turned “lobster red” with regularity, gotten sun poisoning, or blistered from a sunburn, you’ll know what I’m talking about. (If not, consider yourself lucky!) I make it a point to wear sunscreen on my face every day (it’s in my moisturizer and make-up), and to always keep Neutrogena SPF 100 or 75 in my bag in case I get stuck outside. It’s a great sun shield; this weekend I was outside in the mid-day June sun riding my bike for two full hours and I didn’t get even a shade darker (or, redder, as is usually the case).
But this weekend, a cousin posted on my Facebook page that “anything over SPF 50 is just more chemicals on your skin.” Obviously I don’t like more chemicals on my skin than I need (Except for DEET, really. When there are mosquitoes out, I should just bathe in it. But I digress…). So I did some investigating, and found this article by the New York Times, “Confused by SPF? Take a number.” In the article, nearly every dermatologist interviewed says SPF 100 is unnecessary. Some even said a higher number lulls you into a false sense of security because you think you’re protected for longer periods of time, but you’re not. You could be doing more damage than wearing an SPF 30!
All this is very confusing for me. I can’t afford to skimp on sunscreen. Those of you who have seen “Dear 16-year old me” know that just one bad burn before you turn 18 can double your chance of getting malignant melanoma. And I had plenty of bad burns in my heyday. Now that I spend a lot of time outdoors training for races and lounging with friends at those fancy Al Fresco cafes, I’m more cautious than ever (even though some damage has likely already been done).
For my sun protection, I usually buy Neutrogena Ultimate Sport SPF 100 at $10.99 for 5 oz. I also have a Neutrogena Sport Face that runs $9.94 for 2.5 oz. Pricey. I just checked Target online and discovered that the Neutrogena SPF 55 is about $3 cheaper than the SPF 100. But really, if you’re at high risk for melanoma, doesn’t it sound crazy go down to an SPF 55 from SPF 100 to save a few dollars? The SPF 100 seems to work — I don’t get any burn when I wear it, so for now I think I’ll stick with it. But if there really is no benefit to using it, I guess I should downgrade, right?
I guess the only way to really know is to run a controlled experiment on myself and try the SPF 50 on one arm and the SPF 100 on the other during my next bike ride and hope for the best. At least then I’ll know what works best for me (and my wallet!).
As a sidenote, your skin isn’t the only organ you need to watch in the sun. I learned last year that I have a freckle on my retina. Fair skinned, blue-eyed people are particularly susceptible to eye sun damage. It’s due to years of not wearing sunglasses. (I wear prescription lenses most of the time because contacts are uncomfortable for daily wear for me. ) So last year I ponied up and bought a pair of Ralph Lauren polarized UVA/UVB protection lenses for about $120 from Macy’s. I still have no idea if these were the ones I was supposed to buy but the glasses at my eye doctor all cost like $400 for non-prescription sunglasses, and there was no way I was making that leap up from my $10 pairs of Target specs. Plus, I lose my sunglasses every 10 minutes, or so it seems, so I really wasn’t excited about this expense.
But, much like sunscreen, the big expensive lenses are a must if you’re light-eyed to protect from crazy sun damage. And I’d much rather have a pair of $120 full spectrum lenses than have eyeball cancer anyway.
Category: Life
Tags: skin care , Spending
Comments
11 Responses to “Is SPF 100 Worth the Cost?”
Leave a Reply
About the Author
Archives
Categories
Tags
June 6th, 2011 @ 11:38 pm
Wearing sunglasses is the single best thing you can do to guard against developing macular degeneration (I think I spelled all that right! LOL!) later in life.
Macular degeneration is a leading cause of blindness; there is no cure or effective treatment. Once the damage is done, you slowly go blind.
So wear those sunglasses, peoples! And sunglasses aren’t just for summertime!
If you do the SPF experiment, please do let us know how it turns out.
June 7th, 2011 @ 2:54 am
You might be interested to look at the Environmental Working Group’s Sunscreen Guide (I am in no way affiliated with this group, by the way, although I do donate $).
EWG evaluates sunscreens and other skin care products based on chemicals, which is something I’ve been trying to pay attention to lately.
http://breakingnews.ewg.org/2011sunscreen/
My husband works outdoors during the summer, and I obsessively check his skin for suspicious-looking spots. Always good to get checked out regularly by a dermatologist or SO, especially with such fair skin.
June 8th, 2011 @ 3:03 pm
Kizz, it is likely that your prescription glasses, even though not shaded, offer some UV protection.
Wearing sunglasses won’t guarantee you won’t develop macular degeneration, but NOT wearing them is a contributing factor to developing it, so all ’round, it’s best to have some kind of sunglass protection when outdoors.
And yes, do keep us posted on your experiment, Nicole — while, like you, I don’t find it cost-effective in the long run to save a few dollars on health and safety if it means lesser health, but at the same time, why spend more if you’re not actually getting any more benefit?
June 8th, 2011 @ 11:06 pm
I live in Australia, which has such incredibly harsh UV rays. There have been so many studies and reports that basically echo the NYT article. Here, sunscreen is only allowed to go up to SPF40 because as explained, SPF100 is unnecessary and the higher number encourages people to think they’re more protected and they might stay in the sun for longer, ie. be lulled into a false sense of security. Sunscreens that would normally be labelled SPF75, 50, 100 overseas are labelled SPF40+ here so there is no confusion.
June 8th, 2011 @ 11:09 pm
Also, it’s really worth noting that SPF refers to the TIME you are protected, not necessarily the level of protection. So someone like me who is incredibly fair would burn in five minutes in the Australian sun. SPF30 theoretically protects me for thirty TIMES that five minutes, meaning that i am protected in the sun for 150 minutes. After that, i can have as much sunscreen as I want on, but I will burn.
June 11th, 2011 @ 3:04 am
Hi Budgeting Babe,
This was a great topic to write right as summer’s starting! I know I’ve been badly burned once and I’m not letting that happen again! All I wanted was a nice tan, instead, I got good ol’ lobster red… Anyways, please let us know how your experiment goes! I’d be really intrigued to know if SPF 100 is actually worth the money!
Humbly Yours,
The Mayor
June 13th, 2011 @ 3:28 am
Kizz, thank you for sharing. It will be a while before I try the SPF 55 because I just bought full bottles, but I will let you know.
And yes, sunglasses when you wear prescription lenses are pain in the bootie but you have to be diligent about it.
June 13th, 2011 @ 3:30 am
Also Kizz — DAMN that is a massive stitching job! Looks like the scar is healing nicely. Thanks again for sharing. Now go buy some sunglasses.
June 14th, 2011 @ 2:35 pm
Wowza guys, check this out —
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/15/science/15sun.html?hp
June 15th, 2011 @ 11:42 pm
FDA Labeling changes and explanations:
http://www.packagingdigest.com/article/518528-FDA_requires_changes_to_sunscreen_labels.php
Though directed more to packaging/labeling professionals, it gives an industry perspective on the sunscreen market and controls driven by the FDA.
June 21st, 2011 @ 2:59 pm
My boss just handed me a NY Times article about sunscreen, how it works and the new labeling that will go into effect soon. It’s short and speaks directly to this post. I don’t know if this link will work if you don’t have a subscription but I think it will. The name of the article is Explaining Sunscreen and the New Rules by Jane E. Brody.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/health/21brody.html?ref=health
I do own sunglasses and have been wearing them more diligently. Thanks for the heads up! However, I accidentally burned part of my back during a parade because I forgot to have someone help me with the part I couldn’t reach. I must do better!