I'm fussy about face SPF, but I've finally found my favourite formula
It's common knowledge how important daily SPF protection is, but it can be tricky to find a formula that works for both your skin type and morning routine.
Some facial sunscreen can feel too heavy underneath make-up, while others leave an unflattering chalky or greasy finish. I've trialled SPFs at both ends of the spectrum, from no-frills budget buys to premium products with added skincare benefits – but I always return to one particular formula.
French beauty brand La Roche-Posay is lauded by everyone from dermatologists to beauty editors thanks to its hardworking formulas that both nourish and protect skin.
A skincare and make-up hybrid, the brand's tinted SPF50 formula is my go-to each morning. Ticking all my boxes for daily protection, the broad-spectrum sunscreen contains SPF50 to shield your skin against UVA and UVB, while also helping to blur imperfections and even out your skin tone. Plus, it works as a primer underneath make-up.
How I tested
I've been using La Roche Posay's tinted SPF50 for months, applying the formula as the last step of my skincare routine each morning. I've worn it both on its own with a little bit of concealer, as well as under foundation, I've assessed its coverage, feel on the skin and finish. Similarly, I considered how easily it works into the skin and whether it causes any pilling. Here's why La Roche Posay's anthelios UVMune 400 invisible fluid tinted SPF50+ is worth the hype.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
5 hours ago
- The Guardian
As a heatwave approaches, experts say US sunscreens are less effective than those abroad
Many dermatologists and experts say US sunscreens are still not as effective as many available overseas when it comes to protecting against ultraviolet radiation linked to skin cancer and premature ageing – despite years of research. The concern comes as a brutal heatwave, with a suffocating 'heat dome', is arriving for more than 200 million people across vast swaths of the US this weekend, bringing extreme heat and humidity . Studies have shown that the global climate crisis is making heatwaves more severe, frequent and long lasting. As fierce sun beats down on parts of the US this weekend, people are urged to try to stay out of the direct sun, stay hydrated and apply lots of sunscreen if outdoors – but people will probably have to rely on sunscreens that are less effective at fending off the ultraviolet rays than sunscreen available in some other countries. While American sunscreens generally do a good job at blocking UVB rays, which cause sunburn, experts and studies have noted in recent years that they often provide weaker protection against ultraviolet radiation in the form of UVA rays, compared to products available in places like Europe and South Korea. A 2017 study found only around half of US sunscreens tested met the European standards for UVA protection. Experts attribute this gap largely to regulatory differences. In the US, sunscreen is classified and regulated as an over-the-counter drug, rather than a cosmetic product like in other countries. This means that each active ingredient must undergo an often lengthy regulatory approval process with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and are subject to rigorous safety requirements and animal testing. Experts often point out that the FDA has not approved a new UV-filter for sunscreen in more than 20 years. 'The issue for me isn't the safety of the sunscreens we have,' dermatologist Adewole Adamson told NPR. 'It's that some of the chemical sunscreens aren't as broad spectrum as they could be, meaning they do not block UVA as well. This could be alleviated by the FDA allowing new ingredients.' Meanwhile, in countries like France, South Korea, the UK and Japan, governments have approved a wider range of UV-filtering ingredients, which experts say allow for more advanced sunscreens. One of the ingredients is bemotrizinol, which is considered one of the safest and most vetted chemicals on the global market. It remains unapproved by the FDA, but Swiss sunscreen company, DSM-Firmenich, is seeking FDA approval for it. But, dermatologist Dr Nazanin Saedi told Axios that a decision is not expected before 2026. 'So do not delay in stocking up on your sunscreen for this summer!' she said. In a statement to the Guardian, a spokesperson for the FDA said that 'many currently marketed and widely available sunscreen products in the US provide excellent broad-spectrum coverage and are effective in preventing sunburn and reducing the risk of skin cancer and early skin aging caused by the sun, when used as directed with other sun protection measures'. 'The fact that sunscreen ingredients are available in other countries does not mean that the important safety questions about these ingredients are well understood, or that they provide greater efficacy or safety than sunscreens lawfully sold in the US,' the spokesperson added. 'In many other countries, sunscreens are regulated differently and may not be required to have the data that FDA, and other experts, consider necessary to fully evaluate the safety of sunscreen ingredients.' In 2023, representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat representing New York, spoke out about the quality of US sunscreens compared to elsewhere and urged Americans to contact their member of Congress to draw attention to this issue. 'US sunscreens are far behind the rest of the world and our regulations aren't necessarily making our sunscreens better or safer – but it doesn't have to be this way!' Ocasio-Cortez said. Republican senator Mike Lee agreed with the New York representative, and in a post on social media, wrote: 'There is no left or right when it comes to UV light.' A bipartisan bill introduced in Congress aims to modernize sunscreen regulations and allow non-animal testing alternatives for regulatory approval. Still, dermatologists stress the importance of wearing sunscreen, and Dr Robert Kirsner, a dermatologist with the Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center at the University of Miami, told CBS that the sunscreens available in the US are still considered safe and effective as long as they are used properly. Expert suggest wearing a broad-spectrum sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher and advise wearing it every day, even on cloudy days. For those seeking the safest products in the US market, experts told the Guardian last year that people should look for physical, also known as 'mineral', sunscreens containing zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.
Daily Mail
6 hours ago
- Daily Mail
I'm 37 and I starved myself in my teens, smoked for 20 years and never said no to a party - when I found out my biological age, I was truly shocked
I'm Monique and I'm 37. It shouldn't be something I need to 'confess' - and I know, intellectually, there's nothing to be ashamed of - but my age is a detail that I've tried to conceal at work. How successful I've been with this is unclear - I'd have to ask my colleagues - but, working on the very youthful Femail desk, I suppose I've lied by omission. When the subject of birthdays comes up in our corner of the office, I place headphones over my ears, fix my eyes on the computer screen and type furiously. If age is discussed at after work drinks in the pub, I adopt a vague expression and float away. My issues with getting older cannot be blamed on my parents. Long before he got ill, my late dad would remind me, with typical dry humour, that getting older was 'better than the alternative'. But, every January when my birthday comes around, it's tinged with a fear that is quite distinct from the existential dread that I assume everyone experiences. I fear the physical signs of ageing which women, in particular, have long been told will limit not only their romantic opportunities but also their professional ones. For, though I think I would be able to blend in with my 28-year-old sister-in-law's friends on a good day - I am, after all, committed to a complicated and expensive skincare routine - I know, rationally, that it's almost impossible. My fraught relationship with ageing is, at least in part, rooted in my understanding of how I've mistreated my body over the years, whether through the restrictive diets and over exercising that pervaded my teens and twenties, the smoking habit that continued for almost two decades - I stopped for good last Christmas - or the predilection for parties that has only recently given way to early nights. While I would describe my present lifestyle as 'moderate' - I eat relatively well, keeping my passion for fried chicken in check, run or swim a couple of times a week, walk whenever I can and rarely drink more than two glasses of wine in one go - I have always wondered whether my previous behaviours would catch up with me. Now in my late thirties - and aware that at 40 our risk of developing myriad health issues increases - I'm becoming more focused on looking after my body. Already at an increased risk of certain cancers due to the BRCA2 gene, it would be foolish not to try to optimise my health and minimise the lifestyle factors that make us all more susceptible to disease. And, just as someone who wants to improve their physical strength needs to start by understanding where their weaknesses are, I wanted to understand what kind of damage I was dealing with - which is where biological age testing came in. 'Understanding a patient's biological age can help identify potential areas for targeted interventions and assist in developing personalised treatment plans to optimise health and well-being,' the company that conducted my test says in its patient report. I must also add, however, that biological age testing is having a moment now, not least thanks to the success of comedian Katherine Ryan's podcast 'What's My Age Again?', which asks celebrity guests to take the test before being interviewed. The Mail's Bryony Gordon appeared on the show last month, receiving a result that she was definitely not expecting. Unsurprisingly, given what I've described here, I wasn't particularly optimistic - I was sure my biological age would be significantly higher than my chronological age, probably somewhere between 50 and 70 - but it was still worth finding out. Of the three tests that can determine someone's biological age in 2025, I took the £375 GlcanAge test at the longevity-focused - and suitably futuristic - HUM2N clinic in London's South Kensington. As the clinic's founder and CEO, Dr Mohammed Enayat, explained: 'The test looks at a process called glycation, which is affected by inflammation, but particularly metabolic inflammation, as one of the major drivers of aging.' The number and type of 'glycans' in the patient's blood, chain-like structures which play a vital role in the majority of biological processes and determine whether your cells will experience inflammatory or anti-inflammatory reactions, are analysed in a lab. Through this, it is possible to provide a clear picture of the general health of their body. When I received my result in a typed report, I was nothing short of shocked. My biological age wasn't somewhere between 50 and 70 - it was, remarkably, 20. My first thought was: How? But while I had lots of questions for Dr Enayat, he was not especially surprised, partly due to the way the GlycanAge test actually works. The test 'reflects the preceding two-three months', the doctor explained, which, in turn, means that the result can change - both improve and get worse - relatively quickly. 'If you were to measure this during [a period of] illness, your biological age undoubtedly would have been a lot higher,' he added. I did my test on May 8 and, between March 1 and mid-April, I didn't drink any alcohol, an irritating reminder that abstaining from booze only helps with overall health. Dr Enayat agreed that my result was 'obviously positive' - but he didn't let me bask in glory for too long. Rather, we swiftly moved on to the areas where I didn't score well and, in some cases, scored badly. My score in one of the metrics, Glycan Median, which is positively influenced by factors like heart health, metabolic health and weight, was in the second percentile. Improving this is relatively straightforward, however, with increased exercise - not only cardio but also strength training - being highly recommended. Similarly, my score for the Glycan Lifestyle (B) metric, which is negatively influenced by factors like smoking, poor sleep and stress, was much worse than that of other women my age. I'm painfully aware that I don't sleep very well, often waking in the very early hours and unable to get back to sleep, something which I reported in the symptom questionnaire that I filled out before discussing my results with the doctor. There are, of course, measures I can take here, the most obvious being paying more attention to the horribly-named 'sleep hygiene'. The 3-2-1 rule, for example, which insists on no food or alcohol three hours before bed, no work or exercise two hours before bed and no screens one hour before bed, is one tried and tested approach. As someone who tends to scroll news, clothes and dating apps until my eyes are closing, or my phone runs out of battery, there's a lot of room for improvement. So, what now? The worst thing I could do with my impressive result, I was made to understand, would be to be complacent. Given that biological age can change as frequently as every two-three months, it would be unadvisable to embrace late nights or start drinking to excess. While it might be interesting to see how much damage I could do in a relatively short period, a much better bet would be to remember where I didn't score well and work with experts - a nutritionist and personal trainer in my case - to improve these. Indeed, members of HUM2N's health programmes experience a 42 per cent improvement in their overall health in as little as eight weeks. With memberships starting at £299 per month, plus a joining fee of £595, an advanced clinic like HUM2N could not be called accessible - though I've no doubt that I would experience the improvements promised. But am I ready to commit to a rigorous programme when the sun is shining, outdoor drinking is in full swing and holidays are on the horizon? I think I better leave it until September.
The Guardian
6 hours ago
- The Guardian
Do electric vehicles make people more carsick?
With electric cars skyrocketing in popularity around the world – in 2024, 22% of new car sales worldwide were electric vehicles, compared with 18% in 2023 – a growing body of studies and an increasing number of people have found that they feel more motion sick riding in EVs than in traditional petrol or diesel cars. Anecdotes of feeling sick in the passenger or back seat of electric cars litter social media, as do questions from wary prospective buyers. There is a scientific explanation behind why a person might feel more sick in an EV, though, according to multiple academic studies. 'Greater sickness in EVs can be attributed to a lack of previous experience, as both a driver and as a passenger, where the brain lacks accuracy in estimating the motion forces because it relies on previous experience in other types of cars,' said William Emond, a PhD student researching car sickness at the Université de Technologie de Belfort-Montbéliard in France. Though EVs are becoming more popular, combustion cars still dominate. Riders have a longer history with gas cars and so have had more time to adapt to their specific cues. If a person has spent most of their life driving a combustion engine car, their brain anticipates acceleration after the rev of the engine, a warning that they are about to experience a change in speed. In a battery-powered car, the electric motor makes no such noises. In addition to general unfamiliarity, research has found links between specific features common to electric vehicles and motion sickness. One 2024 study concluded that there were strong correlations between motion sickness severity and the seat vibrations of electric vehicles, while a 2020 study found that the lack of engine sound in an EV might be a major contributing factor to increased feelings of carsickness. 'If we are accustomed to traveling in non-EVs, we are used to understanding the car's motion based on signals such as engine revs, engine vibrations, torque, etc. Yet, traveling in an EV for the first time is a new motion environment for the brain, which needs adaptation,' Emond explains. Additionally, the regenerative braking technology used in EVs – where the motor converts the slowing car's kinetic energy into electricity that then is stored in the battery – results in low-frequency deceleration, meaning that the vehicle slows down gradually and steadily, over a relatively longer period, rather than rapidly or in quick pulses. Such low-frequency deceleration tends to be associated with higher levels of motion sickness. A 2024 study suggested the feature acted as one of the main triggers of motion sickness in electric vehicles. The study's authors wrote: 'Our results confirmed that higher levels of RB [regenerative braking] can induce MS [motion sickness].' Motion sickness is thought to be caused by a mismatch between various sensory signals the brain simultaneously receives about the body's movement. Specifically, it happens when the inner ear, which helps control balance, the eyes, and the body send conflicting information to the brain. 'Better knowledge on self-motion allows us to anticipate motion forces, which is crucial for motion sickness. Yet, when the motion forces as estimated or anticipated by the brain differ from what actually is experienced, then the brain interprets this 'neural mismatch' as a situation of conflict,' Emond said. 'If this conflict persists over time, it may surpass a threshold for triggering autonomic reactions of the body such as symptoms apparent to 'motion sickness'.' Being able to anticipate the movement of a vehicle appears to be integral to the experience of motion sickness, which is why people who are driving a car don't tend to experience symptoms. They know what is coming. The interplay between anticipation of motion and actual motion experienced may be why EVs are associated with worse motion sickness, as these vehicles provide fewer clues regarding upcoming movements. 'When discovering a new motion environment, the brain needs to habituate because there is no knowledge of previous experience in such a context. This is, for example, why almost everyone becomes sick in zero-gravity environments,' Emond says. As EV ownership continues to increase, some researchers are already looking into a solution for the cars' specific type of nausea. Several research papers have suggested that motion sickness in autonomous EVs could be treated by using visual signals, such as interactive screens and ambient lighting, or vibrational cues to allow a passenger's brain to anticipate motion changes, alleviating the lurching feeling in the back of an electric taxi.
