#111 Loose Women

Loose ends are enough to drive me round the bend, so in a bid to polish my worktop and enter the weekend light of heart & mind, I'm rounding up all the nitty gritties in a single post, which I hope will help the many readers who've been emailing me this month. As ever, thank you so much for reading & reaching out & getting in touch & asking me lots of big, important and interesting questions.

THE BIG - AND ONLY - BEAUTY QUESTION...

" I'm 38 and recently I've noticed fine lines around my mouth. I've always just slapped on some moisturiser and headed out the door but I think more is needed these days. The woman at the Clinique counter said my skin was basically oily but dehydrated where the fine lines are. Now, what do you think about expensive anti ageing products? Should I go to Space NK and throw money at my lines or do cheaper products work just as well? And is it moisture that you need to plump up fine lines or should I be looking for retinol in a product?"


OKAY, so do you want the cold hard truth?

There isn't a cream on the market that will rid you entirely or permanently of a real wrinkle.

Some will make it look less noticeable; others will fade it away a little over time; the best might even plump it up a touch... but there is no topical high-street treatment that will erase your wrinkles ENTIRELY, FOREVER.

Pass the tissues!

Now, if you're happy with your skin in general then I'd suggest adding a moisture-boosting serum into your routine (use post-cleanse & before moisturising) to see if the increase in hydration will fill out those fine lines. I get them on my forehead & one by the side of my mouth when I've skipped my serum for a few weeks (I use ESPA Cellular Hydrating Complex), but once I go back to it, nada, nice & smooth again. At 29, however, I do not yet have any wrinkles (a microscope analysis confirmed this last week, phew!) so I don't want to recommend something that works for me which may not deliver for you.

There is a difference between a fine line and a dehydration line though - but if the latter is left untreated for long enough it will soon become the former.

I was once a big fan of Dermalogica's Hydrating Booster until I realised that it made no long term difference to the moisture levels in my skin. I've had this problem with other Hyaluronic Acid products too in the past - they get sucked up and you think your skin's drinking its daily dose only to wake up the next morning flaky & dry as ever. If you think of your skin as a rock formation, these lightweight serums are essentially a drip-feed of groundwater, but they're not penetrating the surface to reach the soil beneath. I know I bang on about ESPA all the bloody time (and am sorry that I do, because I hate to seem biased), but my skin's moisture levels were never truly balanced until I tried ESPA Cellular Hydrating Complex. Just love that stuff - if only it weren't so dastardly expensive!!

Anyway, back to you. If your lines do not disappear entirely when they're hydrated then you probably need something a bit more serious then a moisturising serum - and this is when companies want to sell you that special something to resurface and plump up the skin's collagen and elastin stores and restore that cushion-soft complexion of your youth.'

BE WARY!

There are SO many products on the market nowadays that promise these sort of results (you know the ones; they come in syringe-shaped tubes with tag-lines that promise they're better than botox), but the results are rarely worth the price tag.

L'Oreal's Wrinkle Decrease Collagen Filler, for example, is consistently voted a top product by magazines, but it scored a poor 54% on the ever trustworthy WWW.MAKEUPALLEY.COM with half of 70 users saying they would not buy it again. Common complaints were 'the effect didn't last more than a couple of hours. I don't think it really plumps your skin, the way they claim' and 'it has more of a light-diffusing effect because it is semi-opaque than a wrinkle-filling effect. There are no active ingredients in this that could stimulate collagen production and the "boswelox" is a marketing thing.'

RoC's Wrinkle Correction Serum fared better, as did Olay's Regenerist Wrinkle Filler - and both are beloved by beauty eds for promising serious results, and carrying out exhaustive trial-and-testing on their new launches. In fact, a word to the wise - the affordable Olay has become something of a cult cosmetic surprise among the snobbier set - it's good, honest stuff, and from the Definity range to the Touch of Sun products, it's building an entirely new base of devoted followers. But - and this is where I get cuttingly REAL again, there were lots of users of both product who did not see as great an improvement as they had hoped. And this is where the old science comes in again - a craggy face will not turn cherubic overnight, and no pot will ever deliver on a line-less promise - [well, perhaps one of gold, if traded in for something far more invasive]. But, here's where I suggest that we ladies pay more attention to the fine print - do any face creams actually promise to eradicate our wrinkles forever? No, of course not. Improvements are not to be sniffed at though.

BUT, the fact remains that the serums and creams that sell themselves on an immediate filling or smoothing of lines will often make very little (if any) long-term difference. They're usually loaded with silicon & light diffusing particles (most often mica) - so the change is superficial, not structural. A good rule of thumb is to plump (excuse the pun) for products that don't purport to work overnight, and take as long as the skin cells' own cycle would take (which makes sense if you've been promised lots of spongy new cells from your latest serum)... rule of thumb, 6-8 weeks for a real visible difference.

But in my experience a great resurfacing peel followed by a regenerating mask (or a professional laser or intense pulsed light treatment) will make more difference to fine lines than a year's worth of shop-bought skin solutions. So sometimes it's worth paying to see a professional before you fork out on lots of broken promises in pots.

As an aside, I'm not a big fan of Clinique's cut & dry approach. They just don't understand skin in an holistic way. While they're regularly introducing more high-tech formulas & some great foundations, they're also pushing a 3-step-system that ignores all the new skincare breakthroughs & antioxidants across the rest of the line, and does not bother itself with protecting skin from the sun or pollution or stress; does not take into account age or race or lifestyle & the toner (which is actually an exfoliator) is my own personal bugbear because it gets women to slough away dead skin twice a day, but the moisturiser does not come with any sun protection. Any woman using this twice a day for ten years (and not having bought SPF on top) would be in for a unpleasant reflection come middle age. TRUE.

Then, onto retinol, which is another tricky issue...

Retinol is essentially an antioxidant (derived from Vitamin A) and, in layman's terms, helps the skin create healthier skin cells. It also helps shed the dead and regenerate the new, but it's not without its problems. Several of my beauty insiders have confided that their clients (who have been using retinol for upward of 10 years thanks to dermatologist prescriptions) now have very dry and thin skin - it may be clear and poreless and unlined, but it isn't very robust. Of course modern advancements in retinol production (including encapsulating it in non-irritating nano-sized ingredients that can penetrate the dermal layer) are steadily doing away with these issues - and new formulas are less likely to leave skin red-raw (skinceuticals and Medik8 are good examples of brands making smart upgrades to their formulas).

The problem for me remains that I'm a big believer in letting oily skin be oily - and would rather have a midday shine than retinol-regulated pore secretions which dry up by the time I hit 50. This thinking is unfortunately hugely at odds with a lot of leading dermatologists, many of whom think retinol is the Holy Grail of modern skincare. The Americans adore it too - and even women like Paula Begoun, who has made a living of telling the truth about what does & doesn't work, is a big fan (www.cosmeticscop.com).

If you're a retinol fan, bear in mind her interesting point though:

"Packaging is still a key issue [with retinol], so any container that lets in air (like jar packaging) or sunlight (clear containers) just won't cut it, something that applies to most state-of-the-art skin-care ingredients. Lots of retinol products come in unacceptable packaging."

And finally, you didn't mention slapping on SPF with your moisturiser? I have to say that I don't think it's worth spending a penny on anti-ageing unless you're protecting skin on top - and if you did ever start on the retinol that would have to become a key part of your regime.

I hope this has been of some help! The truth is so often painfully convoluted and when it comes to beauty, very very rarely black and white.

And in the end:

As a favour to my blogoshpere pals 'Anonymous' & 'Ellen' I wondered whether any MM readers had ever used Sjal products OR Erno Laszlo and if so, what's the consensus? Answers tagged onto this post would be greatly appreciated.

There! All tied up & somewhere to go.

#85 Big Head

There's something happening with hair. Beeeg hair. The sort of hair that looks like you've held up a candyfloss man at a fair and woven his sugar confections into your own strands. Virginia Woolf sort of hair, that billows out from beneath a hat, streaks the forehead with nimbus fingers, catches the light as though it is a cocoon of woven silk. Diana Vickers was onto it. Amy W would've ended up there were it not for her mane's metamorphosis from beehive to egghead. Duffy has it a bit, and Blake Lively does it well, though where hair is concerned, she is at a genetic advantage. Growl.

Also catching on are the haircare brands, as the next few months see a spate of big hair launches (as in big hair, not big launches for hair).

There is Shu Uemura Art of Hair's new MUROTO VOLUME range; L'Oreal Volume Expand MINERAL CA and Age Densiforce lines and the launch of L'Oreal Professionnel's Texture Expert Expansion Mousse.

So far I have only tried the Volume Expand MINERAL CA range. I've used the shampoo and conditioner, minus the volumising styling mousse. The range is for fine hair - I have relatively fine strands, but lots of them - and yes, it did make a significant difference to the fatness of my head. It uses mineral calcium to bulk and stiffen strands. However, lathering it up felt incredibly bizarre, as though my hair were being rinsed with glue - there is no silkiness of slipperiness to be expected from this shampoo. After slowly rinsing it out (and being careful not to break strands with clumsy fingers which seemed to catch on my now-tacky, almost brittle, cuticles), I layered on the conditioner, left for a couple of minutes, rinsed. I could see that where my normal haircare duo keeps the damaged flyaways along my parting nice and flat, this lot made them stand up on end as though I were the lovechild of Mister Majeka. Combing through was tricky too - hair was far far knottier than normal. But, here is the genius part. Once hair was blowdried it just went 'pouff' (in a good way)- feeling thick, pliable, swishy, soft AND it didn't get greasy for 4 whole days, which I couldn't quite believe. I wouldn't recommend it for everyday use - my hair needs intensive conditioning at least twice a week - but for those times when you need a workable, grippable base - this will be just the ticket. All in all, this is a good bet for this season's big head. Not least of all because you'll develop a dangerous habit of catching your own reflection and double-taking at just how much hair you had all along, but just weren't making the most of. Swish.

#62 Join the Line

Something odd's happening. For years and years, the only girls I ever spied wearing inky eyeliner were either channelling a goth, punk or retro aesthetic - oh, and then there was my mum, who hasn't left the house without her customary slash of molten kohl, for, gosh, I'd say coming up to thirty years. But, all of a sudden, it's everywhere. I've seen lid-flicks on so many different women in the last month (none of whom are Amy Winehouse), that I have no choice but to assume we're in the midst of a full-fledged frenzy - hell, even my make-up shunning mate turned up to an East London gig wearing nothing but electric blue ticks - and no, they weren't on her trainers. It's easy to see the attraction. A well-lined upper lid does something extraordinary to eyes - it's like wearing a thick rack of false lashes, except you don't have to worry about them falling off or getting a globule of glue in the eye. Focus is immediately shifted to the peepers and even the least likely to flutter take on a doe-eyed quality - something that Lily Allen (who, let's face it, looks a stone's throw away from ordinary without it) has mastered well. Add an inky line and eyes are immediately more intense, flirtier, sexier - get the line right and even piggy eyes can be transformed into Pocahontas style slits.

The problem is, the trend has stolen my thunder. I've always loved a good flick. So much so, in fact, that I've spent the best part of the decade trying to settle on the single most foolproof way to cultivate a precise, symmetrical set of lines. There are several additions to the market this month that promise to make the enterprise easier. Bad news is that most of them are TERRIBLE. They promise foolproof application and long-wearing colour, when in truth, they dribble on and rub off at the first sign of a sweat.

First up, Estee Lauder Double Wear Zero Smudge Liquid Eyeliner in After Hours. It's limited edition this one, which is no bad thing, as it's really rather dire. Even after giving it a good shake, the consistency borders on fountain pen ink - watery, imprecise, lacking in definition. The brush isn't terrible - it's a sort of hard, pointy felt tip - but the wand is too long, making it difficult to manoeuvre it along the eyelid. The long-lasting formula also flakes, rather than wipes, away - annoying when you're trying to correct the line with a cotton bud dipped in make-up remover.

Next up, the new L'Oreal Superliner Carbon Gloss. The formula's better with this one - you get a TRUE, inky, deep pigment, but once again, the wand's not up to much. The 'precision tip' liner is basically a pliable piece of skinny sponge that does not have anywhere near enough firmness to create a neat line. I've used it about 3 times now and the result has steadily improved, but it's another example of a design that's making an already-tricky technique even trickier. It's got the same flake-away formula as the Estee Lauder wand too (although not quite as bad), which means that if you want to neaten up the flicks afterwards, you're invariably taking away an entire clump of the stuff, rather than leaving a neat, precise line behind.

Then there's MAC Liquidlast Liner. It has the best formula of the lot, but still, application ain't child's play. You've already got to be pretty savvy with a stick to get the line of your dreams - but at least it comes in a dazzling array of colours and the formula doesn't flake away when approached by make-up remover.

My favourites? I have two. One is Shu Uemura Liquid Eyeliner. It's an exquisitely crafted brush pen - press lightly against the eyelid and you'll get a thin line, press harder and the line will widen, but it won't wobble or look uneven. The ink dispenser button at the bottom also means that it lasts an eternity without drying out or up - something that can happen a lot faster with pot-style liners.

But, you still need a steady hand for the Shu (and yes, some practice). The real foolproof option (and one that I go back to when I'm in a rush in the morning), is a flat liner brush (the Ruby + Millie Eyeliner Brush is cheap and also, the best I've ever tried), dipped in water and then pressed into a jet black shadow. Tap off the excess and then, looking into the mirror, simply line the brush up with lashline on the upper lid and press down onto skin. It will leave a neat black dash behind, and work steadily across the lid, wetting and dipping the brush again if colour starts to weaken, until you have a neat line running all the way across the lid. For a flick at the outer corner of the eye, simply angle the brush slightly upwards and away from the lashline and press against skin - it will leave a short, neat flick behind that you'd struggle to get first time with an inky liner - and unlike inky formulas, it can easily be neatened up with make-up remover.

Go on, catch a flick. You won't regret it.

#58 Premature Resolution

Oh lordy it's happening again. First came the spring-cleaning (which began with the last spoonful of Xmas pud & cream being scraped into the dustbin), then came the wardrobe haulage (all unsuitable, unseasonable items are now zipped up in a John Lewis storage bag in the loft) and today, I waged war on the buckling shelves and burgeoning storage units in my study. There's something about the end of the year that sends me off into a bout of relentless navel gazing. I analyse my life, my home, my space, my skin. Then I start clearing out. Chucking bits of paper I've stashed safely all year, ripping apart magazines that have been stood in chronological order since time immemorial (otherwise known as the day I moved into my new flat) and sifting through boxes of beauty bumph that I've not yet had time to try, nor been able to offload on friends and family - trying to work out what on earth I'm supposed to do with it all. Here's an idea - if there is anyone out there who runs a legitimate charity and can make good use of unwanted, unused and unopened beauty products then please, drop me a line and fill me in on your proposal. Ta very much.

Whilst sifting - which took me the best part of 4 hours - I ended up with three distinct piles: The crap that no one would ever want; the stuff that I don't want, but someone else might love and the gems I'm saving for myself, just in case I ever manage to grow myself another face or five, and will thereby find good use for.

Tomorrow I shall regale you with the good stuff.
Tonight, I'll serve up the unsatisfactory:


CRAP TRAP
I have a mate who loves J-Lo's, Paris', Coleen's and Gwen's scents. There's nowt snobby about her - and she always sniffs it like it is. But Alex by OK! Magazine sent her running for the nearest door. Words used? Sweet, cloying, air-freshener, headache-inducing - like one's first sniff of an early 90s incarnation of Impulse. The bottle's about as classy as Jordan on the pull too. Wrinkle-inducing grimaces abound.

The mineral foundation revolution. Anyone would think skincare companies had found a cure for cancer with all the harping on that's been done about these curious pots of powder. The fact is, the vast majority of the mineral formulas out there are sadly lacking in purity. Many of them (including L'Oreal's True Match Mineral Foundation) contain one or more dodgy additions, such as Diazolidinyl Urea (a common irritant) and Bismuth Oxychloride (neither of which are found in nature), so the 'go to sleep in it, wake up with better skin' myth, is in most cases just that - MYTH. Be wary and always check the labels before parting with your hard-earned cash.

My other peeve is that I've not yet tried a mineral powder that looked great on my skin. I'll start by saying that I've never ever worn face powder - hey, if my nose shines, so be it - so I'm not used to seeing a veil of dust on the skin, which tends to gather around my eyebrows and cheeks, where I have a wee bit of peach fuzz. But at least with face powder you can get away with just a swish over the T-Zone, but if you choose a mineral powder foundation, you're supposed to be able to use it everywhere - under eyes, over spots, atop chins - and it's often marketed as being a foundation-and-concealer-in-one too. Problem is, wherever you put it and however well you blend, it's always partially VISIBLE, which as far as I'm concerned, is cardinal base sin #1.

There may be others in the future that I love - I've saved a couple of pots for new year dalliances - but for the timebeing, at this stumped-out, fag-end of 2007, they're in the NOT HOT POT... going, going, gone.