Here comes another study saying one company’s products are better than someone else’s. Like most of these studies, it all sounds pretty darn convincing. But wait; let’s consider the fine print before we go shopping…

You may have seen recent media reports that a study in the very proper British Journal of Dermatology revealed that using Olay’s Pro-X products improves wrinkles just as well as prescription tretinoin (the active ingredient in the topical medications Renova, Retin-A, etc.). The big deal being made is that Olay Pro-X, a “non-prescription brand” that’s readily available, has come up with an anti-wrinkle skin-care routine that can be considered “as effective as the leading wrinkle brand regimen at half the price”. And they’re guaranteeing it, too, which only confirms how much faith they have in the results (but these days, who doesn’t guarantee their products?).

The study was the comparative type, and involved 196 women between the ages of 40–65. Half of the participants used Olay Pro-X products and the others used a cream containing 0.02% tretinoin. The majority of participants used the products for 8 weeks, at which time the results were tabulated. The headline conclusion was that in just 8 weeks, the Pro-X routine worked just as well as tretinoin. But wait, there’s more…

On the surface, the results sound very impressive, but before you speed to your local Walgreens or Rite Aid to fill your basket with all things Pro-X, consider this: the study, like so many things in life, has critical fine print that cannot be ignored.

Here’s what Olay states in their ads and on the company’s Olay Professional Web site, “The prescription [meaning tretinoin] takes 24 weeks to see full results and longer term comparative results may be different”. So after all the hype, Olay’s study really just showed that Pro-X isn’t as effective as tretinoin because, as it seems, they published results prematurely.

We know tretinoin can take 24 weeks (6 months) of consistent use for positive results, and that the results continue to improve the longer a person uses tretinoin. Olay must know this too, or they wouldn’t have the fine print disclaimer needed to meet the standards of the journal this study was published in.

Interestingly, they mention that a small number of women in the study continued their regimens for an additional 16 weeks, meaning they used either Pro-X or tretinoin for a total of six months. The results? Only that “both groups continued to improve” and that the overall wrinkle reduction was 20%, but they didn’t indicate if the women using tretinoin had even better results (I am betting they did). Wouldn’t it be great to speak to some of the women who participated in this study? I wonder how many of them are still using Pro-X?

Estee Lauder has a new anti-wrinkle product (I know, what a shock; add this to the other 300 anti-wrinkle products they sell from their various lines). Perfectionist [CP+] Targeted Deep Wrinkle Filler ($39.50 for 1 ounce) is said to be a “powerful daily treatment for your deepest wrinkles”. It’s designed to be used on lines around the eye, creases in the forehead, furrows between the brow—anywhere you have lines that don’t go away when your face is expressionless.

This type of product isn’t anything new. Estee Lauder’s defunct Prescriptives brand offered a version of this product years ago in their Magic line, Lancome had their Touche Optimage Line Blurring Concentrate, and Lauder-owned Good Skin (sold at Kohl’s department stores) sells TriAktiline Instant Deep Wrinkle Filler. All of these are silicone-based serum-like products that serve as a soft spackle for wrinkles and large pores. You pat the product into and over creases, and they have a superficial, temporary filling effect. How long results last depend on the formula and, more critically, how expressive you are. And of course, none of these products have even a fractional ability to work like Botox or dermal fillers, but that’s another story.

We’re about to review this new Perfectionist product on Beautypedia, and although we don’t typically try products before we review them (we prefer to focus on the ingredient list, product claims, and research rather than personal experience which doesn’t help thousands of women know what really works) I decided to give this a go. At age 36, I have some minor lines around my eyes and wanted to see how Perfectionist would work to “push up” my wrinkles, as the copy on the packaging reads.

I followed the directions provided and dispensed a small amount of this wrinkle filler into my lines, gently patting to smooth the excess. This filler has a texture that is very much like spackle, so I instantly felt like I was doing some serious patchwork under the bright lights of my bathroom. Perfectionist feels supremely silky and sets quickly to a soft, powder-like matte finish laced with subtle sparkles, which I didn’t care for. The filling effect was impressive. It really did a good job of smoothing superficial lines—definitely better than my usual moisturizer.

Here’s the part where things started to go downhill. I reasoned that most women using this product are likely to apply it before makeup. After all, why bother with the cosmetic effect of filling lines right before going to sleep? You want your lines to be less apparent during the day, right? So once Perfectionist had set, I pulled out a Lauder foundation and applied it around the eyes. Imagine my surprise when the makeup looked TERRIBLE over the area where Perfectionist was applied. Lauder’s liquid foundation looked patchy and, as the day went by the skin around my eyes looked cracked and crepy—Perfectionist + foundation actually made me look older! How depressing is that?

Back at the office, I tried several other foundations over the Perfectionist Wrinkle Filler. Any liquid or cream-to-powder foundation with any type of silicone in it didn’t look good. In fact, the combination made wrinkles and even minor lines more apparent. When I applied a silicone-free foundation (Laura Mercier’s Oil-Free) over Perfectionist, the result was great. This combination kept the lines filled while actually allowing the foundation to look better than it does when used alone. The problem is that the majority of foundations, concealers, and most tinted moisturizers sold today contain one or more forms of silicone. You shouldn’t have to give up your favorite foundation or concealer in order to experience the benefits (however temporary) Perfectionist offers.

Oddly enough, the aforementioned TriAktiline Instant Deep Wrinkle Filler from Lauder-owned Good Skin works beautifully with foundations and concealers that contain silicone.

One more comment: Lauder isn’t known for offering fragrance-free skin-care products, and Perfectionist is no exception. After a few days of applying this product around my eyes, I experienced stinging and tenderness on my skin and in my eyes. Both issues went away as soon as I stopped using this product, which has a much stronger scent than what anyone should be applying so close to their eyes (and what woman who purchases this product to fill wrinkles isn’t going to try it around her eyes?)

A very attractive, young, pert, blonde receptionist who had just heard me do an interview on the radio station where she worked asked me on my way out, “Should a 25-year-old start using anti-aging products?” I thought, what does she want to do, revert to birth? But I knew what she meant and I responded by saying, “the only thing you really need is a great sunscreen, and be sure to never get a tan, and you will do fine; the rest is just skin care, important but not as relevant in any way in comparison to being sun smart.” She sat up and in a 20-something kind of way, said “But I love the sun and I love getting tan, I just don’t want to wrinkle.” I said, “Well then, you might as well buy a lottery ticket, because you probably believe you will win that windfall as well! False hope springs eternal; the reality you live in isn’t how skin works.”

Okay, I was in a mood. I usually just smile and walk away, but it’s getting worse out there, not better and my frustration is at an all-time high. If I believed in conspiracy theories I would say the media is in bed with the cosmetics industry, but alas it isn’t theory, it’s fact. Every time I do a talk show I’m always asked if I’m going to be critical of any of their advertisers, of if I’m going to say anything that might be of legal concern (sort of like Oprah Winfrey saying she didn’t want to eat hamburger). Advertisers are in control of what I say on TV or radio, and even to some extent in print (fashion magazines are a foregone conclusion; they treat me as if I don’t exist or simply don’t know what I’m talking about).

Reporters all over the world ask me what works, but the answer assumes that something must work to get rid of wrinkles. The endless press releases from mainstream cosmetics companies, physician-owned cosmetic companies, and spas and salons of all kinds have created the ultimate, anti-wrinkle products, you just have to find the ones that aren’t lying to you (somehow we know everyone can’t be telling the truth, but the notion that everyone is lying to one degree or another is something most women just won’t believe) and the one in front of you at the moment (especially if you’re feeling vulnerable) or that’s endorsed by a celebrity or has an attractive ad wins every time.

Women seemingly never tire of a product promising it can firm the skin, erase wrinkles, restore youth, fight aging, and on and on. There are literally thousands and thousands of anti-aging products perpetually using the same nebulous yet miraculous claims that often stop just short of lying (or blatantly lie). In some ways it is beyond belief how many products are launched every month, year after year. But because women keep believing the claims from the endless assault of anti-aging/anti-wrinkle products, I guess for me, it’s job security!

Anti-wrinkle. There I said it. Well, to be completely direct and clear, what I’m talking about is that I can barely say the word without faltering or hesitating with a roll of my eyes and an exhausted gasp. Now here’s a term that has been used to death for decades with no learning curve. Ironically, the best and worst formulations all make the same claims. How galling and infuriating.

If a product claims it gets rid of wrinkles we want to believe it, and while there are no products that get rid of wrinkles, as I have written extensively over the past 10 years there are lots of products that can make an impressive change in the appearance of wrinkles. In fact, if you keep using them, you’ll see a big difference (think sunscreens, moisturizers or toners loaded with antioxidants, cell-communicating ingredients, and skin identical ingredients, and exfoliants such as AHA and BHA). So here’s the issue: if my products have the same “anti-wrinkle” benefits as the products I rate highly because the formulas are similar (or if I may brag a bit, often better) why can’t I utter the same word (anti-wrinkle) and get the attention of women the same way other companies do? I can’t tell you how many times I’m asked what anti-wrinkle products I sell (or why I don’t sell products making anti-wrinkle claims). Sigh.

For me to use the term anti-wrinkle to describe my products just hits me below the belt and takes my breath away. Is the term misleading, the way the industry uses it suggesting miracles and the fountain of youth? Absolutely. But without question, well formulated products can reduce lines and make skin look younger, there I said it, anti-wrinkle products do exist.

Back to my point, what am I willing to say or rather what am I not willing to say about my products? This struggle is a problem for my company, particularly my Product Development Manager, Kate, who frequently lectures me about this point. She insists that the ingredients we use in our moisturizers meet my standard for improving the appearance of skin, improving skin cell function, enhancing barrier function, restoring substances to skin that it needs to reduce damage, and yes, fighting wrinkles and make skin look better, which includes looking less wrinkled. What to do? For now, that’s a good question, we are talking about this extensively of late and may make some changes. In the meantime, your feedback is welcomed.