| ▲ | willsmith72 5 days ago |
| It's impossible, essentially every accessible brand has some products test way below advertised On the other hand, if your product said it was 50 and it tested 30, the practical difference isn't actually that big. Our parents did ok with spf5 |
|
| ▲ | geerlingguy 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Heh, we didn't always wear sunscreen until I was in my teens... my skin does not thank me. We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there. |
| |
| ▲ | OneMorePerson 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If you look into advice from non-manufacturers (some other groups who are a bit less biased) it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, because any higher means sunscreen is harder to re-apply (meaning psychologically you are likely to not re-apply as often as needed) and also because it really doesn't make a difference unless you are ultra sensitive and have some kind of skin condition. | | |
| ▲ | mvdtnz 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, You're going to have to bring some receipts for a claim like that. I have never seen such a recommendation, ever. | | | |
| ▲ | tehjoker 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Using higher SPF can help cover for thin application |
|
|
|
| ▲ | stevage 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Don't know where your parents grew up or how ok they are. In Australia, many boomers have skin cancer, and that was before the hole in the ozone layer made things much worse. |
| |
| ▲ | OneMorePerson 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Did they actually apply sunscreen? Or is there a big divide between people who at least tried (something like SPF 15) vs those that just didn't wear any? |
|