You have no items in your shopping cart.
Sisley Skinleya Anti-aging Foundation- reviewed and rejected
Skinleya Anti-Aging Foundation seems to have been formulated for the 1% with the starting assumption that this demographic has more money then sense. There is nothing that I can see that justifies $90 let alone $190. After wading through a lot of silicone and thickeners, there is a handful of ingredients that could be associated with anti-aging and skincare – and even those are not all terribly convincing.
For example, tourmaline is first up (the 13th ingredient on the list). Its proponents say that it will revitalize the skin, making it appear more radiant and youthful. How it achieves this though requires a stretch of the imagination. Tourmaline crystals supposedly warm as they are rubbed onto skin, they become positively charged on one end and negatively charged on the other. This then increases the absorption of nutrients into the skin or, according to one anti-aging product, the warming effect triggers an increase the production of new collagen.
Physalis is a Sisley favorite and you can also find it in the $750 Sisley Suprema. It has radical scavenging polyssacharides, according to one study. Rhodochrosite is a mineral that is also supposed to provide UV protection. You can find that in Mineral Fusion’s shampoo that costs less than $10. It is also in Skin Nutrition’s Cell CPR, which is a serum for $170 (along with about 70 other ingredients most of which are actives) The remaining actives in Skinleya’s Anti-aging Foundation are serviceable but hardly standouts. Oat kernel and wheat have some antioxidant properties, there’s vitamin E and B and exfoliating salix alba. But there on in, its back to bulking agents, silicone and preservatives.
Sorry Sisley, but not even the “professional foundation brush” you’ve thrown in would persuade me to buy this.
Ingredients: Water, cyclopentasiloxane, caprylyl methicone, dimethicone, isodecyl neopentanoate, glycerin, lauryl peg-8 dimethicone, methyl methacrylate crosspolymer, dicaprylyl carbonate, hydroxyethyl acrylate/sodium acryloyldimethyl taurate copolymer, dimethicone crosspolymer, tourmaline, panthenol, tocopheryl acetate, bisabolol, oat kernel extract, physalis alkekengi calyx extract, prunus serrulata extract, retinyl palmitate, adenosine, salix alba leaf extract, wheat seed extract, rhodochrosite extract, dimethiconol, isostearyl sebacate, stearalkonium hectorite, tetrasodium edta, propylene carbonate, citric acid, disodium stearoyl glutamate, caprylic/capric tryglyceride, aluminum hydroxide, sodium citrate, fragrance, phenoxyethanol, methylisothiazoulmone, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, tocopherol, may contain titanium dioxide, iron oxides







Loading...
November 23, 2011
by Miss Cake Baker
I think what you maybe fail to understand in just looking at an ingredient list is that some products have better quality ingredients than others. Of course you can find Rhodochrosite in a cheaper product like you can find Chamomile in an expensive and cheaper offer. However if I use Chamomile as an example you'll find that it is only the flower which is active. A $2 shampoo can contain Chamomile but it will probably use a very cheap part such as the stalk which has very minimal active properties. It can still call itself a Chamomile containing shampoo though.
November 17, 2011
by Marta
Actually I did read reviews and they weren't very convincing. Here's one that comes first if you google the name of the product plus the word "review" http://fleurissante.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/sisley-paris-skinleya-anti-aging-lift-foundation-11-sweet-shell-review/
And yes, when I am considering whether to buy something, I look closely at the ingredients first. If the product passes that test then I would try it. This one didn't.
November 14, 2011
by aces
So you didn't even try it or read stories about people who have actually used it ?
That's why your blog is annoying and grating.
Time and time again you base your reviews on
reading ingredients.
Big whoop.