I'm a tired mum of two and was looking exhausted. A $20 buy has given me my best ever skin, I can't believe the difference
A busy Sydney mum has shared how an affordable beauty buy transformed her skin taking it from lacklustre and dull to glowing and hydrated in a matter of weeks.
Vikki felt she was looking exhausted thanks to running after two kids under three, and wanted a nourishing product to address fine lines and wrinkles as well as offer intense hydration.
The designer and photographer trialled the new Skin Physics Anti-Ageing Intensive Hydration Serum, which launched just last month and after just four weeks of using the product daily she's been left with her 'best ever skin'.
The potent product $39.95 which is currently on sale for just $19.97 in the brand's 50 per cent sitewide EOFY sale, addresses signs of ageing by offering skin intense hydration and works to improve firmness and elasticity dramatically improving the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles.
Vikki told Daily Mail Australia: 'My skin felt so dry and dehydrated, my lines appeared more visible and after years of sleepless nights with my babies, life was definitely taking its toll. My simple skincare routine wasn't working, I knew I needed something more hardworking.'
After using the Skin Physics Anti-Ageing Intensive Hydration Serum for just two days, Vikki said: ' I woke up and couldn't believe that I looked noticeably more rested and refreshed, despite having my usual broken sleep.'
The hydrating serum contains 15 per cent WrinFix-Px, an ingredient which boasts an active compound derived from xylitol, known for its skin-rejuvenating properties. The potent ingredient enhances the production of collagen and enhances overall skin structure.
The nourishing formula also contains collagen promoting ingredients, including rice extract and soluble collagen, to help improve firmness and elasticity and hyaluronic acid providing incredible hydration and enhancing water retention in the skin.
Although Vikki noticed an immediate difference after using the serum for a few days, after a few weeks she was 'blown away' by the difference.
Mum Vikki trialled the new Skin Physics Anti-Ageing Intensive Hydration Serum and after just four weeks of using the product daily she's been left with her 'best ever skin'
'After a few weeks of using the serum I can see that my lines have faded and my forehead looks smooth. I'm genuinely so impressed with the change,' Vikki said.
'After three weeks of use, I think my skin looks so good, my best ever skin. I can't believe the difference. I feel like I don't need any makeup or other products, I just do my eyebrows and off I go.'
The serum, which is free from fragrance, parabens, alcohol and silicones has already attracted a number of rave reviews from happy customers.
One shopper who gave the product a five star review said: 'This serum is a hydration game changer! My skin feels instantly plumper and smoother, and after a few weeks, I noticed reduced fine lines and better elasticity. Love that it's fragrance-free and gentle on my sensitive skin. A must-try for anyone targeting dryness and signs of aging!'
Another said: 'Love this product especially before bed. It hydrates and plumps my face - I wake up feeling supple still the next morning!! Highly recommend!'
'After a few weeks of using the serum I can see that my lines have faded and my forehead looks smooth. I'm genuinely so impressed with the change,' Vikki said.
The Anti-Ageing Intensive Hydration Serum is one of three new serums that were launched by the brand last month alongside the Skin Physics Repairing Phyto Serum and the Discolouration Serum, with the trio addressing a myriad of the most common concerns.
The Repairing Phyto Serum is suitable for sensitive or irritated skin and is a calming, nourishing serum formulated to enhance the skin barrier and improve hydration.
Harnessing extracts of olive leaf, cucumber fruit, morus alba root, and eucalyptus leaf, the Repairing Phyto Serum 's formula boasts antioxidant protection to promote skin repair and to reduce pigmentation and redness.
Skin is hydrated thanks to hero ingredient Hyaluronic Acid, while Ectoin shields the skin from environmental damage.
Vikki, pictured with her daughter, saw an immediate difference but said she was impressed with the results after using the serum after several weeks
The Repairing serum has also become a fan favourite attracting plenty of praise from happy customers who say it's a great option for irritated winter skin.
'It's a beautiful barrier-supporting serum that's become a staple in my skincare lineup - especially now with the cooler weather. Highly recommend if you're looking for something calming, hydrating, and suitable for sensitive skin,' one shopper said.
Another raved: 'Love this product. I have sensitive skin and these serums have worked wonderfully for me. Great ingredients, lightweight and absorbs well. Easy to use with my other products.'
Finally, the Skin Physics Discolouration Serum is the last in the trio and it is is formulated to target uneven skin tone and discolouration for a more radiant complexion.
The high-performance serum uses melanin-reducing Tranexamic Acid for dark spot correction, while brightening Alpha-Arbutin targets pigmentation and sun damage, and Niacinamide works to reduce hyperpigmentation and even skin tone.
Exfoliating agent HEPES gently buffs and smooths the skin, while speeding up cell renewal, and also boosts the efficacy of the formulation by allowing the ingredients to penetrate the skin at a deeper level.
With only five star reviews from thrilled customers plenty of shoppers have shared their thoughts on the serum.
One reviewer shared: 'I have sun damage pigmentation and have tried many different products however saw a difference with this serum. It has really helped to lift it in just 14 days of use, I've also noticed a difference in my skin texture.'
Another, who said they were 'obsessed' with the product said: 'What sets this serum apart in my opinion is its ability to tackle stubborn pigmentation. I had a few dark patches that hadn't budged in months, but this serum gradually lightened them without irritation. My skin tone now looks more balanced, and I've even received compliments about how 'glowy' my skin looks without makeup.'
The newest trio for Skin Physics comes after the brand built a loyal following as a cosmeceutical skincare brand renowned for its science-backed, results-driven formulations.
The brand's award-winning Oxygen-C 15% Vitamin C + Ferulic Acid buy, has been labelled as the 'holy grail' of skincare.
The brand, which launched in 2007, has more than 2000 rave reviews on Trustpilot, with an average 4.7 out five star rating.
To shop the trio of serums in the brand's EOFY 50 per cent off sitewide sale, click here.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
7 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Aussie scientist breaks down what CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen SPF results REALLY mean - and it might surprise you
An Australian scientist has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem. The consumer advocacy group released their investigation results last week, reporting that 16 out of 20 popular sunscreens tested failed to meet the SPF protection claims on their labels, including big brands such as Cancer Council, Neutrogena, Ultra Violette, Coles and Woolworths. The controversial revelation has sparked outrage, with many consumers now questioning whether their favourite sunscreens are truly safe to use. However, respected beauty scientist Dr Michelle Wong, who holds a PhD in chemistry, told FEMAIL: 'I don't think we need to be that worried. These results are actually pretty reassuring in terms of the overall high standard of Australian sunscreens. 'It's tricky to measure SPF consistently because a lot of different things can affect the results. When applied properly, the difference between SPF 30 and 50 is not that big, and is very adequate for high exposure situations. However, higher SPF gives more room for error with underapplication.' When asked about Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ being the worst scoring sunscreen in the report - after it returned an SPF of just 4 - the cosmetic scientist explained that mineral sunscreens don't tend to hold up well in lab tests compared to chemical formulas. 'It's difficult to say without further investigation, but my educated guess is that the issues with this particular sunscreen, which contains uncoated zinc oxide particles, wouldn't necessarily apply to their other products, which are mostly chemical sunscreens,' she told FEMAIL. She further explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score. Scientist Dr Michelle Wong has weighed in on CHOICE's bombshell sunscreen report - from breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works to reassuring the public that the results aren't as alarming as they initially seem Australian consumer group CHOICE claimed in a bombshell report that Ultra Violette's Lean Screen SPF50+ Mattifying Zinc Skinscreen, which retails for $52, returned an SPF of just 4 during its first round of rigorous testing Nevertheless, when asked whether people should continue using this particular sunscreen in light of the report, Michelle said: 'I would personally use a different sunscreen in high UV exposure situations until more information comes to light.' She did however add that she felt 'reassured by the fact that Ultra Violette are taking prompt steps to investigate this discrepancy'. FEMAIL contacted CHOICE for comment on Michelle's video about the wide variations that may have affected the SPF testing results. Instead, a CHOICE spokesperson directed FEMAIL to its website, saying: 'You can find all the information on how we tested sunscreens in the following article, which addresses some of the thoughts raised within Michelle's video.' The article, titled 'How we test sunscreens', explained that 20 selected sunscreens were sent to an external laboratory based in Sydney, accredited to test sunscreens in accordance with the Australian/New Zealand Sunscreen Standard, as required by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). 'All 20 sunscreens initially underwent a five-person panel test in an accredited laboratory in Australia as specified by the standard, and then 18 of those sunscreens (every product except the two that returned the highest results, the La Roche-Posay and Neutrogena products) underwent another five-person panel test,' the CHOICE article stated. According to CHOICE, the products were 'blind' tested to minimise bias. The panel of volunteers selected for testing all had 'skin types that show sun-burning reactions and do not have any sensitivities to the products' ingredients. The report also detailed the stages of the testing procedure, emphasising that it was a 'tightly controlled and consistent process'. On Friday, Ultra Violette co-founder Ava Chandler-Matthews addressed the backlash following CHOICE's damning one of the brand's most popular sunscreen Ava hit back, saying the bombshell report was 'absolutely shocking,' and why she felt the need to speak up and dispute the damning claims On Friday, Ava Chandler-Matthews, the co-founder of Ultra Violette, broke her silence after CHOICE claimed one of the brand's popular sunscreens was one of the worst performing sunscreens on Aussie shelves. CHOICE experts said they were 'so perturbed' by the results of its extraordinary first experiment that it conducted a second test at an independent lab in Germany where the results came back with a reported SPF of 5. 'We obviously freaked out, [and] took it very seriously immediately. We have now done three tests on this product. Two to ISO Australian standards [International Organisation for Standardisation] and one to FDA standards,' she said. The results she said, visibly emotional, 'were all consistent SPF rating of over 60 [and] we stand behind the tests we've done'. 'My concern with this whole thing is that people will now no longer trust any sunscreen. This isn't just about us. I put Lean Screen on my own children - and I still would tomorrow,' she added. One of Ultra Violette's products was named among the 16 sunscreens that failed to meet the strict SPF 50+ standards listed on their labels. After the report came to light, Michelle made a video breaking down exactly how the SPF testing process works, explaining that it's a 'lot less precise than it might seem' - which inherently leads to 'a lot of variation with SPF results'. The Instagram video that has been viewed over 450,000 times, Michelle - who has more than 640,000 followers - ultimately reassured viewers: 'Sunscreens are very effective [and] these results do not indicate that you should lose faith in them'. Michelle explained that the structural make-up of mineral sunscreens means they're more prone to being 'easily disturbed by things like heat, interactions with packaging, and even just gravity' - and that this could have impacted on it's poor score In an explosive recent investigation by CHOICE, 20 of the most popular sunscreens on Aussie shelves were put to the test - and only four lived up to their lofty SPF 50+ claims In the video shared to her @labmuffinbeautyscience channel, she explained that the testing process is done on real people in a lab with a UV lamp - essentially measuring how much UV exposure it takes for their skin to turn pink with sunscreen, compared to without it. Even with stringent guidelines set by the TGA around the testing procedure, she added that 'a lot of little things can change the results'. These human variables can be everything from the person administering the test to the person the sunscreen is being tested on. 'Even within the one test in the one lab, it's common for the SPF result to be given as a range with more uncertainty that the label would suggest,' Michelle told FEMAIL. For example, she said it was not uncommon for a sunscreen labelled as SPF 50 to return a lab result reading anywhere between SPF 45 to 55. As she stated in her video, Michelle believed that '19 of the 20 tested sunscreens scoring above SPF 24 is really good'. She added: 'It's better than a lot of other consumer tests in the past'. Australian pharmaceutical scientist Hannah English also weighed in, detailing her reaction to the latest CHOICE sunscreen SPF report. Hannah, who has a clinical research background, agreed with Michelle's claim that SPF tests can be impacted by many 'little variables'. She said that any sunscreen brand that fell well short in CHOICE's report should be investigating 'exactly what had happened and why'. 'I don't want to assign blame to any user of sunscreen or to CHOICE either because their job is not to see the bigger picture and educate on health. They're trying to make sure that the consumer is getting what they pay for - and the consumer should get what they pay for,' Hannah said. 'So, whether or not there was some human error or not is neither here or there.' Michelle left) and Hannah Collingswood English (right) both took to their Instagram to respond to the CHOICE sunscreen SPF findings. Michelle felt the overall results weren't cause for alarm given the known the variables of the testing process. Pharmaceutical scientist Hannah agreed, and also advocated for the bigger overlooked issue of improper sunscreen application Hannah believes there needs to be clearer sun safety campaigns and better education on how to apply and reapply sunscreen correctly. 'The Cancer Council did a great job with the trend of tanning beds and Melanotan tablets (tanning pills) but we've had a bit of a gap in between that and that really scary, melanoma beach campaign you may remember from a few years back,' Hannah said. 'Even now, the campaigns we have don't necessarily speak to every skin tone. And you know, darker skin tones have a lower risk, that's true, but there's still a risk. 'I think if you sell a sunscreen product, then you have some responsibility to communicate it, how to use it properly as well. They have mandatory stuff on the label. People don't necessarily read, which is not the brand's fault either. 'There's a lot of factors, but we could do with much more education- and I think that would help more, potentially even more than further regulation.' Both Michelle and Hannah believe the biggest problem being overlooked is that Australians are simply not applying - or re-applying - sunscreen correctly in the first place. 'Most people apply about a quarter to half of the recommended amount of sunscreen, which means the protection drops to between a quarter to half of the SPF,' Michele said. 'This means an SPF 50 sunscreen would be giving roughly SPF 12.5 to 25, which is lower than almost all the sunscreens tested.' Hannah agreed, saying: 'If you're not applying enough sunscreen in the first place and not reapplying it, then you're not getting the SPF on the label, regardless.' That's why sunscreen should be considered as just one element of a broader sun protection 'layering' strategy - which also includes hats, outer protective clothing and staying in the shade where possible.
The Guardian
10 hours ago
- The Guardian
Poorer and rural Australians are sicker, yet they get less healthcare. It's a broken system
When it comes to health, Australia is an unfair country. Poorer Australians die about 7.5 years earlier than the wealthiest, and spend more years living with chronic disease. People from some communities, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, face an even higher risk of illness. This injustice has deep, gnarled roots, from disadvantage and discrimination to poor air quality and unhealthy diets. But there's one cause that's more visible, and should be easier to fix: people missing out on healthcare they need. A recent comparison of 10 wealthy countries found Australia's healthcare system rates highly overall, but ranks second-last on access to care, beating only the notoriously inequitable US system. Poorer and rural Australians are sicker, yet they get less care. It's a perverse pattern that applies to most types of healthcare, including dentists, medicines, mental health care and allied health. And a Grattan Institute report released this week compiles new data showing that access to specialist doctors, such as psychiatrists and cardiologists, is also highly unequal. We mapped access to public and private specialist care and found that people in the poorest areas receive about a quarter fewer services than those in the wealthiest areas. That means poorer communities are missing out on tens of thousands of appointments every year, despite being sicker than average. Rural Australians get about half as much care as people living in major cities. In many rural areas, specialist care is extremely scarce. Half of remote and very remote areas receive fewer than one specialist service per person each year, something not seen anywhere in Australia's major cities. Why does this happen? First, specialist fees are high, and there's not much relief for poorer people. Unlike at the GP, disadvantaged people are rarely bulk billed when they see a specialist. Three-quarters of people earning less than $500 a week paid a bill for at least one specialist visit in 2023. That's not much less than for people on the median household income, who paid a bill 84% of the time. And when the bills come, they're high and rising. The average fee charged has risen by nearly three-quarters since 2010. Again, poorer people aren't getting much of a discount: the median cost for the poorest people who pay fees is $170. That's not much lower than the $220 figure for people on an average income. Second, there aren't enough public appointments where they're needed most. Free clinics in public hospitals deliver just one-third of all specialist appointments. And as private services decline, public services don't fill the gap. Compared with the average, the communities in the bottom fifth of the nation get 26 fewer private services per 100 people. But they only get an extra three public services per 100 people. As a result, waiting lists for public clinics can be very long – often many months longer than clinically recommended. Put these two problems together and you get a broken system. In much of Australia, private care costs are high, and there's no good alternative if you can't pay. The result is missed or delayed diagnoses, preventable illness and avoidable hospital visits. To reduce fees and wait times, Australia needs to reform specialist training, reduce unnecessary referrals, and crack down on excessive fees. But an essential part of the solution is much more investment in specialist clinics in underserved areas. Governments must invest for impact by targeting need. They should combine data on public services, private services, and community needs, then rebalance our skewed service system and put care where it's needed most. To make it happen, health ministers should commit to a guaranteed minimum level of specialist care in the national health funding deal currently being negotiated between federal and state governments. It would cost about $500m to fill the worst gaps in the country. To maximise the impact, public clinics should change the way they operate. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency, but too often, they aren't the focus of hospital investment and improvement plans. State governments should give public clinics more funding and support to adopt best practices. To make sure that expansion and improvement efforts are working, all governments should publicly report waiting times, as some states already do. The unfair gaps in access to healthcare in Australia are deep and longstanding, but they're not inevitable. Without real change, we can expect fees and wait times to rise further as Australians get older and sicker. But with targeted public investment, we can make sure that specialist care doesn't become a special privilege. Peter Breadon is the health program director at Grattan Institute Elizabeth Baldwin is a Senior Associate in Grattan Institute's Health Program
The Guardian
11 hours ago
- The Guardian
More than 30 years after the royal commission, why are Indigenous Australians still dying in custody?
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander readers are advised that this article contains the name of an Indigenous person who has died. The recent deaths in custody of two Indigenous men in the Northern Territory have provoked a deeply confronting question – will it ever end? About 597 First Nations people have died in custody since the 1991 royal commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody. This year alone, 12 Indigenous people have died – 31% of total custodial deaths. The raw numbers are a tragic indictment of government failure to implement in full the commission's 339 recommendations. We are potentially further away from resolving this crisis than we were 34 years ago. Kumanjayi White was a vulnerable young Warlpiri man with a disability under a guardianship order. He stopped breathing while being restrained by police in an Alice Springs supermarket on 27 May. His family is calling for all CCTV and body camera footage to be released. Days later a 68-year-old Aboriginal elder from Wadeye was taken to the Palmerston watchhouse after being detained for apparent intoxication at Darwin airport. He was later transferred to a hospital where he died. Both were under the care and protection of the state when they died. The royal commission revealed 'so many' deaths had occurred in similar circumstances and urged change. It found there was: Little appreciation of, and less dedication to, the duty of care owed by custodial authorities and their officers to persons in care. Seemingly, care and protection were the last things Kumanjayi White and the Wadeye elder were afforded by NT police. The royal commission investigated 99 Aboriginal deaths in custody between 1980 and 1989. If all of its recommendations had been fully implemented, lives may have been saved. For instance, recommendation 127 called for 'protocols for the care and management' of Aboriginal people in custody, especially those suffering from physical or mental illness. This may have informed a more appropriate and therapeutic response to White and prevented his death. Recommendation 80 provided for 'non-custodial facilities for the care and treatment of intoxicated persons'. Such facilities may have staved off the trauma the elder faced when he was detained, and the adverse impact it had on his health. More broadly, a lack of independent oversight has compromised accountability. Recommendations 29-31 would have given the coroner, and an assisting lawyer, 'the power to direct police' in their investigations: It must never again be the case that a death in custody, of Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal persons, will not lead to rigorous and accountable investigations. Yet, the Northern Territory police has rejected pleas by White's family for an independent investigation. Northern Territory Labor MP Marion Scrymgour is calling on the Albanese government to order a full audit of the royal commission recommendations. She says Indigenous people are being completely ostracised and victimised: People are dying. The federal government, I think, needs to show leadership. It is unlikely another audit will cure the failures by the government to act on the recommendations. Instead, a new standing body should be established to ensure they are all fully implemented. It should be led by First Nations people and involve families whose loved ones have died in custody in recognition of their lived expertise. In 2023, independent senator Lidia Thorpe moved a motion for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander social justice commissioner to assume responsibility for the implementation of the recommendations. While the government expressed support for this motion, there has been no progress. Another mechanism for change would be for governments to report back on recommendations made by coroners in relation to deaths in custody. Almost 600 inquests have issued a large repository of recommendations, many of which have been shelved. The prime minister, Anthony Albanese, recently conceded no government has 'done well enough' to reduce Aboriginal deaths in custody. But he has rejected calls for an intervention in the Northern Territory justice system: I need to be convinced that people in Canberra know better than people in the Northern Territory about how to deal with these issues. Albanese is ignoring the essence of what is driving deaths in custody. Reflecting on the 25-year anniversary of the royal commission in 2016, criminology professor Chris Cunneen wrote that Australia had become much less compassionate and more ready to blame individuals for their alleged failings: Nowhere is this more clear than in our desire for punishment. A harsh criminal justice system – in particular, more prisons and people behind bars – has apparently become a hallmark of good government. There are too many First Nations deaths in custody because there are too many First Nations people in custody in the first place. At the time of the royal commission, 14% of the prison population was First Nations. Today, it's 36%, even though Indigenous people make up just 3.8% of Australia's overall population. Governments across the country have expanded law and order practices, police forces and prisons in the name of community safety. This includes a recent $1.5bn public order plan to expand policing in the Northern Territory. Such agendas impose a distinct lack of safety on First Nations people, who bear the brunt of such policies. It also instils a message that social issues can only be addressed by punitive and coercive responses. The royal commission showed us there is another way: self-determination and stamping out opportunities for racist and violent policing. First Nations families have campaigned for these issues for decades. How many more Indigenous deaths in custody does there have to be before we listen? Thalia Anthony professor of law at the University of Technology Sydney. She receives funding from the Australian Research Council Eddie Cubillo is a senior research fellow (Indigenous programs) at the University of Melbourne and is an independent representative on the Justice Policy Partnership under the Closing the Gap agreement. This article was originally published in the Conversation
