
The Problem With SPF Makeup (and How to Solve It)
To be clear, it isn't that SPF makeup is less effective than plain sunscreen at blocking the sun's harmful rays. Makeup products with SPF can, in fact, contain the same active ingredients in the same (or very similar) proportions as several plain old sunscreens.
The issue is that no matter what SPF product you use, you have to apply 2 milligrams of it to every square centimeter of your skin to achieve the level of protection promised on the packaging, according to Michelle Wong, a chemist and science communicator at Lab Muffin Beauty Science and the author of the book The Science of Beauty . Usually I wear two pumps of liquid foundation. A quarter teaspoon — the generally recommended amount of sunscreen product that most faces need to be well protected from the sun's harmful rays — of SPF liquid foundation may be too much makeup for your liking. Connie Park/NYT Wirecutter, Rose Maura Lorre/NYT Wirecutter
That means that the amount of SPF makeup you would need to have adequate sun protection is the same as the amount of sunscreen you need. The big difference, of course, is that sunscreens are formulated to disappear into the skin, whereas makeup is designed to sit atop the skin and deliver more pigment the more you apply.
'You need about a quarter teaspoon of [SPF] product on your face for adequate coverage,' Wong said in a video interview. (Other sources gauge the amount at about the size of a nickel, which could be anywhere from a quarter teaspoon to a half teaspoon.) 'If you actually put that much foundation on, you will look like you have a massive, thick layer of makeup on your face.'
Wong demonstrated this in a video she shared on her popular Instagram channel, labmuffinbeautyscience. After measuring the surface area of her face, she determined that she would need 0.76 gram of SPF foundation to get the level of protection promised on the product's packaging. That 0.76 gram equaled 13 pumps of foundation — but in her normal makeup routine, she uses only about one and a half pumps.
When we conducted a similar test with a liquid foundation, we found that five pumps of the product were necessary to reach a quarter teaspoon. (If you already use SPF foundation and want to see if you're using enough for adequate sun protection, count the number of pumps it takes to fill a ¼ teaspoon measuring spoon and see how that amount looks and feels on your face.) For years, I've used a CC cream with SPF as my foundation, normally applying one or two pumps to my face. Here is what one pump looks like on my fingers (left) and then scraped into a ¼ teaspoon measuring spoon (right). The spoon is far from being even half full. Completely filling the measuring spoon took six pumps of the cream. Rose Maura Lorre/NYT Wirecutter
Other SPF makeup products, such as BB creams, CC creams, and powdered foundation, have the same problem. Although these tend to be more sheer than typical foundations, which may allow you to layer them on a bit thicker, 'I don't think I've ever seen one where you can actually get the full amount of protection and not look a bit ridiculous,' Wong said. (When we repeated the above test with a CC cream, we found that six pumps equaled a quarter teaspoon.)
As for powdered sunscreen, the company Colorescience, known for its Sunforgettable Total Protection Brush-On Shield SPF 50 powdered sunscreen, states in a blog post, 'Generally speaking, the SPF ingredients in makeup aren't strong enough to fully protect your skin from sun damage all on their own and should be applied in conjunction with a sunscreen product.'
If you layer SPF makeup over sunscreen, you will potentially get a more-is-more, cumulative boost of protection. Exactly how much of a boost would be especially difficult to calculate, Wong said, but it's likely to be quite small.
However, a 2021 study suggests that wearing SPF-free makeup could also increase (again, if ever so little) your overall sun protection. That's because 'all makeup … contains filters similar to those found in physical sunscreens,' as The New York Times previously reported.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
31 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Neuralink Device Helps Monkey to See Something That's Not There
Elon Musk's Neuralink Corp. used a brain implant to enable a monkey to see something that wasn't physically there, according to an engineer, as it moves toward its goal of helping blind people see. The device, called Blindsight, stimulated areas of a monkey's brain associated with vision, Neuralink engineer Joseph O'Doherty said Friday at a conference. At least two-thirds of the time, the monkey moved its eyes toward something researchers were trying to trick the brain into visualizing.


Medscape
36 minutes ago
- Medscape
EULAR 2025
Updated SSc Recommendations Use 'Therapeutic Continuums' The recommendations highlighted the use of immunosuppressive agents and antifibrotics to treat skin fibrosis and lung fibrosis, as well as changes to upfront treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Medscape Medical News , Jun 26, 2024 Updated SSc Recommendations Use 'Therapeutic Continuums' New Gout Drugs Might Increase Patients at Target Urate Level New options in late stages of clinical testing for refractory gout promise to increase the chances of reaching the guideline uric acid target with relatively modest risks for adverse events. Medscape Medical News , Aug 01, 2024 New Gout Drugs Might Increase Patients at Target Urate Level Taper, Dose Down, Discontinue: Striving for Less Steroid Use Now in the 75th year since the first presentation on the clinical use of glucocorticoids, what consensus has been reached in sparing their use to avoid their many potential adverse effects? Medscape Medical News, Jul 25, 2024


Forbes
39 minutes ago
- Forbes
RFK Jr. Spreads Disinformation To Congress. Here's What That Means For Public Health
Under Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the HHS sent a document to Congress defending their stance on removing COVID-19 recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women. The problem? Many of the studies cited in the document are taken out of context, unpublished or are under dispute. As an example, the HHS document cites a study and states the study found 'an increase in placental blood clotting in pregnant mothers who took the (COVID-19) vaccine.' However, the study makes no references to placental blood clots in pregnant females. In addition, the HHS document also cites additional studies to support the claim that the COVID-19 vaccine can be dangerous to pregnant women, but the studies mentioned actually support the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. There are several other instances of questionable citations and unpublished studies cited. But what does this all mean for public health and policy going forward? The majority of Congress are not scientists and may not have the expertise to recognize false citations or mischaracterized findings from studies. However, proper citations to substantiate claims that will undoubtedly affect public policy should not be optional- it is critical to ensure the health and well-being of all Americans. If studies that are misinterpreted or unpublished without peer-review are being used to justify public policy for the general public, then the recommendations should not be upheld because they are not grounded in evidence or real facts. If the recommendations are upheld, as may be the case for COVID-19 vaccines not being recommended for healthy children and pregnant women, less Americans will have access to life-saving vaccines and Americans will get sicker. Remember, COVID-19 vaccines were responsible for saving more than 14 million lives, according to research, and this includes the lives of children and pregnant women. Policies and recommendations not based on science and evidence also open the door for the promotion of fringe theories that have no basis in facts or science. If vaccines are not promoted by the federal government, vaccine hesitancy soars and more people will opt out of getting vaccinated or may not have access to getting vaccines even if they desire it since insurance coverage for vaccines is largely dependent on endorsement from the federal government and government-based advisory committees. Lower uptake of vaccines means more infectious disease outbreaks and cases rising throughout the country, just as is occurring currently with whooping cough and measles. Currently, well over 1,000 cases of measles have been documented throughout America, largely fueled by vaccine hesitancy and decreased vaccination rates among children. Deeper than just the health and public health effects is the strained trust for science that will continue to pervade the United States. If agencies like HHS and the CDC are viewed as politicizing decisions to promote various agendas of those in power, the public will become skeptical of following important health guidelines for public health issues. Without trust and transparency in public health, parents and Americans cannot make informed decisions to uphold their health. Public health depends on trust, and trust is built on evidence-based recommendations that have been shown to benefit society, not theories that cannot be substantiated. RFK Jr. promised 'radical transparency' as well as gold-standard science. This would be impossible to accomplish by sending documents to lawmakers that are filled with unpublished studies and citations that are completely misinterpreted. Gold-standard science is based on facts, evidence and rigorous peer-review, all noticeably absent from the document the HHS sent to Congress. Public health cannot survive in a world where misinformation comes from the top.