Myth #1:
There are skin-care products that really are better than Botox or better than dermal fillers.

Fact: Over the past few years cosmetic companies have positioned their skin-care products claiming that they can compete with or even outdo medical corrective procedures such as Botox. The ads in fashion magazines for these types of skin-care products often make claims about how dangerous Botox injections can be. There is nothing scary about Botox (other than the sound of the botulism toxin material used). In fact, the research about Botox's effectiveness and safety is overwhelmingly positive for every disorder they treat with it (and there are many, from cerebral palsy in children to headaches and eye tics) (Sources: Journal of Neural Transmission, April 2008, pages 617-623; Laryngoscope, May 2008, pages 790-796; Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, June 2007, pages 1059-1072; Journal of Headache and Pain, October 2007, pages 294-300; and Pediatrics, July 2007, pages 49-58).
On the other hand, there is absolutely no research showing that any skin-care product can even remotely work in any manner like Botox or like dermal fillers (such as Restylane or Aretcoll) or like laser resurfacing. Regardless of the ingredients or the claims for skin-care products, it just isn't possible. Even Botox can't work like Botox if you apply it topically rather than injecting it into facial muscles. Nor can dermal fillers plump up wrinkles when applied topically rather than being injected. When administered by professionals, Botox and dermal injections almost immediately make wrinkles in the treated area disappear. Believing that skin-care products can do the same is a complete waste of money. There has never been a single skin-care product that has ever put a plastic surgeon or cosmetic dermatologist out of business! So, despite the increasing number of products claiming to be better than Botox, there were more Botox injections and dermal filler injections performed in 2007 than ever before"”millions and millions of them.

Corollary to Myth #1: Dermal fillers such as Radiesse and Restylane are completely safe and are the best filler options available.
Fact: Absolutely not true! First, there are more than 30 dermal filler materials being used, and many of them are even more beneficial and definitely longer lasting than Radiesse and Restylane (Sources: Clinical and Plastic Surgery, April 2005, pages 151-162; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, November 2007, pages 33S-40S; and Dermatologic Therapy, May 2006, pages 141-150). Although dermal fillers do work beautifully to fill out depressed areas of the face, such as the nasal labial folds that extend from your nose to your mouth, deep lines between the eyebrows, and marionette lines along the sides of the mouth, they do pose risks. The advertising for these two products, and the repeated mentions of them in fashion magazines, has led consumers to believe that these work flawlessly. There are definitely problems (albeit infrequent) associated with these fillers, and with all of the more than 30 fillers currently being used. These problems and adverse events are primarily granulomas (a mass of inflamed tissue) and nodules, which are lumps or hard spheres that may occur at or near the injection site. Although these sometimes must be corrected with surgery, for the temporary fillers the adverse events do fade with time while the semi-permanent fillers can stay for far longer periods of time. The trade off is duration versus risk and the decision is yours.
Please don't take this information to mean you shouldn't consider using dermal fillers to successfully treat wrinkles (millions of successful treatments have been performed); it's just that you should be fully informed before you make any decision about any product or procedure you are considering. One more thing"”there are absolutely no skin-care products that can work in any way, shape, or form like a dermal filler (Sources: Dermatologic Surgery, June 2008, Supplemental, pages S92-S99, and December 2007, Supplemental, pages S168-S175; Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, November 2007, Supplemental, pages S17-S26; Journal of Cosmetic Laser Therapy, December 2005, pages171-176; Dermatology, April 2006, pages 300-304; Aesthetic and Plastic Surgery, January-February 2005, pages 34-48).

Myth#2:
You should choose skin-care products based on your age.

Fact: Many products on the market claim to be designed for a specific age group, especially for "mature" women; mature usually refers to women over 50. (So I wonder, does that mean if you are under 50, you're immature?) Nonetheless, before you buy into any of these arbitrary age divisions, ask yourself why the over-50 group is always lumped together? According to this logic, someone who is 40 or 45 shouldn't be using the same products as someone who is 50 (only 5 or 10 years older), but someone who is 80 should be using the same products as someone who is 50...?
To clear up the confusion what you need to know is that skin has different needs based on skin type, not based on age. Not everyone in the same age group has the same skin type. Your skin-care routine depends on how dry, sun-damaged, oily, sensitive, thin, blemished, or normal your skin is, all of which have nothing to do with age. Then there are the issues of skin conditions such as rosacea, psoriasis, allergies, and other skin disorders, which again, have nothing to do with age. What everyone needs to do is protect the outer barrier of their skin in exactly the same way"”avoid unnecessary direct sun exposure (sun protection!), don't smoke, don't irritate your skin, and do use state-of-the-art skin-care products loaded with antioxidants and skin-identical ingredients (Sources: International Journal of Cosmetic Science, October 2007, pages 409-410; and Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology, April 2007, pages 343-357). Plenty of young women have dry skin, and plenty of older women have oily skin and breakouts (particularly women who are experiencing perimenopausal or menopausal hormone fluctuations).
There are some skin disorders, diseases, and functionality problems associated with older skin, but they depend on the woman and her particular skin; they are not universally true of older skin, because even these specific maladies can occur in younger people as well (such as ulcerated skin, wounds that don't heal, itchy skin, and thinning skin). In addition, none of these problems have anything to do with "normal," daily skin-care needs; a healthy skin-care routine for your skin type can do wonders (Sources: British Journal of Community Nursing, May 2007, pages 203-204; Journal of Investigative Dermatology, December 2005, pages 364-368; Journal of Vascular Surgery, October 1999, pages 734 -743).
Turning 50 does not mean a woman should assume her skin is drying up and, therefore, that she must begin using "mature" skin-care products, which almost always are just products that are designed for dry skin, which are no different from any of the other skin-care products for dry skin on the market. And for many women over 50 (including me), it definitely does not mean that the battle with blemishes is over. And let me reiterate, there are no products designed for older women that address any special needs other than dry skin!

Myth #3:
Products labeled as "hypoallergenic" are better for sensitive skin.

Fact: "Hypoallergenic" is little more than a nonsense word. It is nothing more than an advertising contrivance in the world of cosmetics meant to imply that a product is unlikely or less likely to cause allergic reactions and therefore is better for sensitive or problem skin. To "imply" is never the same as "fact," and in this situation it is patently untrue that products labeled "hypoallergenic" are any better for sensitive skin! There are absolutely no accepted testing methods, ingredient restrictions, regulations, guidelines, rules, or procedures of any kind, anywhere in the world, for determining whether or not a product qualifies as being hypoallergenic. A company can label their product "hypoallergenic" because there is no regulation that says they can't, regardless of any proof, and what proof can they provide given there is no standard to measure against. Given that there are no regulations governing this supposed category that was made up by the cosmetics industry, there are plenty of products labeled "hypoallergenic" that contain problematic ingredients and that could indeed trigger allergic reactions. The word "hypoallergenic" gives you no better understanding of what you are or aren't putting on your skin (Sources: www.fda.gov; and Ostomy and Wound Management, March 2003, pages 20 -21).

Corollary to Myth #3:
"Dermatologist tested" on a cosmetic label is a good indication that the product is reliable and can live up to the claims.

Fact: You absolutely should not rely on the "dermatologist tested" claim any more than you should rely on the appearance of a doctor's name on a product's label to indicate you are getting a superior (or "medical-grade") formulation. There are many aspects to the term "dermatologist-tested," as it's used on a cosmetics label, that are misleading and deceptive; however, the primary problem is that it does not tell you what dermatologist did the testing, what he or she tested, how he or she performed the testing, or what the results were. That is, they don't tell you what they found with their supposed testing; they just tell you that they tested it. Without all of the testing information, there is no way to determine what it means. More often than not, it just mean that a cosmetics company paid a doctor to say it is a good product (and there are lots of doctors on the payroll of lots of cosmetics companies). Or they could actually have performed a test, but only on six people, and that happens more often that you'd think; which hardly provides results you can rely on. Dermatologist-tested is nothing more than a marketing gimmick because people like to believe that "doctors" have the consumer's best interest at heart. But, in the world of cosmetics, that is not always the case.

Another Corollary to Myth #3: Cosmeceutical cmpanies make better products than cosmetic companies.
Fact: The term "cosmeceutical" is, sad to say, a false advertising gimmick created by dermatologists to suggest that their "cosmeceutical" products are somehow better than other products in the cosmetics industry. What pathetic chicanery and deceit! At the very least what you should expect from the medical world is scientific fact, not these fictitious sales-oriented machinations. When you hear the word "cosmeceutical," you're supposed to think a product is a blend of cosmetic ingredients and pharmaceutical-grade ingredients and, therefore, it must be better for your skin"”right? The fact is, "cosmeceutical" is just a trumped up word that has no legal or recognized meaning as to what constitutes content versus the content of any "non-cosmeceutical" cosmetic. A quick comparison of ingredient lists reveals that there is nothing any more unique or pharmaceutical about cosmeceuticals than any other cosmetic in the cosmetics industry. Plus, the FDA does not consider the term "cosmeceutical" to be a valid product class, so the term isn't regulated. So, you should view it merely as a marketing term, and nothing more. Anyone can use that term to represent their brand's identity (Source: www.fda.gov).
It's interesting to point out that organizations such as the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD, www.aad.org) has muddied the cosmeceutical water even further. Depending on who you talk to, cosmeceuticals can be viewed as products containing retinol (or other retinoids, which are part of the vitamin A molecule) or hydroquinone. But, these ingredients are available for use to all cosmetics companies. Another description tossed around is that a cosmeceutical contains an ingredient that performs some kind of special action on the skin. However, all of those ingredients can be used by any cosmetics company, regardless of the designation.
According to the AAD, "the answer to whether or not cosmeceuticals really work lies in the ingredients and how they interact with the biological mechanisms that occur in aging skin." But again, that's true for any cosmetic. Even doctors can be seduced by their own hype so they can sell skin-care products and market them as different by using a coined, misleading term.

Myth #4:
Age spots are best treated with specialty skin lighteners, whiteners, or products claiming to get rid of brown skin discolorations.

Fact: First, the term "age spot" is really a misnomer. Brown, freckle-like skin discolorations are not a result of age; they are the result of years of unprotected sun exposure (Sources: Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, September 2007, pages195 -202; Dermatology Nursing, October 2004, pages 401 -413; and Age and Ageing, March 2006, pages 110 -115). You can demonstrate this yourself: just compare the skin on the parts of your body that haven't seen the sun (like your backside or the inner part of your arm) with skin on the parts of your body that see the sun on a regular basis. I'll bet that the parts of your body that don't the see sun will have minimal to no skin discolorations. And keep in mind that the bad rays of the sun also come through windows!
Second, the number of skin-care products claiming they can make skin whiter or lighter more often than not contain no ingredient that can have any significant, or even a minor, impact on melanin production (melanin is the brown pigment in skin). In addition, even when the product does contain an ingredient that can have an effect, it usually contains such a small amount that it won't help at all. Basically, there is no comparison between the effects (or non-effects) of using one of these products and using a sunscreen plus a product containing hydroquinone.
Because unprotected sun exposure is the primary trigger for most brown, freckle-like skin discolorations, the primary way to reduce, prevent, and possibly even eliminate skin discolorations is diligent, daily application of a well-formulated sunscreen. Be sure not to forget the back of your hands and your chest (and be sure to reapply every time you wash your hands, because sunscreen does wash off).
No other aspect of controlling or reducing brown skin discolorations is as important as being careful about not getting a tan and never exposing your skin to the sun without using a sunscreen rated SPF 15 or more (and more is usually better if the goal is avoiding discolorations). And make sure that the sunscreen includes the UVA-protecting ingredients of titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, avobenzone (which can also be on the label as butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane), Tinosorb, or Mexoryl SX (which can also be on the label as ecamsule) because UVA damage is what triggers brown spots (Source: Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, December 2006, pages 1048 -1065).
Though I rarely express my own personal, anecdotal experience (I prefer to rely on scientific studies rather than guess why a positive or negative result is taking place), in this case I will. I have found that using a sunscreen with only titanium dioxide and zinc oxide as the active ingredients has the most impressive results. The difference in my face, arms, and hands has been significant ever since I made that change several years ago. There is some research that supports this personal experience, but I wish there were more science to back it up. I suspect the coverage zinc oxide or titanium dioxide provides (more as a blanket over skin) '"locks" the sun rather then deflects the rays as synthetic sunscreen agents do is why you may get superior results. Keeping the sun from penetrating into skin is the best protection possible for skin. (Sources: The Lancet, August 2007, pages 528 -537; Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, June 2005, pages 253 -262; http://www.aad.org/public/publications/pamphlets/common_melasma.html; and http://www.emedicine.com/DERM/topic260.htm).
After the use of sunscreen, hydroquinone has the highest efficacy for lightening skin, and a long history of safe use behind it, more so than any other skin-lightening ingredient. There are other alternatives that show promise for lightening skin, but they have been the subject of far less research and their effectiveness often pales in comparison to that of hydroquinone. It is interesting to note that some of these alternative ingredients when applied to the skin actually break down into small amounts of hydroquinone, which explains why they have an effect. These alternative ingredients include Mitracarpus scaber extract, Uva ursi (bearberry) extract, Morus bombycis (mulberry), Morus alba (white mulberry), and Broussonetia papyrifera (paper mulberry), all of which contain arbutin, which can inhibit melanin production. Technically these extracts contain hydroquinone-beta-D-glucoside. Pure forms of arbutin, such as alpha-arbutin, beta-arbutin, and deoxy-arbutin, are considered more potent for skin lightening, but again, the research is at best limited. Other ingredients that have some amount of research on their potential skin-lightening abilities are licorice extract (specifically glabridin), azelaic acid, and stabilized vitamin C (L-ascorbic acid, ascorbic acid, and magnesium ascorbyl phosphate), aloesin, gentisic acid, flavonoids, hesperidin, niacinamide, and polyphenols. However, no one knows how much is needed in a cosmetic lotion or cream to have an effect, and most of the research has been done in vitro, not on human skin.
To sum it up, there is a very specific game plan you can follow to get the most impressive results; it starts with avoiding sun exposure, daily use of a well-formulated sunscreen (365 days per year), and using a skin-care product that contains hydroquinone. In addition, an exfoliant (e.g., AHAs and BHA) can be helpful, and certain laser, intense pulsed light, and radio wave treatments from a dermatologist or plastic surgeon can be extremely helpful. But, and this is an important but: If you don't also use a sunscreen daily you will be wasting your time and money! (Sources: Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, May-June 2008, pages 107 -113; Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings, April 2008, pages 20 -24; Experimental Dermatology, August 2005, pages 601 -608; Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry, December 2005, pages 2368 -2373; International Journal of Dermatology, August 2004, pages 604 -607; Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, July -August 2004, pages 377 -381; Facial and Plastic Surgery, February 2004, pages 3 -9; Dermatologic Surgery, March 2004, pages 385 -388; and Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, March 2005, pages 272 -276).

Myth #5:
Women outgrow acne; you're not supposed to break out once you reach your 20s and beyond!

Fact: If only that were true, my skin-care struggles in life would have been very different. In fact, women in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and even 50s can have acne just like teenagers, and the treatment principles remain the same. Not everyone who has acne as a teenager will grow out of it, and even if you had clear skin as a teenager, there's no guarantee that you won't get acne later in life, perhaps during menopause. You can blame this often-maddening inconsistency on hormones! What is true is that men can outgrow acne, because after puberty men's hormone levels level out, while women's hormone levels fluctuate throughout their lifetime, which is why many women experience breakouts around their menstrual cycle (Sources: International Journal of Cosmetic Science, June 2004, pages 129-138; American Journal of Clinical Dermatology, May 2006, pages 281-290; International Journal of Dermatology, November 2007, pages 1188-1191).
There are actually lots of myths about acne; following are a few corollaries to Myth #5.

Corollary to Myth #5: Acne is caused by eating the wrong foods.
Fact:This is both true and false. The traditional foods thought to cause acne, such as chocolate and greasy foods, have no effect on acne, and there is no research indicating otherwise. However, there is the potential that individual dietary allergic reactions can trigger acne, such as eating foods that contain iodine, like shellfish, although there is an ongoing controversy about that. A bit more conclusive is new research showing that milk, especially skim milk, can increase the risk of acne. The same may be true for a diet high in carbohydrates; a high glycemic load can increase breakouts, while a low glycemic load can reduce their occurrence. (Glycemic load is a ranking system for the amount of carbohydrates in a food portion; too many carbs in your diet could trigger breakouts.) Experimenting for a few months to see which of these food groups either hurt or help your skin is worth the effort (Sources: Molecular Nutrition and Food Research, June 2008, pages 718-726; Dermatologic Therapy, March-April 2008, pages 86-95; Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, May 2008, pages 787-793; and Dermatology Online Journal, May 30, 2006).

Another Corollary to Myth #5: If you clean your face better you can clear up your acne.
Fact: Over-cleaning your face can actually make matters worse. Acne is caused primarily by hormonal fluctuations