The mineral makeup myth

Current body
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Jeffreestar cosmetics
Makeuptalk.com forums

Help Support Makeuptalk.com forums:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Originally Posted by Lori@FSB /img/forum/go_quote.gif Fillers to me have no purpose but to "cut " or make the product have more volume. Now that is just my opinion. Even though it is a cheap filler, talc actually provides improved skin feel (softness, silkiness), spreadability, translucency, some coverage and adsorption qualities to makeup.
 
Originally Posted by ColdDayInHell /img/forum/go_quote.gif Even though it is a cheap filler, talc actually provides improved skin feel (softness, silkiness), spreadability, translucency, some coverage and adsorption qualities to makeup. I can't vouch for talc and mineral makeup myself but I think that I can lend a supporting opinion from a formulator who shares your viewpoint.
I've read of another formulator that owns her own company who prefers to add talc in her personal foundation. She doesn't include this ingredient in the line that she offers to consumers because of the general consensus on talc in the mineral makeup community but she sais that it improves the texture and quality of the foundation in her opinion. She also provided links to expert opinions that state that talc as used today is safe and no longer contains the hazardous components that it once did, asbestos.

 
the fact is that MMU is made from a little list of ingrediets what its good for me!

I dont like liquid founation.

 
I don't have access to the article, but after reading all of this thread, I'd have to agree that not all mineral makeup is created equal.

Doesn't it make sense the less ingredients in something (depending on what the ingredients were) the better it would be?

 
Originally Posted by Raze /img/forum/go_quote.gif I don't have access to the article, but after reading all of this thread, I'd have to agree that not all mineral makeup is created equal.Doesn't it make sense the less ingredients in something (depending on what the ingredients were) the better it would be?

I agree even the small women owned companys have too many ingredients in them.
 
Check out Cory Cosmetics. Her mineral foundation only contains 2 ingredients: titanium dioxide & iron oxide. Her's offers heavy coverage.

 
I need to try Cory again I tried when 1st intro to MMU but had a hard time getting it to go on right

I use Suncats has 4- Titanium Dioxide, Mica, Zinc Oxide, Iron Oxides works well for me.

 
I am finally able to read the article. While I don't care for many marketing ploys, to include MMU lines, I really don't see the problem the blogger has with minerals. I feel that they don't break me out as much as liquid foundation, and that makes me a happy camper. I like the "less is more" idea, but the less that I put on should be free from dangerous ingredients as well. (in both mineral and liquid forms) If I can't pronounce it or identify it, why would I want to use it. Or eat it, but that's another rant all together.
wink.gif


Bottom line is, there are good makeups and bad makeups out there no matter what formula. We have to do our research and make wise choices no matter what the advertisers or companies tell us.

 
Originally Posted by SukiBelle /img/forum/go_quote.gif putting the 'better for your skin' thing aside for a minute....mmu just LOOKS better, imo. After trying a batch for the first time and running out, I reached for my old foundation that day and I just looked like I was wearing a MASK compared to the mmu.
For that reason alone I'll never go back to liquid.
eusa_snooty.gif


I think the author of the article knew this, that MMU tends to look better because it is in a lighter powdery form than liquid foundation and so it spreads out more evenly across the skin. But what I never knew before was that MMU really contains the same ingredients, which is not implied in advertisements.
Good article, thanks for posting!

 
I would totally read this...if I could see the link. I thought mineral makeup was new.

 
i don't think it matters what marketing scheme MMU uses...all that matters is how the consumer feels about their skin after using this product. who cares if it's not a new invention? that doesn't make my skin look less silky or feel less breathable. this article definitely opened my eyes to some facts i didn't know before, but i feel like it doesn't really matter because i love my MMU and the points she made are moot to my happiness with my cosmetics.

 
I was never a "foundation" type. I had been using Cornsilk powder for almost 2 decades. I didn't understand (years ago) when some of my friends jumped on the BE bandwagon. No one wanted to hear my "overpriced powder" rant. As they dumped their bottles of heavy fluid goo and charged ahead into the new realm of this miraculous powder I was literally dumbfounded. A few years later I did switch to Physicians Formula pressed powder MMU and finally on to some of the other new brands of MMU because there was more of a color choice. But it's still powder to me.

 
I do think mmu is just a marketing ploy but that doesn't mean it doesn't have any benefits. I myself dont use mmu (yet) but i do want to and am actually waiting for my kit to come in. And the way it works, it is much simpler to put on one thing as oppose to primer, foundation, concealer, powder back to back. Plus you'll reap all the benefits of knowing you're probly not allergic to much of anything since it only contains 4 or 5 ingredients. mmu is meant to just be purer and more natural. Mother nature's knows best. I do think this person is a bit one-sided. he didn't even mention much of the real benefits that women acheive in using mmu, except for the fact that it's simpler. Plus he didn't tell us much of anything we already didnt know.

 
Originally Posted by ag10v /img/forum/go_quote.gif it is much simpler to put on one thing as oppose to primer, foundation, concealer, powder back to back. MMU users are still putting all that stuff on too but it is all 100% mineral ingredients.
 
Originally Posted by kayleigh83 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but the point of this article isn't just that minerals are nothing new, it's also that mineral makeup is made of exactly the same thing as regular makeup, just marketed differently. Similar, I suppose, to how one mascara is marketed as lengthening and one as curling, but they both contain basically exactly the same things. They're just trying to sell them to different customers! True mineral makeup is not composed of the same ingredients. It contains one portion, the natural base. Mainstream companies are manufacturing products--little minerals, lots of additives! This increases the profit.
Also, just because an item is "natural" doesn't mean it is non-irritating. Talc and bismuth oxychloride are both minerals--naturally occurring earth ingredients. I cannot use them, because they cause irritation. This is why you should read and understand all of the listed ingredients in a product.

 

Latest posts

Back
Top