Loading page
SPF 30 filters 97 per cent and SPF 50 filters 98, which is the argument people use to justify applying a quarter of what the number assumes. What the label measures, what it ignores, and how much to actually use.
Maryam, Clinic Manager & Aesthetician
5 min read

Sunscreen has the strongest evidence base of anything in a skincare routine, for both skin cancer and visible photoageing, and it is also the product people use most incorrectly. Almost all of the error is in quantity rather than in the choice of bottle.
Sun protection factor is a laboratory measurement of one thing: how much longer it takes ultraviolet B to produce visible redness on protected skin than on unprotected skin. It is measured under standardised conditions at a specific quantity of product — two milligrams per square centimetre — which is considerably more than any ordinary person applies.
The arithmetic is less dramatic than the numbers suggest. SPF 15 filters about ninety-three per cent of UVB. SPF 30 filters about ninety-seven. SPF 50 filters about ninety-eight. Written that way the step from 30 to 50 looks trivial, and people use it to argue that 30 is plenty.
It is a bad argument, for one reason: those figures only hold at the test quantity. At the amount most people actually apply, the protection delivered falls off far faster than proportionally. A higher labelled number buys margin for the way sunscreen is genuinely used, which is thinly, once, and in a hurry.
Application studies consistently find people using between a quarter and a half of the tested amount. At that rate an SPF 50 does not behave like an SPF 25; the relationship is closer to a square-root curve, and the delivered protection is lower again.
Practical measures, in descending order of usefulness:
The single most effective change most people can make is not switching brands. It is doubling the amount.
When you are ready
Reading is a good start. Forty-five minutes in the room is where we look at your face in good light, ask what you have already tried, and tell you what we actually think.
Or call +1 (647) 793-6903
SPF describes UVB. UVA penetrates more deeply, is roughly constant through the day and across the seasons, passes through window glass, and does much of the work of dermal ageing and a good deal of the work in pigmentation. A high SPF with poor UVA filtering is a real product and a bad one.
In Canada, look for broad spectrum on the label, which is a regulated claim. European and Asian products often carry more informative markers: the UVA-in-a-circle symbol, which requires UVA protection of at least a third of the labelled SPF, or the PA+ to PA++++ system. If pigmentation is your concern, prioritise those markers over the SPF number.
Ultraviolet is not the whole of the relevant spectrum. Visible light, particularly the shorter blue-violet wavelengths, induces pigment in deeper skin types and in melasma, and no conventional ultraviolet filter blocks it. Iron oxides do.
This is one of the few areas of skincare where the trial evidence is reasonably clear: in melasma, a tinted sunscreen containing iron oxides outperforms an otherwise equivalent untinted one. If pigment is the concern, the sunscreen should have a tint, and it should be worn indoors near windows as well as outdoors.
Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are filters. So are avobenzone, octocrylene and the newer organic filters. All of them are chemicals; mineral is shorthand for inorganic. Mineral filters sit better on reactive and post-procedure skin and are less likely to sting the eyes, but they are harder to formulate elegantly on deeper skin tones without a cast. Organic filters tend to be lighter and more wearable, which matters more than it sounds, because a sunscreen that gets worn every day beats a theoretically superior one that does not.
The absorption studies that generated headlines a few years ago showed that some organic filters are absorbed systemically. Absorption is not the same as harm, no clinical harm has been demonstrated, and the regulators have not withdrawn them. If a mineral filter is preferred for comfort or peace of mind, that is a perfectly good reason to use one.
Two-hourly reapplication is an outdoor rule, and it exists because product is removed by sweat, water, towels and hands — not because the filters expire on the skin. A day spent indoors away from windows does not require it. A day at a patio table does.
Powders and sprays are reapplication tools with a quantity problem of their own: almost nobody applies enough of either to reach the labelled protection. They are better than nothing over makeup, and considerably worse than a proper application at the start of the day.
It does not make midday shade unnecessary, and shade, a hat and long sleeves outperform any bottle. It does not reverse existing damage — that is what retinoids, resurfacing and time are for. And it does not make a laser course pointless, though neglecting it will certainly undo one. Pigment treated in the spring and then exposed through a Toronto July comes back, and the person concludes the laser did not work.
Consistency is the whole treatment. A good sunscreen used generously every morning, indoors and out, for a decade, will do more for how skin looks at fifty than anything else available — including everything we offer here.