Expensive supplements promising to provide younger, firmer and glowing skin could be a waste of money, according to a new study.
Scientists at the British Nutrition Foundation (BNF) found that a balanced diet, sunscreen and not smoking were more likely to protect skin than the craze for “neutraceuticals”.
The global beauty supplements market is expected to reach 7.1 billion dollars (£5.1 billion) by 2023, with many containing vitamins A, C, B2, B3, B7, and the minerals iodine and zinc.
Although these supplements are beneficial, BNF scientists said there was little evidence that added exotic ingredients such as green tea or pomegranate extract, fish oil, collagen and co-enzyme Q10 had any effect.
The BNF found these ingredients could be beneficial as part of a healthy diet, but there was only limited evidence that they contained any benefit when they were used in supplements.
In the review Nutraceuticals And Skin Appearance: Is There Any Evidence To Support This Growing Trend? the BNF said some results from lab experiments suggested these ingredients could have antioxidant, anti-inflammatory or collagen enhancing effects.
But it said it could not be assumed that these results would be relevant beyond studies on skin cells in a dish.
The BNF was only able to identify a few well-conducted human trials, and said the findings of these were inconsistent.
It concluded that a healthy diet and lifestyle was much more likely to provide the effects consumers hoped to gain from skin supplements.
Ayela Spiro, nutrition science manager at the British Nutrition Foundation, said: “As consumers can spend hundreds of pounds a year on oral beauty supplements, we felt it was important to investigate the association between the ingredients in these products, and the signs that we associate with skin ageing, such as wrinkles, loss of elasticity and moisture.
“While there is a body of research on the science of skin ageing, evidence for the benefit of nutraceuticals to skin appearance is currently not strong enough to draw firm conclusions.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel