I received a sample of Revive Eye Renewal Cream in an pre-christmas order from SpaceNK, and I've eked out the sample for about three weeks, to see how it compares to the Sarah Chapman Eye Recovery I love (this was one of the very first things I reviewed on this blog here and I've been using it since Christmas 2008).
The Revive Eye Renewal Cream isn't a cream at all to me; it's a light, clear gel. I was concerned that it wouldn't be moisturising enough for my dry under-eye skin, but surprisingly it does appear to be able to hydrate and moisturise well, likely due to the EGF (epidermal growth factor), a polypeptide that is marketed as 'responsible for creating dynamic and fast moving cell activity, leading to a youthful and radiant complexion'. I personally have doubts that this ingredient is small enough penetrate to the basal layers of the epidermis where new skin cells grow. Whatever, it's good at hydrating the skin.
I did notice a slight tightening effect from the Revive when I applied it, and a benefit of this cream is that you can also apply it to the upper lid (I'd recommend applying on the brow bone rather than directly to the lid personally - it will travel to the lid as you blink). It's not quite as hydrating as the Sarah Chapman, but my eyes haven't felt tight or crepe-y while I've been using it, and my fine lines are no worse (or better) than when using the Sarah Chapman.
Summary: I'd recommend the Revive if your primary concern is slackening of the skin around the eyes, and particularly on the lids. For my dry but not slack skin, I'm sticking with the Sarah Chapman (which is £30 cheaper for the same amount).
Ingredients (from SpaceNK website. I have no idea what 'recombinage' is, but it sounds like a made-up word to me):
water (aqua), glycerin, sodium polyacrylate, sodium hyaluronate, hydrolyzed wheat protein, butylene glycol, dimethicone, dimethiconal, tetrahydroxypropyl ethylenediamine, recombinage, sodium carboxymethyl betaglucan, aloe barbadensis leaf juice, bisabolol, panthenol, allantoin, propylene glycol isocetheth-3 acetate, carbomer, selerotium gum, PVP, disodium EDTA, phenoxyethanol, methylparaben, propylparaben.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Interesting review. I'm not sure how Revive justifies its enormous prices - most of it seems to hinge on the EGF they're always talking about which, like you, I'm a little skeptical about. They do make good products, but I'm not sure that they're worth the price tag. Still, good to keep in mind when everything below the eye starts to get a bit wobbly :)
ReplyDeleteI do wonder if recombinage is a word only in the Revive dictionary ;) That's impressive you managed to get three weeks of use out of it. I have been tempted by the brand before but as of yet have not taking the plunge. I have decided I am going to get the upsetting £95 new La Mer eye cream when my Sarah Chapman one runs out, I keep hearing some many good things about it, I can take it no more! x
ReplyDeleteHi Dempss - yes, I think it's the EGF they use to justify the prices. It does feel tightening, but I'd be willing to bet that was a temporary effect (like most cosmetic preparations). Skincare prices have gone bonkers over the last 5 or so years.
ReplyDeleteHi Replica - oh, I've read some good stuff about that La Mer eye cream too. Will be very interested in how you find it!
I am going to invest in this because I need a product for my upper eyelids and I've used Revive in the past.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this review! Really helpful.
x
I hadn't heard of Revive until I looked at the SpaceNK sale. Then I realised I had a sample of their serum from pre-Christmas order. It feels nice but their prices are a little steep.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting what you've said about the EGF. It does stimulate skin cells but applied topically it probably isn't going to be tickling your fibroblasts! Thanks for the thought provoking review.
Jane x
Hi Farrah - I think if you're specifically wanting to focus on the upper lids this is a good (although expensive) option.
ReplyDeleteHello MB - I still like EGF as an ingredient, I just think the inferred claims for cell renewal are (like most of these things) overblown. What is also interesting to me (although not in an eye cream maybe) is the potential of this ingredient to inhibit hair growth at the same time as moisturising the skin.
What a load of nonsense.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the EGF molecule is far too large to penetrate the epidermis.
If it did magically penetrate to the basal layer, the molecule is large enough to cause an inflammatory response as soon as a leukocyte encounters it.
Secondly, the protein would be denatured during any packaging or delivery.
Third up: the turnover for the live epidermal cells to die and reach the stratum corneum is about 6 weeks. How could the EGF have had any effect on dead skin cells within 3?
Fourth problem- if a product has a proven effect on the physiology of the body, by acting upon the metabolism of cells, it would be considered a drug.
Hello Anonymous.
ReplyDeleteIf you've read my post, you'll see that I basically completely agree with you. I also doubt that the EGF can reach the basal layers, and anything that has an effect (beyond superficial hydration) on dead (or live) skin cells would be more than skincare, it would be a complete miracle.
What the cream/gel did reasonably well was to hydrate the surface layer of my skin, and also cause a (temporary, I am sure) tightening effect on the skin. I don't think it's a miracle either. I'm not convinced any skin cream can perform miracles - the best I ever look for is exfoliation, hydration and then sun protection.
I'd be interested in your take on the hair growth retardant effect of EGF that's been (tentatively) recorded - I can't see how it can restrict the follicle opening size to the extent that it makes hair growth finer (over time, admittedly) if it doesn't have some effect on the skin surface (over a longer period).
I'm posting on Natura Bisse Diamond Cream soon - please come back for that! :)
Anon, I think your point is quite valid but Grace already covered this in her post. I've used growth factors in a research environment. It seems clear to me that they are translating in vitro results on specific skin cells, into how it will work when applied to the skin. I know that's not going to happen from a scientific point of view but I am interested to see how it works in the superficial sense. This sort of 'nonsense' is pretty typical of many skin care promises. I definitely subscribe to the idea that if it's not on prescription, it's not going to work beyond the superficial.
ReplyDeleteGrace, could you point me in the direction of the hair growth research? I meant to look it up when you mention it the other day. I'm very skeptical about how it works as most of the time these growth factors are reported to stimulate growth. I'd like to see the theory though.
MB x
Hi MB and thanks for your comment. Pretty much every skincare company that uses EGF is careful NOT to say 'this will make your skin cells grow faster/better/quicker' - instead they state that that is what EGF does, and leave the consumer to infer that it *might* do it to their skin. It's smoke and mirrors, and classic skincare marketing.
ReplyDeleteHere's the paper on the EGF/hair thing:
http://dev.biologists.org/content/136/13/2153.full.pdf
hey MB - meant to write 'This is what EGF does in its natural biological state' - and leave consumer to infer it might have the same/similar effect on their skin through a topical application.
ReplyDeleteRight, it's been an evening of heavy reading! I read the paper that and was a bit stumped. Their research showed that EGF was involved in development and that EGF could prevent the formation of hair follicles. It actually states deep within the text that EGF had no effect on hair growth and follicles beyond embryonic development.
ReplyDeleteHowever, after some more searching, I did find some research which showed continuous expression of EGF in the follicle would block hair growth entering the catagen phase. So, it might interfere with the growth cycle. But that's a the at level of expression though and I'm not sure topical application would mimic that. I'll look some more my brain is done for the evening!
Here's the link to the other paper - www.jbc.org/content/278/28/26120.full.pdf