Turns out, theres a cheap bar soap that moisturizes like crazy.
For all the focus on serums, moisturizers, and anti-aging products, you may forget about an important piece of the skin care puzzle: a good face wash. “Cleanser is a really big deal, especially during the extreme times of year, like winter,” says Tina Alster, MD, director of the Washington Institute of Dermatologic Laser Surgery and a clinical professor at Georgetown University Medical Center in Washington, D.C.
Why? The colder temps outside coupled with the dry heat inside is already zapping moisture from your skin—so adding a harsh cleanser into the mix can spell trouble for your complexion. Your face wash is designed to clean the skin, so many are often packed with surfactants: soaps that draw dirt, oil, and grime from pores. This can strip even more moisture from the skin and lead to dry, flaky patches. It’s not just a matter of flakiness or that uncomfortable tight feeling—dry skin looks sallow, dull, and highlights lines and wrinkles.
Even if you’re dealing with acne, be careful about drying out your skin. “This causes micro-injuries to skin in which bacteria can enter and worsen acne. Even those with acne-prone skin need to be aware of how the dry, cold winter air impacts their complexion,” says Dr. Alster.
That’s where a gentle, hydrating face wash can work in your favor. “Cleansers are an incredibly powerful tool when dealing with dry skin,” adds Deirdre Hooper, MD, board-certified dermatologist at Audubon Dermatology in New Orleans. But how do you choose when there are dozens of options on the market? Here, dermatologists explain what to look for in an effective face wash for sensitive skin.
Go creamy: Many people switch to a gel cleanser in the summer months to help control oil and shine in the humidity. Now is the time to go back to a creamy face wash if you have dry skin, says Dr. Alster. Look for labels that say “creamy” or “lotion,” appear white out of the bottle, or feel like a moisturizer when applied.
Avoid fragrances: It’s especially important to choose unscented products, as fragrances can spur irritation, says Dr. Hooper. Look for unscented or fragrance-free on the label. Sensitive skin products are another good go-to.
Look for moisturizing ingredients: Hyaluronic acid is a top-notch moisturizer because it attracts water to skin, says Dr. Alster. Glycerin and ceramides also deliver an extra boost of moisture, while aloe vera and soy can feel soothing.
Watch the anti-agers: Ingredients like glycolic or lactic acids may help fight the signs of aging (and keep pesky blackheads at bay), but they will strip dry skin of the oil it needs. Keep these ingredients out of your face wash.
Once you find a face wash you like, be sure to cleanse only once a day before bed if you’re feeling extra dry, says Dr. Hooper. (You can supplement with a micellar water or hydrating toner in the morning.) Immediately after when skin is still damp, lock in hydration with a good moisturizer for sensitive skin, she says.
Now that you know what to look for, you can revamp your routine. Here, the best face washes you can try if you have dry, sensitive skin.
Planck: This article is not bad if one is looking for a recitation of the House Democratic talking points, and the material they believe supports their accusations. This cannot be what they teach in journalism school, it used to be something people studied. Then again, if journalism schools teach how to skew stories in favor of the Democratic Party's agenda, it would explain a lot -- it would explain why the Media has consistently distorted this entire impeachment attack. In the article, one paragraph is devoted entirely to repeating the Democratic accusations as if they were fact. Located near the very beginning, it starts with "The inquiry is centered on the president’s efforts ..." and goes on to describe as if the claims were truth, asserting exactly what Schiff and Pelosi put forth, but can't prove. This is not bad journalism, it is not journalism at all -- it is becoming seamlessly a part of the Democratic political apparatus. The author here, David Knowles, admits to this assimilation insofar as the entire article clearly states its purpose: It is an attempt to undermine the responses to the Democratic attacks. Good defense requires a good offense -- so here Knowles is assaulting the rebuttals. Perhaps the largest defect in the Democratic case is its lack of evidence. As a substitute, they cite speculation based on hearsay -- second and third-hand accounts of conversations people who were not in a decision making capacity, had or things they may have said. So Knowles asserts that the recent Holmes testimony (the low level staffer) has hurt that assertion. Why? Because he eavesdropped on a phone call another guy, who had testified (Sondland) where he claims to have heard the President ask about "investigations". Beyond being embarrassing that the Democrats are stooping so low as to have to rely on an eavesdropped phone call, it does not provide any real information -- Sondland, the guy actually on the phone call, had already testified about what Trump said. We also already knew he was interested in "investigations". Also, Sondland had testified that Trump said "I want no quid pro quo from Ukraine." No mention of that here. Even in the section with the heading "No Quid Pro Quo" -- how's that Davie for a flat D minus in Journalism 101? So even though the eavesdropping is suspect in itself, even if you believe he did not aggrandize his importance (a very big "if"), it tells us nothing new. It just shows desperation on the part of the Democrats (and Knowles as their, well, lackey). The article goes a long way to try and bolster the Democrats failing case, and now testimony has ended, it is all they've got. This is the extent of their evidence and it has badly come up short. Knowles' warping of the truth is easy to see, but going point-by-point is likely not worth even the minimal effort it would take cure the rather primitive falsifications. One crudity that stands out is the mangling of Fiona Hill's testimony. She was innocuous, did not hurt or help either side. She did make one very important and memorable statement: “These fictions are harmful even if they are deployed for purely domestic political purposes." Even though she directed that toward her utterly misinformed understanding of the accusations leveled against individual Ukrainians and Russian security services and whether they tried to influence U.S. elections, it is certainly the most accurate description now in the record describing this entire proceeding. The fictions purveyed by Schiff and cohorts are doing harm, and while they never rise above petty partisan politics in substance, they do rise to the level of harm in degrading the Congress and the Constitution. Pelosi, also inadvertently stumbled into an appropriate description: This impeachment assault is a "sad tragedy”.