Despite having an elegant cream texture that feels great on dry skin, this moisturizer (which isn’t ideal for daytime use because it doesn’t provide sun protection) contains a few seriously problematic ingredients that make it impossible to recommend.
Lancer includes several antioxidants, cell-communicating peptides, and intriguing water-binding agents that all skin types need to repair environmental damage and obtain a smooth, radiant appearance. However, this also contains skin-damaging hydrogen peroxide and perfluorodecalin (part of Lancer’s Proprietary Liposome Complex, discussed in the More Info section) along with fragrant plant extracts known to cause irritation. The fragrant plants are present in low amounts (this moisturizer doesn’t have a strong scent), but the other problematic ingredients work against a product that’s said to be anti-aging.
With a few formulary tweaks, this could be an outstanding, albeit overpriced, moisturizer for dry skin. As is, this is not money well spent; our list of Best Moisturizers will provide less expensive options with superior formulas.
- Contains an excellent blend of antioxidants and other anti-aging ingredients, including several peptides.
- Lush, emollient texture moisturizes dry skin without feeling greasy.
- Contains skin-damaging hydrogen peroxide and perfluorodecalin, an ingredient that makes hydrogen peroxide more potent.
- Fragrant plant extracts serve as a secondary source of irritation (fragrance isn’t skin care).
Many of Lancer’s products contain what’s labeled Lancer Proprietary Liposome Complex. (A liposome is a delivery system that involves packaging ingredients inside a fatty acid that your skin can absorb.) The recipe may be proprietary, but what’s in this blend is clearly stated on the label, and it’s a mix of good and bad for your skin, and at these prices, or any price for that matter, bad should not be tolerated.
The Complex combines antioxidants, which your skin does need, with ingredients known to produce damaging free radicals, such as hydrogen peroxide, which your skin absolutely does not need.
The research about hydrogen peroxide for skin is clear, and it isn’t good news. Hydrogen peroxide kills skin cells and generates skin-damaging free radicals. There is no research showing hydrogen peroxide has anything to do with repairing skin or fighting wrinkles. Although it can function as a disinfectant, that has nothing to do with younger-looking skin. Besides, the cumulative problems that can stem from exposing skin to a substance that is known to generate free-radical damage, impair the skin’s healing process, cause cellular destruction, and reduce optimal cell functioning are serious enough that it is better to avoid its use (Sources: Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, July 2011, pages 753–761, and December 2010, pages 1523–1526; Archives of Biochemistry and Biophysics, March 2009, pages 127–135; Carcinogenesis, February 2008, pages 404–410; and Cellular and Molecular Biology, April 2007, pages 1–2). Because Lancer combines hydrogen peroxide with the oxygen-boosting ingredient perfluorodecalin, it means the hydrogen peroxide’s detrimental effects are even more severe.
Although this product doesn’t have much fragrance, it does contain fragrant plant extracts that can cause irritation. Daily use of products that contain a high amount of fragrance, whether the fragrant ingredients are synthetic or natural, causes chronic irritation that can damage healthy collagen production, lead to or worsen dryness, and impair your skin’s ability to heal. Fragrance-free is the best way to go for all skin types. If fragrance in your skin-care products is important to you, it should be a very low amount to minimize the risk to your skin; this product does that, but the question is should you (Sources: Inflammation Research, December 2008, pages 558–563; Skin Pharmacology and Physiology, June 2008, pages 124–135, and November-December 2000, pages 358–371; Journal of Investigative Dermatology, April 2008, pages 15–19; Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology, March 2008, pages 78–82; Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, January 2007, pages 92–105; and British Journal of Dermatology, December 2005, pages S13–S22.)