Liz Earle - suspiciously smooth?

Caught Liz last night, and did think oh the guys on st.com are right she does looked plumped up in the cheek area.

Someone hiding behind her with a foot pump for the marshmallow cheeks?:cheeky:

Special soft lighting as well to give that saintly glow.

I think the baby weight is still on and the pregnancy/post pregnancy hormones are contributing - her hair was noticably thinner (typical post-pregnancy), although very nice I thought, which she alluded to at the end of the show last night (Julia commented on how great she looked, and Liz said "and the hair?", as she reached up and touched her locks whilst giving a wry smile). The "saintly glow", Donna, could also come from all this - as well as the special lighting, of course - boosted by her use of superskin and the contemplation of her I-don't-really-care-if-my-halo-has-slipped-post-Avon-sale bank balance.

mariecat said:

her hair was noticably thinner (typical post-pregnancy), although very nice I thought, which she alluded to at the end of the show last night (Julia commented on how great she looked, and Liz said "and the hair?", as she reached up and touched her locks whilst giving a wry smile).

Click to expand...

I think she was hinting at the new hair products she's supposed to be introducing later in the year and the suggestion was that her hair looked good because she's using her own products on it :thinking:

i think someone has been reading on here cos although i didn't catch the entire conversation it was along the lines of sometimes the C&P due to weather or something goes a bit hard and she stressed to the camera that the formula hasn't changed one bit since she launched it i along with many other's on here have other opinions on that but she wanted us to know there's nothing wrong with it

loubylou said:

i think someone has been reading on here cos although i didn't catch the entire conversation it was along the lines of sometimes the C&P due to weather or something goes a bit hard and she stressed to the camera that the formula hasn't changed one bit since she launched it i along with many other's on here have other opinions on that but she wanted us to know there's nothing wrong with it

Click to expand...

Then what did the almond milk actually do and why doesn't it take off my mascara anymore?!

cavegirl said:

Liz uses a lot of MAC make up and also recommends Benefit, so I'd guess at it being one of those brands. She uses Faux Cils mascara...

Cavegirl. Gossip Correspondent to the z-listers.

Click to expand...

If it was the shimmery shade that she was wearing in the later shows, it certainly looked like Benefit's "RSVP" (Champagne/Peachy Shimmer) (http://www.qvcuk.com/ukqic/qvcapp.aspx/app.detail/params.item.226871) - the Skinny Jeans is quite nice too.

Or, it could have been "My Date's My Brother" (Pink shimmer) - I got this one from the Bay.

Soulalone said:

I think she was hinting at the new hair products she's supposed to be introducing later in the year and the suggestion was that her hair looked good because she's using her own products on it :thinking:

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right Soulalone - I feel a bit stupid now! And if I'd just thought about it for a second, I'd have realised Liz would be referring to a product and not anything personal.

loubylou said:

i think someone has been reading on here cos although i didn't catch the entire conversation it was along the lines of sometimes the C&P due to weather or something goes a bit hard and she stressed to the camera that the formula hasn't changed one bit since she launched it i along with many other's on here have other opinions on that but she wanted us to know there's nothing wrong with it

Click to expand...

Wow-what an outright lie! Her team have repeatedly admitted on their facebook page that the formula changed (ie almond millk out and cocoa butter in) her top therapist admitted the same to me at her shop when I went to a customer event at her London store in February-I took a photo of an old tube where the almond was listed as the first ingredient, which generally means the largest proportion .They have claimed it doesn't affect it's performance (and to be fair, in me it doesn't-but then I wear very little make-up, especially not waterproof mascara). Many others have said they have to use far more and even then it doesn't get all their makeup off. Why bother lying when she can so easily be proved wrong? Also, whatever happened to QVC's credibilty ie why let one of their vendors lie about one of their products. on air?

i couldn't believe it when i saw it she was looking straight into the camera smiling as she said it she definetly used the words the formula hasn't changed if only we could watch it again i was genuinely shocked by what i saw and it has changed my opinion of liz

Do you remember St Liz on GMTV or some morming TV show?
Patronising,smarmy and insincere..with a sickly sweet smile that never quite reached her eyes.
didn't like her then,don't like her now.

Her knickers will surely be on fire as I type this!!:call:

Didn't she say the almond oil was removed because of allergy issues, but she also said it wasn't replaced with anything. I wanted to ask "Why was it in there in the first place if it didn't do anything for the product?"
Also I may be wrong but did she say Cocoa butter had always been an ingredient?

OK - Taken from Liz's own book Skin Secrets...

'Many people ask whether nut oils can affect allergy sufferers. The eight major allergens include peanuts and tree nuts. Researchers at Southampton University carried out trials on 60 adults allergic to peanuts - which actually aren't nuts, but legumes (like peas). Each adult was fed refiend and unrefined peanut oil. None of the 60 people had a reaction to the refined oil, which removes the proteins that can cause allergic reactions in sensitive people. Six people had a reaction to the unrefined oil. The researchers concluded that that sample of 60 people proves to a very high level of statistical probability that refined peanut oil is safe for peanut allergenic people. The same is believed to be true of real nut oils, such as ALMOND (we always use refined nut oils in Liz Earle formulations, for just this reason) However, I always recommend patch testing new products of any kind and particularly those that contain any traces of nut oil...'

PANTS ON FIRE, EARLE. If it's so safe and harmless to nut allergy sufferers - why is she claming it's been removed for that reason?

Saving money, maybe?

Hmmm - that's very suspect. All I know, is that I don't like C&P as much as I used to and this co-incides with the ingredient change that appears not to have happened!

Not as good as it used to be...........

I noticed recently that my latest Cleanse & Polish sinks into the skin too quickly and is therefore not so easy to rinse off completely, it also seems to dry fairly quickly. It's really annoying as this product is the one I always liked because it suited my Rosacea.

I have a recording of the midnight hour and I'm playing it back now and writing word for word what Liz said: "We've had it now for more than 15 years, it's celebrating its 15th anniversary this year, I've always said that ESSENTIALLY the formula hasn't changed, it's the same in its textute, the way it smells, there have been a few tiny tweaks along the way, we've made tiny tweaks along the preservative system, we took out the almond milk and we started to phase it out in early 2008 because of concerns of nut allergies, actually, we tested and tested and tested because it's so precious to us and the removal of THAT has made absolutely no difference whatsoever, genuinely to the way it works or the way it smells, it wasn't replaced with anything else, we simply removed it. Sometimes because it's a very natural base in the product you can find that the texture's changed, for example I had one in a tube like this back in the winter time, blah-blah with Julia, it affects some of the ingredients, they may go solid, if it happens, send it back to Isle of Wight, and Julia said, no, send it back to QVC, blah-blah... " Liz's body language was that she wasn't at ease saying/admitting this, espesially when I paused the recording and catching her face expressions. I'm sure that the almond milk was taken out because of the costs, and the C&P is still expensive, think how much 1 litre of the cleanser costs - £120?

She seems to be covering her back with that explanation but by removing an ingredient the formula has been changed of course because the concentrations of the other ingredients will be proportionally different - hence, possibly changing the performance of the product and its texture in different environmental conditions. Also like others have said there was clearly a reason for the almond milk/oil in the first place. I can make a cake without butter but it will be a very different sort of cake from a cake with butter in... (actually I'm rubbish at baking!)

all of this rather throws into question everything else that she says doesnt it....

lilylurknomore said:

Watching the 8pm show and Liz was talking about the superskin moisturiser and she's just looked straight at the camera and said 'no surgery, promise, just my superskin'!! Is she reading this too?!?!?!?

Click to expand...

sorry but the earth mother act has never worked on me. if you like her products great, but the elevation of LE to goddess status was never justified. she's just a saleswoman like the rest of the brand reps and she'll say what she has to, within the boundaries of whats allowed, to get you to buy. the pressure will be ever greater now that she works for Avon.

Shop Til I Drop said:

If it was the shimmery shade that she was wearing in the later shows, it certainly looked like Benefit's "RSVP" (Champagne/Peachy Shimmer) (http://www.qvcuk.com/ukqic/qvcapp.aspx/app.detail/params.item.226871) - the Skinny Jeans is quite nice too.

Or, it could have been "My Date's My Brother" (Pink shimmer) - I got this one from the Bay.

Click to expand...

I have all of these colours STID and a fellow forum member can vouch for that as I was wearing 'My dates my brother' at our last lunch :up:

I don't use C&P very much anymore as I've found other cleansers that work well for my skin i.e. Decleor Cream Cleanser, Elemis Pro-Radiance, but also because the cost is prohibitive, as Marina points out, over £100 per litre. I only now use it intermittently if I've got it in a TSV for example, so I can't say I personally have noticed a huge difference in the formulation (I'm also not a make-up wearer so don't have the issue many seem to be experiencing with mascara removal.) But I simply cannot accept that removing an ingredient wouldn't affect the end product in some way. If the removal of that ingredient makes no difference to the texture or performance of the product, why was it put in there in the first place? If, as she says, repeated testing of the new formula showed that the product was unchanged, what can be said of the veracity of the original testing which would surely have been conducted in order to show that the almond oil did have a use and thus should have been included? I like many of Liz Earle's products and have nothing against her personally (though I agree about her cold-headed business approach - no-one gets quite that high in such a cut-throat industry by being sugary sweet all the time!) But the explanation apparantly proffered on QVC smacks of desperation borne out of knowing that discussions like these on this forum are ongoing and are not going to be silenced easily (quite right too!)