Lab Muffin Beauty Science

I’m Michelle, a science educator and chemistry PhD from Sydney, Australia. I’m here to help you work out which beauty products are worth buying and which aren’t, using science!

I started Lab Muffin because I was frustrated that there weren't enough easy-to-understand explanations of the science behind beauty products. I firmly believe that anyone can understand the science behind skincare and beauty.

For business/PR enquiries: michelle@labmuffin.com

DISCLAIMER: I am not a medical doctor. Care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information here, but it is provided for education and research purposes only and is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified health provider regarding any medical conditions. No liability is accepted for any injury, loss or damage incurred by use of or reliance on the information provided by me.

View channel on YouTube

Switch Invidious Instance

Videos

Shorts

Livestreams

Playlists

Posts

Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Since I talked about masks a couple times, a lot of you have asked me to talk about the science behind them, and why public health agencies still recommend handwashing...

This video goes through the history of airborne transmission science in a lot of detail!

A lot of themes will resonate if you're into my rants about the very human motives that fuel misinformation (in this case, a handful of influential mfers said/did the wrong thing, and now they're desperately trying to CYA even if it means thousands/millions of people will be unnecessarily harmed... ALLEGEDLY).

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 166

View 5 replies

Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Since I talk a lot about correcting misinformation, I thought it would be useful to talk about my thought process for trying to correct some misinformation I’ve spread…

In mid-2024, I posted a video about some tests I did with spray sunscreens. As mentioned in that video, I’d previously recommended sprays for reapplying over makeup, based on the information I had prior to that point.

I assumed maybe 1/2 or 1/3 of the product landed on my face - but I hadn’t been able to find any actual data to say whether this assumption was accurate. And the more I thought about it over the years, the less confident I was in my assumption.

My 2024 tests showed that… it wasn’t accurate. Only 1/5 to 1/9 of the spray landed on my face! So I started recommending against spray sunscreens.

I had a 2020 video on reapplying sunscreen over makeup that recommended sprays (with some caveats), but it wasn’t getting a lot of views anymore, so fixing it was low on my list - my spray sunscreen findings had been posted on the same platforms where I’d posted my original advice, so I hoped that would be enough. I’d been thinking about taking that video down and posting an updated video for a while, but the rest of the info is still largely correct and useful, and it takes a long time to make a video (time I could spend on new topics instead).

But recently, some people told me they’d been recommended sprays based on my 2020 video. So I’ve tried to correct it using YouTube’s limited built-in tools. There’s an option to cut out a section entirely, but I personally think it’s good to have a public record of what was there before.

The edits I ended up making were:
- Added notes to the description and pinned comment pointing to the new spray video
- Put annoying music over the spray section, but kept the original audio somewhat audible (the subtitles can be used to see the original words)
- Added a weird blur to that section
- Added "(NOT RECOMMENDED ANYMORE, SEE DESCRIPTION)" to that section of the subtitles

Hopefully this is enough to alert new viewers, however they’re exposed to the video, that there’s something weird going on with sprays, and prompt them to look at the description or comments to work out what’s going on.

Ideally I would’ve replaced that section with a new clip, but YouTube doesn’t allow this - YouTube also doesn’t allow replacing the original video entirely, adding text, or adding custom audio (for safety reasons - basically if a malicious actor could use it to add explicit content to a trending kids video, it’s probably not allowed).

For some weird reason, YouTube doesn’t let you adjust the volume of the added audio, so unfortunately it’s unpleasantly loud (I tried to layer two tracks which I think helped, but it’s a bit of a mess and YouTube doesn't let you reverse edits because that would make life too easy lol).

Anyway, hope that was interesting for some of you! Here’s the jankily edited video - the spray section starts at 11:02.

2 weeks ago | [YT] | 526

View 14 replies

Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Quick quiz: Here's the methods section from a study abstract.

Given this description, what would you expect the control shampoo to be?
----
Methods: Male and female subjects with normal scalp condition and self-perceived hair thinning participated in a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical study assessing either a regimen of treatment shampoo and leave-on treatment containing functional antioxidant and barrier-enhancing agents or an identical placebo chassis shampoo control. The functional ingredients were piroctone olamine, zinc pyrithione, zinc carbonate, niacinamide, panthenol and caffeine. At baseline and after 8, 16 and 24 weeks of product use, several measurements were taken: hair shedding, total hair count (by phototrichogram), hair samples, TEWL and evaluation of biomarkers of scalp and hair conditions. Subjects also completed self-assessment questionnaires.

4 months ago | [YT] | 360

View 101 replies

Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Estrogen face creams - do they work and are they safe? Here's a breakdown of the benefits and risks, in collaboration with ‪@Moskinlab‬ and ‪@DrJenGunter‬

A recent 2026 systematic review in J Am Amer Dermatol came to similar conclusions:

"Confident conclusions about efficacy cannot yet by drawn [...] larger controlled trials are needed to assess long-term safety, particularly endometrial risk in women with an intact uterus not on a progestogen." (Farkas et al, 2026)

Unfortunately there's a 10 image limit here, so the slides on safer alternatives, common myths and references didn't fit - you can see them on my IG or TT though, and I'll be doing a dedicated video on estrogen face creams with ‪@Moskinlab‬ 🤓

#estrogen #beautyscience #cosmeticsafety #toxicology

5 months ago | [YT] | 2,048

View 113 replies

Lab Muffin Beauty Science

Something I've noticed a lot more lately is identity-based motivated reasoning and confirmation bias - people only accepting evidence when it aligns with their political or other alignments. This has always been the case with a lot of anti-science movements like clean beauty, and I'm seeing this happen a lot around the issue of plastic...

Note: I definitely think we're using too much plastic, and there are concerns around the health impacts of microplastics. But overblowing the concerns, and switching to "eco" alternatives without looking at evidence, actually goes against the goals of better human and environmental health.

You might remember me debunking the famous "you have a spoon's worth of microplastics in your brain" study a while back. This is a massive overestimate, because the analytical method used was probably measuring fats as microplastic (the brain is a very fatty organ).

Mainstream media outlets like The Guardian are finally talking about this issue, and correcting their previous misinformation - something rare and commendable!

But because The Guardian quoted a former Dow chemist, there's been a lot of comments are accusing them of being "bought by Big Plastic". This is despite them ALSO quoting 2 independent scientists working at public institutions saying the same thing, plus they referenced a response letter written by 9 European scientists working at public institutions.

As my friend and misinformation PhD student Jen of ‪@TheEcoWell‬ says: "Discounting something solely based on funding source or affiliation is actually the opposite of critical thinking."

Looking at financial conflicts of interest is just ONE factor to take into account - you have to do the much harder work of actually thinking about the arguments presented. The Guardian article is communicated in a way that non-experts can definitely grasp!

Anyway, here's my analysis of the parallels between clean beauty and "plastic-free"...
there are LOADS more parallels I could've gone into:

- overfocus on endocrine disruption (linked to regressive traditional gender role BS)
- assuming really diverse ingredients are all the same
- brands trying to justify pseudoscience with "but it speaks to our customers"
- dodgy animal studies (one SICKO kept putting dogs and rats in polyester panties??!)

Also worth noting: a lot of the same "experts" fearmongering about parabens and phthalates are also now fearmongering about microplastics.

Good further reading:
Scientists talk about if you should be freaking out about microplastics (no, but it's reasonable to take some practical steps to reduce risk) www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/article/should-you-be…
Guardian article on microplastics www.theguardian.com/environment/2026/jan/13/microp…
My video with ‪@TheEcoWell‬ on greenwashing, including talk about plastic and LCAs: https://youtu.be/QpRNoDn59Lg

‪@TheEcoWell‬ podcast with a microplastics researcher ‪@dr_oli_jones‬ www.theecowell.com/blog/the-truth-about-microplast…
My video debunking "microplastics in your brain" www.youtube.com/shorts/g0380f...

6 months ago | [YT] | 4,738

View 257 replies

Lab Muffin Beauty Science

How do you spot dodgy experts? Here's a quick guide to some common red flags 🤔

I go through this in my Fake Experts video as well! I designed this with Jen of ‪@TheEcoWell‬ who has a great free conference coming up on beauty misinformation - please let us know if you find this useful!