Up To" Results: The Best-Case Outlier Presented as Typical

“Up to 50% reduction in wrinkles.” “Up to 80% improvement in hydration.” “Up to 95% saw visible results.”

These claims sound impressive until you understand what “up to” actually means: the best result anyone got, presented as if it’s what you should expect.

The Mathematics of “Up To”

“Up to 50% reduction” means:

Someone, somewhere, in some study, achieved a 50% reduction
That was the maximum result observed
Most participants got less — possibly much less
Some may have seen no improvement at all

If 100 people use a product and their results range from 0% to 50% improvement, the brand can claim “up to 50% improvement.” Even if the average was 15% and most people saw under 20%.

The outlier becomes the headline.

Why Brands Use “Up To”

It’s Technically Accurate

Regulatory bodies require claims to be truthful. “Up to 50%” is technically true if anyone achieved it. Brands avoid false advertising while presenting the most flattering possible number.

It Sounds Like a Promise

Consumers don’t parse language carefully. “Up to 50% reduction” registers as “50% reduction” in passing. The qualifier gets mentally dropped.

The Best Number Wins

In competitive markets, the biggest number attracts attention. If your competitor claims “up to 40%” and you can claim “up to 50%,” you win the comparison — even if your average result is lower.

It Avoids Accountability

When you don’t see 50% improvement, the brand is protected. They said “up to” — your result simply fell elsewhere in the range. No false advertising, no refund required.

What You’re Not Told

The Distribution

Claims never show you the distribution of results:

What percentage of users got the maximum result?
What was the median result (half above, half below)?
What was the average result?
How many saw no improvement?

This distribution matters more than the maximum, but you’ll never see it in marketing.

The Baseline

“50% improvement” — from what baseline? Someone with severe dehydration improving by 50% has a different starting point than someone with mild dryness.

Percentage improvements are relative to starting conditions, which vary dramatically between individuals.

The Conditions

Under what conditions was the maximum achieved?

Perfect compliance (twice daily use for 12 weeks)?
Ideal environmental conditions?
In combination with other treatments?
On specific skin types only?

The conditions that produced the best result may not match your real-world use.

The Measurement

What was measured and how?

Instrument measurements vs. self-assessment?
Expert grading vs. consumer perception?
Immediate effects vs. sustained improvement?

“Up to 80% felt their skin was more hydrated” is self-assessment. “Up to 80% improvement in skin hydration levels” might be instrumental measurement. These aren’t equivalent.

The Percentage Improvement Trick

Relative vs. Absolute

A 50% improvement sounds dramatic. But 50% of what?

If your baseline wrinkle score was 4 on a 10-point scale, and it improved by 50% (relative), your new score is 2 — an improvement of 2 points (absolute).

If someone else’s baseline was 8 and they also improved by 50%, they went from 8 to 4 — an improvement of 4 points (absolute).

Both are “50% improvement.” One changed twice as much in absolute terms.

Small Numbers, Big Percentages

If your baseline measurement was 2 and it improved to 1, that’s a 50% improvement.

If your baseline was 100 and it improved to 90, that’s only a 10% improvement — but the absolute change (10 units) is much larger than the first example (1 unit).

Percentage improvements favour small baseline numbers, which can create misleading impressions.

Common “Up To” Claim Patterns

Hydration Claims

“Up to 48-hour hydration” — one person’s skin stayed hydrated that long under specific conditions. Your bathroom, your climate, and your skin type may produce very different results.

Wrinkle Claims

“Up to 50% reduction in fine lines” — measured how? Fine lines in harsh lighting? Lines assessed by instruments that detect changes invisible to the eye?

Consumer Studies

“Up to 95% agreed skin looked better” — in consumer perception studies, people tend to perceive improvement when they expect it. This isn’t objective measurement.

”Visible Results”

“Up to 7 days to visible results” — visible to whom? Under what conditions? The person who saw results fastest had optimal conditions; most people take longer or never see “visible” changes.

Comparing Claims Accurately

When you see “up to” claims, ask:

What was the average?

If claims show “up to 50%” but you can find study details, look for the mean or median. These matter more than the maximum.

What was the range?

A product with results ranging from 40-50% is very different from one ranging 5-50%. Both can claim “up to 50%.”

What percentage achieved the top result?

If 1% of users saw “up to 50%” improvement and 99% saw under 20%, the claim is technically accurate but practically misleading.

What was measured?

Instrument measurements, expert assessments, and consumer perception are all different. Know which you’re seeing.

The Legal Framework

Cosmetic claims must be:

Truthful (not false)
Not misleading (though this is loosely enforced)
Substantiated (evidence must exist, but doesn’t need to be published)

“Up to” claims typically satisfy “truthful” because the maximum result did occur. Whether they’re “misleading” is subjective and rarely challenged.

Regulatory enforcement focuses on egregiously false claims, not statistically accurate but psychologically misleading ones.

Self-Defence Strategies

Treat “Up To” as “Maximum”

When you see “up to 50%,” mentally translate it as “the maximum anyone achieved was 50%, and most got less.”

Assume You’re Average

The average result is what you’re statistically likely to get. Without access to that number, assume it’s substantially lower than the maximum — perhaps 30-50% of the claimed figure.

Look for Absolute Numbers

“Reduces wrinkle depth by 0.2mm” is more informative than “up to 50% wrinkle reduction.” Absolute measurements are harder to game.

Find the Study

If a brand publishes or links to their clinical study, look at the full results. The headline claim is rarely the full story.

Compare to Established Benchmarks

How does the claim compare to well-studied ingredients at similar concentrations? If a novel product claims better results than proven ingredients, skepticism is warranted.

The Informed Position

“Up to” claims aren’t lies. They’re technically accurate presentations of the best-case scenario, positioned to create impressions that don’t match typical results.

Understanding this framing helps you:

Calibrate expectations appropriately
Compare products more accurately
Recognise marketing language for what it is
Focus on what the average user experiences, not the outlier

The Bottom Line

“Up to” is the language of optimism, not expectation. It’s what one person achieved once, not what you should assume you’ll get.

When a product promises “up to 50% improvement,” expect less. Maybe 15-20% if you’re lucky. Maybe nothing.

The outlier is the headline. The average is your reality. Understanding the gap between them is the beginning of realistic skincare expectations.

Every “up to” claim contains a hidden distribution of results. You’re unlikely to be the exception who hits the maximum. Plan accordingly.