TL;DR
Get beauty and skincare favorites delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
Glamour UK beauty journalist Denise Primbet says she used the ZIIP Halo three to five times a week for four weeks and noticed a firmer-looking, more radiant complexion. The account is a personal product review, not a clinical study, and it does not establish how the device performs for other users.
Glamour UK beauty journalist Denise Primbet reports that she used the ZIIP Halo three to five times a week for four weeks and saw a firmer-looking, more radiant complexion. Her account offers a personal assessment of the at-home facial device, but it does not establish clinical results or predict what other users will experience.
Primbet said she kept her usual skincare routine unchanged during the test, using the device with her regular hydrating serum and following sessions with sunscreen in the daytime or night cream in the evening. The four-week period was intended to help her judge both the immediate appearance after a treatment and whether she noticed changes with repeated use.
The Halo combines microcurrent and nanocurrent waveforms and has two rounded metal globes that glide over the face. Its companion app offers treatment plans with different goals and intensities. Glamour’s review describes the device as compact and straightforward to use; the supplied source does not include a full account of which plans Primbet selected or provide numerical measurements of any changes.
Primbet also consulted Glamour Senior Commerce Writer Georgia Trodd, who had used the device for six months. The review says they considered factors including ease of use, feel on the skin, settings, and visible results, and took before-and-after photographs. The source material provided here does not include the photographs or a detailed comparison of Trodd’s results.
What Four Weeks Can Show
The review gives readers a firsthand account of repeated home use, including how often the journalist used the device and the routine she kept around it. That can help readers assess practical questions such as whether a treatment fits into regular skincare habits and whether one reviewer felt motivated to continue after the initial trial.
Its evidence has limits. The reported improvements are subjective observations from a small number of users, without a controlled comparison or clinical measurements in the supplied material. The results should be read as one writer’s experience, rather than proof that the device produces lasting lifting, firmness, or changes in skin biology.
Products Worth Considering
Philips Sonicare DiamondClean 9500 Smart Electric Toothbrush with 2 Brush Heads, Black
Withings Body Smart Wi-Fi and Bluetooth Body Composition Scale
Oral-B iO Series 9 Limited Rechargeable Electric Toothbrush with 7 Cleaning Modes
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Device Is Intended to Work
ZIIP founder and aesthetician Melanie Simon created the Halo to combine two types of low-level electrical current. In the review’s description, microcurrent is intended to create a temporary toning or lifted appearance, while nanocurrent is presented as a way to support cellular processes. Those explanations describe the device’s intended approach; the supplied report does not independently verify the proposed mechanisms or measure them in Primbet’s test.
Dr Jane Leonard, identified by Glamour as a GP and cosmetic doctor, says users may notice an immediate, temporary lifted and radiant look after a session, while changes in tone and firmness can take several weeks of regular use. That is an attributed professional comment in the review, not a finding from a clinical trial described in the source material.
What the Review Cannot Establish
The supplied account does not report clinical measurements, a control group, or long-term follow-up for Primbet. It also does not quantify the visible changes, establish whether they lasted between sessions, or show how her results compare with people who did not use the device.
Although the review says a second Glamour writer had used the Halo for six months, the material available here does not give her detailed results. Individual outcomes, the effect of different app plans, and the device’s performance across different skin types therefore remain unclear. Readers with questions about whether electrical facial devices are suitable for them should seek guidance from a qualified clinician.
Longer Use Remains to Be Seen
The next useful evidence would be longer-term reporting that tracks results after regular use and explains whether any changes persist when sessions stop. The supplied review does not announce a follow-up test or provide a clinical study, so readers should treat its findings as a four-week personal report.
For now, Primbet’s account suggests that she found the device easy to incorporate into her routine and noticed a firmer, brighter appearance. Whether the same pattern holds for other users—and whether the effects last—has not been established by this source.
Key Questions
How long did the Glamour writer test the ZIIP Halo?
Denise Primbet tested it for four weeks, using it three to five times a week, according to the review.
What results did she report?
Primbet said she noticed a firmer-looking and more radiant complexion. These were personal observations; the source does not provide clinical measurements.
What technologies does the ZIIP Halo use?
The device combines microcurrent and nanocurrent waveforms and is operated with treatment plans in a companion app.
Does this review prove the device works for everyone?
No. It reports one writer’s experience and mentions a second user, but the supplied material does not describe a controlled study or establish results for all users.
Source: rss
