I tried dozens of body washes – and these are the best
The best body washes don't just cleanse your skin, they elevate your shower routine. Whether you're after a hydrating hit for dry skin, a fragrance that lingers like perfume, or a bottle that does good for the planet as well as your body, there's a formula out there that fits every brief.
To find a great body wash, texture matters – from silky oils to rich creams and foamy gels, different consistencies offer different perks, whether you're after indulgent nourishment or a squeaky-clean, post- gym refresh. Then you'll want to consider ingredients. Hydrating heroes such as glycerin, ceramides, and aloe vera help soothe parched skin. But gentle exfoliants, such as AHA (alpha hydroxyl acid) or salicylic acid, can help tackle texture or keratosis pilaris. Don't forget scent. Whether you're into spa-like serenity or tropical escapism, the right fragrance can linger on skin long after the steam clears.
Over weeks of testing, I've scrubbed, lathered and sniffed a range of body washes to find the best of the best.
How I tested
To find the best body washes, I put each product through its paces over several weeks, using them as part of my daily routine (and occasionally twice a day when gym sessions or heat waves called for it). I paid close attention to how each formula felt on the skin, whether it delivered on its promised benefits, and, crucially, how my skin felt after stepping out of the shower.
Lather, texture and scent were also considered. I noted how well each product foamed, whether a little went a long way, and how the smell lingered. I also considered the packaging (bonus points for pumps and eco credentials), value for money, and whether the formula felt like a daily essential or an indulgent treat.
Why you can trust IndyBest reviews
Ella Duggan has been writing product reviews for IndyBest since 2023, covering a wide range of topics, from the best cleansers to sulphate-free shampoos. For each article, she rigorously tests products, from high street staples to high-end heroes, offering her honest opinions and highlighting products that show efficiency, longevity, quality ingredients, and great value for money.
The best body washes for 2025 are:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Poppi soda settles $9m lawsuit over ‘misleading' gut health benefits
Poppi, a soda company selling carbonated prebiotic drinks, will pay $8.9 million to settle a false advertising lawsuit, according to court documents. A class action lawsuit alleged that the company was incorrectly advertising that its drinks are "gut healthy," despite there being no science to back the claim. The settlement will benefit consumers who purchased any flavor or package size of the beverages between January 23, 2020, and July 18, 2025. No one's going to get rich claiming the settlement payouts unless they've been drinking a whole lot of Poppi. Those who can prove their purchase can receive up to $0.75 per single can, $3 per four-pack, $6 per eight-pack, and $9 per 12 or 15 pack. The exact payout may vary depending on the number of claims filed. Poppi hasn't admitted to any wrongdoing as part of the settlement. The company's gut health claims are rooted in the inclusion of a fiber called inulin in its drinks. Inulin can be found naturally in a number of fruits, vegetables, and plants. The inulin included in Poppi drinks is derived from agave. The fiber, which is classified as prebiotic, allegedly feeds and promotes good bacteria in the digestive system. Gut health has been an emerging health food trend for several years, as maintaining a healthy digestive system is thought to help lessen constipation, improve weight control, and balance blood sugar, according to NBC News. The lawsuit that Poppi settled claimed that the beverages did not include enough inulin to make a difference in drinkers' gut health. At the time the lawsuit was filed, Poppi issued a statement saying it stood by its product, calling the lawsuit "baseless." The settlement may prove frustrating for PepsiCo, the maker of Pepsi and other sodas, as it just acquired Poppi earlier this year in a $1.95 billion purchase. On Monday, Pepsi using the Pepsi name beginning this fall. Pepsi's drink only contains three grams of prebiotic fiber, which is just one gram more than Poppi's soda. It will also be sweetened by cane sugar rather than typical Pepsi sodas, which are sweetened with corn syrup. According to a 2023 study by the National Institute of Health, the "daily effective intake" of inulin is five grams, and the maximum daily intake is between 15 and 20 grams.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Shop-bought health tests not always fit for purpose, researchers warn
Off-the-shelf health tests for issues such as high cholesterol, vitamin deficiency, fertility and prostate problems may not be fit for purpose, researchers have warned. A team from the University of Birmingham examined tests that people can buy in UK supermarkets, pharmacies and shops and which they then use at home. They found the tests risked giving people the wrong result, could delay diagnosis, and most of them recommended follow-up with a doctor anyway, regardless of the result. The researchers called for much tighter regulation of the sector, adding the NHS may face additional demand after people self-test. They said: 'In the absence of guidance from healthcare professionals, individuals might use tests inappropriately or without a clear understanding of the implications of the results. 'False positive test results can lead to unnecessary anxiety, increased healthcare usage, and additional costs, whereas false negative test results may delay appropriate treatment or engagement with… screening programmes. 'Test errors can stem from inherent limitations in the accuracy of the test, as well as user-related issues such as sampling errors, incorrect processing, and difficulties in interpreting the results.' However, the team said that in the future, home tests could have great potential for patient care. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which regulates medical products, said it would look at the findings. Professor Jon Deeks, from the University of Birmingham, said: 'A plethora of new health self-tests have emerged in recent years and are available to buy from many high street supermarkets and pharmacies in the UK. 'While these kits have been approved for sale, they are not subject to the same stringent regulations as pharmaceutical products. 'Our recent research raises concerns about the suitability, accuracy and usability of many of the self-testing products available that require users to sample, test and interpret results themselves. 'In some cases, it is unclear how accuracy claims are supported, and there is no requirement of manufacturers to share the evidence behind these claims.' Prof Deeks said the UK is looking at a 'new world' when it comes to self-testing, but there is more work to do to show claims made were robust. He said much of the literature contained with tests was 'not easy to understand', while some of the results could lead to a 'wrong diagnosis'. In one example, he said the self-tests for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels, a marker of prostate health, were fixed at a certain concentration level. However, 'if you're age 70 you need to have your PSA done at a very different level to when you're 20', he said. Self-testing is becoming increasingly popular, and the UK market for self-tests is expected to reach £660 million by 2030. Overall, 30 self-tests costing £1.89 to £39.99 were included in the study, published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). The tests covered 19 different conditions, including vitamin deficiency, blood sugar levels, cholesterol, thyroid function, prostate health, HIV, menopause and bowel cancer. Researchers said only eight of the 30 tests provided information about who should or should not use the test, while four specified the presence of symptoms. External packaging on fewer than half of the tests (14) included any statement about their accuracy. Meanwhile, 90% of the tests recommended follow-up with a healthcare professional if test results were positive or abnormal, while 47% recommended this if test results was negative. Accuracy claims were made for 24 of the tests, including in pamphlets, and most (58%) claimed a performance of at least 98% accuracy, sensitivity or specificity. However, the researchers said evidence supporting accuracy claims were largely unavailable or did not provide sufficient information for people likely to purchase the tests. Prof Deeks said: 'Current regulations for the use of self-testing kits in a commercial setting are not adequately protecting consumers. 'Several of the self-test manufacturers refused to provide us with reports of their studies, which support their claims, stating that they were 'commercially confidential'. 'Legally, they do not need to share this information. However, for all matters of our health, it really is important that the evidence upon which health decisions are made is available and can be scrutinised.' Dr Clare Davenport, clinical associate professor at the University of Birmingham, said: 'The wide range of off-the-shelf tests now available to the public are not endorsed by the NHS and evidence for their benefit is lacking. 'This is in contrast to well-established self-tests, such as pregnancy tests. 'We are worried that consumers concerned about their health and tempted by the convenience of buying a test over the counter may be harmed if they use these tests in the wrong way.' Dr Davenport said the recommendation that people see a doctor anyway regardless of the result 'begs the question 'what's the point of doing the test in the first place?''. Sue Davies, Which? head of consumer rights and food policy, said: ' Consumers should be careful with self-tests – they can be expensive, tricky to interpret and don't always come with an expert consultation to help you understand your results. 'It's also likely you'll need to follow up with your GP, so we'd always recommend involving them from the start if you have any particular health concerns. 'Most tests you'll need will be available for free on the NHS and your GP will also be able to speak to you about how you're feeling and spot any symptoms that might not show up on a test.' While clinical trials and medicines must go through the MHRA, self-test devices are subject to checks by notified bodies. A spokesman for Suresign, which provides three of the self-tests studied, said: 'We find this blanket condemnation of a small range of home tests available to be unreasonable and unprofessional, since they admit they are content with many of those examined. 'This is not a clinical approach to a highly scientific subject. 'They also did not confirm that the clinical studies related to our tests were supplied to them, as confirmed to us by the BMJ. 'Our detailed responses to their questions were not fully reflected in their article. 'They have implicitly criticised the professionalism of notified bodies appointed by the MHRA, when we find them to be very exacting in their audits. 'We are content our tests give the public access to healthcare screening not easily available with the NHS at the present time.' Joseph Burt, MHRA head of diagnostics and general medical devices, said it would review the evidence and 'consider all allegations about device deficiencies'. He added: 'We have strengthened post-market surveillance powers to monitor and act on concerns. 'These require manufacturers to actively monitor their products and report significant incidents to us, including for CE-marked self-tests. 'We're overhauling the medical device regulations to further strengthen standards for safety, usability and clinical performance and we're exploring new transparency measures such as requiring published summaries of clinical evidence. 'In the meantime, we strongly encourage anyone using a self-test to check for a CE or UKCA mark, read the instructions carefully, and seek medical advice if they're unsure about their result.'
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Neuralink targets $1 billion revenue by 2031, Bloomberg News reports
July 23 (Reuters) - Elon Musk's brain implant company Neuralink aims to generate at least $1 billion in annual revenue by 2031, driven by plans to perform 20,000 surgeries per year, Bloomberg News reported on Wednesday, citing investor documents. The company aims to operate five large clinics within six years and offer three versions of its brain device, including Telepathy for communication between the brain and machines, Blindsight for restoring vision, and Deep for treating tremors and Parkinson's disease, according to the report. Neuralink did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment. The company expects regulatory approval for its Telepathy device by 2029, with plans to perform 2,000 surgeries annually and generate $100 million in revenue, the report said. By 2030, Neuralink anticipates launching Blindsight, expanding surgeries to 10,000 per year and generating over $500 million in revenue.
