The NorthShore AirSupreme is a premium line of European cloth-backed adult diapers that mirrors the plastic-backed NorthShore Supreme. There’s also a less absorbent version of this called the NorthShore AirSupreme Lite. I found this diaper to be quite absorbent, somewhere between the Seni Super Quatro and Seni Super Plus. However, compared with the plastic-backed version of this diaper I found the tapes on this diaper to be far weaker, unfortunately frequently resulting in a loose or sagging fit. For this reason I don’t believe the NorthShore AirSupreme to be a good choice for daily wear. It’s likely better suited to overnight wear, but even then I noticed a bit of looseness. Sagging aside, this diaper has a highly comfortable padding and is quite breathable and skin friendly. I prefer the NorthShore Supreme, but if the tape issue were to be corrected this diaper could be a serious contender.
Key Features:
Cloth-like backsheet
Repositionable tapes
Rear waistband
Standing inner leak barriers
Pros:
Breathable design
Resistant to surface dampness
Comfortable
Cons:
Tape weakness
Some backsheet perspiration
Loose fitting
Product Details
For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium-sized NorthShore AirSupreme Diaper. However, other available sizes are listed below:
Packaging
Brand: NorthShore Manufacturer: NorthShore Care Supply Origin: France Units Per Bag: 15 Cost Per Unit: $$$ Dimensions (L x W x H): 35 cm (13.8") x 15 cm (5.9") x 24 cm (9.5") Weight: 3.9 kg (8.5 lbs) Available Sizes: XS, S, M, L, XL Advertised Absorbency: Maximum
1.1 NorthShore AirSupreme Packaging
Diaper
Backsheet: Cloth-like (non-woven) Wetness Indicator: Yes (yellow line and text down middle, blue when wet, text fades) Standing Inner Leak Guards: Yes Leg Gathers: Yes Product Style: Tab-Style Brief Refastenable Tabs: Yes Number of Tapes: 2 Repositionable Tabs: Yes Outer Color: White Inner Color: White Front Waistband: No Rear Waistband: Yes Folded Thickness: 2.7 cm (1.1") Folded Length: 23.5 cm (9.3") Dry Weight: 192 g (6.8 oz) Fragrance: No Diaper Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 77 cm (30.3") x 66 cm (26") x 28 cm (11") x 60 cm (23.2") Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Rectangular, Rectangular Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 62 cm (24.4") x 29 cm (11.4") x 17 cm (6.7") x 28 cm (11") Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 6 cm (2.4") x 12 cm (4.7") x 5.5 cm (2.2") x 13 cm (2.1") Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle Total Padding Area: 1341 cm2 (208 in2) Tape Spacing (t1 x t2): 4 cm (1.6") x 13 cm (5.1") Tape (W x L): 3 cm (1.2") x 5 cm (2")
1.2 NorthShore AirSupreme Diaper
Laboratory Absorbency Tests
Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 1448 ml (51.1 oz) Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 1458 ml (51.4 oz) Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (59 s, 42 s, 45 s, 45 s, 49 s, 46 s) Wet Folded Thickness: 5.5 cm (2.2") Used to Total Padding Ratio: 95% Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 1.08 ml / cm2 (0.25 oz / in2) Press Out Volume: 10 ml (0.35 oz)
Surface Dampness Rating: 7
The NorthShore AirSupreme performed well when it came to surface dampness. There wasn’t a trace of dampness after the first wetting and only a little after the second wetting. There was a bit more by the third wetting and further wettings. In real world testing, surface dampness was never an issue after first wetting and only slightly noticeable on the third.
2.1 Wet vs Dry Diaper After Capacity Test
2.2 Used vs Unused Padding After Capacity Test
"Real World" Absorbency Tests
Posture Tests
Standing-Sitting
Total Absorbed Volume: 1158 ml (41 oz) Total Wettings: (1 standing, 2 sitting) Leaked After Sitting: No Used to Total Padding Ratio: 96% Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.86 ml / cm2 (0.20 oz / in2)
Standing-Sitting Rating: 7 The NorthShore AirSupreme performed well in the standing-sitting test. The first wetting while standing was rapidly absorbed with little sign of surface dampness or leakage thereafter. There was also no sign of leakage upon sitting shortly after. The second wetting while seated was also quickly absorbed but there was a brief period of pooling before it was fully absorbed. Afterward there was very little surface dampness and no sign of leakage, the diaper remained comfortable and breathable. There was a bit more dampness on the 3rd wetting, particularly up the front of the diaper. There was no immediate leak, but shortly after there was a substantial leak through the rear leg gathers and I ended the test at that. The diaper still felt relatively dry and breathable but most of the padding was wet and it was clearly at capacity. This diaper is definitely sufficiently absorbent for daily usage, expect at least 2 wettings before leakage would be of concern.
Lying Down
Total Absorbed Volume: 1183 ml (41.7 oz) Total Wettings: 3 Used to Total Padding Ratio: 80% Padding to Absorbency Score: 0.88 ml / cm2 (0.20 oz / in2)
Lying Down Rating: 8
The NorthShore AirSupreme also performed well when tested while lying down and feels like it may be better suited to bedwetting on account of the tape weakness. The first wetting was quickly absorbed and there was little sense of surface dampness. The padding swelled a bit and certainly feels thicker when wet but not uncomfortable. Similarly, the second wetting was absorbed nearly as quickly and again there wasn’t too much surface dampness, though I suspect it was more susceptible to pressout at this point. Even so it didn’t leak while lying down. On the third wetting there was finally a bit of leakage and more obvious surface dampness. The leakage was relatively small in area and the diaper was still relatively comfortable, but I did notice the tapes had loosened a bit by this point. I stopped the test at that, as I believe this diaper will realistically take 2 wettings when lying down and 3 would likely push it to leak.
2.3 Pattern of Used vs Unused Padding Test Stand/Sit (right) Lying Down (left)
Daily Wear and Bedwetting
The NorthShore AirSupreme proved highly absorbent during testing. As mentioned previously, I found it to be somewhere between the Seni Super Plus and Seni Super Quatro in terms of capacity. This diaper is highly breathable, perhaps to a fault since it’s prone to loosening due to tape weakness. With that said, I never noticed much skin irritation during testing but did spot a few minor leaks after 1~2 wettings, perhaps partly a result of perspiration through the backsheet. I should also note that the padding in this diaper becomes somewhat firmer rather than squishy when wet, this probably makes it a little more prone to tearing but perhaps less prone to clumping; all in all I think it benefits its durability and comfort. It has a generous amount of padding coverage like the Seni diapers, but the primary difference I noticed is definitely in the tapes. While the Seni Super Quatro tapes hold up quite well for a cloth-backed diaper, that is not the case in the NorthShore AirSupreme. The tape weakness was noticeable even when not doing any refastenings, making it particularly difficult to retain a snug fit. I found this to be less a problem for bedwetting, where movement is limited. I never had any leaks overnight and feel it should be well placed to manage up to 2 wettings before leakage when worn for bedwetting. The extent of the padding coverage would be a big benefit for side sleepers, although the cloth-like wings will not prevent moisture from leaking out the sides (something I discovered in testing). As you can probably guess, this diaper is not appropriate for active daily usage. I’m not sure if I got a bad batch or if this is a regular problem, but every time I tried wearing during the day I found the diaper would come loose to the point that it sat very low on my hips. In terms of absorption it was similar during daily usage, but perhaps with a slight increased risk in leakage when seated. This diaper would be best for bedwetters, but probably also be well suited for a care facility in less active individuals as it’s quite skin friendly.
Suitability for Bowel Incontinence: 5
The NorthShore AirSupreme diaper should be alright for bowel incontinence in overnight wear. Though it has a cloth-like backsheet it also has a rear waistband. Again, the primary downside with this diaper is the weaker tapes. Weak tapes mean it won’t hold up a lot of weight without sagging and consequently it would not be good for daytime usage.
Wear & Tear Tests
Fitting
The NorthShore AirSupreme features a cloth-like backsheet with a mix of tape / hook & loop fasteners. The tapes are a decent size but don’t have a particularly good grip, particularly after refastening. I’ve found the tape part of the fastener quickly loses adhesiveness as it pulls away bits of the backsheet with refastenings, while the hook & loop sections are relatively weak on their own.
3.1 NorthShore AirSupreme Fastener
Ease-of-Use Rating: 7
The NorthShore AirSupreme is about as easy to use as any cloth-backed diaper. Initially it’s easy to get a snug fit, but it’s hard to retain it due to the tape loosening. On the plus side it does feature a rear waistband which helps with form fitting and containment. It also features a wetness indicator that isn’t sensitive to sweat/light dribbles. I rank it similar to the Nextgen Absorbent Plus with respect to ease-of-use. It will be better suited for bedwetting or non-active daytime wearers.
3.2 NorthShore AirSupreme Diaper Fit
Comfort
Comfort Rating (dry): 8
The NorthShore AirSupreme features a soft backsheet and firm but comfortable padding. With wear the padding will loosen up a bit and it's fairly resistant to clumping or tearing, though less so than the NorthShore Supreme. The feel is perhaps similar to the Seni Super Plus or Egosan Ultra, but I found the tapes to have a weaker grip. For this reason it often loosens up with wear so I can’t quite rank it among the top performing diapers for comfort even if it is super breathable and skin friendly.
Comfort Rating (wet): 6
I found the NorthShore AirSupreme to be much like the Lille SupremFit Maxi when it came to wet comfort. It has some great features like a surface-dampness resistant padding and breathable design. But the tapes are just too weak and it’s highly prone to sagging. It’s also somewhat susceptible to backsheet perspiration which can cause external dampness seemingly out of nowhere; but I didn’t find that to be as much of a problem as in some cloth-backed diapers. Sagging aside, the padding is relatively durable but not among the top performers, with some degree of padding tearing when wet but little in the way of clumping.
Durability Rating (dry): 7 The NorthShore AirSupreme padding is very durable when dry. I never noticed much in terms of clumping or tearing, though because it’s so wide it can be expected to collapse inward between the legs with wear. That said, little core padding is affected and I don’t see dry deterioration that would create any sort of barrier to absorbency. This diaper does also feature a rear waistband, but I don’t find that contributes significantly toward durability. Instead, as is a common theme, the biggest issue is the tape looseness that over time can cause the diaper to slip or become looser. This isn’t as big a factor when dry but certainly factors in when the diaper has more weight when wet.
Durability Rating (wet): 6
Durability when wet in the NorthShore AirSupreme reflects comfort in that again it’s primarily affected by tape weakness and sagging. Moreover, the tapes tend to pull off fabric from the backsheet when refastened, contributing further to weakness and making it hard to refasten if needed. Because of this it would not be a good choice for daytime usage in active individuals. Padding durability is similar to its dry state, though perhaps with a little more tearing. Even so, it did perform reasonably well in the wet shake test, managing 4 shakes before collapse. Once again, I rank the performance of the NorthShore AirSupreme at a similar level as the Lille SupremFit Maxi. Improving the tapes could go a long way to making this a great product.
3.4 NorthShore AirSupreme Dry Test Deterioration
Discretion Tests
Profile
Front Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 4 cm (1.6"), 7 cm (2.8") Back Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 3 cm (1.2"), 3 cm (1.2") Side Rise Above Waistline (Jeans, Sweatpants): 2.5 cm (1"), 3.5 cm (1.4")
Profile Discretion Rating: 5
Much like the NorthShore Supreme this diaper features a noticeable bulge at the front and rear that would be difficult to conceal under all but the loosest of clothing. Aside from that, its rise above the pantline is relatively modest.
4.1 NorthShore AirSupreme Jeans Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)
4.2 NorthShore AirSupreme Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)
Noise
Noise Rating:8
The NorthShore AirSupreme has a fairly quiet design and would be pretty easy to conceal under clothing with meshpants or underwear. I did notice a bit more noise in this than in the Tranquility Smartcore or Prevail Air Overnight, but it was just a soft crinkling. Some of the noise likely resulted from that sagging, which could be correct with a snugger fit.
4.3 NorthShore AirSupreme Noise Profile
Odor Reduction
Odor Reduction Rating: 8 The padding in the NorthShore AirSupreme does a great job at neutralizing odors. This goes some way to making up for the weakness of the looser fit, a factor that makes it more susceptible to odors. The padding is also highly resistant to surface dampness, which further benefits against the formation of odors. Overall I have no real complaints in this regard.
Want to give the NorthShore AirSupreme a try?
Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our NorthShore AirSupreme affiliate link. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.
* I've adjusted my Diaper Test Methodology to account for the unique aspects of these reusable incontinence products (see below for details)
Summary
For this review we’re doing something a bit different from the usual review and evaluating Carer’s reusable incontinence underwear. I’d like to give a special shout out to Carer for providing the samples to do this review! I have a strong appreciation for a company like Carer that talks to consumers and is actively looking for feedback on ways to improve their products. Through this review I’ll be sharing feedback on several iterations of Carer products: the M65 Men's Leak-proof Underwear, M66 Men's Absorbent Underwear and M67 Men's Protective Underwear men’s protective underwear SJK01 (W01) Women's Incontinence Underwear women’s protective underwear. Since I don’t currently have a good review reference point for either protective underwear or reusable products I’ve simplified this review to cover what I believe to be the important aspects of each product without going too deep into scoring.
For those unfamiliar with the terminology, protective underwear refers to an underwear-style product with closed stretchable elastic-sides for fitting. This compares with adult diapers (often called briefs), which have open fastenable sides similar to those of baby diapers. Of course, to make things more confusing, briefs also often refer to regular form-fitting non-absorbent underwear. Carer’s products are similar to regular form-fitting underwear that can be used and washed hundreds of times, but they also provide a modest amount of protection for bladder leaks. They accomplish this via well-positioned textile-based padding sitting above a leak-proof cloth layer (kind of like the reverse of what you’d get from a waterproof winter coat). They won’t provide the level of protection you’d get from an adult diaper, but if you suffer smaller leaks here and there as is often the case for those with stress incontinence or post-micturition dribble then these would be a great choice. Alternatively, if you suffer from heavier leakage and wear adult diapers these could be worn overtop to provide additional protection against leaks, instead of, or in addition to diaper boosters.
Reusable Protective Underwear vs Adult Diapers:
Pros:
Comfortable and skin friendly when dry (consistent snug fit + better sizing)
Can be reused multiple times (cost savings)
Can “air dry” between lighter wettings (extends absorbency)
Worn discreetly (no crinkling noises, minimal bulge under clothing)
Cons:
Often less absorbent/more surface dampness (lower ratio of absorbance to padding)
Higher initial unit cost
Not suitable for bowel incontinence
Requires regular washes
Product Details
For the purpose of this post I will be reviewing and referring to the medium sized M66 Men's Absorbent Underwear, medium sized M67 Men's Protective Underwear, medium sized SJK01 (W01) Women's Incontinence Underwear and large sized M65 Men's Leak-proof Underwear briefs. However, other available sizes are listed below.:
Packaging
Brand: Carer Manufacturer: Carer SPK Origin: China Units Per Bag: 1, 3, 6, or 9 Founded: 2011 Advertised Absorbency: Normal/Plus (150-300 ml by product)
Our initial diaper testing methodology was designed with disposable diapers with wings in mind. So to accommodate the Carer reusable protective underwear we’ve made some adjustments to the way measurements are calculated. The figure below shows an example of the underwear measurements. Note, that the width does not account for the amount of stretch on the sides, so they can be expected to fit a larger size than measured. Moreover, since the padding dimensions on the wings often vary by shape the average width/height is taken to account for the shape (e.g. triangle/semicircle). We also added an additional metric of “time to dry” unique to reusable products to give you a sense of how long each brief will take to dry when completely soaked and left to hang dry at room temperature.
* For caregivers it's important to know that these (as well as most reusable products) don't feature a wetness indicator, so care needs to be taken to check for dampness.
Backsheet: Cloth (reusable) 100% cotton body (70/30% viscose/polyester pad) Available Sizes: S, M, L, XL, 2XL, 3XL, 4XL Advertised Absorbency: 200 ml (7 oz) Standing Inner Leak Guards: No Leg Gathers: No * (not elastic but does fit snugly) Product Style: Reusable Underwear Outer Color: Black (White Waistband) Inner Color: Black (White Absorbent Pad) Folded Thickness: 1.5 cm (0.6") Folded Length: 32 cm (12.6") Dry Weight: 100 g (3.5 oz) Brief Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 64 cm (25.2") x 36 cm (14.2") x 13 cm (5.1") x 36 cm (14.2") Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 34 cm (13.4") x 11 cm (4.3") x 8 cm (3.2") x 14 cm (5.5") Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 1.5 cm (0.6") x 6 cm (2.4") x 3 cm (1.2") x 4 cm (1.6") Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Triangular, Triangular Total Padding Area: 314 cm2 (48.6 in2)
2.1 Carer M65 Underwear (back/front)
Laboratory Absorbency Tests
Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 240 ml (8.1 oz) Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 215 ml (7.3 oz) Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (26 s, 31 s, 188 s) Wet Folded Thickness: 1.8 cm (0.7") Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.68 ml / cm2 (0.15 oz / in2) Press Out Volume: 25 ml (0.9 oz) Time to Hang Dry: TBD
The M65 men's leak proof underwear absorbed a little more than expected in the lab absorbency test. Surface dampness was apparent after all tests, but not more than I would expect from washable padding. The backsheet was generally water resistant but some moisture did wick around it by the second and 3rd wetting.
2.2 Carer M65 After Capacity Test
"Real World" Absorbency Tests
Daily Drips & Dribbles Rating: 8 The absorbent padding in the M65 men's leak-proof underwear is fairly rectangular but with a high enough rise at the front to catch smaller drips and dribbles from any angle. The padding doesn’t go far up the rear so it may not perform as well in overnight wear (due to its relatively low absorbency it’s not really suited for bedwetting). Even so, it was perfect for daily wear where I generally only experience smaller leaks. I never had this underwear leak on me with drips and dribbles and the backsheet did a good jot at preventing any soak through. I did try pushing it a little and found it leaked when just the front padding hit saturation and the back was relatively dry so I think moderate leaks may be a bit much for it. I’d recommend the M65 men's leak proof underwear for those with lighter daytime incontinence and potentially even moderate incontinence with an appropriate booster pad to increase the absorbency.
Additional Protection Rating: 4
For those who wear cheaper incontinence underwear that is sometimes prone to leaks, reusable protective underwear can be a great addition to boost confidence. Using reusable underwear as extra leakage protection is a huge plus, because if leaks do occur you only need to wash a pair of underwear rather than your bedding or pants. This can be accomplished by wearing the reusable protective underwear over the disposable product. To put this to the test for the M65 men's leak proof underwear I used it in combination with Goodnites XL protective underwear, an underwear geared toward bedwetting for youths/young adults that is often cheaper than regular adult diapers. The issue with Goodnites is that the padding (particularly at the rear) is relatively prone to leaks/pressout so I’ve found, if worn for bedwetting, they will leak at least a couple times per week. They’re also not designed for dailywear so if you don’t remove it before sitting down in the morning you’ll likely have a leak even if they didn’t leak overnight. The latter happens consistently so I used that fact to put the Carer Incontinence underwear to the test. The M65 men's leak proof underwear initially seemed to do alright, but I found because the padding is relatively narrow and doesn’t go far up the rear it wasn’t able to capture leakage through the rear leg gathers. Eventually there was substantial leakage that just wicked/pushed up to the outside of the padding.
2.3 Carer M65 as Additional Protection for Goodnites XL
Wear & Tear Tests
Fitting
The fit of the M65 men's leak proof underwear underwear is atypical in that the sizing seems to be down a size from the usual North American or European sizing. I typically wear a size medium or sometimes even small for diapers/underwear but for these I was best fitted to the large. Even then, the fit isn’t exceptionally large and I feel it could benefit from a bit of a higher raise up the front; albeit, I certainly felt some slack. That said, the granular sizing and high quality elastic stretch make it easy to get a good fit.
2.4 Carer Incontinence M65 Underwear Fit
Comfort Rating: 8
The M65 men's leak proof underwear underwear has a good strong waistband and very soft inner fabric. It’s somewhat susceptible to surface dampness when wet but not any more so than any other reusable product. For drips or dribbles I barely noticed the surface dampness so that would only factor in if you were using it for heavier daytime incontinence 75mm+). The only downside I noticed when wearing was that the design includes a “fly” at the front; this leaves a slightly rougher edge where the edge of the padding comes in contact with the wearer’s skin and can cause a bit of discomfort during movement. Personally, I don’t find the “fly” adds much to men's underwear in general as it’s cumbersome to use and much easier to simply pull down your underwear when you need to go. This improvement has been made in newer Carer Incontinence products like the M66 men's absorbent underwear and M67 men's protective underwear so there are other options if you don’t like this “feature”. That said, if you have minor incontinence and you’re one of those who finds utility in the “fly” this could be a good choice for you.
2.5 Carer M65 Backsheet and Topsheet
Durability Rating (dry): 9 The M65 men's leak proof underwear has a thick 100% cotton body, the cotton is well woven but decently flexible and it has a relatively large elastic waistband to keep everything in place. It also features a padding layer that is 30% polyester (think water-proofing) and 70% viscose for absorbency. When I went running in this underwear there was a bit of rigidity in the padding, but the padding retains its form and doesn’t bunch or clump at all. However, it may shift a bit when active.
Discretion Rating: 9*
This protective underwear is very discreet and on the face of it doesn’t look a whole lot different from regular underwear under clothing or even standalone. If you usually wear tighter form-fitting outerwear you may notice the shape a bit more but it’s quite unlikely. In terms of sound, I never noticed much noise. If you listen hard you may hear a slight crinkle, but it’s nothing like you’d get from a disposable diaper and you’d be hard pressed to notice a difference between this and regular clothing.
*I preface my rating with that I’m rating it in accordance to products for lighter incontinence. In that regard you likely won’t notice odors until it’s close to leaking but its breathable reusable materials mean it can actually dry out between small leaks extending its usable absorbency.
2.6 Carer M65 Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)
Want to give the Carer M65 a try?
Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Carer M65 Incontinence Underwear affiliate link and use the code “DIAPERMETRICS” for a 15% discount on orders over $30. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.
Backsheet: Cloth (reusable) 100% cotton body (viscose/polyester/pu pad) Available Sizes: S, M, L, XL, 2XL Advertised Absorbency: 230 ml (8 oz) Standing Inner Leak Guards: No Leg Gathers: No * (not elastic but does fit snugly) Product Style: Reusable Underwear Outer Color: Black Inner Color: Black (White Absorbent Pad) Folded Thickness: 1.3 cm (0.5") Folded Length: 30 cm (11.8") Dry Weight: 105 g (3.7 oz) Brief Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 60 cm (23.6") x 35 cm (13.8") x 19 cm (7.5") x 35 cm (13.8") Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 35 cm (13.8") x 17.5 cm (6.9") x 11 cm (4.3") x 19 cm (7.5") Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 3.3 cm (1.3") x 10 cm (3.9") x 4 cm (1.6") x 5 cm (2") Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Triangular, Triangular Total Padding Area: 490 cm2 (76 in2)
3.1 Carer M66 Underwear (back/front)
Laboratory Absorbency Tests
Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 255 ml (8.6 oz) Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 245 ml (8.3 oz) Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (17 s, 24 s, 24 s) Wet Folded Thickness: 1.5 cm (0.6") Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.5 ml / cm2 (0.11 oz / in2) Press Out Volume: 10 ml (0.3 oz) Time to Hang Dry: TBD
The M66 men's absorbent underwear showed better absorbency than the M65 men's leak proof underwear in the lab absorbency test, with about 30 ml of additional absorbance. There was far less pooling during each wetting and thus faster overall absorption. Surface dampness was pretty similar, as expected, but there was less leakage wicking out the sides so I expect it to be less likely to show any leaks.
3.2 Carer M66 After Capacity Test
"Real World" Absorbency Tests
Daily Drips & Dribbles Rating: 10 The absorbent padding in the M66 men's absorbent underwear is wide enough at the front to catch drips and dribbles with ease from any angle. Like the M65 men's leak proof underwear the padding doesn’t go far up the rear, so it could potentially be a problem in overnight wear, but I feel the fit makes this less of a concern and it would only be a concern if used as additional protection. Another plus with this underwear is that it's so breathable that it can dry out between smaller wettings. During testing I didn’t notice much dampness and never had any leaks during daily wear. Just as I did with the M65 leak proof underwear I tried pushing it to see how far it would go in terms of absorbency. In this case it eventually leaked through the back while the front padding was generally impermeable. Still, there was less overall leakage than in the M65 men's leak proof underwear further demonstrating the greater absorbance of this underwear. All in all, unless you’re really attached to underwear with a “fly” of the M65 men's leak proof underwear then the M66 men's absorbent underwear underwear is a much better option. With reusable products there isn’t as much of a cost-to-absorbency trade-off so generally it’s best to go with the more absorbent product if it's equally or more comfortable. Moreover, if using this for moderate incontinence you could potentially make it work with the addition of a booster pad.
Additional Protection Rating: 6
The M66 men's absorbent underwear was a noticeable improvement over the M65 men's leak proof underwear when used as additional protection. The wider padding helped with edge containment. Again it was worn in combination with a Goodnites XL protective underwear and tested when sitting after a bedwetting episode in the night. There were no leaks in the front of the brief but it did eventually leak through the rear gathers. The main issue being that the padding doesn’t extend quite far enough up the rear to provide sufficient coverage in this area. Yet, when seated this area tends to be the most common location for leaks from pressout. That said, there was less leakage from the M65 men's leak proof underwear than the M66 men's absorbent underwear and its front and mid-coverage would be excellent coupled with smaller incontinence pads for daytime usage.
3.3 Carer M66 as Additional Protection for Goodnites XL
Wear & Tear Tests
Fitting
The M66 men's absorbent underwear sizing is about what you’d expect for regular men's underwear if not slightly smaller. I tested the medium size and found the fit slightly snugger than the M65 men's leak-proof underwear large and considerably more comfortable. The rise is slightly higher, but not exceptionally so, which gives a better overall fit and coverage. The elastic waistband is a bit narrower but I found it to be more comfortable, so even though the sizing is less granular it’s easier to get a good fit if you’re between sizes.
3.4 Carer Incontinence M66 Underwear Fit
Comfort Rating: 10
The M66 men's absorbent underwear was a big improvement over the M65 men's leak proof underwear in terms of comfort and is among the most comfortable underwear I’ve worn, protective or otherwise. It gets rid of the “fly” in the front and consequently fixes the issue where the edge of the pad could rub against the skin. Moreover, the pad is wider and better fit to the wear. I never noticed much surface dampness with drips and dribbles, though it may be more apparent with larger wettings. I also found the waistband, which is wrapped in the backsheet cloth to be more comfortable than the typical underwear elastic. All in all I don’t have any significant complaints with respect to comfort in this underwear, I just wish the padding rose a bit higher up the rear so it could be used as added protection.
3.5 Carer M66 Backsheet and Topsheet
Durability Rating (dry): 10 The M66 men's absorbent underwear features a flexible 100% cotton body and the cotton is well woven, including over the elastic waistband. I wore this underwear when running and hardly noticed the pad, compared with the shifting of the M65 men's leak proof underwear. Like the M65 men's leak proof underwear the padding doesn’t bunch or clump at all with wash or wear and I have no complaints in terms of durability.
Discretion Rating: 10*
This underwear was very much like the M65 men's leak proof underwear for discretion but I give it a slightly higher ranking because it provides even better noise discretion (I didn’t hear a thing). It seems like the odor protection may be a bit better too given the wider padding coverage.
*Again, I preface my rating with that I’m rating it in accordance to products for lighter incontinence.
3.6 Carer M66 Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)
Want to give the Carer M66 a try?
Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Carer M66 Incontinence Underwear affiliate link and use the code “DIAPERMETRICS” for a 15% discount on orders over $30. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.
Backsheet: Cloth (reusable) 100% cotton body (viscose/polyester pad) Available Sizes: S, M, L, XL, 2XL, 3XL Advertised Absorbency: 300 ml (10 oz) Standing Inner Leak Guards: No Leg Gathers: No * (not elastic but does fit snugly) Product Style: Reusable Underwear Outer Color: White Inner Color: White Folded Thickness: 1.5 cm (0.6") Folded Length: 31 cm (12.2") Dry Weight: 120 g (4.2 oz) Brief Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 62 cm (24.4") x 30 cm (11.8") x 25 cm (9.8") x 30 cm (11.8") Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 41 cm (16.1") x 10 cm (3.9") x 10 cm (3.9") x 18 cm (7.1") Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 0 x 0 x 4 cm (1.6") x 14 cm (5.5") Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Flat, Triangular Total Padding Area: 522 cm2 (80.6 in2)
4.1 Carer M67 Underwear (back/front)
Laboratory Absorbency Tests
Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 265 ml (9 oz) Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 270 ml (9.1 oz) Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (30 s, 32 s, 29 s) Wet Folded Thickness: 1.5 cm (0.6") Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.51 ml / cm2 (0.11 oz / in2) Press Out Volume: 5 ml (0.17 oz) Time to Hang Dry: TBD
The M67 men's protective underwear was the most absorbent of the 3 sets of men's underwear tested, though only slightly more so than the M66 men's absorbent underwear. As expected, the surface dampness measure was about the same as the other two. That said, it was easily the least susceptible to leakage from pressout or more generally of all Carer products tested.
4.2 Carer M67 After Capacity Test
"Real World" Absorbency Tests
Daily Drips & Dribbles Rating: 10 The M67 men's protective underwear was perfect for catching daily drips and dribbles, though perhaps slightly less so than the M66 men's absorbent underwear due to the lesser coverage at the front. I never had an issue during testing so I didn’t hold it against it in this review. On the flip side, it has more padding coverage at the rear and could be particularly good for those with light overnight incontinence. It’s not absorbent enough for full on bedwetting, but would be good for those with a continuous low flow drip or occasional light leakage with movement. – pushed in terms of absorbency – . Other than that I think this would be a good alternative to the M66 men's absorbent underwear for those who like the boxer-brief fit and it may even provide a bit more absorbency. Like the other underwear tested, this too could be brought up to moderate absorbency with the addition of a booster pad.
Additional Protection Rating: 7
The M67 men's protective underwear provided a modest improvement over the M66 men's absorbent underwear when used as additional protection. Once again it was worn in combination with a Goodnites XL protective underwear and tested when sitting after a bedwetting episode the previous night. Initially there was no sign of leakage and the wider/higher padding rise at the rear appeared to be very effective at preventing pressout leaks. However after sitting for a bit longer a small leak developed near the right rear as the rear padding hit a point of saturation. There wasn’t any leakage over the very back of the padding but rather it happened at the rear between the legs. It’s possible that this could be prevented with a little more padding width near the rear leg openings and/or perhaps a bit more rise up the rear padding to allow for more wicking as the rear padding became quite saturated. Having a little less leakage than the M66 men's absorbent underwear I feel this could also be well suited for daily use with smaller incontinence pads though the front padding coverage isn’t quite as extensive.
4.3 Carer M67 as Additional Protection for Goodnites XL
Wear & Tear Tests
Fitting
The M67 men's protective underwear underwear features a boxer-brief style that wraps the upper thighs snuggly in addition to the crotch and rear. I went for a medium size with this again and the sizing is similar to that of the M66 men's absorbent underwear. The elastic waistband is also similar and covered by the backsheet fabric. Both the backsheet and padding material are soft and flexible giving it a nice snug fit without being uncomfortable.
4.4 Carer Incontinence M67 Underwear Fit
Comfort Rating: 10
The M67 men's protective underwear was similar to the M66 men's absorbent underwear in comfort, but may be a plus if you prefer the boxer style. Like the M66 men's absorbent underwear this underwear doesn’t have a “fly”, which in my opinion is a big plus for comfort and means it doesn’t suffer with the same issues as the M65 men's leak proof underwear in that regard. Again, I wasn’t bothered by surface dampness when testing for the drips and dribbles of daily wear. And it has the same comfortable style waistband as the M66 men's absorbent underwear. Once again, I don’t have any complaints about this underwear, it’s perfectly comfortable. I just wish the padding coverage was enough to catch/stop leaks when used as additional protection.
4.5 Carer M67 Backsheet and Topsheet
Durability Rating (dry): 10 The M67 men's protective underwear performed similarly to the M66 men's absorbent underwear in terms of durability. Both have a well woven 100% cotton cover and are highly flexible. Again I wore this underwear for running and didn’t notice any irritation. I noticed the padding at the back slightly more than I noticed the padding at the front in the M66 men's absorbent underwear but not so much that it was uncomfortable. There wasn’t any sign of clumping or bunching with wash or wear so I have no complaints with respect to durability.
Discretion Rating: 10*
This underwear was very much like the M66 men's absorbent underwear for discretion and I didn’t have any concerns with respect to noise or profile. It may actually have been even a tad better than the M65 men's leak proof underwear for odor reduction, but it was hard to say for sure.
*Again, I preface my rating with that I’m rating it in accordance to products for lighter incontinence.
4.6 Carer M67 Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)
Want to give the Carer M67 a try?
Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Carer M67 Incontinence Underwear affiliate link and use the code “DIAPERMETRICS” for a 15% discount on orders over $30. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.
Backsheet: Cloth (reusable) 100% cotton body (viscose/polyester pad) Available Sizes: S, M, L, XL Advertised Absorbency: 150 ml (5 oz) Standing Inner Leak Guards: No Leg Gathers: No * (not elastic but does fit snugly) Product Style: Reusable Underwear Outer Color: White Inner Color: White Folded Thickness: 1.3 cm (0.5") Folded Length: 32 cm (12.6") Dry Weight: 100 g (3.5 oz) Brief Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 64 cm (25.2") x 35 cm (13.8") x 11.5 cm (4.5") x 35 cm (13.8") Padding Dimensions (L x fW x mW x bW): 29 cm (11.4") x 10 cm (3.9") x 8 cm (3.2") x 13 cm (5.1") Padding Wing Dimensions (fPW x fPH x bPW x bPH): 1 cm (0.4") x 7 cm (2.8") x 2.5 cm (1") x 13 cm (5.1") Padding Wing Shape (Front, Rear): Semicircle, Semicircle Total Padding Area: 266 cm2 (41.2 in2)
5.1 Carer SJK01 Underwear (back/front)
Laboratory Absorbency Tests
Total Absorption Volume (after press out): 140 ml (4.7 oz) Total Absorption Volume (before press out): 150 ml (5.1 oz) Time to Absorb Wettings (first to last): (23s, 37 s) Wet Folded Thickness: 1.5 cm (0.6") Total Padding to Absorbency Ratio: 0.53 ml / cm2 (0.11 oz / in2) Press Out Volume: 10 ml (0.34 oz) Time to Hang Dry: TBD
The SJK01 women's incontinence underwear is a light absorbency women’s underwear. It has a more even distribution of padding between the front and back when compared with the men's underwear but has a slightly higher rise at the front. During testing it presented similar surface dampness performance to the men's underwear, but with less total absorbency. That said, the strategic placement of padding makes it more likely to hit total saturation before leakage.
5.2 Carer SJK01 After Capacity Test
"Real World" Absorbency Tests
Daily Drips & Dribbles Rating: 8 The SJK01 women's incontinence underwear is certainly better suited to female wear, though like the M66 men's absorbent underwear I feel it has the potential for unisex fit. The main issue for male wear is that the front padding doesn’t go quite high enough to capture all drips or dribbles that might happen. Even so, in my testing I didn’t have too much trouble with this and never had significant leakage (albeit my daily drips & dribbles tend to be pretty light). – pushed in terms of absorbency. To push the limits I tried test it with a larger wetting just as I had tried with the M65 men's leak proof underwear, M66 men's absorbent underwear and M67 men's protective underwear. In this case moisture pretty quickly overran the front padding leading to leakage, so again, the SJK01 women's incontinence underwear is only suited for lighter incontinence. The primary reason I can’t rank this underwear higher in this regard is that overall absorbency is still relatively low and I think there’s some room for improvement. It could be worn with a booster pad, but you may find many larger booster pads extend beyond the absorbent padding in this underwear.
Additional Protection Rating: 5
While the overall padding in this underwear doesn’t cover a particularly large area, it does cover regions that are more likely to leak. Again this was tested with Goodnites XL underwear the morning after a bedwetting episode. Upon sitting there was no initial leakage, instead leaks formed slowly with pressout at the rear. I was surprised because I was expecting a bit more in terms of leakage and it performed surprisingly well in a few tests. If worn with a smaller incontinence pad it should easily support absorption for moderate incontinence.
5.3 Carer SJK01 as Additional Protection for Goodnites XL
Wear & Tear Tests
Fitting
The SJK01 women's incontinence underwear features a mid-rise with a thin flexible waistband. The material is very soft and breathable but the fit is slightly on the large size. I tested the medium size and it fit fine but there was certainly some looseness, which would be good to keep in mind depending on your regular sizing.
5.4 Carer Incontinence SJK01 Underwear Fit
Comfort Rating: 10
The SJK01 women's incontinence underwear has a soft comfortable fit with no rough edges. The backsheet fabric is smooth and relatively thin, making it particularly breathable. The pad generally isn’t noticeable but the medium felt large for me so that might not generally be the case. Otherwise, surface dampness wasn’t noticeable with drips and dribbles during daily wear. For lighter incontinence this underwear should be perfectly comfortable.
5.5 Carer SJK01 Backsheet and Topsheet
Durability Rating (dry): 9 Owing to the relatively loose design and smaller area of elastic I don’t feel the SJK01 women's incontinence underwear will hold as much weight as its male counterparts. Aside from that the padding is quite durable and showed no shifting or clumping after washing, nor when worn while running. Getting a snugger model would probably help with regards to the carrying ability, but I couldn’t quite give it a perfect score in this regard.
Discretion Rating: 10*
This underwear is little different from regular women’s underwear. It’s very unlikely to stand out from a discretion standpoint except under perhaps the tightest of outfits. In terms of noise, I never noticed anything and odors shouldn’t be an issue if used for a lighter form of incontinence.
*Again, I preface my rating with that I’m rating it in accordance to products for lighter incontinence.
5.6 Carer SJK01 Sweats Profile (left) vs Normal Underwear (right)
Want to give the Carer SJK01 (W01) a try?
Help us continue to produce quality reviews by making a purchase through our Carer SJK01 (W01) Incontinence Underwear affiliate link and use the code “DIAPERMETRICS” for a 15% discount on orders over $30. With every purchase this blog will earn a small amount of commission at no extra cost to the purchaser.
Interested in other Carer incontinence products?
Click here to view the full Carer incontinence product listing and receive a 15% discount on your purchase.
