Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

outsideonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

#61

Post by layman51 »

Cider9986 wrote: post #32

Do we really have to reapply every 2 hours?

I have heard that some Asian or European sunscreens have some UV blockers that are much more stable than the ones that are mainly used in sunscreens available in the USA. So if you’re using one of these, the need to reapply isn’t as much of a concern. The only thing is that they aren’t FDA approved.

Some examples I have heard of are “ethylhexyl triazone”, “diethylamino hydroxybenzoyl hexyl benzoate”, and “bemotrizinol”.

EDIT: The last chemical on my list was actually approved by the FDA this month (June 2026).

Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

#62

Post by floren »

Zenbit_UX wrote: post #10

The article seems to be a meta analysis of a bunch of conflicting research to support a narrative that we don’t really know shit. And fair, we don’t. But a couple of things we do know that weren’t covered - egregiously so - is that aging is UV damage. Sometimes called photoaging, wrinkles, sun spots, discoloration, fine lines, grey hair, all of that shit that you associate with someone visibly looking old is sun dama…

I'd rather look old than be one of those lunatics who goes for a summer walk in a longsleeve shirt, gloves, and a hat with built-in veil (a pretty common sight in the Bay Area)

Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

#63

Post by eager_learner »

tasty_freeze wrote: post #52
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #10

The article seems to be a meta analysis of a bunch of conflicting research to support a narrative that we don’t really know shit. And fair, we don’t. But a couple of things we do know that weren’t covered - egregiously so - is that aging is UV damage. Sometimes called photoaging, wrinkles, sun spots, discoloration, fine lines, grey hair, all of that shit that you associate with someone visibly looking old is sun dama…

I often embarrass my daughter when she has some new friend over. If the topic comes up, I give a demonstration. I'm 62 and I've never tried to get a tan and work indoors, and I haven't had a serious sunburn in close to 40 years. On the other hand, I lived spent the last 20 years in Austin, TX. I mow the yard and I ride a bike and in the summer months I put on sunblock before doing the bike rides an sometimes mowing.…

the culprit is not the sun-- but overdoing it. If you overdrink water, it is fatal, too.

The sun is responsible for benefiting over 200 processes in the body. And you don't need to be out in the sun all day to get the benefits (if your job does not demand it).

Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

#64

Post by mianos »

JR1427 wrote: post #23
Zenbit_UX wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the conclusions: > Sun radiation affects hair properties as color, luster, mechanical resistance, the content of proteins and others. TLDR Yes it impacts color. Further reading can be found in the 75 studies that can be found in the references section.

When most people think of age-related hair greying (which you referenced in your original post), they think of the phenomenon whereby hair follicles stop producing pigments that colour hair. This is distinct from UV bleaching of the pigments in the hair.

Which grows out. So if it was substantial, you can just stay inside a while and eventually your hair will grow out and replace the faded hair.

Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

#65

Post by mreid »

Arubis wrote: post #40
jondcallahan wrote: post #36

I made a small little web app calculator for myself and my family to figure out how long we could stay outside without needing sunscreen based on current UV and skin type. I use it daily in the summer and a couple thousand people use it every month also. You can check it out at https://sunburntimer.com . It's also free and open source software, github link in footer.

Denver, CO, USA resident here -- this looks _super_ useful and I'm likely to start using it heavily. Our weather here is usually very outside-encouraging (if getting hotter over the years) and our UV is _ridiculous_; I see the index hit 11 and 12 with some regularity. Thanks for the link!

laughs in Australian

https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/?perio...

Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

#66

Post by XorNot »

krupan wrote: post #53

Wow, it feels like nobody read the article. Findings: - high blood pressure leads to a lot of deaths - people that spend more time in the sun have lower blood pressure - skin cancer is caused by sun exposure, but it kills far, far less people than high blood pressure - people that spend more time in the sun have a lower rate of dying from skin cancer than people who spend less time in the sun! Summary: more sun expos…

I read the article and it conjectures a bunch of stuff but fails to prove it or link relevant studies.

So consider then: we just did a round of "gloves are contaminating basically all micro plastics research" - it might be worthwhile to be slightly skeptical of a suspiciously anti-sunscreen adjacent narrative (coz "sunscreen might be bad for you" is in the article too).

And we should absolutely be suspicious of narratives which have the benefit of confirming someone should do what they already wanted to do: nobody likes putting on sunscreen.

And how strange the conclusion is mostly "you don't need sunscreen" versus "use a lower SPF".

Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

#69

Post by tqi »

krupan wrote: post #53

Wow, it feels like nobody read the article. Findings: - high blood pressure leads to a lot of deaths - people that spend more time in the sun have lower blood pressure - skin cancer is caused by sun exposure, but it kills far, far less people than high blood pressure - people that spend more time in the sun have a lower rate of dying from skin cancer than people who spend less time in the sun! Summary: more sun expos…

I did[1], and would be curious if anyone is familiar with the underlying study. How did they attempt to control for other factors? (I assume that they did, and am interested to know how)

Also do you have to get a sunburn for sun damage to increase the risk of skin cancers? My understanding was accumulated sun exposure was the issue.

[1] Lindqvist tracked the sunbathing habits of nearly 30,000 women in Sweden over 20 years. Originally, he was studying blood clots, which he found occurred less frequently in women who spent more time in the sun—and less frequently during the summer... decided to look at overall mortality rates, and the results were shocking. Over the 20 years of the study, sun avoiders were twice as likely to die as sun worshippers.

Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)

#70

Post by eurleif »

jondcallahan wrote: post #36

I made a small little web app calculator for myself and my family to figure out how long we could stay outside without needing sunscreen based on current UV and skin type. I use it daily in the summer and a couple thousand people use it every month also. You can check it out at https://sunburntimer.com . It's also free and open source software, github link in footer.

It would be useful to have an option to change the time of day, rather than always using the current time; e.g. for planning at night what to do tomorrow.
Post reply on HN