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 guess all the grandmas on the beach that look like they have a leather hide for a skin didn't get the memo that the sun doesn't cause damage after all. In all seriousness: don't listen to OP, use sunscreen whenever possible.
Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
131–140 of 146 posts
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#132Earlier quoted context omitted.
UVB makes it. UBA denatures it[1], which I thought was how we avoid overdose levels building up in the skin when outside, but can't find a source for that. Suggested as a reason why fair-skinned indoor workers are getting more melanomas, (ref glass blocking UVB and passing UVA): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S03069...
Offhand, what was the overdose level? Because 150ng/ml (adjust if I messed units up) isnt an overdose and most people are around ~50 unless they supplement (I mean people outside the 25th parallel.) I think even approaching 300ng/ml is possibly safe as long as you're accounting for the calcium. I aim to be around 105ng/ml.
> "unless they supplement"
I have seen plenty of claims that low levels of Vitamin D correlate with many diseases and overall mortality, but that supplementing Vitamin D hasn't been proven to help. Is there any consensus on that?
> "as long as you're accounting for the calcium".
Vitamin D helps bodies absorb calcium but has concerns about high blood levels of calcium. Taking Vitamin K2 as well helps redirect that calcium to the bones instead of the artery walls, apparently. But high levels of Vitamin A could also be causing loss of bone calcium into the blood:
"""in the industrialized world excess of vitamin A has been suggested to be a risk factor for secondary osteoporosis and enhanced susceptibility to fractures. Preclinical studies unequivocally have shown that increased amounts of vitamin A cause decreased cortical bone mass and weaker bones due to enhanced periosteal bone resorption. Initial clinical studies demonstrated a negative association between intake of vitamin A, as well as serum levels of vitamin A, and bone mass and fracture susceptibility. In some studies, these observations have been confirmed, but in other studies no such associations have been observed. One meta-analysis found that both low and high serum levels of vitamin A were associated with increased relative risk of hip fractures.""" - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11070503/
which could be a confounding factor with Vitamin A and its precursors in so many animal and plant foods and fortified into more, and in daily multivitamin supplements, skin creams, moisturisers and such.
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#133Do we really have to reapply every 2 hours?
Side note: you can also buy a UV camera on Amazon that shows your suncreen application coverage!
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photo claiming to be a 92 year old woman who used suncream on her face, but not her neck, for 40 years: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ITlo7TAy_Hs/maxresdefault.jpg (She also appears to have Frank's Sign: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank%27s_sign )
and then staying in the sun too long, over and over again. Don’t forget that step.
That seems to be something you have 'hallucinated'?
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#135Do we really have to reapply every 2 hours?
I'd suggest checking out Lab Muffin Beauty Science's videos and blogs. The tl;dr is that ideally yes, not because modern sunscreens break down (they're generally pretty photostable), but because your skin cells move over time and create gaps in coverage. Side note: you can also buy a UV camera on Amazon that shows your suncreen application coverage!
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
and then staying in the sun too long, over and over again. Don’t forget that step.
I see no mention of that in the picture I linked for me to have 'forgotten'? Or in the longer article where it appears: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jdv.17660 That seems to be something you have 'hallucinated'?
A handful of exposures?
She looks like a football! Who’s hallucinating?
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#137Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I came here to post this so glad I'm not the only one looking for specific time of day. Or at least give the user the estimated time they can be outside before getting burned? The timer feels great to fire and forget but I might want to plan and I couldn't figure out from the UI what the duration is "safe"
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#138Do we really have to reapply every 2 hours?
I'd suggest checking out Lab Muffin Beauty Science's videos and blogs. The tl;dr is that ideally yes, not because modern sunscreens break down (they're generally pretty photostable), but because your skin cells move over time and create gaps in coverage. Side note: you can also buy a UV camera on Amazon that shows your suncreen application coverage!
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#139Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are temporary as well as permanent effects and the repair mechanism can be overwhelmed: photoaging, age spots, mutations.
Right but there are common precautionary rule-of-thumb heuristics which lead normal people to believe that every sun exposure brings them a little closer to death. That's exaggerated. Or at least, the claims are widely contested.
Re: Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)
#140Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see no mention of that in the picture I linked for me to have 'forgotten'? Or in the longer article where it appears: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jdv.17660 That seems to be something you have 'hallucinated'?
You think that happened to her from a single exposure? A handful of exposures? She looks like a football! Who’s hallucinating?
If she had tooth decay or dentures would you say she must have been "chewing for too long"?