Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)(outsideonline.com) |
Is sunscreen the new margarine? (2019)(outsideonline.com) |
- 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 exposure makes you less likely to die on at least two fronts!
It's really very simple. You skin adapts to sunlight and doesn't burn if you increase your exposure gradually, and then you get some amazing benefits from it!
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.
> Sure enough, when he exposed volunteers to the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight without sunscreen, their nitric oxide levels went up and their blood pressure went down.
I can't find information on the methods for this particular study. So I'm curious if he just set up UV lights on a timer and sat his subjects under them. That's something anyone can set up in their home office if they live somewhere gloomy. Instead of taking a vitamin D pill, turn the timer switch on for 30 minutes of a properly calibrated and positioned low-dose UV light (and out of direct line of sight to anyone not under it)
Or just take a nitric oxide supplement :)
That is a causal connection.
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".
When standing up from a longer squat I tend to blacken out a bit (never fully fainted) and this gets much worse with sun exposure. So I can totally confirm the underlying scientific finding of this article. Sun exposure does seem to lower blood pressure, but the rest is all conjecture and lacks differentiation.
In all seriousness: don't listen to OP, use sunscreen whenever possible.
Is the “more sun exposure” with or without wearing sunscreen?
Correlation != causation
It could be that people that spend more time in the sun are busy getting exercise. Which lowers blood pressure.
It could be that people that spend a lot of time in the sun know that they have skin damage, and are more likely to detect melanomas due to more frequent checks of their damaged skin.
Summary: More sun exposure may or may not lead to lower risk of death on two fronts. It seems far more likely that getting exercise and frequent melanoma checks lead to better outcomes, and both of those are correlated with being in the sun, but by no means necessary to the outcome.
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 damage.
So the picture that the article paints of some pasty nerds in offices shielding themselves from all UV and thus: they might as well be smoking… it doesn’t even touch on why people might be doing this.
Both kurgezadt and veritasium did some really great videos on photoaging and it’s worth checking out if this is new information to you.
Current guidelines for sun exposure are unhealthy and unscientific – research (2019) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31471416 - May 2022 (335 comments)
Yeah, it's not just UV. Infrared light has beneficial effects on deep tissue, including the brain. There's no way to get that from a pill.
At least in Australia a big difference is that there is a hole in the ozone layer that stone age people did not have. Sun exposure is much more harmful now.
By reproducing at 15 years old long before cancer is a problem? Skin cancer was probably at the very bottom of causes of death back then, by a fat margin.
They also didn't have tooth paste, tooth brush, soap, antibiotics, vaccines, so go ahead and live like a caveman... I'm 100% positive it'll have a negative impact on your lifespan
Also known as the middle way.
Moderation is a great philosophy.
Perhaps you are referencing AN 6.55 Sona Sutta.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.055.th...
Photo-neuro-immuno-endocrinology: How the ultraviolet radiation regulates the body, brain, and immune system
So this is just an unfortunate situation because I don't think there's a way of just getting UVB into you in a safe way.
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...
I aim to be around 105ng/ml.
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).
Chemical ones go bad with exposure to sun, mineral ones not as much, but either way they can both be rubbed off the skin
Side note: you can also buy a UV camera on Amazon that shows your suncreen application coverage!
Big surprise they all got skin cancer. Then they swung the pendulum all the way back and now preach 24/7 sunscreen and never letting the sun touch you.
Our ancestors got lots of Vit D but they also got lots of exercise while absorbing the sun.
I still don't think it's going to be wise to go out and just bake in the high UV of early afternoons but rather it's important to go outside early to mid morning or late afternoon and absorb some sun without copious amounts of sunblock.
> Weller’s largest study yet is due to be published later in 2019
But in the header, it also says
> Updated May 31, 2024
I'd still love to know whether there has been further research in the meantime.
(you can also wear clothes to block sun instead of sunscreen so you don't necessarily need sunscreen at all)
The actual rule is derived from your location’s safe UV index zones, which is found out by determining what local time the UV Index <= 2. Above 2, wear some amount of protection.
https://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/?perio...
Unfortunately, UV exposure is cumulative. So your skin is still getting damaged by the UV rays even if you're not getting burnt.
The exposed parts of my arms look like I'm 62 -- freckles, some age spots, the skin has lost a lot of elasticity. But then I roll up my T-shirt sleeve to expose my shoulder and my skin is like it was when I was 25: not just pale, but no freckles, no age spots, still supple.
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 )
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).
Then I met a man who did kayak tours of a city. He was awesome, but really leathery due to the 20 years in a boat without shade and having the UV reflections off the water. Your skin cancer risk is off the charts at that point.
Edit: self answer, yes[2] (left side!)
[1]: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage...
[2]: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health/lorry-driver-ages-drama...
I suffered with German too, in fact, still do :)
As a trivia: "kurz gesagt" -> kurz: short, gesagt: said. "sagen" is the verb "to say", "ge"+"t" is to form the past participle. (but not always :)
Do you have any sources for that?
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20081217_PRESSER-504...
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:President_Obama_and_...
Not sure the “causal connection” is fully established.
Generally, just apply sunscreen and limit prolonged sun exposure when possible (particularly when UV index is high).
Avoiding sunburns (i.e. prolonged sun exposure, particularly when skin is unprotected) is probably the main thing to focus on as I believe studies have shown there is a high correlation between getting burnt and developing skin cancer.
After my first few months there I realized that the people who didn't look like an old leather bag wore long sleeve shirts and big hats pretty much constantly.
> "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.
I'm not sure. there's two doctors that i based my supplementation of D3+K2 on, but i cannot remember their names or link the videos. The assertion made was that blood serum 25OH Dwhatever of 100ng/ml (or dl, i always forget, but the one that makes sense) is enough to prevent most disease, like colds, flu, etc.
Another interesting thing vis a vis overdose/excess D3 is that for covid there was a hospital protocol for 50,000 IU given three times to "knock covid out"
I never read a study, sorry, so i can't link.
I started on this path because my wife got cancer and afterward was getting sick and always tired, d3 serum test was 28ng/ml so we brought her up to 100ng/ml and she hasn't been "sick" in 5 years. Additionally she no longer has to supplement calcium, which her oncologist said she'd have to do the rest of her life.
I buy "Micro Ingredients Vitamin D3 10,000 IU + K2 MK-7 200 mcg, 600 Softgels with Virgin Coconut Oil (2 Pack)" - B0D7B94P8D, and have for years. consistently good, and the blood tests prove it's real. Not affiliated.
I supplement a lot of stuff because my diet sucks and it's something i have been working on this year.
Searching for the title of the article ("Is sunscreen the new margarine?") makes it easy to pinpoint: there is a open letter responding to the article, dated January 15, 2019. https://www.asds.net/Portals/0/PDF/LetterToTheEditor-Outside...
My area is similar to Sydney in your map. For Denver it’s the elevation that’s exposing them to more UV rays.
[1]https://www.epa.gov/sunsafety/sun-safety-monthly-average-uv-...
[2]https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/cd1t54/relative_la...
All that said: a daily mean of 13-14 is past what we’d see here—and yeah that is some serious burning.
Gosh. Or just go outside! It has the added benefit of being somewhat enjoyable.
It's been completely grey, overcast, and raining here all day and the UV index sat between 3 and 5.
I find that being exposed to the value (e.g. 4) while being able to see the suns effect (e.g. cloudy) gives me a better feel for conditions.
1. Modern margarine is healthier than butter.
2. Seed oils are generally healthier than animal fats.
3. PUFAs are healthier than saturated fats.
4. In this case the industrial processed spread is healthier than the more natural less-processed spread.
Recently there are very good studies tracking heart disease progression with extreme accuracy and it is very clear that you can eat high amount of saturated fat for a very long time with zero CVD progression. The mechanism depends on other factors.
Still, personally I think it's good advice to reduce saturated fat until we understand these mechanisms better. Eventually though, I suspect we will find other interventions that eliminate the CVD impacts of saturated fats.
I gotta imagine that margarine with EVO is a clear winner, EVO has several great benefits. Not saying processed seed oils are bad.. I'm not in that camp. Evidence for that idea seems very flimsy.
In the meantime, I use butter because it's tastier and for me that's worth it. I don't understand why that's not enough for some people.
Don’t forget that step.
That seems to be something you have 'hallucinated'?
A handful of exposures?
She looks like a football! Who’s hallucinating?
> 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.
In contrast (based on my own unscientific observations!) greying typically begins in small areas, and often on the temples - not what I'd expect if caused by UV damage.
This is distinct from UV bleaching of the pigments in the hair.
If she had tooth decay or dentures would you say she must have been "chewing for too long"?
It’s easy to explain away degenerative effects as primarily age-related - until you look at healthy old people.
About whom the model just says “statistical outlier” and moves on.
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}