Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?

38 pointsposted 9 hours ago
by markgavalda
(outsideonline.com)

23 Comments

Zenbit_UX

5 hours ago

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 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.

JR1427

5 hours ago

I've not heard that grey hair is sun damage.

Do you have any sources for that?

Zenbit_UX

2 hours ago

There’s plenty, though please evaluate the veracity of their claims for yourself, I’m not a scientist nor do I excel at parsing scientific articles. Here’s one I’ve come across after a few minutes which references many others https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10111...

JR1427

an hour ago

After a quick skim, that article seems to be talking about something other than typical age-related greying. More photobleaching.

Zenbit_UX

an hour ago

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.

JR1427

37 minutes ago

If hair greying was mostly caused by UV damage, I would expect that the pattern of greying would be even, and begin on the top of the head.

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.

JR1427

39 minutes ago

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.

poulpy123

3 hours ago

« preventing skin cancer is racist »

d4ng

3 hours ago

TFA says that many sunscreens block radiation causing sunburn, rather than radiation causing cancer.

dntrkv

7 hours ago

So everything in moderation? Cool, glad my philosophy still applies.

user

7 hours ago

[deleted]

sevenseacat

4 hours ago

Coming from the skin cancer capital of the world (Australia) - no, no it is not

jml7c5

4 hours ago

(2019)

Cockbrand

3 hours ago

A bit unclear - it says

> 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.

SilverElfin

7 hours ago

It’s great that people are finally talking about this. It should have been obvious that sun exposure without sunscreen is needed to some extent. If you’re blocking the UV all the time, then how could you possibly be getting the minimum UV exposure that you do need. But people have become absolutely obsessed with sun protection.

rcxdude

5 hours ago

Sunscreen isn't a 100% block, though. In fact it's advertised by what proportion of the UV it blocks. And in general it's far more common to have too much sun exposure than too little, and in the areas where people have too little, it's not exactly the norm to wear sunscreen every time you step outside.

flyingshelf

6 hours ago

I don't know of anyone using sunscreen from the moment they wake up until they go to sleep. Guaranteed that even the best user will still receive a healthy amount of UV even if they refresh every few hours. As far as I'm concerned sunscreen is a 10am-5pm endeavor, not needed before or after

Zenbit_UX

6 hours ago

Worth noting here for any readers new to UV guidelines that the above rule isn’t necessarily helpful for you. I’m currently traveling in an area that is 8:30am-4:30pm and live in an area that’s 10-6 pm in the summer and shifts throughout the year.

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.

sevenseacat

4 hours ago

That's basically sun up to sun down, here.

It's been completely grey, overcast, and raining here all day and the UV index sat between 3 and 5.

Zenbit_UX

2 hours ago

Ya, the relationship between UV and sunlight is strange and unintuitive. For that reason I use a UV widget on my lock screen.

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.

jrflowers

6 hours ago

No. It is terrible on noodles. Every brand.

erelong

7 hours ago

tl;dr you probably should get a few minutes of sunlight daily on your unexposed skin without sunscreen for the "health gains"

(you can also wear clothes to block sun instead of sunscreen so you don't necessarily need sunscreen at all)