
Is Sunscreen the New Margarine? (2019) - plessthanpt05
https://www.outsideonline.com/2380751/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science
======
nitwit005
> How did we get through the Neolithic Era without sunscreen? Actually,
> perfectly well.

I have to suspect that this logic won't apply if you're a light skinned person
in a place where the natives are all fairly dark skinned.

~~~
osn9363739
I live in Australia. I always wondered if a change in attitude/behavior has
resulted in the increasing skin cancer rates.

When I talk to my grandparents. The idea of doing anything during the hottest
part of the day is crazy to them. They would go for a swim at the beach in the
morning or afternoon. Not at midday.

I guess they also had people that rubbed themselves in butter to get a nice
tan too, but I'm interested if there has been that sort of change.

~~~
narag
A sunny place where a lot of people coming from a cloudy place have arrived in
the last few centuries. Not a fair comparison with "we survived neolithic".

------
crazygringo
On the other hand, massive sun exposure also ages your skin vastly faster.
Remember this famous photo of the truck driver who got sun on one side of his
face? [1]

I've been aware for a very long time that when I don't get enough sun, I have
less energy, I get sick more often, and my mood suffers. But at the same time,
I don't want my skin to look like leather.

So it's a pretty easy compromise: I make sure to get a couple hours' of
sunbathing without sunscreen every couple weeks, whether at a park, beach, or
tanning salon (for a few minutes) in the winter. (Basically cured my seasonal
affective disorder in the winter.) The goal is to stay healthily moderately
tanned (absolutely not over-tanned) year-round. (And if I spend the whole day
at the beach, I put on moderate-strength sunblock after an hour or so.)

But I put sunscreen moisturizer on my face and the back of my neck any day I
know I'll be outside in the sun for more than a few minutes -- if I'll be
taking a walk or eating lunch outside.

It seems to be a good middle ground -- and the possibility of a middle ground
seems to be what is ignored in most conversations on this topic. You don't
need to choose between being a sun "worshipper" versus never letting a drop of
sun touch your skin.

[1]
[https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2012/jun/05/fa...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/shortcuts/2012/jun/05/face-
shows-damage-from-sun)

~~~
alejohausner
Glass windows filter out UV wavelengths that stimulate vitamin D production.
Ironically, they pass wavelengths that cause skin cancer.

------
anthony_doan
Best sunscreen is zinc oxide btw.

There are two classes of sunscreen, chemical and mineral/physical.

The mineral/physical ones are group by two mineral zinc oxide and titanium
dioxide.

You get a ghost cast using mineral but you can offset it by using a
tan/colored version.

Mineral sunscreen are better because it stop UVB and UVA. It also doesn't
require a waiting period after applying. Zinc provide wider spectrum of
protection than titanium.

~~~
piadodjanho
A sunscreen that blocks UVB, harm marine life [1] and can cause allergic
airways inflammation [2] when breathed (inevitable when it dries on your skin)
is hardly the best sunscreen in my option.

My personal choice for to vitamin D synthesis is Avobenzone stabilized with
ubiquinone.

[1] [https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/sunscreen-
corals.html](https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/sunscreen-corals.html) [2]
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X1...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X19303953)

~~~
01100011
Non-nano zinc oxide, the traditional kind that is white, like OP is talking
about, is fine as far as I know([https://www.vogue.com/article/reef-safe-
sunscreens-oxybenzon...](https://www.vogue.com/article/reef-safe-sunscreens-
oxybenzone-free-sea-turtles-environment-stream2sea)).

The nano mineral sunscreens are bad, but they can be coated, which sounds like
it makes them less harmful.

~~~
piadodjanho
The issues I enumerated affects both nano and non-nano sunscreen with
different degrees.

The most commons concerns specific of the nano version are the skin absorption
and free radical creation when expose to UV radiation -- not exclusive of the
mineral sunscreen though, azobenzene is also highly unstable.

We often hear about studies done with the nano crystal because are worst.
Experiments done with them are more likely to produce a negative result. But
this doesn't mean the "macro" version isn't affected as well.

The aspiration concern is very serious one. Some countries bans spray and
power mineral sunscreen of any kind.

Just to be clear. I'm not advocating against using them. Every sunscreen has
its place, saying one option is better than other is reductive.

For instance, think an Avobenzone + antiox only chemical sunscreen is a good
option to minimize the UVA damage and enable the body to produce vitamin D
minimizing the damage created by UVA radiation. But they wouldn't be my choice
when going to the beach.

Similarly, Mineral sunscreens don't degrade in the sun and block a wide range
of UV radiation. But they are bad for marine wild life. They are a good choice
for daily facial sunscreen, specially for skin sensitized by "anti aging"
treatments.

Again. There is no such thing as the best sunscreen. Each is best in different
use cases.

------
smnrchrds
This article makes an interesting point. It is more than a year old, which
means there has been ample time for the research to be replicated, expanded,
challenged, or even debunked. Has there been any new development in this
regard?

------
Schnitz
I dislike sunscreen and I dislike having to use it all the time, but the
reality is that if I'm under the full sun here in California for more than 10
minutes I'll get a sunburn and after a few more we're talking bubbles and
water, i.e. a serious large burn. Long term disease risk is really a secondary
concern for me, I can't have half my body covered in burns all the time. I'm
not some crazy outlier, but more like your regular guy from Scandinavia or
what people in central Europe might call "northern type" informally.

------
didibus
I had done a small bit of research online some time back to know what was best
for sun exposure and vitamin D. And had concluded that sunscreen on your face,
ear and neck which are more likely to burn and also cause wrinkles, with about
20 to 30 minute of direct sunlight exposure on your body per day was the
current recommendation.

I think one issue is it's not very socially accepted for me to take a walk
shirtless in the middle of the day. So I had found it quite hard to take in
the sun.

The other thing I had read was that clothes accentuate skin cancer, because it
means that we expose the same parts over and over to sun, yet we get way less
amount of vitamin D and other benefits for the amount of time we are out.

Like 5 minutes out in the sun naked, you get a lot of surface sun, but no part
of the skin is exposed for too long. While if you go out for 1 hour in the sun
with clothes, you might have sunburn in the exposed areas yet didn't even get
as much vitamin D from it.

------
realtalk_sp
UV damage accounts for 80+% of visible signs of aging. The difference between
daily protection with sunscreen and not compounds over years and you can find
plenty of pictures illustrating the sharp divergence in end result.

You should use sunscreen with a minimum SPF of 30 every day on your face and
neck. Reapply with every 2 hours of direct sun exposure, accounting for things
like being in the shade or behind windows (most windows filter out a
significant proportion of incoming UV). This is easily the smallest change you
can make to get the greatest return on anti-aging and, reiterating the above,
the difference produced can be astounding.

For purposes of vitamin D 'intake', leave the other exposed parts of your body
unslathered, as long as you're not deliberately increasing exposure (e.g.
hitting the beach). Easy fix.

~~~
jeremysalwen
>anti-aging

Since when did "anti-aging" come to mean "anti-visible signs of aging"? Why
should I care about looking old when I am old? Shouldn't I care more about
being healthy when I am old?

~~~
munchbunny
Whether or not you care about your appearance, your skin is still a very
important organ.

For skin it just happens that “aging” and “visible signs of aging” are
synonymous.

------
jms
To help control my sun exposure, I use UV widgets on my dashboard.

They help me know when I can expose as much skin as possible to get gentle
exposure everywhere, and when I'll burn in 5 minutes.

It's interesting, the heat of the sun and the actual risk of burning don't
seem to be 100% correlated.

I find it really helpful to have actual knowledge of what the sun is doing at
any one time, instead of having to guess and under or over exposing myself.

I've listed the widgets I use below for Australia, I'm sure you can find them
for your location too.

[https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-
services/monitoring/ultraviol...](https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-
services/monitoring/ultraviolet-radiation-monitoring/ultraviolet-radiation-
index)

[https://www.cancer.org.au/preventing-cancer/sun-
protection/u...](https://www.cancer.org.au/preventing-cancer/sun-
protection/uv-alert/uv-alert-widget.html)

------
dleslie
I'm one of those weird people who gets a rash when using sunscreen, and am
also one of those folks who has dental fluorosis.

I simply stay out of the sun, wear long sleeves and a hat if I can't avoid it,
and ... Well I have ugly teeth.

Not wearing sunscreen isn't a pass for exposure; there are still precautions
that can be taken.

~~~
piadodjanho
The the most commonly used sunscreen chemical have hormone like activity [1].

[https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-
sunscr...](https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-
chemicals/)

~~~
dleslie
Sunscreen sensitivity is definitely a real thing, too:

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sunscreen-
sensitivity-1.42009...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/sunscreen-
sensitivity-1.4200914)

------
state_less
I am a Norwegian German mix and fairly white. Living in Wisconsin for the
winters was difficult. The overcast weather and low sun on the horizon tended
to make me feel pretty low.

Having moved to Florida, I get as much sun as I can take and haven’t
experienced some of the lows I had in previous Wisconsin winters. I wear a
straw hat, breathable long sleeve shirts and long pants to moderate my sun
exposure. I have spent more time outdoors and away from cities. All together,
I feel less stressed at 38 than I have in years. I attribute it to being out
in the elements, WFH and pushing outside my comfort zone. It just feels better
to be out here, anchored next to Cape Canaveral.

------
joegel
This glosses over the far more important question: Is Margarine the New
Sunscreen?

------
PeterStuer
I find that when I am outside a lot starting early spring, and of course not
go out during noon hours (11am-4pm) in high summer, I have almost no need for
sunscreen.

If however I spend the spring mostly indoors with few opportunities to go
outside, then no matter what I do later I can not habituate and will get 'sun
allergy' for the season.

------
2019-nCoV
The optimal application frequency and SPF of Sunscreen is going to differ
drastically from person to person, place to place, all within a given year.

A fresh-faced Irish tourist will be burnt to a crisp after a 20 min stroll on
the beach in QLD, Australia in January. Yet slathering on SPF 50 in rainy
Dublin upon their return would be all but detrimental.

------
ryanmarsh
You’ll have to pry the Sun Bum spf 70 from my pink sunburned hands. I’m not
giving that stuff up and if they go out of business my family is going to be
hurting.

------
Igelau
I just tried it on toast, and I'm going to have to agree that it's as bad as
margarine.

~~~
skny
Soft, creamy mouthfeel. Earthy, metallic notes - like a brisk bite of aluminum
foil. Strong aftertaste of own puke.

------
xwdv
God, can’t I just get vitamin D from other sources? I drink 24oz of milk a day
and that’s about 75% of the RDI.

~~~
DominikPeters
RDI for vitamin D is too low, and probably resulted from a calculation error.
Should probably aim for 5-10x the RDI.
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150317122458.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150317122458.htm)
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28768407](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28768407)

~~~
alejohausner
The article cites a study where _large_ doses of vitamin D had no benefit.

------
nl
This is terrible advice that will kill people.

Here in Australia skin cancer (directly caused by exposure to UV) is the most
common cancer[1] and kills an increasing proportion of people every year.

Sure, vitamin D deficiency is bad. But don't tell people who are spending all
day in the sun not to wear sunscreen! Tell people who never go outside to get
20 minutes of sun a day instead!

As pointed out elsewhere, the primary argument ("how did we get through the
neolithic age") is bunk - there is no evolutionary pressure once someone has
reproduced, and almost always skin cancer kills people over 30.

[1] [https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/skin-cancer-in-
austra...](https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/cancer/skin-cancer-in-
australia/summary)

~~~
nkozyra
Both are addressed in the article. The floated theory is that a lack of uv is
responsible for more death then skin cancer.

~~~
jms
I'm a fair skinned Aussie, who doesn't really like sunscreen.

I can 100% understand nl's position - skin cancer is really prevalent here,
and the sun can be incredibly harsh. The skies here are usually completely
cloudless, and we're affected by the ozone hole too. Skin cancer is a big deal
here. The aboriginal people are very dark, which should be a big hint as to
the amount of UV we get, and that will have been selected for from before the
ozone hole.

I keep track of UV levels on my personal dashboard, so I _know_ when it's
dangerous or not. Previously I was overly cautious, but now I can enjoy time
outdoors with skin exposed without the worry of burning, and get gentle UV
exposure over my whole body for the vit D.

Personally I prefer to cover up rather than use sunscreen. I don't like the
feel of sunscreen, and when covered up there is no risk of the sunscreen
slowly washing away. I do use sunscreen on exposed areas, such as hands, face,
and feet.

Here are the UV widgets I use.

[https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-
services/monitoring/ultraviol...](https://www.arpansa.gov.au/our-
services/monitoring/ultraviolet-radiation-monitoring/ultraviolet-radiation-
index)

[https://www.cancer.org.au/preventing-cancer/sun-
protection/u...](https://www.cancer.org.au/preventing-cancer/sun-
protection/uv-alert/uv-alert-widget.html)

