Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 01-19-2019, 08:48 AM   #1
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default Does sunscreen do more harm than good?

https://www.outsideonline.com/238075...cancer-science


Article discussing how by blocking sun we get less vitamin D and other related health effects, and that sun caused skin cancer isn't the threat we are told. Is the trade off worth it?



I'm not convinced, but it will be interesting to see more research on this.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 01-19-2019, 08:59 AM   #2
mrdonkey
Franchise Player
 
mrdonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Exp:
Default

I guess if you wore sunscreen 24/7 and never took any supplements, sure, I guess vitamin D deficiency could be a problem. But feeling a little sleepy is still nothing compared to the risk of skin cancer, sunburns, and premature aging of your skin due to UV exposure.

If vitamin D is a problem for you (as it is for nearly everyone in a northern climate), take the pills. It's impossible to overdose, you could down an entire bottle of vitamin D and be fine, if that's what you want. I'll continue to wear sunscreen at the beach and not be the guinea pig hoping decades of research on skin cancer is wrong, thank you very much!
mrdonkey is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to mrdonkey For This Useful Post:
Old 01-19-2019, 09:05 AM   #3
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

He lost me here...


Quote:
“It’s entirely intuitive,” he responded. “Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. Until the industrial revolution, we lived outside. How did we get through the Neolithic Era without sunscreen? Actually, perfectly well. What’s counterintuitive is that dermatologists run around saying, ‘Don’t go outside, you might die.’”

How indeed Dr. Weller...if that is your real name.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
Old 01-19-2019, 09:17 AM   #4
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdonkey View Post
I guess if you wore sunscreen 24/7 and never took any supplements, sure, I guess vitamin D deficiency could be a problem. But feeling a little sleepy is still nothing compared to the risk of skin cancer, sunburns, and premature aging of your skin due to UV exposure.

If vitamin D is a problem for you (as it is for nearly everyone in a northern climate), take the pills. It's impossible to overdose, you could down an entire bottle of vitamin D and be fine, if that's what you want. I'll continue to wear sunscreen at the beach and not be the guinea pig hoping decades of research on skin cancer is wrong, thank you very much!
You know how I know you didn't read it?


Quote:
Yet vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials. Five years ago, researchers were already warning that it showed zero benefit, and the evidence has only grown stronger. In November, one of the largest and most rigorous trials of the vitamin ever conducted—in which 25,871 participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke.
How did we get it so wrong? How could people with low vitamin D levels clearly suffer higher rates of so many diseases and yet not be helped by supplementation?

Please read the thing before commenting...
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 01-19-2019, 09:19 AM   #5
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
He lost me here...

How indeed Dr. Weller...if that is your real name.

Ya, people always lose me on medical and food discussions when they point to a time in our history where we were lucky to live past 40. No one died form skin cancer because they didn't live long enough to get it.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fuzz For This Useful Post:
Old 01-19-2019, 09:24 AM   #6
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

Part of me feels like the answer is in the middle. If you lay around outside working on that deep dark tan then you likely increase your chances of having skin issues.

If you spend some time outside and get a bit of colour,but balance it by wearing a hat and shirt, then perhaps that gives your body what it needs.
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Northendzone For This Useful Post:
Old 01-19-2019, 09:30 AM   #7
GirlySports
NOT breaking news
 
GirlySports's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

sunscreen? what's that?


stay away from the sun
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire

GirlySports is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 09:35 AM   #8
PepsiFree
Participant
Participant
 
PepsiFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Exp:
Default

Some of points are good ones. We need vitamin D, we need sun exposure, skin cancer isn’t that big of a worry, etc.

That said, it seems like the argument is against zero sun exposure, which should be obvious, not any form of sunscreen ever, so I’m not sure the author is making a very good point (and, at worst, is being purposefully misleading) and I’m not sure Weller is making very sound conclusions. For example, life expectancy in the Neolithic era was about 30 years old, not a great “they did it, why can’t we??” and stating that people without significant sun exposure are more likely to die when they get melanoma is pretty easily explained by it being more aggressive, thus it appearing despite limited risk factors.

The one thing everyone seems to agree on, even Weller: sunburns are bad. So, I guess at the heart of it you still have to be smart with the sun and not take the idiotic approach of the author. Get what you need, don’t get burnt, and however you figure that out is up to you with many options available.
PepsiFree is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Old 01-19-2019, 09:38 AM   #9
calgarygeologist
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Exp:
Default

I pretty much never wear sunscreen. Sometimes I'll put some on my ears which tend to burn.
calgarygeologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 09:44 AM   #10
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northendzone View Post
Part of me feels like the answer is in the middle. If you lay around outside working on that deep dark tan then you likely increase your chances of having skin issues.

If you spend some time outside and get a bit of colour,but balance it by wearing a hat and shirt, then perhaps that gives your body what it needs.
I'd agree. I only wear sunscreen when I'm in a situation where I might burn.

That being said I was blessed with olive skin and by day 4 of a Mexican vacation I typically have enough of a tan that I won't burn.

White people are way more likely to get skin cancer, which suggests to me the main factor is burning and not exposure.

These Neolithic arguments do have some truth to them, but can't be taken to extremes in modern life. As for the live to 40 thing, that was life expectancy, which includes huge rates of infant mortality. In most, even ancient, human societies if you make it to adulthood, you have a good chance of making it to 60+.
blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 10:05 AM   #11
troutman
Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer
 
troutman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Winebar Kensington
Exp:
Default

Maybe I just like smelling like coconuts.
__________________
https://www.mergenlaw.com/
http://cjsw.com/program/fossil-records/
twitter/instagram @troutman1966
troutman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 10:11 AM   #12
OMG!WTF!
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

The anti vax crowd had a small campaign a while ago saying sunscreen actually causes skin cancer. They point to this graph as an obvious causal relationship.


Spoiler!




I'm sure they've caused more than their fair share of skin cancer as well as every other disease on the vaccine list.
OMG!WTF! is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 10:25 AM   #13
TheSutterDynasty
First Line Centre
 
TheSutterDynasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
The anti vax crowd had a small campaign a while ago saying sunscreen actually causes skin cancer. They point to this graph as an obvious causal relationship.


Spoiler!




I'm sure they've caused more than their fair share of skin cancer as well as every other disease on the vaccine list.
Wow way to cherry pick data anti-vaxxers. Although the fact anyone with those mental issues is even glancing at data is amazing.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2082713/

Quote:
The intermittent exposure hypothesis remains controversial; some studies indicate that children and adolescents who received intermittent sun exposure during vacation, recreation, or occupation are at increased melanoma risk as adults, but more recent studies suggest intermittent exposure to have a protective effect.
Essentially the studies this review refers to (and more since this 2006 review) suggest a protective effect on melanoma from sun exposure up to a certain point. So yes, sunscreen use may increase risk.

The rest of the skin cancers, however, have a higher association with increased sunlight exposure.

The answer, like usual, is probably a compromise between too much and too little.

I think this article is deceiving though, given that the majority of people with deficiencies are those living far from the equator at the least sunny times of the year. Most people don't wear sunscreen in the winter, and I don't know any people who are "sun avoiders" in the summer. The problem is they don't spend any time in the sun with skin exposed... because it's cold. I'm not sure where blaming suncreen comes in. But good points regarding vitamin D supplementation.
__________________
ech·o cham·ber
/ˈekō ˌCHāmbər/
noun

An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.

Last edited by TheSutterDynasty; 01-19-2019 at 10:45 AM.
TheSutterDynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 11:00 AM   #14
TheSutterDynasty
First Line Centre
 
TheSutterDynasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495109/

Recommended time in the sun for reaching adequate serum vitamin D levels varies depends on a dozen factors, including latitude, your skin, time of day, etc, but this study refers to the time you need in the sun based on how much time will give you a mild sunburn. They then say spend 20-25% of that in the sun (with face, arms, legs, hands exposed) 2-3 days per week.

Very generally that ends up being about 6-8 minutes for us in Summer. That's not very hard to achieve. Are there really that many people who are "sun avoiders" as the article suggests?

While I agree that society/research almost always swings too far in one direction (ie obsessed with sunscreen, then obsessed with vitamin D supplementation), this article seems sensationalized

A lot of the proposed mechanisms and correlations it refers to aren't well researched. There are literally hundreds of factors affecting your blood pressure and cardiovascular health, and things like diet and exercise probably affect it FAR more than not getting enough sunlight. And again, our likelihood of not getting enough sunlight is far more problematic in winter.

So I don't think "big sunscreen" is the leading cause of vitamin D deficiency and consequent high rates of cardiovascular disease, especially in Canada. In fact, it's probably very, very low on the list.
__________________
ech·o cham·ber
/ˈekō ˌCHāmbər/
noun

An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
TheSutterDynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to TheSutterDynasty For This Useful Post:
Old 01-19-2019, 11:27 AM   #15
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

I actually wouldn't be that surprised that a large number of people don't get their sun exposure even in the summer. Take a place like Houston, where you go from your A/C house to your garage, car, drive to your building and never actually go outside. It's hotter than sin there, so I get it. But I wouldn't be surprised if these people don't get the sun exposure required.



One of the takeaways for me in the article was that vitamin D supplements didn't appear to have the same effect as getting sun exposure. This is where some interesting research could take place. Is it more than just vitamin D? Perhaps other factors are required. Or the sun is providing us with other benefits that we haven't analyzed. I think there is still a lot to learn here, which is why I found the whole thing interesting.
Fuzz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 12:19 PM   #16
TheSutterDynasty
First Line Centre
 
TheSutterDynasty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz View Post
I actually wouldn't be that surprised that a large number of people don't get their sun exposure even in the summer. Take a place like Houston, where you go from your A/C house to your garage, car, drive to your building and never actually go outside. It's hotter than sin there, so I get it. But I wouldn't be surprised if these people don't get the sun exposure required.



One of the takeaways for me in the article was that vitamin D supplements didn't appear to have the same effect as getting sun exposure. This is where some interesting research could take place. Is it more than just vitamin D? Perhaps other factors are required. Or the sun is providing us with other benefits that we haven't analyzed. I think there is still a lot to learn here, which is why I found the whole thing interesting.
I would wager, though, that those who go from house to car and never spend time outside tend to have other health issues and likely aren't very keen on exercise, generally. So they will have several factors leading to increased risk of CV disease.

Many supplements do not have the same effect as their 'natural" states. Beta carotene (predecessor of vitamin A) is a great example because not only does it not show the beneficial effects as a supplement, it actually causes harm!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19876916/

So maybe it's a different effect from the sun or maybe there's something about the way we synthesize vitamin D that's different than supplementation.
__________________
ech·o cham·ber
/ˈekō ˌCHāmbər/
noun

An environment in which a person encounters only beliefs or opinions that coincide with their own, so that their existing views are reinforced and alternative ideas are not considered.
TheSutterDynasty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 12:36 PM   #17
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall View Post
I'd agree. I only wear sunscreen when I'm in a situation where I might burn.

That being said I was blessed with olive skin and by day 4 of a Mexican vacation I typically have enough of a tan that I won't burn.

White people are way more likely to get skin cancer, which suggests to me the main factor is burning and not exposure.

These Neolithic arguments do have some truth to them, but can't be taken to extremes in modern life. As for the live to 40 thing, that was life expectancy, which includes huge rates of infant mortality. In most, even ancient, human societies if you make it to adulthood, you have a good chance of making it to 60+.
The key though is Neolithic arguments are only valid if what you are evaluating affects your ability to pass on DNA. So skin cancer would have almost zero affect on ones ability to pass on DNA
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 04:26 PM   #18
stampsx2
First Line Centre
 
stampsx2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Did they not not get sun burnt in the neolithic era because we had a full ozone? I was under the impression that we began to use sun tan lotion because the ozone was damaged due to cfc use.

Also when they say people in neolithic times lived to the age of 40 i think they meant that was an average age due to the large amount of still births.
stampsx2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 04:34 PM   #19
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stampsx2 View Post
Did they not not get sun burnt in the neolithic era because we had a full ozone? I was under the impression that we began to use sun tan lotion because the ozone was damaged due to cfc use.

Also when they say people in neolithic times lived to the age of 40 i think they meant that was an average age due to the large amount of still births.
Hasn’t the Ozone beeen totally regenerated now?
Weitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2019, 05:22 PM   #20
Cuz
First Line Centre
 
Cuz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Royal Oak
Exp:
Default

It is all a big conspiracy to rid the world of gingers, we need sunscreen most of all! lol
Cuz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:23 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021