6 ms·

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 plen

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.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago
> You should use sunscreen with a minimum SPF of 30 every day on your face and neck. Even in the winter when the UV index is 0 or 1? Or was "in spring/summer" implied?
brianwawok 6y ago
So that optimizes looks. Does it optimize health? The article says not. If my head and neck are covered in sunscreen, that is a lot of my vitamin D for the year.
catalogia 6y ago
Using sunscreen daily? Being that vain seems like a hassle.
- hombre_fatal 6y ago
  It also begins to sound like "Always wear a helmet -- you never know when you might fall!" Nothing wrong with looking your age because you didn't put on sunscreen for your office job. I feel like following their advice just trains you to have a self-image crisis.
- triceratops 6y ago
  Wear a wide-brimmed hat and a light long-sleeved jacket when you're out. Daily sunscreen will get expensive real fast.
- galoisgirl 6y ago
  Vain? I'm of the gender whom society expects to keep the entire body shaved. Putting cream on my face takes 10 seconds.
  - kgin 6y ago
    Vain = any person who does something in service of their appearance that I don't do
cambalache 6y ago
> UV damage accounts for 80+% of visible signs of aging Source?
- nl 6y ago
  Seems accurate for white people anyway https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/
  - cambalache 6y ago
    The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead. The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Long story short: they asked 300 caucasian women if they were "sun-loving" or "sun-phobic", assessed their "apparent age" by a panel of people (how objective) and then calculated a vague correlation.
    - nl 6y ago
      > The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead. It summarises the evidence from a number of papers. That exact quote comes from one, but the "Age" section alone includes 5 references to skin damage (not including those for melanoma). > The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Asking "apparent age" seems a reasonable first step in assessing something as vague as "visible signs of aging"
      - cambalache 6y ago
        Not when you claim percentages with 4 significant figures.
        nl 6y ago
        Look, you asked for a source. I'm not going to defend every single thing out of a couple of random papers I googled for you. The claim is reasonable and has evidence supporting it, and if the exact number is 60% or 90% or 40% it seems pretty reasonable to believe the point of the original comment.
jeremysalwen 6y ago
>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 6y ago
  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.
- realtalk_sp 6y ago
  The choice to try and look younger is partly a function of inherent vanity and partly a function of pragmatic value. Appearing more youthful improves outcomes in romance, socialization, and at work in both overt and subtle ways. The reason for this is quite simple: humans are wired to subconsciously respond positively to things (and especially people) that are visually appealing. This latter motivation is what drives my thinking on the subject and the implications are perhaps even more consequential for people in the tech industry. Tech is a realm that preferences youth and (sadly) will likely continue to do so. I had an epiphany some time ago when I encountered a 40 year old who looked about 25. What was striking was that people interacted with him AS IF he was 25. That demonstrated how surprisingly easy it is to short circuit the neural programming for assessing age (i.e. it seems predominantly visual). I should also note that sunscreen isn't some fountain of youth. There are various factors that contribute to the presentation of visual age and the use of sunscreen. For example: loss of skin elasticity due to a slowdown in collagen production with increasing age. And to address your last question: using sunscreen and maintaining a healthy lifestyle are not in any way mutually exclusive.
- kgin 6y ago
  If it's a direct tradeoff then yes, health wins. But you can care about both.

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

> You should use sunscreen with a minimum SPF of 30 every day on your face and neck. Even in the winter when the UV index is 0 or 1? Or was "in spring/summer" implied?

brianwawok 6y ago

So that optimizes looks. Does it optimize health? The article says not. If my head and neck are covered in sunscreen, that is a lot of my vitamin D for the year.

catalogia 6y ago

Using sunscreen daily? Being that vain seems like a hassle.

hombre_fatal 6y ago
It also begins to sound like "Always wear a helmet -- you never know when you might fall!" Nothing wrong with looking your age because you didn't put on sunscreen for your office job. I feel like following their advice just trains you to have a self-image crisis.
triceratops 6y ago
Wear a wide-brimmed hat and a light long-sleeved jacket when you're out. Daily sunscreen will get expensive real fast.
galoisgirl 6y ago
Vain? I'm of the gender whom society expects to keep the entire body shaved. Putting cream on my face takes 10 seconds.
- kgin 6y ago
  Vain = any person who does something in service of their appearance that I don't do

cambalache 6y ago

> UV damage accounts for 80+% of visible signs of aging Source?

nl 6y ago
Seems accurate for white people anyway https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344124/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/
- cambalache 6y ago
  The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead. The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Long story short: they asked 300 caucasian women if they were "sun-loving" or "sun-phobic", assessed their "apparent age" by a panel of people (how objective) and then calculated a vague correlation.
  - nl 6y ago
    > The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead. It summarises the evidence from a number of papers. That exact quote comes from one, but the "Age" section alone includes 5 references to skin damage (not including those for melanoma). > The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Asking "apparent age" seems a reasonable first step in assessing something as vague as "visible signs of aging"
    - cambalache 6y ago
      Not when you claim percentages with 4 significant figures.
      - nl 6y ago
        Look, you asked for a source. I'm not going to defend every single thing out of a couple of random papers I googled for you. The claim is reasonable and has evidence supporting it, and if the exact number is 60% or 90% or 40% it seems pretty reasonable to believe the point of the original comment.

jeremysalwen 6y ago

>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 6y ago
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.
realtalk_sp 6y ago
The choice to try and look younger is partly a function of inherent vanity and partly a function of pragmatic value. Appearing more youthful improves outcomes in romance, socialization, and at work in both overt and subtle ways. The reason for this is quite simple: humans are wired to subconsciously respond positively to things (and especially people) that are visually appealing. This latter motivation is what drives my thinking on the subject and the implications are perhaps even more consequential for people in the tech industry. Tech is a realm that preferences youth and (sadly) will likely continue to do so. I had an epiphany some time ago when I encountered a 40 year old who looked about 25. What was striking was that people interacted with him AS IF he was 25. That demonstrated how surprisingly easy it is to short circuit the neural programming for assessing age (i.e. it seems predominantly visual). I should also note that sunscreen isn't some fountain of youth. There are various factors that contribute to the presentation of visual age and the use of sunscreen. For example: loss of skin elasticity due to a slowdown in collagen production with increasing age. And to address your last question: using sunscreen and maintaining a healthy lifestyle are not in any way mutually exclusive.
kgin 6y ago
If it's a direct tradeoff then yes, health wins. But you can care about both.