3 ms·

> Melanoma? True, the sun worshippers had a higher incidence of it—but they were eight times less likely to die from it. > Over the 20 years of the study, sun

by pkdpic 4y ago

> Melanoma? True, the sun worshippers had a higher incidence of it—but they were eight times less likely to die from it. > Over the 20 years of the study, sun avoiders were twice as likely to die as sun worshippers. > Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor of a similar magnitude as smoking, in terms of life expectancy. > Vitamin D now looks like the tip of the solar iceberg. Sunlight triggers the release of a number of other important compounds in the body, not only nitric oxide but also serotonin and endorphins. It reduces the risk of prostate, breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. It improves circadian rhythms. It reduces inflammation and dampens autoimmune responses. It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. And it’s free. > the current U.S. sun-exposure guidelines were written for the whitest people on earth > People of color rarely get melanoma. The rate is 26 per 100,000 in Caucasians, 5 per 100,000 in Hispanics, and 1 per 100,000 in African Americans. > Leffell, the Yale dermatologist, recommends what he calls a “sensible” approach. “I have always advised my patients that they don’t need to crawl under a rock but should use common sense and be conscious of cumulative sun exposure and sunburns in particular,”

gpt5 4y ago
The article reads in such a dogmatic way that it raises all of my fake/misleading information flags.
- giantg2 4y ago
  "the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above." This was the alarm bell for me. They completely leave out that people who get sun exposure are typically doing something more active than sitting at a desk or watching TV. Maybe the physical activity explains a lot of the benefits (think there are studies supporting that). I might get a lot of hate for this, but I'm kind of tired about these articles. They claim things they can't possibly know about a topic that is largely irrelevant. It's like trying to argue about algorithmic time efficiencies without knowing the details of their use (in this case we're trying to biohack for lower mortality without knowing all the factors).
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    While I find the article questionable, though interesting ... > They completely leave out that people who get sun exposure are typically doing something more active than sitting at a desk or watching TV. Did the research (not the article) leave that out? Researchers aren't idiots and spent 10,000x as long thinking about the issue as we did about these HN posts.
    - LodeOfCode 4y ago
      Hard to tell, since the article doesn't bother to cite any sources for most of its claims. Including this paragraph without a single source is just incredible to me >Meanwhile, that big picture just keeps getting more interesting. Vitamin D now looks like the tip of the solar iceberg. Sunlight triggers the release of a number of other important compounds in the body, not only nitric oxide but also serotonin and endorphins. It reduces the risk of prostate, breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. It improves circadian rhythms. It reduces inflammation and dampens autoimmune responses. It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. And it’s free.
    - giantg2 4y ago
      "Did the research (not the article) leave that out?" The article didn't include links to the research, so who knows. On top of that, I'd imagine that it would be hard to control for the physiological and psychological benefits of being outside (nature, activity, etc; or detriments of being indoors like air quality) unless the subjects were in a controlled environment. It would be interesting to see how the research controlled for these, if they did at all. Many studies following large cohorts in real life are not looking at proving causation, but showing correlation because they can't fully control all the variables.
tgv 4y ago
> Sunlight triggers the release of But how much of it? The amount that gives you skin cancer? The article mentions "30 minutes of summer sunlight", but not a study, let alone a replicated one. And it doesn't simply mention "30 minutes of summer sunlight", but "the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight". The other studies mentioned in the first part of the article (office workers, tanned Swedes, etc.) might be accidental correlations. And mentioning the neolithicum is utterly ridiculous. > It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. It still does that with sun screen. But it improves mental health only a bit. I've never read that exposing patients to a bit of sun light solved their depression, ADHD or schizophrenia.
- funcDropShadow 4y ago
  Anecdata: I have one severely depressed person in my family, and it is blatantly obvious that sun exposure has a positive effect on that person's depression. Does it cure the depression? No. But it makes living with it much better and removes blockages to working on the depression long-term.

by pkdpic 4y ago

gpt5 4y ago

The article reads in such a dogmatic way that it raises all of my fake/misleading information flags.

giantg2 4y ago
"the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above." This was the alarm bell for me. They completely leave out that people who get sun exposure are typically doing something more active than sitting at a desk or watching TV. Maybe the physical activity explains a lot of the benefits (think there are studies supporting that). I might get a lot of hate for this, but I'm kind of tired about these articles. They claim things they can't possibly know about a topic that is largely irrelevant. It's like trying to argue about algorithmic time efficiencies without knowing the details of their use (in this case we're trying to biohack for lower mortality without knowing all the factors).
- wolverine876 4y ago
  While I find the article questionable, though interesting ... > They completely leave out that people who get sun exposure are typically doing something more active than sitting at a desk or watching TV. Did the research (not the article) leave that out? Researchers aren't idiots and spent 10,000x as long thinking about the issue as we did about these HN posts.
  - LodeOfCode 4y ago
    Hard to tell, since the article doesn't bother to cite any sources for most of its claims. Including this paragraph without a single source is just incredible to me >Meanwhile, that big picture just keeps getting more interesting. Vitamin D now looks like the tip of the solar iceberg. Sunlight triggers the release of a number of other important compounds in the body, not only nitric oxide but also serotonin and endorphins. It reduces the risk of prostate, breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. It improves circadian rhythms. It reduces inflammation and dampens autoimmune responses. It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. And it’s free.
  - giantg2 4y ago
    "Did the research (not the article) leave that out?" The article didn't include links to the research, so who knows. On top of that, I'd imagine that it would be hard to control for the physiological and psychological benefits of being outside (nature, activity, etc; or detriments of being indoors like air quality) unless the subjects were in a controlled environment. It would be interesting to see how the research controlled for these, if they did at all. Many studies following large cohorts in real life are not looking at proving causation, but showing correlation because they can't fully control all the variables.

tgv 4y ago

> Sunlight triggers the release of But how much of it? The amount that gives you skin cancer? The article mentions "30 minutes of summer sunlight", but not a study, let alone a replicated one. And it doesn't simply mention "30 minutes of summer sunlight", but "the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight". The other studies mentioned in the first part of the article (office workers, tanned Swedes, etc.) might be accidental correlations. And mentioning the neolithicum is utterly ridiculous. > It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. It still does that with sun screen. But it improves mental health only a bit. I've never read that exposing patients to a bit of sun light solved their depression, ADHD or schizophrenia.

funcDropShadow 4y ago
Anecdata: I have one severely depressed person in my family, and it is blatantly obvious that sun exposure has a positive effect on that person's depression. Does it cure the depression? No. But it makes living with it much better and removes blockages to working on the depression long-term.