4 ms·

It's really not a hard thing to google. > Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which

by toolz 3y ago

It's really not a hard thing to google. > Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance[1] on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills. -- https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-exposure-skin-cancer-science/ https://www.outsideonline.com/health/wellness/sunscreen-sun-... 1: https://www.aad.org/media/stats-vitamin-d https://www.aad.org/media/stats-vitamin-d

BigCryo 3y ago
[dead]
myshpa 3y ago
And now show us list of their sponsors. I'll bet there will be several sunblock manufacturers on it.
- toolz 3y ago
  I just criticized someone for not doing their own simple google search and now you're asking me to google for you as well? I'm really not sure what result you're hoping for here. You really shouldn't be so sure of anything you're too lazy to validate yourself. If you're too lazy now, chances are you were too lazy to validate it when you formed the opinion to begin with.
  - borski 3y ago
    Now this is a lazy argument. “My thing is true, even though the vast majority of medical professionals and societies disagree with me. And I don’t have to prove it to you, as that is best left as an exercise to the reader” is lazy, and a terrible argument. Even if you didn’t validate the established guidelines, that doesn’t actually make you lazy; as humans, we cannot possibly hope to empirically validate every single thing we are told, as that would be madness. We often rely on various sources to validate claims for us by running solid, peer-reviewed studies and then we read those, and the vast majority of those studies do not agree with you, though more studies definitely need to be run, particularly with higher SPF sunblocks and mineral sunblocks.
borski 3y ago
The vast, vast majority of Google results do not support your claims. I’m glad you found one that did, and I’m all for more studies, but “it’s really not that hard to google” is both condescending and doesn’t move the argument forward. You are the one making an argument against the established widespread medical opinion; the onus is on you to prove your argument, not on me to prove your argument for you. https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illnesses/true-or-false-using-sunscreen-leads-vitamin-d-deficiency https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illne... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30945275/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30945275/ “ There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have been no trials of the high-SPF sunscreens that are now widely recommended. What's already known about this topic? Previous experimental studies suggest that sunscreen can block vitamin D production in the skin but use artificially generated ultraviolet radiation with a spectral output unlike that seen in terrestrial sunlight. Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest that use in real life does not cause vitamin D deficiency. What does this study add? This study systematically reviewed all experimental studies, field trials and observational studies for the first time. While the experimental studies support the theoretical risk that sunscreen use may affect vitamin D, the weight of evidence from field trials and observational studies suggests that the risk is low. We highlight the lack of adequate evidence regarding use of the very high sun protection factor sunscreens that are now recommended and widely used.”
- toolz 3y ago
  What exactly do you think my claims are? I'm not the one who made the original claim, only supported the claim that american dermatologists have a zero tolerance policy for sun exposure. Either you think there's a more representative opinion for American dermatologists than the AAD or what seems more likely is that you don't understand the argument that I was supporting.
  - borski 3y ago
    It is entirely possible we got our wires crossed. The evidence I actually wanted proof for was the original commenters’ assertion that sunblock somehow raises cholesterol to unhealthy levels. The quote you chose from the article (which I did read, for what it’s worth, but was also very light on sources) strongly suggested that sunblock blocks Vitamin D production. The science on that is unclear, but prior research suggests it doesn’t; that said, it warrants more research. I took your choice of that quote specifically to mean that was a claim you were making. If that wasn’t the case and you simply meant to show that the AAD suggested not being in the sun without sunblock, then I agree. The science on melanoma being very bad is pretty cut and dry, on the other hand. I never disagreed that American dermatologists tend to follow a “zero tolerance” policy for sun exposure without sunblock. They would very much like you to get sun with sunblock, though.
karlzt 3y ago
>> You need to protect your skin from the sun every day Agree >> even when it’s cloudy Bullshit.

by toolz 3y ago

BigCryo 3y ago

[dead]

myshpa 3y ago

And now show us list of their sponsors. I'll bet there will be several sunblock manufacturers on it.

toolz 3y ago
I just criticized someone for not doing their own simple google search and now you're asking me to google for you as well? I'm really not sure what result you're hoping for here. You really shouldn't be so sure of anything you're too lazy to validate yourself. If you're too lazy now, chances are you were too lazy to validate it when you formed the opinion to begin with.
- borski 3y ago
  Now this is a lazy argument. “My thing is true, even though the vast majority of medical professionals and societies disagree with me. And I don’t have to prove it to you, as that is best left as an exercise to the reader” is lazy, and a terrible argument. Even if you didn’t validate the established guidelines, that doesn’t actually make you lazy; as humans, we cannot possibly hope to empirically validate every single thing we are told, as that would be madness. We often rely on various sources to validate claims for us by running solid, peer-reviewed studies and then we read those, and the vast majority of those studies do not agree with you, though more studies definitely need to be run, particularly with higher SPF sunblocks and mineral sunblocks.

borski 3y ago

The vast, vast majority of Google results do not support your claims. I’m glad you found one that did, and I’m all for more studies, but “it’s really not that hard to google” is both condescending and doesn’t move the argument forward. You are the one making an argument against the established widespread medical opinion; the onus is on you to prove your argument, not on me to prove your argument for you. https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illnesses/true-or-false-using-sunscreen-leads-vitamin-d-deficiency https://www.thechildren.com/health-info/conditions-and-illne... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30945275/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30945275/ “ There is little evidence that sunscreen decreases 25(OH)D concentration when used in real-life settings, suggesting that concerns about vitamin D should not negate skin cancer prevention advice. However, there have been no trials of the high-SPF sunscreens that are now widely recommended. What's already known about this topic? Previous experimental studies suggest that sunscreen can block vitamin D production in the skin but use artificially generated ultraviolet radiation with a spectral output unlike that seen in terrestrial sunlight. Nonsystematic reviews of observational studies suggest that use in real life does not cause vitamin D deficiency. What does this study add? This study systematically reviewed all experimental studies, field trials and observational studies for the first time. While the experimental studies support the theoretical risk that sunscreen use may affect vitamin D, the weight of evidence from field trials and observational studies suggests that the risk is low. We highlight the lack of adequate evidence regarding use of the very high sun protection factor sunscreens that are now recommended and widely used.”

toolz 3y ago
What exactly do you think my claims are? I'm not the one who made the original claim, only supported the claim that american dermatologists have a zero tolerance policy for sun exposure. Either you think there's a more representative opinion for American dermatologists than the AAD or what seems more likely is that you don't understand the argument that I was supporting.
- borski 3y ago
  It is entirely possible we got our wires crossed. The evidence I actually wanted proof for was the original commenters’ assertion that sunblock somehow raises cholesterol to unhealthy levels. The quote you chose from the article (which I did read, for what it’s worth, but was also very light on sources) strongly suggested that sunblock blocks Vitamin D production. The science on that is unclear, but prior research suggests it doesn’t; that said, it warrants more research. I took your choice of that quote specifically to mean that was a claim you were making. If that wasn’t the case and you simply meant to show that the AAD suggested not being in the sun without sunblock, then I agree. The science on melanoma being very bad is pretty cut and dry, on the other hand. I never disagreed that American dermatologists tend to follow a “zero tolerance” policy for sun exposure without sunblock. They would very much like you to get sun with sunblock, though.

karlzt 3y ago

>> You need to protect your skin from the sun every day Agree >> even when it’s cloudy Bullshit.