9 ms·

Unexpected benefits of sun exposure on skin

145 points by robaato 3y ago

tabtab 3y ago
I have a skin condition that flares up if I don't get sun. At first the doctor told me to avoid sun, but it got worse. Then by accident I got somewhat sunburned, and my skin improved.
graypegg 3y ago
Interesting, the linked paper [0] does show they controlled for physical activity here, since I would assume someone who gets more sun exposure, is outside more. If they really have controlled for that factor, shouldn't we see similar results from people with sedentary lives, but high UV exposure? (possibly by regular use of tanning beds or the like?) Being prescribed UV exposure is an interesting idea for the future. [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.11.23292360v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.11.23292360v...
- DennisP 3y ago
  In sunlight you also get lots of red and infrared, and there's quite a bit of research on the benefits of that. To replicate sunlight you'd also need bulbs for those frequencies.
  - InSteady 3y ago
    IR light reduces certain types of inflammation, speeds wound healing, protects against macular degeneration.. I'm surprised there isn't more interest in its benefits given what we've found so far.
- wnoise 3y ago
  It's certainly plausible, but there's a lot of confounds. Broad-spectrum vs tanning. And outside also gets lower CO2 and VOC.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  I feel like they should prescribe sunlight for prisoners. I was held for 10 years without seeing the sun, and many jails and prisons are built on budgets that don't allow for any sunlight.
  - olalonde 3y ago
    Do you mean that your cell didn't have sunlight or that you literally never went outside? I was watching a documentary on ADX Florence, which is known for its maximum-security isolation, and prisoners were allowed one hour outside per day.
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      Yeah, the ADX guys sued to get that back. They lost it at some point and went years without. I tried to sue, but it is almost impossible to sue for lack of sunlight because you need to employ expert witnesses to even have a chance to prove that lack of sunlight is harmful to your health. I was held in cells without windows for five years. The other five the cells had windows but were so dirty that practically no sunlight entered. Never went outside. Maybe a total of 10 hours outside in 10 years. The first five years in a facility where they didn't design any outside into it because it was built in the middle of a downtown area and there wasn't space. The other five in a facility that had large outside areas but no staff to organize corralling a whole cellblock of inmates, getting them through the corridors of the buildings to the outside, monitoring them so they didn't escape and then getting them back. That requires a lot of staff, and most jails and prisons are vastly understaffed.
  - zolbrek 3y ago
    That is rough. Perhaps a very stupid question but did you have access to Vitamin D supplementation during that time?
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      No, most jails and prisons don't sell supplements. You only got whatever vitamin D you got from the slop they serve you :(
- xkcd-sucks 3y ago
  Related, there were some drugs developed to activate melanin production by hooking in to sunlight damage reaponse related pathways, and they do work for light-free tanning. But they were then found to significantly and meangingfully increase libido in men and women, so now there are follow up projects to develop these for erectile dysfunction / low libido. (You probably haven't heard of these because they're all peptides which generally have to be injected without a lot of development work and luck, but the shocking success ofsemaglutide and friends means maybe injection-only peptide lifestyle drugs have a market) As a general just-so-story rule of thumb to be discounted in the face of evidence to the contrary, stimulus or stress that's a consequence of doing stuff generally acts as a "growth factor" even if it causes slight damage, including exercise, heat and cold shock, and sunlight.
  - amelius 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanotan_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanotan_II
personjerry 3y ago
I feel like it's known that sun is good for you? But always wear sunscreen!
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  "But always wear sunscreen!" Sunscreen is full of pretty active chemicals, so I would not recommend using it, when you don't have to.
gniv 3y ago
Article mentions checking the UV index. FYI, on iphone it is shown in the weather app, just need to scroll down a bit.
ilaksh 3y ago
Is it just full spectrum light or specific UV sections? I wonder if future building codes will require some type of intermittent full spectrum or UV light in certain areas. Maybe in a bathroom with a timer that shuts it off a few seconds after someone enters.
- WillPostForFood 3y ago
  Glass blocks most of UVB and a chunk of UVA, so there isn't currently a good solution for indoor full spectrum light exposure.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    Normal glass blocks most of it. But pure SiO2 fused quartz does not. A bit more affordable is probably borosilicate glass and I would like to have my windows replaced with them, but it is not really sold as a common window. So you can probably get one, but it won't be cheap.
  - ilaksh 3y ago
    I meant like a type of lighting fixture that gives off full spectrum light.
- pazimzadeh 3y ago
  You want UVB and not UVA, but UVB is weaker than UVA so all sunblocking type products necessarily enrich your exposure to the bad kind. The time when the ratio of UVB to UVA is highest (best time) between 10 am to 2 pm, or when your shadow is not longer than your height. So 20 mins in the sun at noon without sunblock is best, and after that if you’re pale then slather on the sunscreen.
  - reducesuffering 3y ago
    The article specifically mentions how nitric oxide is only released from UVA activation.
    - 3y ago
torstenvl 3y ago
> Vitamin D is manufactured in our bodies when the UVB rays in sunlight react with a chemical in the skin called 7-dehydrocholesterol. Bone and muscle cells use it to regulate levels of calcium and phosphorus, which are needed to keep them strong and healthy If you are at all active over age 30 — by which I mean you EVER run, jump, or otherwise put pressure on your spine — you need to get lots of sunlight. Most people have insufficient if not downright deficient levels of vitamin D. Spondylolysis and eventual spondylolisthesis is not a prognosis you want for your back.
- olivermuty 3y ago
  Most western diets gets more than enough d-vitamin through food additives. Just a couple of slices of cheese per day and some milk is all the d-vit you need here apparently. The old folk saying is to take d-vitamin supplements in all months that has an R in them. Probably sound advice
  - throwaway87651 3y ago
    "Probably sound advice" ... unless you're in the southern hemisphere!
    - olivermuty 3y ago
      Haha! Good point, I dont have any folklore rules for them :(
  - smdyc1 3y ago
    Unless you're living in the southern hemisphere, sure
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - amelius 3y ago
    Don't forget to take vit K2 too, to get that calcium into your bones instead of your arteries.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
russellbeattie 3y ago
I've always been skeptical of dermatologist insistence that sun exposure is unequivocally bad. It never made sense. If human health and lifespan were so negatively affected by sunlight, we would all be covered in fur, or everyone would be as dark skinned as populations living near the equator. Like everything else in life, "moderation in all things" is the best rule to follow. If you spend your life getting deep dark tans or don't take sensible precautions against sunburns, expect melanoma. If you avoid sunlight like a cave dweller, expect deficiencies in everything from vitamins to mental health.
- avalys 3y ago
  No kidding. It seems such an obvious example of industry taking a kernel of truth and blowing it out of proportion to promote a market for themselves. Yes, sunscreen is beneficial in certain situations, but I know some people who slather all their exposed skin with chemicals to "protect" from the sun over the 5 minutes they spend outside while carrying groceries into the house.
  - 0134340 3y ago
    Any many of those sunscreens, if not purely mineral-based, contain endocrine disruptors that can get absorbed into the skin.
    - kempfcreative 3y ago
      Can you elaborate on this? I am always ridiculed because I don't want to put on sunscreen for health reasons but I don't remember what the evidence was.
      - capableweb 3y ago
        Someone else recommended "Neutrogena, Ultra Sheer Dry Touch Sunscreen" in this submission, and taking a quick look at the ingredients, it does have some I wouldn't put on my skin: - Octocrylene (endocrine disruptive + might cause sun allergies) - Butylated Hydroxytoluene (endocrine disruptive) - Homosalate (https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/sccs_o_244.pdf https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/sccs_o_244....)
tomohelix 3y ago
This is no surprise to me since the UV here is actually sunlight related. Lots of co-conditions that affect it too. The paper said they adjusted their numbers for socioeconomic factors but still probably that adjustment won't be perfect. Anyway, from all I have learned and done, the best health advice that I think applies to most people is moderation is the best. Trying too much and too hard on something will just backfire. Eating only meat and milk will cause cancer sure, but eating only vegetables and beans will also affect your health, namely nutritional deficiency. Etc. and etc. I will just live normally while adjust things within limits and enjoy life while it is still good.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
wkat4242 3y ago
Interesting. I've never been that worried, my skin doesn't burn easily even though I'm very fair-skinned and live in Spain and often hike outdoors. I just hate that SPF stuff on my skin. It makes it sticky and makes me feel dirty. Instead I just try to avoid burning. I do bring some for when it does start but it almost never does. What I do to avoid it works well enough. What I tend to do is just take the shady side of the road wherever possible and for the rest of the time just not worry too much unless I really feel I start getting burned. I check that by scratching my skin with my nail, once it starts burning it feels sharper. Then I'd put on the lotion. And by the time I get home my skin will be slightly red but not seriously burned. Which is pretty rare because I tend to tan naturally. By the time spring starts I already have a light brown shade and it protects me during summer. Most of the time I don't even burn at all. What I do think is bad is someone living in a dark nothern country going on holidays for 2 weeks and spending 2 weeks lying on the beach in the full mediterranean sun. Sunblock or not. My ex used to do that and she got totally burned on the first day even with the sunblock and then spent the rest of the weeks complaining :) I used to live in such a country and I was always more careful during holidays.
- therealdrag0 3y ago
  I’m also not a fan of the feeling of sunblock. I’ve learned as an adult that long sleeves and a hat go a looong ways.
- gremlinsinc 3y ago
  I'll just wear light hoodies and sweat pants if I go fishing sometimes my face still gets burned a little because while I don't look at the sun much or get much sun directly to by face because of my hoodie, the sunlight is also reflected off the lake into my face and I often overlook that bit .... I've got a full beard so that blocks most burns now but I've had many really bad burns when I was young 10 to 16 years old . Now I'm 43 and I'm constantly D deficient even on 5000 units daily, if I don't supplement I really feel like crap and get sick more often.
- atombender 3y ago
  There are many sunscreens out there, ranging from greasy and sticky, to completely unnoticeable. My go-to sunscreen of choice is Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch. It's sold in most pharmacies in the U.S. It's lightweight and doesn't feel like you have any sunscreen on at all. There's also a mineral version, but I've not tried it.
sega_sai 3y ago
I was about to believe the results as they caution that it's only showing the benefits for northern countries like UK and they control for exercise, but then I saw in the paper that they characterize 'sun-seeking behaviour' variable through 'how many times a year would you use a solarium or sunlamp?'. I think people who use solariums is a very special category of people, and I am not sure one can extrapolate from that group to people who enjoy the Sun.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y ago
  I agree. Despite the "more active" category being anyone who answered that they would use a solarium even once per year, they're still only 6% of the study population if I did the math right (see Table 1 on page 10). It also seems noteworthy that the study cited for that correlation was primarily investigating the factors driving use of tanning beds, not sun exposure.
- cpncrunch 3y ago
  They asked about solarium use, outdoor sun in winter, and summer and various other questions. All showed lower hazard ratio. See table 2 in the 2014Lindquist study.
nu11ptr 3y ago
This is not even remotely surprising to me. I've always been a bit skeptical of "the sun is evil" (and got even more skeptical when I was told I should wear sunblock inside!) and ensure I get 20 minutes full body exposure daily in the summer. Anecdotally, I can tell a general difference in my mood and sleep during periods where I get adequate sun vs. when I'm not (and I supplement vitamin D when I'm not). While I am a big fan of the scientific method, it is difficult to do studies that don't have lots of confounding variables in this area, so when in doubt, use common sense is my rule. We evolved with the sun, so the most likely probability is we have at least some defense to it, and more than likely we evolved so that at least some exposure has benefit.
- ghoogl 3y ago
  [dead]
- slashdev 3y ago
  Yeah, that’s my thinking as well. I also try to get some sun exposure. I get too little being an tech worker.
- missedthecue 3y ago
  A lot of the "sunscreen inside" people are those trying to maximize their visible skin health and beauty. If you don't care about your physical looks, as least above all else, I imagine the trade off to getting regular direct sunlight is well worth it. But it is fairly intuitive that sunlight's ultraviolet radiation at any strength is going to degrade your skin over long periods of time.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - memen 3y ago
    Could you link to studies backing up your claim about 'visible skin health and beauty'?. I have searched for these a lot, but I cannot find thorough literature study type of research about this. Except for the 'sitting in office all year and then sit in the sun for two weeks straight and get 14 sun burns is not good, so you should use sunscreen' message, which is not very helpful and could conclude also that one 'should expose to sun moderately, e.g. at least an hour a day if possible'.
jms 3y ago
I've been living in Australia and New Zealand, and have been terrified of sun exposure - during peak times (summer mid-day) it's scary how quickly you can burn. However I also have low vitamin D. My current strategy is to check the UV levels (I've got a widget on my personal dashboard) and whenever the UV levels are moderate or below, I try to get as much sun exposure as possible - shorts and t-shirt, or topless. I then cover up when the UV levels are demonstrably high. My theory is that low levels of exposure are very good - you get your vitamin D, whatever else you need, and your body starts to build an appropriate amount of melanin. The worst thing to do is to avoid sun all the time, then suddenly get massive UV doses. I've noticed that my hands very rarely get burned compared to other areas - my theory is due to constant exposure that part of my body is more resistant compared to the pasty areas. My key point is that you can view the UV rating and protect yourself appropriately - e.g. high caution summer-midday, zero caution winter mid-day.
- bostonvaulter2 3y ago
  Where do you get the UV data from?
  - fhcuvuvuc 3y ago
    Don't really need it, while the sun is low in the sky you're relatively safe to get a bunch of sun.
  - thenickdude 3y ago
    Our weather forecasting agencies also forecast UV exposure, it gets reported as the "UV Index"
  - molofaha 3y ago
    In New Zealand there's https://niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-ozone/todays-uv-index https://niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-ozone...
  - antiatheist 3y ago
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/ http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/
pkoird 3y ago
N=1 but I've felt that I always sleep better when I've spent an hour in the sun that day. Considering how the sun has been a constant during much of human evolution, it just makes sense that our biological processes, both known and unknown, should revolve around it.
- api 3y ago
  The obvious thing is that white people are white because they lost natural sunscreen living far from the equator. For that to have occurred the selection pressure must have been fairly strong. Of course we do know that very heavy sun exposure and especially sunburn can cause cancer. It’s probably a case of moderation being good for you— not too little and not too much.
  - bawolff 3y ago
    I think the big question is does it matter outside of vitamin d deficiency. Severe vit d deficiency obviously is strongly negatively selective. So that by itself explains the evolution of white skin in northern climates. I dont think evolution can be used as evidence for other benefits, since vit d deficiency would cause that just by itself.
  - Groxx 3y ago
    While I largely agree and I think it's pretty heavily sun related: there are plenty of other plausible mechanisms, I don't think it's quite that obvious or clear-cut. E.g. it snows more as you go towards the poles. There are a lot of pale creatures in climates with snow, for the even more obvious natural selection pressure of "can hide better".
deet 3y ago
It's surprising this article doesn't significantly mention sunlight's non-UV components, like infrared light. There appears to be increasing evidence to support its ability to influence various processes within the body to positive effect. MedCram has some easily digestible reviews on the topic: - The ability for light to influence glucose metabolism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Win49aeh8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Win49aeh8A - Light's effect on immune response and other processes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YV_iKnzDRg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YV_iKnzDRg
rramadass 3y ago
This is the key point to keep in mind; “The ‘Slip, Slap, Slop’ guidance is appropriate for the descendants of white-skinned north Europeans living in high-UV environments such as Australia, where they have a lot of skin cancer. But it is not appropriate for white-skinned Brits here in Scotland, and it is absolutely inappropriate for dark-skinned Brits, who have made the reverse migration from Africa or India,” says Weller. Just be aware of latitude differences and the rest is commonsense.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Altitude too. Solar intensity at notably high altitudes (say, 5000' or above) can be significant if you spend a lot of time there.
  - rramadass 3y ago
    Right, people who have lived natively there have evolved physical coping mechanisms which must be taken into account when they move to other geographical areas. The reverse for "plains" people who move to high altitudes. Right from the beginning i had felt that the whole Sun Exposure/Skin Cancer/Sunscreen debate was nonsensical without understanding the "original adaptations" of the people involved. I remember an article which i read a long time ago that posited that all of our modern health/medical dosage "standards" (eg. BMI) are suspect because they were derived from a sample of European Males and hence are not universally applicable across the world. Given what we know today about genetics/epigenetics/adaptation i have always felt that this should be the first thing doctors should consider when treating patients.
    - car 3y ago
      Right, people who have lived natively there have evolved physical coping mechanisms which must be taken into account when they move to other geographical areas. The reverse for "plains" people who move to high altitudes. What coping mechanisms would that be? Right from the beginning i had felt that the whole Sun Exposure/Skin Cancer/Sunscreen debate was nonsensical without understanding the "original adaptations" of the people involved. What "original adaptations" are you referring to? I remember an article which i read a long time ago that posited that all of our modern health/medical dosage "standards" (eg. BMI) are suspect because they were derived from a sample of European Males and hence are not universally applicable across the world. Given what we know today about genetics/epigenetics/adaptation i have always felt that this should be the first thing doctors should consider when treating patients. How about you give us a reference to this article before paraphrasing from memory?
biomcgary 3y ago
The article doesn't distinguish between UV, visible, and IR. Red light and infrared have known direct biological effects as well. Could the benefits of sun exposure be due, in part, to red and IR? Vitamin D is UV dependent, but you can probably get some benefits of other wavelengths without UV exposure. However, it is possible that synergy exists among the various biological responses to different wavelengths.
Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago
This is what I suspected. I couldn't believe for a second that our body didn't evolve to take advantage of sun. So far I play it by ear: I wear sunscreen when I go out any time before 330pm. I don't get sunburn this way, but it's really hard to tell if I'm damaging myself. I also migrated from center Italy to Canada, so my skin is a bit more resistant (Sicilian heritage), but it makes it way harder to figure out the balance, since the sun is still strong in the summer.
PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
I would like to think that I'm about as far a way from any sort of conspiracy theory as one could get. I have no time for anti-vax stuff, for example. A huge fan of "never blame on conspiracy what you can blame on stupidity". Etc. etc. And yet ... when it comes to sunblock ... I try to avoid sliding into a conspiratorial stance, but let's just say that I don't use it [0], and I am very curious about the reason(s) why so many of us do. ps. yes, I do know about skin cancer and have several friends and family that experienced it. [0] if am going to be outdoors all day after a long period of being mostly indoors, I'll use it for a few days to protect my nose, lips, cheeks, ears and neck. Then I'll stop. I prefer sunblocking sleeves for my arms if that sort of is necessary.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- insanitybit 3y ago
  > I am very curious about the reason(s) why so many of us do. > ps. yes, I do know about skin cancer and have several friends and family that experienced it. How are you still curious then?
  - c0pium 3y ago
    Some people tan really easily and think that everyone is like them.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
      I don't tan easily, and I don't think everyone is like me. I have friends who are even paler than me, and I get their use of clothing & sunblock. My curiosity is about why so many people use it, many of whom would appear to have no genetic requirement to do so.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    Well, for a start, two people in that group wore sunblock religiously. But that's just anecdata, and I would certainly ridicule e.g. anti-covid vaccine arguments framed like that. It seems that the argument that solar exposure causes cancer, and if not cancer than weathered leathery skin when you're older, has been widely and effectively made, and this has been enough to get most people to hedge and just use sunblock anyway. I'm not convinced they're wrong - I'm more interested in the way sunblock brings out my own inner "conspiracy" self, even if I don't feel inclined to defend that version of me. It's actually a way to have some empathy towards people I otherwise feel no empathy whatosever for (e.g. the anti-vax crowd).

145 points by robaato 3y ago

I have a skin condition that flares up if I don't get sun. At first the doctor told me to avoid sun, but it got worse. Then by accident I got somewhat sunburned, and my skin improved.

graypegg 3y ago

Interesting, the linked paper [0] does show they controlled for physical activity here, since I would assume someone who gets more sun exposure, is outside more. If they really have controlled for that factor, shouldn't we see similar results from people with sedentary lives, but high UV exposure? (possibly by regular use of tanning beds or the like?) Being prescribed UV exposure is an interesting idea for the future. [0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.11.23292360v1.full.pdf https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.11.23292360v...

DennisP 3y ago
In sunlight you also get lots of red and infrared, and there's quite a bit of research on the benefits of that. To replicate sunlight you'd also need bulbs for those frequencies.
- InSteady 3y ago
  IR light reduces certain types of inflammation, speeds wound healing, protects against macular degeneration.. I'm surprised there isn't more interest in its benefits given what we've found so far.
wnoise 3y ago
It's certainly plausible, but there's a lot of confounds. Broad-spectrum vs tanning. And outside also gets lower CO2 and VOC.
qingcharles 3y ago
I feel like they should prescribe sunlight for prisoners. I was held for 10 years without seeing the sun, and many jails and prisons are built on budgets that don't allow for any sunlight.
- olalonde 3y ago
  Do you mean that your cell didn't have sunlight or that you literally never went outside? I was watching a documentary on ADX Florence, which is known for its maximum-security isolation, and prisoners were allowed one hour outside per day.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    Yeah, the ADX guys sued to get that back. They lost it at some point and went years without. I tried to sue, but it is almost impossible to sue for lack of sunlight because you need to employ expert witnesses to even have a chance to prove that lack of sunlight is harmful to your health. I was held in cells without windows for five years. The other five the cells had windows but were so dirty that practically no sunlight entered. Never went outside. Maybe a total of 10 hours outside in 10 years. The first five years in a facility where they didn't design any outside into it because it was built in the middle of a downtown area and there wasn't space. The other five in a facility that had large outside areas but no staff to organize corralling a whole cellblock of inmates, getting them through the corridors of the buildings to the outside, monitoring them so they didn't escape and then getting them back. That requires a lot of staff, and most jails and prisons are vastly understaffed.
- zolbrek 3y ago
  That is rough. Perhaps a very stupid question but did you have access to Vitamin D supplementation during that time?
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    No, most jails and prisons don't sell supplements. You only got whatever vitamin D you got from the slop they serve you :(
xkcd-sucks 3y ago
Related, there were some drugs developed to activate melanin production by hooking in to sunlight damage reaponse related pathways, and they do work for light-free tanning. But they were then found to significantly and meangingfully increase libido in men and women, so now there are follow up projects to develop these for erectile dysfunction / low libido. (You probably haven't heard of these because they're all peptides which generally have to be injected without a lot of development work and luck, but the shocking success ofsemaglutide and friends means maybe injection-only peptide lifestyle drugs have a market) As a general just-so-story rule of thumb to be discounted in the face of evidence to the contrary, stimulus or stress that's a consequence of doing stuff generally acts as a "growth factor" even if it causes slight damage, including exercise, heat and cold shock, and sunlight.
- amelius 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanotan_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanotan_II

personjerry 3y ago

I feel like it's known that sun is good for you? But always wear sunscreen!

hutzlibu 3y ago
"But always wear sunscreen!" Sunscreen is full of pretty active chemicals, so I would not recommend using it, when you don't have to.

gniv 3y ago

Article mentions checking the UV index. FYI, on iphone it is shown in the weather app, just need to scroll down a bit.

ilaksh 3y ago

Is it just full spectrum light or specific UV sections? I wonder if future building codes will require some type of intermittent full spectrum or UV light in certain areas. Maybe in a bathroom with a timer that shuts it off a few seconds after someone enters.

WillPostForFood 3y ago
Glass blocks most of UVB and a chunk of UVA, so there isn't currently a good solution for indoor full spectrum light exposure.
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  Normal glass blocks most of it. But pure SiO2 fused quartz does not. A bit more affordable is probably borosilicate glass and I would like to have my windows replaced with them, but it is not really sold as a common window. So you can probably get one, but it won't be cheap.
- ilaksh 3y ago
  I meant like a type of lighting fixture that gives off full spectrum light.
pazimzadeh 3y ago
You want UVB and not UVA, but UVB is weaker than UVA so all sunblocking type products necessarily enrich your exposure to the bad kind. The time when the ratio of UVB to UVA is highest (best time) between 10 am to 2 pm, or when your shadow is not longer than your height. So 20 mins in the sun at noon without sunblock is best, and after that if you’re pale then slather on the sunscreen.
- reducesuffering 3y ago
  The article specifically mentions how nitric oxide is only released from UVA activation.
  - 3y ago

torstenvl 3y ago

> Vitamin D is manufactured in our bodies when the UVB rays in sunlight react with a chemical in the skin called 7-dehydrocholesterol. Bone and muscle cells use it to regulate levels of calcium and phosphorus, which are needed to keep them strong and healthy If you are at all active over age 30 — by which I mean you EVER run, jump, or otherwise put pressure on your spine — you need to get lots of sunlight. Most people have insufficient if not downright deficient levels of vitamin D. Spondylolysis and eventual spondylolisthesis is not a prognosis you want for your back.

olivermuty 3y ago
Most western diets gets more than enough d-vitamin through food additives. Just a couple of slices of cheese per day and some milk is all the d-vit you need here apparently. The old folk saying is to take d-vitamin supplements in all months that has an R in them. Probably sound advice
- throwaway87651 3y ago
  "Probably sound advice" ... unless you're in the southern hemisphere!
  - olivermuty 3y ago
    Haha! Good point, I dont have any folklore rules for them :(
- smdyc1 3y ago
  Unless you're living in the southern hemisphere, sure
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- amelius 3y ago
  Don't forget to take vit K2 too, to get that calcium into your bones instead of your arteries.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

russellbeattie 3y ago

I've always been skeptical of dermatologist insistence that sun exposure is unequivocally bad. It never made sense. If human health and lifespan were so negatively affected by sunlight, we would all be covered in fur, or everyone would be as dark skinned as populations living near the equator. Like everything else in life, "moderation in all things" is the best rule to follow. If you spend your life getting deep dark tans or don't take sensible precautions against sunburns, expect melanoma. If you avoid sunlight like a cave dweller, expect deficiencies in everything from vitamins to mental health.

avalys 3y ago
No kidding. It seems such an obvious example of industry taking a kernel of truth and blowing it out of proportion to promote a market for themselves. Yes, sunscreen is beneficial in certain situations, but I know some people who slather all their exposed skin with chemicals to "protect" from the sun over the 5 minutes they spend outside while carrying groceries into the house.
- 0134340 3y ago
  Any many of those sunscreens, if not purely mineral-based, contain endocrine disruptors that can get absorbed into the skin.
  - kempfcreative 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on this? I am always ridiculed because I don't want to put on sunscreen for health reasons but I don't remember what the evidence was.
    - capableweb 3y ago
      Someone else recommended "Neutrogena, Ultra Sheer Dry Touch Sunscreen" in this submission, and taking a quick look at the ingredients, it does have some I wouldn't put on my skin: - Octocrylene (endocrine disruptive + might cause sun allergies) - Butylated Hydroxytoluene (endocrine disruptive) - Homosalate (https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/sccs_o_244.pdf https://health.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-08/sccs_o_244....)

tomohelix 3y ago

This is no surprise to me since the UV here is actually sunlight related. Lots of co-conditions that affect it too. The paper said they adjusted their numbers for socioeconomic factors but still probably that adjustment won't be perfect. Anyway, from all I have learned and done, the best health advice that I think applies to most people is moderation is the best. Trying too much and too hard on something will just backfire. Eating only meat and milk will cause cancer sure, but eating only vegetables and beans will also affect your health, namely nutritional deficiency. Etc. and etc. I will just live normally while adjust things within limits and enjoy life while it is still good.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

wkat4242 3y ago

Interesting. I've never been that worried, my skin doesn't burn easily even though I'm very fair-skinned and live in Spain and often hike outdoors. I just hate that SPF stuff on my skin. It makes it sticky and makes me feel dirty. Instead I just try to avoid burning. I do bring some for when it does start but it almost never does. What I do to avoid it works well enough. What I tend to do is just take the shady side of the road wherever possible and for the rest of the time just not worry too much unless I really feel I start getting burned. I check that by scratching my skin with my nail, once it starts burning it feels sharper. Then I'd put on the lotion. And by the time I get home my skin will be slightly red but not seriously burned. Which is pretty rare because I tend to tan naturally. By the time spring starts I already have a light brown shade and it protects me during summer. Most of the time I don't even burn at all. What I do think is bad is someone living in a dark nothern country going on holidays for 2 weeks and spending 2 weeks lying on the beach in the full mediterranean sun. Sunblock or not. My ex used to do that and she got totally burned on the first day even with the sunblock and then spent the rest of the weeks complaining :) I used to live in such a country and I was always more careful during holidays.

therealdrag0 3y ago
I’m also not a fan of the feeling of sunblock. I’ve learned as an adult that long sleeves and a hat go a looong ways.
gremlinsinc 3y ago
I'll just wear light hoodies and sweat pants if I go fishing sometimes my face still gets burned a little because while I don't look at the sun much or get much sun directly to by face because of my hoodie, the sunlight is also reflected off the lake into my face and I often overlook that bit .... I've got a full beard so that blocks most burns now but I've had many really bad burns when I was young 10 to 16 years old . Now I'm 43 and I'm constantly D deficient even on 5000 units daily, if I don't supplement I really feel like crap and get sick more often.
atombender 3y ago
There are many sunscreens out there, ranging from greasy and sticky, to completely unnoticeable. My go-to sunscreen of choice is Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch. It's sold in most pharmacies in the U.S. It's lightweight and doesn't feel like you have any sunscreen on at all. There's also a mineral version, but I've not tried it.

sega_sai 3y ago

I was about to believe the results as they caution that it's only showing the benefits for northern countries like UK and they control for exercise, but then I saw in the paper that they characterize 'sun-seeking behaviour' variable through 'how many times a year would you use a solarium or sunlamp?'. I think people who use solariums is a very special category of people, and I am not sure one can extrapolate from that group to people who enjoy the Sun.

0xcde4c3db 3y ago
I agree. Despite the "more active" category being anyone who answered that they would use a solarium even once per year, they're still only 6% of the study population if I did the math right (see Table 1 on page 10). It also seems noteworthy that the study cited for that correlation was primarily investigating the factors driving use of tanning beds, not sun exposure.
cpncrunch 3y ago
They asked about solarium use, outdoor sun in winter, and summer and various other questions. All showed lower hazard ratio. See table 2 in the 2014Lindquist study.

nu11ptr 3y ago

This is not even remotely surprising to me. I've always been a bit skeptical of "the sun is evil" (and got even more skeptical when I was told I should wear sunblock inside!) and ensure I get 20 minutes full body exposure daily in the summer. Anecdotally, I can tell a general difference in my mood and sleep during periods where I get adequate sun vs. when I'm not (and I supplement vitamin D when I'm not). While I am a big fan of the scientific method, it is difficult to do studies that don't have lots of confounding variables in this area, so when in doubt, use common sense is my rule. We evolved with the sun, so the most likely probability is we have at least some defense to it, and more than likely we evolved so that at least some exposure has benefit.

ghoogl 3y ago
[dead]
slashdev 3y ago
Yeah, that’s my thinking as well. I also try to get some sun exposure. I get too little being an tech worker.
missedthecue 3y ago
A lot of the "sunscreen inside" people are those trying to maximize their visible skin health and beauty. If you don't care about your physical looks, as least above all else, I imagine the trade off to getting regular direct sunlight is well worth it. But it is fairly intuitive that sunlight's ultraviolet radiation at any strength is going to degrade your skin over long periods of time.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- memen 3y ago
  Could you link to studies backing up your claim about 'visible skin health and beauty'?. I have searched for these a lot, but I cannot find thorough literature study type of research about this. Except for the 'sitting in office all year and then sit in the sun for two weeks straight and get 14 sun burns is not good, so you should use sunscreen' message, which is not very helpful and could conclude also that one 'should expose to sun moderately, e.g. at least an hour a day if possible'.

jms 3y ago

I've been living in Australia and New Zealand, and have been terrified of sun exposure - during peak times (summer mid-day) it's scary how quickly you can burn. However I also have low vitamin D. My current strategy is to check the UV levels (I've got a widget on my personal dashboard) and whenever the UV levels are moderate or below, I try to get as much sun exposure as possible - shorts and t-shirt, or topless. I then cover up when the UV levels are demonstrably high. My theory is that low levels of exposure are very good - you get your vitamin D, whatever else you need, and your body starts to build an appropriate amount of melanin. The worst thing to do is to avoid sun all the time, then suddenly get massive UV doses. I've noticed that my hands very rarely get burned compared to other areas - my theory is due to constant exposure that part of my body is more resistant compared to the pasty areas. My key point is that you can view the UV rating and protect yourself appropriately - e.g. high caution summer-midday, zero caution winter mid-day.

bostonvaulter2 3y ago
Where do you get the UV data from?
- fhcuvuvuc 3y ago
  Don't really need it, while the sun is low in the sky you're relatively safe to get a bunch of sun.
- thenickdude 3y ago
  Our weather forecasting agencies also forecast UV exposure, it gets reported as the "UV Index"
- molofaha 3y ago
  In New Zealand there's https://niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-ozone/todays-uv-index https://niwa.co.nz/our-services/online-services/uv-and-ozone...
- antiatheist 3y ago
  http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/ http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/maps/averages/uv-index/

pkoird 3y ago

N=1 but I've felt that I always sleep better when I've spent an hour in the sun that day. Considering how the sun has been a constant during much of human evolution, it just makes sense that our biological processes, both known and unknown, should revolve around it.

api 3y ago
The obvious thing is that white people are white because they lost natural sunscreen living far from the equator. For that to have occurred the selection pressure must have been fairly strong. Of course we do know that very heavy sun exposure and especially sunburn can cause cancer. It’s probably a case of moderation being good for you— not too little and not too much.
- bawolff 3y ago
  I think the big question is does it matter outside of vitamin d deficiency. Severe vit d deficiency obviously is strongly negatively selective. So that by itself explains the evolution of white skin in northern climates. I dont think evolution can be used as evidence for other benefits, since vit d deficiency would cause that just by itself.
- Groxx 3y ago
  While I largely agree and I think it's pretty heavily sun related: there are plenty of other plausible mechanisms, I don't think it's quite that obvious or clear-cut. E.g. it snows more as you go towards the poles. There are a lot of pale creatures in climates with snow, for the even more obvious natural selection pressure of "can hide better".

deet 3y ago

It's surprising this article doesn't significantly mention sunlight's non-UV components, like infrared light. There appears to be increasing evidence to support its ability to influence various processes within the body to positive effect. MedCram has some easily digestible reviews on the topic: - The ability for light to influence glucose metabolism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Win49aeh8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Win49aeh8A - Light's effect on immune response and other processes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YV_iKnzDRg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YV_iKnzDRg

rramadass 3y ago

This is the key point to keep in mind; “The ‘Slip, Slap, Slop’ guidance is appropriate for the descendants of white-skinned north Europeans living in high-UV environments such as Australia, where they have a lot of skin cancer. But it is not appropriate for white-skinned Brits here in Scotland, and it is absolutely inappropriate for dark-skinned Brits, who have made the reverse migration from Africa or India,” says Weller. Just be aware of latitude differences and the rest is commonsense.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
Altitude too. Solar intensity at notably high altitudes (say, 5000' or above) can be significant if you spend a lot of time there.
- rramadass 3y ago
  Right, people who have lived natively there have evolved physical coping mechanisms which must be taken into account when they move to other geographical areas. The reverse for "plains" people who move to high altitudes. Right from the beginning i had felt that the whole Sun Exposure/Skin Cancer/Sunscreen debate was nonsensical without understanding the "original adaptations" of the people involved. I remember an article which i read a long time ago that posited that all of our modern health/medical dosage "standards" (eg. BMI) are suspect because they were derived from a sample of European Males and hence are not universally applicable across the world. Given what we know today about genetics/epigenetics/adaptation i have always felt that this should be the first thing doctors should consider when treating patients.
  - car 3y ago
    Right, people who have lived natively there have evolved physical coping mechanisms which must be taken into account when they move to other geographical areas. The reverse for "plains" people who move to high altitudes. What coping mechanisms would that be? Right from the beginning i had felt that the whole Sun Exposure/Skin Cancer/Sunscreen debate was nonsensical without understanding the "original adaptations" of the people involved. What "original adaptations" are you referring to? I remember an article which i read a long time ago that posited that all of our modern health/medical dosage "standards" (eg. BMI) are suspect because they were derived from a sample of European Males and hence are not universally applicable across the world. Given what we know today about genetics/epigenetics/adaptation i have always felt that this should be the first thing doctors should consider when treating patients. How about you give us a reference to this article before paraphrasing from memory?

biomcgary 3y ago

The article doesn't distinguish between UV, visible, and IR. Red light and infrared have known direct biological effects as well. Could the benefits of sun exposure be due, in part, to red and IR? Vitamin D is UV dependent, but you can probably get some benefits of other wavelengths without UV exposure. However, it is possible that synergy exists among the various biological responses to different wavelengths.

Fire-Dragon-DoL 3y ago

This is what I suspected. I couldn't believe for a second that our body didn't evolve to take advantage of sun. So far I play it by ear: I wear sunscreen when I go out any time before 330pm. I don't get sunburn this way, but it's really hard to tell if I'm damaging myself. I also migrated from center Italy to Canada, so my skin is a bit more resistant (Sicilian heritage), but it makes it way harder to figure out the balance, since the sun is still strong in the summer.

PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago

I would like to think that I'm about as far a way from any sort of conspiracy theory as one could get. I have no time for anti-vax stuff, for example. A huge fan of "never blame on conspiracy what you can blame on stupidity". Etc. etc. And yet ... when it comes to sunblock ... I try to avoid sliding into a conspiratorial stance, but let's just say that I don't use it [0], and I am very curious about the reason(s) why so many of us do. ps. yes, I do know about skin cancer and have several friends and family that experienced it. [0] if am going to be outdoors all day after a long period of being mostly indoors, I'll use it for a few days to protect my nose, lips, cheeks, ears and neck. Then I'll stop. I prefer sunblocking sleeves for my arms if that sort of is necessary.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
insanitybit 3y ago
> I am very curious about the reason(s) why so many of us do. > ps. yes, I do know about skin cancer and have several friends and family that experienced it. How are you still curious then?
- c0pium 3y ago
  Some people tan really easily and think that everyone is like them.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
    I don't tan easily, and I don't think everyone is like me. I have friends who are even paler than me, and I get their use of clothing & sunblock. My curiosity is about why so many people use it, many of whom would appear to have no genetic requirement to do so.
- PaulDavisThe1st 3y ago
  Well, for a start, two people in that group wore sunblock religiously. But that's just anecdata, and I would certainly ridicule e.g. anti-covid vaccine arguments framed like that. It seems that the argument that solar exposure causes cancer, and if not cancer than weathered leathery skin when you're older, has been widely and effectively made, and this has been enough to get most people to hedge and just use sunblock anyway. I'm not convinced they're wrong - I'm more interested in the way sunblock brings out my own inner "conspiracy" self, even if I don't feel inclined to defend that version of me. It's actually a way to have some empathy towards people I otherwise feel no empathy whatosever for (e.g. the anti-vax crowd).