4 ms·

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 sun

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'.
  - tabtab 3y ago
    Maybe the trick is to spread sun exposure across the body rather than mostly let our limbs and face take most the sun. Protect those areas, but get fuller body sun more often. The parts of my body on the boundary between heavy exposure and no exposure seem relatively okay. They have a slight freckle-ness to them, but arguably acceptable. (I'm not young; time-tested.)
  - gniv 3y ago
    There are also all these UV photos showing hidden sun damage. Example: https://www.aad.org/public/everyday-care/sun-protection/sun-damage-skin/hidden-sun-damage https://www.aad.org/public/everyday-care/sun-protection/sun-...
  - eyeris 3y ago
    Not sure about studies, but in a recent deep dive into skincare, all the YouTubers I watched considered it a basic fact, so the assumption is definitely prevalent. Studies would most likely be sponsored by skincare companies.
    - slindsey 3y ago
      There's also that picture of the trucker that shows the damage the sun did to the left side of his face after 28 years of driving a truck. Google "picture of trucker with sun damage"
  - menomatter 3y ago
    Photoaging is the term and a quick search yields a few studies. Ex: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8802961/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8802961/. And anecdotally, I never used sun screen and was exposed to a lot of sunburns in the Mediterranean climate. My skin is visibly older and more wrinkled than my peers who used skin protections. My back is full of freckles and dermatologist said this is due to sunburn. I guess sunburn doesn’t need a lot of studies to show it’s very damaging to the skin?
    - memen 3y ago
- throw0101a 3y ago
  > But it is fairly intuitive that sunlight's ultraviolet radiation at any strength is going to degrade your skin over long periods of time. As an example of this, see this delivery truck driver who had the sun hitting mostly the left side of his face for twenty-eight years: * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage-on-left-side-of-his-face-after-28-years-on-the-road/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage...
jdjdjdjdjduuuu 3y ago
Sunblock inside and god is real

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'.
- tabtab 3y ago
  Maybe the trick is to spread sun exposure across the body rather than mostly let our limbs and face take most the sun. Protect those areas, but get fuller body sun more often. The parts of my body on the boundary between heavy exposure and no exposure seem relatively okay. They have a slight freckle-ness to them, but arguably acceptable. (I'm not young; time-tested.)
- gniv 3y ago
  There are also all these UV photos showing hidden sun damage. Example: https://www.aad.org/public/everyday-care/sun-protection/sun-damage-skin/hidden-sun-damage https://www.aad.org/public/everyday-care/sun-protection/sun-...
- eyeris 3y ago
  Not sure about studies, but in a recent deep dive into skincare, all the YouTubers I watched considered it a basic fact, so the assumption is definitely prevalent. Studies would most likely be sponsored by skincare companies.
  - slindsey 3y ago
    There's also that picture of the trucker that shows the damage the sun did to the left side of his face after 28 years of driving a truck. Google "picture of trucker with sun damage"
- menomatter 3y ago
  Photoaging is the term and a quick search yields a few studies. Ex: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8802961/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8802961/. And anecdotally, I never used sun screen and was exposed to a lot of sunburns in the Mediterranean climate. My skin is visibly older and more wrinkled than my peers who used skin protections. My back is full of freckles and dermatologist said this is due to sunburn. I guess sunburn doesn’t need a lot of studies to show it’s very damaging to the skin?
  - memen 3y ago
throw0101a 3y ago
> But it is fairly intuitive that sunlight's ultraviolet radiation at any strength is going to degrade your skin over long periods of time. As an example of this, see this delivery truck driver who had the sun hitting mostly the left side of his face for twenty-eight years: * https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage-on-left-side-of-his-face-after-28-years-on-the-road/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trucker-accumulates-skin-damage...

jdjdjdjdjduuuu 3y ago

Sunblock inside and god is real