5 ms·

Wow, I find this funny because through the 50-70's letting kids sleep outside for a nap in the day time was normal in Scandinavian countries. I remember the 1

Wow, I find this funny because through the 50-70's letting kids sleep outside for a nap in the day time was normal in Scandinavian countries. I remember the 1980's photo of kids getting a solar bath in some Hoth like area of Russia in the winter. I like this study because it's starting to add "Sensible sun exposure" into the mix. I suspect that we're going to add "physical activity" to that next. We didn't evolve for 100k years to work at desks for 8 hours a day and hide in houses. Persistance hunting was an outdoor day time activity. Foraging was an out door day time activity. Heading animals was an out door day time activity. Farming was an...

giantg2 3y ago
I found out the doctors are recommending vitamin D drops for infants. Yet they're loaded with all sorts of junk, like caramel color, polysorbate, etc. Sunlight produces vitamin D, helps break down bilirubin, and produces other beneficial substances. I know which one I'd choose.
- selcuka 3y ago
  Not all of them contain those additives [1] (I believe coconut oil is needed because cholecalciferol is not water soluble), but yes, I agree that they should not be pushed as a substitute for sunlight if you have the choice: > Each concentrated drop delivers 400IU of vitamin D3, the form naturally found in the body, blended with premium quality fractionated coconut oil. The sugarless formula has no artificial colours, flavours, or preservatives, so it won't interfere with feeding. [1] https://www.ostelin.com.au/products/infant-vitamin-d3-drops/ https://www.ostelin.com.au/products/infant-vitamin-d3-drops/
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Nice! The ones at my pharmacies were filled with junk. This looks great.
jerlam 3y ago
Also from Scandinavian countries: The babies who nap in sub-zero temperatures (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988) "In some studies they found pre-schoolers who spent many hours outside generally - not just for naps - took fewer days off than those who spent most of their time indoors," she says.
- hunter-gatherer 3y ago
  Yeah, this is a thing. My wife is Finnish and our first was born in Rovaniemi in early winter. Wasn't terribly cold but we had her on the parvike bundled in a stroller and she slept great.
- red-iron-pine 3y ago
  I'm in Canada and have seen this first hand. snug as a bug in a rug even though it was -10C. admittedly she was bundled up pretty good in the stroller, and it was near her usual naptime, but was totally asleep by the time we got home from the walk.
NoPicklez 3y ago
Then you have Australia here where there's no way sleeping outside during the day would be beneficial due to how harsh our UV rays are, unique to the rest of the world. I agree, we didn't evolve for 100k years to work at desks for 8 hours and I think so much of that is a bigger problem in of itself, combined with lack of sunlight as just one piece
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  And the native Australians have the skin pigmentation to deal with it.
  - NoPicklez 3y ago
    I definitely don't (not native, very pale)
    - victorhooi 3y ago
      I think the parent may be referring to the indigenous Australian (i.e. Aboriginal people) - who are basically black-skinned, and have been here for a lot longer than other races. (Even they came to Australia from South East Asia originally - tens of thousands of years ago - back when there was a land-bridge).
      - NoPicklez 3y ago
        I know, they were referring to them, I live in Australia. I was just saying I’m not native and I have pale skin which is worse for sun damage, unlike our indigenous counterparts
  - defrost 3y ago
    Extreme equatorial sunlight still causes skin cancer even in full pigmentation islanders of northern Australia, PNG, Torres Strait, etc. https://sundoctors.com.au/blog/how-aboriginal-peoples-mastered-sun-management/ https://sundoctors.com.au/blog/how-aboriginal-peoples-master... https://www.ourmobandcancer.gov.au/ways-to-help-protect-against-cancer/living-a-healthy-lifestyle/sun-protection https://www.ourmobandcancer.gov.au/ways-to-help-protect-agai... There's some additional protection, even so most people with long Australasian family histories hang out under trees at midday.
dilawar 3y ago
+1. Also a few animals sweat like us. We are indeed not built to sit in one place. Sweating:depression::sunlight:infection.
shepherdjerred 3y ago
In college, my Earth science professor claimed that there was no acceptable amount of sun expose since it can give you skin cancer. I understand the two are correlated, but it made no sense to me. Only in the last few hundred years have humans been able to be indoors nearly 24/7.
- selcuka 3y ago
  Maybe the percentage of skin cancer deaths was acceptable back then? We now try to save every individual no matter what disadvantage they may have been born with thanks to modern medicine and surgery, and that practice has been changing our gene pool.
  - klipt 3y ago
    The genes that predispose you to melanoma are probably the same genes that makes your skin white...
    - b112 3y ago
      A theory just popped into my head. For hundreds of thousands of years, we had no soap. We did have water, but swimming and washing in a summer stream isn't hot water, and it's hot water which strips away the oils. And even pre-20th century, people did NOT bath in hot water daily. Often it was just armpits + groin in a sponge bath. What if our skin was protected by our own oils? I can imagine that even a small amount of oil, would reduce the amount of UV that gets to the skin. I know sunblock has minerals(zinc, etc) in it to reflect the sun, but I just googled there are oil based sunscreens too: "Chemical absorbers: Chemical (or organic, meaning carbon containing) sunscreen ingredients form a thin protective film that absorbs UV radiation before it penetrates the skin." I can easily imagine that our own oils could provide protection, and block UV but let good frequencies of light through. Yet now we wash a lot of that oil off, with hot showers daily, and shampoo and soap which runs down our body as we shower. Would be an interesting study. edit: another thought! The oil on our skin is often policed by bacteria. The bacteria eats that oil, and also any organics (skin flakes, or stuff that sticks to the skin). That's another level of shield. I imagine that without hot showers, and loads of soap, that layer of oil has bacteria multiple layers deep. And that bacteria moves. A moving, sunshield.. in addition to the oil. And of course, bacteria exudes waste. That waste is going to have carbon in it, too. So our skin oil would be combination of the oil + living shields + their waste. I imagine the waste would build up after a while too. edit2: A harsh response from KennyBlanken, who seems to disagree. However, this poster quite literally ignores things I stipulated, or gets things mixed up. He then ends with harsh criticism, which seems very un-HN like (eg, personal attacks). That said: * Skin oil contains a myriad of ingredients, fatty acids, salt, complex acids, bacteria, their leavings, and more. All of this is simply ignored by Blanken, who just says "skin oil doesn't block UV, because it doesn't have the same precise ingredients as over-the-shelf sunblock". Further statements about "Google this" are provided, yet clearly I did a bit of quick research, as I provided a quote about sunblock. Again, very un-HN like. * Weird statements about how long soap has been around for, when all I indicated is that for "hundreds of thousands of years" we had no soap, which is entirely true, and obviously stated in terms of how we evolved. This fact seems to have been missed in the reply, however. * Discussions about how soap has been around for a while, meanwhile missing the entire point that most humans pre-20th (as I stated) typically just did the sponge bath thing. People didn't shower, and most of humanity did not have running water until the 20th, regardless of rare rich Romans. None of these rebuttals seem to even consider that the scientific process starts with random thought, eg as I said "A theory just popped into my head.", then consideration, then debunking via actual, real research. As opposed to some 19th century British-Science-Guild like huffing, including personal attacks and so forth. KennyBlanken, perhaps you could debate more politely? And follow the guidelines a bit more closely? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dralley 3y ago
There's a big difference between sunbathing in Scandanavia and sunbathing in Florida, though.
12345hn6789 3y ago
I agree. But you left out one small piece of information: If you didn't go outside for food you died. If you didn't go outside to till your field you died. If you didn't travel with your animal herd you died.

giantg2 3y ago

I found out the doctors are recommending vitamin D drops for infants. Yet they're loaded with all sorts of junk, like caramel color, polysorbate, etc. Sunlight produces vitamin D, helps break down bilirubin, and produces other beneficial substances. I know which one I'd choose.

selcuka 3y ago
Not all of them contain those additives [1] (I believe coconut oil is needed because cholecalciferol is not water soluble), but yes, I agree that they should not be pushed as a substitute for sunlight if you have the choice: > Each concentrated drop delivers 400IU of vitamin D3, the form naturally found in the body, blended with premium quality fractionated coconut oil. The sugarless formula has no artificial colours, flavours, or preservatives, so it won't interfere with feeding. [1] https://www.ostelin.com.au/products/infant-vitamin-d3-drops/ https://www.ostelin.com.au/products/infant-vitamin-d3-drops/
- giantg2 3y ago
  Nice! The ones at my pharmacies were filled with junk. This looks great.

jerlam 3y ago

Also from Scandinavian countries: The babies who nap in sub-zero temperatures (https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21537988) "In some studies they found pre-schoolers who spent many hours outside generally - not just for naps - took fewer days off than those who spent most of their time indoors," she says.

hunter-gatherer 3y ago
Yeah, this is a thing. My wife is Finnish and our first was born in Rovaniemi in early winter. Wasn't terribly cold but we had her on the parvike bundled in a stroller and she slept great.
red-iron-pine 3y ago
I'm in Canada and have seen this first hand. snug as a bug in a rug even though it was -10C. admittedly she was bundled up pretty good in the stroller, and it was near her usual naptime, but was totally asleep by the time we got home from the walk.

NoPicklez 3y ago

Then you have Australia here where there's no way sleeping outside during the day would be beneficial due to how harsh our UV rays are, unique to the rest of the world. I agree, we didn't evolve for 100k years to work at desks for 8 hours and I think so much of that is a bigger problem in of itself, combined with lack of sunlight as just one piece

SoftTalker 3y ago
And the native Australians have the skin pigmentation to deal with it.
- NoPicklez 3y ago
  I definitely don't (not native, very pale)
  - victorhooi 3y ago
    I think the parent may be referring to the indigenous Australian (i.e. Aboriginal people) - who are basically black-skinned, and have been here for a lot longer than other races. (Even they came to Australia from South East Asia originally - tens of thousands of years ago - back when there was a land-bridge).
    - NoPicklez 3y ago
      I know, they were referring to them, I live in Australia. I was just saying I’m not native and I have pale skin which is worse for sun damage, unlike our indigenous counterparts
- defrost 3y ago
  Extreme equatorial sunlight still causes skin cancer even in full pigmentation islanders of northern Australia, PNG, Torres Strait, etc. https://sundoctors.com.au/blog/how-aboriginal-peoples-mastered-sun-management/ https://sundoctors.com.au/blog/how-aboriginal-peoples-master... https://www.ourmobandcancer.gov.au/ways-to-help-protect-against-cancer/living-a-healthy-lifestyle/sun-protection https://www.ourmobandcancer.gov.au/ways-to-help-protect-agai... There's some additional protection, even so most people with long Australasian family histories hang out under trees at midday.

dilawar 3y ago

+1. Also a few animals sweat like us. We are indeed not built to sit in one place. Sweating:depression::sunlight:infection.

shepherdjerred 3y ago

In college, my Earth science professor claimed that there was no acceptable amount of sun expose since it can give you skin cancer. I understand the two are correlated, but it made no sense to me. Only in the last few hundred years have humans been able to be indoors nearly 24/7.

selcuka 3y ago
Maybe the percentage of skin cancer deaths was acceptable back then? We now try to save every individual no matter what disadvantage they may have been born with thanks to modern medicine and surgery, and that practice has been changing our gene pool.
- klipt 3y ago
  The genes that predispose you to melanoma are probably the same genes that makes your skin white...
  - b112 3y ago
    A theory just popped into my head. For hundreds of thousands of years, we had no soap. We did have water, but swimming and washing in a summer stream isn't hot water, and it's hot water which strips away the oils. And even pre-20th century, people did NOT bath in hot water daily. Often it was just armpits + groin in a sponge bath. What if our skin was protected by our own oils? I can imagine that even a small amount of oil, would reduce the amount of UV that gets to the skin. I know sunblock has minerals(zinc, etc) in it to reflect the sun, but I just googled there are oil based sunscreens too: "Chemical absorbers: Chemical (or organic, meaning carbon containing) sunscreen ingredients form a thin protective film that absorbs UV radiation before it penetrates the skin." I can easily imagine that our own oils could provide protection, and block UV but let good frequencies of light through. Yet now we wash a lot of that oil off, with hot showers daily, and shampoo and soap which runs down our body as we shower. Would be an interesting study. edit: another thought! The oil on our skin is often policed by bacteria. The bacteria eats that oil, and also any organics (skin flakes, or stuff that sticks to the skin). That's another level of shield. I imagine that without hot showers, and loads of soap, that layer of oil has bacteria multiple layers deep. And that bacteria moves. A moving, sunshield.. in addition to the oil. And of course, bacteria exudes waste. That waste is going to have carbon in it, too. So our skin oil would be combination of the oil + living shields + their waste. I imagine the waste would build up after a while too. edit2: A harsh response from KennyBlanken, who seems to disagree. However, this poster quite literally ignores things I stipulated, or gets things mixed up. He then ends with harsh criticism, which seems very un-HN like (eg, personal attacks). That said: * Skin oil contains a myriad of ingredients, fatty acids, salt, complex acids, bacteria, their leavings, and more. All of this is simply ignored by Blanken, who just says "skin oil doesn't block UV, because it doesn't have the same precise ingredients as over-the-shelf sunblock". Further statements about "Google this" are provided, yet clearly I did a bit of quick research, as I provided a quote about sunblock. Again, very un-HN like. * Weird statements about how long soap has been around for, when all I indicated is that for "hundreds of thousands of years" we had no soap, which is entirely true, and obviously stated in terms of how we evolved. This fact seems to have been missed in the reply, however. * Discussions about how soap has been around for a while, meanwhile missing the entire point that most humans pre-20th (as I stated) typically just did the sponge bath thing. People didn't shower, and most of humanity did not have running water until the 20th, regardless of rare rich Romans. None of these rebuttals seem to even consider that the scientific process starts with random thought, eg as I said "A theory just popped into my head.", then consideration, then debunking via actual, real research. As opposed to some 19th century British-Science-Guild like huffing, including personal attacks and so forth. KennyBlanken, perhaps you could debate more politely? And follow the guidelines a bit more closely? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

dralley 3y ago

There's a big difference between sunbathing in Scandanavia and sunbathing in Florida, though.

12345hn6789 3y ago

I agree. But you left out one small piece of information: If you didn't go outside for food you died. If you didn't go outside to till your field you died. If you didn't travel with your animal herd you died.