12 ms·

Exposure to the Sun's UV radiation may be good for you

167 points by beefman 2y ago

beefman 2y ago
https://archive.is/tqZsD https://archive.is/tqZsD
Hendrikto 2y ago
> According to Richard Weller, who co-led the study, most uv exposure guidance has thus far been firmly focused on preventing melanoma skin cancer. But, he says, “Many times more people die from other cancers and diseases. We have to think about how uv radiation could help them avoid illness.” > The exact mechanism whereby uv light might lengthen lives is unknown. The authors, for their part, believe part of the explanation may lie in vitamin D’s ability to boost the immune system and improve bone health. They also point to nitric oxide, a potent blood-vessel widener capable of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.
- aurareturn 2y ago
  So why can't we just eat more Vitamin D supplements?
  - hollerith 2y ago
    There are 4 beneficial effects of sunlight I know of that have nothing to do with vitamin D.
    - kstrauser 2y ago
      I know 5.
      - hollerith 2y ago
        My 4: Light that is brighter than is possible inside most homes makes you more alert (almost immediately), and if done during the first 3 hours of wakefulness has benefits that last throughout the day according to Andrew Huberman. Specific qualities present in sunlight when the sun is very low in the sky (or under the horizon, namely yellow-blue contrasts detected by the intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells) entrain the body's clock, making it easier to get to sleep at a consistent and suitably early time of day. UVB exposure triggers a skin-brain-gonadal axis through skin p53 activation (nothing to do with vitamin D). I.e., 20 or 30 min every other day of strong sunlight on bare skin and into your eyes increases your levels of the sex hormones. Certain red and infrared wavelengths help cytochrome c oxidase turn serotonin into melatonin, which is a potent antioxidant right where antioxidant activity is most needed (in the mitochondria). What's the fifth one? ADDED. It just occurs to me that with "I know 5" the conversation might have jumped from the object level to a comment on the social and emotional effects of my comment. D'oh!
        shirro 2y ago
        They seem a bit remote for someone at high risk of skin damage due to skin type and location. I am surprise the immune system does not get more attention in discussions like this. I would put it high on the list. There is an interesting wtf correlation between incidence and severity of multiple sclerosis and latitude. Sunlight (or alternatively narrowband UVB in a controlled clinical setting) can be an effective treatment for some skin conditions.
      - kridsdale3 2y ago
        THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
      - Temporary_31337 2y ago
        The 6th reason is being smarter than the other two guys.
  - davidcollantes 2y ago
    The sunlight is free. :-)
  - BryanLegend 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - iwontberude 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - BryanLegend 2y ago
        LOL!
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - Etheryte 2y ago
    For one, your body absorbs an abysmal fraction of supplements, nearly all of it comes back out the other end. This isn't unique to vitamin D, naturally, but for practically all food supplements. Your body is pretty good at taking care of itself so long as you give it the tools it needs. If you live in a northern climate, vitamin D supplements may be a part of it, but for most part, spending some time outside and getting your movement in is a reasonable baseline.
    - Aurornis 2y ago
      > your body absorbs an abysmal fraction of supplements, nearly all of it comes back out the other end This is irrelevant when the supplements are available in high enough doses to overcome poor availability. It’s not hard to exceed the upper limits of serum Vitamin D with common higher-dose off the shelf supplements if taken long enough.
  - _bin_ 2y ago
    You can, and it’s quite possible that provides most of the benefit. But very few systems in the body operate in total isolation, and it’s equally possible something else depends on vitamin D synthesis or on UV absorption, and that thing might matter for health.
  - lukan 2y ago
    In short, because the body and the mind is a very complex system.
  - Hnrobert42 2y ago
    I know almost nothing about this apart from being vitamin D deficient and taking supplements. My doc says that vitamin D absorption through the gut is much less efficient than vitamin D created by the body.
  - kingkawn 2y ago
    because its a reductionist view of the value of sunlight exposure
  - gruez 2y ago
    >They also point to nitric oxide, a potent blood-vessel widener capable of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.
  - pmahoney 2y ago
    This paper, "Insufficient Sun Exposure Has Become a Real Public Health Problem" [1] states "thus, serum 25(OH)D as an indicator of vitamin D status may be a proxy for and not a mediator of beneficial effects of sun exposure". That is, while vitamin D can be used to deduce someone's amount of sun exposure, the benefits of sun exposure are not coming from the vitamin D. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400257/
  - jmward01 2y ago
    In his TED talk, Weller gives a potential alternate benefit source in nitric oxide production which leads to potential cardiovascular benefits. So, the short answer is it may not be (just) vitamin-d. The bigger point though is that there are a lot of very complex things that happen when you go outside and benefits could come from many of them. We want an easy 'this one thing happens so we can replicate just that' but maybe it is actually a combination of many things so there may be no easy one pill replacement.
    - kridsdale3 2y ago
      Two pills then: Daily 10,000 iu D and daily Cialis. Bonus: Bon-us.
  - cpncrunch 2y ago
    Because studies into vitamin D supplementation haven't shown that it reduces mortality, and because there are other benefits of sunlight, such as nitric oxide.
    - Wissenschafter 2y ago
      Ok, just add L-Arginine supplementation then...
      - cpncrunch 2y ago
        So how do you explain the reduction in cancer mortality with sunlight?
        Wissenschafter 2y ago
        Did this study factor in supplementing for other things sunlight provides, i.e. the nitric oxide? If not, then it's a poor study in relation to supplementation as a means of obtaining the benefits of sun exposure.
        cpncrunch 2y ago
        No studies have shown that any of these supplements reduces mortality, whereas multiple studies show sunlight reduces mortality.
        Wissenschafter 2y ago
        Did these studies that show that these supplements don't reduce mortality, were they done in such a way where they are measuring the multiple supplements that are received through sun exposure at the same time? No? Didn't think so.
        cpncrunch 2y ago
        No. There are no studies, other than for vitamin D. That is the point.
  - kragen 2y ago
    because the exact mechanism whereby uv light might lengthen lives is unknown when your skin synthesizes vitamin d using sunlight, it synthesizes it from cholesterol. i wonder, does that lower serum cholesterol? if so, which serum cholesterol?
  - pazimzadeh 2y ago
    People who get plenty of vitamin D through their diet still benefit from sunlight exposure Ecological study of solar radiation and cancer mortality in Japan https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15551791/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15551791/
- jmward01 2y ago
  He has a good TED talk on this from over a decade ago. https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_good_for_your_heart?subtitle=en https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_go...
- trhway 2y ago
  another effect - collagen mixed with vitamin B polymerizes in UV, thus eyes and skin repairs for example. The biggest issue is non-managing mismatch between your geographically evolved skin type and the Sun in the geography you're residing - thus white people living south get a lot of skin cancer while for example Somali immigrants in Minnesota and Sweden have widespread severe vitamin D deficiency (and associated issues) Tangential - a pet theory of mine is that 40K years ago when magnetic field flipped, and there was short period (1K years or so) of highly increased UV it led to large number of early eyes issues in those large eyed (most probably the result of evolutionary adjustment to the more northern light) Neanderthals living in Europe - early damaged vision, cataracts, blindness - while Cro-Magnon's eyes with Cro-Magnon just coming out from Africa, faired much better with that northern, even temporarily increased, level of UV and thus the Cro-Magnon quickly replaced the Neanderthals.
- MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
  I don’t understand how this is surprising for people. We have evolved under the sun, of course we have adapted to its presence, and taking it away naïvely is unadvisable.
  - colechristensen 2y ago
    People are generally taught things like this through mildly hysterical news broadcasts from moralizing non-specialists. This is why it's surprising for people. They've been taught the sun is scary. If you don't put sunscreen on your kids, it's tantamount to abuse. (I recently experienced this walking through the woods at 10 AM with a family member, no I don't need any sunscreen for a short hike through the trees)
    - MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
      Men are known to be callous dare-devils sometimes, but Women also exhibit a curious lack of good risk assessment that fits this pattern. They either over-cautiously drink 8 bottles of water a day for dubious health benefits, or they uncaringly approach some wild animal that they cannot imagine goring to death them a few seconds later.
  - davidw 2y ago
    People evolved to live in a fairly small area of the world rather than flying to distant places with different amounts of sunshine than our ancestors likely dealt with in the areas where they spent generations.
  - matsemann 2y ago
    I don't buy that as an argument. It's the same argument used to push all kind of hoaxes or fad stuff. We live longer than what we used to do, so not everything we did in the stone ages can have been beneficial.
    - throwaway4aday 2y ago
      Average lifespan has increased, meaning more people survive early deaths due to disease and injury that we can now prevent, but as individuals we haven't broken through any maximum age barriers. That said, sun bathing is a modern phenomenon. Our ancestors knew enough to assess that painful sunburns were bad and mitigated their exposure by wearing large hats and clothing with long sleeves. I'm sure even primitive peoples would cover themselves when necessary. If you spend a lot of time working outside you also develop a very dark tan which helps quite a bit. Modern people seem to suffer mostly from spending so much time indoors that even moderate sun exposure on the weekend produces a damaging sunburn.
- Bjorkbat 2y ago
  Something I've found rather curious is that my home state of New Mexico has the lowest cancer incidence rate out of any other state US state (Puerto Rico is lower, but technically not a state) (https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/incidencerates/index.php?stateFIPS=00&areatype=state&cancer=001&stage=999&race=00&sex=0&age=001&year=0&type=incd&sortVariableName=rate&sortOrder=asc#results https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/incidencerates/index....). Now, granted, your risk of dying from heart disease is actually greater than that of cancer, so it's entirely possible that the low cancer rate is because everyone is dying from heart disease instead. It would make a lot of sense since New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the country. Thing is though, the heart disease mortality rate is also low. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/heart_disease_mortality/heart_disease.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/heart_disease_mort...) So I don't know, I'm kind of inclined to that our low mortality rates might be due to the sun instead. On top of being located further south than most states, we also get more UV exposure due to our higher elevations, and most days are relatively cloud free. Other theory of mine is a more Latin-influenced diet and exercise, but again, we're a poor state, poverty tends to be negatively correlated with exercise and diet. It's a trend followed by most of the Mountain West, which is roughly as arid and sun-rich as New Mexico. I just find New Mexico so interesting because it definitely dispels any notion that people are healthier because they're richer or have access to better health care.
  - klipt 2y ago
    This is called the Hispanic Paradox, there's even a wiki page on it. Hispanic people have better health outcomes despite being poorer, probably due to better diet, exercise, community structure etc.
xnx 2y ago
This is probably even more complex than "The dose makes the poison". UV has some benefits and other known drawbacks (e.g. skin damage and cancer).
- tantalor 2y ago
  That adage only really applies to chemical toxicology. It doesn't work on non-chemicals: UV, radiation, noise, heat/cold, pressure, physical trauma, repetitive motion, exertion, posture, etc.
  - jkingsman 2y ago
    I would argue it certainly does — heat/cold is comfort vs injury. Pressure is massage vs. crush injury. Trauma, I suppose, is definitionally bad. Repetitive motion is muscle mass and strength increase vs RSI. Exertion is cardiovascular health vs exhaustion. Posture, I'll give you — I don't think there's such a thing as posture that is /too/ good as long as you're staying mobile/stretching/taking breaks. Perhaps a more intuitive way of stating it is, "Some classically bad things can be good in small or optimized doses. Some classically good things can be bad when taken to excess."
  - crowcroft 2y ago
    Strictly speaking yes, but I think it can be applied well enough in some cases to things like exertion/repetitive motion when thinking about specific contexts. Running is good for you, running 20km every day for years will prematurely destroy most people's knees. I guess applying the adage in that way makes it become a tautology though, too much is in fact, too much.
  - lxgr 2y ago
    Most of which are in turn influencing biochemical processes in an organism, so I'd say the point still stands.
- cpncrunch 2y ago
  But the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. Mortality from cancer, including melanoma, is lower with higher sun exposure. We have known this since Berwick's 2005 study into mortality from Melanoma, and Lindqvist's 2016 study showed that all-cause mortality was reduced with UV exposure.
office_drone 2y ago
This reminds me of the story of the Taiwanese radioactive homes, where 2000 homes were built with radioactive materials. There was a prediction that a lot of the inhabitants would die of cancer, and that didn't really happen. https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/12/the-curious-case-of-radioactive-apartments/ https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/12/the-curious...
- lxgr 2y ago
  The general concept is called Hormesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis It's one reason why the "linear no-threshold" model for biological effects of radiation is probably not accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model
calibas 2y ago
"Avoiding Sun as Dangerous as Smoking" https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860805?form=fpf https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860805?form=fpf
AlgorithmicTime 2y ago
[dead]
the__alchemist 2y ago
Note: preventing photo aging by limiting exposure to UV, is currently the single biggest thing you can do to slow [an aspect of] visible aging.
- tasty_freeze 2y ago
  I'm 60, and from mostly Irish descent -- meaning I burn easily and don't really tan much. I've never been a beach-goer/sun-bather. The sun I get is just incidental to mowing the lawn, walking the dog, etc. The skin on my arms looks like a typical 60 year old -- spotted, thin, little elasticity. But lift up my sleeve and the skin of my upper arm and shoulder look like that of a 20 year old. My torso skin is young too, but it is weird to demonstrate that to young people.
  - deepfriedchokes 2y ago
    Ben Franklin said about the same of older women! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing_a_Mistress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing...
- slothtrop 2y ago
  Isn't sunscreen use enough?
  - the__alchemist 2y ago
    It can be.
  - lucius_verus 2y ago
    Very few people use the recommended amount of sunscreen (it's more than you think) and even when you do, no sunscreen blocks 100% of the photo-aging UV energy that hits your skin (note: still wear sunscreen - absorbing 5 or 10% is better than 100% of the radiation you would otherwise absorb). This also means that (contrary to what weird sunscreen-truthers will tell you) wearing sufficient sunscreen does not prevent you from producing vitamin D - sunscreen is not the same as never seeing the sun.
JoshTko 2y ago
I've started to ignore studies these days that contradict how most humans would have lived, for most of humanity. Most humans would have had plenty of sun exposure and genetics would have adapted accordingly. I'll seek as much sun exposure I can on work days, but will never sun bathe for hours on end.
- cameldrv 2y ago
  It depends on your skin though. If you're of European ancestry and living in a sunny place, your genes haven't had enough time to adapt.
  - reustle 2y ago
    Yes, this is the nuance so many of these discussions miss. Keep a close eye on your local UV forecast, avoid peak times, and you should be pretty good.
  - mint2 2y ago
    Exactly, a Northern European adapting to sun exposure doesn’t mean getting a tan, it would mean evolutionary pressure to adapt to, say, sunnier California via natural selection over a few thousand years where less sun fit portions die off earlier, while the surviving group slowly gets darker over many many generations or better at repairing damage. If you’re fair skinned but find yourself outside the low UV region that your skin is adapted to, you are welcome to begin the new adaptation by avoiding sun protection and going outside without regard to the UV index. I, however, will not join that genetic adaptation.
- archagon 2y ago
  Genetics would have adapted if it affected reproductive fitness. But skin cancer tends to develop past reproductive age.
- consteval 2y ago
  > I've started to ignore studies these days that contradict how most humans would have lived, for most of humanity This is probably one of the worse heuristics I've ever heard. Humans throughout humanity have lived awful lives full of disease, death, and misery. It used to be common for a woman to have 10 kids and maybe 2-3 would make it to adulthood. The only reason you even have the ability to take such an obviously wrong position is BECAUSE of the very things you "ignore".
troymc 2y ago
The article is about a new paper in the journal Health & Place. That paper is open access and can be found at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829224001564?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135382922...
- chromatin 2y ago
  > • Public health messaging on sunlight exposure may need reconsideration. no kidding
taeric 2y ago
This always strikes me as a tough discussion. With the odd hostility between the two extremes of "all sun is bad exposure" and "you should get more sun." With the later taken to be "all sun is good exposure." Just observing a typical yard, it is easy to see that grass can both have too much and too little sun. Indeed, cover it up and it will die. Expose it to direct sun all day for several days with no water and it will similarly die. (Well, not similarly, it will die in a different way.) I realize we don't photosynthesize, and burning is clearly bad for us. But I don't understand why people seem so resistant to the idea that some sun is probably beneficial. I also realize that literally "basking in the sun" is almost certainly taking it too far. :(
- tossandthrow 2y ago
  > Expose it to direct sun all day for several days with no water This would appear to be an indication of lack of water and not too much sun.
  - taeric 2y ago
    I'm fine saying it is complicated. So, Maybe? I have grass right next to some that does not die due to the sun exposure. But it is shaded for large portions of the day, there. All of that is to say, I don't think you can or should reduce this down to only sun exposure. There is more going on.
    - tossandthrow 2y ago
      I absolutely agree on your premise - that sun, like most things, is about moderation. I was just pondering on the example you gave: Is there a case where grass will die out from sun when that is the isolated factor? I would assume that there is, but I am not sure it is given.
      - taeric 2y ago
        Totally fair and I don't know. My yard actually has a sprinkler system, such that I don't think I'm flat out not watering it in the sunny time of the year. You can definitely see where the sun hits the yard for longer, though.
kkoncevicius 2y ago
Anecdotal, but the parts of my skin that see more sun exposure (forearms) look healthier compared with parts that are more covered (upper arms). I wonder if maybe gradual sun exposure starting from spring and increasing towards the summer is healthier compared to sudden intense tanning of the area that is otherwise constantly covered by clothes.
- matsemann 2y ago
  That can be for other reasons, though. Like one's upper arm is often looser or have more fat below the skin, making it a different texture than the more taught lower arms.
- IshKebab 2y ago
  Sunlight can definitely clear up some skin conditions like eczema. I don't know about making skin healthier in general though. It 100% causes aging in skin though so any "healthier" skin you get will be totally wiped out by the wrinkly mess it becomes in your 40s. The message we should send kids is not "wear suncream; it prevents cancer" it's "wear suncream; it prevents wrinkles". Surprising how many people don't even know that. There's a famous photo that demonstrates it very obviously: https://metro.co.uk/2018/01/28/photo-truck-driver-shows-28-years-sun-damage-looks-like-7266641/amp/ https://metro.co.uk/2018/01/28/photo-truck-driver-shows-28-y... Which side would you prefer?
  - kkoncevicius 2y ago
    I am suspicious of that driver effect being caused solely by sun exposure. If that were the case we would see the same effect in all drivers.
    - whyoh 2y ago
      It's possible that he was driving with the open window or that the window in his truck wasn't blocking much UVA.
    - IshKebab 2y ago
runjake 2y ago
tl;dr: Some sun is good. No sun, or too much sun, is bad. This advice will probably never change, regardless of qualified studies.
kerkeslager 2y ago
Sun exposure has been inversely correlated with depression, and frankly depression by itself is worse than all the negative effects of UV I'm aware of combined.
- jdietrich 2y ago
  There are an awful lot of possible causal relationships that could explain that correlation. On the face of it, relationships like "depressed people can't face going outside" or "people who are too immobile to leave the house get depressed" seem far more plausible and powerful than "UV exposure reduces the risk of depression through some yet-unknown mechanism".
  - kerkeslager 2y ago
    Based on what my previous post said, sure, but there are more reasons to believe that sunlight is inversely causal in depression than I stated. I'm hesitant to dig up the research I looked through though, because if I recall correctly, the research really brings up more questions than it answers. In a more general sense, I agree that more research is needed, but with this and many other facts about our brains and bodies, I'm becoming more cynical about the possibility that the research will be performed in our lifetimes. There's simply too much we don't know and too little funding and too few researchers to find conclusive answers for all of it. People have depression now, and when the risks of the "treatment" are much lower than the risk of the disease, I think it makes sense to self experiment and see if the treatment helps you. Beyond the studies, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence that sunlight does help depression, and I tend to think depression has worse risks than (moderate) sun exposure. Two notes: 1. From a scientific perspective, one of the problems with anecdotal evidence is that it might be the result of placebo effect, which a well-crafted scientific study would eliminate. But from a medical perspective: who cares? If sunlight improves your depression via the placebo effect, well, your depression has been improved. 2. To be clear about a caveat: I'm not saying go out and self-experiment every home remedy you can find. The bit I said about "when the risks of the 'treatment' are much lower than the risk of the disease" is important. Powerful drugs like ivermectin have dangerous side effects, and trying different supplements can become costly even when those supplements contain what they claim and have lower risks.
dukeofdoom 2y ago
I think you can look into what humans desire for their ideal vacation places. The subconscious guides the conscious. This usually involves a sunny beach and water. Or at least a pool. Tropical fruits for breakfast and eggs is kind of a hotel standard for a reason too. Good nutrition and an a fun adventures day. Kind of polar opposite of dark depression. Not too soud woowoo, but people with good vibes and sunny energy is what you should seek too.
m3kw9 2y ago
too much is bad, too little is bad, these doctors are not helping very much.
Kalanos 2y ago
Perhaps because bacteria have no nucleus to protect their DNA and less DNA-damage repair mechanisms?
slothtrop 2y ago
Would note that full-spectrum light penetrates thin layers of clothing such that you can still yield some benefits being outside fully clothed, with mitigated risk. Also, even with sunscreen you'll synthesize some vitamin D. You'd have to really lay it on thick over all of your body to meaningfully prevent that, and it only lasts for a limited time anyway. On sunscreen there's talk about non-mineral ones having compounds that traverse the blood-brain barrier, but not much to suggest it can be dangerous. Since mineral sunscreens are oilier, my approach is to slather that type on my body, and use an alternative for my face using a light amount.
ortusdux 2y ago
Reminds me of people paying for radon exposure: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/1/316 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/1/316 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZkusjDFlS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZkusjDFlS0
Aurornis 2y ago
Reducing everything to “good for you” or “bad for you” is the media’s favorite game. Nuance is hard, so reducing complex topics to extreme statements makes them easy to digest. It also creates an opportunity for them to manufacture debate whenever a new piece of information comes out that doesn’t fit into their self-created bipolar conception. As always with these topics: UV exposure isn’t something that can be reduced to “good” or “bad”. Both extremes of complete UV avoidance and excess UV exposure have consequences. What people frequently miss on this topic is that sunscreen isn’t a 100% effective UV blocker. People who cover themselves in sunscreen and then spend significant time outside are receiving some UV exposure. This fact is lost on many people, which is why skin cancer rates can be higher in people who use a lot of sunscreen. Sunscreen enables people to spend more time in the sun and be less covered, which can paradoxically lead people to get more UV exposure over more of their body than, for example, the person who works outside M-F but covers up with long sleeves, hats, and pants (like you will see in yard work crews, construction workers, and other trades). These headlines are difficult because some people read them as an invitation to stop using sunscreen but continue their old habits, pushing their UV exposure deep into the high risk region of the benefit-reward curves.
- AlexandrB 2y ago
  > UV exposure isn’t something that can be reduced to “good” or “bad”. Indeed this is true about almost anything we commonly put into our body: fat, protein, carbs, even water. But it gets a lot more clicks to claim that something is either always good or always bad.
sowut 2y ago
there's a popular trend that has been gaining momentum over decades that has people so disconnected from reality that they think a pill can replace proper diet, exercise, and in this case, the sun. there is an obesity epidemic in this country at the root of many ailments (inflammation is the root of many diseases) and you have politicians pitching policies about bringing the cost of "drugs" down to treat these ailments but we have no mainstream leaders with mainstream policies advocating for health and fitness to fix the root issue. we're going in the wrong direction and something has to change.
- reducesuffering 2y ago
  > advocating for health and fitness to fix the root issue. Do you know any GP's / doctors? They'll all tell you that's the first line they repeatedly recommend to their patients. It barely works, because mostly that has to come from intrinsic motivation. And then they proceed to the "well if they won't eat healthier and exercise, what else is going to do something for them..."
  - sowut 2y ago
    "we have no mainstream leaders with mainstream policies advocating for health and fitness to fix the root issue"
    - consteval 2y ago
      Not true, virtually all mainstream people, i.e. celebrities, are incredibly fit. I mean, J Lo has a six pack and has for decades. Nobody cares though. The obese celebrities are the odd ones out, and they're typically ridiculed and hated beyond belief. This idea that the obesity epidemic can be fixed with bootstraps is just not one based in reality.
      - sowut 2y ago
        that's the second time i've said "mainstream leaders" with "mainstream policies." what i'm saying has nothing to do with celebrities
alsetmusic 2y ago
[flagged]
ldehaan 2y ago
[dead]
coppsilgold 2y ago
From the point of view of evolution the sun is a fact of the universe and it would have adapted numerous processes to rely on its presence. That does not mean the sun is safe however. Skin color variance so closely tied to geographic location indicates that there is a very delicate balance there.
blueridge 2y ago
I'll take the UV rays over a bunch of smelly, synthetic goop all over my skin. I also see people go from not seeing the sun in months to full, 1pm exposure for hours, then they get roasted, then they're in pain, then it takes weeks to heal, then they do it again. Or they'll start slathering on an absurd amount of sunscreen, the summer months go by, and they look just as sick and pasty and unhealthy as they did last year, as if they never went outside. You've got to build intuition around how to get sun: what's your current skin tone, how much sun you've had recently, what it feels like to get an appropriate amount of sun vs. get burnt, the time of day, elevation considerations, whether you're going to be in the sun again tomorrow or all week after a lot of exposure today, if you're getting more direct sun on key areas like your neck and nose and ears, or whether you've got full body exposure. The more time in the sun, the more you understand how to behave, how to protect yourself, how to get what you need to feel good. Most people pay no attention to how they feel day-to-day. They never learn what it feels like to eat a nutritiously dense meal, or what being fit feels like over the long term. It's the same with sun exposure: if you don't pay attention, you'll never learn.
- maipen 2y ago
  You make a good point. I did see a pattern in my friend circle of those that got sun burn and those who don’t. Skin color and sun exposure habits play a big role. The paler you are the more disciplined you need to be in regards to sun exposure, in order for your skin to adapt and build tolerance
  - lilyball 2y ago
    You don't "build tolerance" to UV. Developing a tan will help avoid getting sunburn in the future, but it does nothing at all to reduce your risk of skin cancer. Sunscreen doesn't just stop sunburn, it also prevents cancer.
    - hgomersall 2y ago
      I suppose black people just have a full body tan for the evolved aesthetic? You're going to have to provide some evidence if you're suggesting a tan has no protective effect against sun damage.
Aerroon 2y ago
It might not be UV exposure that helps though. The sun has a bunch of other wavelengths of light as well. There's red light therapy that might have positive health effects and you certainly get that from the sun as well.
zarzavat 2y ago
Let’s imagine that exposure to UV gives you more statistical QALY than melanoma and skin aging remove. I believe this is false but let’s imagine it’s true. Okay but there’s many other things that also give you more QALY, things that don’t increase your risk of a horrible disease or looking like a prune when you’re 40. Maybe we should do those things first and only come back to double-edged life extension techniques when we’ve completed all the benign techniques. After all, caloric restriction also increases lifespan, but the cost is so high in terms of life enjoyment that few would be tempted. There’s more to life than time spent living.
- ziddoap 2y ago
  "QALY" may not be obscure to you, but this is the first time I've ever seen it. It's always appreciated when you can spell out an acronym for other readers who maybe aren't as familiar with a topic as you are. Given the context, Google leads me to believe: QALY = Quality-adjusted life year
  - zarzavat 2y ago
    Yes, the idea is that extending life is important but not every year of life is equivalent. If you spend a year bedridden that’s not as good as a year housebound, which is not as good as a year when you are in perfect health. So when people measure the value of interventions it’s measured in QALY. The downside is that it’s subjective.
mcguire 2y ago
Discussion of the actual paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41302103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41302103
Ekaros 2y ago
For average office worker, during regular week it probably makes no sense to avoid exposure. On other hand sun bathing or tanning is probably not good for you either. Sensible moderation makes most sense to me. If you are extended periods in sun cover yourself or use protection. But no particular need to avoid it in short periods.
mint2 2y ago
As I posted in the dupe of this - this article is specifically about regions in “low” UV latitudes, with the actual subject being from the UK. Accounting for UV intensity of your home country is crucial. Don’t just go out and frolic without precautions just because a study from the UK found sun exposure was good. Their sunlight isn’t built the same. Mid day UV index in SF is 9 as I type. Compare what the paper says about the UK UV index: “ The UV index [in the uk], which measures the erythemal intensity of sunlight, rarely exceeds 6 (where 3–5 is classified as moderate and 6–7 high)” Make good decisions people! I got some sun when the UV was 2 early in the early morning. Now it’s 9 at midday. All sun is not equal.
- adamc 2y ago
  Good point. UV in Austin, TX today is 10.6.
  - teekert 2y ago
    Anecdotally, I’m from across the North Sea where this study was taken. I hardly ever use sunscreen. I went to a conference in Galveston Tx, walked around for a part of the afternoon, the next 4 days I was peeling the skin of my forehead and nose… it was painful.
  - Kon-Peki 2y ago
    Yes but... not for the whole day. You can still get some sun in the morning and evening when the UV index is a lot more reasonable. Clearly not ideal but, well, that's where you live. I personally am looking forward to when I am able to be a snowbird. Summers in the northern US, winters in the south. It's the best of both worlds. A few years ago, we met up with some friends from Houston at a summer vacation rental up in the Traverse City Michigan area. Their kids couldn't get over how late sunsets were. It really messed with their heads for the first few days. But when you have so so much daylight, you don't worry about spending a few hours indoors when the sun is most intense - you aren't wasting any of your precious vacation time. And then in winter, walking along the ocean on the Gulf Coast in January with only a long-sleeved shirt. For a few hours most days you can get away with a T-shirt (or no shirt). Glorious.
arijun 2y ago
I think it’s pretty obvious from our evolution that we need some UV but not too much. In Africa, where we got a lot of sun, we evolved darker skin to prevent damage, but in the more norther latitudes, our skin tones lightened to take advantage of the otherwise insufficient sunlight. I feel like a good rule of thumb would be, if you’re tanning, your body thinks you’re getting too much sun exposure for your current skin color.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
complianceowl 2y ago
♫♫ Follooooooow....follow the sunnnnnnnn ♫♫
abeppu 2y ago
> Someone living in Truro, for example, in the south of Britain, would on average experience about 25% more solar shortwave radiation (a measure that includes UV, visible and some infrared light) in a year than someone living in Glasgow or Edinburgh, which are much further north. I'm surprised that the difference is that big, given that the latitude difference between these is actually relatively small. If this difference is correct, is it really just due to the north/south distance, or is this more about weather differences, or is there some other non-obvious factor?

167 points by beefman 2y ago

https://archive.is/tqZsD https://archive.is/tqZsD

> According to Richard Weller, who co-led the study, most uv exposure guidance has thus far been firmly focused on preventing melanoma skin cancer. But, he says, “Many times more people die from other cancers and diseases. We have to think about how uv radiation could help them avoid illness.” > The exact mechanism whereby uv light might lengthen lives is unknown. The authors, for their part, believe part of the explanation may lie in vitamin D’s ability to boost the immune system and improve bone health. They also point to nitric oxide, a potent blood-vessel widener capable of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.

aurareturn 2y ago
So why can't we just eat more Vitamin D supplements?
- hollerith 2y ago
  There are 4 beneficial effects of sunlight I know of that have nothing to do with vitamin D.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    I know 5.
    - hollerith 2y ago
      My 4: Light that is brighter than is possible inside most homes makes you more alert (almost immediately), and if done during the first 3 hours of wakefulness has benefits that last throughout the day according to Andrew Huberman. Specific qualities present in sunlight when the sun is very low in the sky (or under the horizon, namely yellow-blue contrasts detected by the intrinsically-photosensitive retinal ganglion cells) entrain the body's clock, making it easier to get to sleep at a consistent and suitably early time of day. UVB exposure triggers a skin-brain-gonadal axis through skin p53 activation (nothing to do with vitamin D). I.e., 20 or 30 min every other day of strong sunlight on bare skin and into your eyes increases your levels of the sex hormones. Certain red and infrared wavelengths help cytochrome c oxidase turn serotonin into melatonin, which is a potent antioxidant right where antioxidant activity is most needed (in the mitochondria). What's the fifth one? ADDED. It just occurs to me that with "I know 5" the conversation might have jumped from the object level to a comment on the social and emotional effects of my comment. D'oh!
      - shirro 2y ago
        They seem a bit remote for someone at high risk of skin damage due to skin type and location. I am surprise the immune system does not get more attention in discussions like this. I would put it high on the list. There is an interesting wtf correlation between incidence and severity of multiple sclerosis and latitude. Sunlight (or alternatively narrowband UVB in a controlled clinical setting) can be an effective treatment for some skin conditions.
    - kridsdale3 2y ago
      THERE ARE FOUR LIGHTS
    - Temporary_31337 2y ago
      The 6th reason is being smarter than the other two guys.
- davidcollantes 2y ago
  The sunlight is free. :-)
- BryanLegend 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - iwontberude 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - BryanLegend 2y ago
      LOL!
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- Etheryte 2y ago
  For one, your body absorbs an abysmal fraction of supplements, nearly all of it comes back out the other end. This isn't unique to vitamin D, naturally, but for practically all food supplements. Your body is pretty good at taking care of itself so long as you give it the tools it needs. If you live in a northern climate, vitamin D supplements may be a part of it, but for most part, spending some time outside and getting your movement in is a reasonable baseline.
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    > your body absorbs an abysmal fraction of supplements, nearly all of it comes back out the other end This is irrelevant when the supplements are available in high enough doses to overcome poor availability. It’s not hard to exceed the upper limits of serum Vitamin D with common higher-dose off the shelf supplements if taken long enough.
- _bin_ 2y ago
  You can, and it’s quite possible that provides most of the benefit. But very few systems in the body operate in total isolation, and it’s equally possible something else depends on vitamin D synthesis or on UV absorption, and that thing might matter for health.
- lukan 2y ago
  In short, because the body and the mind is a very complex system.
- Hnrobert42 2y ago
  I know almost nothing about this apart from being vitamin D deficient and taking supplements. My doc says that vitamin D absorption through the gut is much less efficient than vitamin D created by the body.
- kingkawn 2y ago
  because its a reductionist view of the value of sunlight exposure
- gruez 2y ago
  >They also point to nitric oxide, a potent blood-vessel widener capable of reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease.
- pmahoney 2y ago
  This paper, "Insufficient Sun Exposure Has Become a Real Public Health Problem" [1] states "thus, serum 25(OH)D as an indicator of vitamin D status may be a proxy for and not a mediator of beneficial effects of sun exposure". That is, while vitamin D can be used to deduce someone's amount of sun exposure, the benefits of sun exposure are not coming from the vitamin D. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7400257/
- jmward01 2y ago
  In his TED talk, Weller gives a potential alternate benefit source in nitric oxide production which leads to potential cardiovascular benefits. So, the short answer is it may not be (just) vitamin-d. The bigger point though is that there are a lot of very complex things that happen when you go outside and benefits could come from many of them. We want an easy 'this one thing happens so we can replicate just that' but maybe it is actually a combination of many things so there may be no easy one pill replacement.
  - kridsdale3 2y ago
    Two pills then: Daily 10,000 iu D and daily Cialis. Bonus: Bon-us.
- cpncrunch 2y ago
  Because studies into vitamin D supplementation haven't shown that it reduces mortality, and because there are other benefits of sunlight, such as nitric oxide.
  - Wissenschafter 2y ago
    Ok, just add L-Arginine supplementation then...
    - cpncrunch 2y ago
      So how do you explain the reduction in cancer mortality with sunlight?
      - Wissenschafter 2y ago
        Did this study factor in supplementing for other things sunlight provides, i.e. the nitric oxide? If not, then it's a poor study in relation to supplementation as a means of obtaining the benefits of sun exposure.
        cpncrunch 2y ago
        No studies have shown that any of these supplements reduces mortality, whereas multiple studies show sunlight reduces mortality.
        Wissenschafter 2y ago
        Did these studies that show that these supplements don't reduce mortality, were they done in such a way where they are measuring the multiple supplements that are received through sun exposure at the same time? No? Didn't think so.
        cpncrunch 2y ago
        No. There are no studies, other than for vitamin D. That is the point.
- kragen 2y ago
  because the exact mechanism whereby uv light might lengthen lives is unknown when your skin synthesizes vitamin d using sunlight, it synthesizes it from cholesterol. i wonder, does that lower serum cholesterol? if so, which serum cholesterol?
- pazimzadeh 2y ago
  People who get plenty of vitamin D through their diet still benefit from sunlight exposure Ecological study of solar radiation and cancer mortality in Japan https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15551791/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15551791/
jmward01 2y ago
He has a good TED talk on this from over a decade ago. https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_good_for_your_heart?subtitle=en https://www.ted.com/talks/richard_weller_could_the_sun_be_go...
trhway 2y ago
another effect - collagen mixed with vitamin B polymerizes in UV, thus eyes and skin repairs for example. The biggest issue is non-managing mismatch between your geographically evolved skin type and the Sun in the geography you're residing - thus white people living south get a lot of skin cancer while for example Somali immigrants in Minnesota and Sweden have widespread severe vitamin D deficiency (and associated issues) Tangential - a pet theory of mine is that 40K years ago when magnetic field flipped, and there was short period (1K years or so) of highly increased UV it led to large number of early eyes issues in those large eyed (most probably the result of evolutionary adjustment to the more northern light) Neanderthals living in Europe - early damaged vision, cataracts, blindness - while Cro-Magnon's eyes with Cro-Magnon just coming out from Africa, faired much better with that northern, even temporarily increased, level of UV and thus the Cro-Magnon quickly replaced the Neanderthals.
MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
I don’t understand how this is surprising for people. We have evolved under the sun, of course we have adapted to its presence, and taking it away naïvely is unadvisable.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  People are generally taught things like this through mildly hysterical news broadcasts from moralizing non-specialists. This is why it's surprising for people. They've been taught the sun is scary. If you don't put sunscreen on your kids, it's tantamount to abuse. (I recently experienced this walking through the woods at 10 AM with a family member, no I don't need any sunscreen for a short hike through the trees)
  - MrBuddyCasino 2y ago
    Men are known to be callous dare-devils sometimes, but Women also exhibit a curious lack of good risk assessment that fits this pattern. They either over-cautiously drink 8 bottles of water a day for dubious health benefits, or they uncaringly approach some wild animal that they cannot imagine goring to death them a few seconds later.
- davidw 2y ago
  People evolved to live in a fairly small area of the world rather than flying to distant places with different amounts of sunshine than our ancestors likely dealt with in the areas where they spent generations.
- matsemann 2y ago
  I don't buy that as an argument. It's the same argument used to push all kind of hoaxes or fad stuff. We live longer than what we used to do, so not everything we did in the stone ages can have been beneficial.
  - throwaway4aday 2y ago
    Average lifespan has increased, meaning more people survive early deaths due to disease and injury that we can now prevent, but as individuals we haven't broken through any maximum age barriers. That said, sun bathing is a modern phenomenon. Our ancestors knew enough to assess that painful sunburns were bad and mitigated their exposure by wearing large hats and clothing with long sleeves. I'm sure even primitive peoples would cover themselves when necessary. If you spend a lot of time working outside you also develop a very dark tan which helps quite a bit. Modern people seem to suffer mostly from spending so much time indoors that even moderate sun exposure on the weekend produces a damaging sunburn.
Bjorkbat 2y ago
Something I've found rather curious is that my home state of New Mexico has the lowest cancer incidence rate out of any other state US state (Puerto Rico is lower, but technically not a state) (https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/incidencerates/index.php?stateFIPS=00&areatype=state&cancer=001&stage=999&race=00&sex=0&age=001&year=0&type=incd&sortVariableName=rate&sortOrder=asc#results https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/incidencerates/index....). Now, granted, your risk of dying from heart disease is actually greater than that of cancer, so it's entirely possible that the low cancer rate is because everyone is dying from heart disease instead. It would make a lot of sense since New Mexico is one of the poorest states in the country. Thing is though, the heart disease mortality rate is also low. (https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/heart_disease_mortality/heart_disease.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/heart_disease_mort...) So I don't know, I'm kind of inclined to that our low mortality rates might be due to the sun instead. On top of being located further south than most states, we also get more UV exposure due to our higher elevations, and most days are relatively cloud free. Other theory of mine is a more Latin-influenced diet and exercise, but again, we're a poor state, poverty tends to be negatively correlated with exercise and diet. It's a trend followed by most of the Mountain West, which is roughly as arid and sun-rich as New Mexico. I just find New Mexico so interesting because it definitely dispels any notion that people are healthier because they're richer or have access to better health care.
- klipt 2y ago
  This is called the Hispanic Paradox, there's even a wiki page on it. Hispanic people have better health outcomes despite being poorer, probably due to better diet, exercise, community structure etc.

xnx 2y ago

This is probably even more complex than "The dose makes the poison". UV has some benefits and other known drawbacks (e.g. skin damage and cancer).

tantalor 2y ago
That adage only really applies to chemical toxicology. It doesn't work on non-chemicals: UV, radiation, noise, heat/cold, pressure, physical trauma, repetitive motion, exertion, posture, etc.
- jkingsman 2y ago
  I would argue it certainly does — heat/cold is comfort vs injury. Pressure is massage vs. crush injury. Trauma, I suppose, is definitionally bad. Repetitive motion is muscle mass and strength increase vs RSI. Exertion is cardiovascular health vs exhaustion. Posture, I'll give you — I don't think there's such a thing as posture that is /too/ good as long as you're staying mobile/stretching/taking breaks. Perhaps a more intuitive way of stating it is, "Some classically bad things can be good in small or optimized doses. Some classically good things can be bad when taken to excess."
- crowcroft 2y ago
  Strictly speaking yes, but I think it can be applied well enough in some cases to things like exertion/repetitive motion when thinking about specific contexts. Running is good for you, running 20km every day for years will prematurely destroy most people's knees. I guess applying the adage in that way makes it become a tautology though, too much is in fact, too much.
- lxgr 2y ago
  Most of which are in turn influencing biochemical processes in an organism, so I'd say the point still stands.
cpncrunch 2y ago
But the benefits seem to outweigh the risks. Mortality from cancer, including melanoma, is lower with higher sun exposure. We have known this since Berwick's 2005 study into mortality from Melanoma, and Lindqvist's 2016 study showed that all-cause mortality was reduced with UV exposure.

office_drone 2y ago

This reminds me of the story of the Taiwanese radioactive homes, where 2000 homes were built with radioactive materials. There was a prediction that a lot of the inhabitants would die of cancer, and that didn't really happen. https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/12/the-curious-case-of-radioactive-apartments/ https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/12/the-curious...

lxgr 2y ago
The general concept is called Hormesis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis It's one reason why the "linear no-threshold" model for biological effects of radiation is probably not accurate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model

calibas 2y ago

"Avoiding Sun as Dangerous as Smoking" https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860805?form=fpf https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860805?form=fpf

AlgorithmicTime 2y ago

[dead]

the__alchemist 2y ago

Note: preventing photo aging by limiting exposure to UV, is currently the single biggest thing you can do to slow [an aspect of] visible aging.

tasty_freeze 2y ago
I'm 60, and from mostly Irish descent -- meaning I burn easily and don't really tan much. I've never been a beach-goer/sun-bather. The sun I get is just incidental to mowing the lawn, walking the dog, etc. The skin on my arms looks like a typical 60 year old -- spotted, thin, little elasticity. But lift up my sleeve and the skin of my upper arm and shoulder look like that of a 20 year old. My torso skin is young too, but it is weird to demonstrate that to young people.
- deepfriedchokes 2y ago
  Ben Franklin said about the same of older women! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing_a_Mistress https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advice_to_a_Friend_on_Choosing...
slothtrop 2y ago
Isn't sunscreen use enough?
- the__alchemist 2y ago
  It can be.
- lucius_verus 2y ago
  Very few people use the recommended amount of sunscreen (it's more than you think) and even when you do, no sunscreen blocks 100% of the photo-aging UV energy that hits your skin (note: still wear sunscreen - absorbing 5 or 10% is better than 100% of the radiation you would otherwise absorb). This also means that (contrary to what weird sunscreen-truthers will tell you) wearing sufficient sunscreen does not prevent you from producing vitamin D - sunscreen is not the same as never seeing the sun.

JoshTko 2y ago

I've started to ignore studies these days that contradict how most humans would have lived, for most of humanity. Most humans would have had plenty of sun exposure and genetics would have adapted accordingly. I'll seek as much sun exposure I can on work days, but will never sun bathe for hours on end.

cameldrv 2y ago
It depends on your skin though. If you're of European ancestry and living in a sunny place, your genes haven't had enough time to adapt.
- reustle 2y ago
  Yes, this is the nuance so many of these discussions miss. Keep a close eye on your local UV forecast, avoid peak times, and you should be pretty good.
- mint2 2y ago
  Exactly, a Northern European adapting to sun exposure doesn’t mean getting a tan, it would mean evolutionary pressure to adapt to, say, sunnier California via natural selection over a few thousand years where less sun fit portions die off earlier, while the surviving group slowly gets darker over many many generations or better at repairing damage. If you’re fair skinned but find yourself outside the low UV region that your skin is adapted to, you are welcome to begin the new adaptation by avoiding sun protection and going outside without regard to the UV index. I, however, will not join that genetic adaptation.
archagon 2y ago
Genetics would have adapted if it affected reproductive fitness. But skin cancer tends to develop past reproductive age.
consteval 2y ago
> I've started to ignore studies these days that contradict how most humans would have lived, for most of humanity This is probably one of the worse heuristics I've ever heard. Humans throughout humanity have lived awful lives full of disease, death, and misery. It used to be common for a woman to have 10 kids and maybe 2-3 would make it to adulthood. The only reason you even have the ability to take such an obviously wrong position is BECAUSE of the very things you "ignore".

troymc 2y ago

The article is about a new paper in the journal Health & Place. That paper is open access and can be found at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1353829224001564?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135382922...

chromatin 2y ago
> • Public health messaging on sunlight exposure may need reconsideration. no kidding

taeric 2y ago

This always strikes me as a tough discussion. With the odd hostility between the two extremes of "all sun is bad exposure" and "you should get more sun." With the later taken to be "all sun is good exposure." Just observing a typical yard, it is easy to see that grass can both have too much and too little sun. Indeed, cover it up and it will die. Expose it to direct sun all day for several days with no water and it will similarly die. (Well, not similarly, it will die in a different way.) I realize we don't photosynthesize, and burning is clearly bad for us. But I don't understand why people seem so resistant to the idea that some sun is probably beneficial. I also realize that literally "basking in the sun" is almost certainly taking it too far. :(

tossandthrow 2y ago
> Expose it to direct sun all day for several days with no water This would appear to be an indication of lack of water and not too much sun.
- taeric 2y ago
  I'm fine saying it is complicated. So, Maybe? I have grass right next to some that does not die due to the sun exposure. But it is shaded for large portions of the day, there. All of that is to say, I don't think you can or should reduce this down to only sun exposure. There is more going on.
  - tossandthrow 2y ago
    I absolutely agree on your premise - that sun, like most things, is about moderation. I was just pondering on the example you gave: Is there a case where grass will die out from sun when that is the isolated factor? I would assume that there is, but I am not sure it is given.
    - taeric 2y ago
      Totally fair and I don't know. My yard actually has a sprinkler system, such that I don't think I'm flat out not watering it in the sunny time of the year. You can definitely see where the sun hits the yard for longer, though.

kkoncevicius 2y ago

Anecdotal, but the parts of my skin that see more sun exposure (forearms) look healthier compared with parts that are more covered (upper arms). I wonder if maybe gradual sun exposure starting from spring and increasing towards the summer is healthier compared to sudden intense tanning of the area that is otherwise constantly covered by clothes.

matsemann 2y ago
That can be for other reasons, though. Like one's upper arm is often looser or have more fat below the skin, making it a different texture than the more taught lower arms.
IshKebab 2y ago
Sunlight can definitely clear up some skin conditions like eczema. I don't know about making skin healthier in general though. It 100% causes aging in skin though so any "healthier" skin you get will be totally wiped out by the wrinkly mess it becomes in your 40s. The message we should send kids is not "wear suncream; it prevents cancer" it's "wear suncream; it prevents wrinkles". Surprising how many people don't even know that. There's a famous photo that demonstrates it very obviously: https://metro.co.uk/2018/01/28/photo-truck-driver-shows-28-years-sun-damage-looks-like-7266641/amp/ https://metro.co.uk/2018/01/28/photo-truck-driver-shows-28-y... Which side would you prefer?
- kkoncevicius 2y ago
  I am suspicious of that driver effect being caused solely by sun exposure. If that were the case we would see the same effect in all drivers.
  - whyoh 2y ago
    It's possible that he was driving with the open window or that the window in his truck wasn't blocking much UVA.
  - IshKebab 2y ago

runjake 2y ago

tl;dr: Some sun is good. No sun, or too much sun, is bad. This advice will probably never change, regardless of qualified studies.

kerkeslager 2y ago

Sun exposure has been inversely correlated with depression, and frankly depression by itself is worse than all the negative effects of UV I'm aware of combined.

jdietrich 2y ago
There are an awful lot of possible causal relationships that could explain that correlation. On the face of it, relationships like "depressed people can't face going outside" or "people who are too immobile to leave the house get depressed" seem far more plausible and powerful than "UV exposure reduces the risk of depression through some yet-unknown mechanism".
- kerkeslager 2y ago
  Based on what my previous post said, sure, but there are more reasons to believe that sunlight is inversely causal in depression than I stated. I'm hesitant to dig up the research I looked through though, because if I recall correctly, the research really brings up more questions than it answers. In a more general sense, I agree that more research is needed, but with this and many other facts about our brains and bodies, I'm becoming more cynical about the possibility that the research will be performed in our lifetimes. There's simply too much we don't know and too little funding and too few researchers to find conclusive answers for all of it. People have depression now, and when the risks of the "treatment" are much lower than the risk of the disease, I think it makes sense to self experiment and see if the treatment helps you. Beyond the studies, there seems to be some anecdotal evidence that sunlight does help depression, and I tend to think depression has worse risks than (moderate) sun exposure. Two notes: 1. From a scientific perspective, one of the problems with anecdotal evidence is that it might be the result of placebo effect, which a well-crafted scientific study would eliminate. But from a medical perspective: who cares? If sunlight improves your depression via the placebo effect, well, your depression has been improved. 2. To be clear about a caveat: I'm not saying go out and self-experiment every home remedy you can find. The bit I said about "when the risks of the 'treatment' are much lower than the risk of the disease" is important. Powerful drugs like ivermectin have dangerous side effects, and trying different supplements can become costly even when those supplements contain what they claim and have lower risks.

dukeofdoom 2y ago

I think you can look into what humans desire for their ideal vacation places. The subconscious guides the conscious. This usually involves a sunny beach and water. Or at least a pool. Tropical fruits for breakfast and eggs is kind of a hotel standard for a reason too. Good nutrition and an a fun adventures day. Kind of polar opposite of dark depression. Not too soud woowoo, but people with good vibes and sunny energy is what you should seek too.

m3kw9 2y ago

too much is bad, too little is bad, these doctors are not helping very much.

Kalanos 2y ago

Perhaps because bacteria have no nucleus to protect their DNA and less DNA-damage repair mechanisms?

slothtrop 2y ago

Would note that full-spectrum light penetrates thin layers of clothing such that you can still yield some benefits being outside fully clothed, with mitigated risk. Also, even with sunscreen you'll synthesize some vitamin D. You'd have to really lay it on thick over all of your body to meaningfully prevent that, and it only lasts for a limited time anyway. On sunscreen there's talk about non-mineral ones having compounds that traverse the blood-brain barrier, but not much to suggest it can be dangerous. Since mineral sunscreens are oilier, my approach is to slather that type on my body, and use an alternative for my face using a light amount.

ortusdux 2y ago

Reminds me of people paying for radon exposure: https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/1/316 https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/22/1/316 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZkusjDFlS0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZkusjDFlS0

Aurornis 2y ago

Reducing everything to “good for you” or “bad for you” is the media’s favorite game. Nuance is hard, so reducing complex topics to extreme statements makes them easy to digest. It also creates an opportunity for them to manufacture debate whenever a new piece of information comes out that doesn’t fit into their self-created bipolar conception. As always with these topics: UV exposure isn’t something that can be reduced to “good” or “bad”. Both extremes of complete UV avoidance and excess UV exposure have consequences. What people frequently miss on this topic is that sunscreen isn’t a 100% effective UV blocker. People who cover themselves in sunscreen and then spend significant time outside are receiving some UV exposure. This fact is lost on many people, which is why skin cancer rates can be higher in people who use a lot of sunscreen. Sunscreen enables people to spend more time in the sun and be less covered, which can paradoxically lead people to get more UV exposure over more of their body than, for example, the person who works outside M-F but covers up with long sleeves, hats, and pants (like you will see in yard work crews, construction workers, and other trades). These headlines are difficult because some people read them as an invitation to stop using sunscreen but continue their old habits, pushing their UV exposure deep into the high risk region of the benefit-reward curves.

AlexandrB 2y ago
> UV exposure isn’t something that can be reduced to “good” or “bad”. Indeed this is true about almost anything we commonly put into our body: fat, protein, carbs, even water. But it gets a lot more clicks to claim that something is either always good or always bad.

sowut 2y ago

there's a popular trend that has been gaining momentum over decades that has people so disconnected from reality that they think a pill can replace proper diet, exercise, and in this case, the sun. there is an obesity epidemic in this country at the root of many ailments (inflammation is the root of many diseases) and you have politicians pitching policies about bringing the cost of "drugs" down to treat these ailments but we have no mainstream leaders with mainstream policies advocating for health and fitness to fix the root issue. we're going in the wrong direction and something has to change.

reducesuffering 2y ago
> advocating for health and fitness to fix the root issue. Do you know any GP's / doctors? They'll all tell you that's the first line they repeatedly recommend to their patients. It barely works, because mostly that has to come from intrinsic motivation. And then they proceed to the "well if they won't eat healthier and exercise, what else is going to do something for them..."
- sowut 2y ago
  "we have no mainstream leaders with mainstream policies advocating for health and fitness to fix the root issue"
  - consteval 2y ago
    Not true, virtually all mainstream people, i.e. celebrities, are incredibly fit. I mean, J Lo has a six pack and has for decades. Nobody cares though. The obese celebrities are the odd ones out, and they're typically ridiculed and hated beyond belief. This idea that the obesity epidemic can be fixed with bootstraps is just not one based in reality.
    - sowut 2y ago
      that's the second time i've said "mainstream leaders" with "mainstream policies." what i'm saying has nothing to do with celebrities

alsetmusic 2y ago

[flagged]

ldehaan 2y ago

[dead]

coppsilgold 2y ago

From the point of view of evolution the sun is a fact of the universe and it would have adapted numerous processes to rely on its presence. That does not mean the sun is safe however. Skin color variance so closely tied to geographic location indicates that there is a very delicate balance there.

blueridge 2y ago

I'll take the UV rays over a bunch of smelly, synthetic goop all over my skin. I also see people go from not seeing the sun in months to full, 1pm exposure for hours, then they get roasted, then they're in pain, then it takes weeks to heal, then they do it again. Or they'll start slathering on an absurd amount of sunscreen, the summer months go by, and they look just as sick and pasty and unhealthy as they did last year, as if they never went outside. You've got to build intuition around how to get sun: what's your current skin tone, how much sun you've had recently, what it feels like to get an appropriate amount of sun vs. get burnt, the time of day, elevation considerations, whether you're going to be in the sun again tomorrow or all week after a lot of exposure today, if you're getting more direct sun on key areas like your neck and nose and ears, or whether you've got full body exposure. The more time in the sun, the more you understand how to behave, how to protect yourself, how to get what you need to feel good. Most people pay no attention to how they feel day-to-day. They never learn what it feels like to eat a nutritiously dense meal, or what being fit feels like over the long term. It's the same with sun exposure: if you don't pay attention, you'll never learn.

maipen 2y ago
You make a good point. I did see a pattern in my friend circle of those that got sun burn and those who don’t. Skin color and sun exposure habits play a big role. The paler you are the more disciplined you need to be in regards to sun exposure, in order for your skin to adapt and build tolerance
- lilyball 2y ago
  You don't "build tolerance" to UV. Developing a tan will help avoid getting sunburn in the future, but it does nothing at all to reduce your risk of skin cancer. Sunscreen doesn't just stop sunburn, it also prevents cancer.
  - hgomersall 2y ago
    I suppose black people just have a full body tan for the evolved aesthetic? You're going to have to provide some evidence if you're suggesting a tan has no protective effect against sun damage.

Aerroon 2y ago

It might not be UV exposure that helps though. The sun has a bunch of other wavelengths of light as well. There's red light therapy that might have positive health effects and you certainly get that from the sun as well.

zarzavat 2y ago

Let’s imagine that exposure to UV gives you more statistical QALY than melanoma and skin aging remove. I believe this is false but let’s imagine it’s true. Okay but there’s many other things that also give you more QALY, things that don’t increase your risk of a horrible disease or looking like a prune when you’re 40. Maybe we should do those things first and only come back to double-edged life extension techniques when we’ve completed all the benign techniques. After all, caloric restriction also increases lifespan, but the cost is so high in terms of life enjoyment that few would be tempted. There’s more to life than time spent living.

ziddoap 2y ago
"QALY" may not be obscure to you, but this is the first time I've ever seen it. It's always appreciated when you can spell out an acronym for other readers who maybe aren't as familiar with a topic as you are. Given the context, Google leads me to believe: QALY = Quality-adjusted life year
- zarzavat 2y ago
  Yes, the idea is that extending life is important but not every year of life is equivalent. If you spend a year bedridden that’s not as good as a year housebound, which is not as good as a year when you are in perfect health. So when people measure the value of interventions it’s measured in QALY. The downside is that it’s subjective.

mcguire 2y ago

Discussion of the actual paper: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41302103 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41302103

Ekaros 2y ago

For average office worker, during regular week it probably makes no sense to avoid exposure. On other hand sun bathing or tanning is probably not good for you either. Sensible moderation makes most sense to me. If you are extended periods in sun cover yourself or use protection. But no particular need to avoid it in short periods.

mint2 2y ago

As I posted in the dupe of this - this article is specifically about regions in “low” UV latitudes, with the actual subject being from the UK. Accounting for UV intensity of your home country is crucial. Don’t just go out and frolic without precautions just because a study from the UK found sun exposure was good. Their sunlight isn’t built the same. Mid day UV index in SF is 9 as I type. Compare what the paper says about the UK UV index: “ The UV index [in the uk], which measures the erythemal intensity of sunlight, rarely exceeds 6 (where 3–5 is classified as moderate and 6–7 high)” Make good decisions people! I got some sun when the UV was 2 early in the early morning. Now it’s 9 at midday. All sun is not equal.

adamc 2y ago
Good point. UV in Austin, TX today is 10.6.
- teekert 2y ago
  Anecdotally, I’m from across the North Sea where this study was taken. I hardly ever use sunscreen. I went to a conference in Galveston Tx, walked around for a part of the afternoon, the next 4 days I was peeling the skin of my forehead and nose… it was painful.
- Kon-Peki 2y ago
  Yes but... not for the whole day. You can still get some sun in the morning and evening when the UV index is a lot more reasonable. Clearly not ideal but, well, that's where you live. I personally am looking forward to when I am able to be a snowbird. Summers in the northern US, winters in the south. It's the best of both worlds. A few years ago, we met up with some friends from Houston at a summer vacation rental up in the Traverse City Michigan area. Their kids couldn't get over how late sunsets were. It really messed with their heads for the first few days. But when you have so so much daylight, you don't worry about spending a few hours indoors when the sun is most intense - you aren't wasting any of your precious vacation time. And then in winter, walking along the ocean on the Gulf Coast in January with only a long-sleeved shirt. For a few hours most days you can get away with a T-shirt (or no shirt). Glorious.

arijun 2y ago

I think it’s pretty obvious from our evolution that we need some UV but not too much. In Africa, where we got a lot of sun, we evolved darker skin to prevent damage, but in the more norther latitudes, our skin tones lightened to take advantage of the otherwise insufficient sunlight. I feel like a good rule of thumb would be, if you’re tanning, your body thinks you’re getting too much sun exposure for your current skin color.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

complianceowl 2y ago

♫♫ Follooooooow....follow the sunnnnnnnn ♫♫

abeppu 2y ago

> Someone living in Truro, for example, in the south of Britain, would on average experience about 25% more solar shortwave radiation (a measure that includes UV, visible and some infrared light) in a year than someone living in Glasgow or Edinburgh, which are much further north. I'm surprised that the difference is that big, given that the latitude difference between these is actually relatively small. If this difference is correct, is it really just due to the north/south distance, or is this more about weather differences, or is there some other non-obvious factor?