4 ms·
I should clarify that statement. Evidence points to the fact that it does reduce vitamin D production, but it does not stop it entirely. If you apply and then
by purephase 12y ago
I should clarify that statement. Evidence points to the fact that it does reduce vitamin D production, but it does not stop it entirely.
If you apply and then spend a lot of time in the sun, your vitamin production will be decreased, but not entirely. People who routinely apply sunblock spend more time in the sun, so they will end-up producing more than those who spend no time in the sun at all.
It's the cost of weighing burns against vitamin D production. The skin cancer worry (legitimate) due to sun damage vs. decreased vitamin D production is probably a good bet to make.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoI guess it depends on the ratio. Does sunscreen suppress D production more or less than it reduces harmful radiation? Or are they the same thing? Sunscreen is for one thing - so you can spend more time in the sun. If you'd burn after 15 minutes, then SPF 20 means you can spend about 5 hours with sunscreen. No SPF will entirely eliminate the sun - that'd be SPF infinity, right? SPF is a ratio.
- facepalm 12y agoToo bad that the 503 article didn't mention Vitamin D at all. Where exactly is the sweet spot? Leaving sun screen aside (as that seems to only prolong the time you need to stay in the sun for an effect, good or negative). I suspect the number of minutes you should stay in the sun per day is > 0. But how high is it?