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. :(
> But I don't understand why people seem so resistant to the idea that some sun is probably beneficial.
The sun ages your skin. It makes you look older. I've known people in their 40's who have avoided sun who look like they're in their late 20's. Their skin is supple, has few wrinkles, and generally looks healthy. My friend is my age, his wife is 10 years older than he. She legitimately looks a good 10 years younger than him thanks to intentionally avoiding the sun throughout her life.
I, in contrast, look my age (40's as well), because I've spent a reasonable amount of my life outside. Chores, being raised with an attitude of "don't come back inside until dinnertime", and swimming competitively in the summer. My skin doesn't heal as well, it's less supple (sub-skin features show through more harshly than they used to), and I have a fair share of wrinkles around my eyes and corners of my mouth (charitably referred to as laugh lines).
And then there's the extreme sunbathers and outdoor laborers who look like they're in their 70's at 40; who have already had potential cancerous spots on their skin removed.
It's simply one of those things where even moderate exposure can do demonstrable damage to your skin. And if not treated quickly, the cancer sun exposure causes can straight up kill you.
Finding out that it may also have positive benefits feels weird. It feels like learning that regular exposure to acid has long term health benefits.
My older parents here in the southern US are both dealing with skin cancer of various forms (melanoma and squamous cell carcinoma) because of accumulated sun exposure from when they were younger. Neither one of them were tanning fanatics/sun bunnies/whatever but they would very occasionally get mild sunburns from working outside without adequate protection.
I myself try to avoid prolonged direct exposure to the sun as a matter of principle to try and avoid having to deal with that stuff when I'm their age. If I'm going to be out in direct sunlight for a prolonged period of time, I'm going to be wearing sunscreen and a hat.
It's really hard to know where to draw the line between "too much sun" vs "no sun".
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.
> 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.
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.
> I'll take the UV rays over a bunch of smelly, synthetic goop all over my skin.
There are portable sun umbrellas that allow you to protect your skin without sunscreen. But I doubt they'll cover the entire body, though it should be enough for the head and the arms. And I am not sure if the reflected rays of the sun against various surfaces (windows, cars...) are not dangerous.
>> I'll take the UV rays over a bunch of smelly, synthetic goop all over my skin
You are clearly not allergic to the sunlight / UV, aren't you? Because i am, and definitely taking synthetic goop over red rash all over the exposed body parts
> 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.
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.
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....).
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.
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.
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.
> 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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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..."
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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?
[+] [-] beefman|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] taeric|1 year ago|reply
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. :(
[+] [-] falcolas|1 year ago|reply
The sun ages your skin. It makes you look older. I've known people in their 40's who have avoided sun who look like they're in their late 20's. Their skin is supple, has few wrinkles, and generally looks healthy. My friend is my age, his wife is 10 years older than he. She legitimately looks a good 10 years younger than him thanks to intentionally avoiding the sun throughout her life.
I, in contrast, look my age (40's as well), because I've spent a reasonable amount of my life outside. Chores, being raised with an attitude of "don't come back inside until dinnertime", and swimming competitively in the summer. My skin doesn't heal as well, it's less supple (sub-skin features show through more harshly than they used to), and I have a fair share of wrinkles around my eyes and corners of my mouth (charitably referred to as laugh lines).
And then there's the extreme sunbathers and outdoor laborers who look like they're in their 70's at 40; who have already had potential cancerous spots on their skin removed.
It's simply one of those things where even moderate exposure can do demonstrable damage to your skin. And if not treated quickly, the cancer sun exposure causes can straight up kill you.
Finding out that it may also have positive benefits feels weird. It feels like learning that regular exposure to acid has long term health benefits.
[+] [-] alyandon|1 year ago|reply
I myself try to avoid prolonged direct exposure to the sun as a matter of principle to try and avoid having to deal with that stuff when I'm their age. If I'm going to be out in direct sunlight for a prolonged period of time, I'm going to be wearing sunscreen and a hat.
It's really hard to know where to draw the line between "too much sun" vs "no sun".
[+] [-] Aurornis|1 year ago|reply
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|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] blueridge|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Krssst|1 year ago|reply
There are portable sun umbrellas that allow you to protect your skin without sunscreen. But I doubt they'll cover the entire body, though it should be enough for the head and the arms. And I am not sure if the reflected rays of the sun against various surfaces (windows, cars...) are not dangerous.
[+] [-] maipen|1 year ago|reply
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
[+] [-] dgan|1 year ago|reply
You are clearly not allergic to the sunlight / UV, aren't you? Because i am, and definitely taking synthetic goop over red rash all over the exposed body parts
[+] [-] Hendrikto|1 year ago|reply
> 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.
[+] [-] trhway|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] aurareturn|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Bjorkbat|1 year ago|reply
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_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.
[+] [-] jmward01|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] MrBuddyCasino|1 year ago|reply
We have evolved under the sun, of course we have adapted to its presence, and taking it away naïvely is unadvisable.
[+] [-] troymc|1 year ago|reply
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135382922...
[+] [-] chromatin|1 year ago|reply
no kidding
[+] [-] JoshTko|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] consteval|1 year ago|reply
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".
[+] [-] cameldrv|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] archagon|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mint2|1 year ago|reply
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|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] office_drone|1 year ago|reply
https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2020/12/the-curious...
[+] [-] lxgr|1 year ago|reply
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
[+] [-] xnx|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] cpncrunch|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tantalor|1 year ago|reply
It doesn't work on non-chemicals: UV, radiation, noise, heat/cold, pressure, physical trauma, repetitive motion, exertion, posture, etc.
[+] [-] sowut|1 year ago|reply
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|1 year ago|reply
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..."
[+] [-] trallnag|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] calibas|1 year ago|reply
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/860805?form=fpf
[+] [-] kkoncevicius|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jajko|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] IshKebab|1 year ago|reply
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-y...
Which side would you prefer?
[+] [-] matsemann|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] slothtrop|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] zarzavat|1 year ago|reply
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|1 year ago|reply
Given the context, Google leads me to believe:
QALY = Quality-adjusted life year
[+] [-] dukeofdoom|1 year ago|reply
Not too soud woowoo, but people with good vibes and sunny energy is what you should seek too.
[+] [-] Ekaros|1 year ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] coppsilgold|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Aerroon|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] abeppu|1 year ago|reply
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?