Training & Nutrition - Sunscreen: maybe not so good?

Are you one of the many cyclists who religiously slather on the sunscreen?

Recent evidence suggests that sunscreen may actually increase one's
risk for the more dangerous and deadly form of skin cancer (melanoma).

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/throw-away-the-sunscreen/

"Exposure to sunlight prevents melanoma.

Yes, you did read that correctly.

Two independent studies published in the Feb. 2005 issue of the prestigious Journal of the National Cancer Institute (JNCI) squarely contradict the popular myth that UV light causes melanoma.

The first study evaluated the hypothesis that UV radiation increases your risk of developing lymphoma - a hypothesis that had become widely accepted in the 1990s and early 2000s. After studying nearly 7,000 subjects, the authors concluded that the opposite is actually true: increased sun exposure reduces the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) by up to 40%. What’s more, the reduction in risk was dose-related, which means that the more sun exposure someone got, the lower their risk of cancer was.

The second study looked at the link between sun exposure and the chances of surviving melanoma, which is the deadliest form of skin cancer. Guess what? The researchers concluded that increased sun exposure decreases the chance of dying from skin cancer by approximately 50%..."

no effing way. i gotta look into this, theres gotta be some other research, imma check the computer database at school, might as well i pay for membership to it in my tuition heh.

interesting.

i don't regularly wear sunscreen (only when outside for 4 or more hours in the sunlight without a shirt on). i don't burn easily and i look great with a tan. :)

but... now when people give me **** 'bout not wearing sunscreen, i could correct them (assuming this study IS accurate), saying that they're in the more dangerous position.

Are sunglasses really that bad for your eyes? i wear them all the time - the light intensity bugs my eyes, and i certainly don't like stuff being blown in them.

I slathered on sunblock every hour while biking this week , including a 5 hour metric century. Still got a slight sunburn, SPF 30 and all. I once spent an hour splitting wood w/o sunblock or shirt--I was utterly useless the following day. I don't go outside for more than 15minutes w/o sunblock, as a good burn can take days to heal.

But interesting nevertheless. I wonder what good it would be to be outside but with long sleeves and large hat and all?

this is interesting, i usually burn pretty easily if im in water or around it for more than an hour. which i am in water 2 to 3 times a week since i do allot of time in the pool etc. i cant get tot he school until mid week im interested to see if i can find anymore articles on this subject.

Just take a supplement if you are worried. It is always recommended to get 15 minutes a day of sunlight, unprotected to get enough D production. This is not an either/or scenario.

I wish the author would include citations to the articles he is referencing. :rolleyes:

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2005 97(3):195-199; doi:10.1093/jnci/dji019
This Article
© 2005 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE
Sun Exposure and Mortality From Melanoma

Marianne Berwick, Bruce K. Armstrong, Leah Ben-Porat, Judith Fine, Anne Kricker, Carey Eberle, Raymond Barnhill

Affiliations of authors: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM (MB); University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia (BKA, AK); Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (LBP); University of Connecticut Health Center, Farmington, CT (JF); Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, NY (CE); University of Miami, Miami, FL (RB)

Correspondence to: Marianne Berwick, PhD, MPH, University of New Mexico, Department of Internal Medicine, New Mexico Cancer Research Facility, MSC08 4630, Room 103A, 1 University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM 87131 (e-mail: mberwick@salud.unm.edu).

Background: Melanoma incidence and survival are positively associated, both geographically and temporally. Solar elastosis, a histologic indicator of cutaneous sun damage, has also been positively associated with melanoma survival. Although these observations raise the possibility that sun exposure increases melanoma survival, they could be explained by an association between incidence and early detection of melanoma. We therefore evaluated the association between measures of skin screening and death from cutaneous melanoma. Methods: Case subjects (n = 528) from a population-based study of cutaneous melanoma were followed for an average of more than 5 years. Data, including measures of intermittent sun exposure, perceived awareness of the skin, skin self-screening, and physician screening, were collected during in-person interviews and review of histopathology and histologic parameters (i.e., solar elastosis, Breslow thickness, and mitoses) for all of the lesions. Competing risk models were used to compute risk of death (hazard ratios [HRs], with 95% confidence intervals [CIs]) from melanoma. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Sunburn, high intermittent sun exposure, skin awareness histories, and solar elastosis were statistically significantly inversely associated with death from melanoma. Melanoma thickness, mitoses, ulceration, and anatomic location on the head and neck were statistically significantly positively associated with melanoma death. In a multivariable competing risk analysis, skin awareness (with versus without, HR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3 to 0.9, P = .022) and solar elastosis (present versus absent, HR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2 to 0.8, P = .009) were strongly and independently associated with melanoma death after adjusting for Breslow thickness, mitotic index, and head and neck location, which were also independently associated with death. Conclusions: Sun exposure is associated with increased survival from melanoma













© 2005 Oxford University Press
ARTICLE
Ultraviolet Radiation Exposure and Risk of Malignant Lymphomas

Karin Ekström Smedby, Henrik Hjalgrim, Mads Melbye, Anna Torrång, Klaus Rostgaard, Lars Munksgaard, Johanna Adami, Mads Hansen, Anna Porwit-MacDonald, Bjarne Anker Jensen, Göran Roos, Bjarne Bach Pedersen, Christer Sundström, Bengt Glimelius, Hans-Olov Adami

Affiliations of authors: Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden (KES, AT, JA, HOA); Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark (HH, MM, KR, LM); Department of Hematology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark (LM); Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Department of Medicine, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (JA); Department of Hematology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark (MH); Department of Pathology, Karolinska Institutet and University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden (APM); Department of Medicine, Hillerød Hospital, Hillerød, Denmark (BAJ); Department of Medical Biosciences, Pathology, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden (GR); Department of Medicine, Viborg Hospital, Viborg, Denmark (BBP); Department of Pathology, Akademiska Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden (CS); Department of Pathology and Oncology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and Department of Oncology, Radiology and Clinical Immunology, Akademiska Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden (BG); Department of Epidemiology, Harvard University, Boston, MA (HOA)

Correspondence to: Karin Ekström Smedby, Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Box 281, SE-171 77 Stockholm, Sweden (e-mail: karin.ekstrom@meb.ki.se).

Background: The incidence of malignant lymphomas has been increasing rapidly, but the causes of these malignancies remain poorly understood. One hypothesis holds that exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation increases lymphoma risk. We tested this hypothesis in a population-based case–control study in Denmark and Sweden. Methods: A total of 3740 patients diagnosed between October 1, 1999, and August 30, 2002, with incident malignant lymphomas, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and Hodgkin lymphoma, and 3187 population controls provided detailed information on history of UV exposure and skin cancer and information on other possible risk factors for lymphomas. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by logistic regression. Statistical tests were two-sided. Results: Multivariable-adjusted analyses revealed consistent, statistically significant negative associations between various measures of UV light exposure and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. A high frequency of sun bathing and sunburns at age 20 years and 5–10 years before the interview and sun vacations abroad were associated with 30%–40% reduced risks of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (e.g., for sunbathing four times a week or more at age 20 versus never sunbathing, OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.6 to 0.9; for two or more sunburns a year at age 20 versus no sunburns, OR = 0.6, 95% CI = 0.5 to 0.8). These inverse associations increased in strength with increasing levels of exposure (all Ptrend≤.01). Similar, albeit weaker, associations were observed for Hodgkin lymphoma. There were no clear differences among non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtypes, although associations were stronger for B-cell than for T-cell lymphomas. A history of skin cancer was associated with a doubling in risks of both non-Hodgkin and Hodgkin lymphoma. Conclusions: A history of high UV exposure was associated with reduced risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The positive association between skin cancer and malignant lymphomas is, therefore, unlikely to be mediated by UV exposure

Thanks, Someday_RN.

I've known about this for awhile.

I remember reading case studies in the past where outdoor workers have the lowest risk of melanoma, whereas office workers have higher ones.

I'm one of the many cyclists who forgets her sunscreen more than she remembers.

i dont wear sunscreen to prevent cancer, i do it to not get burned and i hate an uneven tan. i figured that some sun is good for you, but i doubt that large quantities of time out in the sun unprotected can be any good for you.

no sunscreen. no sunburn. uneven tan :p

I've always been a fan of healthy sunlight, as opposed to slathering chemicals on my skin. (It really wouldn't surprise me if sunscreen itself was the cause of skin cancer.)

I rarely use sunscreen, but if I do, it's the natural stuff from Aubrey Organics.

Is there a point beyond which further sun exposures will increase the chance of skin cancer? If so, will sunscreen help one stay below this limit?

Not sure whether this study implies UV is always good (i.e. don't apply sunscreen), or just people that are used to UV exposures (at what level?) are less likely to develop skin cancer in the future when exposed to the sun. To me it seems like the latter.

Well it says exposure to sun is positively associated with melanoma incidence and survival rate.

So, you're more likely to get skin cancer the more sun you're exposed to, but out of everyone who encounters skin cancer the people who are more exposed to sun are more likely to survive.

The issue of NHL is probably more closely related to the insane amount of Glyphosate that comes in so much of our food nowdays with round-up ready everything. I'm not sure what that really has to do with uv exposure.

Doesn't seem to me that either of the papers really address sunscreen.

I have an olive kind of skin, so I don't use sunscreen at all. Never have. I guess I'm one of the fortunate ones. The sun never bothers my skin, just gives it a good tan faster than my wife who is very fair skinned.

At my last pilot medical my doc suggested I get tested for Vitamin D because there was a study going on to check the levels that people in the province that I lived in had. I lived in (NL on the east coast of Canada) which due to the somewhat cooler weather and coastal, cloudy, foggy climate tends to encourage people to wear more clothing than in other climates. Sure enough it was low so I adjusted my diet. My ex used to slather the sunscreen on the children which I totally disagreed with and they consequently looked white as ghosts.

I have a bit of a conspiracy theory about sunscreen. I firmly believe that "Scientific Research" can be somewhat manipulated to prove anything, especially when there is money to be made. Sort of like the Tobacco Institute (not sure of the name) that was set up by the doctor a number of years ago, that consistently showed that smoking did not cause cancer or that there really wasn't any "scientific proof". He kept up his story (and his paycheque no doubt) right up till his death of cancer from smoking.

I usually get one big blast of sunlight at the beginning of the season, then slather on something like Vaseline Intensive Care, suffer one or two restless nights soaking in this goop and it turns brown with no peeling and I am good for the summer.
Mom lays in the sun, swims for hours in the pool all summer and has since I can remember, with her buddies and is a brown skinned, Caucasian at 85 years young.
My sister on the other hand wears a straw hat, full suit of armour and sunscreen because she burns easily.
Ayurveda explains it as been caused by the fact that we are all endowed with a different body type and some body types thrive and indeed need the heat and sunlight while others are tortured and diseased by it. It's a fairly simple formula, if it hurts don't do it and moderation is key.

You would be surprised by the so-called "health Products" that are supposed to protect/help you that actually do the exact opposite. You would call me crazy if i told you sunscreen was designed to actually cause skin cancer or that the purpose the public is given fluoride is to lower their IQ's and make us dumb and docile, or that the pharmaceutical cartels are the biggest dope dealers out to make you sick, pump you full of pills and slowly drain your bank account and kill you. These cartels also finance medical schools and train students into being glorified drug dealers. This crap isn't exactly a secret, and yes it is a conspiracy as different organizations conspired together to create this situation which is for profit and population control. United Nations, FDA, Non Governmental organizations are behind this kind of crap. Yea i know, some folks who blindly submit and put their faith in the FDA, government (which are their gods) and don't question anything will laugh at this as they've been trained to REACT. BUT there is plenty of declassified info anybody can get their hands on to educate themselves about the dangers of sunscreen. or not. The same goes for skin moisturizers that actually dry up the skin causing one to keep applying the stuff and constantly buying crap that doesn't work.

You would be surprised by the so-called "health Products" that are supposed to protect/help you that actually do the exact opposite. You would call me crazy if i told you sunscreen was designed to actually cause skin cancer or that the purpose the public is given fluoride is to lower their IQ's and make us dumb and docile, or that the pharmaceutical cartels are the biggest dope dealers out to make you sick, pump you full of pills and slowly drain your bank account and kill you. These cartels also finance medical schools and train students into being glorified drug dealers. This crap isn't exactly a secret, and yes it is a conspiracy as different organizations conspired together to create this situation which is for profit and population control. United Nations, FDA, Non Governmental organizations are behind this kind of crap. Yea i know, some folks who blindly submit and put their faith in the FDA, government (which are their gods) and don't question anything will laugh at this as they've been trained to REACT. BUT there is plenty of declassified info anybody can get their hands on to educate themselves about the dangers of sunscreen. or not. The same goes for skin moisturizers that actually dry up the skin causing one to keep applying the stuff and constantly buying crap that doesn't work.


I think you left out Area 51. :p:p:p

You would be surprised by the so-called "health Products" that are supposed to protect/help you that actually do the exact opposite. You would call me crazy if i told you sunscreen was designed to actually cause skin cancer or that the purpose the public is given fluoride is to lower their IQ's and make us dumb and docile, or that the pharmaceutical cartels are the biggest dope dealers out to make you sick, pump you full of pills and slowly drain your bank account and kill you. These cartels also finance medical schools and train students into being glorified drug dealers. This crap isn't exactly a secret, and yes it is a conspiracy as different organizations conspired together to create this situation which is for profit and population control. United Nations, FDA, Non Governmental organizations are behind this kind of crap. Yea i know, some folks who blindly submit and put their faith in the FDA, government (which are their gods) and don't question anything will laugh at this as they've been trained to REACT. BUT there is plenty of declassified info anybody can get their hands on to educate themselves about the dangers of sunscreen. or not. The same goes for skin moisturizers that actually dry up the skin causing one to keep applying the stuff and constantly buying crap that doesn't work.

someone needs to hop on their bike and go for a good ride...

A great example of research being taken out of context. Look up the research- much of noise about vitamin D deficiency it is based on populations from Sweden and Denmark, high-latitude countries where vitamin D deficiency is going to be a widespread problem. Very different from the US and even much of Europe.

A quick look at the comparison between sun exposure and melanoma survival is interesting though. Still, NOT developing melanomas in the first place would be much more important. Anyone got any links to research showing an inverse correlation between high UV exposure and melanomas?

By the way, keep in mind it's not necessarily burning that causes skin cancer, just accumulated exposure to the sun's rays over many years. So whether or not you get a burn or burn easily is not really that important.

By the way, keep in mind it's not necessarily burning that causes skin cancer, just accumulated exposure to the sun's rays over many years. So whether or not you get a burn or burn easily is not really that important.

Proof?
RSVP

A great example of research being taken out of context. Look up the research- much of noise about vitamin D deficiency it is based on populations from Sweden and Denmark, high-latitude countries where vitamin D deficiency is going to be a widespread problem. Very different from the US and even much of Europe.


Then of course there is studying the effect of diet, exercise, pollution etc. on skin cancer.

One thing that bothers me with using sunscreen is that this stuff makes it's way to the liver, kidney, etc., and who knows what the long term effect is on the rest of the body.

Another thing about research is that there is always the next one.

no sunscreen. no sunburn. uneven tan :p

I'm with you!