Sun Protection from a Dermatologist
07-15-10, 05:29 PM
#27
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 885
Bikes: 2011 Trek SOHO Deluxe, and 2010 Specialized Roubaix Expert
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I will take your advice and buy the cape. Thanks for the advice and the concern for our health.
07-16-10, 03:27 PM
#28
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Fair Oaks,CA
Posts: 736
Bikes: Kestrel RT1000 & Calfee Tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I am on Jesskramer's side, because have been on the receiving end of pre-cancerous skin removal. I was a ski instructor in the 60's, when it was really cool to get as burned as possible. If you didn't have blisters on your face, you had to spend more time in the sun, preferably using Bain De Soleil oil to get extra crispy.
I am paying for it now. However a riding buddy turned me on to Vanicream
https://www.vanicreamsale.com/display...criteria=16809
This is pretty amazing stuff. Even my MD has noticed a remarkable decrease in the need to refer me to my derm for more treatments.
I still spend a lot of time in the sun, but this stuff works, even in 95-100º+ weather. Not cheap, but a lot better than getting skin cancer.
I am paying for it now. However a riding buddy turned me on to Vanicream
https://www.vanicreamsale.com/display...criteria=16809
This is pretty amazing stuff. Even my MD has noticed a remarkable decrease in the need to refer me to my derm for more treatments.
I still spend a lot of time in the sun, but this stuff works, even in 95-100º+ weather. Not cheap, but a lot better than getting skin cancer.
07-16-10, 08:19 PM
#29
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 9
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Thanks for posting this. I'm going to give it a try and just ordered this cap from Cabela's website
where it is currently on sale for $12.99.
where it is currently on sale for $12.99.
Friends,
I am a Dermatologist and a cyclist in California. I see and treat skin cancer every day in my office, especially on the face, ears and neck.
I have been seeking a way to fully protect my ears and neck and have as little facial skin exposed that would need sun screen... (SPF 70 by the way)
I see enough really horrible skin cancer that it is easy for me to wear a long sleeve jersey and long cycling tights even in the summer. I even wear full finger gloves...
I share with you a new accessory for my helmet. It is a vented sun cape that meets and exceed my design requirements. Those requirements are, full sun protection, venting and light weight fabric....the only downside is it is a little dorky looking... but if you saw the skin cancer that I see in my Dermatology office every day that would not bother you very much. I look dorky enough to begin with because I am wearing long sleeves and long tights anyway
I use the detachable sun cape from an Outdoor Reasearch SunRunner hat ( $30 at REI )
Attachment 153928Attachment 153929Attachment 153930Attachment 153931Attachment 153932
The only modification was the cutting off of the cape snap tabs and cutting 1/8 inch holes to fit between where the plastic helmet harness snaps into the body of the helmet. I removed the helmet chin strap and threaded it through the upper rear vent of the cape, It is a lot easiet to do than to verbally explain
Comments appreciated,
Jesse
I am a Dermatologist and a cyclist in California. I see and treat skin cancer every day in my office, especially on the face, ears and neck.
I have been seeking a way to fully protect my ears and neck and have as little facial skin exposed that would need sun screen... (SPF 70 by the way)
I see enough really horrible skin cancer that it is easy for me to wear a long sleeve jersey and long cycling tights even in the summer. I even wear full finger gloves...
I share with you a new accessory for my helmet. It is a vented sun cape that meets and exceed my design requirements. Those requirements are, full sun protection, venting and light weight fabric....the only downside is it is a little dorky looking... but if you saw the skin cancer that I see in my Dermatology office every day that would not bother you very much. I look dorky enough to begin with because I am wearing long sleeves and long tights anyway
I use the detachable sun cape from an Outdoor Reasearch SunRunner hat ( $30 at REI )
Attachment 153928Attachment 153929Attachment 153930Attachment 153931Attachment 153932
The only modification was the cutting off of the cape snap tabs and cutting 1/8 inch holes to fit between where the plastic helmet harness snaps into the body of the helmet. I removed the helmet chin strap and threaded it through the upper rear vent of the cape, It is a lot easiet to do than to verbally explain
Comments appreciated,
Jesse
08-02-10, 08:24 AM
#30
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 467
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Brimmed hats with a cloth extension to cover the neck are popular in australia - they often have uv blockers in the fabric (they are bit like a baseball cap).
I'd suggest that one of these would work well - you could use it under a helmet (particularly if you have thinning hair), and it's there for when you get off the bike as well.
I'd suggest that one of these would work well - you could use it under a helmet (particularly if you have thinning hair), and it's there for when you get off the bike as well.
08-05-10, 07:12 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Silverthorne, Colorado
Posts: 636
Bikes: Rawlings Drakkar, Specialized Roubaix, Pivot, Challenge Trike, Tandem
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Lost two friends to melanoma in 1985 and 1987. Had surgery for it myself in 1986. That was a horrid experience.
Have been lax using sunscreen. Stick it on once a day. This thread will get me using it again.
Have been lax using sunscreen. Stick it on once a day. This thread will get me using it again.
08-21-10, 09:14 PM
#32
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I used to do a lot of high altitue mountaineering and one of the guys I climbed with said that sunscreen loses 50% of it's SPF after a year. Any idea if that's true? He was an MD not a dermatologist. I've always gone with new sunscreen since hearing that though.
08-25-10, 07:17 PM
#34
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Downey, Ca
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
1 Post
I get what ever they have at Big Lots(used to be pick and save). Usually i get spf 50 to 70 at very low($2 to $3) each. If its high humidity no sleeves, low i wear sleeves.
I ride about 3 to 4 times a week and use a lot of sunscreen. I take a small bottle with me and reapply.
I ride about 3 to 4 times a week and use a lot of sunscreen. I take a small bottle with me and reapply.
08-25-10, 09:50 PM
#35
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,631
Bikes: Serotta Legend Ti; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 945 Post(s)
Liked 1,990 Times
in
569 Posts
What do you think of this?
https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ine-good_x.htm
5 years old, obviously. Is it out of date?
Or this?
https://www.kitchenstewardship.com/20...h-do-you-need/
Sounds even handed ... is it BS?
I have to admit ... I have a hard time with the notion that the best sun exposure is no exposure at all. One would think that humans evolved to handle some kind of sun exposure, no?
Please don't take this as criticism ... it's a genuine question. I hear conflicting advice about what's healthy and what is not. Melanoma's nasty, but so are the myriad of other ways to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ine-good_x.htm
5 years old, obviously. Is it out of date?
Or this?
https://www.kitchenstewardship.com/20...h-do-you-need/
Sounds even handed ... is it BS?
I have to admit ... I have a hard time with the notion that the best sun exposure is no exposure at all. One would think that humans evolved to handle some kind of sun exposure, no?
Please don't take this as criticism ... it's a genuine question. I hear conflicting advice about what's healthy and what is not. Melanoma's nasty, but so are the myriad of other ways to die.
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
08-25-10, 09:53 PM
#36
Single-serving poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
What do you think of this?
https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ine-good_x.htm
5 years old, obviously. Is it out of date?
Or this?
https://www.kitchenstewardship.com/20...h-do-you-need/
Sounds even handed ... is it BS?
I have to admit ... I have a hard time with the notion that the best sun exposure is no exposure at all. One would think that humans evolved to handle some kind of sun exposure, no?
Please don't take this as criticism ... it's a genuine question. I hear conflicting advice about what's healthy and what is not. Melanoma's nasty, but so are the myriad of other ways to die.
https://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ine-good_x.htm
5 years old, obviously. Is it out of date?
Or this?
https://www.kitchenstewardship.com/20...h-do-you-need/
Sounds even handed ... is it BS?
I have to admit ... I have a hard time with the notion that the best sun exposure is no exposure at all. One would think that humans evolved to handle some kind of sun exposure, no?
Please don't take this as criticism ... it's a genuine question. I hear conflicting advice about what's healthy and what is not. Melanoma's nasty, but so are the myriad of other ways to die.
08-25-10, 10:00 PM
#37
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,631
Bikes: Serotta Legend Ti; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 945 Post(s)
Liked 1,990 Times
in
569 Posts
Supposedly, it's not simply a matter of adding vitamin D to your diet. I get plenty of that. Quoting the second article:
Vitamin D is essential for good health. Sure, it’s synthesized and added to milk, but the best and most natural way to get your daily dose of Vitamin D is to spend some time in the sun. (gasp!) Yes, that’s right – time in the sun is healthy for you. In fact, the American Medical Association recommends Vitamin D in the form of 10 to 15 minutes of direct sun (without sunscreen) several times a week. Dermatologists disagree, citing the skin cancer risk.
There is also apparently no evidence that sunscreen actually decreases the risk of skin cancer. Counter-intuitive? You bet. That is why I ask.
Read the second article ... then lets talk. It may be all BS, but ...
Vitamin D is essential for good health. Sure, it’s synthesized and added to milk, but the best and most natural way to get your daily dose of Vitamin D is to spend some time in the sun. (gasp!) Yes, that’s right – time in the sun is healthy for you. In fact, the American Medical Association recommends Vitamin D in the form of 10 to 15 minutes of direct sun (without sunscreen) several times a week. Dermatologists disagree, citing the skin cancer risk.
There is also apparently no evidence that sunscreen actually decreases the risk of skin cancer. Counter-intuitive? You bet. That is why I ask.
Read the second article ... then lets talk. It may be all BS, but ...
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
08-25-10, 10:27 PM
#38
Single-serving poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
The most "natural" way? You'll never get enough vitamin D from milk... you need to take the vitamin as a supplement. As for 10 minutes in the sun a day, it's not a topic of concern, we are speaking about being outside for hours on end.
There is more evidence emerging that diligent use of sunscreen protects against the risk of skin cancer, failure to control for other factors in the older studies was a major undoing of finding any useful information.
I don't really want to "talk" the facts can do that. If you have a real concern about a vitamin D deficiency get tested, it is cheap - skin cancer is not.
There is more evidence emerging that diligent use of sunscreen protects against the risk of skin cancer, failure to control for other factors in the older studies was a major undoing of finding any useful information.
I don't really want to "talk" the facts can do that. If you have a real concern about a vitamin D deficiency get tested, it is cheap - skin cancer is not.
08-25-10, 10:46 PM
#39
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,631
Bikes: Serotta Legend Ti; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 945 Post(s)
Liked 1,990 Times
in
569 Posts
The most "natural" way? You'll never get enough vitamin D from milk... you need to take the vitamin as a supplement. As for 10 minutes in the sun a day, it's not a topic of concern, we are speaking about being outside for hours on end.
There is more evidence emerging that diligent use of sunscreen protects against the risk of skin cancer, failure to control for other factors in the older studies was a major undoing of finding any useful information.
I don't really want to "talk" the facts can do that. If you have a real concern about a vitamin D deficiency get tested, it is cheap - skin cancer is not.
There is more evidence emerging that diligent use of sunscreen protects against the risk of skin cancer, failure to control for other factors in the older studies was a major undoing of finding any useful information.
I don't really want to "talk" the facts can do that. If you have a real concern about a vitamin D deficiency get tested, it is cheap - skin cancer is not.
On the other hand, the second article mentions some possible negative consequences of sunscreen use, particularly if you don't reapply.
From the second article:
"Some, like Dr. Michael Eades, a blogger with an M.D., and Dr. Michael Holick, who just wrote a book on how to get enough Vitamin D, would say the reason sunscreen use is linked to skin cancer is that the sun isn’t the problem at all. They point to the fact that there is little to no scientific research that the sun causes melanoma and plenty of data demonstrating that chronic sun exposure and vitamin D seem to prevent it. "
True or not? I dunno.Or from the USA Today article:
The dilemma, he said, is a lack of consensus on how much vitamin D is needed or the best way to get it.
No source is ideal. Even if sunshine were to be recommended, the amount needed would depend on the season, time of day, where a person lives, skin color and other factors. Thun and others worry that folks might overdo it.
"People tend to go overboard with even a hint of encouragement to get more sun exposure," Thun said, adding that he'd prefer people get more of the nutrient from food or pills.
But this is difficult. Vitamin D occurs naturally in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. However, diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood, Giovannucci said.
Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form — D-2 — that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3. Multivitamins typically contain only small amounts of D-2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's benefits.
As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at all.
If the second article is right, the AMA recommends 10-15 minutes of sun exposure with no sunscreen several times a week. Presumably, that's because they are considering all the factors not just skin cancer. No source is ideal. Even if sunshine were to be recommended, the amount needed would depend on the season, time of day, where a person lives, skin color and other factors. Thun and others worry that folks might overdo it.
"People tend to go overboard with even a hint of encouragement to get more sun exposure," Thun said, adding that he'd prefer people get more of the nutrient from food or pills.
But this is difficult. Vitamin D occurs naturally in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. However, diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood, Giovannucci said.
Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form — D-2 — that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3. Multivitamins typically contain only small amounts of D-2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's benefits.
As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at all.
I'd like to hear what the dermatologist has to say about this.
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
08-25-10, 10:48 PM
#40
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,631
Bikes: Serotta Legend Ti; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 945 Post(s)
Liked 1,990 Times
in
569 Posts
That seems reasonable to me. Can you pony up the evidence? I'd like to read it.
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
08-26-10, 11:00 AM
#41
Single-serving poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
You're omitting some important stuff. The recommendation was for 10-15 minutes of sun without sunscreen. If you read the article, you'll note that that is tantamount to 15*15 minutes or 3.75 hours of sun with only SPF 15 sunscreen. Do he math for SPF 30 or SPF 50 sunscreens.
On the other hand, the second article mentions some possible negative consequences of sunscreen use, particularly if you don't reapply.
From the second article:
Or from the USA Today article:
I'd like to hear what the dermatologist has to say about this.
On the other hand, the second article mentions some possible negative consequences of sunscreen use, particularly if you don't reapply.
From the second article:
"Some, like Dr. Michael Eades, a blogger with an M.D., and Dr. Michael Holick, who just wrote a book on how to get enough Vitamin D, would say the reason sunscreen use is linked to skin cancer is that the sun isn’t the problem at all. They point to the fact that there is little to no scientific research that the sun causes melanoma and plenty of data demonstrating that chronic sun exposure and vitamin D seem to prevent it. "
True or not? I dunno.Or from the USA Today article:
The dilemma, he said, is a lack of consensus on how much vitamin D is needed or the best way to get it.
No source is ideal. Even if sunshine were to be recommended, the amount needed would depend on the season, time of day, where a person lives, skin color and other factors. Thun and others worry that folks might overdo it.
"People tend to go overboard with even a hint of encouragement to get more sun exposure," Thun said, adding that he'd prefer people get more of the nutrient from food or pills.
But this is difficult. Vitamin D occurs naturally in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. However, diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood, Giovannucci said.
Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form — D-2 — that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3. Multivitamins typically contain only small amounts of D-2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's benefits.
As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at all.
If the second article is right, the AMA recommends 10-15 minutes of sun exposure with no sunscreen several times a week. Presumably, that's because they are considering all the factors not just skin cancer. No source is ideal. Even if sunshine were to be recommended, the amount needed would depend on the season, time of day, where a person lives, skin color and other factors. Thun and others worry that folks might overdo it.
"People tend to go overboard with even a hint of encouragement to get more sun exposure," Thun said, adding that he'd prefer people get more of the nutrient from food or pills.
But this is difficult. Vitamin D occurs naturally in salmon, tuna and other oily fish, and is routinely added to milk. However, diet accounts for very little of the vitamin D circulating in blood, Giovannucci said.
Supplements contain the nutrient, but most use an old form — D-2 — that is far less potent than the more desirable D-3. Multivitamins typically contain only small amounts of D-2 and include vitamin A, which offsets many of D's benefits.
As a result, pills might not raise vitamin D levels much at all.
I'd like to hear what the dermatologist has to say about this.
Don't portray that I said 10 minutes of sun a day would be a disaster, I clearly didn't.
08-26-10, 11:09 AM
#43
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,631
Bikes: Serotta Legend Ti; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 945 Post(s)
Liked 1,990 Times
in
569 Posts
Obviously, this is a touchy subject for you ... sorry to upset your boat.
As I said at the outset, I'm not challenging anyone ... I'm just interested in the facts.
As I said at the outset, I'm not challenging anyone ... I'm just interested in the facts.
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
08-26-10, 11:31 AM
#44
Single-serving poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Your vitamin D argument is not a sound reason to refuse sun protection - Vitamin D levels can be monitored and controlled - that is why I even bother to respond.
08-26-10, 11:41 AM
#45
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,631
Bikes: Serotta Legend Ti; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 945 Post(s)
Liked 1,990 Times
in
569 Posts
I really don't have an agenda. And it's not my vitamin A argument. The 10-15 minutes of sun exposure is the AMA's suggestion, not mine.
The notion here is that if 15 minutes of sun without sunscreen is AMA recommended as beneficial to good health and that translates into almost 4 hours of sun with an SPF 15 sunscreen, why should someone worry wear capes, arm/leg covers and the like?
The confusing thing to me is that the article suggests that the use of sunscreens themselves may increase the risk of skin cancer. So is it even reasonable to suggest that 15 minutes without sunscreen is analogous to 3.75 hours with SPF 15? I truly don't know.
I mean ... you have to admit ... it is confusing.
Edit to add: I think there is a tendency for people to focus on the maladies they have personal experience with to the exclusion of others that may indeed present a greater risk. Unfortunately, I know a number of people who've either survived or passed from colon cancer and heart disease ... both far more common than skin cancer and both supposedly aided by some amount of sun exposure.
The notion here is that if 15 minutes of sun without sunscreen is AMA recommended as beneficial to good health and that translates into almost 4 hours of sun with an SPF 15 sunscreen, why should someone worry wear capes, arm/leg covers and the like?
The confusing thing to me is that the article suggests that the use of sunscreens themselves may increase the risk of skin cancer. So is it even reasonable to suggest that 15 minutes without sunscreen is analogous to 3.75 hours with SPF 15? I truly don't know.
I mean ... you have to admit ... it is confusing.
Edit to add: I think there is a tendency for people to focus on the maladies they have personal experience with to the exclusion of others that may indeed present a greater risk. Unfortunately, I know a number of people who've either survived or passed from colon cancer and heart disease ... both far more common than skin cancer and both supposedly aided by some amount of sun exposure.
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Last edited by Biker395; 08-26-10 at 11:45 AM.
08-26-10, 11:43 AM
#46
Senior Member
Jeesh- why don't you eliminate all risk and stay indoors and ride rollers. Its dangerous out there.
08-26-10, 12:16 PM
#48
Single-serving poster
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 5,098
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
I really don't have an agenda. And it's not my vitamin A argument. The 10-15 minutes of sun exposure is the AMA's suggestion, not mine.
The notion here is that if 15 minutes of sun without sunscreen is AMA recommended as beneficial to good health and that translates into almost 4 hours of sun with an SPF 15 sunscreen, why should someone worry wear capes, arm/leg covers and the like?
The confusing thing to me is that the article suggests that the use of sunscreens themselves may increase the risk of skin cancer. So is it even reasonable to suggest that 15 minutes without sunscreen is analogous to 3.75 hours with SPF 15? I truly don't know.
I mean ... you have to admit ... it is confusing.
Edit to add: I think there is a tendency for people to focus on the maladies they have personal experience with to the exclusion of others that may indeed present a greater risk. Unfortunately, I know a number of people who've either survived or passed from colon cancer and heart disease ... both far more common than skin cancer and both supposedly aided by some amount of sun exposure.
The notion here is that if 15 minutes of sun without sunscreen is AMA recommended as beneficial to good health and that translates into almost 4 hours of sun with an SPF 15 sunscreen, why should someone worry wear capes, arm/leg covers and the like?
The confusing thing to me is that the article suggests that the use of sunscreens themselves may increase the risk of skin cancer. So is it even reasonable to suggest that 15 minutes without sunscreen is analogous to 3.75 hours with SPF 15? I truly don't know.
I mean ... you have to admit ... it is confusing.
Edit to add: I think there is a tendency for people to focus on the maladies they have personal experience with to the exclusion of others that may indeed present a greater risk. Unfortunately, I know a number of people who've either survived or passed from colon cancer and heart disease ... both far more common than skin cancer and both supposedly aided by some amount of sun exposure.
There is another thread somewhere on the forum to debate the "sunscreen controversy" - it was a total disaster.
08-26-10, 12:55 PM
#49
Seat Sniffer
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: SoCal
Posts: 5,631
Bikes: Serotta Legend Ti; 2006 Schwinn Fastback Pro and 1996 Colnago Decor Super C96; 2003 Univega Alpina 700; 2000 Schwinn Super Sport
Mentioned: 18 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 945 Post(s)
Liked 1,990 Times
in
569 Posts
I'm not that knowledgeable on the subject (which is why I asked), but to my eyes, that second article seemed even handed. Clinical trials, with all the safeguards they have, would certainly be better, but apparently, they are few and far between.
You're right. A fair skinned person would almost certainly get 10 minutes a day of exposure doing nothing in particular, and this is a long distance forum. But my question is this ... if 10-15 minutes of exposure several times a week without sunscreen is healthy, does that mean that 7.5 hours is beneficial with SPF 30 sunscreen is healthy too? 7.5 hours is certainly relevant for long distance cyclists ... my understanding is that the hours of danger are really only 11-3PM or so anyway.
I would be inclined to say yes ... but then, there is that data that suggests sunscreen itself may be part of the problem.
That failing to reapply may be worse than not applying at all was news to me ... and counter-intuitive.
Maybe the answer is that it is subject to debate. It wouldn't be the first subject on BF like that.
__________________
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
Proud parent of a happy inner child ...
08-26-10, 11:08 PM
#50
Senior Member
Common sense, evaluate the risks , your set of genetics. In three known generations of farmers and sun worshipers in our family , I have never seen a skin cancer.