Outside: Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 9,083
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3382 Post(s)
Liked 5,554 Times
in
2,880 Posts
Outside: Is Sunscreen the New Margarine?
https://www.outsideonline.com/238075...cancer-science
Fascinating counterpoint to all we've been taught.
Fascinating counterpoint to all we've been taught.
#2
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,076
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
Sure enough, when he exposed volunteers to the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight without sunscreen, their nitric oxide levels went up and their blood pressure went down.
#3
The Left Coast, USA
lol .
Next up, sunglasses. Those that dilate the pupils but don't block all forms of UV.
#4
Senior Member
#5
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 1,794
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1027 Post(s)
Liked 326 Times
in
204 Posts
I've long thought that the guidelines on sun exposure don't make much sense. Now, keep in mind, I'm not expert, but I think the following points are generally true:
1. People often take an all-or-nothing approach to health issues. If "too much" of something is bad, the recommendation is to cut it out entirely (or almost entirely). But, often the human body doesn't work that way, to little can be just as bad as too much. Too much salt is bad for you, so is too little. Ditto for water, saturated fat, total food intake, exercise etc.
2. Often, the recommendations are made by people who deal strictly with the "too much" side of things. They also tend to put more importance on their particular field than others. For instance, people here value aerobic ability more, and muscular strength less, than people on a strength training forum would. Dermatologists, deal with skin cancer regularly, so it's natural for them to have some tunnel vision on the matter.
3. Vitamin D is believed to have a lot of health benefits (although the article brings this into question a somewhat, as it may be another sun-related mechanism that improves health). These benefits include a reduction in the risk of many types of cancer.
4. Vitamin D supplements don't seem to be absorbed very well by the body. The best way to get it is through sunlight.
5. People in northern climates evolved to have lighter skin. There's likely a reason for this. It makes sense that this would be linked to reduced sun exposure.
6. People would freak out at the idea that a tan is the result of damage caused, by the sun, at the cellular level. But, exercise causes damage at the cellular level and no one thinks it's bad. That's not to say these are necessarily equivalent, but it does mean that damage causing an adaptive response isn't necessarily the end of the world.
The article, for those who didn't read it, goes into a bunch of other points that I hadn't considered before and won't repeat here, but it's very good IMO.
Anyway, I don't think there's some sort of massive conspiracy funded by the makers of sunscreen or anything, but I also don't stress too much about sun exposure. I figure, as long as I'm not getting a burn, I'm probably good. I'll put sunscreen on before a long ride (but it probably won't be SPF 30), but I'm not one of those types that always wears it, or puts it on under my clothes or anything like that.
1. People often take an all-or-nothing approach to health issues. If "too much" of something is bad, the recommendation is to cut it out entirely (or almost entirely). But, often the human body doesn't work that way, to little can be just as bad as too much. Too much salt is bad for you, so is too little. Ditto for water, saturated fat, total food intake, exercise etc.
2. Often, the recommendations are made by people who deal strictly with the "too much" side of things. They also tend to put more importance on their particular field than others. For instance, people here value aerobic ability more, and muscular strength less, than people on a strength training forum would. Dermatologists, deal with skin cancer regularly, so it's natural for them to have some tunnel vision on the matter.
3. Vitamin D is believed to have a lot of health benefits (although the article brings this into question a somewhat, as it may be another sun-related mechanism that improves health). These benefits include a reduction in the risk of many types of cancer.
4. Vitamin D supplements don't seem to be absorbed very well by the body. The best way to get it is through sunlight.
5. People in northern climates evolved to have lighter skin. There's likely a reason for this. It makes sense that this would be linked to reduced sun exposure.
6. People would freak out at the idea that a tan is the result of damage caused, by the sun, at the cellular level. But, exercise causes damage at the cellular level and no one thinks it's bad. That's not to say these are necessarily equivalent, but it does mean that damage causing an adaptive response isn't necessarily the end of the world.
The article, for those who didn't read it, goes into a bunch of other points that I hadn't considered before and won't repeat here, but it's very good IMO.
Anyway, I don't think there's some sort of massive conspiracy funded by the makers of sunscreen or anything, but I also don't stress too much about sun exposure. I figure, as long as I'm not getting a burn, I'm probably good. I'll put sunscreen on before a long ride (but it probably won't be SPF 30), but I'm not one of those types that always wears it, or puts it on under my clothes or anything like that.
#6
Jedi Master
I got this sunburn on a 600k in July using some store-brand SPF 50 sport chemical sunscreen. It still hasn't gone away completely over 6 months later. I switched to Thinksport 50 mineral sunscreen after that and reapply at every control. My strong preference is to avoid sunburns if I can. As the article concludes "it's your call".
#7
Senior Member
I am pretty sure they means completely naked sun exposure or beach naked. For 30mins in whole body will be good for a day.
If you wear cloths, the sun ray will hit only your head, forearm and shin. That may need more than an hour to get enough Vitamin D for a day.
Time of day also play crucial role, early morning will have weakest sun ray, midday will be the best and then evening.
If you wear cloths, the sun ray will hit only your head, forearm and shin. That may need more than an hour to get enough Vitamin D for a day.
Time of day also play crucial role, early morning will have weakest sun ray, midday will be the best and then evening.
#8
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
I got this sunburn on a 600k in July using some store-brand SPF 50 sport chemical sunscreen. It still hasn't gone away completely over 6 months later. I switched to Thinksport 50 mineral sunscreen after that and reapply at every control. My strong preference is to avoid sunburns if I can. As the article concludes "it's your call".
Get a pair of these:
https://www.pearlizumi.com/US/en/Sho...ees/p/14371703
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Zang's Spur, CO
Posts: 9,083
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3382 Post(s)
Liked 5,554 Times
in
2,880 Posts
I chose black because I knew I would promptly get chainring gunk on white ones.
I always wear them with shorts, and I've never been burned through them.
It is surprising how effective they are, considering they are practically sheer.
#10
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
I've decided that physical blocks are better than chemical blocks, when it is possible to use them.
I almost always wear long-sleeved jerseys and try to avoid peak UV (11am-2pm) in the summer.
There is some evidence that at least some of these sun blocks might actually be photo-activators that can increase the chances of developing melanoma, even if they offer some protection from basal and squamous cell skin cancers. The zinc oxide-based ones are probably the safest of the chemical blocks. I try to stay away from the oestrogen-mimics and nanoparticle-based options.
I almost always wear long-sleeved jerseys and try to avoid peak UV (11am-2pm) in the summer.
There is some evidence that at least some of these sun blocks might actually be photo-activators that can increase the chances of developing melanoma, even if they offer some protection from basal and squamous cell skin cancers. The zinc oxide-based ones are probably the safest of the chemical blocks. I try to stay away from the oestrogen-mimics and nanoparticle-based options.
#11
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,558
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3901 Post(s)
Liked 1,953 Times
in
1,393 Posts
I always wear arm covers, white sun sleeves in summer. Even on extremely hot pass climbs, I've found them no worse than bare arms. Sunscreen's been my choice for legs and face. I've yet to see a rider with a sun mask. I don't think so. Why do I wear sun sleeves? Because I could see that the skin on my forearms was going to the devil even with the application of sunscreen. I use Aloe Gator SPF 40, only one application at the start of even a long ride. Sweat doesn't seem to take it off. 10-14 hours in the sun is a long time. Following the SPF definition, 20' X 40 is 800 minutes or ~13 hours. Seems about right. My legs get a little tan over the summer, but not greatly tanned. I wear black shorts, but otherwise my kit is light colored, including a white skull cap under my helmet to cover my sparse head hair. Prevents the striped skunk appearance. On one hot pass climb I saw a rider ahead of me, dressed all in black, wrists to shoes, riding upright with his arms held out to catch the tiny breeze. That was right before he was sagged off the course. My guess is that "cold black" isn't.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#12
Jedi Master
I got a pair of the castelli sun legs. Used them once and found the silicone gripper to be uncomfortable. It may have been the burn that was making them uncomfortable, so I'll try them again next season. I did a little research and went with a good mineral sunscreen instead. My mistake was buying cheap sunscreen not re-applying frequently enough. I have been wearing long-sleeved rash-guards under my jersey for years.
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 23,208
Mentioned: 89 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18883 Post(s)
Liked 10,646 Times
in
6,054 Posts
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: northern Deep South
Posts: 8,929
Bikes: Fuji Touring, Novara Randonee
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2611 Post(s)
Liked 1,951 Times
in
1,225 Posts
The interesting point in the article for me was the claim that melanoma is not an automatic death sentence. The dermatologists I've talked to always claimed it was very serious, often metasticized (sp?) before it was be treated, and was therefore deadly. I'd like to see some sources for the author's claim.
#15
Full Member
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Southern California
Posts: 492
Bikes: Historical: Schwinn Speedster; Schwinn Collegiate; 1981 Ross Gran Tour; 1981 Dawes Atlantis; 1991 Specialized Rockhopper. Current: 1987 Ritchey Ultra; 1987 Centurion Ironman Dave Scott Master; 1992 Specialized Stumpjumper FS
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 209 Post(s)
Liked 178 Times
in
111 Posts
That's a fantastic article, thanks. I love the margarine reference, as a person who grew up in one of those states that banned it.