-
Is daily use of an SPF product recommended?
I’ve read that the sun can affect your skin even when indoors. On that note, would you guys recommend always using a moisturizer with SPF? How many of you use a sunscreen product on a regular basis?I wonder if sun damage to skin is just a myth. If it isn’t, why aren’t all moisturizers made with sunscreen ingredients? -
19 Replies
-
SHOULD YOU WEAR SUNSCREEN INDOORS? THE SCIENCE (WITH VIDEO)
How many of you use a sunscreen product on a regular basis?When i’m out for long periods of time under the sun. I normally don’t sit near windows indoors.
why aren’t all moisturizers made with sunscreen ingredients?Because it requires validation of SPF values since they are regulated as drugs / claims. Formulating and validation is an expensive process.
-
If you use sunscreen everywhere Everytime, when and how would you want to get vitamin D?
-
@Abdullah - fortified foods, plus there is not really good evidence that sunscreen use is correlated with vitamin D deficiency.
@DaveStone - I wear sunscreen if I’m going to be outside in the sun for a long time. But I don’t wear it all the time.
Sun damage is not a myth. Just look at the skin of people from Arizona or Florida vs people from Minnesota. If you’re not from the US these are sections of the country that are sunny (Arizona / Florida) and less sunny (Minnesota). People in sunny places have “leathery” looking skin in my opinion.
So, if you care about having skin that doesn’t look aged or weathered, wear sunscreen. Theoretically, sunscreen use should also protect against skin cancer. However, the data on this is much less convincing.
Sunscreens are not regularly added to moisturizers because it would make formulas more expensive without providing a benefit companies could claim. Also, the ingredients are drug actives (at least in the US).
-
@Perry isn’t it simple. No exposure to sun, no vitamin D from sun.
As much as i know black people have better skin than white people and black people expose their skin more to sun than white people.
What causes the skin look aged from sun exposure? UVA or UVB or something just light or something else?
-
UVA is responsible for most of the things that cause aging skin. e.g. collagen/elastin protein break down, melasma, etc.
While sunscreens do block most of the UV, they do not block all of the UV. So, there is still enough that gets through even if you are using sunscreen to produce all the vitamin D that you need.
-
jemolian said:SHOULD YOU WEAR SUNSCREEN INDOORS? THE SCIENCE (WITH VIDEO)How many of you use a sunscreen product on a regular basis?
When i’m out for long periods of time under the sun. I normally don’t sit near windows indoors.
why aren’t all moisturizers made with sunscreen ingredients?Because it requires validation of SPF values since they are regulated as drugs / claims. Formulating and validation is an expensive process.
Thanks. That article was very informative.
-
Perry said:Sun damage is not a myth. Just look at the skin of people from Arizona or Florida vs people from Minnesota. If you’re not from the US these are sections of the country that are sunny (Arizona / Florida) and less sunny (Minnesota). People in sunny places have “leathery” looking skin in my opinion.
So, if you care about having skin that doesn’t look aged or weathered, wear sunscreen. Theoretically, sunscreen use should also protect against skin cancer. However, the data on this is much less convincing.
Sunscreens are not regularly added to moisturizers because it would make formulas more expensive without providing a benefit companies could claim. Also, the ingredients are drug actives (at least in the US).
Never been to Florida or Arizona, but I have been to Southern California. I hadn’t noticed anything different about people’s skin other than that it was tanner. If I looked closer, I’d probably see more wrinkles. Tanning is bad for the skin. I always hated when someone would tell me to “get some color”. I would tell them I’d rather look like Casper than the Cryptkeeper.I didn’t mean that sun damage in general was a myth…just damage when out of direct sunlight. But that article helped clear it up. -
Abdullah said:@Perry isn’t it simple. No exposure to sun, no vitamin D from sun.
As much as i know black people have better skin than white people and black people expose their skin more to sun than white people.
Vitamin D doesn’t have to come from the sun. You can get it through a multivitamin or fortified foods as Perry said. Even milk has some Vitamin D.I’ve read that Vitamin D can’t pass through windows. You have to be outside to get it, and many people don’t have the opportunity to do that regularly. People likely got a lot more Vitamin D 100 years ago.Black people have better skin supposedly because of their higher melanin. It better protects against photodamage. Although lines/wrinkles/spots are only one part of skin aging. Sagging is the other…and that has to do with collagen and elastin loss. Melanin isn’t related to that, at least I don’t think. This article explains it pretty well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756870/ -
@Perry isn’t the purpose of sunscreen and SPF blocking UVB not UVA?
You can use SPF 50 every two hour without blocking UVA that causes aging. Then what is the benefit?
-
DaveStone said:Abdullah said:@Perry isn’t it simple. No exposure to sun, no vitamin D from sun.
As much as i know black people have better skin than white people and black people expose their skin more to sun than white people.
Vitamin D doesn’t have to come from the sun. You can get it through a multivitamin or fortified foods as Perry said. Even milk has some Vitamin D.
yes you can but Don’t you sometimes think that sun may have more benefits other than vitamin D that we would discover in the future?
I’ve read that Vitamin D can’t pass through windows. You have to be outside to get it, and many people don’t have the opportunity to do that regularly.
yes. Vitamin D is made by help of UVB directly hitting the skin.. Window blocks UVB. Your SPF sunscreen blocks UVB. So if you are inside then what is the benefit of applying SPF sunscreen? There isn’t UVB at first place.
aging is caused by UVA. Window doesn’t block UVA, your SPF 50 doesn’t block UVA. So what is the benefit of using SPF 50 or not going in sun for preventing fast aging caused by UVA?
People likely got a lot more Vitamin D 100 years ago.Black people have better skin supposedly because of their higher melanin. It better protects against photodamage.
may be. may be it is because they don’t protect themselves from sun like white people do.Although lines/wrinkles/spots are only one part of skin aging. Sagging is the other…and that has to do with collagen and elastin loss.
in my experience being inside building all the time makes my muscles and skin weak and saggy even if i take vitamin D supplements. Going in the sun naked daily specially mid day gives me muscle energy and my skin feel better. Although morning sun makes me tired ????.Melanin isn’t related to that, at least I don’t think. This article explains it pretty well: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4756870/
@davest@DaveStone
-
The sun does have few other alleged benefits but they aren’t for skin, and the sunlight need not be direct. For example, sunlight helps regulate circadian rhythm. That may have something to do with the indoor/outdoor energy thing you experience.Sunscreen, or maybe Sunblock, does protect your skin from UVA. Provided that it is a broad-spectrum sunscreen. Like Perry said, some UV still gets through but probably not a damaging amount.
-
Sunblock is not an accepted term.
-
DaveStone said:Perry said:Sun damage is not a myth. Just look at the skin of people from Arizona or Florida vs people from Minnesota. If you’re not from the US these are sections of the country that are sunny (Arizona / Florida) and less sunny (Minnesota). People in sunny places have “leathery” looking skin in my opinion.
So, if you care about having skin that doesn’t look aged or weathered, wear sunscreen. Theoretically, sunscreen use should also protect against skin cancer. However, the data on this is much less convincing.
Sunscreens are not regularly added to moisturizers because it would make formulas more expensive without providing a benefit companies could claim. Also, the ingredients are drug actives (at least in the US).
Never been to Florida or Arizona, but I have been to Southern California. I hadn’t noticed anything different about people’s skin other than that it was tanner. If I looked closer, I’d probably see more wrinkles. Tanning is bad for the skin. I always hated when someone would tell me to “get some color”. I would tell them I’d rather look like Casper than the Cryptkeeper.I didn’t mean that sun damage in general was a myth…just damage when out of direct sunlight. But that article helped clear it up.Tanning is literally sun damage, by definition. It is the skin’s physiological response to the trauma of UV exposure. UV induced aging of the skin happens over time. Those tanned Southern Californians will be looking rough as hell in a few decades. That’s how it works.
I’ve been wearing sunscreen every time I leave the house for 7 years. That doesn’t mean my skin is necessarily less wrinkled than those my age currently. But it almost certainly means my skin will be less wrinkled, less pigmented, more elastic and more firm than my peers 10 years from now. Also, my chances of developing skin cancer will be exponentially reduced compared to my peers who didn’t wear sunscreen.
-
I almost can’t believe that there are still people who think sun damage is a myth. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and scientific consensus that the sun ages the skin more than anything else. It is estimated that 80-90% of visible aging of the skin is caused by UV exposure.
Unless you believe that there’s a massive conspiracy in the worldwide scientific community to make people think, erroneously, that the sun ages the skin, I don’t understand how anyone could think UV induced sun damage is a myth.
EVERYTHING ELSE, in terms of impact on the skin, pales when compared to sun exposure. Diet, lifestyle, etc.
-
The monk is 30 years older than the Native American woman. Wear sunscreen folks. If you don’t care about visible aging, wear it to protect your skin from skin cancer, which, contrary to popular belief, can be fatal!!
-
emma1985 said:The monk is 30 years older than the Native American woman. Wear sunscreen folks. If you don’t care about visible aging, wear it to protect your skin from skin cancer, which, contrary to popular belief, can be fatal!!
Good lord…I thought the image on the right was a rock sculpture.
-
emma1985 said:The monk is 30 years older than the Native American woman. Wear sunscreen folks. If you don’t care about visible aging, wear it to protect your skin from skin cancer, which, contrary to popular belief, can be fatal!!
Did (a) use sunscreen? No.
In sun exposure he was like everyone else (most of the time indoors). We are not exposed to direct sun even 30 minutes a day.About (b); most of her life means more than half, means more than 12 hours per day outside. Tht is not how majority of us live.
-
emma1985 said:DaveStone said:Perry said:Sun damage is not a myth. Just look at the skin of people from Arizona or Florida vs people from Minnesota. If you’re not from the US these are sections of the country that are sunny (Arizona / Florida) and less sunny (Minnesota). People in sunny places have “leathery” looking skin in my opinion.
So, if you care about having skin that doesn’t look aged or weathered, wear sunscreen. Theoretically, sunscreen use should also protect against skin cancer. However, the data on this is much less convincing.
Sunscreens are not regularly added to moisturizers because it would make formulas more expensive without providing a benefit companies could claim. Also, the ingredients are drug actives (at least in the US).
Never been to Florida or Arizona, but I have been to Southern California. I hadn’t noticed anything different about people’s skin other than that it was tanner. If I looked closer, I’d probably see more wrinkles. Tanning is bad for the skin. I always hated when someone would tell me to “get some color”. I would tell them I’d rather look like Casper than the Cryptkeeper.I didn’t mean that sun damage in general was a myth…just damage when out of direct sunlight. But that article helped clear it up.Tanning is literally sun damage, by definition. It is the skin’s physiological response to the trauma of UV exposure. UV induced aging of the skin happens over time. Those tanned Southern Californians will be looking rough as hell in a few decades. That’s how it works.
a few decades? I think in a few decades everyone will become old and look like hell.I’ve been wearing sunscreen every time I leave the house for 7 years. That doesn’t mean my skin is necessarily less wrinkled than those my age currently. so what was the benefit? But it almost certainly means my skin will be less wrinkled, less pigmented, more elastic and more firm than my peers 10 years from now. i think this is just how you want it to be. but in reality after 7 Years of sunscreen use your skin was not different that others in your age so it will not different after 10 years too. Also, my chances of developing skin cancer will be exponentially reduced compared to my peers who didn’t wear sunscreen. how much does sun exposure increase the chance of skin cancer? I mean by what percentage?
-
Perry said:UVA is responsible for most of the things that cause aging skin. e.g. collagen/elastin protein break down, melasma, etc.
While sunscreens do block most of the UV, they do not block all of the UV. So, there is still enough that gets through even if you are using sunscreen to produce all the vitamin D that you need.
Also most people don’t wear it on ears, hands, hair part, arms or other exposed skin. That vitamin d production from exposer to UV is happening
Log in to reply.