Comments on: Purposely Misleading Marketing Lingo: Sunscreen Edition

By: food dood

food dood — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:36:46 +0000

SPF is actually a logarithmic calculation (1-1/x). However sunscreens only work for 2-4 hours and must be regularly and thickly reapplied. In Australia (world’s highest skin cancer rates) the maximum SPF factor that can be claimed is SPF30.

The most pigmented skin has about 45x as much natural sun protection as very pale skin. A pale skinned person will get as much UV exposure in 10 minutes as a dark skinned person gets in a entire day.

A person with a typical northern European complexion only requires 5-10 minutes exposure of the face and arms each day during summer to produce the maximum possible 8000iu of vitamin D.

A dark skinned person who lives at a high latitude (eg Canada) will be unable to get sufficient vitamin D from sunlight even in summer.

Vitamin D is only stored in the body for three months.

By: Kevin William ty

Kevin William ty — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 05:30:05 +0000

I agree with you mark. Im happy using suncream spf50++ pa from faceshop. hee hee

By: Health Highlights – June 18th, 2009 [Highlight HEALTH]- Health News Central

Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:50:09 +0000

[...] SPF 100 Sunblock | Mark’s Daily Apple [...]

By: Health Highlights - June 18th, 2009 | Highlight HEALTH

Health Highlights - June 18th, 2009 | Highlight HEALTH — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:01:42 +0000

[...] SPF 100 Sunblock | Mark’s Daily Apple [...]

By: BVD

BVD — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:37:06 +0000

I just wanted to chime in on the “pale people who don’t readily tan like sunscreen” side. I had to laugh at the person to claimed to have “very pale” skin who took a whole hour to burn! When the sun’s high like it is now, I can’t even stand outside and talk to friends for more than a few minutes, or I start to bake and end up looking like a particularly fine cut of salmon. Going to “boiled lobster” and on to “fine blister” is not cool, so I use sunblock.

Permanent farmer’s tan (ok, maybe not a tan per se, it’s just pink and not so white that it blinds) from getting broiled at the pool one too many times as a kid is neither healthy nor attractive.

DAMN YOU SWEDES AND PASTY ENGLISH

By: Sandy

Sandy — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 06:17:32 +0000

Mark, I think I need to make a point here. I feel that you’ve been a little laissez faire with your research here – not so much with your evidence, more the way you used it. Let me lay down a few givens so I don’t waste time.
I’ll assume that Grok was an outdoors type, for the sake of all the shade lovers out there. I’ll also assume that people who go outside do so with some common sense – ie, don’t bake in the midday heat etc.
Then I’ll add one more constant to the equation. Imagine Europeans who haven’t evolved through a period of global immigration over the last few hundred years. Result? People with very cold, celtic origins now living very close to the equator (Australia, in my case). Not just in a hot country, but one with a tiny layer of ozone in the atmosphere above it.
So, given the above – how would someone in baking heat try to interpret your article? The answer is with extreme caution.
In Oz sunscreen is not a personal choice. It is one of MANY steps necessary in order to reduce the chances of being knocked off by one of our biggest predators (for Grok’s sake that’s well ahead of sharks and crocs!).
It only takes one skin cell in trauma to lead to melanoma, and the number of people dying in Australia every year is up there with motor vehicle accidents. Yes, it’s that bad. In 2005, 1600 people died of skin cancer in Australia (melanoma and non-melanoma).
Now given that Grok is a common sense outsider, who hasn’t the advantage of thousands of years of local living the risks are far greater than any personal freedoms.
If you ask anyone in Oz about sunscreen the issues raised by your article are moot at best. For someone like me, who lives an outdoor lifestyle suncreen does what most clothing doesn’t do – provide a base UV A+B layer that is reliable. Not perfect, by any means, but reliable. This is my point – the moment we turn away from a reliable defence we are liable to send our mortality rate through the roof.
I hope you appreciate our situation in Oz, you are obviously someone who people look up to.
Thanks
PS-From a stats point of view though, it’s well understood down here (from the government spending millions educating us) that the SPF factor is only a guide and that 30+ ranges are improbable, even with titanium etc. On that part you have my agreement.

By: Got Sunburn? | Live Fit Blog

Got Sunburn? | Live Fit Blog — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:02:54 +0000

[...] a) I’m usually pretty conscious about UV exposure these days and b) a recent posting about the overstated claims about sunscreen over at [...]

By: Jamie

Jamie — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:57:08 +0000

Very little to say on the topic of sunscreen. I wear it, because I don’t feel like wearing long sleeves and tights on my 3-4 hour bike rides (anything shorter than an hour, I go without). But I already know how you feel about long (erm, excessive) endurance exercise, Mark.

However, I will say that this is one of the better examples of your eviscerating social commentary. You can’t buy that kind of mocking

By: Michael DeLuca

Michael DeLuca — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:54:07 +0000

Gradually introduce your body to sunlight while eating properly, and you have your own natural ‘SPF’.

Of course certain SPFs are going to work if you’re an albino and decide one day that you need a 6 hour tanning binge. That’s just common sense.

As for the article, I didn’t take it as Mark denouncing all SPF, he had issue with the NYT piece and the marketing of the numbering system.

By: George

George — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 02:35:23 +0000

All I know is I put on Coppertone sport 70 SPF and didn’t burn after 9 hours in direct sunlight. Works for me. I only applied every 3 hours.