It’s the absolute dead of winter, and many of you are subsisting in ruthlessly frigid weather. The local meteorologist cheerfully announces that, since December, you now have 19 more minutes of daylight! Yippee. It’s 4:30, and the sun hasn’t completely sunk below the icy horizon. That’s all the news from Lake Tundra!
As tempting as it is to hibernate in the comfort of our warm living room, the fact remains that, while we’re well within our rights to curse the cold, we need the sunlight.
Yes, in summer, it’s simple. Just get off your duff and walk outside. In January, well, it’s The Christmas Story scene when Ralphie’s mom bundles up his little brother in preparation for the walk to school: “I can’t put my arms down!”
Read MoreHere’s what we’re talking about this morning, gang. We want your two cents’ worth on:
Sun
Though you only need a few minutes’ exposure, here’s yet another compelling reason to get a little sunshine daily if you are able to take advantage of it. Vitamin D appears to help prevent both breast and colon cancer, and doctors say the best source is natural sunlight. Experts disagree about ideal exposure times. Fair-skinned recommendations range from 3 minutes to 15 minutes, while darker-skinned individuals may be fine with up to an hour of sunlight daily. Don’t fry to a crisp, though – and a tanning bed is not the same thing.
Read MoreAs you may know by now, I am not afraid of the sunlight. Although most dermatologists suggest that we might be better off living in caves and covering ourselves head-to-toe whenever we venture out, my own evolutionary perspective leads me to believe we were designed to get sunlight almost every day and that our health suffers if we don’t get enough. In fact, recent studies show that, as a result of our shunning the sun, many of us suffer from Vitamin D deficiency and a resulting loss of bone density and immune function (to name a few effects). Some researchers opine that more people die from lack of sun than from too much sun! But, I digress. I came across an article the other day that piqued my curiosity since it dealt with the combination of running and sunning. It basically showed that marathoners (of which I was once one) tend to get skin cancer at higher rates than other people. The more they ran, the higher the incidence of skin cancer. My take on what’s happening is that not only are the runners exposed to more sun (which can cause DNA damage in skin cells leading to cancer), but they are also bathed in more free radicals overall from the excessive oxidation of glucose and fats. We know that sun exposure does deplete the skin of the antioxidant Vitamin C. Moreover, the act of running tends to divert blood flow away from the skin, starving it of additional important antioxidants that could neutralize the free-radical damage in the skin tissues. Add to that the enormous amounts of cortisol marathoners pump out doing this unnaturally high steady-state oxidative work and we not only get the DNA damage, we get the immuno-suppressive effects of the high-stress activity. So: more DNA damage and a reduced ability to recognize that damage and take steps to eliminate those cells and/or repair the damage. That’s one reason (among many) that I have doused myself with antioxidants inside and out for over 20 years now. That’s also why one of my newest mantras is: a little running is OK – a lot is bad. This article also brings up other points of discussion, such as whether the reliance on inferior sunscreens was another cause. It appears that for the past 30 years so-called sunscreens have been good at blocking UVB rays (the ones that burn) but not UVA (the ones primarily responsible for DNA damage and skin cancer). The effect is a generation of gung-ho health fanatics (yes, I was one) slathering on sunscreen and running 40, 50 or 100 miles a week. The fact that we didn’t burn only lead us to believe we could stay out even longer. Little did we know that the burning of skin might have been a great first warning to get the hell out of the sun. Unfortunately, the sunscreen gave us the false notion we were invulnerable. More on that later…. Most Popular Posts [tags]sunlight, sun, dermatologist, Vitamin … Continue reading “Here Comes the Sun”
Read MoreUpdate!
Junior Apple Anna asks:
“I saw your post about U.S. sunblock not preventing the bad kind of rays (UVA) but I have heard about L’Oreal coming out with something similar to what is available in Europe. Is this true?”
Anna, yes. The FDA did recently approve OTC use of Anthelios SX (produced by L’Oreal). Similar to the overwhelmingly popular European Mexoryl SX, Anthelios contains ingredients that block all rays.
However, it’s worth remembering that even with the admission of a (finally) more effective sunblock, we may want to rethink the entire sunblock argument, regardless.
The body comes complete with a natural sun defense system: sunburn. Do we need to slather on (supposedly safe) chemicals on a daily basis, or simply be judicious in our sun exposure?
Moreover, even the safest sunblock is going to prevent our bodies from absorbing critical vitamin D. Sure, D is added to milk, but the better source is from the sun.
[tags] Anthelios SX, L’Oreal, sunscreen, OTC, Mexoryl, FDA, sunblock, vitamin D [/tags]
Read MoreMade you think twice, didn’t it?
Many of us glom on the sunscreen in the hope of warding off the slightest wrinkle or, worse, skin cancer. And many of us diligently gulp down glass after glass of milk, convinced calcium will save our bones from the high rates of osteoporosis Westerners suffer from.
Enter critical reassessment.
For those craving some clickativity related to Mark’s examination of the Vitamin D-sunblock-health issue, the New York Post ran a terrific piece recently on the importance of getting your daily D-licious dose. I tend to beat the osteoporosis horse quite a bit – but hey, it’s important! D is absorbed through the skin. D is necessary for bones. And sunscreen stops this nice little evolutionary convenience from…well, convening.
As Mark points out, why slather on a sunblock that doesn’t prevent the more dangerous UVA rays (thanks, Uncle Sam), does prevent absorption of critical vitamin D that is as equally important to bone health as calcium, and interferes with nature’s built-in “Get your buns indoors!” mechanism? (Or, as the Big Apple puts it, burning to a crisp.)
[tags] New York Post, sunscreen, osteoporosis, wrinkles, skin cancer, calcium, dairy, milk, vitamin D, UVA rays [/tags]
Read MoreLet me be the first to say: I am pro-sunlight. I’m not talking about weather patterns, either. I’m talking about exposing yourself to some rays. I spend a fair amount of time outside soaking up the sun’s energy (of course, being careful not to burn). Although evidently most dermatologists believe we would be better off spelunking in caves 24/7 and covering ourselves in head-to-toe black garb whenever we venture out, my own evolutionary perspective leads me to believe we were designed to get sunlight almost every day and that our health suffers if we don’t get enough. In fact, recent studies show that, as a result of our shunning the sun, many of us suffer from Vitamin D deficiency and a resulting loss of bone density and immune function (to name just a few effects). Some researchers opine that more people die from lack of sun than from too much sun! But, I digress. I came across an article the other day that piqued my curiosity since it dealt with the combination of running and sunning. It basically showed that marathoners (e.g. formerly yours truly) tend to get skin cancer at higher rates than other people. The more they run, the higher the incidence of skin cancer. My take on what’s happening is that not only are runners exposed to more sun (which can cause DNA damage in skin cells – ergo, cancer), but they are also bathed in more free-radicals overall from the excessive oxidation of glucose and fats. We know that sun exposure does deplete the skin of the antioxidant Vitamin C. Stick with me on this: the act of running tends to divert blood flow away from the skin, starving it of additional important antioxidants that could neutralize the free-radical damage in the skin tissues. Add to that the enormous amounts of stressful cortisol marathoners pump out doing this unnaturally high steady-state oxidative work and we not only get the DNA damage, we get the immune-bashing effects of the high-stress activity. The effect: more DNA damage and a reduced ability to recognize that damage and take steps to eliminate those cells and/or repair the damage. That’s one reason (among many) that I have doused myself with antioxidants inside and out for over 20 years now. That’s also why one of my mantras is: a little running is OK – a lot is bad. The above article also brings up other points of discussion, such as whether the reliance on inferior sunscreens might be another cause. This is vitally important to discuss and it’s not getting much attention in the mainstream media. It appears that for the past 30 years so-called sunscreens have been good at blocking UVB rays (the ones that burn) but not UVA (the ones primarily responsible for DNA damage and skin cancer). Thank you, FDA. The terrible effect is a generation of gung-ho health fanatics slathering on sunscreen and running 40, 50 or 100 miles a week. The fact that we didn’t burn only … Continue reading “Sunscreen May Not Be Your Friend”
Read More
Ⓒ 2023 Mark's Daily Apple
