Do I still need to use sunscreen with beef tallow as my moisturiser

[jed8264r]

Title

 

[copercel123]

Title

just buy a sunscreen moistruzer

 

[jed8264r]

just buy a sunscreen moistruzer

But if I don’t want to should I still use sunscreen after beef tallow

 

[copercel123]

But if I don’t want to should I still use sunscreen after beef tallow

beed tallow is cope but if you wanna go with the flow then use before the beef tallow

 

[Never Get Up]

“Sunscreen”

 

[jed8264r]

beed tallow is cope but if you wanna go with the flow then use before the beef tallow

Alr

 

[GreekGenes]

yes, beef tallow provides no serious protection from UVA/UVB

 

[jed8264r]

yes, beef tallow provides no serious protection from UVA/UVB

Thanks

 

[Dr. Mog]

Does your beef tallow have SPF? No? Then use anything with an SPF. Simple.

 

[jed8264r]

Does your beef tallow have SPF? No? Then use anything with an SPF. Simple.

Thanks

 

[Mossicg]

sunscreen is trash imagine being scared of the sun, don't use that shit it's pure skin cancer made in a bottle

 

[Tallcell]

Nigga must smell good when you stand in the sun

 

[Seong Gi-Hun]

Amazon.com

 

[genetically fucked]

beed tallow is cope but if you wanna go with the flow then use before the beef tallow

how is it cope? it legit just works as a moisturizer

 

[DR. NICKGA]

“Sunscreen”

sunscreen is trash imagine being scared of the sun, don't use that shit it's pure skin cancer made in a bottle

No sun vs sun

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00002?articleid=1691733

Results: The daily sunscreen group showed no detectable increase in skin aging after 4.5 years. Skin aging from baseline to the end of the trial was 24% less in the daily sunscreen group than in the discretionary sunscreen group (relative odds, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98]). β-Carotene supplementation had no overall effect on skin aging, although contrasting associations were seen in subgroups with different severity of aging at baseline.

4.5 years and no skin aging, do you guys have any scientific arguments against the fact that sunscreens are useless?

Or let me guess.. you guys are psuedoscientists who love talking bullshit

 

[DR. NICKGA]

sunscreen is trash imagine being scared of the sun, don't use that shit it's pure skin cancer made in a bottle

SUNSCREEN = SKIN CANCER?
you are making a big claim, do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim? I found the opposite

study about impact of sunscreen at the molecular level

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pcmr.12157

sunscreen provides 100 per cent protection against all three forms of skin cancer
1. BCC (basal cell carcinoma)
2. SCC (squamous cell carcinoma)
3. malignant melanoma

Sun screen protect the p53 gene against mutations (p53 = repair skin damage, mutation = no longer doing its work)

BE SILENT You broscience got destroyed

 

[Mossicg]

SUNSCREEN = SKIN CANCER?
you are making a big claim, do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim? I found the opposite

study about impact of sunscreen at the molecular level

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/pcmr.12157

sunscreen provides 100 per cent protection against all three forms of skin cancer
1. BCC (basal cell carcinoma)
2. SCC (squamous cell carcinoma)
3. malignant melanoma

Sun screen protect the p53 gene against mutations (p53 = repair skin damage, mutation = no longer doing its work)

BE SILENT You broscience got destroyed

nigga I don't even know if I should report you, this is clearly DEEPSEEK Ai lol, even the reply before

 

[DR. NICKGA]

nigga I don't even know if I should report you, this is clearly DEEPSEEK Ai lol, even the reply before

go report me , i used no ai what so ever

 

[ingram33]

No sun vs sun

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-158-11-201306040-00002?articleid=1691733

Results: The daily sunscreen group showed no detectable increase in skin aging after 4.5 years. Skin aging from baseline to the end of the trial was 24% less in the daily sunscreen group than in the discretionary sunscreen group (relative odds, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.98]). β-Carotene supplementation had no overall effect on skin aging, although contrasting associations were seen in subgroups with different severity of aging at baseline.

4.5 years and no skin aging, do you guys have any scientific arguments against the fact that sunscreens are useless?

Or let me guess.. you guys are psuedoscientists who love talking bullshit

The photo in question made me do some research. The dude was a trucker, and let's assume his diet was poor, likely full of processed foods and mostly unsaturated fats. Now, this is just an assumption, and a proper study would need to be done to confirm it. Also, the study shows a statistically significant reduction in skin aging with daily sunscreen use, but since the confidence interval is fairly wide and close to 1.0, the effect isn’t super strong. It’s supportive evidence that sunscreen helps protect against skin aging — but not absolute proof.


The idea that we should only deal with absolute truths makes sense in fields like math and physics, where systems are deterministic and governed by fixed laws. But biology is more complex and influenced by countless variables (diet, genetics, sun exposure, etc.), so absolute truths are rare. That said, this study isn’t even a long-term, locked-in trial capable of establishing causation — it’s just moderate evidence over 4.5 years. Until there’s stronger, long-term data, the protective effect of sunscreen remains a probability, not a certainty.

 

[jed8264r]

The photo in question made me do some research. The dude was a trucker, and let's assume his diet was poor, likely full of processed foods and mostly unsaturated fats. Now, this is just an assumption, and a proper study would need to be done to confirm it. Also, the study shows a statistically significant reduction in skin aging with daily sunscreen use, but since the confidence interval is fairly wide and close to 1.0, the effect isn’t super strong. It’s supportive evidence that sunscreen helps protect against skin aging — but not absolute proof.


The idea that we should only deal with absolute truths makes sense in fields like math and physics, where systems are deterministic and governed by fixed laws. But biology is more complex and influenced by countless variables (diet, genetics, sun exposure, etc.), so absolute truths are rare. That said, this study isn’t even a long-term, locked-in trial capable of establishing causation — it’s just moderate evidence over 4.5 years. Until there’s stronger, long-term data, the protective effect of sunscreen remains a probability, not a certainty.

Thanks this is very helpful

 

[DR. NICKGA]

The photo in question made me do some research. The dude was a trucker

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jdv.17660

A female only using sunscreen on her face, not neck
you can use google and find a another thousand of the same phenomenon happening

Also, the study shows a statistically significant reduction in skin aging with daily sunscreen use, but since the confidence interval is fairly wide and close to 1.0, the effect isn’t super strong. It’s supportive evidence that sunscreen helps protect against skin aging — but not absolute proof.


The idea that we should only deal with absolute truths makes sense in fields like math and physics, where systems are deterministic and governed by fixed laws. But biology is more complex and influenced by countless variables (diet, genetics, sun exposure, etc.), so absolute truths are rare. That said, this study isn’t even a long-term, locked-in trial capable of establishing causation — it’s just moderate evidence over 4.5 years. Until there’s stronger, long-term data, the protective effect of sunscreen remains a probability, not a certainty.

Just total bullshit, the sunscreen group got 4.5 years , and no aging? this is enough proof on how the sun will damage the skin

So you main argument is, biology is complex
there should be more longer studies controlling the fact of diet, genetics and more

Wel, you are not gonna get that.

You are not gonna get the always absolute truth, there are many studies supporting the fact on how sunscreen will damage the skin, there are none good study about the opposite fact
So in logic you believe the fact that the sun damage the skin, sunscreen help

Also you did not mention the study i sended on how the sun will damage the skin in the molecule level (but you dont care since they are not controlling the fact of diet, genetics and more)

 

[ingram33]

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jdv.17660

View attachment 3554394
A female only using sunscreen on her face, not neck
you can use google and find a another thousand of the same phenomenon happening

Just total bullshit, the sunscreen group got 4.5 years , and no aging? this is enough proof on how the sun will damage the skin

So you main argument is, biology is complex
there should be more longer studies controlling the fact of diet, genetics and more

Wel, you are not gonna get that.

You are not gonna get the always absolute truth, there are many studies supporting the fact on how sunscreen will damage the skin, there are none good study about the opposite fact
So in logic you believe the fact that the sun damage the skin, sunscreen help

Also you did not mention the study i sended on how the sun will damage the skin in the molecule level (but you dont care since they are not controlling the fact of diet, genetics and more)

Its most likely the processed foods, they often contain high amounts of oxidized polyunsaturated fats (like seed oils), which are more prone to oxidative damage when exposed to UV radiation.

 

[jeff1234]

beed tallow is cope but if you wanna go with the flow then use before the beef tallow

w

 

[jeff1234]

just buy a sunscreen moistruzer

2