[GTFIH] Sunscreen might be a gigacope/meme when it comes to preventing aging

[AscendingHero]

Dnrd applying my spf 50 everyday like a good goy

You heard OP

@Gestapo GTFINH bro

 

[Gestapo]

You heard OP

@Gestapo GTFINH bro

at least it is not as bad as the retards that claim skin exposure = whoredom

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

sunscreen is legit imo but I'd say it mostly has an effect on the "finer" skin structure like minimizing fine lines and sun spots. just like tret and botox.

when it comes to actual sagging like in some of these pics, that's probably mostly to do with the soft and hard tissue make up of your face. aka bones and fat and how it changes over time. faces with lots of "flat" areas (due to suboptimal bone structure underneath, ie flat cheeks) tend to age worse ime.

leto's bone structure for example doesn't leave lots of room for a whole lot of sagging because his bones keeps everything relatively firm (combine that with the botox and shit he gets and he'll age better than 99%+ of people):

tl;dr if you want to age well you gotta look at the bone and fat tissue structure of your face rather than just skin

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

if you just look at cheek implant results from google you'll see that just some added volume in the midface from the implants will make you look younger

now imagine that same woman with a jolie tier jaw and compare to the before

 

[Eduardo DOV]

sunscreen is legit imo but I'd say it mostly has an effect on the "finer" skin structure like minimizing fine lines and sun spots. just like tret and botox.

when it comes to actual sagging like in some of these pics, that's probably mostly to do with the soft and hard tissue make up of your face. aka bones and fat and how it changes over time. faces with lots of "flat" areas (due to suboptimal bone structure underneath, ie flat cheeks) tend to age worse ime.

leto's bone structure for example doesn't leave lots of room for a whole lot of sagging because his bones keeps everything relatively firm (combine that with the botox and shit he gets and he'll age better than 99%+ of people):
View attachment 1643513


tl;dr if you want to age well you gotta look at the bone and fat tissue structure of your face rather than just skin

I also commented on Leto's forward growth in OP. Bones and genetics first, as always.
Also, one can look chad and attract women even with some finelines and not a perfect glowing skin.

Also, more legit than sunscreen is that a good tan fits perfect some people, like brad pitt or tom cruise, that red/orange tone. And if you take seriously this thing that sun is a big factor on aging your face as a young man, you'll avoid sun like a paranoid fucker, will have a decrease in your quality of life, because you think you're becoming a "highlander"(reference to a movie, look it up), eternal jb slayer. "Oh no Im not going to the beach, or im going to age my baby face!" jfl, you going to age anyway, retard. Worse case you will only have a little more spots and a few more lines on your face, if your face cant handle that, then you should do some hardmax, or you are ugly anyway.

Even worse this seems to be a big bull shit as shown in the reddit post:

In 2013, a study of almost 300 women in France was performed. They sought women of similar age and ethnicity who were either “sun-seeking” (sunbathers, sun-bed users etc) or women who actively avoided the sun (“sun-phobic”). They then performed extensive analysis of things like wrinkles, redness, sagging, etc.

At the end of the study, the authors proudly declared “With all the elements described in this study, we could calculate the importance of UV and sun exposure in the visible aging of a Caucasian woman’s face. This effect is about 80%.”

But if you look at the data, did they really?

No.

If you look at the wrinkle data in Figure 4, they found NO statistically significant difference between the two groups for most ages. They found that for women in their 50s and 60s, there was a small increase in wrinkles for the sun-seeking group (around 20% more in a higher wrinkle grade). But the data actually shows that increases in wrinkles are driven by age, and not UV, since there was a much, much greater difference in wrinkle scores between age groups than sun behaviour groups. The main thing that seemed to be aggravated by sun damage was pigmentation, but this was just one parameter.

So how did they arrive at the 80% figure? Well, here’s where you have to watch the hands closely to understand the magic trick.

If you look closely, they calculate this by taking all of the categories if skin ageing, and then determining how many of those were affected by the sun.

"A sum was done of all signs most affected by UV exposure (the 18 parameters marked with an asterisk in Tables 2-5, which was then compared with the sum of all clinical signs established for facial aging (22 parameters). We are able to determine a new ratio, sun damage percentage (SDP), which represents the percentage between specific photoaging signs and clinical signs. By computing this SDP, we could assess the effect of sun exposure on the face. On average, the parameter is 80.3% ± 4.82%."

So wrinkles, sagging, brown spots, redness, etc? All the things we associated with skin ageing? Well the sun can affect 80% of these CATEGORIES to varying degrees. NOT that UV drives 80% of the effect size, as you can see clear as day (no pun intended) in Figure 4. I can only speculate as to why they phrased this so poorly, although I note that some of the authors were employed by companies that sell anti-ageing & sun products...


I mean, its literally sound like a GIGA COPE. "Haha, we have a cream that can make us young forever"
Meanwhile all the evidence are extreme cases where someone roasted in the sun all his life(like those sister twins). And they come and say "You see? sUn is what ages you!"

 

[Eduardo DOV]

if you just look at cheek implant results from google you'll see that just some added volume in the midface from the implants will make you look younger

now imagine that same woman with a jolie tier jaw and compare to the before

true as fuck, hard tissue support is infinitely more important than some fuckin finelines and spots when it comes to make someone look good when old.

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

I also commented on Leto's forward growth in OP. Bones and genetics first, as always.
Also, one can look chad and attract womens even with some finelines and not a perfect glowing skin.

Also, more legit than sunscreen is that a good tan fits perfect some people, like brad pitt or tom cruise, that red/orange tone. And if you take seriously this thing that sun is a big factor on aging your face as a young man, you'll avoid sun like a paranoid fucker, will have a decrease in your quality of life, because you think you're becoming a "highlander"(reference to a movie, look it up), eternal jb slayer. "Oh no Im not going to the beach, or im going to age my baby face!" jfl, you going to age anyway, retard. Worse case you will only have a little more spots and a few more lines on your face, if your face cant handle that, then you should do some hardmax, or you are ugly anyway.

Even worse this seems to be a big bull shit as shown in the reddit post:

In 2013, a study of almost 300 women in France was performed. They sought women of similar age and ethnicity who were either “sun-seeking” (sunbathers, sun-bed users etc) or women who actively avoided the sun (“sun-phobic”). They then performed extensive analysis of things like wrinkles, redness, sagging, etc.

At the end of the study, the authors proudly declared “With all the elements described in this study, we could calculate the importance of UV and sun exposure in the visible aging of a Caucasian woman’s face. This effect is about 80%.”

But if you look at the data, did they really?

No.

If you look at the wrinkle data in Figure 4, they found NO statistically significant difference between the two groups for most ages. They found that for women in their 50s and 60s, there was a small increase in wrinkles for the sun-seeking group (around 20% more in a higher wrinkle grade). But the data actually shows that increases in wrinkles are driven by age, and not UV, since there was a much, much greater difference in wrinkle scores between age groups than sun behaviour groups. The main thing that seemed to be aggravated by sun damage was pigmentation, but this was just one parameter.

So how did they arrive at the 80% figure? Well, here’s where you have to watch the hands closely to understand the magic trick.

If you look closely, they calculate this by taking all of the categories if skin ageing, and then determining how many of those were affected by the sun.

"A sum was done of all signs most affected by UV exposure (the 18 parameters marked with an asterisk in Tables 2-5, which was then compared with the sum of all clinical signs established for facial aging (22 parameters). We are able to determine a new ratio, sun damage percentage (SDP), which represents the percentage between specific photoaging signs and clinical signs. By computing this SDP, we could assess the effect of sun exposure on the face. On average, the parameter is 80.3% ± 4.82%."

So wrinkles, sagging, brown spots, redness, etc? All the things we associated with skin ageing? Well the sun can affect 80% of these CATEGORIES to varying degrees. NOT that UV drives 80% of the effect size, as you can see clear as day (no pun intended) in Figure 4. I can only speculate as to why they phrased this so poorly, although I note that some of the authors were employed by companies that sell anti-ageing & sun products...


I mean, its literally sound like a GIGA COPE. "Haha, we have a cream that can make us young forever"
Meanwhile all the evidence are extreme cases where someone roasted in the sun all his life(like those sister twins). And they come and say "You see? sUn is what ages you!"

I'm too lazy to look into all that but I think it's common sense that the sun will age your skin. If you put a piece of leather in the sun, it'll crease, dry and wrinkle up. Why shouldn't your skin?

 

[Eduardo DOV]

I'm too lazy to look into all that but I think it's common sense that the sun will age your skin. If you put a piece of leather in the sun, it'll crease, dry and wrinkle up. Why shouldn't your skin?

well, it does dry the face. well, we are alive, the piece of leather is not.
the evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, does not show a very strong correlation between preventing yourself from keeping your face in contact with the sun during your life and skin being older than people your age who didn't have this concern.

 

[Lawton88]

It ages the skin but I don't put on sunscreen unless I know I will be exposed for a long time.

 

[Deleted member 9467]

Stay hydrated, live in a place with approximately the amount of sunlight your ancestors where exposed to, cold water, and don’t spill the seed

In any given room 99% of the time of have the best skin

Being Asian with a slight tan helps too

 

[Eduardo DOV]

It ages the skin but I don't put on sunscreen unless I know I will be exposed for a long time.

you keep repeating this because you read it on a thousand websites and influencers. When in reality if you go to the bottom it's full of contradictions and bullshit as its shown on the reddit post I linked.

Maybe it really does some bad to the skin if someone spend hours per day under the sun burning the skin during his lifetime, or even from normal sun. But it seems to be a giga small factor.
Like said multiple times here:
bones, genetics and other factors like stress(see presidents for example) seems to be much much more important.

 

[ScramFranklin]

To my knowledge she doesn't wear sunscreen.
View attachment 1643191View attachment 1643192
It still matters. Sunscreen isn't cope. Just don't expect it to give you permanently youthful skin.

Lets say you do the following.

• Wear Sunscreen.
• Avoid prolonged exposure to harsh sunlight
• Apply Retinols
• Have a healthy high collagen diet.
• Avoid heavy drugs, smoking or alcohol consumption (I only consume alcohol some weekends. I try to avoid binge drinking).
• Live a low stress lifestyle
• Train HIIT Cardio

You are going to age the best you can given your genetics. That is my mindset for my anti aging routine.

you should also train LISS, and keep HIIT on a less frequent basis. https://anthonymychal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/TheMythofHIIT.pdf

 

[ScramFranklin]

I'm in the same boat as you OP, unsure. I emailed a skin chemist and a dermatologist, but did not hear back.

However, here is something to consider: it's primarily UVA that contributes to photoaging rather than UVB. Filters to protect your skin from UVA have not really been around that long, and in the USA, UVA protection is still generally garbage. So majority of 40 and up people, even if they were diligent about sunscreen, were primarily protected from UVB.

I'm going to continue to wear my european sunscreen with high UVA protection for now.

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

indoors sunscreen

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

well, it does dry the face. well, we are alive, the piece of leather is not.
the evidence, both anecdotal and scientific, does not show a very strong correlation between preventing yourself from keeping your face in contact with the sun during your life and skin being older than people your age who didn't have this concern.

sure your skin always regenerates itself to a degree but the bottom line is that anything that you put out in the sun and leave it there will get all fucked up sooner or later. if there's no strong correlation between sunscreen use and skin damage/aging (again, too lazy to read all this shit), then it's either because the sunscreen doesn't actually protect your skin as its advertised and/or perhaps the degree to which participants actually apply it isn't good enough.

for instance, if you take a person who applies sunscreen in the morning and then spends like 6 hours outside then naturally there will be little difference between that person and someone who used nothing at all because the protection wears off after like 2 hours or whatever. just things like this could pose a major flaw in study design and render it useless.

imo, if you spend a lot of time outside then you should

apply spf 50 everyday like a good goy

 

[Eduardo DOV]

I'm in the same boat as you OP, unsure. I emailed a skin chemist and a dermatologist, but did not here back.

However, here is something to consider: it's primarily UVA that contributes to photoaging rather than UVB. Filters to protect your skin from UVA have not really been around that long, and in the USA, UVA protection is still generally garbage. So majority of 40 and up people, even if they were diligent about sunscreen, were primarily protected from UVB.

I'm going to continue to wear my european sunscreen with high UVA protection for now.

nice observation, but well, even old sunscreens have some protection against UVA, todays sunscreens have it higher tough.

this observation doesn't change the fact that the difference between people who have been exposed to the sun MUCH more during their lives nor have aged so much more than their peers of the same age. So how can it be responsible to 80% of aging appearence ? Its kinda bullshit. Read that reddit post to see how bullshit is the science behind the sunscreens propaganda, it analyzes a big study from 2013.

How can the sun be such a villain if the differences are so small.
You really think sunscreen will shield you and you'll pass as 19yo forever ? Tbh it sounds like giga cope.

I prefer to have a nice surfer tan as a young man.

Inb4 brad pitt and dolph lundgeren, both sunmaxxers gigachads

 

[Eduardo DOV]

sure your skin always regenerates itself to a degree but the bottom line is that anything that you put out in the sun and leave it there will get all fucked up sooner or later. if there's no strong correlation between sunscreen use and skin damage/aging (again, too lazy to read all this shit), then it's either because the sunscreen doesn't actually protect your skin as its advertised and/or perhaps the degree to which participants actually apply it isn't good enough.

for instance, if you take a person who applies sunscreen in the morning and then spends like 6 hours outside then naturally there will be little difference between that person and someone who used nothing at all because the protection wears off after like 2 hours or whatever. just things like this could pose a major flaw in study design and render it useless.

I do believe you can FUCK your face if you spend shit amounts of time under a hot sun. But I dont believe spending some hours a week under the sun will make you look like older than what you really are... in fact if you have good genetics you can do that and still look younger than what you are.

 

[Sigmamale]

I'm in the same boat as you OP, unsure. I emailed a skin chemist and a dermatologist, but did not hear back.

However, here is something to consider: it's primarily UVA that contributes to photoaging rather than UVB. Filters to protect your skin from UVA have not really been around that long, and in the USA, UVA protection is still generally garbage. So majority of 40 and up people, even if they were diligent about sunscreen, were primarily protected from UVB.

I'm going to continue to wear my european sunscreen with high UVA protection for now.

What sunscreen do you use?

 

[ifyouwannabemylover]

I do believe you can FUCK your face if you spend shit amounts of time under a hot sun. But I dont believe spending some hours a week under the sun will make you look like older than what you really are... in fact if you have good genetics you can do that and still look younger than what you are.

it'll add up over years and decades though. but yeah skin is just one aspect and probably "overrated" when compared to what I mentioned earlier.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

it'll add up over years and decades though. but yeah skin is just one aspect and probably "overrated" when compared to what I mentioned earlier.

tbh I dont even know if it adds over years, or if skin regenerates itself, like a teenager's skin does... teenagers and kids does not suffer from this collagen damage. Thats because they have the ability to recover. They say we lose this ability and because of that we sould start using sunscreen..
Sinclair has some theories on this, that NAD thing, some shit related to energy inside the cells:



its very overrated, since you can still be chad as an old tanned man, its not like what makes brad pitt look older is only the skin. Fat pads, nose bigger etc makes you identify his age.
The eyes, you cant even apply sunscreen around your eyes(if not when you sweat it ends up going inside your eyes and burn), it will form crow's feet like jared letos.

In my opinion, it's not worth trading a stress-free life in relation to getting a little sun and having a nice tan for a little better skin when you're and old fuck. jfl.

just live a full stress free chad life

 

[Lawton88]

you keep repeating this because you read it on a thousand websites and influencers. When in reality if you go to the bottom it's full of contradictions and bullshit as its shown on the reddit post I linked.

Maybe it really does some bad to the skin if someone spend hours per day under the sun burning the skin during his lifetime, or even from normal sun. But it seems to be a giga small factor.
Like said multiple times here:
bones, genetics and other factors like stress(see presidents for example) seems to be much much more important.

I know some roofers here in FL that didn't always wear the large straw hats and doing that for years aged the crap out of them with all that exposure. They are extreme examples though getting that much sun.

 

[ScramFranklin]

nice observation, but well, even old sunscreens have some protection against UVA, todays sunscreens have it higher tough.

this observation doesn't change the fact that the difference between people who have been exposed to the sun MUCH more during their lives nor have aged so much more than their peers of the same age. So how can it be responsible to 80% of aging appearence ? Its kinda bullshit. Read that reddit post to see how bullshit is the science behind the sunscreens propaganda, it analyzes a big study from 2013.

How can the sun be such a villain if the differences are so small.
You really think sunscreen will shield you and you'll pass as 19yo forever ? Tbh it sounds like giga cope.

I prefer to have a nice surfer tan as a young man.

Inb4 brad pitt and dolph lundgeren, both sunmaxxers gigachads

I have read the post, long ago.

it just draws questions and uncertainty on the effectiveness of sunscreen for anti-aging, I don't think it concludes the sun doesn't age you much.

 

[Preoximerianas]

I'm in the same boat as you OP, unsure. I emailed a skin chemist and a dermatologist, but did not hear back.

However, here is something to consider: it's primarily UVA that contributes to photoaging rather than UVB. Filters to protect your skin from UVA have not really been around that long, and in the USA, UVA protection is still generally garbage. So majority of 40 and up people, even if they were diligent about sunscreen, were primarily protected from UVB.

I'm going to continue to wear my european sunscreen with high UVA protection for now.

Do you have any recommendations? Not trying to put on sunscreen that protects against UVB when UVA is far more important.

 

[ScramFranklin]

it's expensive.... La Roche Posay Anthelios UVMune 400 Invisible Fluid Fragrance Free. I get it from caretobeauty as they ship from europe.

 

[BoneDensity]

Our ancestors evolved for millions of years under the sun. JFL if you think I'm gonna avoid sunlight and put jewish goo on my face to prevent wrinkles when I'm 50.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

I know some roofers here in FL that didn't always wear the large straw hats and doing that for years aged the crap out of them with all that exposure. They are extreme examples though getting that much sun.

everyday spending hours under the sun will damage the skin, thats not normal

I have read the post, long ago.

it just draws questions and uncertainty on the effectiveness of sunscreen for anti-aging, I don't think it concludes the sun doesn't age you much.

yes, well, his reasoning makes a lot of sense.

it made me think this effect of sun on making you look too much older is bullshit and looked for anecdotal evidence.
As I already said, looking at these cases of old tanned chads who looked good when young till 40's and still now tbh. Looking people and cases does not seem that sun is that bad if not giga overdone.

I don't think it's worth it in my case to exchange a youthful surfer tan during my youthful years for some less lines on the face when I'm older and all this stress of daily applying and removing sunscreen suck hard, also face gets kinda shiny, it sucks. Also don't like the idea of using this chemical shit in my skin everyday. Also it hardly will prevent eye area from getting crows feet, when I put in that area it fucks my eye if I laugh and cry, or if I sweat, so if you put just a little close to the that area, it probably won't even have much effect in that area and you'll get lines there anyway and not look that young anyway, just like jared leto, skin good all over, but eye area shows the age.

But only the tan and seeing that these chads did not age that bad part is enough for me. Fuck I want to be like I was as a kid, a happy sunmaxxer blond boy with a good tanned skin.

And tbh when I get to 50 I expect to not be caring too much about this shit, jfl.

Sunmaxxers best inspiration:

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

Our ancestors evolved for millions of years under the sun. JFL if you think I'm gonna avoid sunlight and put jewish goo on my face to prevent wrinkles when I'm 50.

View attachment 1643862

might as well take it to the next level and blast urself with gamma rays

 

[Eduardo DOV]

might as well take it to the next level and blast urself with gamma rays

pure aryan falling for a jew meme ? damn

 

[Baldingman1998]

I got freckles from sun damage and some of my skin looks discolored from sun damage. I think if you're standing or sitting in direct sunlight for more than an hour sunscreen is still worth it to prevent skin damage tbh. Atleast I'm my experience

 

[Lawton88]

everyday spending hours under the sun will damage the skin, thats not normal

yes, well, his reasoning makes a lot of sense.

it made me think this effect of sun on making you look too much older is bullshit and looked for anecdotal evidence.
As I already said, looking at these cases of old tanned chads who looked good when young till 40's and still now tbh. Looking people and cases does not seem that sun is that bad if not giga overdone.

I don't think it's worth it in my case to exchange a youthful surfer tan during my youthful years for some less lines on the face when I'm older and all this stress of daily applying and removing sunscreen suck hard, also face gets kinda shiny, it sucks. Also don't like the idea of using this chemical shit in my skin everyday. Also it hardly will prevent eye area from getting crows feet, when I put in that area it fucks my eye if I laugh and cry, or if I sweat, so if you put just a little close to the that area, it probably won't even have much effect in that area and you'll get lines there anyway and not look that young anyway, just like jared leto, skin good all over, but eye area shows the age.

But only the tan and seeing that these chads did not age that bad part is enough for me. Fuck I want to be like I was as a kid, a happy sunmaxxer blond boy with a good tanned skin.

And tbh when I get to 50 I expect to not be caring too much about this shit, jfl.

Sunmaxxers best inspiration:
View attachment 1643869

View attachment 1643870

I do believe like some say it's your 30s plus when quite a bit of sun really takes its toll because your body handles it a lot better in your teens and twenties. You probably get way more radiation mutations induced aging from it at the ages of 30+.

 

[ConspiracyTheory]

I have a couple thoughts regarding this:
If you use a retinol, you should wear sunscreen because you will burn way faster. I know this from experience.
Burning is absolutely bad for your skin. It causes irreversible DNA Damage. This has been replicated in vitro and in vivo. It also fucking hurts.
Sun is crucial for Vitamin D synthesis and is most important for those who do not orally supplement Vit D.
Tans look good.
Having a tan does not disrupt cellular DNA to the same degree as burning. The dose makes the poison.
Sunscreen is likely just a money making scheme. Having hydrated skin however, is important. Drink water and moisturize.
Concerning yourself with sun exposure and sunscreen beyond ensuring you don't burn, is likely inconsequential.

 

[Pupur]

It's been 2 years that I've been using sunscreen daily, indoors. It turns out that I decided to research and observe a bit better and now I'm going to drop everything I know about sunscreen here. Quote the experts here, I want to hear their opinion.

As a kid I used to have a tanned med mogger brad pitt-like skin. Now I don't, although I'm still kinda orange depending on the light. Also, it sucks to use this cream every day. Sometimes it gets in the eye, it's terrible. But hey! Sunscreen is the magic ingredient that will make you look young when you're old, isn't it?
Well, now I don't know..

In this thread I will post:
my anecdotal evidence in favor and against using sunscreen for preventing aging.
Next, I'll post a good high iq post from reddit that kind of proves that scientifically it's a meme to think sunscreen will do a great deal to prevent aging.
An interesting video by David Sinclair on the subject

So, lets start, Anectodal evidence about sun and aging:
This video here, she says these are example of twins, I didn't even checked what this study was, but since one of the cases I know from another youtube video, they migh all be similar: One of the twins lived in another place and took more sun.


The cases:


View attachment 1642938
So, what do you guys think of the difference?

Obs: You can see some of them are not identical. And maybe they were cases where one of them kept roasting for hours in the sun frequently in their lives(of course its bad for skin)?

case 3 for example, I saw it isolated in an youtube video and, for instance, this case you can clearly see they are not identical: Eye hooding is different, nose size is different, even the smile is different:




The sister from California says that in her youth she used to "live to the fullest", getting a lot of sun everyday, and to be honest, both have a lot of marks on their faces, in some regions and almost identical, or am I blind?:
Biggest difference here is in the mouth area:
View attachment 1642944


Now: Jared Leto, Tom cruise and Brad Pitt:
Jared Leto: 50 yo
Tom cruise: ~60yo
Brad Pitt: ~60yo

Jared Leto

In an interview, he claimed that his secret to looking young was "cold water"(jfl)
In some site I remember reading he said he credited his good shape to his vegan diet for years.
In a tweet he said "sunscreen always":

3 recent pics of leto from his instagram:
View attachment 1642970

Main pic of google(2016 pic):
View attachment 1642972

My impression: A good physique for his age. His face, the main flaw is the eye area, you can see in this 2016(he was 46) photo that she has crow's feet, quite a lot. Now, the forehead has no marks, and the cheeks are also smooth, nasolabial folds is also visible.
In recent pictures, it seems the crows feet reduced? Maybe had some work done?

Also, he has a good forward growth of lower maxila/mandibule, despite the baby looking face:

View attachment 1642975

Her mom also looks fresh for his age etc. But we dont know if work done, self care or genetics are the mains reason..

What are your thoughts on his case? Could he be getting jbs at 50 ?



Tom cruise:

Lets now compare tom cruise with leto when he was 50yo:

View attachment 1642979

View attachment 1642980



Tbh i doubt tom cruise used sunscreen daily in his life, he was always looking kinda tanned

View attachment 1642982

What do you think ?



Brad pitt:
This was brad pitt at 26:



This was brad pitt at 34:
search "seven years at tibet" to see him at 34

View attachment 1642993


If you search his old pics you'll he was almost always tanned, so I think he didnt care about sun exposure.
Also, he was a smoker(he also came back to this after divorce)

This is him at 50:

View attachment 1642999


Ok, now the thing is: who mogs? Any of them could get young girls at 50? If they cant, does it really make a differente to have a bit better skin when you already dont look like a young man? Does jared leto has this young vibe due to his skin or due to his face features(cuck eyes, good forward growth and feminine but gl nose) ?


Ok, that being said, lets move to this dude here: Andreas Moritz
Forget about the title and this cancer thing, its probably bs, I'm just using him cause he surely dont use sunscreen.
He died in 2012 at 58. He had a lot of diseases since childhood, so he became a "alternative medicine practitioner" to try to fight these problems he had. Maybe it worked cause he died at 58, not very old, but not very young.


Anyway, i dont know when this interview was made, but here is this video from 2012, he was surely ~60 here:



What do you think? To me he looks just like those actors in terms of skin quality.

In Brazil, a country with more UV, if you chek the old gL famous man from tv, they dont seem to have aged different from americans.
I'm lazy to post them now, I'll post it later.

well, this is my anecdotal evidence about sun and aging.


>>Now, the Reddit must read high iq post:
This is the best thing on this thread tbh:



>>David Sinclair comment on this:




it kinda matches what those before/after cases show. Case 1 for example, that women must had roast for hour during his life on the sun.



So, thats it, what do you guys think of this?
I'm sure a lot of you were also paranoid about the sun and aging/collagen stuff etc.
Tag the high iq on this subject, I think this thread has potential and can help clarify this issue

Celebrities use botox 100%.

 

[loksr]

it's genetics
but if you have shit aging genetics (look at your parents, uncles aunts grandparents etc) then you should do whatever you can to prevent aging

 

[Need2Ascend]

The whole point of sunscreen is to use it when you are exposed to the sun the whole day, like on vacation, so you don't get crazy sunburned. Putting something onto your body everyday that you wouldn't put into your body, aka toxic chemicals, is neither healthy nor ideal for your skin

 

[MrRubiks]

I didn't watch the video, but I'm familiar with Sinclair's work and I'm not sure why it wouldn't support sunscreen use. This is the logic: UV exposure causes DNA damage, which in turn leads to epigenetic drift--i.e., the skin cells lose their cellular identity and begin to function less effectively, which is what we call aging. Sunscreen mitigates this process. There's really no debate.

 

[coolguy1]

Everytime I use skinscreen it fucks my skin up and makes it red, I'll stick to wearing a hat

 

[Eduardo DOV]

I didn't watch the video, but I'm familiar with Sinclair's work and I'm not sure why it wouldn't support sunscreen use. This is the logic: UV exposure causes DNA damage, which in turn leads to epigenetic drift--i.e., the skin cells lose their cellular identity and begin to function less effectively, which is what we call aging. Sunscreen mitigates this process. There's really no debate.

watch the video.
he basiclly says that having a younger body inside, the skin itself will be younger
Also:


Well, the debate is that looking at many people who never bothered with not taking sun still have decent skin when they get older, and others who got much less sun look the same. How can this be possible if "the sun is responsible for 80% of skin aging".
Also, the debate is if its worth to even if using these new sunscreens to have beautiful skin when you're older, is it worth trading it for a tanned skin, under the sun experiences with low stress, a face without that shinny cream 24/7 when you're young?

This thread is not about denying this effect of the sun on the facial aging, but the extent of it(aging is not only about skin appearence).

Also, certainly if you BURN your skin in the sun it does much more harm than sunbathing without burning, that is common sense.

Sinclair talks on video about the role of NAD levels, damage/repair balance, and BURN/STAYING RED:
Its in the minute for you:

 

[Deleted member 1140]

mirin ur effort but i would never take celebs as example for anything

if you got their money, you can look young at any age again. its a choice to age if ur rich also they can age a lot more than us cuz they are constantly under a lot of stress (paparazzis, fans, working etc) if they dont watch out

 

[Pumanator]

I hear from so many medical professionals that the sun ages horribly. So I use sunscreen daily. Already for 3 years. I take a lot of vitamine D3 and use beta carotene to not get too white.

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

pure aryan falling for a jew meme ? damn

you think that's a good argument? we evolve with sun so no harm possible? we also have poisonous plants all around us that can fuck us instantly

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

watch the video.
he basiclly says that having a younger body inside, the skin itself will be younger
Also:


Well, the debate is that looking at many people who never bothered with not taking sun still have decent skin when they get older, and others who got much less sun look the same. How can this be possible if "the sun is responsible for 80% of skin aging".
Also, the debate is if its worth to even if using these new sunscreens to have beautiful skin when you're older, is it worth trading it for a tanned skin, under the sun experiences with low stress, a face without that shinny cream 24/7 when you're young?

This thread is not about denying this effect of the sun on the facial aging, but the extent of it(aging is not only about skin appearence).

Also, certainly if you BURN your skin in the sun it does much more harm than sunbathing without burning, that is common sense.

Sinclair talks on video about the role of NAD levels, damage/repair balance, and BURN/STAYING RED:
Its in the minute for you:

this sinclair nigga really needs bimax

 

[Eduardo DOV]

you think that's a good argument? we evolve with sun so no harm possible? we also have poisonous plants all around us that can fuck us instantly

a good argument is that bones, genetics and lifestyle mogs sunscreen when it comes to aging good... just see that there are old people who looks good. Just like irl examples(my aunt or my mother for instance), or this guy(i doubt he had anything done, and is a sun praiser):

And there are people who do not take that amount of sun and looks bad.
So it s kinda bullshit to say that sun fucks your skin that badly and is responsible for most of aging... thats what industry sells, so THEY ARE bullshiting at some level to sell their products.


About plants, its not like there are there are poisonous plants falling from the sky

 

[PURE ARYAN GENETICS]

a good argument is that bones, genetics and lifestyle mogs sunscreen when it comes to aging good... just see that there are old people who looks good. Just like irl examples(my aunt or my mother for instance), or this guy(i doubt he had anything done, and is a sun praiser):

View attachment 1644536

And there are people who do not take that amount of sun and looks bad.
So it s kinda bullshit to say that sun fucks your skin that badly and is responsible for most of aging... thats what industry sells, so THEY ARE bullshiting at some level to sell their products.


About plants, its not like there are there are poisonous plants falling from the sky

yeah that moritz guy does have good skin but I assume he's had some work done because he also looks like the typical fillermaxed bloatlord anyway good thread but I'll keep using sunscreen for now because it's summer and I currently employ tretinoin

 

[Tobias Fünke]

Sinclair looks his age which automatically undermines his credibility in my view.

 

[House Lannister]

Gestapo gonna have a field day with this one

 

[Lawton88]

I didn't watch the video, but I'm familiar with Sinclair's work and I'm not sure why it wouldn't support sunscreen use. This is the logic: UV exposure causes DNA damage, which in turn leads to epigenetic drift--i.e., the skin cells lose their cellular identity and begin to function less effectively, which is what we call aging. Sunscreen mitigates this process. There's really no debate.

I watched a show just the other day where Sinclair said smoking and sun exposure were 2 of the main things to age your cells faster. It doesn't really go against him saying that it can be slowed down by NAD+ and/or calorie restriction I guess.

Genetic Mutations Across Animal Kingdom Shed New Light on Aging

Quantity of mutations acquired is similar over the lifetime of 16 species, despite vast differences in lifespan and body mass. The first study to evaluate the accumulation of mutations across a wide range of animal species has shed fresh light on long-standing debates regarding the role of geneti

scitechdaily.com

"Evidence of a possible role of somatic mutations in aging was provided by the researchers’ discovery that the rate of somatic mutation decreased as the lifespan of each species increased.

Dr. Alex Cagan, a first author of the study from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, said: “To find a similar pattern of genetic changes in animals as different from one another as a mouse and a tiger was surprising. But the most exciting aspect of the study has to be finding that lifespan is inversely proportional to the somatic mutation rate. This suggests that somatic mutations may play a role in aging, although alternative explanations may be possible. Over the next few years, it will be fascinating to extend these studies into even more diverse species, such as insects or plants.”


Somatic mutations are frequently caused by environmental factors, such as exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

I watched a show just the other day where Sinclair said smoking and sun exposure were 2 of the main things to age your cells faster. It doesn't really go against him saying that it can be slowed down by NAD+ and/or calorie restriction I guess.

Genetic Mutations Across Animal Kingdom Shed New Light on Aging

Quantity of mutations acquired is similar over the lifetime of 16 species, despite vast differences in lifespan and body mass. The first study to evaluate the accumulation of mutations across a wide range of animal species has shed fresh light on long-standing debates regarding the role of geneti

scitechdaily.com

"Evidence of a possible role of somatic mutations in aging was provided by the researchers’ discovery that the rate of somatic mutation decreased as the lifespan of each species increased.

Dr. Alex Cagan, a first author of the study from the Wellcome Sanger Institute, said: “To find a similar pattern of genetic changes in animals as different from one another as a mouse and a tiger was surprising. But the most exciting aspect of the study has to be finding that lifespan is inversely proportional to the somatic mutation rate. This suggests that somatic mutations may play a role in aging, although alternative explanations may be possible. Over the next few years, it will be fascinating to extend these studies into even more diverse species, such as insects or plants.”


Somatic mutations are frequently caused by environmental factors, such as exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

so this means that UV radiation would age the WHOLE body, not only the skin ?
If so.. fuck it anyway, imagine a life stressing over going out jfl.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

I'm in the same boat as you OP, unsure. I emailed a skin chemist and a dermatologist, but did not hear back.

However, here is something to consider: it's primarily UVA that contributes to photoaging rather than UVB. Filters to protect your skin from UVA have not really been around that long, and in the USA, UVA protection is still generally garbage. So majority of 40 and up people, even if they were diligent about sunscreen, were primarily protected from UVB.

I'm going to continue to wear my european sunscreen with high UVA protection for now.

 

[Lawton88]

so this means that UV radiation would age the WHOLE body, not only the skin ?
If so.. fuck it anyway, imagine a life stressing over going out jfl.

Now that DNA testing is good enough to allow them to know approximately how many somatic mutations have occurred I wonder if its possible to nail an approximate number that came mostly from sun radiation exposure (I think it said people showed like 20-50 mutations a year). I do agree with Sinclair the damage would be much higher from lengthy sun exposure the higher your age. It probably really takes off in the 30s if you are getting a lot of long exposures.

 

[Eduardo DOV]

Now that DNA testing is good enough to allow them to know approximately how many somatic mutations have occurred I wonder if its possible to nail an approximate number that came mostly from sun radiation exposure (I think it said people showed like 20-50 mutations a year). I do agree with Sinclair the damage would be much higher from lengthy sun exposure the higher your age. It probably really takes off in the 30s if you are getting a lot of long exposures.

and why it takes off in 30s? has to do with that NAD+ levels thing?