I fucking hate sunscreen

[ugly-but-optimistic]

It's possible but we really just don't know. I think UVB rays are healing for your skin, I think skin ageing mostly occurs with sunscreens that block UVB rays but not UVA. Just because something prevents sunburn doesn't mean it prevents harm. I think it's probably the opposite tbh

easiest way to find what is harming an organism, look for inflammation

sunburn causes inflammation. so its best to use sunscreen

if concerned about vitamin D there are plenty of sources of that, dietary and otherwise

 

[Epola]

easiest way to find what is harming an organism, look for inflammation

sunburn causes inflammation. so its best to use sunscreen

if concerned about vitamin D there are plenty of sources of that, dietary and otherwise

I'm not talking about sunburn, sunburn probably does damage skin. Sunscreen causes inflammation too man

 

[ugly-but-optimistic]

even low grade UVA and UVB can cause damage / oxidation / aging

theres no benefit to not using sunscreen !

unless you live at the north pole and have 9 months winter or whatever

you owe it to yourself to use sunscreen

 

[JosephGarrot123]

sunscreen is important man, you may hate it but it's necessary, just do it and you'll thank yourself when your older

 

[RecessedPrettyboy]

Most of this forum is still clueless about sunscreen

You're a fucking idiot. There's literally mountains of peer-reviewed evidence demonstrating that exposure to ultraviolet radiation from the sun causes aging and cancer. Nobody thinks that applying sunscreen will make them Chad, either.

That is if you dont have enough anti oxidants and too much unsatured fat accumulated in your tissues.
Apart from diet there are many different things you can apply to your skin as natural "sunscreen" and provide anti oxidants directly to the skin. Like coconut oil, propolis and mushroom creams

You are not getting cancer from the sun if you properly support your exposure. If you dont, then yes you will age your skin.

Lets not forget sunscreen is a multi billion dollar industry.
Chemicals in sunscreen have been proven many times to cause cancer and are endocrine disruptors.

 

[Deleted member 643]

Most of this forum is still clueless about sunscreen

That is if you dont have enough anti oxidants and too much unsatured fat accumulated in your tissues.
Apart from diet there are many different things you can apply to your skin as natural "sunscreen" and provide anti oxidants directly to the skin. Like coconut oil, propolis and mushroom creams

You are not getting cancer from the sun if you properly support your exposure. If you dont, then yes you will age your skin.

Lets not forget sunscreen is a multi billion dollar industry.
Chemicals in sunscreen have been proven many times to cause cancer and are endocrine disruptors.

No amount of endogenous or exogenous antioxidants will be enough to provide protection from the overwhelming ROS induced by UVA exposure, although they can help.

As to your point about sunscreen chemicals - there's a wide variety of chemicals currently in use, and while some have been linked to hormonal disruption, many of them have been proven to be safe and effective.

 

[RecessedPrettyboy]

No amount of endogenous or exogenous antioxidants will be enough to provide protection from the overwhelming ROS induced by UVA exposure, although they can help.

They will be enough if your skin isnt too accumulated with unsaturated fat.

As to your point about sunscreen chemicals - there's a wide variety of chemicals currently in use, and while some have been linked to hormonal disruption, many of them have been proven to be safe and effective.

Is that so? Why are skin cancer rates rising then?
Shouldnt skin cancer be minimal nowadays with the widespread sunscreen usage that exists now?

Sunscreens: The Dark Side of Avoiding the Sun

Sunshine provides many benefits for the whole body.

www.westonaprice.org

Properly supported sun exposure is insanely beneficial for anyone's health (and looks). You arent supposed to overexpose and burn yourself.

many of them have been proven to be safe and effective.

And what are these chemicals that are safe called? Mention a few.

Remember sunscreen is a multi billion dollar industry..

 

[Deleted member 643]

They will be enough if your skin isnt too accumulated with unsaturated fat.

Is that so? Why are skin cancer rates rising then?
Shouldnt skin cancer be minimal nowadays with the widespread sunscreen usage that exists now?

Sunscreens: The Dark Side of Avoiding the Sun

Sunshine provides many benefits for the whole body.

www.westonaprice.org

Properly supported sun exposure is insanely beneficial for anyone's health (and looks). You arent supposed to overexpose and burn yourself.

And what are these chemicals that are safe called? Mention a few.

Remember sunscreen is a multi billion dollar industry..

Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are biologically inert.

Skin cancer rates are increasing probably for the same reason that helmets actually put bicyclists in more danger.

 

[Deleted member 9890]

chemical sunscreen is toxic
physical sunscreen is white all over your face

choose your poison

 

[Deleted member 9666]

You need to invest in a good quality sun screen. Right now im using: https://www.neutrogena.com/products...spectrum-spf-45/6868795XX.html?tilePosition=7

​

 

[RecessedPrettyboy]

Zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are biologically inert.

Skin cancer rates are increasing probably for the same reason that helmets actually put bicyclists in more danger.

Spoiler: Those are also toxic

As if the endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) were not bad enough, sunscreen manufacturers are now advertising sunscreen formulations as “Kid Safe” if they contain physical filters rather than EDCs. This is a total misrepresentation of the truth. The two physical filters found in sunscreens—zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium dioxide (TiO2)—are both extremely toxic in their own way.

Many individuals are probably familiar with the whitening qualities of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in their bulk white paste form. In the past, regulators believed that these larger size parent materials were safe. Based on this assumption, in 1999, the FDA approved—without evidence of safety—the use of nanosize and micronized zinc oxide and titanium dioxide particles in sunscreens and other consumer products. Manufacturers developed these vastly smaller particles to trick the eye and get around the cosmetically unappealing residue left by the bulk white paste. However, subsequent research has showed that both the bulk paste and smaller particles are harmful. A 2015 study that compared titanium dioxide in nanoparticle form to its bulk form found that both created cell membrane damage after just twenty-four hours of application.19

The definition of “nano” refers to particles less than one hundred nanometers in size (with one nanometer being approximately half the size of a strand of DNA). The term “micro” applies to particles greater than one hundred nanometers. The diameter of a human hair—approximately seventy-five thousand nanometers—is about five thousand times larger than a fifteen-nanometer-in-diameter nanoparticle. Numerous modern products—including paints, papers, foods, toothpaste, makeup and chewing gum in addition to sunscreens—now contain titanium dioxide and zinc oxide nanoparticles, with skyrocketing exposure over the two decades since the FDA’s approval.

The FDA does not require manufacturers to list the size of the particles present in a given product. Thus, most consumers remain unaware of the presence and potential dangers of the nanoparticles and micronized particles in the sunscreen formulations and other products they are buying, nor are they aware that the tremendous reduction in size makes these particles behave quite differently from larger particles.

In the pictures of a rat’s skin cell in Figure 5, the arrows point to dark spots (titanium dioxide nanoparticles) that have penetrated into the cell and into its nucleus, where they are capable of disrupting DNA cell division. Ironically, given the purpose of sunscreens, the nanoparticles penetrate even more when exposed to UV light.20 The interaction of nanoparticles with UV radiation leads to the generation of free radicals, which are highly damaging molecules on the nanoparticles’ surface, with unpaired electrons that damage cells and DNA.21 A study that examined “normal conditions of sunscreen use”—which exposed humans with healthy skin to sunscreen products containing zinc oxide nanoparticles for five days “under outdoor conditions”—found that this short period of use resulted in measurable levels of zinc ions in participants’ blood and urine, with blood levels that continued to increase even after discontinuing sunscreen use, and higher levels in the blood and urine of women compared to men.22 In addition, when the skin is already damaged (whether from prior sunburn or other physical damage), skin absorption of nanoparticles increases, and nanoparticles also remain in wounded skin.23

FALSE ADVERTISING

Manufacturers and even some medical experts trusted by the public claim that some sunscreen formulations use micronized rather than nanosize particles and are, therefore, safe “natural mineral” preparations. Likewise, advertising targeted at health-conscious parents heralds “non-nano” as being safe for kids. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is completely misleading to promote any sunscreen as “non-nano” because the powders used to formulate sunscreens contain both nanosize and micronized particles. Approximately 70 percent of titanium dioxide powder is nanosized, as is about 33 percent of zinc oxide powder. This means that all sunscreen formulations contain nanosize particles. There is no technology that can sort these tiny particles to ensure that only a certain size ends up in any product.24

FIGURE 4: Skin Penetration by Infrared (IR) Solar Rays Source: Plourde E. Sunscreens—Biohazard: Treat as Hazardous Waste. Irvine, CA: New Voice Publications; 2011.
Moreover, when you get down to one five-thousandth the diameter of a human hair, the difference between “nano” (at sixty nanometers) and “micro” (at one hundred and sixty nanometers) is meaningless. Studies show that they both cause cellular damage.25 In one study, researchers gave mice either micronized titanium dioxide (one hundred and sixty nanometers) or nanosize titanium dioxide (thirty-three nanometers) and found identical damage, which included increased cell division in the esophagus and colon, increased sperm with two nuclei and increased testicular cell death.26 Both sizes of particles caused DNA damage in bone marrow cells; the micronized particles also caused abnormal cell division in bone marrow cells, and the nanosize particles caused liver cell DNA damage. Determining that the DNA toxicity was due to nanoparticle-induced inflammation and/or oxidative stress, the researchers concluded: “Given the increasing use of TiO(2) nanoparticles, these findings indicate a potential health hazard associated with exposure to TiO(2) particles.”26

GROWING EVIDENCE OF HARM

Another study in mice examined three types of metallic nanoparticles (titanium dioxide, zinc oxide and aluminum oxide), administering oral doses of each for twenty-one consecutive days.27 The researchers observed that this resulted in toxicity to brain nerve cells, with nanoparticles found inside the cells and nucleus, oxidative stress in red blood cells and the liver and disrupted antioxidant enzymes. The zinc oxide nanoparticles were the most toxic, followed by aluminum oxide and titanium dioxide.27 In another study involving hairless mice, application of titanium dioxide nanoparticles over sixty days caused pathological lesions (injury) in the skin, liver and brain and also reduced collagen in the skin, creating skin aging. The researchers concluded: “Altogether, the present study indicates that nanosize TiO(2) may pose a health risk to human [sic] after dermal exposure over a relative [sic] long time period.”28 This proof of long-term damage goes against the claims made by manufacturers that long-term sunscreen use will decrease skin aging.

At least nine studies of titanium dioxide nanoparticles in mice and rats show reproductive harm, including problems that could result in impaired fertility.33-41 The wide-ranging reproductive effects identified in these studies include increased cell death, premature and inhibited egg development, death of ovary cells, deformed follicle growth, cellular and DNA toxicity, cellular changes in testicular tissue, decreased testicular weight, decreased testosterone, reduced sperm quality, placenta toxicity and neurotoxicity to neonatal as well as to adult brains.

The fact that titanium dioxide nanoparticles do not leave the body makes their reproductive effects particularly troubling. Females should guard against using products that contain titanium dioxide or other products that potentially contain other nanosize materials such as zinc oxide. Unfortunately, almost all makeup today contains titanium dioxide nanoparticles. If a makeup or other product has an SPF ranking, it automatically contains one or more of the harmful materials described in this article. In fact, the FDA will not even allow products to be tested for a SPF value ranking unless they contain one of their approved sunscreen chemicals. Women should take care to use only cosmetics that do not have any SPF rating.

Sunscreens: The Dark Side of Avoiding the Sun

Sunshine provides many benefits for the whole body.

www.westonaprice.org

 

[AscendingHero]

Sunscreen is useless. Expose your skin more frequently to short amounts of sunshine and you will be less likely to burn and also healthier. This idea that the sun causes ageing and cancer is probably the most idiotic belief on this website. Imagine, hundreds of incels hiding in their basements all summer slathering on spf50 every day thinking it will make them chad.

No there is not. There is pseudo science, associative data at best. There is no CAUSAL evidence like you are implying. Skin cancer increased about 2000% in America since sunscreen was invented. Did the sun magically get much more powerful? Or maybe is there a confounding variable? Something that has changed since the 1950s? Think a bit harder, stop repeating magazine broscience.

Premature ageing and cancer are caused primarily by diet, specifically the modern high carb diet causing chronic inflammation and mitochrondrial damage via the Warburg Effect. The clinical proof of this is that a cancerous cell nucleus can be transplanted into normal cytoplasm and the cell will not be cancerous. A healthy nucleus can be transplanted into cancerous cytoplasm and the cell will be cancerous. Thus cancer is caused in the cytoplasm (mitochrondria), NOT the nucleus.

Because cancer is fundamentally caused in the mitochrondria (ie cell metabolism) and not the nucleus (DNA) we should focus on metabolism as the basis for anti-ageing and anti-cancer strategies, rather than stupid half-witted attempts to avoid DNA damage with sunscreen, which is idiotic since every cell in the body undergoes DNA damage 10,000 times per day anyway. If DNA damage was causal with cancer and ageing we wouldn't make it out of infancy. The scientific fact is that DNA damage is a downstream result of mitochrondrial dysfunction, not the cause.

The other way to examine this topic is by studying vegans; walking evidence of how modern diets cause modern diseases. Among all the other conditions suffered by vegans, very common are premature-ageing, poor skin (both in color and elasticity), and a greater risk of cancer.

BOOM what a fucking post

@Gestapo @alienmaxxer @Prettyboy @RecessedPrettyboy

GTFINH BUYOS

 

[Prettyboy]

BOOM what a fucking post

@Gestapo @alienmaxxer @Prettyboy @RecessedPrettyboy

GTFINH BUYOS

Eating carnivourous protects against he sun, he is spot on, modern high carb diets are to blame for too sensitve skin

 

[AscendingHero]

Eating carnivourous protects against he sun, he is spot on, modern high carb diets are to blame for too sensitve skin

Yup I wouldnt say full carniovorous is ideal though, balanced yet very high quality predominantly animal based>>> mogs

and yea the sun is actually good for the skin and body lack of the body being able to repair itself due to shitty diet mainly is what causes alot of its bad rap.

You shouldnt be burning under the sun, andreas moritz goes into brilliant depth about it in his books

You shouldnt be in the sun for unduly amounts of time, even more if you're just getting into it but for whatever the reasons there's things you can do for that

 

[Dbeyduvudhs]

You don't need sunscreen. UV radiation is good for you. It's the chemicals in sunscreen that cause all these skin problems. Raw sunlight is therapeutic for your body and your mind. The easiest looksmax by far.

I don’t think sun is terrible but zinc oxide blocks uva and uvb.

Tinted zinc sunscreen also evens out skin tone. It’s what everyone should use