Is polyunsaturated fat and seed oils the reason why we age faster with sun exposure?

[Deleted member 28610]

So is it possible to sunbathe while on an animal-based diet with no pufas and not age prematurely?

 

[Deleted member 28610]

@twilight

 

[womanfearer]

That's pretty much completely unrelated lmfao

The UV rays from the sun deplete collagen and damage skin. This is why people who don't expose their skin to the sun as much compared to other parts of their body are wrinkly vs less wrinkly.

Sun exposure without proper protection will age you no matter what

 

[Deleted member 28610]

That's pretty much completely unrelated lmfao

The UV rays from the sun deplete collagen and damage skin. This is why people who don't expose their skin to the sun as much compared to other parts of their body are wrinkly vs less wrinkly.

Sun exposure without proper protection will age you no matter what

Research] Debunking The Myth that 80-90% of Skin Ageing is Caused by UV

The claim that 80% of skin ageing is due to UV damage is pretty widespread.

You’ll find the claim repeated in online magazines, this sub, **the WHO**, and our favorite Youtube dermatologists. Sometimes it’s a lower 70%, and other times a higher 90%, but the core message is that **sunlight (UV) drives the majority of skin ageing**.

But I’ve always suspected that this is 100% BS — not only because this would be very, very difficult to prove experimentally, but also because the diligent sunscreen users I know (myself included) still look approximately the age that they are.

I was inspired to debunk this myth since there’s growing sun paranoia in subs like this, which I don’t think is healthy. It’s also trickling down to children & teenagers who are becoming terrified of the sun, ***under the utter delusion that if they block UV they won’t age.***

So I took a dive into the literature to see where this claim originated.

**TL;DR? It’s completely made-up. Pure fiction.**

\---

Upon searching for the claim in Pubmed and Google Scholar, you’ll first see that the claim is repeated in a **LOT** of dermatology & allied literature. These aren’t renegade journals – they’re **high-quality, reputable journals in the field**. Here are some of the most highly cited examples:

1. “… sun exposure is considered to be far and away the most significantly deleterious to the skin. Indeed, 80% of facial ageing is believed to be due to chronic sun exposure.” – [The Journal of Pathology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/path.2098)

2. “It has been estimated that photodamage may account for more than 90% of the age associated cosmetic problems of the skin” – [British Journal of Dermatology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1990.tb16118.x)

3. “Chronic UV exposure which is responsible for around 80% of the effects of facial skin ageing is termed photoageing." – [International Journal of Cosmetic Science](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2010.00574.x)

4. “Extrinsic skin ageing primarily arises from UV-light exposure. Approximately 80% of facial skin ageing is attributed to UV-exposure.- [Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2010.03963.x)

5. \[Discussing skin ageing\] "Several authors have estimated that this ratio could be very important, up to 80% of sun impact for a large part, and some publications have discussed a ratio closer to 90%." - [Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/)

​

So let’s take a look at what evidence these highly cited papers use to justify these claims.

In **paper 1**, if you follow the citation for the claim you’ll end up at a [1997 letter in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372011). It says:

*“It has been suggested, at least anecdotally, that as much as 80 percent of facial aging is attributable to exposure to the sun, although other factors, such as cigarette smoking, can contribute to premature facial wrinkling.”*

Already, you can see that this was a poor citation by the original paper. Skin wrinkling is just one aspect of skin ageing, and so it is some sloppy scholarship. What’s more, this source paper even admits that this is anecdotal evidence, and bizarrely uses an irrelevant smoking study to justify this, [which doesn't even address this issue](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-114-10-840).

For **paper 2**, if you follow the citation you end up at a 1[989 review written by Barbara Gilchrest, a US dermatologist](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2476468/). Once again, this review says **nowhere** that UV drives 90% of skin ageing. Instead, it says this: “*Photoaging is unquestionably responsible for the great majority of unwanted age-associated changes in the skin's appearance, including coarseness, wrinkling, sallow color, telangiectasia, irregular pigmentation, and a variety of benign, premalignant, and malignant neoplasms*”. Crucially, **no evidence is provided for this claim**; it seems to be an anecdote without quantification.

In **paper 3** and **paper 4**, their claim uses the NEJM letter that is also cited by paper 1, and so it encounters the exact same problem.

**Paper 5** makes the bold claim that it may be 90%, and includes a citation for a study that allegedly supports this. But does it? **No.** If you go to the citation, it’s ***a small study on soybean extracts***. It regurgitates the “UV drives 90% of skin ageing” in the introduction to justify the experiments, but includes **no citation**, and there is **no experimental evidence in the paper to support this**. It is only mentioned in passing.

In these 5 examples, it’s crystal clear that this claim has been propagated by poor and lazy scholarship. The idea that UV drives 80-90% of skin ageing seems to come from a few opinion pieces in the 1980s-1990s that did not use real data or experimental processes… just anecdotes. This is the **very opposite of evidence-based medicine**, and a real problem in academia.

\--

So the medical literature is sloppy. But is there any real science addressing the exact contribution of UV to skin ageing?

Yes – Paper 5 above, and ironically, it seems to be used as a resource to further the “UV causes 80% of skin ageing” claim, **despite showing the opposite**.

[In 2013, a study of almost 300 women in France was performed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/). 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...

​

So in summary, the idea that UV/sunlight drives 80-90% of skin ageing is garbage, a **claim that doesn't have a basis in the medical literature** if you dig deep enough. And the studies that we do have seem to suggest that in fact chronological (intrinsic) skin changes are responsible for most of the signs of ageing.

 

[twilight]

So is it possible to sunbathe while on an animal-based diet with no pufas and not age prematurely?

in theory it's possible, no pufas built up within your cells + lots of saturated animal fat which makes cells resistant to oxidation and shit like uv ray cell damage = lesser chance of getting sunburnt

but if you live in a place where the uv rays are really strong or you are planning to sunbathe for hours i would still wear a non nano zinc sunblock, preferably a home made one tbh

 

[Deleted member 28610]

That's pretty much completely unrelated lmfao

The UV rays from the sun deplete collagen and damage skin. This is why people who don't expose their skin to the sun as much compared to other parts of their body are wrinkly vs less wrinkly.

Sun exposure without proper protection will age you no matter what

pufas rape your collagen and increase sunburn sensitivity tho

Using Sunlight to Sustain Life – Functional Performance Systems (FPS)

 

[womanfearer]

Research] Debunking The Myth that 80-90% of Skin Ageing is Caused by UV

The claim that 80% of skin ageing is due to UV damage is pretty widespread.

You’ll find the claim repeated in online magazines, this sub, **the WHO**, and our favorite Youtube dermatologists. Sometimes it’s a lower 70%, and other times a higher 90%, but the core message is that **sunlight (UV) drives the majority of skin ageing**.

But I’ve always suspected that this is 100% BS — not only because this would be very, very difficult to prove experimentally, but also because the diligent sunscreen users I know (myself included) still look approximately the age that they are.

I was inspired to debunk this myth since there’s growing sun paranoia in subs like this, which I don’t think is healthy. It’s also trickling down to children & teenagers who are becoming terrified of the sun, ***under the utter delusion that if they block UV they won’t age.***

So I took a dive into the literature to see where this claim originated.

**TL;DR? It’s completely made-up. Pure fiction.**

\---

Upon searching for the claim in Pubmed and Google Scholar, you’ll first see that the claim is repeated in a **LOT** of dermatology & allied literature. These aren’t renegade journals – they’re **high-quality, reputable journals in the field**. Here are some of the most highly cited examples:

1. “… sun exposure is considered to be far and away the most significantly deleterious to the skin. Indeed, 80% of facial ageing is believed to be due to chronic sun exposure.” – [The Journal of Pathology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/path.2098)

2. “It has been estimated that photodamage may account for more than 90% of the age associated cosmetic problems of the skin” – [British Journal of Dermatology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1990.tb16118.x)

3. “Chronic UV exposure which is responsible for around 80% of the effects of facial skin ageing is termed photoageing." – [International Journal of Cosmetic Science](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2010.00574.x)

4. “Extrinsic skin ageing primarily arises from UV-light exposure. Approximately 80% of facial skin ageing is attributed to UV-exposure.- [Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2010.03963.x)

5. \[Discussing skin ageing\] "Several authors have estimated that this ratio could be very important, up to 80% of sun impact for a large part, and some publications have discussed a ratio closer to 90%." - [Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/)

​

So let’s take a look at what evidence these highly cited papers use to justify these claims.

In **paper 1**, if you follow the citation for the claim you’ll end up at a [1997 letter in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372011). It says:

*“It has been suggested, at least anecdotally, that as much as 80 percent of facial aging is attributable to exposure to the sun, although other factors, such as cigarette smoking, can contribute to premature facial wrinkling.”*

Already, you can see that this was a poor citation by the original paper. Skin wrinkling is just one aspect of skin ageing, and so it is some sloppy scholarship. What’s more, this source paper even admits that this is anecdotal evidence, and bizarrely uses an irrelevant smoking study to justify this, [which doesn't even address this issue](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-114-10-840).

For **paper 2**, if you follow the citation you end up at a 1[989 review written by Barbara Gilchrest, a US dermatologist](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2476468/). Once again, this review says **nowhere** that UV drives 90% of skin ageing. Instead, it says this: “*Photoaging is unquestionably responsible for the great majority of unwanted age-associated changes in the skin's appearance, including coarseness, wrinkling, sallow color, telangiectasia, irregular pigmentation, and a variety of benign, premalignant, and malignant neoplasms*”. Crucially, **no evidence is provided for this claim**; it seems to be an anecdote without quantification.

In **paper 3** and **paper 4**, their claim uses the NEJM letter that is also cited by paper 1, and so it encounters the exact same problem.

**Paper 5** makes the bold claim that it may be 90%, and includes a citation for a study that allegedly supports this. But does it? **No.** If you go to the citation, it’s ***a small study on soybean extracts***. It regurgitates the “UV drives 90% of skin ageing” in the introduction to justify the experiments, but includes **no citation**, and there is **no experimental evidence in the paper to support this**. It is only mentioned in passing.

In these 5 examples, it’s crystal clear that this claim has been propagated by poor and lazy scholarship. The idea that UV drives 80-90% of skin ageing seems to come from a few opinion pieces in the 1980s-1990s that did not use real data or experimental processes… just anecdotes. This is the **very opposite of evidence-based medicine**, and a real problem in academia.

\--

So the medical literature is sloppy. But is there any real science addressing the exact contribution of UV to skin ageing?

Yes – Paper 5 above, and ironically, it seems to be used as a resource to further the “UV causes 80% of skin ageing” claim, **despite showing the opposite**.

[In 2013, a study of almost 300 women in France was performed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/). 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...

​

So in summary, the idea that UV/sunlight drives 80-90% of skin ageing is garbage, a **claim that doesn't have a basis in the medical literature** if you dig deep enough. And the studies that we do have seem to suggest that in fact chronological (intrinsic) skin changes are responsible for most of the signs of ageing

Clearly it still has an effect.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health/lorry-driver-ages-dramatically-one-30249669

 

[Deleted member 17735]

Research] Debunking The Myth that 80-90% of Skin Ageing is Caused by UV

The claim that 80% of skin ageing is due to UV damage is pretty widespread.

You’ll find the claim repeated in online magazines, this sub, **the WHO**, and our favorite Youtube dermatologists. Sometimes it’s a lower 70%, and other times a higher 90%, but the core message is that **sunlight (UV) drives the majority of skin ageing**.

But I’ve always suspected that this is 100% BS — not only because this would be very, very difficult to prove experimentally, but also because the diligent sunscreen users I know (myself included) still look approximately the age that they are.

I was inspired to debunk this myth since there’s growing sun paranoia in subs like this, which I don’t think is healthy. It’s also trickling down to children & teenagers who are becoming terrified of the sun, ***under the utter delusion that if they block UV they won’t age.***

So I took a dive into the literature to see where this claim originated.

**TL;DR? It’s completely made-up. Pure fiction.**

\---

Upon searching for the claim in Pubmed and Google Scholar, you’ll first see that the claim is repeated in a **LOT** of dermatology & allied literature. These aren’t renegade journals – they’re **high-quality, reputable journals in the field**. Here are some of the most highly cited examples:

1. “… sun exposure is considered to be far and away the most significantly deleterious to the skin. Indeed, 80% of facial ageing is believed to be due to chronic sun exposure.” – [The Journal of Pathology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/path.2098)

2. “It has been estimated that photodamage may account for more than 90% of the age associated cosmetic problems of the skin” – [British Journal of Dermatology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2133.1990.tb16118.x)

3. “Chronic UV exposure which is responsible for around 80% of the effects of facial skin ageing is termed photoageing." – [International Journal of Cosmetic Science](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1468-2494.2010.00574.x)

4. “Extrinsic skin ageing primarily arises from UV-light exposure. Approximately 80% of facial skin ageing is attributed to UV-exposure.- [Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venerology](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2010.03963.x)

5. \[Discussing skin ageing\] "Several authors have estimated that this ratio could be very important, up to 80% of sun impact for a large part, and some publications have discussed a ratio closer to 90%." - [Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/)

​

So let’s take a look at what evidence these highly cited papers use to justify these claims.

In **paper 1**, if you follow the citation for the claim you’ll end up at a [1997 letter in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372011). It says:

*“It has been suggested, at least anecdotally, that as much as 80 percent of facial aging is attributable to exposure to the sun, although other factors, such as cigarette smoking, can contribute to premature facial wrinkling.”*

Already, you can see that this was a poor citation by the original paper. Skin wrinkling is just one aspect of skin ageing, and so it is some sloppy scholarship. What’s more, this source paper even admits that this is anecdotal evidence, and bizarrely uses an irrelevant smoking study to justify this, [which doesn't even address this issue](https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/0003-4819-114-10-840).

For **paper 2**, if you follow the citation you end up at a 1[989 review written by Barbara Gilchrest, a US dermatologist](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2476468/). Once again, this review says **nowhere** that UV drives 90% of skin ageing. Instead, it says this: “*Photoaging is unquestionably responsible for the great majority of unwanted age-associated changes in the skin's appearance, including coarseness, wrinkling, sallow color, telangiectasia, irregular pigmentation, and a variety of benign, premalignant, and malignant neoplasms*”. Crucially, **no evidence is provided for this claim**; it seems to be an anecdote without quantification.

In **paper 3** and **paper 4**, their claim uses the NEJM letter that is also cited by paper 1, and so it encounters the exact same problem.

**Paper 5** makes the bold claim that it may be 90%, and includes a citation for a study that allegedly supports this. But does it? **No.** If you go to the citation, it’s ***a small study on soybean extracts***. It regurgitates the “UV drives 90% of skin ageing” in the introduction to justify the experiments, but includes **no citation**, and there is **no experimental evidence in the paper to support this**. It is only mentioned in passing.

In these 5 examples, it’s crystal clear that this claim has been propagated by poor and lazy scholarship. The idea that UV drives 80-90% of skin ageing seems to come from a few opinion pieces in the 1980s-1990s that did not use real data or experimental processes… just anecdotes. This is the **very opposite of evidence-based medicine**, and a real problem in academia.

\--

So the medical literature is sloppy. But is there any real science addressing the exact contribution of UV to skin ageing?

Yes – Paper 5 above, and ironically, it seems to be used as a resource to further the “UV causes 80% of skin ageing” claim, **despite showing the opposite**.

[In 2013, a study of almost 300 women in France was performed](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/). 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...

​

So in summary, the idea that UV/sunlight drives 80-90% of skin ageing is garbage, a **claim that doesn't have a basis in the medical literature** if you dig deep enough. And the studies that we do have seem to suggest that in fact chronological (intrinsic) skin changes are responsible for most of the signs of ageing.

 

[Deleted member 28610]

in theory it's possible, no pufas built up within your cells + lots of saturated animal fat which makes cells resistant to oxidation and shit like uv ray cell damage = lesser chance of getting sunburnt

but if you live in a place where the uv rays are really strong or you are planning to sunbathe for hours i would still wear a non nano zinc sunblock, preferably a home made one tbh

only like 35 mins for vitamin d + im ethnic

 

[Deleted member 28610]

its like 12 pm tho will my face age if i dont use sunscreen
@twilight

 

[twilight]

its like 12 pm tho will my face age if i dont use sunscreen
@twilight

if u want vit d just put a bit of sunblock on ur face, you get all the vit d from the sun hitting ur back and chest

 

[Deleted member 28610]

Clearly it still has an effect.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health/lorry-driver-ages-dramatically-one-30249669

hes a truck driver so he probably had bad lifestyle + high stress and ate lots of processed goyslop which exacerbated his uv ray damage

 

[Deleted member 28610]

if u want vit d just put a bit of sunblock on ur face, you get all the vit d from the sun hitting ur back and chest

yeah true but if i do that ill have a cumskin face and nigger body

 

[womanfearer]

hes a truck driver so he probably had bad lifestyle + high stress and ate lots of processed goyslop which exacerbated his uv ray damage

Look at the other side. This is the same person. Literally the only variable here is sun exposure. The other side's aging was solely accelerated by the sun

 

[twilight]

yeah true but if i do that ill have a cumskin face and nigger body

only 30 minutes bhai

 

[twilight]

Literally the only variable here is sun exposure.

but we don't know his diet or lifestyle habits + nobody is saying to spend 12 hours driving in the sun like he did, obv that will fuck you up