The effects of sunlight on skin

[BucketCrab]

I have a hard time believing there are still users on this site who have the gall to deny sunlight is harmful for your skin.

 

[Deleted member 6573]

Just stay in ur basement for your entire life and emerge only at night theory

By the time you are 50 you will be collagen mogging your peers to the nether realm

 

[Xangsane]

White people on suicide watch

 

[BucketCrab]

Just stay in ur basement for your entire life and emerge only at night theory

By the time you are 50 you will be collagen mogging your peers to the nether realm

Turns out the vampires from legends were just giga-looksmaxxers who refused to come out during the day.
Well, to be fair they didn't have sunscreen back then.

 

[twilight]

the 61 year old native american probably slaved away for 12 hours a day directly in the sun every day for decades, that isn't proof that the sun is bad for your skin...nobody is saying to burn yourself but you shouldn't avoid the sun like the plague either..

sunscreens full of endocrine disrupters, forever chemicals and carcinogens will probably give you cancer before the sun does

 

[TheDragon]

Lifefuel for me since I spend my time playing video games all day while maintaining skincare routine.

 

[theRiderEffect]

dont eat pufa

 

[autistic_tendencies]

the sun wont harm you as bad if you eat animal based diet

 

[theRiderEffect]

the 61 year old native american probably slaved away for 12 hours a day directly in the sun every day for decades, that isn't proof that the sun is bad for your skin...nobody is saying to burn yourself but you shouldn't avoid the sun like the plague either..

sunscreens full of endocrine disrupters, forever chemicals and carcinogens will probably give you cancer before the sun does

elab. do you know specific ingredients

 

[HerpDerpson]

 

[ALP]

View attachment 2283532

 

[dimorphism]

the sun is fun tbh
but it's way too humid in my area and you have to wear a shirt outisde also plenty people so fuck it

 

[Emiqrox]

Just stay in ur basement for your entire life and emerge only at night theory

By the time you are 50 you will be collagen mogging your peers to the nether realm

 

[Emiqrox]

Rot in your basement

 

[Interested]

White people on suicide watch

That's it squishy, I'm breaking up with you

 

[BucketCrab]

the 61 year old native american probably slaved away for 12 hours a day directly in the sun every day for decades, that isn't proof that the sun is bad for your skin...nobody is saying to burn yourself but you shouldn't avoid the sun like the plague either..

She looks like a corpse at 60, while the monk's skin looks very smooth considering he's 90.
If that isn't proof the sun is bad for your skin, nothing will convince you.

sunscreens full of endocrine disrupters, forever chemicals and carcinogens will probably give you cancer before the sun does

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447210/ Sunscreen does not cause cancer. Sunlight causes cancer.
But even assuming it did, mineral sunscreen isn't absorbed by your skin so there's no excuse not to use one.

the sun wont harm you as bad if you eat animal based diet

But it will still harm you. People who eat an animal based diet still get skin damage/cancer from the sun, there's no escaping it.

Rot in your basement

Or just use sun protection and practice mindful sun avoidance (i.e. don't go fry your skin sunbathing when the sun is at peak strength).

 

[twilight]

Sunscreen does not cause cancer. Sunlight causes cancer.
But even assuming it did, mineral sunscreen isn't absorbed by your skin so there's no excuse not to use one.

believe what you want, i can also link you "studies" that say women prefer bald short men who have good personalities and wear the color red.

 

[Debetro]

Copers will say muh bad diet muh pufa muh animal based. Reality is, the second UV rays penetrate your skin, your DNA gets damaged. With that said, someone with white skin, should get 10 minutes of sunlight every other day.

dont eat pufa

the sun wont harm you as bad if you eat animal based diet

The picture shows a Native American who consumed animal based during her whole life without PUFAs. Checkmate pseudoscience conspiranoics.

 

[BucketCrab]

believe what you want, i can also link you "studies" that say women prefer bald short men who have good personalities and wear the color red.

Quite a lot of difference between a scientific study meant to prove an objective measurable truth (the connection between using sunscreen and cancer) and one that's far less measurable (women virtue signalling in bullshit sociology surveys).

We all get to choose between what's easy, and what's true. You can think the sun won't harm you, but that belief stems out of the desire to be comfortable. Of course applying sunscreen is a hassle, and of course I'd also prefer to just sunbathe without a care.

If you're interested in your long-term health and delaying aging, you must come to terms with the fact the sun is your enemy and you need to accept there are countermeasures you need to take to stifle its most damaging effects.

 

[Deleted member 20631]

believe what you want, i can also link you "studies" that say women prefer bald short men who have good personalities and wear the color red.

Just use mineral sunscreen on your face and expose your arm skin for sun benefits.

 

[nevermind2]

View attachment 2283500
I have a hard time believing there are still users on this site who have the gall to deny sunlight is harmful for your skin.

What mental gymnastics is this the sun is what enables life no wonder all the niggas on this forum roping when they get no sun cause Muh science says I'll not look 40 when I'm 50

 

[Whatashame]

View attachment 2283500
I have a hard time believing there are still users on this site who have the gall to deny sunlight is harmful for your skin.

A) A 91 years old coper who lost his entire life, has no sexual desire because of its low vitamin d (And then say its because its what god wants), never felt the touch of a woman because it lacks of exercise outdoors and sun made him aphatic.

B) A guy who lived as now can appreciate its past and the nature around him before going.


I have an uncle that is 102 years old. Had the most shit life and did nothing. Where the goal of life became to look good old or to live as long as possible? Thats just a reality escape from those who cant live the present so they project their happiness into the future.

 

[Whatashame]

Not to mention most people dont look like that , he probably has some skin problem.

 

[BucketCrab]

the sun is what enables life

Water also enables life. But you can drown in it as well.

A) A 91 years old coper who lost his entire life, has no sexual desire because of its low vitamin d (And then say its because its what god wants), never felt the touch of a woman because it lacks of exercise outdoors and sun made him aphatic.

B) A guy who lived as now can appreciate its past and the nature around him before going.

Assumptions, and coping. You are not enjoying life just because your skin is a sun-shriveled mess. And you can enjoy life while also acknowledging the sun can cause damage.

Thats just a reality escape from those who cant live the present so they project their happiness into the future.

The ones escaping reality are those who take no preventive steps because reality is too painful to accept. To avoid this inconvenience, they start believing their own lies, and distract themselves with pleasure in the present.
The problem is, you are always living in the present. Getting skin cancer or shitty skin will bring you pain in the future, but it will feel like it's the present when you'll be experiencing it.

 

[autistic_tendencies]

Copers will say muh bad diet muh pufa muh animal based. Reality is, the second UV rays penetrate your skin, your DNA gets damaged. With that said, someone with white skin, should get 10 minutes of sunlight every other day.




The picture shows a Native American who consumed animal based during her whole life without PUFAs. Checkmate pseudoscience conspiranoics.

Source

 

[nevermind2]

Water also enables life. But you can drown in it as well.

Yet you still drink it nigga noone drowns in sun or drinking water if you had enough sun you will get an urge to go to the shade the same way you don't drown urself by drinking too much water. If you wasn't a scientific chronic basement dweller you would realize that by your own experience.

 

[BucketCrab]

Yet you still drink it nigga noone drowns in sun or drinking water if you had enough sun you will get an urge to go to the shade the same way you don't drown urself by drinking too much water. If you wasn't a scientific chronic basement dweller you would realize that by your own experience.

I do get sun exposure though? I just use sunscreen when I know I'm going to be in the sun.

 

[anticel]

What was her diet? Was she well nourished? Grain-eating farmers usually look like this.
We evolved to be outside all day every day.

 

[anticel]

Studying sick slaves will never tell what is good or bad for a healthy specimen.

 

[twilight]

I just use sunscreen when I know I'm going to be in the sun.

why do tribal people who have no knowledge on skincare have better skin than the majority of sunscreen copers if they spend so much time in the sun?

 

[gribsufer1]

White people on suicide watch

and me

 

[BucketCrab]

why do tribal people who have no knowledge on skincare have better skin than the majority of sunscreen copers if they spend so much time in the sun?

Because they die at age 40.
Those who get past age 40, look like this:

Sun damage is cumulative. It takes time for photoaging to show up. You can tan a lot when you're young and it won't give you any visible signs of damage in the short term, but later on all that damage will appear on your skin like clockwork.

 

[gribsufer1]

But it will still harm you. People who eat an animal based diet still get skin damage/cancer from the sun, there's no escaping it.

PUFA causes the bulk of skin aging , after stopping for a while youll swe you can physically get sunburnwd anymore even lying in the sun at peak strength all day you will get redness that cmears up a day later , midday sun and overexpisure to iv should still be avoided tho

 

[twilight]

Because they die at age 40.
Those who get past age 40, look like this:
View attachment 2283669
Sun damage is cumulative. It takes time for photoaging to show up. You can tan a lot when you're young and it won't give you any visible signs of damage in the short term, but later on all that damage will appear on your skin like clockwork.

just use a 150 year old woman to prove the sun ages you

they don’t die at 40, they live close to our lifespan, infant mortality just brings the average life expectancy down because babies often don’t live past extremely harsh conditions

 

[twilight]

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.

 

[BucketCrab]

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.

Epic reddit post.
Sure go ahead and believe random a random redditor that's telling you what you want to hear, instead of hundreds of peer-reviwed studies done over decades by thousands of trained professionals.

 

[twilight]

Epic reddit post.
Sure go ahead and believe random a random redditor that's telling you what you want to hear, instead of hundreds of peer-reviwed studies done over decades by thousands of trained professionals.

so you can’t respond to that “random redditor” literally just pointing out how all your jewish evidence is extremely flawed and biased? KEK just rope it’s over for you, go read some crisco funded meta analysis about how drinking heavily processed canola oil is heart healthy

 

[Deleted member 28117]

just put spf 50 on your face in the morning before you go out and use something to mosturize your face

 

[BucketCrab]

so you can’t respond to that “random redditor” literally just pointing out how all your jewish evidence is extremely flawed and biased? KEK just rope it’s over for you, go read some crisco funded meta analysis about how drinking heavily processed canola oil is heart healthy

Don't forget to upvote the brave redditor sticking up to those big pharma jews!
Maybe give him some Reddit Gold too, heroes like him could really use some additional support.

 

[iam good boy]

View attachment 2283500
I have a hard time believing there are still users on this site who have the gall to deny sunlight is harmful for your skin.

But buttttt broo cumza told me to show ballsack widespread to the sun to inkerease test 2000%

 

[gribsufer1]

Copers will say muh bad diet muh pufa muh animal based. Reality is, the second UV rays penetrate your skin, your DNA gets damaged. With that said, someone with white skin, should get 10 minutes of sunlight every other day.

clearly you know nothing about pufa or even uv so let me clue you in . polyunsaturated fat is made of long chain unstable polymers , these molecules break down inside the body and even inside the nucleus of cells, the broken down molecules are ions they react with your dna causing damage to the dna structure becuase of exchanging this is called oxidative damage. UV gives your dna energy, so much that it causes an electrons to leave the struture , this is at a pretty slow rate its the least ionising form of radiation, these things multiply each other sunburns arent natural

The picture shows a Native American who consumed animal based during her whole life without PUFAs. Checkmate pseudoscience conspiranoics.

they eat pufas like sunflower seeds and stuff their diet isnt perfect just cos they live in the muh wild

 

[Whatashame]

Water also enables life. But you can drown in it as well.


Assumptions, and coping. You are not enjoying life just because your skin is a sun-shriveled mess. And you can enjoy life while also acknowledging the sun can cause damage.


The ones escaping reality are those who take no preventive steps because reality is too painful to accept. To avoid this inconvenience, they start believing their own lies, and distract themselves with pleasure in the present.
The problem is, you are always living in the present. Getting skin cancer or shitty skin will bring you pain in the future, but it will feel like it's the present when you'll be experiencing it.

u retards love the scientific evidence but there is no evidence that SUN in a HEALTHY individual causes damage. A healthy individual that exercises, is hydrated and etc. But keep coping dude. Believe that a product you buy on the shitty supermarket on your street is what going to make you have sex when you are 60 years old in exchange for a defficiency in your most important vitamin

 

[BucketCrab]

there is no evidence that SUN in a HEALTHY individual causes damage. A healthy individual that exercises, is hydrated and etc.

There is so much evidence about it that it's basically a fact. Scientifically speaking, there is no dermatologist or skin expert on Earth that would tell you that the Sun causes no damage to the skin.

If you choose to believe something else, you're just coping and are actively harming yourself. It's quite literally your funeral.

 

[Debetro]

clearly you know nothing about pufa or even uv so let me clue you in . polyunsaturated fat is made of long chain unstable polymers , these molecules break down inside the body and even inside the nucleus of cells, the broken down molecules are ions they react with your dna causing damage to the dna structure becuase of exchanging this is called oxidative damage. UV gives your dna energy, so much that it causes an electrons to leave the struture , this is at a pretty slow rate its the least ionising form of radiation, these things multiply each other sunburns arent natural

You neither buddy, just copying the same bullshit from Peat and other authors. So basically all the thousands of scientific papers about the topic are wrong, because the individuals aren't healthy? Jfl
If you had the time it would be a good idea for you to test how true are your claims. In the case you had a "good" diet without PUFAs, in summer, in a sunny day, go sunbathe your entire body from 7 AM to 9 PM, the next days you can repeat if you want. You will 100% get severely sunburned even with your abscense of PUFAs, causing with it damage to your skin.

Abscence of excess amount of PUFAs and nutrients deficiency may protect you from sun consequences, I agree. But as I mentioned, it will protect you, meaning that the exposure itself is harmful, and with the conditions described before, the protection will be higher, so exposure won't be as harmful.

they eat pufas like sunflower seeds and stuff their diet isnt perfect just cos they live in the muh wild

Sure that's the cause bro, eating some sunflower seeds will def be the cause of skin aging and sun damage even if the rest of the diet is animal based. Let's ignore that PUFAs are also an essential component for proper function of the human body

u retards love the scientific evidence but there is no evidence that SUN in a HEALTHY individual causes damage. A healthy individual that exercises, is hydrated and etc.

Again, all scientific studies and findings are on unhealthy individuals riiight??? Absolute bullshit

Believe that a product you buy on the shitty supermarket on your street is what going to make you have sex when you are 60 years old in exchange for a defficiency in your most important vitamin

Nobody is saying that staying out of the sun will make you a forever young wizard who doesn't age and fucks 20 years old every week. It will at least eliminate the consequences of prolonged sun exposure on health, which are derived from DNA damage, this leading to cell death, photoaging, skin cancer etc.
You don't necessarily need to use a product, it's just staying out of the sun, seeking shadow, wearing clothing to avoid UV rays to penetrate the skin. In the case you know your skin will be in the sun for a long time, then yeah, it would be better to use some product.

For vitamin D, it's only needed, for a white person, 5-15 minutes of sun every other day to get the necessary amount of the vitamin, and if combined with a nutritious diet, it's nothing to worry about.

So except vitamin D which as I said is not something to worry about, is there any reason to stay in the sun for more than 15 minutes? You guys always mention that the abscence of PUFAs will make sun exposure harmless, but even if that was true, there's any reason at all to get prolonged exposure? I don't think so

 

[futurechadlet]

believe what you want, i can also link you "studies" that say women prefer bald short men who have good personalities and wear the color red.

Link those

 

[Whatashame]

You neither buddy, just copying the same bullshit from Peat and other authors. So basically all the thousands of scientific papers about the topic are wrong, because the individuals aren't healthy? Jfl
If you had the time it would be a good idea for you to test how true are your claims. In the case you had a "good" diet without PUFAs, in summer, in a sunny day, go sunbathe your entire body from 7 AM to 9 PM, the next days you can repeat if you want. You will 100% get severely sunburned even with your abscense of PUFAs, causing with it damage to your skin.

Abscence of excess amount of PUFAs and nutrients deficiency may protect you from sun consequences, I agree. But as I mentioned, it will protect you, meaning that the exposure itself is harmful, and with the conditions described before, the protection will be higher, so exposure won't be as harmful.

Sure that's the cause bro, eating some sunflower seeds will def be the cause of skin aging and sun damage even if the rest of the diet is animal based. Let's ignore that PUFAs are also an essential component for proper function of the human body

Again, all scientific studies and findings are on unhealthy individuals riiight??? Absolute bullshit

Nobody is saying that staying out of the sun will make you a forever young wizard who doesn't age and fucks 20 years old every week. It will at least eliminate the consequences of prolonged sun exposure on health, which are derived from DNA damage, this leading to cell death, photoaging, skin cancer etc.
You don't necessarily need to use a product, it's just staying out of the sun, seeking shadow, wearing clothing to avoid UV rays to penetrate the skin. In the case you know your skin will be in the sun for a long time, then yeah, it would be better to use some product.

For vitamin D, it's only needed, for a white person, 5-15 minutes of sun every other day to get the necessary amount of the vitamin, and if combined with a nutritious diet, it's nothing to worry about.

So except vitamin D which as I said is not something to worry about, is there any reason to stay in the sun for more than 15 minutes? You guys always mention that the abscence of PUFAs will make sun exposure harmless, but even if that was true, there's any reason at all to get prolonged exposure? I don't think so

How many people in the modern environment have a health lifestyle you fucking retarded abslolute moron? Almost no one.

 

[Whatashame]

There is so much evidence about it that it's basically a fact. Scientifically speaking, there is no dermatologist or skin expert on Earth that would tell you that the Sun causes no damage to the skin.

If you choose to believe something else, you're just coping and are actively harming yourself. It's quite literally your funeral.

Well i said in the comment above. I talked with the woman who wrote the truck driver study

and she assured he had no skin health conditions. Do you think a truck driver is a individual who exercises regularly? For health you should follow the natural and normally medicine agrees with that. Exercising, drinking mineral water, breathing pure air, avoiding processed foods. Sun is important and of course that severe sun exposure is going to be bad, because its not natural. But moderate sun exposure (99% of people dont even get that) will have health benefits that far outweight the minimal skin damage.

 

[Debetro]

How many people in the modern environment have a health lifestyle you fucking retarded abslolute moron? Almost no one.

You can't be more retarded. If that claim was even true (tho the odds are insanely low), there's no proof either the PUFA and animal based claims are true, since there hasn't been done any study about these "supposedly" heealthy individuals.

Now tell me whats the fucking purpose of staying more than 20 minutes purposefully in the sun????

Well i said in the comment above. I talked with the woman who wrote the truck driver study View attachment 2283935 and she assured he had no skin health conditions. Do you think a truck driver is a individual who exercises regularly? For health you should follow the natural and normally medicine agrees with that. Exercising, drinking mineral water, breathing pure air, avoiding processed foods. Sun is important and of course that severe sun exposure is going to be bad, because its not natural. But moderate sun exposure (99% of people dont even get that) will have health benefits that far outweight the minimal skin damage.

Nobody is saying to not get any sun never again, just with moderation at the right time.

Btw, the Native American had a life outside, exercised more than you ever will, breathing pure air, ate all "natural" unprocessed products and yet ended up like that.

Keep your pseudocientific claims for you. There's zero proof to whatever you mentioned, although I agree with it, but it doesn't have that much relevance to the sun damage topic.

 

[gribsufer1]

Let's ignore that PUFAs are also an essential component for proper function of the human body

this doesnt mean anything significant , the ray peat diet isnt a muh animal vased diet like the retard above was saying you can eat a diverse range of foods even grass fed animal fats have pufa just low amounts its impossible to avoid pufa entirely , its impossible to be deficient in pufa aswell even if you were somehow , i severely doubt the effects of that would be more harmful than having too much

 

[Debetro]

this doesnt mean anything significant , the ray peat diet isnt a muh animal vased diet like the retard above was saying you can eat a diverse range of foods even grass fed animal fats have pufa just low amounts its impossible to avoid pufa entirely , its impossible to be deficient in pufa aswell even if you were somehow , i severely doubt the effects of that would be more harmful than having too much

True, it's just that there are people who support avoiding 100% PUFA, but this could actually have detrimental effects if done.