The effects of sunlight on skin

[gribsufer1]

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.

overexposure to uv is harmful this doesnt prove anything , but this has sort of been done a no pufa guy said he was lying shirtless in middat sun for an hour and he got red but the next day it was gone , also last week i was out in direct midday sun in short sleeved shirt for a while and didnt get burned, last year i would get burned in a few minutes when i was still eating pufa

 

[gribsufer1]

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

you should avoid pufa 100% its just that its impossible , like say dairy fat is 3-4% pufa you could only eat an extremely limited diet to acoid pufa so thats unhealthy, but pufa cannot be claimed to be essential. where are the studies of people abstaining 100% pufa ? they dont exist.

 

[trumpwillwin]

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

hey bro, I remember reading a post about you and some Viet chick a while ago? don't know if you remember I congratulated you a bit for it


how's it going with her now? or did u move on to slay other women? or maybe ur just taking it easy for a bit?

 

[Debetro]

overexposure to uv is harmful this doesnt prove anything , but this has sort of been done a no pufa guy said he was lying shirtless in middat sun for an hour and he got red but the next day it was gone , also last week i was out in direct midday sun in short sleeved shirt for a while and didnt get burned, last year i would get burned in a few minutes when i was still eating pufa

Last year, I got into the carnivore diet thing and getting lots of sun (sv3rige shit), I was laying in summer two hours everyday normally at midday, I must say I hadn't got a single sunburn, I got tanned and maybe slightly red.

Now I really regret going into that shit. Sun is harmful with whatever diet you have, no need to expose yourself for long periods, just, as I said, 5-15 mins every other day.

 

[gribsufer1]

Last year, I got into the carnivore diet thing and getting lots of sun (sv3rige shit), I was laying in summer two hours everyday normally at midday, I must say I hadn't got a single sunburn, I got tanned and maybe slightly red.

Now I really regret going into that shit. Sun is harmful with whatever diet you have, no need to expose yourself for long periods, just, as I said, 5-15 mins every other day.

lol at falling fot tgat shit sv3rige is a retard, but lol at eating pufa too rapeseed oil was literally created only 50 years ago yet people gulp up that shit

 

[Debetro]

lol at falling fot tgat shit sv3rige is a retard, but lol at eating pufa too rapeseed oil was literally created only 50 years ago yet people gulp up that shit

Yeah retard decision. And I'm not supporting the consume of seed oils and anything like that.
I'm against both of these beliefs. With my posts I'm just trying to say that prolonged sun exposure is bad, causing damage, and that people should aim for moderate sun exposure for the best outcome of benefits/consquences.

 

[gribsufer1]

Yeah retard decision. And I'm not supporting the consume of seed oils and anything like that.
I'm against both of these beliefs. With my posts I'm just trying to say that prolonged sun exposure is bad, causing damage, and that people should aim for moderate sun exposure for the best outcome of benefits/consquences.

so ur thread is water

 

[Debetro]

so ur thread is water

I don't even know why I started posting in this thread

 

[Whatashame]

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????

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.

What the fuck are u talking about? Pufas and animal base? who the fuck said anything about that you fucking retarded? The native american did shit u retarded, almost no native look like that, this is clearly a specific case. The benefit of getting more sun than 20 minutes is to get more vitamin d, but keep believing that 800IU is sufficient LOL. If the levels are not beyond 125 nmol / L (Impossible naturally) vitamin d is just beneficial. Nothing i said is "pseudoscientific" you are just an idiot who never read a study on your life and keep talking you want to hear. Now go buy your sunscreen with 60 ingredients in it that you have no idea how they will interact in your organism.

 

[Whatashame]

The fact that you felt for the carnivore diet says a lot about your mental capacity

 

[Debetro]

What the fuck are u talking about? Pufas and animal base? who the fuck said anything about that you fucking retarded? The native american did shit u retarded, almost no native look like that, this is clearly a specific case. The benefit of getting more sun than 20 minutes is to get more vitamin d, but keep believing that 800IU is sufficient LOL. If the levels are not beyond 125 nmol / L (Impossible naturally) vitamin d is just beneficial. Nothing i said is "pseudoscientific" you are just an idiot who never read a study on your life and keep talking you want to hear. Now go buy your sunscreen with 60 ingredients in it that you have no idea how they will interact in your organism.

Sure man, you know it everything and I don't know shit neither did I read any study. Sure

"For people with lighter skin, daily (or almost daily) sunlight exposure of unprotected skin for just 10-15 minutes during the spring and summer months should provide adequate vitamin D to avoid vitamin D deficiency all year round."

https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/132402692/Briefing_Note_Sunlight_exposure_and_Vitamin_D_FINAL.pdf

Didn't fucking read the bullshit you mentioned, zero fucking proof.

The fact that you felt for the carnivore diet says a lot about your mental capacity

It fixed one autoinmune disorder

Keep bullshitting, not a single argument, just a cringe teen insulting every three words.

 

[Whatashame]

Sure man, you know it everything and I don't know shit neither did I read any study. Sure

"For people with lighter skin, daily (or almost daily) sunlight exposure of unprotected skin for just 10-15 minutes during the spring and summer months should provide adequate vitamin D to avoid vitamin D deficiency all year round."

https://pure.manchester.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/132402692/Briefing_Note_Sunlight_exposure_and_Vitamin_D_FINAL.pdf

Didn't fucking read the bullshit you mentioned, zero fucking proof.

It fixed one autoinmune disorder

Keep bullshitting, not a single argument, just a cringe teen insulting every three words.

You did not even read the study, just searched on google grabed the first link that agreed with you and posted, because thats all your brain can do. No desire for the truth, just to find the convenient. Everyone knows whats the recommendation of the portals is, it doesnt mean its true. You fail to understand that the purpose of the guidelines is to make recommendations that the average person can do, not that its the optimal. In this case it also tends to balance between cancer risk and benefit because its a GUIDELINE that will be used by thousands of people and a increase 1% of cancer means some people will die.

The IOM recommendation in 1997 WAS OF of 200 IU/d (Now its 600, still insanely low). The number will keep changing,

 

[Debetro]

You did not even read the study, just searched on google grabed the first link that agreed with you and posted, because thats all your brain can do. No desire for the truth, just to find the convenient. Everyone knows whats the recommendation of the portals is, it doesnt mean its true. You fail to understand that the purpose of the guidelines is to make recommendations that the average person can do, not that its the optimal. In this case it also tends to balance between cancer risk and benefit because its a GUIDELINE that will be used by thousands of people and a increase 1% of cancer means some people will die.

The IOM recommendation in 1997 WAS OF of 200 IU/d (Now its 600, still insanely low). The number will keep changing,

Ok, don't know why I even argued with you since the point of my posts is sun damage and not vit d

 

[Whatashame]

Ok, don't know why I even argued with you since the point of my posts is sun damage and not vit d

the point is that reducing the "sun damage" is the same as reducing vitamin d. Its not like you are just having benefits.

 

[Debetro]

the point is that reducing the "sun damage" is the same as reducing vitamin d. Its not like you are just having benefits.

Yep, there's a middle point

 

[Prettyboy]

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

 

[Jhon Smith]

Ethnics look good white
Whites look good tanned

 

[WhoAmIReally]

Keep believing the jewish lie.

 

[Deleted member 6573]

hey bro, I remember reading a post about you and some Viet chick a while ago? don't know if you remember I congratulated you a bit for it


how's it going with her now? or did u move on to slay other women? or maybe ur just taking it easy for a bit?

Bro I was never even attracted to her in the first place, I just used her to lose my kiss, hug and hand hold card.

I won't go for girls Im not attracted to anymore because I am no longer khhv.

I will create a new tinder account with professional photos once I finish my masters degree and start slaying in phillipines/vietnam/thailand.

 

[trumpwillwin]

Bro I was never even attracted to her in the first place, I just used her to lose my kiss, hug and hand hold card.

I won't go for girls Im not attracted to anymore because I am no longer khhv.

I will create a new tinder account with professional photos once I finish my masters degree and start slaying in phillipines/vietnam/thailand.

Fair enough. but what exactly happened? I remember you mentioned you wanted to penetrate her at some point and how Chinese men are meant to be with Viet women?

if she wasn't the one then fuck that whore. no worries. just curious as to what happened?

 

[Lucid]

If u niggas hate the sun so much just wrap a hijab or sth or wear a niqab with body showing so u reap vit d benefits

 

[Crusile]

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.

It's 80-90% of premature aging

Literally 100% of uv related damage is caused by UV ..

 

[Crusile]

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.

can replicate this on any old person lol, their sun exposed parts of the body will always look more wrinkled than non sun exposed areas

 

[Deleted member 6573]

Fair enough. but what exactly happened? I remember you mentioned you wanted to penetrate her at some point and how Chinese men are meant to be with Viet women?

if she wasn't the one then fuck that whore. no worries. just curious as to what happened?

She is extremely shy i think it would take me at least 6 months to bed her

Like I said, Im not attracted to her. It's not worth the effort.

Chinese men and Viet women are the perfect match for each other. Nothing has changed.

I will geomaxx to Vietnam and increase their birth rate with new tinder pics and profile

 

[ezio6]

Ethnics look good white
Whites look good tanned

Yeah female gaze, white ethnic got bullied hard if theyre not gymaxxed thats a payyof

 

[Gaygymmaxx]

Bitch looks like the thing