40 replies to this topic

[Shepard]

Doesn't UVA or UVB cause an endorphin release?

Yeah, this is tied in with the SAD/sunlight/serotonin link I was talking about above. I said I'd get back to it as far as references, but the information is everywhere and easy to find for someone inclined to look.

[niner]

I found zoolander's paper on this in the full member section interesting. It said that 80% of the sun damage done to skin was accumulated by the age of 18. They said it was because your body had not learned to adapt to the sun properly before then.

Most sun damage occurs before 18 because most sun exposure occurs before 18, on average. Exceptions exist. I've never heard of an "adaptation" to UV, other than tanning. And tanning is only so good, especially for people like me who should be living inside the arctic circle, or maybe in a cave. Or Scotland. Even a fairly dark skinned African American friend of mine tells me she has gotten sunburns. So what's the nature of the "adaptation", anyway? Skin thickening? Those of us who use alpha hydroxy acids kind of blow it on that one... I just use a lot of sunscreen and take vitamin D3.

[Fredrik]

Thankfully the notion that 80% of lifetime uv-exposure occurs by 18 years of age, is an old often repeated misconception of the original studies.

Only 25% of the lifetime UV dose is received before the age of 20 and the annual UV dose is independent of age.

So about 75% of your lifetime uv-exposure occurs after the age of 20 so we can all benefit of using a high UVB (SPF 50+) and high UVA (PPD= persistent pigmentation darkening factor of 20+) everyday, 365 days a year the rest of our life if we want to lessen the chance of pre-malignancies, wrinkles, dyschromia and droopy sagging skin.

A study that challenged and debunked the "80% before 18" misconception was published in Journal of investigative dermatology in 2004.

http://www.nature.co...l/5602607a.html

Title: "Proportion of Lifetime UV Dose Received by Children, Teenagers and Adults Based on Time-Stamped Personal Dosimetry"

Abstract:

Ultraviolet (UV) reduction campaigns since 1986 were based on the estimation that individuals get 80% of their cumulative lifetime UV dose by the age of 18. To investigate if this estimation is true, we compared annual UV doses received during life in 164 Danish volunteers: children, teenagers, indoor workers, and golfers (age range 4–67 y) who recorded sun exposure behavior in diaries and carried personal UV dosimeters, measuring time-stamped UV doses.

The annual UV dose did not significantly correlate with age but the variation in annual UV dose was high (median 166 SED (standard erythema dose), 95% range: 37–551 SED). The annual UV dose did correlate with days with risk behavior (sunbathing/exposing upper body) (r=0.51, p<0.001) and in adults also with hours performing outdoor sports (r=0.39, p<0.001), gardening, and sun-bed sessions (r=0.26, p=0.02).

Teenagers had significantly more days with risk behavior than adults (21 vs 13 d, p=0.006) but not than children (15 d). No differences in UV dose among the age groups were found on workdays.

Only 25% of the lifetime UV dose was received before the age of 20 and the annual UV dose was thus independent of age. Reduction of cumulative lifetime UV dose could be obtained by minimizing risk behavior.

Edit: spelling (this swede is trying his best, I think reading is a lot easier than writing in it. Now I´m at my fathers 60th birtday party and I just sneaked away with a glass of cognac to reply to this post. Haha, I feel more fluent writing while being all warm and tipsy

Edited by fredrik, 30 June 2007 - 04:51 PM.

[superpooper]

Anyone see this new article?

http://news.yahoo.co...nm/vitamin_d_dc

[baertacgraff]

I use to get sun poisoning when I used it. Now as a fair lass, I 'tint' after a slight burn, but have no pain. Ra!

[mirian]

Right on Fredrik. Good research

Adequate sun exposure no guard against low vitamin D. [Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, June 2007]

Just take 2,000 IU D3 daily. Take for about 4 months and have your 25-hydroxyvitamin D blood test done. You'll need to have medical insurance because the test tends to be a little high in price. Ideal levels are 45 to 50 ng

For every 1,000 IU of D3 supplements your test will increase by about 10 ng.

If you don't have insurance or you do but your MD won't write you a lab slip for the test. Just stick with 2,000 IU's. Some will need more to reach 45 to 50 ng but only go higher after a test at 4 months.

[freeform]

Which could help explain the connection to sunlight and gray hair as mentioned by Men's health magazine back in Dec. 1996. Since, gray hair is a classic symptom of folate (folic acid) deficiency.

Do you know if greying can be reversed with supplimentation of folic acid...or am I sol?

[mirian]

I wouldn't know through personal experimentation, at least since I don't have any gray hair. Knock on wood.

But, I'd focus on supplements that reduce oxidative stress and avoid supplements that contain nutrients that may increase oxidative stress. Oxidative stress is well known as the primary culprit of graying of hair.

Essential nutrients that can increase oxidative stress are iron and manganese:

http://www.mercola.c.../parkinsons.htm

Nutrients like IP6 lower oxidative stress. I take the only multivitamin with a little bit of IP6 and no added iron or manganese being the one Longevinex creator and president Bill Sardi formulated: Purity's Perfect Multi Super Greens. Each four Vcaps, I take with breakfast daily has the antioxidant equivalent of 15 servings of fruits and veggies (5,250 ORAC) and unlike other brands is independently tested by prestigious Brunswick labs.

For a stand alone supplement of folate (cut in half with a pill cutter) and take upon waking and 12 hours later daily without food since folate isn't for 3 to 5 years like B12. But, if you go over 1,000 mcg daily of folate or folic acid make sure to cut in half a Jarrow active B12 and take before bed (methylcobalamin also improves sleep patterns when taken before bed) since the only real danger of going over 1,000 mcg of folate or folic acid daily is that it can B12 deficiency which is dangerous:

http://www.iherb.com...=1&pid=129&at=0

http://www.iherb.com...1&pid=7735&at=0

Since, Calcium Folinate is a bioactive form of folic acid. One-third the human population lacks the ability to synthesize folate from folic acid. [Natural Health magazine, Jan. 2007, p. 18] Getting at least "350mcg of folate per day from food, not supplements” cut pancreatic cancer risk by 75% compared with consuming less than 200mcg daily. [Prevention Magazine, Sep. 2006, p.90] Calcium Folinate would be folate same as from food so this doesn't apply! This only would apply with with regular conventionally made folic acid synthetic supplements.

Many things though can cause premature graying like folate (common), B12, copper (rare), deficiencies. Paba deficiency was once thought to be involved in graying but recently found to be non essential to humans. Therefore, many supplement companies on the ball have recently eliminated PABA from their multivitamins. Since, the body can make PABA anyways.

I do put some Neutrogena Age Shield SPF 45 lotion on daily year round on my face and hair after my hair dries after my morning shower. I even cover my eyebrows with Age Shield. Neutrogena with Heliocare was recently rated number one by Consumer Report's magazine in the June or July 2007 edition. When I put in my hair I pay particular attention to the area where gray usually begins being on the sides. Most of the time I believe gray begins there since that's the part of the head not covered by a baseball hat.

Edited by mirian, 06 July 2007 - 08:20 PM.

[djmmm]

There is some great info on various sunscreen's including What Works and What's Safe.. at http://www.cosmetics...ens/summary.php

[Fredrik]

There is some great info on various sunscreen's including What Works and What's Safe.. at http://www.cosmetics...ens/summary.php

That is an alarmist site. The ewg.com (Environmental workin group) that runs it will tell you that every cosmetic ingredient you put on your skin will potentially harm you. They make ludicrous claims and often compare industrial use and handling of chemicals to the miniscule amounts in, say a rinse-off cleanser. Don´t listen to them.

Instead use a sunscreen with the best UVA-filters you can find. These filters alone or with a topical antioxidants (C + E + ferulic acid) and used daily with nighttime use of a retinoid like tretinoin, tazarotene or retinaldehyde will protect against wrinkles, uneven skintone, sagging skin and skin cancer.

The best UVA-filters

1. avobenzone stabilised by octocrylene or other chemicals (Neutrogena and Aveeno use other chemicals to make avobenzone more photostable)

2. Mexoryl SX (Loreal patented filter. First approved sunscreen agent by FDA in 18 years. Found in La Roche-posay, Vichy, Lancome etc)

3. Mexoryl XL (Loreal patent. Fat soluble UVA-protecting molecule. Not yet approved by the slowly working FDA)

4. Tinosorb S

5. Tinosorb M (half organic and half physical filter)

Zinc and titanium dioxide are poor UVA-filters compared to the above. But since FDA haven´t approved the Tinosorbs or mexoryl XL yet they are frequently used in american sunscreens. European sunscreens can use all the above + zinc and titanium and provides better protection against aging skin and actinic keratoses.

Personally I like and use the Loreal brand La Roche Posay daily since they use avobenzone, octocrylene, Mexoryl SX + XL, Tinosorb S and titanium dioxide and using all these have an synergistic effect and provides excellent UVA-protection (high PPD protection).

Edited by fredrik, 06 July 2007 - 10:18 PM.

[Fredrik]

DAILY SUNSCREEN USE MIGHT REDUCE SKIN CANCER

http://www.skinandal...705016/fulltext

AMSTERDAM — A landmark Australian study has provided the first glimmer of evidence that daily sunscreen use might reduce the incidence of both basal cell carcinoma and melanoma years later, Dr. Adele Green reported at the 11th World Congress on Cancers of the Skin.

This same community-based clinical trial, the Nambour Skin Cancer Study, also showed far more convincingly that 4.5 years of daily sunscreen application resulted in a highly significant 38% reduction in the incidence of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), compared with discretionary use of sunscreen.

This benefit persisted—and actually even increased in magnitude—for 8 years after the end of the intervention, said Dr. Green, head of the cancer and population studies group at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, Brisbane.

Nambour is a subtropical Australian community with skin cancer rates that are among the world's highest. The Nambour study involved 1,621 adults who in 1992 were randomized to 4.5 years of daily application of a broad-spectrum SPF 17 sunscreen to the head, neck, forearms, and hands, or to a control group in which sunscreen use was discretionary and less frequent.

During 1993–2005, 21 melanomas—8 in the intervention group and 13 in controls—were diagnosed on target skin areas during blinded skin exams. That translated into incidence rates of 70 and 113 cases per 100,000 person-years, respectively, for an intriguing, albeit statistically nonsignificant, 39% relative risk reduction for melanoma in the daily sunscreen group, she noted.

“The likelihood that we'd see enough melanomas in a community study to reach firm conclusions was always slim. If we had a trial about 100 times this size, we might have been able to bring the confidence limits down to reach significance. But this is the first suggestive evidence we've ever had from an intervention trial showing a protective effect of sunscreen on melanoma,” Dr. Green said at the meeting, which was cosponsored by the Skin Cancer Foundation.

And, for reasons both ethical and practical, it is probably the only large sunscreen intervention trial in melanoma that will ever be done, given that the study convincingly showed that daily application prevents SCCs, she noted.

There was a nonsignificant 13% relative risk reduction in histologically confirmed basal cell carcinomas (BCCs) during 1993–2004 in the intervention group. During late follow-up in 2001–2004, fully 5–8 years after the intervention ended, the BCC rate was 2,548 per 100,000 person-years in the intervention group and 3,408 per 100,000 person-years in controls. That's an adjusted 25% relative risk reduction—again, not statistically significant, but getting closer, as would be anticipated if BCCs have a more prolonged pathogenesis than do SCCs.

“I suspect if the intervention started earlier in life and continued for longer we'd see more definitive results,” Dr. Green continued.

An increased late benefit for daily sunscreen use was well documented with regard to SCC prevention. During late follow-up in 2001–2004, there were 29 histologically confirmed SCCs in the intervention group and 59 in controls, for a highly significant 51% reduction in relative risk, compared with the 38% reduction for 1993–2004.

A second line of evidence suggesting that sunscreen protects against BCC comes from an analysis of study participants who had more than one BCC during the intervention phase. Second BCCs occurred at a mean of 30.8 months after the first in the daily sunscreen group, compared with a 25.7-month delay in controls. Third BCCs occurred a mean of 24 months after the second in the intervention arm and a mean of 19.3 months in controls. This worked out to an adjusted 30% retardation in the occurrence of a second BCC, and a 41% delay for the third in the intervention arm.

That temporal pattern is “suggestive but certainly not conclusive,” Dr. Green observed.

Sun exposure during and after the intervention period was similar in both study arms. Of participants in the intervention arm, 25% used sunscreen regularly after the intervention period, as did 18% of controls, a modest difference that was adjusted for statistically.

Dr. Jean-Jacques Grob, professor of dermatology at the Université de la Méditerranée, Marseille, France, declared the Nambour trial to be “the most important study ever done regarding sunscreens.”

In an interview, Dr. Allan C. Halpern said that the long-term Nambour BCC and melanoma findings were key things that he was going to take home from the conference.

“Many of us have thought all along that if one started sun protection early enough, it should have a delayed effect on BCC and melanoma, and Dr. Green's point estimates suggest that. There's no statistical significance, but I still think it's very interesting data. The confidence intervals are narrowing,” noted Dr. Halpern, chief of the dermatology service at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and cochairman of the National Council on Skin Cancer Prevention.