• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

UVA: How it ages you daily and what to do about it


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#1 Fredrik

  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 24 October 2007 - 10:26 PM


Edit: I originally posted a too boring technical article about sunscreen filter stability. I changed the link to another article that covers a new US filter, UVA-radiation and skin aging.

It is a very good read if you want to prevent aging skin and lessen your risk for certain skin cancers.

It is written by the former president of the American Association of Dermatology, Darrell S. Rigel. and Henry Lim. Both has worked as consultants for big companies like Johnson & Johnson and Loreal. But what they summarize in this article about UVA and aging is legit (just check the references).

BUT the filters Mexoryl SX and XL is not the only options. Also consider stabilized avobenzone and tinosorb S and M. Tinosorb M is an organic particulate and will not penetrate skin, it will absorb, scatter and reflect. Like zinc and titanium dioxide.


http://www.skinandag...m/article/7445#

Edited by fredrik, 25 October 2007 - 12:33 AM.


#2 sdxl

  • Guest
  • 391 posts
  • 47
  • Location:Earth

Posted 25 October 2007 - 07:52 AM

So, what was that boring technical article?

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for AGELESS LOOKS to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 25 October 2007 - 08:24 AM

fredrik, thanks for the reference I hope to read it later.

For now though I will ask a few questions?

I've used sunscreen but generally do not go out in the sun. I intentionally avoid the sun. If I am walking down the street I will walk on the side that is shaded.

When I do use sunscreen it tends to get caught up in my 5-oclock shadow. It sometimes leaves a residue and often clogs my pores and causes an out break. Now it sounds as though sunscreen is more than just sunscreen.

Enlighten me oh wise skin guru

#4 woly

  • Guest, F@H
  • 279 posts
  • 11

Posted 25 October 2007 - 08:29 AM

yeah after reading that i got all excited to buy some Anthelios SX but it seems it containts octocrylene which may increase ROS production (from the skin care thread). Now im looking at the Neutrogena Ultra Sheer because of its Helioplex. What product would you recomend?

#5 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 29 October 2007 - 11:13 AM

fredrik, thanks for the reference I hope to read it later.

For now though I will ask a few questions?

I've used sunscreen but generally do not go out in the sun. I intentionally avoid the sun. If I am walking down the street I will walk on the side that is shaded.

When I do use sunscreen it tends to get caught up in my 5-oclock shadow. It sometimes leaves a residue and often clogs my pores and causes an out break. Now it sounds as though sunscreen is more than just sunscreen.

Enlighten me oh wise skin guru


Sorry that I didn´t respond more quickly. I´m traveling right now.

Well, the whole story of skin aging is daily photoprotection. At least 80% of skin aging is caused by incidental exposure to daylight. 5-15 minutes of UV every other day will raise your skin levels of skin degrading/remodeling enzymes, collagenase and elastase for over a week until they return to normal. When subjects (office workers) wore UV-dosimeters they averaged 18 hours of sun exposure a week. So even if you practice sun avoidance, which is the first and most important thing to do, you still need a daily sunscreen.

A broadspectrum, high UVA protection sunscreen will protect you from mottled hyperpigmentation (uneven aged skin tone), loss of firmness, dilated pores, wrinkles and some types of skin cancer. No other product can do all these things except a prescription retinoid

Daily sunscreen, tretinoin and topical antioxidants inhibits activation of AP-1, a MMP promoter. The MMPs (collagenase, elastase) degrade the skin and the imperfect repair that ensues causes microscarring, also called wrinkles. So tretinoin and daily sunscreen inhibits the enzymatic degradation of healthy collagen.

Please read one of my earlier posts on the subject and then we can discuss the particulars =)

http://www.imminst.o...=0

and another quote from an earlier post (yes, I´m too tired to write, sorry):

"If it is a cool or hot day doesn�t matter. You can�t feel or see UV-rays on your skin. It is infrared rays that feels warm.

80% of all signs of skin aging is caused by UV in daylight. Yes, daylight...not the sunny beach for a couple of months a year.

The skin gets damaged and ages everyday. But that permanent damage will show up a decade after you got it. You can prevent most of this by using a spf 30 - 50+.

UVA-radiation is present everyday, all year long. In winter, on cloudy days, when it�s raining and when the sun is scorching hot. So use a sunscreen instead of [a moisturizer] or on top of anything else you use.

95% of all UV-radiation that hits us is [the aging] UVA."

#6 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 29 October 2007 - 02:38 PM

So does clothing block UVA?

#7 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 29 October 2007 - 05:47 PM

So does clothing block UVA?


Yes, but it depends on the material. The tighter the weave the better. Hold it up against light and see how much it is letting through. Rayon and nylon protects better than cotton. You can laundry all your favorite garments in a special product, Rit sun guard, that adds invisible UV-protection to your clothes:

It´s a tinosorb filter, I wish we had it here in Sweden.

http://www.amazon.co...t/dp/B0000Y3F6W

Edited by fredrik, 29 October 2007 - 06:01 PM.


#8 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 29 October 2007 - 06:00 PM

yeah after reading that i got all excited to buy some Anthelios SX but it seems it containts octocrylene which may increase ROS production (from the skin care thread). Now im looking at the Neutrogena Ultra Sheer because of its Helioplex. What product would you recomend?


First, let me vigorously state that NO SUNSCREEN ON EARTH is more dangerous than the rays emitted from our sun. Wearing sunscreen is always better than not wearing any. Worry about free radicals created from daylight, not your sunscreen.

Think about it for a minute. The excess ROS are produced when UV reacts with the filters...if you had nothing at all to protect you, your bare skin would soak up all that energy and through a complicated chain of events produce massive amounts of free radicals permanently damaging your skin down to the dermis.


The researchers note that the additional ROS are generated only when the UV filters have penetrated into the skin and, at the same time, sunscreen has not been reapplied to prevent ultraviolet radiation from reaching *these filters.

http://www.newsroom....lay.cgi?id=1399

So, it is best to follow the instructions on the bottle and reapply in the spring and summer (every two hours if outside for longer periods, by lunch if you´re working inside because UVA easily penetrates through windows unlike UVB).

I use octocrylene without worries. The Neutrogena with stabilized avobenzone ("Helioplex technology") is an excellent choice. Aveeno too.

The following brands are as good or sometimes better (higher PPD=UVA protection than Neutrogena):

*Anthelios La Roche Posay (can be bought in the US). The european versions contain both of the mexoryl filters and are much more efficient. A good european product is Anthelios fluide extreme spf 50+.

*Vichy

*Loreal solar expertise

*Lancome sunscreen range

*Ambre solaire

Other brands use two filters called Tinosorb S and M,. They are good also. You can find them in the following brands:

*Eucerin

*Avene

*Bioderma Photoderm

*Ducray

Edited by fredrik, 30 October 2007 - 02:15 PM.


#9 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 31 October 2007 - 02:00 AM

fredrik:

Have you heard of Retinaldehyde?

http://content.karge...e.asp?Doi=51378

http://en.wikipedia....i/Retinaldehyde

And on the topic of the retina what should I do to limit UV damage to my eyes?

#10 zoolander

  • Guest
  • 4,724 posts
  • 55
  • Location:Melbourne, Australia

Posted 31 October 2007 - 02:50 AM

it seems to say on most labels that you reapply every 2 hours. WTF!? For general use? That means I'm going to be applying sunscreen 3-4 times during the day

I'm currently using Neutrogena UltraShher with Helioplex (SPF 55+). I generally stay out of the sun. I'm applying it at the start of the day and that's about it.

Is this enough?

#11 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 31 October 2007 - 03:28 AM

it seems to say on most labels that you reapply every 2 hours. WTF!? For general use? That means I'm going to be applying sunscreen 3-4 times during the day



Is that really so bad considering the alternative i.e. premature skin ageing?

I agree that it could be more practical. Some sunscreens say they are good for 4 hours but its just a label. I would say find some tinting that would allow you to block most of the UVA from entering your house, vehicle, workplace then apply suncreen before you go outside.

I'm lucky enough to work in a building with no windows as its an old telephone and equipment exchange converted into call centre space. I've never met more young looking middle aged people in all my life. I noticed they keep suncreen there on the counters on each floor. The new recruits look at it and it say WTF but it is perfect for if you are finishing a shift in the late afternoon.


I'm currently using Neutrogena UltraShher with Helioplex (SPF 55+). I generally stay out of the sun. I'm applying it at the start of the day and that's about it.

Is this enough?


It's a good start ;)

#12 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 31 October 2007 - 11:43 AM

fredrik:

Have you heard of Retinaldehyde?

http://content.karge...e.asp?Doi=51378

http://en.wikipedia....i/Retinaldehyde

And on the topic of the retina what should I do to limit UV damage to my eyes?


Yes sir! I recommended retinaldehyde as a much less efficient and much more expensive alternative to tazarotene and/or tretinoin in an older post. I´ve tried it myself, very mild effect.

Eye protection: I eat kale (lutein/zeazanthin) and wear UV-protective shades. But since studies are so conflicting when it comes to micronutrients my best bet at this time is the sunglasses.

Edited by fredrik, 01 November 2007 - 02:10 PM.


#13 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 31 October 2007 - 12:09 PM

it seems to say on most labels that you reapply every 2 hours. WTF!? For general use? That means I'm going to be applying sunscreen 3-4 times during the day

I'm currently using Neutrogena UltraShher with Helioplex (SPF 55+). I generally stay out of the sun. I'm applying it at the start of the day and that's about it.

Is this enough?


I do the same thing in the winter. But in the summer and spring I reapply once or even twice a day. I always wear a cap. This summer I even bought a silly guatemala leaf hat! But I guess there are limits haha.

I saw a Loreal document online (damn, don´t remember where) that showed their stabilized avobenzone formulas retaining 80% of it´s UVA-protection after 5 hours. I don´t know how Neutrogenas stabilized avobenzone compares, but applying it everyday in the morning is great! Really the foundation of a good skincare regime.

#14 sdxl

  • Guest
  • 391 posts
  • 47
  • Location:Earth

Posted 31 October 2007 - 03:38 PM

I saw a Loreal document online (damn, don´t remember where) that showed their stabilized avobenzone formulas retaining 80% of it´s UVA-protection after 5 hours.

Here.

#15 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 31 October 2007 - 11:37 PM

I saw a Loreal document online (damn, don´t remember where) that showed their stabilized avobenzone formulas retaining 80% of it´s UVA-protection after 5 hours.

Here.


Yes, exactly that document. Thanks! I`ll have to start with nootropics.

#16 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 01 November 2007 - 02:00 PM

Eye protection: I eat kale (lutein/zeazanthin) and wear UV-protective shades. But since studies are so conflicting when it comes to micronutrients my best bet at this time is the sunglases.


Interesting. I dug up an article about those two supplements. I wonder if there are more things we can include in our diets that help boost natural defence against UV A.

http://www.tanrespon...1034543503.html

Here is the wikipedia article on kale:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kale


Here is an interesting page suggesting that our skin is "assaulted" by visable light as well:
http://www.luteininfo.com/skin

It even appears from that figure that different wavelengths affect different layers of skin.

Also check out this page on advanced macular degeneration (AMD)

http://www.luteininfo.com/eye

Edited by caston, 01 November 2007 - 02:19 PM.


#17 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 01 November 2007 - 02:18 PM

http://www.tanrespon...1034543503.html


What an awful domain name. There is no such thing as tanning responsibly, more than there´s "stabbing-yourself-in-the-thigh-with-a-pair-of-scissors responsibly". Both will cause injury and end up with scars, the injury of tanning will give you solar scars (other names are heliodermatitis, photoaging, wrinkles, Keith Richards).

#18 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 01 November 2007 - 02:38 PM

What about forskolin?

#19 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 01 November 2007 - 03:12 PM

What about  forskolin?


I don´t know if it´s effective in humans. Is it harmless? Harmful? Who knows. Let´s wait for the human studies I say. I don´t feel adventurous.

If you want that bronzed look of the 50s use a topical with DHA (dihydroxyacetone). It will even protect against UVA two or three fold. But it caramellizes proteins in your outer skin layers and can cause some DNA-damage also.

What´s wrong with the color of skin you were borne with? Non-tanned skin is normal and healthy. Tanned skin is a short acting protective response, a symptom of skin damage.

#20 eldar

  • Guest
  • 178 posts
  • 0

Posted 01 November 2007 - 04:50 PM

UVA-radiation is present everyday, all year long. In winter, on cloudy days, when it�s raining and when the sun is scorching hot. So use a sunscreen instead of [a moisturizer] or on top of anything else you use.


Umm, seriously? Sunscreen on a cloudy day during winter? [:o]

On another point, I seem to sweat excessively whenever I have sunscreen on. Any idea what might cause this?
Taking this into consideration, I would find it extremely uncomfortable to wear sunscreen year round.

#21 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 01 November 2007 - 10:22 PM

Umm, seriously? Sunscreen on a cloudy day during winter? [:o]

On another point, I seem to sweat excessively whenever I have sunscreen on. Any idea what might cause this?
Taking this into consideration, I would find it extremely uncomfortable to wear sunscreen year round.


Yes. Seriously. UV-radiation doesn´t disappear just because it´s cloudy (lack of visible light, the UV is still there) or the weather is cool (lack of infrared radiation, UV still there). As long as the sun is up, all year round you need daily UVA-protection. All american dermatological organizations recommend daily sunscreen.

The sweating may be due to the water resistant polymers. You can solve this by using a non-water resistant lotion made for daily wear (like Anthelios SX spf 15, Bioderma Hydrabio UV spf 15, LRP Redermic spf 15 etc).

Some people find that sunscreens give them a heating sensation. That´s because the organic filters transform the UV-energy into heat. You could avoid that problem by using a product with a higher concentration of non-organic filters that scatter and absorb the energy (titanium, zinc and Tinosorb M).

#22 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 02 November 2007 - 12:33 AM

I found this article about the stability of UV A filters. Something to keep in mind:

http://findarticles....109/ai_n8973109

I also once read about coating tiles and windows in titanium dioxide making them much easier to clean. Could you coat the windows in your house with titanium dioxide from the outside to help keep out UV light?

#23 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 04 November 2007 - 12:21 PM

What about the dangers of blue light?

http://www.mdsupport...azard.html#blue

This article recommends yellow tinted sunglasses!

http://www.sciencent...le_id=218392616

Edited by caston, 04 November 2007 - 03:19 PM.


#24 donjoe

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 3

Posted 12 February 2008 - 06:55 AM

First, let me vigorously state that NO SUNSCREEN ON EARTH is more dangerous than the rays emitted from our sun. Wearing sunscreen is always better than not wearing any. Worry about free radicals created from daylight, not your sunscreen.

Maybe a less vigorous statement would've sufficed. The Wikipedia article on suncreens contradicts you with this referenced statement:

However, more recent research at the University of California, Riverside indicates that sunscreen needs to be reapplied within 2 hours in order to remain effective. Not reapplying could even cause more cell damage than not using sunscreen at all, due to the release of extra free radicals from absorbed chemicals.[6]

(Emphasis mine.)

As you can see, the cited experiment showed that one hour after sunscreen application, ROS production was already higher than in the "naked skin" control.

#25 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 12 February 2008 - 04:55 PM

First, let me vigorously state that NO SUNSCREEN ON EARTH is more dangerous than the rays emitted from our sun. Wearing sunscreen is always better than not wearing any. Worry about free radicals created from daylight, not your sunscreen.

Maybe a less vigorous statement would've sufficed. The Wikipedia article on suncreens contradicts you with this referenced statement:

However, more recent research at the University of California, Riverside indicates that sunscreen needs to be reapplied within 2 hours in order to remain effective. Not reapplying could even cause more cell damage than not using sunscreen at all, due to the release of extra free radicals from absorbed chemicals.[6]

(Emphasis mine.)

As you can see, the cited experiment showed that one hour after sunscreen application, ROS production was already higher than in the "naked skin" control.


I would like to add one thing here: it only applies to chemical sunscreens! Physical sunscreens : TiO2, ZnO do not penetrate the skin, their molecules are too big to be able to absorbed by the skin. ZnO2 has antioxidant properties in itself and TiO2 is proven to be stable on the skin: does not produce free-radicals.

#26 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 12 February 2008 - 04:57 PM

I found this article about the stability of UV A filters. Something to keep in mind:

http://findarticles....109/ai_n8973109

I also once read about coating tiles and windows in titanium dioxide making them much easier to clean. Could you coat the windows in your house with titanium dioxide from the outside to help keep out UV light?


YES! It is already possible on Australia! ;)

#27 Eva Victoria

  • Guest
  • 887 posts
  • 22
  • Location:Norway

Posted 12 February 2008 - 05:03 PM


Umm, seriously? Sunscreen on a cloudy day during winter? [:o]

On another point, I seem to sweat excessively whenever I have sunscreen on. Any idea what might cause this?
Taking this into consideration, I would find it extremely uncomfortable to wear sunscreen year round.


Yes. Seriously. UV-radiation doesn´t disappear just because it´s cloudy (lack of visible light, the UV is still there) or the weather is cool (lack of infrared radiation, UV still there). As long as the sun is up, all year round you need daily UVA-protection. All american dermatological organizations recommend daily sunscreen.

The sweating may be due to the water resistant polymers. You can solve this by using a non-water resistant lotion made for daily wear (like Anthelios SX spf 15, Bioderma Hydrabio UV spf 15, LRP Redermic spf 15 etc).

Some people find that sunscreens give them a heating sensation. That´s because the organic filters transform the UV-energy into heat. You could avoid that problem by using a product with a higher concentration of non-organic filters that scatter and absorb the energy (titanium, zinc and Tinosorb M).


Dermatologists recommend sunscreens daily north of 46 latitude in the winter; otherwise from april until September. I would modify this and say that north of 46 lat. should wear sunscreen daily from March 15. until end of September. All South of 46 lat. should wear sunscreen daily regardless of the season.

#28 donjoe

  • Guest
  • 153 posts
  • 3

Posted 12 February 2008 - 09:31 PM

I would like to add one thing here: it only applies to chemical sunscreens! Physical sunscreens : TiO2, ZnO do not penetrate the skin, their molecules are too big to be able to absorbed by the skin. ZnO2 has antioxidant properties in itself and TiO2 is proven to be stable on the skin: does not produce free-radicals.

Of course, of course, sorry about my imprecision, I was just relying on people reading the actual reference:

Abstract

The number of UV-induced (20 mJ cm−2) reactive oxygen species (ROS) generated in nucleated epidermis is dependent upon the length of time the UV filter octocrylene, octylmethoxycinnamate, or benzophenone-3 remains on the skin surface. Two-photon fluorescence images acquired immediately after application of each formulation (2 mg cm−2) to the skin surface show that the number of ROS produced is dramatically reduced relative to the skin − UV filter control. After each UV filter remains on the skin surface for t = 20 min, the number of ROS generated increases, although it remains below the number generated in the control. By t = 60 min, the filters generate ROS above the control. The data show that when all three of the UV filters penetrate into the nucleated layers, the level of ROS increases above that produced naturally by epidermal chromophores under UV illumination.

Only those 3 filters have given the result I was talking about. It should by no means be generalised to all sunscreens.

On the subject of UV levels throughout the year: I'd say it's much safer to just use broad-spectrum sunscreen all year round, wherever you live, than to draw arbitrary lines along the Earth's parallels and suddenly change your behaviour when you cross them. :~

#29 Fredrik

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 570 posts
  • 136
  • Location:Right here, right now
  • NO

Posted 13 February 2008 - 03:41 PM

First, let me vigorously state that NO SUNSCREEN ON EARTH is more dangerous than the rays emitted from our sun. Wearing sunscreen is always better than not wearing any. Worry about free radicals created from daylight, not your sunscreen.

Maybe a less vigorous statement would've sufficed. The Wikipedia article on suncreens contradicts you with this referenced statement:

However, more recent research at the University of California, Riverside indicates that sunscreen needs to be reapplied within 2 hours in order to remain effective. Not reapplying could even cause more cell damage than not using sunscreen at all, due to the release of extra free radicals from absorbed chemicals.[6]

(Emphasis mine.)

As you can see, the cited experiment showed that one hour after sunscreen application, ROS production was already higher than in the "naked skin" control.


well, I avoid the filters in that study (except octocrylene). I still maintain that sunscreen use is better than bare skin because regular use of sunscreens decrease the formation of damaged skin resulting in actinic keratoses for example. This is just an experimental study, the real life decrease in freckling and AKs proven in in vivo studies says sunscreens are better than going bare (even if they produce ROS).

There are so many filters available here in europe that you can get a good sunscreen formulated not to increase the ROS load. Loreal, Neutrogena and Aveeno for example have these stabilized sunscreens.

Edited by fredrik, 13 February 2008 - 03:44 PM.


#30 caston

  • Guest
  • 2,141 posts
  • 23
  • Location:Perth Australia

Posted 13 February 2008 - 04:10 PM

well, I avoid the filters in that study (except octocrylene). I still maintain that sunscreen use is better than bare skin because regular use of sunscreens decrease the formation of damaged skin resulting in actinic keratoses for example. This is just an experimental study, the real life decrease in freckling and AKs proven in in vivo studies says sunscreens are better than going bare (even if they produce ROS).

There are so many filters available here in europe that you can get a good sunscreen formulated not to increase the ROS load. Loreal, Neutrogena and Aveeno for example have these stabilized sunscreens.



Fredrik:

The suncreen I'm using at the moment is a product endorsed by the cancer council of Australia. It's called Ultra sunscreen Exta UVA protection but the main ingredient is:

Octyl Methoxycinnamate.

Should I be considering another sunscreen? I invested in a wide brimmed Akubra hat as well. The sunscreen you have to reapply but the hat lasts 10 years :~




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users