| Author |
 Topic  |
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 08/15/2015 : 8:31:51 PM
|
The Environmental Working Group has just released their 2015 sunscreen review on their ridiculously clunky website, and once again they have judged the vast majority of sunscreens to be useless or dangerous. It is my opinion that the the EWG leans a bit toward the hippy-dippy natural-is-always-better chemicals-are-evil end of the spectrum, sorta like the infamous Food Babe. It's not my intention to get in a pissing match with EWG (or the Food Babe) or their numerous supporters, so i'll make a few observations and then STFU.
The Big Guys - Coppertone, Banana Boat, Neutrogena, etc - fare poorly because they rely on chemicals that EWG (based on very little real-world data) thinks are dangerous: the "benzone" sun blockers and retinyl palmitate, a form of Vitamin A. They much prefer obscure and expensive brands containing zinc oxide and/or titanium oxide. I don't question the effectiveness of these "barrier" type sunscreens, but experience tells me that most of them are unpleasant to use and must be applied more often and more heavily than the standard brands. Of note is that they gave one "chemical" sunscreen a good grade: La Roche Posay Anthelios 40, which contains Mexoryl, my personal favorite sunblock. (I use Ombrelle smuggled into the US from Canada. Thanks, steady78!) Anyway ... if you take EWG's concerns seriously, they have a list of "approved" sunscreens for your reading pleasure. Enjoy.
http://www.ewg.org/2015sunscreen/best-sunscreens/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
 |
|
|
Bill Bowser
Forum Member
|
 Posted - 03/22/2016 : 01:08:16 AM
|
An interesting article in the UK Daily Mail by Fiona MacRea
A little sunshine won’t just brighten up your day – it could also help you live longer.
Research shows that even with the increased risk of skin cancer, those who lap up the sun are less likely to die young than those who prefer to stay in the shade.
In fact, women who soak up the rays are twice as likely to still be alive 20 years later as those who actively avoid them.
Woman who soak up the rays are more likely to be alive 20 years later than those who actively avoid them, according to scientists from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm.
Swedish scientists concluded that staying out of the sun ‘may do more harm than good’ – and could pose as much a health risk as smoking.
However campaigners warn that sun worshippers must not use the findings as an excuse to avoid protecting their skin.
Researchers from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm examined data from almost 30,000 women whose health was tracked for two decades.
The women were asked if they smoked and about their attitude to the sun – including whether they actively sunbathed or booked sunshine breaks abroad.
The results showed that those who sought out the rays were less likely to die of heart disease and other illnesses, apart from cancer.
But the researchers said it is precisely this lower chance of sickness that allows the women to live long enough to develop skin cancer.
Experts have warned that sitting in the sun - despite having benefits - can still increase a person's risk of getting skin cancer.
Another calculation suggested that staying out of the sun raises the odds of early death as much as smoking.
Writing in the Journal of Internal Medicine, the Swedes said they can’t be sure how sunlight is benefiting health. However, one possibility is that it lowers blood pressure.
Another popular theory is that by raising levels of vitamin D, the rays help protect against a host of conditions such as diabetes and brittle bones. It could also stop stress taking a toll by boosting levels of feel-good endorphins in the body.
The results come just weeks after guidance from drugs rationing body NICE warned that there is no such thing as a healthy tan.
Last month, it urged Britons to slap on up to eight teaspoons of suncream during the summer or when visiting hot climates.
Cancer Research UK added that evidence showing sunbathing raises the risk of cancer is greater than that suggesting it wards off heart disease.
Sarah Williams, from the charity, said: ‘The only clear health benefit to spending time in the sun is producing vitamin D – there isn’t good evidence that it reduces the risk of heart disease. [But] the evidence is clear that the rays can increase the risk of skin cancer.’
Research from experts at Edinburgh University has previously suggested that sunshine lowers blood pressure, cutting the risk of heart attacks and strokes.
The article is here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3503704/Women-soak-sun-twice-likely-alive-20-years-later-actively-avoid-them.html
Bill Bowser - Cincinnati
Not lewd, not crude, just nude.
Nudists are everywhere, but they're hard to identify with their clothes on.
|
Edited by - Bill Bowser on 03/22/2016 01:14:00 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 345 |
|
|
|
Bill Bowser
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/07/2016 : 11:00:24 PM
|
Another interesting article in the U. K. Daily Mail by John Nash
How sunshine cuts blood pressure - and makes you thinner! New research reveals benefits that AREN'T linked to vitamin D
* Even taking skin-cancer risk into account, scientists say the sun is healthy
* Research indicates it protects us against a wide range of lethal conditions
* Specifically, sun exposure prompts our bodies to produce nitric oxide that helps defend our cardiovascular system
By JOHN NAISH FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 18:40 EST, 2 May 2016 | UPDATED: 02:24 EST, 3 May 2016
The sun has got his hat on, our moods feel lighter and we are gripped by a desire to soak up some solar rays. But no, we keep being told: the threat of skin cancer makes this potentially lethal.
Now, however, scientists are discovering a positive side to sun-worshipping. Even taking the skin-cancer risk fully into account, they say that getting a good dose of sunshine is statistically going to make us live longer, healthier and happier lives.
Emerging research indicates that sunlight may protect us against a wide range of lethal or disabling conditions, such as obesity, heart attacks, strokes, asthma, and multiple sclerosis. Sunshine has also been shown to boost our libidos and general mood.
This is not simply about vitamin D — which our skin manufactures from sunlight. The vitamin helps us build healthy bones and teeth and may protect against bowel cancer. But new research indicates that solar rays benefit our bodies in multiple other ways.
Scientists now believe, for example, that exposure to sun prompts our bodies to produce nitric oxide, a chemical that helps protect our cardiovascular system — and the feelgood brain-chemical serotonin.
Even taking skin-cancer risk into account, scientists say the sun is healthy in moderate doses
LACK OF SUN AS BAD AS SMOKING
A major clue about sunshine’s benefits has emerged from a study of nearly 30,000 Swedish women whose sunbathing habits have been followed for 20 years.
In March investigators, from the world-renowned Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, concluded that avoiding the sun is actually as bad for you as smoking.
The study, in the Journal of Internal Medicine, found that 1.5 women in 100 who reported they had the highest exposure to ultraviolet light (by sunbathing up to once a day) were found to have died during the two decades, compared with three in 100 for women who said they had avoided sunbathing.
The avid sunbathers had a significantly lower risk of death from cardiovascular disease and other conditions that were not related to cancer, the research explains.
Dr Pelle Lindqvist, the epidemiologist who led the study, says the research also found that: ‘Non-smokers who avoided the sun had a life expectancy similar to smokers in the highest sun exposure group, indicating that avoiding the sun is a risk factor for death of a similar magnitude to smoking.’
OLDER PEOPLE NEED MORE
Dr Richard Weller, senior lecturer in dermatology at Edinburgh University, last year published a report in the journal Maturitas warning that older people in particular need to get into the sun more. ‘Advice on healthy sun exposure needs to be reconsidered,’ he urges. ‘The older population are particularly sun-deprived as shown by low blood levels of vitamin D and lack of outdoor activity.’
He adds that there is a reduction in cardiovascular disease and deaths from all causes with increased sun exposure. Two years ago, Dr Weller’s team established that exposure to sunlight may lower people’s blood pressure and thus cut their risk of heart attack and stroke. This benefit has nothing to do with vitamin D.
Scientists now believe, for example, that exposure to sun prompts our bodies to produce nitric oxide, a chemical that helps protect our cardiovascular system — and the feelgood brain-chemical serotonin
Instead, it is due to the fact that when our skin is exposed to the sun a compound — called nitric oxide — is released in our blood vessels which in turn lowers blood pressure by causing blood vessels to widen.
Dr Weller told Good Health: ‘It also appears that sunlight alters the way that our genes behave. Last year, Cambridge University scientists showed that the expression of 28 per cent of our entire genetic make-up varies from season to season.’
SUN HELPS REDUCE INFLAMMATION
The Cambridge investigators reported in the journal Nature Communications that in winter we increase the activity of inflammatory immune-system genes — to combat infectious bugs — and in summer we increase the activity of anti-inflammatory genes.
Chronic inflammation is linked to modern epidemics such as heart attacks, diabetes and cancer. Such inflammation results from our immune systems fighting infectious invaders. But this comes at a cost — as the tissue damage caused by long-term inflammation can itself cause disease. The Cambridge research indicates that sunlight may prompt our bodies to switch down the inflammatory response.
Emerging research indicates sunlight may protect us against a wide range of lethal or disabling conditions, such as obesity, heart attacks, strokes, asthma and multiple sclerosis 'As well as nitric oxide and gene expression, I think there will be other factors that we have yet to discover,’ says Dr Weller. 'There is a correlation between more sun and less disease in a variety of conditions such as multiple sclerosis and atherosclerosis (where arteries are clogged by fatty substances known as atheroma).’
However, the causal link is yet to be shown.
MAY STOP YOU GETTING FAT
Scientists are discovering sunlight may even help us keep slim and healthy, according to studies by the Universities of Southampton and Edinburgh that kept mice on high-fat diets while they were exposed to the spectrum of ultraviolet light found in sunshine.
The results show that ultraviolet radiation may suppress the development of obesity and the symptoms of type 2 diabetes. These benefits were again independent of the effects of vitamin D, the researchers report in the journal Diabetes in 2014. Instead they believe the effects are again as a result of the sun boosting production of nitric oxide. The suggestion is that without enough nitric oxide in the bloodstream, insulin may not work properly, allowing diabetes to set in.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3570267/New-research-reveals-sun-benefits-AREN-T-linked-vitamin-D.html#ixzz481r8LpJC
Bill Bowser - Cincinnati
Not lewd, not crude, just nude.
Nudists are everywhere, but they're hard to identify with their clothes on.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 345 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/08/2016 : 2:25:21 PM
|
Much, perhaps too much, has been made of the study from the Karolinska Institute. The impression one gets from the popular press is that "scientists say more sun is better", while the actual conclusions of the Karolinska study are more nuanced.
First of all, NOBODY with any sense or expertise is advocating a 100% avoidance of solar radiation. Much of the medical literature that recommends LIMITING sun exposure comes from countries - such as the US and Australia - that have relatively high ultraviolet (UV) index. The Karolinska addressed a simple question: Are the recommendations - such as SunSmart - for limiting sun exposure derived from high-UV regions appropriate for high-latitude countries such as Sweden that have very low levels of incident UV radiation? The answer, unsurprisingly, turned out to be "Probably not." A certain amount of exposure to solar UV is unquestionably vital to human health. The question is, how much time in the sun is 'enough'? It's only reasonable to think that someone in Stockholm might need more than someone in Miami or Brisbane. So yes, maybe the Swedes do need a bit more sun, but that doesn't mean everybody does.
The Karolinska article can be found at < http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/joim.12251/full >
Incidentally, the article also demonstrated greater risk of malignant melanoma associated with tanning beds and even more so with sunbathing during winter holidays abroad.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/08/2016 : 5:04:28 PM
|
SUNSCREEN UPDATE
In a previous post, I mentioned that the FDA was devising a "four-star" system to rate UVA protection in so-called broad-spectrum sunscreens, in the same way that SPF (semi-)quantitates UVB protection. Well, that was seven long years ago, and the four-star system has yet to make an appearance. Evidently they're having trouble reaching a consensus on how to test sunscreens for their ability to block UVA. This is somewhat hard to understand, given that a method known as the Persistent Pigment Darkening (PPD) test has been approved for years in Japan, China, and the European Union, and is part of the ISO 24443 standard. Evidently, what's good enough for the rest of the world ain't good enough for the USA!
Along the same lines, the FDA, which finally allowed Mexoryl SX-containing products onto the US market after more than a decade of worldwide use, is taking its own sweet time on its evaluation of three more UVA-clocking ingredients: Mexoryl XL, Tinosorb M, and Tinosorb S. These have also been approved for use in Europe and elsewhere. Frankly, I doubt that I will see these products on American shelves for many years.
NB: To be fair to the FDA, they are currently mandated to treat sunscreens as over-the-counter drugs, while most other countries regulate sunscreens as cosmetics, which face less stringent testing requirements.
Anthelios, the brand that eventually brought Mexoryl SX to the US, is now selling sunscreens containing Tinosorb S. They're not legally available in the US, but you can find them ... elsewhere. But you really need to check the ingredients. Anthelios sunscreens come in a bewildering variety of formulations, any of which may contain Mexoryl, or Tinosorb, or both, or neither.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
calgarymark
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/09/2016 : 6:15:31 PM
|
Doc, I have been using the products from Suncare Central for a number of years - they seem to suit me. Any opinion on them? Natural Tone Sunscreen followed by Rose Hip Aloe lotion at the end of the day. Feels good . . .
CalgaryMark
Growing old is mandatory, Growing up is optional. Laughing at yourself is therapeutic.
|
|
Country: Canada
| Posts: 184 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/11/2016 : 7:19:24 PM
|
I've never tried their stuff, so I can't say much. I can't say I'm a fan of their website. When they extol their products as "100% natural" I tend to roll my eyes, and their use of the phrase "100% chemical-free" is simply ridiculous. I also have concerns over their recommendations for using SPF 4 or 8 sunscreens. Not many dermatologists would endorse that.
That being said, titanium dioxide and zinc oxide are very effective 'barrier' or 'physical' sunscreens, at least in their original white pasty formulations. Some doubts have been raised as to the true effectiveness of the newer "nanoparticle" formulations, as well as their supposed tendency to form potentially harmful free radicals. I think these concerns may be overstated ... but then again I think concerns over the 'chemical' sunscreens have been overdone as well. Personally I have found all the 'barrier' sunscreens I have tried to be unpleasant to use, but I'll give these guys a try. If you like it ... use it!
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
Bill Bowser
Forum Member
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
|
|
Bill Bowser
Forum Member
|
|
|
nudesunguy
Forum Member
|
Posted - 07/10/2016 : 1:57:22 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by NaturistDoc
I have no idea if their products are any good ... but who cares? Their marketing is fantastic!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JZTH9-teeQ
Well stated! 
|
|
Country:
| Posts: 593 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/23/2017 : 2:16:33 PM
|
From the "I wish I knew then what I know now" department ...
In my much younger days, sunscreen was certainly available, but it mainly blocked UVB. It prevented sunburn fairly well, but did nothing to prevent loss of elasticity, and might even have increased the incidence of skin cancer by allowing more prolonged sun exposure.
I had some stupidly epic sunburns in my 20s. (Somehow I just forgot to put sunscreen on. Can't imagine why.) And now I'm paying the price. Just this morning, I had a basal cell skin cancer and two dysplastic moles sliced off, and an actinic keratosis treated with liquid nitrogen. Oh, how I wish my current self could have had a talk with my younger self!
BTW ... the reduction of risk for basal cell and squamous cell skin cancer by modern sunscreens is well-established. The evidence for melanoma is somewhat murkier. The available studies are not of very high quality, and UV damage can take decades to manifest itself. Here is a fairly well thought out prospective study that demonstrated a clear benefit of sunscreen in melanoma prevention. And it used an SPF of 15 or higher as the definition of "High SPF". I suspect that a similar study using SPF 30 or 50 as the cutoff might show even better results.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/reading-room/asco/melanoma/61230?pop=0&ba=1&xid=tmd-md&hr=trendMD
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
FireProf
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/23/2017 : 6:58:47 PM
|
Doc,
Sounds too familiar a situation, with the Prof. She had a couple basal cell cancers removed and several other procedures done for pre cancer spots. She now visits the dermatologist twice a year for a full body exam. Our female Dr. was quite observant one our initial visit and said ... "I have another nudist patient that comes in to see me twice a year. I want both of you to do the same." Never told her we were nudists but we came clean about it and she's made sure to check all the nooks and crannies for any spots.
Now the Prof applies sunscreen everyday, wears SPF clothing and is under an umbrella most of the day at the beach, club or resorts. She's very careful and we watch her sun exposure. Makes it tough on a nudist but better to be safe than sorry. She still gets a tiny bit of all over sun exposure but it's barely a fraction of what we used to do and get.
Hope all is well with the things you're having done and looked at.
Loves being naked. Plays well with others!
|
Edited by - FireProf on 05/24/2017 11:06:05 AM |
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 3175 |
|
|
|
Bill Bowser
Forum Member
|
Posted - 05/24/2017 : 08:31:34 AM
|
A close friend was recently diagnosed with a small (3mm) melanoma on his retina. That's right, in his eye. I was unfamiliar with that. It's probably not very common. It was discovered in a routine eye exam, and treated with a laser. Fortunately his prognosis is quite good although he has lost some vision in one eye. The moral of this story is to have those routine checkups.
Bill Bowser - Cincinnati
Not lewd, not crude, just nude.
Nudists are everywhere, but they're hard to identify with their clothes on.
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 345 |
|
|
|
NaturistDoc
Forum Member
|
Posted - 06/14/2017 : 4:51:30 PM
|
"There is nothing new under the sun." -- Ecclesiastes 1:9
I hate to argue with this Ecclesiastes guy, but a recent article suggests that maybe there really is something new. It's been known for a long time that tanning - i.e., the increased production of melanin in the skin - is both a response to UV damage to DNA in the dermis AND a protective factor against further UV damage. This is thought to be a reason why naturally dark-skinned people have lower rates of skin cancer. But wouldn't it be great if we could somehow get the UV protection (and the bronzed look) of a little extra melanin without having to subject ourselves to the UV damage first?
A recent paper in Cell Reports describes the development of substances ("SIK inhibitors") that can be topically applied to the skin and induced tanning in the complete absence of UV radiation. It is shown to work in mice and in explanted samples of human skin. Interestingly, the mice carried a genetic mutation homologous to the MC1R variant that gives humans red hair and an inability to tan. This suggests that even the palest human 'ginger' might be able to tan using a product containing a SIK inhibitor.
In interviews, the authors emphasize that SIK inhibitors - should they ever come to market - are NOT intended to replace sunscreens, but rather to be used along with them. So far there has been no testing done on live humans. Even in the most optimistic scenario, we won't be seeing them on drugstore shelves for years.
For those who are technically inclined, or just plain masochistic, here's a link to the Cell Reports article.
http://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(17)30684-8
|
|
Country: USA
| Posts: 1054 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Nudist-Resorts.Org Discussion Forum Bulletin Board Nudism Clothing Optional Resort Naturism Nude Beaches |
© 2002-2020 SUN |
|
|
|
Sunscreens 101 (USA)
