Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > General Health
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Jan-20-19, 16:08
Gypsybyrd's Avatar
Gypsybyrd Gypsybyrd is offline
Posts: 6,123
 
Plan: Atkins '72 It works best!
Stats: 281/261/180 Female 5'3"
BF:mini goal 250
Progress: 20%
Location: St. Pete, Florida
Default Benefit of sun

While this article is not from a health magazine or website, I found it very interesting. One thing that jumped out at me was the willingness of docs to avoid natural remedies in favor of drugs.

This article has the tone we see here: how could they get it so wrong? The author even asks that and gives margarine as an example. When I read the question, my example wasn low fat.


https://apple.news/AfEyjpe9QS1a9p2opq63Reg

Quote:
Is Sunscreen the New Margarine? By Rowan Jacobsen

Current guidelines for sun exposure are unhealthy and unscientific, controversial new research suggests—and quite possibly even racist. How did we get it so wrong?

These are dark days for supplements. Although they are a $30-plus billion market in the United States alone, vitamin A, vitamin C, vitamin E, selenium, beta-carotene, glucosamine, chondroitin, and fish oil have now flopped in study after study.

If there was one supplement that seemed sure to survive the rigorous tests, it was vitamin D. People with low levels of vitamin D in their blood have significantly higher rates of virtually every disease and disorder~you can think of: cancer, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, heart attack, stroke, depression, cognitive impairment, autoimmune conditions, and more. The vitamin is required for calcium absorption and is thus essential for bone health, but as evidence mounted that lower levels of vitamin D were associated with so many diseases, health experts began suspecting that it was involved in many other biological processes as well.

And they believed that most of us weren’t getting enough of it. This made sense. Vitamin D is a hormone manufactured by the skin with the help of sunlight. It’s difficult to obtain in sufficient quantities through diet. When our ancestors lived outdoors in tropical regions and ran around half naked, this wasn’t a problem. We produced~all the vitamin D we needed from the sun.

But today~most of us have indoor jobs, and when we do go outside, we’ve been taught to protect ourselves from dangerous UV rays, which can cause skin cancer. Sunscreen also blocks our skin from making vitamin D, but that’s OK, says the American Academy of Dermatology, which takes a zero-tolerance stance on sun exposure: “You need to protect your skin from the sun every day, even when it’s cloudy,” it advises on its website. Better to slather on sunblock, we’ve all been told, and compensate with vitamin D pills.

Yet vitamin D supplementation has failed spectacularly in clinical trials. Five years ago, researchers were already warning that it showed zero benefit, and the evidence has only grown stronger. In~November,~one of the~largest and most rigorous trials~of the vitamin ever conducted—in which 25,871 participants received high doses for five years—found no impact on cancer, heart disease, or stroke.

How did we get it so wrong? How could people with low vitamin D levels clearly suffer higher rates of so many diseases~and yet not be helped by supplementation?

As it turns out, a rogue band of researchers has had an explanation all along. And if they’re right, it means that once again we have been epically misled.

These rebels argue that what made the people with high vitamin D levels so healthy was not the vitamin itself. That was just a marker. Their vitamin D levels were high because they were getting plenty of exposure to the thing that was really responsible for their good health—that big orange ball shining down from above.

One of the leaders of this rebellion is a mild-mannered dermatologist at the University of Edinburgh named Richard Weller. For years, Weller swallowed the party line about the destructive nature of the sun’s rays. “I’m not by nature a rebel,” he insisted when I called him up this fall. “I was always the good boy that toed the line at school. This pathway is one which came from following the data rather than a desire to overturn apple carts.”

Weller’s doubts began around 2010, when he was researching nitric oxide, a molecule produced in the body that dilates blood vessels and lowers blood pressure. He discovered a previously unknown biological pathway by which the skin uses sunlight to make nitric oxide.

It was already well established that rates of high blood pressure, heart disease, stroke, and overall mortality all rise the farther you get from the sunny equator, and~they all rise in the darker months. Weller put two and two together and had what he calls his “eureka moment”: Could exposing skin to sunlight lower blood pressure?

Sure enough, when he exposed volunteers to the equivalent of 30 minutes of summer sunlight without sunscreen, their nitric oxide levels went up and their blood pressure went down. Because of its connection to heart disease and strokes, blood pressure is the leading cause of premature death and disease in the world, and the reduction was of a magnitude large enough to prevent millions of deaths on a global level.

Wouldn’t all those rays also raise rates of skin cancer? Yes, but skin cancer kills surprisingly few people: less than 3~per 100,000 in the U.S. each year. For every person who dies of skin cancer, more than 100 die from cardiovascular diseases.

People don’t realize this because several different diseases are lumped together under the term “skin cancer.” The most common by far are basal-cell carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas, which are almost never fatal. In fact, says Weller, “When I diagnose a basal-cell skin cancer in a patient, the first thing I say is congratulations, because you’re walking out of my office with a longer life expectancy than when you walked in.” That’s probably because people who get carcinomas, which are strongly linked to sun exposure, tend to be healthy types that are outside getting plenty of exercise and sunlight.

Melanoma, the deadly type of skin cancer, is much rarer, accounting for only 1 to 3 percent of new skin cancers. And perplexingly, outdoor workers have half the melanoma rate of indoor workers. Tanned people have lower rates in general. “The risk factor for melanoma appears to be intermittent sunshine and sunburn, especially when you’re young,” says Weller. “But there’s evidence that long-term sun exposure associates with less melanoma.”

These are pretty radical words in the established dermatological community. “We do know that melanoma is deadly,” says Yale’s David Leffell, one of the leading dermatologists in the country, “and we know that the vast majority of cases are due to sun exposure. So certainly people need to be cautious.”

Still, Weller kept finding evidence that didn’t fit the official story. Some of the best came from Pelle Lindqvist, a senior research fellow in obstetrics and gynecology at Sweden’s Karolinska Institute, home of the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. Lindqvist tracked the sunbathing habits of nearly 30,000 women in Sweden over 20 years. Originally, he was studying blood clots, which~he found~occurred less frequently in women who spent more time in the sun—and less frequently during the summer. Lindqvist looked at diabetes next. Sure enough, the sun worshippers had much lower rates. Melanoma? True, the sun worshippers had a higher incidence of it—but they were eight times less likely to die from it.

So Lindqvist decided to look at overall mortality rates, and the results were shocking. Over the 20 years of the study, sun avoiders were twice as likely to die as sun worshippers.

There are not many daily lifestyle choices that double your risk of dying. In a 2016 study published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, Lindqvist’s team put it in perspective: “Avoidance of sun exposure is a risk factor of a similar magnitude as smoking, in terms of life expectancy.”

The idea that slavish application of~SPF 50~might be as bad for you as Marlboro 100s generated a flurry of short news items, but the idea was so weird that it didn’t break through the deadly-sun paradigm. Some doctors, in fact, found it quite dangerous.

“I don’t argue with their data,” says David Fisher, chair of the dermatology department at Massachusetts General Hospital. “But I do disagree with the implications.” The risks of skin cancer, he believes, far outweigh the benefits of sun exposure. “Somebody might take these conclusions to mean that the skin-cancer risk is worth it to lower all-cause mortality or to get a benefit in blood pressure,” he says. “I strongly disagree with that." It is not worth it, he says, unless all other options for lowering blood pressure are exhausted.~Instead~he recommends vitamin D pills and hypertension drugs as safer approaches.

Weller’s largest study yet is due to be published later in 2019. For three years, his team tracked the blood pressure of 340,000 people in 2,000 spots around the U.S., adjusting for variables such as age and skin type. The results clearly showed that the reason people in sunnier climes have lower blood pressure is as simple as light hitting skin.

When I spoke with Weller, I made the mistake of characterizing this notion as counterintuitive. “It’s entirely intuitive,” he responded. “Homo sapiens have been around for 200,000 years. Until the industrial revolution, we lived outside. How did we get through the Neolithic Era without sunscreen? Actually, perfectly well. What’s counterintuitive is that dermatologists run around saying, ‘Don’t go outside, you might die.’”

When you spend much of your day treating patients with terrible melanomas, it’s natural to focus on preventing them, but you need to keep the big picture in mind. Orthopedic surgeons, after all, don’t advise their patients to avoid exercise in order to reduce the risk of knee injuries.

Meanwhile, that big picture just keeps getting more interesting. Vitamin D now looks like the tip of the solar iceberg. Sunlight triggers the release of a number of other important compounds in the body, not only nitric oxide but also serotonin and endorphins. It reduces the risk of prostate, breast, colorectal, and pancreatic cancers. It improves circadian rhythms. It reduces inflammation and dampens autoimmune responses. It improves virtually every mental condition you can think of. And it’s free.

These seem like benefits everyone should be able to take advantage of. But not all people process sunlight the same way. And the current U.S. sun-exposure guidelines were written for the whitest people on earth.

Every year, Richard Weller spends time working in a skin hospital in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Not only is Addis Ababa near the equator, it also sits above 7,500 feet, so it receives massive UV radiation. Despite that, says Weller, “I have not seen a skin cancer. And yet Africans in Britain and America are told to avoid the sun.”

All early humans evolved outdoors beneath a tropical sun. Like air, water, and food, sunlight was one of our key inputs. Humans also evolved a way to protect our skin from receiving too much radiation—melanin, a natural sunscreen. Our dark-skinned African ancestors produced so much melanin that they never had to worry about the sun.

As humans migrated farther from the tropics and faced months of light shortages each winter, they evolved to produce less melanin when the sun was weak, absorbing all the sun they could possibly get. They also began producing much more of a protein that stores vitamin D for later use. In spring, as the sun strengthened, they’d gradually build up a sun-blocking tan. Sunburn was probably a rarity until modern times, when we began spending most of our time indoors. Suddenly, pasty office workers were hitting the beach in summer and getting zapped. That’s a recipe for melanoma.

People of color rarely get melanoma. The rate is 26 per 100,000 in Caucasians, 5 per 100,000 in Hispanics, and 1 per 100,000 in African Americans. On the rare occasion when African Americans do get melanoma, it’s particularly lethal—but it’s mostly a kind that occurs on the palms, soles, or under the nails and is not caused by sun exposure.

At the same time, African Americans suffer high rates of diabetes, heart disease, stroke, internal cancers, and other diseases that seem to improve in the presence of sunlight, of which they may well not be getting enough. Because of their genetically higher levels of melanin, they require more sun exposure to produce compounds like vitamin D, and they are less able to store that vitamin~for darker days. They have much to gain from the sun and little to fear.

And yet they are being told a very different story, misled into believing that sunscreen can prevent their melanomas, which Weller finds exasperating. “The cosmetic industry is now trying to push sunscreen at dark-skinned people,” he says. “At dermatology meetings, you get people standing up and saying, ‘We have to adapt products for this market.’~Well, no we don’t. This is a marketing ploy.”

When I asked the American Academy of Dermatology for clarification on its position on dark-skinned people and the sun, it pointed me back to the official line on its website: “The American Academy of Dermatology recommends that all people, regardless of skin color, protect themselves from the sun’s harmful ultraviolet rays by seeking shade, wearing protective clothing, and using a broad-spectrum, water-resistant sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or higher.”

This seemed to me a little boilerplate, and I wondered whether the official guidelines hadn’t yet caught up to current thinking. So I asked David Leffell, at Yale. “I think that sun-protection advice,” he told me, “has always been directed at those most at risk”—people with fair skin or a family history of skin cancer. “While it is true that people with olive skin are at less risk, we do see an increasing number of people with that type of skin getting skin cancer. But skin cancer... is very rare in African Americans... and although they represent a spectrum of pigmentation, [they] are not at as much risk.”

Still,~David Fisher~at Mass General didn't think that changed the equation. “There’s a pharmacopoeia of drugs that are extremely effective at lowering blood pressure,” he said. “So to draw the conclusion that people should expose themselves to an elevated skin-cancer risk, including potentially fatal cancer, when there are so many alternative treatments for hypertension, is problematic.”
Am I willing to entertain the notion that current guidelines are inadvertently advocating a lifestyle that is killing us?

I am, because it’s happened before.

In the 1970s, as nutritionists began to see signs that people whose diets were high in saturated fat and cholesterol also had high rates of cardiovascular disease, they told us to avoid butter and choose margarine, which is made by bubbling hydrogen gas through vegetable oils to turn them into solid trans~fats.

From its inception in the mid-1800s, margarine had always been considered creepers, a freakish substitute for people who couldn’t afford real butter. By the late 1800s, several midwestern dairy states had banned it outright, while others, including Vermont and New Hampshire, passed laws requiring that it be dyed pink so it could never pass itself off as butter. Yet somehow margarine became the thing we spread on toast for decades, a reminder that even the weirdest product can become mainstream with enough industry muscle.

Eventually, better science revealed that the trans fats created by the hydrogenation process were far worse for our arteries than the natural fats in butter. In 1994, Harvard researchers estimated that 30,000 people per year were dying unnecessarily thanks to trans fats. Yet they weren’t banned in the U.S. until 2015.

Might the same dynamic be playing out with sunscreen, which was also remarkably sketchy in its early days? One of the first sunscreens, Red Vet Pet (for Red Veterinary Petrolatum) was a thick red petroleum jelly invented in 1944 to protect soldiers in the South Pacific; it must have been eerily reminiscent of pink margarine. Only after Coppertone bought the rights and reformulated Red Vet Pet to suit the needs of the new midcentury tanning culture did sunscreen take off.

However, like margarine, early sunscreen formulations were disastrous, shielding users from the UVB rays that cause sunburn but not the UVA rays that cause skin cancer. Even today, SPF ratings refer only to UVB rays, so many users may be absorbing far more UVA radiation than they realize. Meanwhile, many common sunscreen ingredients have been found to be hormone disruptors that can be detected in users’ blood and breast milk. The worst offender, oxybenzone, also mutates the DNA of corals and is believed to be killing coral reefs. Hawaii and the western Pacific nation of Palau have already banned it, to take effect in 2021 and 2020 respectively, and other governments are expected to follow.
The industry is now scrambling to move away from oxybenzone, embracing opaque, even neon, mineral-based formulations, a fashion statement reminiscent of the old Red Vet Pet. But with its long track record of pushing products that later turn~out to be unhealthy, I remain skeptical of industry~assurances that it finally has everything figured out. We are always being told to replace something natural with some artificial pill or product that is going to improve our health, and it almost always turns out to be a mistake because we didn’t know enough. Multivitamins can’t replace fruits and vegetables, and vitamin D supplements are clearly no substitute for natural sunlight.

Old beliefs don’t die easily, and I can understand if you remain skeptical of old Sol. Why trust one journalist and a handful of rogue researchers against the august opinions of so many professionals?

Here’s why: many experts in the rest of the world have already come around to the benefits of sunlight. Sunny Australia changed its tune back in 2005. Cancer Council Australia’s official-position paper (endorsed ~by the Australasian College of Dermatologists) states, “Ultraviolet radiation from the sun has both beneficial and harmful effects on human health.... A balance is required between excessive sun exposure which increases the risk of skin cancer and enough sun exposure to maintain adequate vitamin D levels....~It should be noted that the benefits of sun exposure may extend beyond the production of vitamin D. Other possible beneficial effects of sun exposure… include reduction in blood pressure, suppression of autoimmune disease, and improvements in mood.”

Australia’s official advice? When the UV index is below 3~(which is true for most of the continental U.S. in the winter), “Sun protection is not recommended unless near snow or other reflective surfaces. To support vitamin D production, spend some time outdoors in the middle of the day with some skin uncovered.” Even in high summer, Australia recommends a few minutes of sun a day.

New Zealand signed on to similar recommendations, and the British Association of Dermatologists went even further in a statement, directly contradicting the position of its American counterpart: “Enjoying the sun safely, while taking care not to burn, can help to provide the benefits of vitamin D without unduly raising the risk of skin cancer.”

Leffell, the Yale dermatologist, recommends what he calls a “sensible” approach. “I have always advised my patients that they don’t need to crawl under a rock~but should use common sense and be conscious of cumulative sun exposure and sunburns in particular,” he told me.

This does not mean breaking out the baby oil or cultivating a burnished tan. All the experts agree that sunburns—especially those suffered during childhood and adolescence—are particularly bad.

Ultimately, it’s your call. Each person’s needs vary so much with season, latitude, skin color, personal history, philosophy, and so much else~that it’s impossible to provide a one-size-fits-all recommendation. The Dminder app, which uses factors such as age, weight, and amount of exposed skin to track the amount of sunlight you need for vitamin D production, might be one place to start. Trading your sunscreen for a shirt and a broad-brimmed hat is another. Both have superior safety records.

As for me, I’ve made my choice. A world of healthy outdoor adventure beckons—if not half naked, then reasonably close. Starting today, I’m stepping into the light.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Jan-20-19, 19:37
jschwab jschwab is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,906
 
Plan: Atkins72/Paleo/NoGrain/IF
Stats: 285/237/200 Female 5 feet 5.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 56%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gypsybyrd
While this article is not from a health magazine or website, I found it very interesting. One thing that jumped out at me was the willingness of docs to avoid natural remedies in favor of drugs.

This article has the tone we see here: how could they get it so wrong? The author even asks that and gives margarine as an example. When I read the question, my example wasn low fat.


https://apple.news/AfEyjpe9QS1a9p2opq63Reg


I follow these sun guidelines. I'm a lifeguard and I used to run outside, all weather, and when I was running all the time I finally just used coconut oil for sun protection. In the summer I work lifeguarding in an environment where 90% of the kids I work with are descendants from sub-Saharan African ancestors and it drives me nuts that we are supposed to promote sunscreen. I never use it unless I absolutely have to. I only use zinc oxide. Not sure if that's safe.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, Jan-20-19, 20:16
Gypsybyrd's Avatar
Gypsybyrd Gypsybyrd is offline
Posts: 6,123
 
Plan: Atkins '72 It works best!
Stats: 281/261/180 Female 5'3"
BF:mini goal 250
Progress: 20%
Location: St. Pete, Florida
Default

I start building up my sun tolerance in April. If I’m going to the beach, I might use a max SPF of 30. Depends on how much sun I’ve already gotten that year.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Jan-21-19, 08:08
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 2,856
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Thanks for this article. It's something I've always suspected, so I make a point to get as much sun exposure as I can throughout the year.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Tue, Jan-22-19, 11:18
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,317
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/170/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: NE WA
Default

Good article - thanks!

Family anecdote: My husband & I have never used sun screen, nor have our children - now adults. We spend a lot of time outdoors in decent weather & none of us have had any problems, nor did our parents with similar outdoor lifestyles. But for a few years now my husband has been getting what the doc calls pre-cancerous thingies on his face. The doc removes them (which costs a lot of money even with Medicare) because he says they could grow into full-blown cancer. I'm wondering if it's more from age rather than sun because they didn't show up until he was almost 80. Or skin color - he's much paler than I or our children.

A question: I use a light therapy lamp for SAD in the winter. Does that kind of light also produce vitamin D? I do take D supplements because it seems to help my mood.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Jan-22-19, 13:24
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 10,350
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 247/217/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 32%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Bonnie, though I am a n=1 , my experience has been multifold with SAD. One was a state of mind. I had to make myself work at being happy during the run up to winter. Meaning all fall I had to help myself mentally choose to push away the negatives and focus on the positives. That helped. And definitely I was tied into the number of sunny days. A fourth cloudy day was a day of hold on and muddle through. Clearly the sun exposure was important. Most recently I added high doses of vit D. Starting last summer. THis if the first year that winter has been a breeze, despite the rainiest year on record here.

I can only guess that other factors have played a part, like a daily Mg, K2, St Johns wort and recently a multi vite.

Everthing likely worked together for me.

As for sun and skin cancer, this is no longer a worry. My mother was an avid sunbather, and only recently got melanoma cancer. WHEN SHE STOPPED her sun worshipping ways for psoriasis treatment.

My kids dont use sunblock unless going out on the water, just on nose and ears. One summer my boys left for summer camp and the youngest took THREE water craft classes just to be on the water all day. As the boy disembarked off the bus I was worried as my son did not get off. He came up behind me and startled me. VERY dark brown, smiling , lean and muscled. I had to keep looking at him for several days to really normalize this was my son. lol

Both my boys and I take 10,000 units a day in winter. Now that the sun is bouncing on the snow perhaps they don't need as much.... not sure about that.

Vita min D is also in higher levels of grass fed meats and dairy-- and vit C too. Vit C helps the iron get absorbed from beef. Seems like the natural grassfed meats have what we need.

To go outside and work on a farm also keeps up the sun exposure.....perhaps just gardening and tending a few tomato plants would benefit us all.....
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Jan-22-19, 13:38
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,317
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/170/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle

Both my boys and I take 10,000 units a day in winter. Now that the sun is bouncing on the snow perhaps they don't need as much.... not sure about that.


You're lucky to get sunshine in winter! We moved here partly because of that - I was tired of dreary, rainy Oregon. But we've had increasingly cloudy winters. I miss the lovely blue sky & sun on the snow - so sparkly!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ms Arielle

To go outside and work on a farm also keeps up the sun exposure.....perhaps just gardening and tending a few tomato plants would benefit us all.....


I really hate gardening because of back & knee problems - I'd rather sit out in the sun & read.

A few years ago my husband made me a raised bed that I don't have to stoop over - it's waist high. He won't touch it, so if I want my herbs to grow I have to get out there & play in the dirt. Once the snow is gone & the wild grasses start growing, I'm out there most days harvesting bundles of fresh grass for the donkeys & bunnies. The donkeys have the same grasses growing in their area, but they really prefer the stuff I cut. If they see me cutting grass they stand at the fence and beg - very loudly!
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Jan-22-19, 13:41
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,964
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Perhaps I am "lucky" to have inhalant allergies to stuff in 99% of sunscreens and get inflamed bronchial tubes, stuffy sinuses and itchy/burning eyes just from the fumes. I have been avoiding sunscreen for ~20 years despite being a fair-skinned ginger, by starting with 15 minutes of exposure each Spring and build up from there. Only if I am outside all day in the mountains do I put on some expensive but inoffensive Neutrogena facial sunscreen on my face & hands with the rest of me covered up with clothing most of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Tue, Jan-22-19, 14:09
Meme#1's Avatar
Meme#1 Meme#1 is online now
Posts: 10,355
 
Plan: Atkins DANDR
Stats: 210/188/160 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: Texas
Default

When people get a spray tan, does it block the sun and vitamin D?
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Jan-25-19, 14:44
nawchem's Avatar
nawchem nawchem is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 8,701
 
Plan: No gluten, CAD
Stats: 196.0/158.5/149.0 Female 62
BF:36/29.0/27.3
Progress: 80%
Default

I spent a great deal of time in the sun living in San Diego and playing tennis and hiking, spent my lunch hour outside. I have a medium olive complexion and tan.

I began getting age spots. From what I understand they are damage from UV light. They shrink down and pale when I avoid the sun and increase in size when I am in the sun for a while. Now I have a permanent red spot on my nose that I'm getting checked out for cancer.

I get depressed not being in the sun so I put sunblock 50 on my face and hands and wear a hat and glasses if I'm going to be outdoors more than an hour. I take vitamin D which I'm hoping will simulate what the sun does. I tried for years to get the most sun on my legs but I started getting the spots any place the sun hits. I don't like being spotted.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Sat, Jan-26-19, 15:44
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Posts: 11,423
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/139/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 116%
Location: USA
Default

I follow the recommendations of the Vitamin D Council, especially about adding vitamin K.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:40.


Copyright © 2000-2019 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.