|
|
Author |
Message |
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:51 am |
Am I stupid? Or did I misunderstand something?
I can quite clearly remember reading and being told that you have to be careful to protect yourself all year round from UVA because unlike UVB which is only present in the summer 'UVA remains constant' all year round like it's a constant threat.
Have a look at this little chart on MUA. It doesn't remain constant at all, it's minimal in the winter months and then soaring in the summer following the same line as UVB.
http://makeupalley.com/user/notepad/sunscreenFAQ/#UVAday
This chart is a revelation for me.
I'm chucking my SS for Winter - I'm so happy I can't tell you.
(well, maybe a little light SPF coverage - let's not get carried away)
Did you think this too? |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 8:55 am |
I don't know--- something about that sounds funny. Just the other day I was in the dermatologist's office and I read this literature that talked about this woman who worked winters in this cold European country (I forget which), and since she never saw sun, she never bothered with sunscreen. Next thing you know she's in the derm's office being treated for a serious skin cancer on her eyelid, ugh!! So, I think I'll keep hedging my bets with the year-round sunscreen... |
_________________ 27, sensitive/reactive/acne prone skin, dark brown hair, blue eyes, possibly the palest woman alive... |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:04 am |
I'm not a farmer so I'm thinking it's OK.
Really, I'm going for facial nudity next winter. Might have to move to Durham though because that's where the chart's from. On second thoughts it's a bit cold up there for me. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 9:58 am |
interesting, but.... my sun spots and freckles definitely get darker if i go without SS *regardless* of the time of year so i have to take that report with a grain of salt. i'd love to go nude in winter, but i'm afraid i just can't. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:05 am |
manslayerliz wrote: |
I don't know--- something about that sounds funny. Just the other day I was in the dermatologist's office and I read this literature that talked about this woman who worked winters in this cold European country (I forget which), and since she never saw sun, she never bothered with sunscreen. Next thing you know she's in the derm's office being treated for a serious skin cancer on her eyelid, ugh!! So, I think I'll keep hedging my bets with the year-round sunscreen... |
Perhaps the sun is not the "only" thing that causes cancer, ever think of that? Just like smoking is not the "only" thing that causes lung cancer, it just increases the risks. Why are so many skin cancers in places that never or hardly ever see the sun. Like chest, stomach, buttocks etc. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:51 am |
I definitely think that sun is not the only cause for skin cancer, but the literature I was reading was actually talking about a phenomenon derms often observe where people get a lot of exposure in the winter months and then see an increase in skin cancer. I can't remember too many more details, I'm just saying that I figure I better cover all of my bases.^-^ |
_________________ 27, sensitive/reactive/acne prone skin, dark brown hair, blue eyes, possibly the palest woman alive... |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:44 pm |
It depends on the type of skin cancer you are referring to. Melanoma, the most deadly and dangerous skin cancer is MOST definately related to sun damage - UV rays cause radiation damage to the DNA in your skin cells. Basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are the other common types of skin cancer and sun damage can have an impact on those (particularly squamous cell carcinoma which most frequently appears on areas exposed to the sun), but it is also usually also related to age (i.e as we get older there is oxidising of skin cells over time which can lead to DNA mutations). Note that melanoma occurs frequently in younger people, and this is primarily because of sun damage (some genetic link also), the most common sites are on the back for men and the legs for women. Melanoma's can be best avoided by protecting yourself against sun damage - all over your body, so lets not kid ourselves of that.
In terms of ageing, well avoiding as much exposure to UVA rays, even in winter (since in Australia we get sunny days in the middle of winter when it's only 15 degrees celcius and the UV warning is on medium to high) seems logical and important to me anyway. Maybe it's not so much a skin cancer risk as you don't often get burnt, but it doesn't mean there's no damage to cause premature ageing. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 2:52 pm |
BYRG wrote: |
Perhaps the sun is not the "only" thing that causes cancer, ever think of that? Just like smoking is not the "only" thing that causes lung cancer, it just increases the risks. Why are so many skin cancers in places that never or hardly ever see the sun. Like chest, stomach, buttocks etc. |
There is never only one thing that causes cancer, it is a cumulative event and usually with a genetic predisposition to the type of cancer people get (i.e breast cancer, bowel cancer, melanoma etc), but it doesn't mean that you shouldn't take precaustions, it just means that you do what is advised to decrease your chances of it.
FYI: The greatest risk factor for cancer is AGE, and there aint alot you can do about that!! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:20 pm |
thats good to know that UVA is not intense all year round,if this is true, because i am so bad with sunblock. |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:51 pm |
Molly, thanks for the link! Someone posted this link a while back and I took a quick glance at it an said I would read it all later. Well I never got around to reading it and couldn't find the link when I looked for it. It was sort of an eye-opener. We have always been told that UVA rays never alter in intensity and it never seemed intuitively right to me. It was nice to find out that my intuition was right!
I will still continue to use my SPF everyday. I live at high altitude and use Differin so I am not taking any chances! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 5:50 pm |
Every location on the planet will have different UVA intensities. It makes sense that the UVA rays would be a lot more intense during summer months because that's when the sun would be closest to the earth. Does that sound right? In winter months we do not get as much sun, and the days are shorter, so the uva rays wouldn't be as much of a threat. But considering things such as snow which reflects light, it's always important to wear at least an SPF 15 especially if you're like myself and detest freckles and for older people, wrinkles. But yeah, from anything i've ever read, the UVA rays will always be year around, as long as the there is daylight (even with clouds covering.) The intensity might not be as intense in the summer (thanks for the link by the way, that was something i've been wondering myself), but it's there. hmph to that! |
_________________ Extremely fair/sensitive skin(mild rosacea)that burns very easy.acne is rare/skin is dry.27 years old. |
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:28 pm |
Quote: |
It was sort of an eye-opener. We have always been told that UVA rays never alter in intensity and it never seemed intuitively right to me |
Extactly TheresaL
This was my main point for posting. I've always viewed it as a flat line because of what people say and write. It makes me wonder about ss guru status too.
This and the common acceptance that UVA is responsible for tanning had me totally confused. Logically speaking if UVA is constant all year round and responsible for tanning then we should be tanned all year and when I asked about this last year no-one had a reasonable answer.
I talked about the second point in another post, but in case you missed it. This was a revelation to me to. Tanning is a two step process requiring UVA and UVB.
It takes a tiny amount of UVB to produce melanin and then UVA's role is in oxidizing the melanin to make it brown. This process takes between 12 to 48 hours. This really explains some of the freaky - how did I tan accounts we get here.
These oversimplifications can be so confusing.
For me, it's more the revelation that the process makes sense that's so great.
I don't think I'll be chucking the sun cover, but once I'm back in the UK this winter I'll be exploring anti-oxidant and natural oil approaches, there's certainly no need for my sticky and chemically laden high PPD SS. I'm always thinking there's a balance between protection and degredation to my skin from the chemicals.
I'm reckoning PPD 4-8 will be enough (unless I become an agricultural worker or a postman).
I'm still pleased M |
|
|
|
|
Thu Jun 22, 2006 11:50 pm |
[quote="Molly"]
Quote: |
I don't think I'll be chucking the sun cover, but once I'm back in the UK this winter I'll be exploring anti-oxidant and natural oil approaches, there's certainly no need for my sticky and chemically laden high PPD SS. I'm always thinking there's a balance between protection and degredation to my skin from the chemicals.
I'm reckoning PPD 4-8 will be enough (unless I become an agricultural worker or a postman).
|
now this i totally agree with! i admit i was very proud of myself at first, putting on SPF 50+ when it was pissing down rain. after a while, though, it got me very cranky. it *is* nice to know we can go lower in the winter PPD in the winter without risk. it was the going completely without in winter was what was making me leary. then again, i'm very pale, have past damage i'm trying to fade, am the only member in the family not to have had skin cancer yet (knock on wood), and am getting up there in age.... thank you for passing the info on. |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:10 am |
Molly wrote: |
This and the common acceptance that UVA is responsible for tanning had me totally confused. Logically speaking if UVA is constant all year round and responsible for tanning then we should be tanned all year and when I asked about this last year no-one had a reasonable answer.
|
I can say that in winter in Australia, it is sunny and the UV index can also be high. However, when it's still 13 degrees outside, I am unlikely to tan for two reasons
a) I am not likely to spen too much time outside becuase it is so freaking cold and
b) I will cover myself up with pants (or tights), coats, gloves and scarves.
I can say that in the middle of winter at the football I have gone home with a very red face (note: before sunscreen all year round) that I once attributed to "windburn" that I now realise was "sunburn in winter".
I don't care what anyone says, IMO I really belive that while there is sun in the sky, there is the chance to have it damage your skin, and this is coming from someone who has had a number of moles removed and biopsied (one just today) because of my risk of skin cancer (and one today which still could be). And I'm only 28 (next wednesday anyway). |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:37 am |
[quote="Molly"]
Quote: |
I don't think I'll be chucking the sun cover, but once I'm back in the UK this winter I'll be exploring anti-oxidant and natural oil approaches, there's certainly no need for my sticky and chemically laden high PPD SS. I'm always thinking there's a balance between protection and degredation to my skin from the chemicals.
M |
I think antioxidants are an awesome substitution to sunscreen if you don't want to wear it. The one I use is so much more "elegant" than the sunscreen, because it doesn't give that gunky feel. Plus the whole point of one is to regulate the skin and well..you know. For the winter I might even be more opt for trying this idea.. |
_________________ Extremely fair/sensitive skin(mild rosacea)that burns very easy.acne is rare/skin is dry.27 years old. |
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:48 am |
Sorry to hear about your problem Melissa.
Just to clarify for others; The chart is from the northern hemisphere (Durham, UK) where there's v. little UVB in the height of winter and so a correspondingly low amount of UVA.
If you're another hemisphere there could still be a fair amount of UVB/UVA still present in the winter months as Melissa warns.
M |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:59 am |
Thanks Molly. Apparently that's life in Australia, as a kid we always used to run around in the sun and go swimming without sunscreen and hats - no-one knew back then. Aso, as my doting SO reminded me, I used to visit a solarium which is the worst (only for a few months before he convinced me otherwise). I'm fine really.
I agree with the anti-oxidants also - many derms say to use both for effectve protection.. |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:52 am |
For all that might be interested, here's a place you can check the UV index in your area. It's not UVA index -- I know -- but still a good guidance for me to choose sunscreen.
http://www.epa.gov/sunwise/uvindex.html#map |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 1:09 pm |
Molly wrote: |
This was my main point for posting. I've always viewed it as a flat line because of what people say and write. It makes me wonder about ss guru status too.
This and the common acceptance that UVA is responsible for tanning had me totally confused. Logically speaking if UVA is constant all year round and responsible for tanning then we should be tanned all year and when I asked about this last year no-one had a reasonable answer.
I talked about the second point in another post, but in case you missed it. This was a revelation to me to. Tanning is a two step process requiring UVA and UVB.
It takes a tiny amount of UVB to produce melanin and then UVA's role is in oxidizing the melanin to make it brown. This process takes between 12 to 48 hours. This really explains some of the freaky - how did I tan accounts we get here.
These oversimplifications can be so confusing.
For me, it's more the revelation that the process makes sense that's so great.
|
Molly,
I guess that I was so focused on some of the other things that we were discussing in the post you mentiond that I overlooked your point about UVA/UVB and tanning. Oddly enough I was just yesterday reading about this on theskincareboard and as I was reading this I said to myself, "Wasn't Molly talking about something like this in our sunscreen post?". In light of this I may have to revisit our Sunscreen 101 post, but another day as I am about to leave town for the weekend!
Things like this make me wonder too and not just about ss gurus on skincare forums. This is stuff that doctors and other "experts" repeat over and over again. What are some other "facts" that may not be facts at all? It seems that we both have had intuitions that what we were being told was not logical. Perhaps in the future we should be more ready to question and look into things that don't seem logical even if an expert is saying them! |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 3:00 pm |
melissa49 wrote: |
It depends on the type of skin cancer you are referring to. Melanoma, the most deadly and dangerous skin cancer is MOST definately related to sun damage - UV rays cause radiation damage to the DNA in your skin cells. |
Yeah, unfortunetely though it's been shown that sunscreens do not protect against melanoma, only against the less serious kind.
"As prevention, however, sunscreens alone appear to be imperfect. In the first study to test the protective effect of sunscreens on people--not just the hairless mice or other models used in laboratory studies--researchers at the Queensland Institute for Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, reported in September 1999 that sunscreen use reduces the risk of developing squamous cell carcinoma by 40 percent. But using sunscreen did not reduce the risk of developing melanoma or basal cell carcinoma. The Australian study followed 1,383 adults for five years."
I wasn't saying not to take precautions, just that each time someone gets it we can't link it as a fact that it was caused by sun exposure. It's not like pregnancy where there is only one cause!
manslayerliz, I thought it sounded like they were only talking about one woman like that proved a correlation, not about a pattern of thousands of people or anything. Of course links are never solid. With all the use of sunscreens going up so are the rates of skin cancers, oddly. So should we link the use of sunscreen with the cause of skin cancer? With just casual correlation of two things going up at the same time, it could end up interpreted that way.
Of course the UV index is different everywhere. I live in LA and in the winter it still never gets colder then 60 F where I live. It's not unusual here for it to feel like a hot summer day in December. And before here I lived in Hawaii and of course that is year round intense sun too, even more intense there. I never wore sunscreen when I lived there. It just wasn't something I ever thought about. Of course if I did, it's so hot that you hardly wear any clothes. So to cover up my whole body repeadetly and properly to have actual protection, I probably would of had to go through a whole bottle of sunscreen every 1-2 days. An insane expense and consumption!
purpleturtle, what anti-oxidant do you use?
I wonder if copper peptides or other wound healing agents would help too, like certain oils, extracts, aloe vera etc.
" The epidermis, the outer layer of skin, "is as thin as a sheet of paper," says John J. Voorhees, M.D., chairman of dermatology at the University of Michigan Medical School. "Ninety percent of the mass of the skin is collagen," a large protein composed of three intertwined chains of amino acids that contributes to the form, function and strength of the skin. That also makes collagen the principal recipient of ultraviolet light damage.
But the pathway to aged skin is not straightforward. Sunlight itself does little direct damage to the collagen protein. A growing body of research shows, instead, that ultraviolet light turns genes "on" and "off"--and which genes get turned on can make all the difference.
Normal skin maintains a dynamic collagen exchange. A common type of skin cell called a fibroblast exudes new layers of collagen when collagen genes are turned on. When collagen is damaged, skin cells produce enzymes that digest and liquefy the large collagen proteins into gelatin for disposal.
Voorhees' group discovered a complex genetic pathway through which sunlight can suppress collagen production by turning off the collagen-producing genes. At the same time sunlight activates collagen digestion by stimulating production of the destructive enzymes.
Damaged skin results. The skin now carries a wound, and it needs to heal. "Anytime you cut yourself more than superficially, there is always a little bit of a scar," Voorhees says. "Our claim is that wound healing is never perfect. It could be 99.9 percent perfect, but never perfect. And that 99.9 percent [healing after sun damage] is going to lead to the slightest imperfection that is not visible to the human eye, but after thousands of these over a lifetime, the micro-scars become macro-scars. This is the UV-induced aging we call photo-aging, and it is piled on top of natural aging that has nothing to do with the sun."
Prematurely wrinkled skin results. Although FDA has approved retinoic acid to treat chronic photo-aging, prevention remains the more effective approach.
Here's the really tricky part: Most of the genetic changes and resulting photo-aging appear to come from so-called UVA, the wavelengths of ultraviolet light in the A band of the spectrum. Most sunscreens currently on the market provide excellent protection against UVB, but not all provide equally good protection against UVA. "If you put on gobs of sunscreen, it blocks" the damage, Voorhees says. "But if you don't use much, it does not block [the damage] at all."
Moreover, sunlight turns on the genetic destruction quickly, but it also stops quickly when you get out of the sun. The level of collagen production is completely back to normal in two days."
Hear that, GOBS of it! It's not sustainable to me on a daily basis, gobs. I want to know more about these anti-oxidants and what protects the best against UVA. I know that copper peptides and other things help with wound healing and collegan production and stimulation as well. What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:55 pm |
I think it is actually impossible for UVA to remain the same all year given the tilt of the earth. That does not meanno protection is required, but the risk is certainly not the same in the winter in north america further away from the equator. |
_________________ 41 years,normal to dry, can be sensistive to products |
|
|
|
Fri Jun 23, 2006 11:46 pm |
I use Paula's Choice Skin Recovery Antioxidant. It's for dry skin, and comes in the form of serum. It has a small amount of retinol in it as well which i don't need since i'm pretty young but it doesn't hurt since I use sunscreen anyways. Within 5-10 minutes the serum completely sinks in. I wear it every night before I go to bed and wake up to a completely dry face. First antioxidant i've used so far and I really dig it. |
_________________ Extremely fair/sensitive skin(mild rosacea)that burns very easy.acne is rare/skin is dry.27 years old. |
|
|
Thu Mar 28, 2024 7:36 pm |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
|
|
|