Poll :: Will i start to use less sunscreen? |
NO WAY |
|
44% |
[ 13 ] |
I'll use it only when necessary |
|
55% |
[ 16 ] |
|
Total Votes : 29 |
|
Author |
Message |
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 9:14 am |
Dont know if this has been brought up but..
I was no different from most college students: During spring breaks, my friends and I applied our competitive streaks — we were teammates on Brown University’s swimming and diving team — to beach tanning. Who could get the darkest over a week in the Caribbean? Being pale, I never could. But that didn’t stop me from trying, or from picking up blistering sunburns as souvenirs. What an idiot — especially considering my father is a dermatologist. Now, after many years as a beauty editor and writer, I’m in medical school, studying to be (you guessed it) a dermatologist. Needless to say, I wear sunscreen religiously.
Which is why a particular piece of research came as a shock: A small but impossible-to-ignore study, published in Free Radical Biology & Medicine, has suggested that while sunscreen prevents free-radical damage to the skin from the sun, it also might cause damage.
According to this 2006 study from the University of California, Riverside, certain sunscreen ingredients may cause more free radicals to form than no sunscreen at all. If the findings are confirmed, the implications will be enormous — and sobering, given that women have been told for decades that regular sunscreen use is one of the best ways to minimize aging and the risk of skin cancer. The whispers started back in 2006, but they’re beginning to grow louder now; it took two years for news of the study to reach the public consciousness, because some doctors have been shying away from discussing the findings, loath to cause panic when the study was neither double blind, randomized, nor conducted on humans — nor has it been repeated. (In other words, don’t toss your sunscreen.)
Here’s the backstory: When we bake in the sun, the skin absorbs ultraviolet radiation (UVA and UVB rays) that can cause instability in the molecules of the body tissue, releasing harmful compounds called free radicals. Free radicals are molecules with an unpaired electron that, in an attempt to locate its electron “mate,” can disrupt the cells’ functions (seriously disrupt — if these electrons were at a bar, there would be smashed glasses, overturned bar stools, you name it).
When sunscreen is slathered on the skin, molecules in the sunscreen — the UV filters — cut down on the amount of radiation that can penetrate the skin. But according to this UC Riverside study, helmed by lead author Kerry Hanson, three commonly used, FDA approved sunscreen filters — octyl methoxycinnamate, octocrylene, and benzophenone-3, which is also known as oxybenzone — can boost the number of free radicals over time when they break down and are absorbed into the skin.
According to my analysis of the study findings, one hour after a ten-minute session of UV exposure, the ingredient benzophenone-3 elevated free radicals by 64 percent compared to the control, while octyl methoxycinnamate and octocrylene boosted free radicals by 33 percent and 16 percent, respectively. The rate of free-radical elevation caused by the sun itself has not been studied, according to several dermatologists.
Today show
And it may not be just these three ingredients that cause problems, notes Hanson. The UC Riverside scientists chose to test these chemicals because they are “three of the most commonly used ingredients in sunscreens worldwide, and their chemical structures are very similar to other molecules that we know generate free radicals,” Hanson says. It seems that any sunscreen has the potential to create free radicals — including even the newer, more photostable versions and the purely physical blocks zinc and titanium dioxide, according to Hanson — but further study is needed. “We don’t have enough data yet to judge which sunscreens do not generate free radicals,” Hanson says.
Ironically enough, failure to reapply frequently seems to compound the damage to skin. “Using sunscreen once in the morning could potentially be worse than not using any at all if you spend a lot of time in the sun,” Hanson says. “Not reapplying every two hours would mean that you would have minimal sun protection, and the sunscreen itself could generate free radicals.” Trouble is, few of us reapply as often as we should (every two hours and after swimming, excessive sweating, and toweling off).
Great. For a medical student like me, this is like discovering the Easter Bunny doesn’t exist — or that it has fangs and claws. But how scared should I be?
Some dermatologists pooh-pooh the free-radical study at UC Riverside as small and inconclusive, noting that it didn’t use actual sunscreen — just individual ingredients. And some point out that the study used epidermal model tissue — genetically engineered skin — rather than a real human sample. “This study uses a skin model, and this sort of thing happens all the time: You get quirky findings that we can’t replicate because those things don’t happen in people,” says James M. Spencer, a clinical professor of dermatology at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.
Hanson’s response to these criticisms? She says the study wasn’t done on people because the free-radical detecting technology is not approved for use on humans — and notes that the fake skin was “irradiated for only about the equivalent of ten minutes of unprotected time in the noonday summer sun” — quite a conservative test, considering the hours that some of us bake out there. Hanson adds that the study builds upon ten-year-old test-tube research that also suggested that some sunscreen ingredients contribute to free radicals.
To slather or not to slather?
In any case, there is a faction of respected dermatologists who aren’t ready to discount even a small study. “I think the UC Riverside free-radical study is true — fake skin like this is commonly used in studies, and the researchers used advanced methods to image bioengineered skin and measure the amount of free-radical production,” says Leslie Baumann, director of the University of Miami Cosmetic Medicine and Research Institute, who has been at the forefront of many dermatological studies. “We’ve actually been talking about this for a couple of years,” she says.
Sheldon Pinnell, a professor of dermatology at Duke University School of Medicine, also thinks the study has validity. “It’s known that some sunscreens behave in this manner. They get inside the skin and absorb energy, and that energy becomes free radicals, which can potentially cause harm,” he says, naming avobenzone (which the UC Riverside study didn’t test) as one that “can form fairly active free radicals.” While more research is needed, the science has made one thing clear: Adding high-quality antioxidants to sunscreen can counteract any free-radical activity, as long as there are enough of them in the formulation. Antioxidants act like marriage counselors, striving to keep straying electrons from splitting into free radicals. (Fortunately, they are a hell of a lot more successful than marriage counselors.) A few companies, including Coppertone, Murad, Priori, and Topix, have had antioxidant sunscreens for several years. Their standout products, according to Baumann, are Coppertone’s NutraShield Sunscreen Lotion with Dual Defense, Murad Oil-Free Sunblock, Priori Radical Defense Sunscreen, and Topix’s Citrix Antioxidant Sunscreen; they all have hefty amounts of good quality antioxidants, she says.
“We looked at vitamins C and E, and they really do a great job of quenching the free radicals,” says Hanson. “Personally, I look for a sunscreen with an SPF of 30 or above and antioxidants high up on the ingredient list.” (The higher up, the more there are.) And they do not have to be in your sunscreen to work, adds Pinnell, who’s studied the free radical fighters extensively. “Once absorbed into the skin, antioxidants can last about four days. So even if you forget to put them on one morning, they’re still in there working for you.” Baumann herself isn’t as relaxed about her own routine: “I always put on a layer of antioxidants first and then a sunscreen also containing them afterward.”
Still, dermatologists — even ones who believe the study — are adamant about not overstating the dangers. “It would be terrible to give people the message that sunscreen is bad and you shouldn’t use it,” says Amy B. Lewis, an assistant clinical professor of dermatology at Yale School of Medicine. “Right now we have one small, inconclusive study versus huge amounts of data that show that lack of sun protection causes DNA damage, melanoma, basal-cell and squamous cell skin cancer, and horrible deformed moles and wrinkles, and there is great evidence for prolonged use of sunscreen to protect against all of those things. If these chemicals cause something, the sun exposure you’re trading it for is going to cause more free radicals.”
The UC Riverside researchers also insist that their take-home message wasn’t to stop using sunscreen. “Our work supports what the Skin Cancer Foundation recommends, which is to reapply sunscreen often and liberally,” Hanson says. “At first, you could look at our data and say, ‘Should I not wear sunscreen?’ — but the data really says it’s still the best defense we have against sun damage, especially with antioxidants to neutralize any free radicals. We just need to start using it in a smarter way.” And it’s not that there’s a conspiracy by the sunscreen industry, Hanson insists: “I found most companies to be extremely receptive to this data — contacting me, embracing the study, and asking for more information because they want better products. The science is just starting to catch up.”
In a way, it may be good that this issue hasn’t gotten more press. There has been time for sunscreen makers to begin finding solutions. And there has been time to reflect and acknowledge that beauty is no longer a pseudoscience of oils, pigments, and wax. The industry has matured and now produces legitimate science worthy of scholarship.
As a civilian, I’m still using sunscreen — only now I’m more careful about reapplication, and I take the time to slather on an antioxidant cream daily. And as a medical student and daughter of a dermatologist? I’m reading the news. I’m paying attention. And I’m not believing quite so fervently in the Easter Bunny.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28796417/page/2/ |
|
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 10:17 am |
Thanks for posting this. Personally I'll keep using sunscreen everyday. I use a natural sunscreen of SPF 30 and use an antioxidant serum underneath. It is interesting that research is being done into this and perhaps it is true that some of the chemical sunscreens have risks attached however I think for the most part if you compare for example two women of the same age/skin type/life style/location that regular use of sunscreen makes a difference to how fast skin ages. |
|
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 11:01 am |
Thank you for the heads up on sunscreens. I have grave concerns about all of the chemicals we ingest, breath or apply! |
|
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 11:07 am |
Okay-possible dumb question...what are some example of "antioxidant creams"?
Does that mean a Vit C serum? If not what are some good ones? |
|
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 1:57 pm |
what she recommend was a sunscreen which contains antioxydants.
but most creams now are packed with antioxydants. they are basically vit a, betacarotene, c, e, or with extracts from green tea, coffeeberry
try this : it has EVERYTHING. my new favourite
http://www.envision-beauty.com/flash/ |
|
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 2:20 pm |
Sounds like an interesting product calorblind-kinda pricey to order from here in Canada.
What kind of results have you seen with it? |
|
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 2:52 pm |
Kimberly Sayer of London has an Anti-Oxidant Rich Moisturizing Cream SPF 25 that you can purchase here at EDS for a very reasonable price. It says on the jar that it's loaded with anti-oxidants such as Vitamin E, Vitamin C, Vitamin A plus other organic ingredients. |
|
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 5:47 pm |
I just bought the new Coppertone Nutra Shield SPF 30 lotion recommended in the above article.
Cheap and it sounds good. |
|
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 8:38 pm |
Hahaha, I can't answer your poll because I don't like either of the answer choices.
My answer: Use a PHYSICAL sunscreen with zinc oxide, every day. This article was posted before, actually. But I have to say it again, the part where they guess that zinc oxide could be dangerous is based on ZERO evidence and is ridiculous. |
_________________ 24 yrs old. favorite sunscreen right now: Burnout [now 35] |
|
|
|
Wed May 20, 2009 11:50 pm |
how much is it to order from Canada? It has a buy one free one now. |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 2:48 am |
I think that as long as the election of products suited to their skin, sunscreen is still necessary. |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 6:30 am |
I've always had an aversion to sunscreens. Just the very idea of all those chemicals makes me shudder. I tried to get over it, being an aesthetician and living in australia (used to)....
but I never could stop from recoiling in horror everytime I tried to slather up. Now I use a mineral make-up whenever I need to go out in the sun, and have a large collection of HUGE hats!
And if I'm going for a swim in hot sun, I tried to suck it in and put some on. It's hard though.
*runs off to check the ingredients in the neurtrogena sunscreen* |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 6:59 am |
trigger wrote: |
I've always had an aversion to sunscreens. Just the very idea of all those chemicals makes me shudder.
*runs off to check the ingredients in the neurtrogena sunscreen* |
That's exactly how I feel - I couldn't have said it any better myself. Honestly, I don't even like putting zinc oxide on my face. But, that's just me. I also have a collection of huge sun hats and sun glasses. At least those do not irritate my face or cause break outs!! |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 11:45 am |
thanks for this. because the jury seems to be out mostly on the chemical sunscreens, is the reason i am sticking with physical sunscreens for now--even though they technically protect less effectively against the entire spectrum of radiation.
--avalange |
_________________ http://newnaturalbeauty.tumblr.com/ 37, light-toned olive skin, broken caps, normal skin. My staples: Osea cleansing milk, Algae Oil, Advanced Protection Cream, Eyes & Lips, Tata Harper, Julie Hewett makeup, Amazing Cosmetics Powder, & By Terry Light Expert, Burnout, and daily inversion therapy and green smoothies! |
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 12:06 pm |
Thank you Calorblind, just great. I do when I am going into the ocean, or doing something intense outside, there are times don't you think that you need the protection, even if they aren't normally ingredients you would go near. Thanks, really great. |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 12:15 pm |
Nimue wrote: |
Hahaha, I can't answer your poll because I don't like either of the answer choices.
My answer: Use a PHYSICAL sunscreen with zinc oxide, every day. This article was posted before, actually. But I have to say it again, the part where they guess that zinc oxide could be dangerous is based on ZERO evidence and is ridiculous. |
In Europe - zinc oxide are forbidden i makeup/SPF and so on.
Why would it be ridiculous,that it can be dangerous? |
_________________ Sara, 36 Swedish. Brunette, brown eyes. Fair sensitive reactive skin, no wrinkles(yet), enlarged pores, some broken caps and get easily sunspots. Oily but dry skin. Ten months with Tretionin 0,025% gel PM, Vita C AM - SC Phloratin and Freulic. Use DeCleor and Dr H right now. |
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 1:20 pm |
Vanilj wrote: |
In Europe - zinc oxide are forbidden i makeup/SPF and so on.
Why would it be ridiculous,that it can be dangerous? |
I have Avene's physical sunscreen, it's from Europe and it has zinc oxide.
I also remember buying diaper rash cream with zinc oxide in Europe.
Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 3:24 pm |
Josee wrote: |
Vanilj wrote: |
In Europe - zinc oxide are forbidden i makeup/SPF and so on.
Why would it be ridiculous,that it can be dangerous? |
I have Avene's physical sunscreen, it's from Europe and it has zinc oxide.
I also remember buying diaper rash cream with zinc oxide in Europe.
Am I missing something? |
me too, missing something...
they sell all-physical Avene sunscreen with zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in pharmacies here in Germany... |
_________________ 31, combo - oily, breakout-prone, fair complexion, sensitive and prone to rosacea |
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 3:29 pm |
This is a sobering study and really makes me wonder if all of these years that i've been religiously applying sunscreen i've actually caused more damage.
Unfortanetly i have Melasma and darken even if i cover up. I wish i could find the magic pill out there. |
|
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 10:46 pm |
Josee wrote: |
Vanilj wrote: |
In Europe - zinc oxide are forbidden i makeup/SPF and so on.
Why would it be ridiculous,that it can be dangerous? |
I have Avene's physical sunscreen, it's from Europe and it has zinc oxide.
I also remember buying diaper rash cream with zinc oxide in Europe.
Am I missing something? |
I'm trying to find the document from the "medical government" here in Sweden translated to English, I will look for it. It came a a big surprise for me to read about it, due to the fact that I've used and uses mineral makeups with zinc oxides since they came out to the market.
http://www.lakemedelsverket.se/Alla-nyheter/NYHETER-2009/Forbud-mot-solkramer-med-zinkoxid-som-solskyddsamne/
I make a short translation, pardon my bad English.
Zinc oxide forbidden to be used as a ingredinet in SPF in EU.
"Ingredient that are used as a SPF, to protect the skin from the harmful UV light from the sun, must be controlled, checked and be cleared to use, so it wouldn't make a hazard to the customer.
Zinc Oxide are not on that list of ingredients that are cleared to use as a SPF for skin.
This is because the scientific committee in EU who rule and investigate with ingredients that are suitable to use as a SPF, hasn't made a conclusion yet that its safe to use on the skin." |
_________________ Sara, 36 Swedish. Brunette, brown eyes. Fair sensitive reactive skin, no wrinkles(yet), enlarged pores, some broken caps and get easily sunspots. Oily but dry skin. Ten months with Tretionin 0,025% gel PM, Vita C AM - SC Phloratin and Freulic. Use DeCleor and Dr H right now. |
|
|
|
Thu May 21, 2009 11:13 pm |
Vanilj wrote: |
Josee wrote: |
Vanilj wrote: |
In Europe - zinc oxide are forbidden i makeup/SPF and so on.
Why would it be ridiculous,that it can be dangerous? |
I have Avene's physical sunscreen, it's from Europe and it has zinc oxide.
I also remember buying diaper rash cream with zinc oxide in Europe.
Am I missing something? |
I'm trying to find the document from the "medical government" here in Sweden translated to English, I will look for it. It came a a big surprise for me to read about it, due to the fact that I've used and uses mineral makeups with zinc oxides since they came out to the market.
http://www.lakemedelsverket.se/Alla-nyheter/NYHETER-2009/Forbud-mot-solkramer-med-zinkoxid-som-solskyddsamne/
I make a short translation, pardon my bad English.
Zinc oxide forbidden to be used as a ingredinet in SPF in EU.
"Ingredient that are used as a SPF, to protect the skin from the harmful UV light from the sun, must be controlled, checked and be cleared to use, so it wouldn't make a hazard to the customer.
Zinc Oxide are not on that list of ingredients that are cleared to use as a SPF for skin.
This is because the scientific committee in EU who rule and investigate with ingredients that are suitable to use as a SPF, hasn't made a conclusion yet that its safe to use on the skin." |
Found some more info on the nano particles, somebody who can search better than me, in the Us medical sites about the zinc and titanium oxides? Nanoparticles.
http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/special/sunscreens2008/report_nanotechnology.php?nothanks=1 |
_________________ Sara, 36 Swedish. Brunette, brown eyes. Fair sensitive reactive skin, no wrinkles(yet), enlarged pores, some broken caps and get easily sunspots. Oily but dry skin. Ten months with Tretionin 0,025% gel PM, Vita C AM - SC Phloratin and Freulic. Use DeCleor and Dr H right now. |
|
|
|
Fri May 22, 2009 12:10 am |
I always wear it but I choose only not high SPF around 30 is ok. Higher SPF is more clog pore and cause acne. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Jun 10, 2009 2:53 pm |
trigger wrote: |
I've always had an aversion to sunscreens. Just the very idea of all those chemicals makes me shudder. I tried to get over it, being an aesthetician and living in australia (used to)....
but I never could stop from recoiling in horror everytime I tried to slather up. Now I use a mineral make-up whenever I need to go out in the sun, and have a large collection of HUGE hats!
|
I've always had an aversion to sunscreens also, and have either used something natural, worn a hat if I was going to be out a long time or just limited my time in the sun to that which my skin could handle.
I have known about the dangers of chemical sunscreens for many years. The media has done a great job of scaring people about the dangers of sun exposure, increasing chemical sunscreen use exponentially over the years while the skin cancer rates keep climbing. I believe it's a direct relationship.
Check out the article by Dr. Mercola titled "The Real Killer in Sunlight -- UVA" and the video on youtube titled "Skin Cancer/Sunscreen - the Dilemma". (Sorry I can't post links yet.)
I use Everyday Minerals and they make a finishing powder called Natural Reflections that works incredibly well as a sunscreen. It's also very inexpensive, especially when purchased in a kit.
I have also read about Red Raspberry Seed Oil being a terrific natural sunscreen, estimated to have about a 50 SPF.
I may try that at some point, but I really need to have some regular sun exposure for Vitamin D production which is very protective, not only of skin cancer, but also against flu and other viruses. |
|
|
|
|
Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:49 pm |
I can certainly see the possible dangers of using a chemical suncreen, but I'm not entirely sold on the potentially dangerous effects of physical suncreens, which work by deflecting, not absorbing, correct? Is zinc oxide at risk of degrading over time?
I did a quick google search and didn't find any immediate information concerning the photodegradation of zinc oxide, so I guess I'll keep using it and keep my fingers crossed that I am not doing more damage than good. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:23 am |
Same here, Coconut. I am quite sure that it stays stable and, if it's not nanoparticles used on chapped or otherwise damaged skin, it does not enter the body.
Nobody mentioned the possible oestrogenic effects of chemical sunscreens so far if I'm not mistaken, and they have to be taken into consideration as well. Even more so, as they are washed off and the chemicals may enter the environment/ground water. |
|
|
|
Fri Mar 29, 2024 8:12 am |
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. |
|
|
|
|