Early spring is typically the time of year that ushers in sunscreen promos. From health mags, to TV commercials, to social media pop-ups, they’re practically everywhere with warnings to use SPFs daily. It’s big business for the sun care (scare?) industry, approaching $6 billion annually. Sun is Life® Training & Certification promotes moderation and responsibility when it comes to UV exposure. The prudent use and reapplication of SPF products is recommended during lengthy sunlight exposure; that being said, how much is enough and is there a downside?
[gap height=”15″]
Well, review of clinical studies investigating vitamin D deficiency now points out that sunscreen use can reduce vitamin D-3 production by 99%. Worldwide estimates of vitamin D deficiencies could be as high as 1 million cases.
[gap height=”15″]
Healthcare advocates usually point out that some fish, certain breakfast cereals and milk can provide vitamin D. True, but it’s seldom enough. Ingesting supplements can cause over-calcification – not good. Witness a Johns Hopkins study linking it to heart damage.
[gap height=”15″]
hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/calcium_supplements_may_damage_the_heart
[gap height=”15″]
Well, don’t sweat it. Simply follow what researchers have been promoting for optimal vitamin D levels: spend about 5 to 30 minutes in the midday sun twice each week, sans sunscreen.
[gap height=”15″]
“People are spending less time outside and, when they do go out, they’re typically wearing sunscreen, which essentially nullifies the body’s ability to produce vitamin D,” said Dr. Kim Pfotenhauer, a researcher in the study advocating moderate sun exposure. “While we want people to protect themselves against skin cancer, there are healthy, moderate levels of unprotected sun exposure that can be very helpful in boosting vitamin D.” medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317278.php
[gap height=”15″]
Well, what about those SPFs? While many media outlets throw shade on the indoor tanning industry, the same outlets often fail to shout out the falsehoods from those lotion-slingers. A recent Consumer Reports study found that almost 50% did not live up to their SPF value. cnn.com/2016/05/18/health/sunscreen-false-spf-claims-on-labels/index.html
[gap height=”15″]
Here’s another eye opener. How many are aware that SPF 30 blocks 97% of UVB rays, but SPF50 and 100 block 98% and 99% of rays, respectively? Something clearly needs to change regarding consumer safety and SPF values, for sure.
[gap height=”15″]
Back to the anti-tanning folks. Ask them if a cosmetic tan provides SPF, and you’ll usually hear statements like, “indoor tanning does not provide SPF” or “there’s no such thing as a safe tan.” Well, actually, the base tan does minimize the risk of overexposure and sunburn – albeit an estimated SPF 2-4. But that’s still “some” photoprotection.
[gap height=”15″]
So, let’s move to this scenario: two people of the same skin type lay on the beach in the mid-June Florida sun. One has absolutely no tan and uses a product with SPF30. The other has a base tan obtained indoors and also uses an SPF30 lotion. Which one is in the most favorable position to avoid sunburn and overexposure? That’s a question seldom, if ever, covered in those health magazines, as they will rarely admit that millions actually deliberately seek UV exposure. Well, we do!
[gap height=”15″]
For factual info on SPF lotions, take Sun is Life Training and Certification at sunislife.com.
[gap height=”15″]
[gap height=”15″]
