I'm unsure what to do in the sun at the moment as Dr. Pickart has advised sensible suntanning , but does this still apply when using AHAs, BHAs or microdermabrasion as it is advised to stay out of the sun when using these. does anyone know?

Eve, your skin will get a lot more sensitive when using fruit acids. Basically, you will burn a lot faster and risk premature ageing. (Yes, even in cloudy Blighty :-) )
Wear a high SPF during the day and use the AHAs and BHAs at night. Its best to go for a mineral sunscreen, as the chemicals in chemical sunscreens might irritate your skin. Dr Hauschka and Avene do good ones in the UK, so does Neil's Yard.

You might use the hydroxys at night.

The general advice is to use a strong sunscreen after using strong hydroxys. Or just try to keep the body areas on which you use hydroxys out of the sun.

Eve -- good point. I'm rather in a quandry as I firmly believe that sunshine is the best way to get vitamin D -- NOT pills. I strongly suggest Michael Holick's book, UV Advantage and he explains that in in the northern lattitudes, no way can you make sufficient D from the sunshine Nov-Feb and many factors affect utilization of supplements. Body fat levels, hypothyroidism, and other impact utilization of D supplements. There are other benefits to UVA/UVB on the skin as well such as enhanced metabolism, mood enhancement etc. Get the book or visit his website. There is no substitute for natural sunshine -- none. We are designed to be in the natural sunshine -- we are not mushrooms yet slathering on sunscreens 24/7 is akin to living in a dark cave. How can one possibly square the advice for "sensible tanning" with the advice to use a "strong sunscreen" over parts of the body where we use the AHAs?? That is a total contradiction and a real problem given that many of us would like to use the AHAs all over the body but do not wish to walk around like pale corpses. Do physical exfoliants (ie buff puff, salt etc) cause the same photosensitivity as the chemical exfoliants? And if not, do the physical exfoliants improve skin thickness, reduce age spots etc to the same degree the chemical exfoliants do? Maybe Dr. Pickart could develop a non-photosensitizing exfoliant -- that would be a real innovation.

Update: after posting this initially, I found an interesting study that claim glycolic acid may actually be photoprotective! Thoughts?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SkinBiologyWebmaster,

Annie - that study is really interesting and provides lots of hope.If they are wrong about that AHA, they may be wrong about all of them.how exciting, as that was the only down side for me.I know that salicylic acid is a very strong antioxidant so it stands to reason that the same principle would be at work with salicylic acid.

Michael Hollick is a great scientist and has discovered new forms of vitamin D in the human body that control and protect cells. But he was removed from the Boston University Dermatology faculty for writing that sunlight might be good for humans. Even after Galileo, the Inquisition is alive and well in Boston University.

From http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node52.html

Being one of the most renowned scientist of his time Galileo's opinions were scrutinized not only be his peers, but by also by Church officials and the public in general. This made Galileo the lightning-rod of many complaints against the Copernican doctrine (and also some against Galileo himself). He did not come out unscathed out of these encounters.

In 1611 Galileo came to the attention of the Inquisition for the first time for his Copernican views. Four years later a Dominican friar, Niccolo Lorini, who had earlier criticized Galileo's view in private conversations, files a written complaint with the Inquisition against Galileo's Copernican views. Galileo subsequently writes a long letter defending his views to Monsignor Piero Dini, a well connected official in the Vatican, he then writes his Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina arguing for freedom of inquiry and travels to Rome to defend his ideas

In 1616 a committee of consultants declares to the Inquisition that the propositions that the Sun is the center of the universe and that the Earth has an annual motion are absurd in philosophy, at least erroneous in theology, and formally a heresy. On orders of the Pope Paul V, Cardinal Bellarmine calls Galileo to his residence and administers a warning not to hold or defend the Copernican theory; Galileo is also forbidden to discuss the theory orally or in writing. Yet he is reassured by Pope Paul V and by Cardinal Bellarmine that he has not been on trial nor being condemned by the Inquisition.

In 1624 Galileo meets repeatedly with his (at that time) friend and patron Pope Urban VIII, he is allowed to write about the Copernican theory as long as he treated it as a mathematical hypothesis.

In 1625 a complaint against Galileo's publication The Assayer is lodged at the Inquisition by a person unknown. The complaint charges that the atomistic theory embraced in this book cannot be reconciled with the official church doctrine regarding the Eucharist, in which bread and wine are ``transubstantiated'' into Christ's flesh and blood. After an investigation by the Inquisition, Galileo is cleared.

In 1630 he completed his book Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems in which the Ptolemaic and Copernican models are discussed and compared and was cleared (conditionally) to publish it by the Vatican. The book was printed in 1632 but Pope Urban VIII, convinced by the arguments of various Church officials, stopped its distribution; the case is referred to the Inquisition and Galileo was summoned to Rome despite his infirmities.

In 1633 Galileo was formally interrogated for 18 days and on April 30 Galileo confesses that he may have made the Copernican case in the Dialogue too strong and offers to refute it in his next book. Unmoved, the Pope decides that Galileo should be imprisoned indefinitely. Soon after, with a formal threat of torture, Galileo is examined by the Inquisition and sentenced to prison and religious penances, the sentence is signed by 6 of the 10 inquisitors. In a formal ceremony at a the church of Santa Maria Sofia Minerva, Galileo abjures his errors. He is then put in house arrest in Sienna. After these tribulations he begins writing his Discourse on Two New Sciences.

Galileo remained under house arrest, despite many medical problems and a deteriorating state of health, until his death in 1642. The Church finally accepted that Galileo might be right in 1983.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SkinBiologyWebmaster,

interesting study!

In my experience, I am DEFINITELY more sun sensitive after AHA use, particularly after a 30% peel (not so much after a 10% moisturiser). To sort out that sun/ Vit D dilemma, I often replace AHAs with mild microdermabrasion in the winter and use little if any sunscreen. In the summer, I use AHA' on my face, but not on my body and expose my arms and legs to the sun without high factor SPFs. I'd rather have slightly flawed skin than brittle bones by the age of 50.

I actually did a test of one (myself) to either prove/disprove Holick. 2 years ago, I tested my vitamin D status at the end of summer -- it was in the ideal range. I also take a multi with the RDA of vitamin D (400IU D3)and frequently eat sardines and shrimp. Ok -- next, I retested at the end of winter -- and despite my multi, plus high D fish plus an ADDITIONAL supplement containing 400 IU D3 during the winter months, at the end of dark NYC winter -- I tested INSUFFICIENT for vitamin D. So this past winter, I retested again at the end of summer (I do not wear sunscreen) -- levels back up to ideal range. Then, during the winter, I only took the vitamin D that is contained in my multi -- completely dropped the additional supplement -- but still ate sardines and shrimp because I like them. Point is my supplemental vitamin D was purposely reduced so as no to confound my test. Then I followed the tanning parlor schedule (MUST be bulbs that contain balanced UVB (the "burning" rays) -- many of the newer beds contain unnaturally high UVA because that's what tans -- but tanning is not the goal, proper vitamin D synthesis IS. I used the bed every other day during the darkest winter months but for much less than the maximum time indicated on the tanning equipment -- again, goal is not to tan, but to get vitamin D. (Maximum time is 11 minutes -- my sessions were 1-5 --started with 1, then 3, then a few 5, now back to 3 and with summer almost here, I will stop entirely during Spring.) I tan so easily, that I did maintain a nice glow rather than the usual NYC winter pallor -- I felt more energetic and did not gain the usual winter flab, and did not have a single cold or flu. My tanning booth timing and program was tailored according to my skin-type pursuant to the detailed info in Holick's book. I then tapered off a bit to only once or twice per week -- again, staying in musch less time than the max. I had my D tested at the end of the winter -- result? I am in the ideal range. Holick is a brilliant man. He is often misquoted and does not advocate tanning per se nor does he advocate lying in the sun for hours and hours and risking sunburn-- tanning is not necessary for vitamin D synthesis but exposure to UVB is. And there are other benefits to light on one's skin. Man evolved in the sunlight -- we are not mushrooms. I urge everyone to read Holick's book -- it is a wellspring of information for everyone including special recommendations for those with skin cancer or at risk/very fair types etc.