Well blow me down! As much of Skinbio convert that I am, I've been skeptical about this "safe sun" idea. But here is a new article that confirms everything that Dr. Pickart has been saying.

It's all very confusing, no?

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

Dear ronnieb,

An excellent and intersting article, thanks.

Lifestyle, dietary and genetic factors, and vitamin synergy effects aside, we have to be more careful when supplementing Vitamin A, D, E and K because they are fat-soluble vitamins and are stored in the liver and used up by the body slowly. Because they are not quickly eliminated like water-soluble vitamins, vitamin toxicity would be a concern with these fat soluble vitamins.

The American government regulates Vitamins and dietary supplements as food and not drugs, so no efficacy standards exist. Furthermore, the benefits of any dietary factors are difficult to prove. Haven't we been told many conflicting dietary facts, including eating wheat/bran, dairy, the food pyramid, and drinking red wine over the years?

Actually, I just posted on this awhile back in another thread here in the suntanning section. Not on the specific article, but on how it is now being thought that it is the Vitamin D from sunshine which links sunshine exposure with less cancer and not sunshine itself, per se.

Deb replied that the moderate 30 minutes exposure recommended by Skin Bio is sufficient to obtain enough vitamin D. She may be right; I don't know!

I do know that you can test your vitamin D levels with a special blood test. I posted that somewhere here, too. The persons telling me about the test found that they needed to take about 1,600 IU vit D daily to keep their Vit D levels optimal. (These were all religious sunscreens users.)

I found the comment in the article about smoking to prevent anxiety an amusing comparison, although I wouldn't say it's necessarily accurate!

JW, there are studies that show the toxicity of most nutrients (including fat soluble ones) is WAY less than the government RDA, which are only the amounts necessary to prevent disease and are not even that accurate. They haven't been revamped for years.

I get little sun and take quite a bit of Vitamins A and D from natural sources. There are also studies showing that large intakes of natural A is not toxic, rather, it is the synthetic form that is toxic. I also read that vit E does not stay in the body as long as people think.

Of course, I'm not saying these sources are 100% correct, but it does show how complicated the matter is. There are many doctors who used good amounts of cod liver oil for many years with only good effects. Many populations have been studied how get large amounts of natural vit A and D and are extremely healthy.

Is it all confusing!

I do think the article supports the proposition that sunscreen use (including chemical sunscreens) can be said to cause cancer only in that severely limit or even eliminate vit D. And then the converse would of course be true--that going outside w/out sunscreen for a moderate length of time would decrease cancers b/c of Vit D production.

However, I am thinking that since we evolved in the sun, the moderate exposure may be beneficial for other things Dr. Pickart suggests, such as sex drive, hormones, etc.

Perhaps the best thing is to get a daily dose of 30 minutes (while wearing antioxidants) and then protect yourself for the rest of the time.

Another issue besides cancer is skin beauty.

While sunscreens block vitamin D synthesis (and possibly increase cancer risks - not proven yet), sunscreens do protect the skin from UV damages like hyperpigmentation, sunburns, peeling, and wrinkles.

I was reading earlier today that Vitamin D is produced by a reaction with UVB light, while photodamage of skin is caused mostly by UVA light. I wonder if it would be possible to create a UVA-only suncscreen?? (not holding my breath)