this is the only thing confusing me in life right now. why would something that creates life and is such a symbol of our world age us and destory us and make us wrinkled and old. its been proven that sunlight mutates the dna in our skin cells, but doesn't that bother anyone else?

i once heard of an idea that maybe the sun "brings out" the things in us to the surface, so if we have a bad diet consisting of meat and processed foods and/or we smoke then yes the sun will give us bad skin, but maybe if we stick with raw live foods the enzymes and vitamins will protect our skin.

it makes sense to me that maybe some of our diet is making us more susceptible, but im still confused..you can't deny when you see those older ladies who you know laid out alot in the sun and they are much too wrinkled and withered looking, i wonder if just eating pure raw foods would actually make the sun make you younger lol

No, see the other post.

1. In our natural state, before agriculture, we usually died before the age of 40. Life was harsh and brutal and many women would have died during childbirth. So you wouldn't have seen all these wrinkled crone and granfather types.

2. In our natural state, we live in areas more appropriate to our skin defenses. So you wouldn't see hoardes of phototypes I and II living in areas of high equatorial insolation who also have excessively high rates of skin cancers and photoaging, such as the Australians of English descent. Or my next door neighbor who is of Scottish descent who spent most of her adult life in Panama, aie, you would cringe if you could see the pendulous skin on her neck and face, I was so frightened the first time I saw her.

3. In our natural state, we would not have a hole in the ozone layer that lets more UVB get through.

Like most things, sun is both friend and foe. But most Westerners are getting far too much of it.

If you don't want any of that unnecessary skin damage, you must block it out and take a D2 pill daily. If you want to get your D from the sun, then you could still consider protecting your face, neck, and hands as they show the age and ravages most readily.

but i love the way skin is brown i dont want my skin to be pale but oh well i guess i'd rather have pale skin than be brown and aged like way past my age

I read that its not the sun but the toxic sun blocks and creams we put on our skin that is causeing the skin cancer!

Read the ingredients and then understand that it not only gets baked onto your body but also makes its way inside your body :-(

I have pale skin and before going raw I used to get sunburnt eassily. After being raw for a couple of years I noticed that I wasn't getting burnt and I gave up using sunscreen completly. I agree with the idea that sunscreen itself causes problems and I've heard that specifically cooked fats in our bodies make us more susceptible to getting sunburn.

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

but theres no denying sun damage. i am upset after seeing the picture of Mr. Graham because i thought eating raw would make one's skin better and he doesn't look like he eats healthy for some reason. even Ghandi, who im not saying ate raw because he didn't keep it up, has lots of damage and sagging. im confused i wish the sun didn't age us!

I put sunscreen on my face then a light cotton t-shirt or whatever over my face when I lay out, so only my body tans - seems to be working.

Also after about an hour of laying in the sun my body just says "done" - I don't lay out for hours on end, I think that kind of OD is what would cause damage.

In Conscious Eating I was reading that if you eat microalgae and flax oil, you'll notice that your skin becomes quite resistant to sunburn.

The sun is wonderful, but you can easily get too much of it.
Elephants use mud as sunblock, as do pigs, etc.
Animals get sunburned too, even wild ones.
Enjoy the sun, but not too much.

Let's all go back to wearing hats all the time outdoors!

I really like the sun. If a person can take exposure to the sun without getting sunburned, that might be OK. I use Aubrey sunscreen (no chemicals) and sometimes wear a hat whenever I know I'll be out in the sun long enough to burn.
Since I've been raw, I do seem to be able to take more sun without burning. But for me there's a limit.

I believe the sun is a great healer, and I'm one that thinks the serious skin cancers might be caused by bad diet. However, these days, with the Ozone layer being seriously depleted, we are receiving more radiation from the sun. IMO people who tend to burn should guard against that with a good chemical - free sunscreen and/or wear a hat. Applying aloe vera and chemical - free lotions and/or oils are probably helpful after exposure to the sun.

On the other hand, my understanding is that recent studies have shown that too little exposure to the sun can cause vitamin D deficiency even for people who supplement with vitamin D. So I think exposure to the sun is a good thing, as long as we don't overdo it.

Best wishes, -Ally

>If a person can take exposure to the sun without getting sunburned, that might be OK.

It's not ok. You can get a lot of DNA damage and wrinkling and photosagging without getting burned ever. The only reason we still see sunscreens in terms of their burn protection (SPF) is that redness is easier to measure than DNA damage. Protection from thymine dimer formation would be the more relevant measure.

The damage is cumulative. One can get elevation of the matrix metalloproteinases, enzymes that break down collagen, with only five minutes every other day. But of course this will vary with one's phototype. The darkest skins are usually most resistant to photoaging and skin cancers, up to 30 times more than the palest type Is.

Eating well surely does help, as does eating the approriate fats in the right proportions (and low-fat, too, I am sorry to say). But it doesn't help enough! It might turn a phototype I response into a phototype II response, which would shift the balance towards tanning rather than burning, as some have experienced. But it will not turn a phototype I sun defense into a phototype VI defense! That takes an aggressive sunscreen, applied copiously and reapplied frequently. And tanning does not mean no damage occurs. Tanning is a protective response to oxidative stress. The UVA rays, which cause tanning, are the ones that also cause sagging. They are the ones that penetrate most deeply and break down the skin's support structures.

Sunscreens don't cause cancer. Almost all of the people who get basal or squamous skin cancers are either complete non-users or use it ineffectually: failing to apply enough, never reapplying, etc. Once they get with the program and get serious with protection, their risks for another cancer go way down.

For those who want more "natural" protection, aside from hats/visors and avoidance, there is a fern called polypodium leucotomos which can provide protection factors of up to 4 when taken orally (brand name: heliocare). This superposed on a good diet rich in antioxidants will probably provide some protection from skin cancers as well as photoaging. But it still isn't a substitute for a good sunscreen, which can provide protection factors of up to 50 or more when used appropriately and keep the matrix metalloproteinases from ever elevating unnecessarily. This could mean freedom from sags and wrinkles for a lifetime.

I hate to see very damaged skins. Especially when it's so unnecessary. Especially among raw foodists, who should present the best looking, and not the worst looking skins when they get older.

The latest thinking on vitamin D is that the normal supplemented amounts (RDA is still 400 IU per day) is not enough. The recent recs, which are not yet official, are up to 1000 IU per day or even higher. Fatter people need more (it is a fat-soluble vitamin) and darker skinned people also need more. It is not necessary to damage the skin to maintain a good D status. But it is necessary to maintain a good D status for optimal health.

I think you are quite correct Confuzed. Of course, for the individual, reasonable sunlight should be the norm. Certainly avoiding chemicals, and undue sun-exposure will be helpful....as will not wearing sunglasses....and getting sunlight into the eyes. Just my experiences.

-David Mason

arugula Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sunscreens don't cause cancer.

How do you know that? I think there is a very good chance that sunscreen is a contributing factor to skin cancer.

We need sunlight on our skin and in our eyes. We definatly need to limit the amount we get, but don't be scared to go out in the sun without sunscreen.

Rob

--
Rob Hull - Funky Raw
My blog: [www.rawrob.com]

Modern typical sun protections often contain nano molecules that are absorbed into the blood stream, surely these are carcinogens. This year we tried Yaoh's hemp sun creams. They were great, chemical free, no burnt kids, no sore eyes.
My problem is I am ADDICTED to the sun and battling it, I am better able to control it as a rawer, but it still niggles away at me when the sun is shining and I can't be in it. I am almost relieved when autumn comes and I'm not missing out on the sun...how wierd is that.

Anna

arugula, thank you for taking the time to tackle this post so thoroughly. i got frustrated just thinking about how to begin to respond.

also, if people are afraid of using chemical blocks, a lot of sunscreens are made for sensitive skin types that contain physical blockers, like titanium dioxide.

I like the sun, but not too much of it in a day. Go sit in the shade for a little bit. Shade was made for us, too.

>> Sunscreens don't cause cancer.

>How do you know that?

Because there is a measureable increase in thymine dimer formation (kinks in the DNA) when sunscreen is omitted even a single time. If these kinks left unchecked, or if the repair enzymes are also damaged, lead to uncontrolled replication i.e. cancer.

Multiple studies have determined that sunscreen reduces the amount of DNA damage that occurs in the skin after exposure.

>I think there is a very good chance that sunscreen is a contributing factor to skin cancer.

The established literature provides a state of knowledge that is in profound disagreement with your thoughts.

Would you care for some references?

Thompson SC, Jolley D, Marks R: Reduction of solar keratoses by regular sunscreen use. N Engl J Med 329(16):1147-1151, 1993.

Naylor MF, Boyd A, Smith DW, et al.: High Sun Protection Factor (SPF) Sunscreens in the Suppression of Actinic Neoplasia. Arch Dermatol 131(2):170-175, 1995.

Fourtanier A, Mexoryl SX Protects Against Solar-Simulated UVR-Induced Photocarcinogenesis in Mice, Photochemistry and Photobiology, 1996; 64(4): 688-693

Green A, Williams G, Neale R, Hart V, Leslie D, Parsons P, Marks G, Gaffney P, Battistutta D, Frost C, Lang C, and Russell A, Daily sunscreen application and betacarotene supplementation in prevention of basal-cell and squamous-cell carcinomas of the skin: a randomised controlled trial, The Lancet, 1999 August 354:723-729

Pandeya N, Purdie D, Green A, and Wiliams G, Repeated occurrence of Basal Cell Carcinoma of the Skin and Multifailure Survival Analysis: Follow-up Data from the Nambour Skin Cancer Prevention Trial, Am J Epidem 2005; 161: 748-754

Durlington S, Williams G, Neale R, Frost C, and Green A, A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess Sunscreen Application and Beta Carotene Supplementation in the Prevention of Solar Keratoses, Arch Dermatol 2003 Apr 139:451-455

Odom RB, Focus on photodamage: a medical problem. Parsippany, NJ: Skin Phototrauma Foundation, 1990:1-29

Basler RS, Eberspacher DL. Actinic keratoses. Nebr Med J 1989;74(7):174-7.

Marks R, Rennie G, Selwood TS. Malignant transformation of solar keratoses to squamous cell carcinoma. Lancet 1988;1(8589):795-7

Proper SA, Fenske NA. Common skin tumors in the geriatric poplations. Ceriatr Med Today 1985;4(9):17-34

Basler RS, Eberspacher DL. Actinic keratoses. Nebr Med J 1989;74(7):174-7.

Narks R, Rennie G, Selwood T. The realtionship of basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas to solar keratoses. Arch Dermatol 1988;124(7):1039-42

Odom RB, Focus on photodamage: a medical problem. Parsippany, NJ: Skin Phototrauma Foundation, 1990:1-29

Soter NA. Acute effects of ultraviolet radiation on the skin, Semin Dermatol 1990;9(1):11-5.

Koh HK, Kligler BE, Lew RA. Sunlight and cutaneous malignant melanoma: evidence for and against causation. Photochem Photobiol 1990; 51(5);765-79

Swerdlow AJ, English JS, MacKie RM, et al. Flourscent lights, ultraviolet lamps, and risk of cutaneous melanoma. BMJ 1988;297(6649):647-50 [erratum, BMJ] 1988;297(6657):1172

Prawer, S. E, 1991. Sun-related skin diseases. Postgraduate Medicine 89 (8): 51-66.

Al Mahroos M, Yaar M, Phillips TJ, Bhawan J, Gilchrest BA., Effect of sunscreen application on UV-induced thymine dimers, Arch Dermatol 2002 Nov;138(11):1480-5

Ananthaswany H, Ulrich S, Mascotto R, Fourtanier A, Loughlin A, Khaskina P, Bucana C, and Kripke M, Inhibitiion of Solar Simulator-Induced p53 Mutations and Protection Against Skin Cancer Development in Mice by Sunscreens, Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 1999(5):763-768

Thompson SC, Jolley D, Marks R. Reduction of solar keratoses by regular sunscreen use. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 329: 1147-51.

Gallagher RP, Rivers JK, Lee TK et al. Broad-spectrum sunscreen use and the development of new nevi in white children: A randomized controlled trial. Jama 2000; 283: 2955-60.

Naylor MF, Boyd A, Smith DW et al. High Sun Protection Factor (SPF) Sunscreens in the Suppression of Actinic Neoplasia. Archives of Dermatology 1995; 131: 170-5.

Interesting discussion. I always have a problem with the method of quoting scientific references as a way of proving one's point though. This is because such method assumes that scientific references are the source of the ultimate and undisputable knowledge, and there is a serious problem with this assumption. In short, it is wrong.

Anyway, to be fair on the sun which is taking too much blame here, I wonder about the real cause of cancer. For example, would a person who got a skin cancer, got it if their lifestyle (diet, exercises, rest etc) was healthy in the first place?

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

^^ i agree with you beautiful rawgosia.

that's kinda why i was posting this, because the whole idea i posted is really spiritual and based on feelings and emotions. i think it makes sense that the sun kinda brings things to the surface which is why most smokers seem to age badly because the sun brings out the bad stuff in cigarettes.

i think its really also because of the ozone. the simple definition of the ozone layer is really neat, it protects us from the bad rays.

rawgosia Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting discussion. I always have a problem
> with the method of quoting scientific references
> as a way of proving one's point though. This is
> because such method assumes that scientific
> references are the source of the ultimate and
> undisputable knowledge, and there is a serious
> problem with this assumption. In short, it is
> wrong.

So your singular opinion should be held in higher esteem than people who've actually done research in regards to the issue?

>
> Anyway, to be fair on the sun which is taking too
> much blame here, I wonder about the real cause of
> cancer. For example, would a person who got a skin
> cancer, got it if their lifestyle (diet,
> exercises, rest etc) was healthy in the first
> place?
>
> Gosia

There's no way of knowing that. However, weren't there some famous Natural Hygienist felllows in Australia who died from prostate cancer recently (one has a morbidly ironic book called "Cancerproof your Body" if I recall correctly.

Narz, the statement that

"the assumption that scientific references are the source of the ultimate and undisputable knowledge is WRONG"

is not my singular opinion, but a fact, which can be proven using scientific methods ha ha ha! Using common sense does it pretty well too.

For example, some decades ago, scientific research "proved" that trans-fats were good for you. The most recent research "proves" that they are bad for you. So, when you read a scientific paper, you never have a guranatee that what it says is right, do you? In plain words, scientific published research is only a reflection of what scientists currently understand about the nature, but it is not the actual, complete and error-free knowledge. Even the top Nobel prize winners in quantum physics can and will be proven wrong in years to come.

Why would I, a scientist, say anything against scientific research? This is because firstly, I know exactly how producing scientific research works, and secondly, because I believe that public has got the right to know the truth. I'd rather debunk the myth of scientists being gurus, than otherwise. I find it ridiculous, and somehwat funny, when someone uses the words like "I've done research" and based on that, the public automatically accets their claims without a question, because they think that "scientific" means "true/proven", while it is not lol!

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2006 03:55AM by rawgosia.

Rawgosia... Beautifully put! I'm with you on this one (and my father died from skin cancer) but I believe caused more by poor diet and harmful chemicals than sunshine.

"Here comes the sun. do-do-do-do. Here comes the sun, and I say, it's all right!"

"For example, some decades ago, scientific research "proved" that trans-fats were good for you."

Really? Please show me some scientific studies from "some decades ago" that "proved" trans-fats are healthy. Please. If you can find a single one I will be very impressed.

Anyone can write a paper but when controlled studies are done showing certain conclusions over and over again they are hard to argue with. You are free to reject conclusive evidence for ideological reasons but I don't see why you'd want to.

I would, because there is no such thing as a conclusive evidence. Let me explain why (I will re-cycle something I wrote before):

"My I say, and forgive me if what I am saying is totally out of this world, but due to my backgound, I have the following to say about the proofs.

The types of reasoning that health sciences have been using can be classified as two types. One need to understand what those are, in order to see that there is no such thing as a proof. ( )

In the first type, scientists gather some statistical data, from which they conclude that, in the particular observed group, there seem to be a correlation between (say) eating broccoli and better health. Such correlation does not prove that broccoli is causing a better health. How could this be? Well, correlation is not equivalent to causal effect! For example, one could show that there is a correlation between the amount of ice-cream consumed in a month and the number of drowning in this month. Eating ice-cream does not cause drowning, there is another, underlying factor here: the weather (in summer people are more likely to eat more ice-cream as well as to swim more). In the same way, the corelation between eating broccoli and better health does not prove that eating broccoli causes a better health. There is really no way of proving this using merely statistics. There could be so many underlying factors! Of course, a clever human could say: "It's obvious! eating broccoli does improve one's health. I know it, ever since I started eating broccoli, my health has improved". Oh yes, but this does not constitue the "real" proof. (Common sense have been applied here).

More importantly, statistical data from a sample is not the guarantee that the trend observed is the same as in the whole population. One would have to test the whole population (impossible I think at this stage) to get the correct picture. For example, one could test as many times as they wish various groups of people coming with a result that that 80% people (in those samples) get better by eating broccoli, but this would not prove that, in general, this is the case. For example, all polls could suggest that Bush has 99% chance of winning, but he may still lose!

Oh well, let's look at what the second type of reasoning has to offer then. In this type of reasoning, scientists attempt to study directly the mechanisms of how eating broccoli affects one's health. They study molecular structure, chemical and physiolgocal reactions, and even DNA. They discover that (say) little broccoli molecules move to human body and result in some molecular reactions that kill cancer cells. This still does not constitue the proof. Why oh why?? Well, it is well known in physics that as soon as the observer looks at at a particle, the particle changes its behaviour. So, when we observe something, there is no gurantee that this is what really happens when we are not there. But besides this somewhat wacky explanation, such experiments are done in the isolation from the body, and change the nature of what happens anyway. One cannot expect to study life by killing it, and putting it under the microscope.

However, the most important feature of this type of reasoning is relying on a set of assumptions. The way theories are build is the following: a set of definitions and axioms are assumed (which can be anything we like), from which theorems are derived. In this way, depending on what is the set of axioms assumed, one may end up with totally different theories. Example: Euclidean geometry and Lobachevsky's geometry. So, as far proving that eating broccoli is causing a better health, no matter what theorems we rely on, we also must rely on some set of axioms from which these theorems are derived. These axioms are un-proven facts, which are assumed. Those assumed axioms can be some facts that we know to be true, because our common sense tells us so! So, in this sense, we can't generate a "real" proof in seperation from our common sense again.

So, when you are asking for a (real) proof, you are asking for impossible. They do not really exist!

OK, I better go, I spend far too much time on-line!

Gosia."

See you later, I am going home now.
Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

You haven't shown me any studies on the benefits of trans-fats.

As for your problems with scientific studies... no correlation does not imply causality. That's why intelligent people don't accept something based on just one study.

However if a dozen studies in ten different states and two foreign countries show the benefits of eating brocoli (vs. not eating in) in controlled enviroments I think it's safe to say that brocoli is probably good for you (of course if you don't like brocoli you can probably find something else just as good).

Should we place our complete trust in the work of scientists? No. But neither should we have to reinvent the wheel each time either. At least scientists make the effort to test their theories before making an assertion instead of just calling any statement (especially obviously incorrect ones, such as that "sciene used to say trans-fats were good" true.

i read the other day that a study showed 50% of all studies were wrong. i guess there's a 50% chance of that being true.

then there's my molecular biology professor who said the majority of research articles he reads are "utter crap".

but i think when there's a long list of studies in support of something, it cannot be easily dismissed.

regarding diet and sun protection, there's atleast a couple studies showing green tea consumption to help protect the skin from the sun. im sure other antioxidant-rich foods are helpful too.

I am still here, so a few more comments.

It is a common knowledge that some decades ago margarine used to be thought to be good for humans, even better than butter, there was plenty of research "proving" that (a brief look at the Web of Science database can easily confirm that). Of course, there is plenty of other examples of past research that has proven to be wrong.

"However if a dozen studies in ten different states and two foreign countries show the benefits of eating brocoli (vs. not eating in) in controlled enviroments I think it's safe to say that brocoli is probably good for you (of course if you don't like brocoli you can probably find something else just as good)."

Ha ha ha, exactly. That is, this is exactly one type of argument that I've seen freuqently used by those unfamiliar with statistics, which, surprise surprise, is incorrect! In rigorous, scientific sense, you cannot combine the results of several studies to come up with a conclusion, any statistician knows that. As an example, when you conduct several polls, each concluding that Bush will win the next election, but Bush may still lose. So, you cannot absolutely safely assume that Bush will win, on the basis of several polls suggesting that. If this was not the case, why spend millions of dollars on elections? It would be much cheaper to conduct several polls, wouldn't it?

Of course, using common sense may lead to a conclusion that broccoli is good for you, but there is absolutely no way of proving it statistically. There is no such thing as proof using statistics. Statistics is only used to estimate probabilities of hypotheses being likely to be false or not. Probability, no matter how high is never equivalent to certainty.

Health scientists do not invent the wheel. The wheel has already been invented by nature. Scientists are only learning how to use it. And, one can learn to use the wheel without having to wait for the scientists to tell them how to do it. In fact, scientists could learn more and faster by listening harder to what the "ordinary" public has to say. For example, instead of spending millions on research for vaccines and other cures for cancer, why not look at what's happening in the raw food movement?

Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2006 06:49AM by rawgosia.

I didn't say statistics can prove anything but they certainly can show probabilities beyond reasonable doubt.

Also, since when did nature invent the wheel?

why do you guys do this? you just pick at each others words and phrases. do you not have anything more fun and exciting to do? go run around the block instead, it's better than sitting here just getting in your last argument about something she said and she mispelled that word or used the wrong grammar structure there.

i just dont think its fair or beneficial to just keep picking at little things like the way she said something or stuff like that, maybe we could all be happier and more information would be available to us than just posts of people arguing and asking for proof.

conduzed, don't worry, there is no animosity here, I always appreciate a good discussion, and that is all that it is. It is natural for humans to ask questions, and have different opinions.

Narz, "probabilities" and "beyond reasonable doubt" do not belong together, at least not in the theory of probability. When I say that the nature invented the wheel, I talk about the wheel of "how to live and be healthy", OK?

Cheers,
Gosia.


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams