OK. So yes I am a committed raw foodie. And I am a confessed skin care junkie. I have not been using anything on my skin while water fasting here in Panama but am certain that I will use all natural products when I return to Colorado - It just feels like good old self care to me. So I was wondering about sunscreen. I have found cleansers and serums and moisturizers that are super pure and wonderful. But the sunscreen poses a dilemma for me. And I do believe in sunscreen despite the counter arguments. I have seen my skin compared to that of friends and family members who do not use it and the difference is HUGE. I have not yet found a physical sunscreen (titanium or zinc based) that is super pure. Does anyone have any ideas? What about mineral powder with the zinc? Only other skin care junkies need reply..... (just kidding).

The best sunscreens are the ones that are photostable and also block out UVA. UVA is the bad guy that penetrates to the dermis, doing deep damage to the skin's structural support system and eventually leading to the sagging that most people associate with age (it isn't age, it's UVA exposure).

They don't have to be all natural provided that the molecules are too large to be absorbed by the skin and the integuments (hair follicles, sweat/oil glands), The newer filters that qualify will stay on the skin surface until you wash them off. They were designed not to penetrate (mexoryl sx, mexoryl xl, tinosorb M, tinosorb S, uvinul A plus, etc.)

TiO2 and ZnO are not very efficient at blocking UVA. The concentration required to block out a substantial part of UVA would make them extremely whitening (kabuki-face) thick pastes.

But if you don't want to use a high tech sunscreen, use a hat/visor with wide brim, a light application of something with large particle TiO2 and high concentration of ZnO, and maybe take heliocare supplements. And eat a wide variety of fruits and vegetables and maintain a good omega6:3 balance. You could also make homemade antioxidant/vitamin topicals to use underneath your sunscreen (green or white tea, silymarin, soy isoflavones, ascorbic/ferulic/tocopherol, brown algae, viamin D2, vitamin B12 etc.). And use a vitamin A derivative to help undo the damage from the sun that does get throughL retin A can relieve about 80% of the damage due to the matrix metalloproteinase elevation from sun exposure.

Just five minutes exposure every other day is enough to create lasting skin damage. This isn't even enough to maintain an optimal vitamin D status, but it will damage your skin. Pick your poison!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/31/2007 09:59PM by arugula.

Arugala:

Wow! Thank you for the information. Very informative. I thought that zinc and titanium were the best blockers. And that mexoryl was a chemical sunscreen that caused more damage than good. I actually bought that product from La Roche Posay when it was launched but did not use it due to my concerns. Perhaps I will give it a go.....

They would be, if they were more efficient. There are some people working on doping certain types of Tio2 with manganese to make it more so. I think you might be able to get such products in the UK, you will have to ask around on the skin care forums for more details--where to order it, etc.

But for now I think the LRP Anthelios, Vichy Capital Soleil, and Bioderma photoderms are the best.

Also now we have mexoryl SX approved in the USA you can get some decent formulations in the USA: Anthelios SX, Kiehl's, etc. But, they might also have benzophenone-3 (BP3, aka oxybenzone), an older UVB filter that definitely does penetrate the skin. In the EU they don't use BP3 much anymore, and if it is included, which is rarely, they put a warning on the label. If you are not sure, check the ingredients list of your product before you buy it.

Arugula:

For everyday use (I do live in Colorado so am quite exposed to the sun) which number of LRP do you recommend? A local dermatologist sells the 15 - Is that strong enough for my fair skin? Which one specifically would you recommend? I am so grateful for your help!!!!!!

One more question Arugula - Where do you order Vichy and Bioderma? They seem to be offered out of the country....

If you are at a high altitute and highly exposed and have fair skin I think that around SPF 60 (UVB protection factor) and PPD 25-30 (UVA protection factor) would be best in conjunction with a hat/visor with a wide brim and wrap sunglasses. It will be much more important in the summer, when the rays are more intense, than now. (But I use it year round!) and more imporant between 10 AM and 4 PM than early in the morning or later in the afternoon.

Your derm's SPF 15 product has a good PPD (UVA) protection factor (IIRC about 16, the very best you can currently do with a USA product). But you could do better if you ordered a Euro formulation, where protection factors are much higher. I am not sure why the LRP people did not offer a higher protection product in the USA. Maybe they have plans to do so in the near future.

A lot of people like the LRP Dermo Pediatrics 60 formulation best of all their factor 60 (sometimes now labeled 50+) protection products. It is very thick but not considered to be too greasy. The Bioderma photoderm products are also good.

Most people fail to apply the amount used during protection factor product testing (2 mg/cm^2 or about 0.37 tsp for the average face) and instead might apply only 1/3-1/2 as much. Since protection is not a linear function of application amount, but exponential, this means that underapplication results in actual real use protection factors that are much much lower, say SPF 12, PPD 4 instead of an expected SPF 60 PPD 28. That's why hats/visors are also recommended, along with staying in the shade and limiting exposure time. Also the application thickness diminishes with time (the sebum and sweat displace it, there is some evaporation, also there is passive diffusion to the surroundings) and reapplication takes place ideally every two hours to maintain the expected level of protection.

If you are really serious about sun protection you will have to take your vitamin D from a pill or food. This is not optional. They are saying now that 1000 IU per day is minimal: some people will need even more. It is difficult to get enough from food (including fortified foods) so pills provide insurance.

Your derm can give you more info both on sunscreens and vitamin D. Hopefully there is some good product lit in his or her office.

Also there is a heliocare supplement which contains an extract from the fern Polypodium leucotomos which can provide SPF 4 PPD 4 if you take two per day, one early in the AM and another maybe around 10 AM or so. The actives are ferulic and other phenolic acids. There are some nice papers on it. It isn't going to be something you can rely on exclusively but it provides another "layer" of defense that can't be washed or rubbed off.

Your raw high fruit/vegetable diet will also provide some modest protection by depositing excess carotenoids and other nutrients that have antioxidant function and provide other means of damage control in your skin.

Wow!!!!!!! Thank you. How the heck do you know so much? You have been great!

I went through a period of intense photosensitivity over a decade ago. I started wearing hats after that, and shortly after, sunscreens. I read a lot of papers because I wanted to know more about them. I actually started reading sun protection and other dermatology papers long before I turned my attention to nutrition.

But, there is a great deal of overlap. Usually what is good for the body is also good for the skin and vice versa.

Vitamin D is one of the few exceptions. The solar action spectrum (which wavelengths are most effective) for vitamin D synthesis is almost exactly the same as that for skin DNA damage. Why were we designed like this? I will always wonder.

Oh, sorry, I didn't see your question above.

[beautyplatinium.com] is a USA site that sells Bioderma photoderm sunscreens, and LRP, among many others. note the spelling: platinium, not platinum.

You could also try this site.
[www.frenchcosmeticsforless.com]

A lot of people are buying their Euro sunscreens from ebay.

I don't have a lot of evidence for this at all, but I have a feeling or suspicion that eating lots and lots of fruits and veggies will protect you more from sunlight related damage than the sunscreens.

<<And I do believe in sunscreen despite the counter arguments. I have seen my skin compared to that of friends and family members who do not use it and the difference is HUGE.


Just five minutes exposure every other day is enough to create lasting skin damage. This isn't even enough to maintain an optimal vitamin D status, but it will damage your skin. Pick your poison!>>

Whilst there are numerous studies proving the "efficacy" of sunscreens in the general population, knowing what we do know about the huge unsuitability of the modern day diet/lifestyle, and also the huge antioxidant and other benefits of a diet rich in fruit and veg, I would have thought it would render those results virtually meaningless, is that not so?

Cheers,
J

Jose:

Thank you for your thoughts. I do agree with you on many levels - And will mull over what you have said.

Jose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't have a lot of evidence for this at all,
> but I have a feeling or suspicion that eating lots
> and lots of fruits and veggies will protect you
> more from sunlight related damage than the
> sunscreens.

No, they don't. The studies show only limited protection
from diet and supplements, There are a lot of very damaged
raw foodists walking around. If I named names, some people
would get upset. But many of these people have a variety of
benign lesions, wrinkles, sags, etc.

Sunscreens can provide much more powerful protection than
diet.

> Whilst there are numerous studies proving the
> "efficacy" of sunscreens in the general
> population, knowing what we do know about the huge
> unsuitability of the modern day diet/lifestyle,
> and also the huge antioxidant and other benefits
> of a diet rich in fruit and veg, I would have
> thought it would render those results virtually
> meaningless, is that not so?

No. It's very inefficient to get those products into
the skin via the oral route. But even when they are
used as topicals in a high dose, they are still only
minimally protective compared to sunscreens.
I don't mean any junk sunscreen, I mean the good, recent
ones with high PPD factors for UVA protection.

There's one exception to that rule: ferulic acid, which
is approved as a UV filter in Japan. It is a component of
many food plants, and is also the main active in the
heliocare fern oral mentioned above. But still it provides
only PPD 4, where you can get PPD 35 from a dedicated
sunscreen.

There have been several papers showing damage from
suberythemal doses at PPD of 6 (which is probably about
the upper limit of protection you can get from food) still
takes place when exposure is around the incidental level
(not enough to create reddening of the skin). But combine
that with deliberate exposure and yes there will still be
a lot of damage. But if you use a hat and visor you can
cut that down to about 25% or so compared to ambient,
depending on the time of day.

This is also consistent with my personal experiments. I
hate putting on a greasy layer of sunscreen. I hate the
expense: the good ones are not cheap! But I have not
been able to get the same results (pristine skin) without
them, even when I add a variety of photoprotective orals
and antioxidant topicals to my diet and hat/visor routine.

You could check this in medline, searching for oral
photoprotection. In general the antioxidants dissapoint.
They are quite limited. It's better to block out the
problem than to do a bit of damage control after the
problem has penetrated.

Dear Arugula:

Hello. I just wanted to check in with you again regarding sunscreen. I have ordered LRP fluide extreme mexoryl and am awaiting it. I do feel a bit conflicted still. All of my other skin care products are toxin free at this point. I do believe in sun damage and its effects - Hyperpigmentation is a really big problem for me. So, in all of your studies, is there any indication that the increase in sun damage and cancer is related to putting these chemical sunscreens on our face? And do you believe that a 23.1% zinc oxide formula could be as effective as the mexoryl? I really trust you in this matter and would appreciate any reasurrance you could offer.

UV radiation is a potent carcinogen. The only bad things a sunscreen can do is elicit photosensitivity reactions in some people (who are allergic to the actives or inactive ingredients). But many people will avoid the 0.0001 and take in a big dose of the 100000. It doesn't make any sense to me but we tend to make poor choices when we are contaminated by prejudice.

Hyperpigmentation protection requires the highest UVA protection. You can't get more than a PPD 4 from zinc oxide. So if your aim is preventing pigmentation problems or skin aging forget that. You can get about 9x as much protection from a formulation with tinosorbs and avobenzone, or avobenzone + tio2 + tinosorbs + mexoryls.

Development of mexoryls and tinosorbs was motivated by the lack of adequate protection in UVA from zno and tio2. Researchers wanted something more effective.

You can search medline on UVA and pigmentation. Or see this and the related links.

[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

Oh, sorry, I forgot about a formulation you might consider. It does not contain any chemical filters and it does have a high PPD (but many of us are highly suspicious of its high claimed UVA protection rating). It's the only one I know of. SVR 50:

[en.labo-svr.com]

I generally don't think it's a good idea to spend upwards of $7/oz for a product you must use liberally (and reapply frequently) to achieve a good protection, though. If you get more than a few weeks use out of your LRP FE, you probably aren't using enough, and $25 every few weeks is too much to spend.

You can ask the people at makeupally.com (in the skin care section) for more help. They will be able to tell you what is best for you and where to buy it. And almost every single one of them started out with the same concerns as you regarding use of chem filters.

Jose,

My experience is that is a combination of raw fruits and vegetables with all their protective antioxidants, plus the lack of the toxins derived from eating cooked foods, plus a consciousness around minimizing toxin exposure in general, plus a combination of the health building habits, such as getting a lot of rest and sleep, exercise, fresh air, emotional balance and poise, etc, that contribute to the skin's ability to handle a lot of sunshine.

When I was a young boy, I would leave my house to go an play, and when I return in the evening, my skin would be several shades darker than when I left. This always amazed my mother. By the time I was a teenager, I lost this ability, and in my 20's I experienced sunburn for the first time, and by the time I was in my 30s, I was using regular sunscreen. But after going 100% raw, I don't need the sunscreen any longer, and I now have that same ability I had a young child to have my skin change color drastically in one afternoon of working in the sun. It's funny, but nowadays my skin doesn't fade or lose its tan in the winter time like it used to a decade ago.

Bryan, from your pics you have incurred considerable damage, especially accelerating in the last few years and around the eye area. I expect that this coincides with the period of time in which you have chosen to deliberately expose yourself. Although the damage is cumulative, it does get worse when exposure is increased, especially as we age and our natural (including hormonal) protection diminishes.

That's your choice, it's everyone's personal choice. But it is a good thing to be aware of the consequences and to be also aware that there are good alternatives for those who want them.

arugula,

I am squinting in my last picture as I am outside, and the other pictures are taken at night. Again, thank you for speaking outside of your experience. You have never experienced 100% raw, and my experiences of what happens even after a short time of 1 year on all raw are beyond your experience and comprehension. When you get some real experience, I would love to hear about it.

Bryan, actually I am not speaking outside my experience. As I stated previously, I experienced first hand, what damage the sun can do, and how limited the protection from diet is regarding sun exposure. And I have seen pics of very damaged long-term raw foodists, even those who claim to be 100% raw. They are still accumulating damage: not just from the sun, but from life itself. We accumulate junk in our cells, between our cells, and at the subcellular level, just from being alive.

I think that an appropriate mildly kcal and methionine restricted raw food diet would help slow down this rate of damage in general but with the important caveat that no deficiencies are allowed to take root.

I am not convinced that this is the case with many diets that are 100% raw, as so many people are careless about their micronutrient needs. It is possible to do a great deal of damage to one's health with a 100% raw food diet by long-term maintenance of inadequate zinc, selenium, or B12 levels, or inappropriate EFA intakes or ratios. There are many failures, most of which I suspect are simply due to inadequate kcal intake. It seems to me that you experienced it yourself when you took to your bed for 3 months. I would not judge this as an indicator of health or an adequate diet but simply inadequte energy intake.

A diet that is almost all raw, but without inadequacies is probably a safer bet. It may be that a 100% raw diet without inadequacies is safest of all, but like the 100% vegan vs. 95% vegan question, I doubt there's much of a difference in health when all needs are met.

In any case, it remains conjecture. Many are full of glowing prose but where is the data? I want to see the data. I can play around with my own foods and experiment on myself (in fact I do see better skin when I eliminiate the legumes) but I would also want confirmation with large groups of people measured with relevant biomarkers according to rigorous standards in a repeatable way. We don't have that yet and we might never have it. Few people will have the discipline to stick with it long enough to reap the benefits, which are probably highest with life-long adherence, which applies to probably none of us.

I have also read most, (probably all of the important ones in the last 15 years or so), of the diet/sun protection papers and their results are consistent with my experience. In this realm, I have both: knowledge and experience with a variety of sun protection methods. That is not necessarily the case with many other aspects of health discussed here (candida v. diet, prediabetes v. diet, obesity v. diet, dyslipidemia, chronic fatigue, etc., I have never had problems in those areas).

You can post photos of your wood's lamp pics now and one year from now and show us that you have reversed the damage through your diet alone, not changing any exposure or any other habits or using any topicals. I like data, not poetry, and if the data are compelling, I will be grateful and deeply moved by it.

The amount of protection obtainable from diet at this time maxes out at some modest point: the most effective doses would also impart a pigment change to the skin (some have experience carotenemia here) but these pigment changes can provide only slight improvements in protection factors, i.e. carotenemia and other good (ideal, if you prefer) diet practices can shift one's phototype up one unit (i.e. from I to a II or II to III but not a VI and you'd have to get to VI without deliberate exposure to remain relatively undamaged).

But scientists are working on a way to increase pigment without the requisiste damage that tanning from UV does to very dark levels with medicine as a means to protect the people with severe genetic defects in the skin (xeroderma pigmentosum and the like), in fact they have already done so in rodents.

argula,

I can see that you have perhaps experienced skin damage on your cooked food diet. But you have never been 100% raw, and you have never experienced how the body heals itself on such a lifestyle of all raw foods, no cooked foods, reduced enviromental toxins, plenty of rest and sleep, etc. Again, this is something you could experience if you would allow yourself to be 100% raw for just 1 year. And many people here have experienced this. So when you get this experience, I would love to hear about it.

All the rest of the stuff you read about and that you "know" from your limited experience is just that, limited.

Thanks for the excellent information, Aragula. I work outside extensively from May through the end of October, and I've been trying to figure out what to do about protecting my skin, especially on my face, since I'm not much of a hat person.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

Yes. Thank you Arugula. Your information has been extremely helpful and enlightening. Blessings.

Can you imagine Arugula on a date?
Guy: Let's take in a movie.
Arugula: Well,accordingly to the latest studies(which I have researched
intensively) germs abound in cinemas.So that's out of the question.
Guy: oh..umm..Let's go on the beach.
Arugula: Definitely not going there.Do you know what research have shown on the
dangers of exposure to UV radiation.
Guy: Well..I heard something about it..
Arugla: Obviuosly you haven't heard enough.Let me read this 20 page document and
explain in detail what it says.
Guyhastily) How about reading it tomorrow? Yeah, We'll have more time
tomorrow.
Arugulareluctantly) Well,ok,if you say so.We would have had a fun time though.
Guy: (trying to kiss Arugula)
Arugula :What are you doing? Don't you keep up on research? The latest papers
have explicitly say that kissing is the gateway to diseases.Kissing is a
big no-no for me.
Guy: How about making love?
Arugula : Are you out of your mind? I'm right now on my 16th page of this 42 page
study that was done on Sex and I can't tell you how much I've
learned.People shouldn't have sex under any circumstances.Look, it says
that right here.
Guy: You know,I just remembered I have pick my sister up from her dance
class.I'll see you tomorrow.
Arugula: (face clouding over)
Guy : You can read that 60 page study on Vit B12 deficiency to me.
Arugula brightening up) Okay. See you tomorrow at 5pm. Be on time. Studies have
shown that people who are on time...
Guy: (hastily) Love to hear it but I gotta go.Bye.

DISCLAIMER
The above is purely a figment of the author's imagination and bears no resemblance to reality.

I know I'm going to hell in a handbasket for this one but I just could'nt help it.
Brian

Brian1cs, you sure aren't someone I'd consider a prize.

Too bad a woman can make you feel so unintelligent, to the point of being viscious. Not a good combo charactor in a man, and most women would find that unattractive.

I don't like people picking on my friends. And I'll be the first to defend them.

I know for a fact, many men like brilliant women, and not airheads. I know first hand that the brainier a woman or man is, the hotter they are in the sack, and the more intresting they are for a lasting relationship. My boyfriend is an brainy engineer, but romantically, OMG, he rocks. So I take this personal, what you said to Arugula.

I hope your post above(and mine) gets deleted. It is very rude and uncalled for.

Rawrrr!,

I have to say that arugula is the one picking fights here. I shared my experience, and she choose to criticize the way I looked, telling me that my skin was damaged. I agree with her that her skin gets damaged in the sun. However, with my diet and lifestyle, which is considerably different that arugula's (she is 80% raw), I don't experience the same kind of burning that I imagine she experiences.

I don't care that arugula is not convinced. I wasn't sharing some theoretical research I read about, I was sharing my experience. And I know that among people on the all raw diet, they also share this experience.

When it comes to me listening to my experience versus listening to arugula's conjecture, I am going to listen to my experience.

I get that arugula is scared of the world. I see it in the things she writes, stuff like:

Quote

No, we are living in a perverted society with perverted foodstuffs and perverted agricultural practices and depleted soils, etc. etc.

or

Quote

The oceans are dying. 90% of the big fish are gone. The glaciers are melting. The aquifers are drying up. The topsoil is vanishing. The rain forests are shrinking. The deserts are expanding. And nobody gives a darn enough to stop.
We have entered an era of unprecedented destruction.

arugula chooses to let what she reads affect her worldview. Not that people who write this kind of stuff don't have motivations to write it, to keep her powerless and afraid. Not that people who write her research papers don't have something to sell. Fear. Trust in the god of Science. Trust in your medical doctor. Arugula loves to give her power away to external authorities. She herself is setting herself up as an authority on raw, even though she has never been 100% raw (well, maybe for a day or two).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/11/2007 05:47AM by Bryan.

Don't be silly, Bryan. I have curiosity, and I satisfy it somewhat by reading from quality sources. That does not include chiropractors or any self-proclaimed raw food guru.

You have it backwards. It is a lack of trust in the status quo that motivates me to seek more knowledge. I want to go further, and many of the most critical aspects of what I have learned are considered to be fringe, but still meeting certain standards for quality and repeatability. Knowledge is power. Know enough to separate the good from the suspect.

But this has nothing to do with environmental destruction, which is an incontrovertible truth at this point.

I don't recall criticizing your looks. I wrote that you had incurred visible sun damage, which is so common that nearly everyone over a certain age has it. Much of it is reversible: you could use an all-trans retinoic acid (natural occuring) or tazarotene (completely synthetic) topical and practice sun avoidance on the parts of your body that have been most highly exposed. After several years of faithful use you could undo a lot of the damage, maybe not all of it, but most of it.

Why this leads you to make personal attacks and conjecture about my emotional state speaks volumes about your character. It is not of the same magnitude as that of Brian but has the same general direction.

As an aside, I haven't experienced any sun-induced erythema in nearly a decade. I have learned a great deal since then on how to avoid it. I often wish for others not to repeat my mistakes if such a thing is possible.

Rawrrr,
You say I'm vicious? Then what word must we use for Arugula's comments,such as commenting on the smell of Asians,the using of feces to fertilize plants by Indians(vis-a-vis my grandparents),the looks of people who posted their pictures,visible sun damgage on Bryan's skin(I don't know what she is talking about,I don't see anything) and so many other contentious things(in this and other threads) that I'd have to take a day off from work to chronicle them.
I could comment on the smell of people I interact with at work and elsewhere too,people of her ethnicity are prominent among them I'm sure.Suffice it to say that I wish I had a work at home job.
While she may be educated I am beginning to question her intelligence. She may mean well and gives helpful advice freely but her way of wanting everyone to believe her point of view,because it's "scientifically proven" is indicating to me that there may be character flaw somewhere.
So,no she does not make me feel unintelligent,Rawrrr. I recognise that there are hundreds of thousands of people more intelligent than I am. She isn't one of them,Educated yes,intelligent no.
Rawrrr,my post above is more of a facetious nature rather than viciousness but since you took it personally,(even though it was written for someone else) and you say you're the first to defend your friends then you owe me an apology (on her behalf) for the way she disparaged my people. How come I don't hear you speaking out when she offends others?
And speaking of prizes, it doesn't bother me in the least what you consider me to be. I already am secure in the knowledge of who I am.

Anyhow, after all's been said and done I still think everyone is valuable to this forum and I hope in time we can learn to appreciate each other's opinion a little more. (I can see a few hands pointing to me so) I'll start with myself. Good day you all.
Brian

A friend recently shared a quote by Mark Twain, "I would never let an education get in the way of my learning" or something to that effect.

Love,
Uma

brian1cs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> her way of wanting
> everyone to believe her point of view,because it's
> "scientifically proven" is indicating to me that
> there may be character flaw somewhere.

Credibility is a character flaw and to use credible
sources is unintelligent. This speaks volumes about
you.

If it were not for credible sources and very hard work,
you would not now have the opportunity to place your
rear end in front of a sophisticated collection of
semiconductor devices linked in a sophisticated network
and hurl insults and disparagement towards those who do
avail of them.

Some people here want to have nice skin when they get
older. I think they deserve to know how to keep it
that way and I think they deserve to know that merely
eating uncooked plant food won't cut it.

Some people here want to know how it is possible
to maintain an adequate B12 status without eating animals
or their products. I did not make up the part about
fertilizing one's plant foods with one's own excrement.
It's in one of the Herbert papers in AJCN. It's free online
and you can read it yourself. Would you tell Dr. Herbert
that he is unintelligent for suggesting such a thing?

I didn't make up anything about ethnicities having
characteristic scents, either. Skin lipid composition,
earwax, sebum, and sweat all have a genetic basis. If
this seems inapproriate to you then maybe you would
do well to take a course in genetics or somthing like
that and with knowledge you will not take innocuous
comments so personally. But that you do--well, I think
maybe the best thing is for you to stop reading my
posts.