Are you sunbathing?

[fleadogs]

Eades suggests in PPLP that sunbathing is beneficial. Don't bother with sunscreen just work up slowly for short periods of time. Is anyone doing this?


I LOVE sunbathing, but haven't done it for years. You know this is the only thing out of the book that just sends off alarm bells. It seems that everything else we do, (taking extra antioxidants, eliminating trans fats...) is designed to not only slurp up any free radicals but to prevent their introduction in the first place. Exposing your skin to Uv and then saying that the vitamins will take care of the damage seems just a bit much. Who's to say the early man really needed wrinkle free skin? What if leatherly looking men and woman showed their capability to survive better than others and it was highly prized? As for being vit D deficient what other sources are there?

Anyone else thinking about this as Spring is near!

[razzle]

because my fitday nutritional stats show my vitamin D as so low, I did an internet search a few weeks ago on how we synthesize vitamin D ... it was very interesting, and I remember not a bit of it! (lol) But you could do the same search--my recollection is that the sun isn't as important as some other micronutrients that we need for that synthesis.

Do I sunbathe? In the Pacific Northwest in Winter? lol--that's hysterical! :D (remind me, what's a "sun"?)

Just my opinion, very "felt" and unscientific...I garden in good weather, I walk in good weather, and I figure that's plenty. I've never trusted sunscreen (long before the Eades said not to), from the perspective of sensible design: "had Mother Nature wanted us to use sunscreen, she would have put the sun further away." We evolved to take straight sunlight to some degree, eh?

[Kristine]

You only need about 10-15 minutes two or three times per week, on your face and arms. I think it's true that nature gave us what we need to protect us from the sun, but they're called TREES and most of us don't live among them anymore. Darker-skinned racial groups evolved to handle long days in the sun, but caucasians haven't done so very well - certainly not to the degree that we should consider it "fashionable" to brown our skin.

Always protecting my gothic palour,
Kristine

[joanie]

I haven't read PPLP yet, but if the Eades discourage sunscreen use, they are just plain nuts. To say that Mother Nature will take care of it is crazy!!! I have two young friends that almost died of melanoma. Sun exposure causes photo aging, moles, freckles, age spots and wrinkles. I read PP and enjoyed it, but my respect for these people will drop exponentially if I find that they tell people not to protect the largest organ on their body -- their skin.

Anyone who plans to spend more than a few minutes out in the sun should wear a broad spectrum sunscreen! There is no such thing as a healthy tan! I actually think that people who tan look a little silly. It's a dated look, very '80s. And if you look at people in their 50's and 60's who sunbathe, you can see firsthand the results -- wrinkles and pruny skin. Yuck!

Sorry to be so strident in my tone, but I feel very strongly about this topic. I used to try to tan every summer, and I regret it. I have lots of moles and freckles. I only hope that the damage I did in my teens and twenties won't result in cancer in the future.

[GatorGal93]

Even though I am in Florida, I tan regularly at a tanning salon. The good salons have bulbs which do not contain the same harmful rays as the sun. After I tan, I feel energized and relaxed. I make sure not to overdo it and I never tan my face. I have read where you get Vitamin D from sunlight, so for my 2 cents worth, try a salon for a nice change.

Julie

P.S. I even worked part time in a few tanning salons. :daze:

[wbahn]

In fairness to the Eades', I think they make some very worthy points in their book.

Recalling their case from memory - so please check for yourselves as my memory ain't the best - the tanning and burning is done by the UVB while the long term damage is done by UVA. They further claim that even the best wide spectrum sunsreens only block about half of the UVA.

As a result, we slather on a bunch of sunscreen which allows us to avoid our body's primary warning sign - namely that we are getting too much UVA - by turning pink and starting to burn in response to the UVB. As a result, we continue to stay out and absorb tons of UVA.

Furthermore, while they argue for building up a tan in order to allow the skin pigment to block the UVA and recommend not using a sunscreen because of its ability to allow us to overdose on UVA, they also emphasize the importance of NOT letting yourself burn.

As fair-skinned as I am this is the policy that I had to follow growing up - I wore long sleeved shirts and long legged pants all summer long. I've had two really nasty (blistering) sunburns in my life - one when I was eight and one when I was twelve. The second put second degree burns over more than 50% of my body. Not a fun time.

I still follow this basic practice today. I use sunscreen if I'm going to be out in the sun for an extended period of time, but I also keep the amount of exposed skin to a minimum.

I haven't decided if I'm going to try to get anything resembling a tan this summer or not. I have noticed that my tolerance to the sun has significantly improved and I actually have a pale tan on my forearms. If I do try to tan, it will not be anything deep. Just a mild tan so that I can tolerate longer periods of exposure without sunscreen. I will still follow the "minimal skin" rule whenever I'm out in the sun for any length of time.

[joanie]

As I've said before, I'm vigilant about being careful in the sun. I have also done a bit of research on sunscreens. As I understand it, the best sunscreens have either a physical blocker (these would be zinc oxide and titanium dioxide) or a chemical broad-spectrum blocker. The only reliable one of these is avobenzone, known commercially as Parsol 1789. I firmly believe that there is no such thing as a safe tan. A tan is a sign of skin damage. My friend who got melanoma tans very easily. Unfortunately, she didn't protect her skin and the tans she got so effortlessly resulted in cancer that almost killed her. If someone like her (with olive toned skin and brown eyes) can have this happen, then someone like me (with pasty white skin and light blue eyes) needs to be very careful. I consider myself successful when, at the end of an active summer, I have absolutely no tan lines whatsoever. I spent a large part of the summer outdoors with my kids last year, and none of us burned or tanned.

As I said before, I don't own PPLP (the bookstore was out when I went there) and I'd have to read what the Eades said, but nothing they could say would change my mind about tanning. I guess everyone has to do their own research (and that should include looking at sources other than the Eades) and decide what they feel comfortable doing. I'm very happy with my choice.

[Cheryl R]

weird timing for me to see this post.
I felt like I was craving sun today...so I went out, put a blanket on a reclining chair...and there I sat with my eyes closed for about 20 minutes. It felt so good. When my skin started feeling hot, I came in. I don't even know what made me want to do it, but since I (for the first time in my life) have a very private patio in my back yard, I put on shorts and a tank top, other than that, the only thing I covered was the healing scar on my right foot. It felt so good, and I think I'm going out for round 2 in about 15 minutes.
I haven't read any pp books yet...but I'm thinking about it, that's why I came to this forum, and the title of this thread cought my eye first.

[tlawson]

I have to say that I will not be going out to suntan! I have very, very pale skin and burn in around 5 minutes - even with sunscreen. I have already had moles removed from my foolish teen years when I did try to tan. I also now have a spot on my lip that my dermatologist said is from previous sun damage that has just now surfaced! Scary!!

I do believe that "Mother Nature" may have taken care of sun damage with melanin, but there are considerably more damaging rays around now than in the "caveman" days, with all the polution, etc. We are exposed to far, far more UVA and UVB rays now.

Theresa

[Sephy]

I do. When applicable of course..because the sun isn't out all that much, especially lately. But I have to, for my psoriasis, nothing like the sun to be a natural healer.

[anniemc]

"had Mother Nature wanted us to use sunscreen, she would have put the sun further away" say the eades. by the same reasoning, you could argue, "had Mother Nature wanted us to eat a low-carb diet, she would not have created high-carb foods". just because something is natural rather than man-made does not mean it is benign. excess sun can be harmful, as can excesses of many other of Mother Nature's creations.

my father died of skin cancer. i will always use sunscreen and never sunbathe again.

[k-fire]

Originally posted by anniemc
"had Mother Nature wanted us to use sunscreen, she would have put the sun further away" say the eades.

I was just reading about PP for the first time and was thinking of picking up their book, but, this quote just floors me! Mother Nature didn't need to put it further away - she added a protective ozone layer. It's the erosion of this layer that is attributed to the phenomenal increases we are seeing in skin cancer rates.

Hope the rest of the book uses a more 'sensible' approach!
Guess I'll give it a read anyway.

-k-fire (the 45+ spf red-headed beach girl)

[Bonnie]

First of all...think this issue is based on many factors... skin type..length of time spent in the sun etc. etc. etc.... to try fit everyone in the same mold in regards to suntanning is like makin a corelation that we should all look and weigh the same :) I personally have tanned all my life... have the type of skin that tans very easily...never burns and in fact have a tan year round...( I guess you could say I am one of these folks)

Quote by Bill, re: PP:

"Furthermore, while they argue for building up a tan in order to allow the skin pigment to block the UVA and recommend not using a sunscreen because of its ability to allow us to overdose on UVA, they also emphasize the importance of NOT letting yourself burn. "

I feel very invigorated after doing 80 laps in the pool during a warm day...a short jaunt under the sun's ray's for me is rejeuvenating :) ...I do not use suncreen...

Bonnie

[Voyajer]

Oxygen is good for us, but it also kills and ages us (oxidation). Insulin we couldn't live without, but it also has its bad effects. The sun is no different.

Think about most overweight people you know or see. They have in general very white skin. That is because a lot of us when we are overweight tend to hide indoors, not so much from the sun, but from bathing suits, shorts, and onlookers.

Eades is not the only Nutritionist to recommend a little sun. Dr. Perrone in his book recommends 10-20 minutes three times per week. He says this keeps you from retaining water among other things.

The point is that you can get sun by just shopping outside. I visited a museum last weekend and got plenty of sun exposure.

The idea of no suntan lotion is only for those who foolishly spend too much time in the sun. The point is your skin will start burning and you will feel it and you will go inside. It is to keep you from sun over-exposure. But for those who know they can't avoid staying more than 15 minutes in the sun, definitely wear suncreen. If you have to be outside for long periods of time, this is a completely different thing. You NEED sunscreen.

[gary]

There is no such thing as safe tanning. I just read an article about the latest finds with tanning salons - they are dangerous. I go to a world reknowned Dermatologist, Dr. Balin who performs Moh surgery.
He said people get all the sun they need by the age of 18 to have cancer problems later in life. 95% of all wrinkles come from sun damage. Tanning Salons and the real sun will do nothing but age your skin prematurely and cause cancer. There is an increasing epidemic of skin cancer in the US from the healthy tan generation generated a long time ago in the 50's and 60's with surfer movies. Now you have the Britany Spears look. I am suffering from Basil and squamous cell cancers (being cut out) and bad moles (being cut out) I am lucky not to have melanoma. If you have a bad mole that has metastisized - you are dead. The doctor will consul you and tell you you may live only 3 years. Melanoma does not respond to chemotherapy or radiation. No matter what your skin type - there is no reason to get sun exposure. You can't prevent all sun from hitting you so you will get enough for whatever healthy effects there are. I can only plead with you all out there - protect yourselves from the sun, protect yout children. You all know more than I do about dieting. I have been have painfull surgeries for the last 3 years. being 47 I am paying for all the summers at Cape May, NJ - and I hardly ever laid out intentionally but never protected myself. I wish so bad I could go back and protect myself. You can lose weight but it is very expensive and painful to get rid of the cancer. And whatever looks you were trying to preserve with age - either have your face cut up for cancer surgery or wither and wrinkle. :mad: :( :thdown: :eek:

[gary]

I did not have time to post resources but if you search on the internet you may find articles and books by Dr. Arthur Balin. He is one of 400 people trained to do Moh surgery developed by Dr. Fred Mohs who just passed away. Also there are some people who tan easy and never had a problems but that is just the averages playing out. Some people have the right genes and DNA repair mechanisms. I've seen plenty of people who tan easy all wrinkled up, but that is a minor problem compared with having your face resurfaced.

[gary]

Can you guess this is a sensitive topic to me. When my doctor said you get all the sun by the time you are 18 to have cancer later means this - DNA damage is done in the skin and it incubates for many years. So you have ticking time bombs in your skin that go off later in life. You don't have to get any more sun from 18 on. Whatever my doctor cuts out now is fine. But new spots will keep coming out the rest of my life! Only for your face they have a new treatment that can remove the sun-damaged skin. They burn the entire skin off your face with a CO2 laser for $7,000

Listen to Joanie!

Search the internet - Yahoo science headlines just had an article on tanning salons in last couple months.

[Voyajer]

Okay, Dr. Eades was not talking about the type of sunbathing that most of us think of when we hear a Beach Boys song.

He says that most people who never get a drop of sunlight, like those who drive to work early in the morning and then stay inside the office until nightfall should spend TWO MINUTES in the sun during the day. I hardly call that excessive sun exposure. Dr. Eades also repeats again and again, "NEVER EVER BURN". Again this is reasonable, protective advice and not likely to have occurred to the numerous dark-tanned, fake-baked sun-worshippers around the world.

You get a safe form of Vitamin D precursor from the sun. That way you never overdose on vitamin D. Exposing one arm to the sun (without sunscreen) for two minutes will give you your Vitamin D for the day. Taking Vitamin D supplements can make you take too much. Dairy products are the only other way to get Vitamin D and for a lot of us we cut them out to LC.

Dr. Eades also says that tanning beds are bad for you. He says that originally sunscreens only blocked out UVB light which is the kind that burns the skin. So people used UVA light which they thought was the safe kind in tanning beds. Now it turns out that UVA light is the kind that causes the melanoma type cancer NOT the UVB kind. The UVB kind that sunblock blocks is the kind that produces Vitamin D. So you need at least two minutes of unprotected sun to get your Vitamin D. Also, the sunblocks that most people used for a couple decades included PABA, a carcinogen. Therefore, people were creating more cancer by using sunblock.

If you work outside or have to be outside for part of the day, you do NOT need to sunbathe. But if your skin never ever comes into contact with the sun, you should try for at least two minutes of sun exposure to your arms and legs about three times a week. This is a very safe level.

Again NEVER stay out until your skin burns and use a UVA, UVB, PABA-free sunblock when you simply must stay in the sun for a long time. Dr Eades says he does this when he is snow-skiing.

[joanie]

It is also important to note that many, if not most sunscreens do not effectively protect against UVA rays. UVB rays cause burning, so if we use a UVB protector, we probably won't burn, but we WILL get a dose of UVA, which causes cancer and a host of other bad stuff. And that person sitting at their desk by the window, or driving with their windows rolled up is getting a nice dose of UVA radiation if they are not wearing a broad-spectrum sunscreen. That is why dermatologists find more cancerous moles and lesions on left arms than right arms in this country. As I said before (ad nauseum!) if you don't apply a broad-spectrum sunscreen in the morning, you are exposing your body to UVA rays that you don't want. Don't even get me started on tanning beds! I know so many people who have gotten in trouble using those things!

When you buy a sunscreen, read the ingredients carefully. The only true broad-spectrum ingredients are zinc oxide and titanium dioxide (physical blocks that will leave a bit of a white sheen on your skin -- safer for kids) or avobenzone, known commercially as Parsol 1789 (chemical block). If the label does not include these ingredients, you can safely assume that only about 50% of the UVA rays will be blocked.

Since I'm on a roll, I'll continue. Any SPF under 15 is a joke, and most responsible dermatologists are now suggesting that your sunscreen have at least an spf of 30. Sunscreen only lasts about 2 hours, and after that, should be reapplied. A "dose" of sunscreen is about an ounce, or about a shot glass full. In this house, we go through about two bottles a week! After 5:30 or 6PM, I allow my children to be outside without sunscreen, but before that, it's sunscreen or stay inside. Applying sunscreen is so much a part of their lives that it's like brushing their teeth. They are both very healthy children with beautiful, non-freckled clear skin.

Gary, I moved here from Southern NJ about 4 years ago, and I saw first-hand what sun worshipping did to my friends. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy!

[gary]

I am glad to see some words of caution in Voyager's last post. Most people will get that 2 minutes of sun through normal activity even with sunscreens. Sunscreens only delay the burn according to the SPF number. I use Coppertone Sport 48. After many years of hating the feel of sunscreens or the smells I found this one. It goes on great, dries super quick - non-oily. It is PABA free and Hypoallergenic for sensitive skin. My wife uses it and she has sensitive skin - no problems. Does have a fragrence added which is one of my big beefs. I don't want to smell like I am at the beach during work. This product smells but not too strong. Best prices I found at Wall Mart. Also I wear a Indiana Jones explorer hat all the time outside. have three of them - keep one in the car. take one on business trips. Check out POP Hats online. They have several styles of wide brimed Sun Hats. Be very wary of diet doctors giving advice about sun exposure. Unfortunately the damage is done early and the problems come later. My doctor can take special picture and show the sun damaged skin - very scary. You will not even know the effects until later. I can't scare you all enough! How about go to your local good Dermatologist. Sit in the waiting room and talk to all the people in there about their problems. It is a wake up call! :daze:

[gary]

You said it! I have been in outside sales for over 20 years. Guess where my problems started ? The left side of my face and ear. I told my doctor that driving must be the cause. The other problem is my right arm which is always my lead arm say in painting my house. But other areas are just delayed. Now I have precancer and cancer on the right side of my face. I have had about 9 basil cancers removed with Moh surgery. Another 4-5 precancers with cryogenic. Now have another 4 cancer spots to be removed and just had 3 precancer spots treated with Carbolic Acid. In addition I have had over 20 moles removed and have another 30-40 to be removed. (Most have been Dysplastic Nevi Atypical) See thats the real secret of how I am losing weight - just cut skin off.

:D

[Voyajer]

Oh, Dr. Eades says if you are in the sun long enough to feel it, then immediately put clothes on and cover-up. Dr. Eades highly recommends hats and sun umbrellas.

If you have to be in the sun during the day, such as driving for work or working outside or skiing or the beach: cover-up!

Thanks Joanie for reinforcing the point about UVA protection. Thanks Gary for sharing so some of us can smarten up when it comes to sun over-exposure.

[Voyajer]

New York Times August 6, 2002

Sunlight, a Cancer Protector in the Guise of a Villain?
By INGFEI CHEN


n contrast to the often repeated warnings about tanning and skin cancer, some scientists have been exploring an almost heretical notion: sunlight may actually protect against other cancers.

The idea is not new; two epidemiologists proposed it 22 years ago. Their theory was that vitamin D, which the skin produces when exposed to sunshine, somehow prevents the growth of malignant cells.

People who live in less sunny, high-latitude regions do not make as much of the vitamin, and so they could be more vulnerable to tumors, the theory maintains.

At first, most scientists scoffed at the whole notion. Vitamin D, after all, was known to play a major role only in keeping bones strong. But two decades of research later, the possibility that the substance may wield some kind of anticancer power no longer seems so far-fetched.

While the hypothesis linking a lack of sun and vitamin D to cancer remains controversial, some researchers are looking into vitamin D as a possible remedy. Clinical trials in people are now under way, testing whether the vitamin or similar compounds can treat tumors or bolster chemotherapy.

Sunlight supplies the body with about 90 percent of its vitamin D. Ultraviolet rays prompt the skin to produce a biologically inert form of the substance, which is then converted into an active form, as a hormone called calcitriol.

In the early 1920's, scientists discovered that a deficiency of vitamin D from inadequate sunlight caused rickets, a childhood bone disease. For decades, experts believed that the vitamin mainly protected bones.

But in 1980, Dr. Cedric Garland and Dr. Frank Garland, epidemiologists and brothers, hypothesized that some cancers were brought on by a lack of sun and vitamin D.

They had noticed that National Cancer Institute maps revealed a striking geographic distribution of colon cancer deaths: the highest death rates were clustered in Northern states and were about three times as great as rates in the South.

Other scientists later suggested that low vitamin D levels also led to prostate cancer, noting that it was twice as common in blacks as in whites. Blacks are less prone to skin cancer because dark skin shields out sun rays, said Dr. Gary Schwartz, an epidemiologist at Wake Forest University. But the dark skin, he said, may explain the higher rates of prostate tumors.

"If you believe that sunlight causes one cancer, you can use the same evidence to argue that sunlight prevents another," Dr. Schwartz said. Men in Maine are 50 percent more likely to die of prostate cancer than are men in Florida, he added.

Studies by the Garlands, Dr. Schwartz and others have since shown that people in relatively sun-deprived regions, or with low vitamin D levels, appear at greater risk for a variety of cancers.

In April, researchers at the cancer institute reported that the chances of dying from breast, colon, ovarian and prostate cancer were reduced by about 10 to 27 percent for people in the sunniest areas, compared with those to the north, based on death certificates in 24 states.

"The theory is increasingly being substantiated," said Dr. Cedric Garland, a medical professor at the University of California at San Diego. Dr. Garland believes that simply meeting the recommended dietary allowance for vitamin D, 400 international units a day for people over 50, may help ward off cancer. But 2,000 units a day can be toxic, he added.

Critics said the epidemiology reports did not prove that a deficiency of sunlight and vitamin D caused tumors.

"The evidence is provocative, but it's not ironclad," said Dr. Donald Trump, chairman of medicine at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo. The observational studies do not rule out other factors like genetics and diet.

"I think there's something to it," said Dr. John Milner, a nutrition researcher at the National Cancer Institute. But the data are not persuasive enough, he said.

Still, there is a body of laboratory evidence that vitamin D may have tumor-thwarting potential. Over the past 20 years research has found that calcitriol plays an important role in controlling cell growth and maturation — and that colon, prostate and breast cells even carry the protein receptor that binds to calcitriol.

Dr. Schwartz and his colleagues showed that prostate cells even make this hormone themselves. "It's enough to inhibit their own growth," he noted. Whereas androgens, or male hormones, are the gas pedal driving the prostate's growth, "the vitamin D is the brake."

In the petri dish, large doses of vitamin D or the hormone calcitriol can inhibit the proliferation of cancerous cells.

Some early experiments have also found that the vitamin D compounds convert tumor cells into normal cells, keep them from spreading, and even kill them in lab dishes. Studies suggest that the chemicals stymie tumors in rodents as well.

The research touched off hopes that calcitriol might prove a potent cancer therapy. But a major obstacle has been safety.

To achieve the high concentrations of vitamin D that produce anticancer benefits in the laboratory, researchers thought extraordinarily high daily doses would be needed, Dr. Trump said. Such amounts are toxic, driving up blood calcium levels, causing vomiting, weight loss, calcium deposits and even osteoporosis.

But Dr. Trump and his former associates at the University of Pittsburgh said they had solved the problem. In trials, they were able to give large amounts to cancer patients just three days a week, or even once a week.

Dr. Tomasz Beer, an oncologist at Oregon Health and Science University, has also been testing intermittent doses of calcitriol, alone or with other treatments, against prostate cancer. At a conference in May, he and colleagues presented the first clinical evidence that vitamin D might improve the effectiveness of chemotherapy.

In a continuing trial, 37 men with advanced prostate cancer received weekly doses of calcitriol and docetaxel, a chemotherapy drug, for six of every eight weeks. P.S.A., or prostate-specific antigen, levels were cut in half or greater in 81 percent of the patients. Among the group, the disease was held in check for a median period of about a year. In past studies of stand-alone docetaxel therapy, Dr. Beer said, 42 percent showed this kind of P.S.A. reduction, and tumors were controlled for a median time of about five months.

The benefits exceeded his expectations, he said, but they should be viewed with caution because the trial lacked a direct comparison group receiving just docetaxel. The next step is a major national clinical trial that is beginning to enroll patients. It will compare calcitriol plus docetaxel to the chemotherapy drug alone in 240 patients. Information on the trial can be found online at www.novacea.com/products/ascent.

"If that trial comes out negative, these early promising results will go into the dustbin of history," Dr. Beer said. But if the trial finds positive outcomes, "we'll have an exciting new, well-tolerated treatment for prostate cancer."

Meanwhile, labs worldwide have also been working to invent safer versions of calcitriol that eliminate its toxic effects. Scientists are now studying some of these vitamin D "look-alikes" in cancer patients.

Dr. Schwartz is conducting a trial of a drug called Zemplar in men with advanced prostate cancer. In Europe, a Copenhagen company called LEO Pharma is testing a compound, Seocalcitol, against a placebo in 1,100 liver cancer patients.

While vitamin D-based therapies look promising, Dr. Schwartz said, "The acid test is, Where is it going to be in 10 years?" In the next three to four years, researchers expect to start seeing some answers.

[Alexoc949]

Originally posted by k-fire


I was just reading about PP for the first time and was thinking of picking up their book, but, this quote just floors me! Mother Nature didn't need to put it further away - she added a protective ozone layer.

-k-fire (the 45+ spf red-headed beach girl)

I don't know, but I don't think that statement was made in all seriousness. But there goes my common sense running wild again. Sorry.

[jaykay]

From another red head - I reckon I get my 2 minutes or so walking to and fro the car, collecting in the washing, walking to the dogs kennel etc. for which I don't put on sunscreen. Anything else and its 30+ and full UVA protection, not out at midday, hats and long sleeves etc. The sun is good for us and bad for us, and it needs treating with caution - even more so by folks with skin like mine.
It was one of the sections of PPLP that had me wondering how good the Eades really are and if they consider the effect their words might have. OK, so they say the cautionary bits, they stress 2 minutes and so on, but they are still telling people to sunbathe and that's the message you come away with, when all the caveats have faded.
Not very sensible in my view, given that we all seem to like to look tanned anyway (mine comes from a bottle). Watching around here, folk still need telling to be careful with the sun, not to sunbathe.
Just my two penn'orth!
Jay :wave:

[Voyajer]

In defense of the Eades', I have to point this out even though I hate to admit it. There was a time in my life when I was ... well ... obese -- not just overweight, but obese. This also made me very depressed. Or else I was very depressed so I became obese. (chicken or egg?). Anyway, there were weeks at a time when I wouldn't leave the house or see a speck of sun. Literally! I didn't want to see anyone. I didn't want anyone to see me. My skin was so white, worse than pasty white, it was almost blue-white. I looked anything but healthy. And guess what? If you don't look healthy, you probably aren't healthy. I think I'm not the only one who has gone through this seclusion phase.

The Eades' wrote their book for many people in that same position. They wanted to point out that despite the pejorative common statement that the sun is bad, the sun is also good for you.

Truth be told, there are not many obese people out there getting tans. Just maybe, they aren't getting any sun at all. If you are in good enough physical shape to feel good in a bathing suit, I doubt if the Eades' were directing their message to you.

In spite of their recommendation to sunbathe, they emphasized that the length of time spent in the sun should not be measured in hours, but in minutes. As soon as your skin feels warm, they say to put on a hat, a shirt, and open an umbrella. And if you must spend all day in the sun, then use sunscreen.

As a side point, I want to drive home the point that even if the Eades' are unequivocally wrong about this one point, it does not invalidate the rest of their book which is one of the best books I've ever read on diet and nutrition (and I'm including college textbooks that I've read).

[Alexoc949]

This is from May 2002 issue of Max Sports and Fitness Magazine www.maxsportsmags.com

The Skinny on Tanning
While many medical practitioners claim that sun-tanning is injurious to the skin, this is actually misleading. "Injury" is defined as anything that causes a change in health or condition. But by definition, working out with weights will cause this to occur every time the muscles break down and repair. Never do we consider that "post-workout" soreness an injury, so what's the truth? Moderate suntanning can be beneficial to the body and help prevent certain cancers such as colon and breast cancers. Staying out of the sun can cause Vitamin D deficiency, leading to osteoporosis or breast cancer. In the end, it's all about moderation.

[ccmarketer]

I live in deep South Texas so as you can imagine we've got a lot of sun issues. I also love being outside and for me 90 degrees is a nice balmy temp. But I'm really fair skinned and I've had several moles removed (everything came out okay), but I do agree with Eades' on sunscreen issue.

I'll continue to forgo the sunscreen for short hops in the sun, but when I'm out for long periods of time (days at the beach etc) I only apply sunscreen (highest most sweatproof, waterproof I can get) once. If I start to get warm about 4 or 5 hours after I put clothes on.

The reason why is that after sun exposure your pores open up and if you add more sunscreen whatever agents are in there will actually cause an acid type burn on my skin. So then I'm burning myself with chemicals which seems really stupid.

Love the sun and the sunscreen just know how they work for or against eachother!

cc

[arkie6]

I happen to fall on the sunlight=good, sunscreens=bad side of the fence. I believe diet plays a larger role in cancer formation than sunlight, in particular the consumption of highly polyunsaturated vegetable oils which are easly oxidized and subject to free radical formation. Throw in a diet high in carbohydrate that keeps glucose levels elevated and you have the perfect environment to grow form and grow cancer cells. Anyway, here are some interesting articles dealing with sunlight, diet, and cancer:

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/sunlight.html

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/full_spectrum_sunlight.html

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/fats_and_cancer.html

[arkie6]

Originally posted by anniemc
"had Mother Nature wanted us to use sunscreen, she would have put the sun further away" say the eades.

Are you sure the Eades said that? I sure don't recall reading that in either of their books. I think that was just something that razzle posted earlier.

"by the same reasoning, you could argue, "had Mother Nature wanted us to eat a low-carb diet, she would not have created high-carb foods".

Mother Nature didn't create that many high-carb foods, man did. Mother Nature may have created grains, but it is man that stripped the grain of the bran and fiber and greatly increased its available carbohydrate content through various processing and cooking methods. The same goes for just about any high-carb food.

[lotwm]

Well I sunbath and just got home from an 11 day cruise... layed out on the deck when I could and with nothing for lotion on... and I don't think I am wrinkled and will be 50 in Jan.. wish I could somehow put a picture ... Cause I am proud over my eating 50 carbs a day 98 grams high protien, fresh fruits and veg.. and cheese and good omega 3 fats... and I exercise and work out in the gym... do some pilatas and some water arobics... I have dropped 20 lbs and my inches have decreased... and I can wear a size 8 and weigh 140.... so the working out pays.. I am going for 130 but the weight trainer said on the cruise to not go below this with my age as I don't look old and if I loose to much will LOL... But working on my middle arnt we all over 30... :o but we can beat mother nature and her fat around the middle... just be persistant... Exercise and low carb does work.. I did eat as much as 125 carbs but in fruits and sugar free deserts... didn't loose any on cruise but didn't gain any but they took my body fat to muscle test... where they hook you up... and it said when I went on the cruise first day I was at 19.8 body fat which he said was excellent for someone my age or anyone for that matter.. and with working out every other day and walking I went down to 18.8 body fat in 10 days... So work out and lay out and eat right... it works... and I have some great pictures from my cruise I would love to show to prove it... Happy eating and work ing out and laying out... :wave:

[Turtle2003]

I used to listen to the experts and eat lots of carbs. I snacked on popcorn and pretzels because they were low fat and therefore healthy.

I used to listen to the experts and wouldn't think of working out with weights because it would cause me to bulk up with gigantic muscles.

I used to listen to the experts and avoid the sun as though I were a bat, because of course it would give me cancer.


I have since learned that people who work out of doors and get the most sun get the least skin cancer. The further north you live, and therefore the less sunshine you get, the more likely you are to get breast cancer. Sunshine is good for you. It's not just the Eades saying this, I've read it in a number of places. The fact that they included this information in their books has greatly increased my respect for their opinions.

Now, I eat low carb, workout with weights, and every day I try to get out and walk in the sunshine for 15 or twenty minutes.

[Cheryl R]

Annie, can you tell me what pilatas is. I just heard this mentioned the other day by someone who referred me to their weight trainer. She mentioned it too in her bio when we talked on the phone. She will be coming to do a health assesment on me on Monday... and I will start my exercise program.