New study reveals the best sunscreens to buy

doctordrewlJul 5th, 2008 - 21:05:01

There is growing evidence for worldwide vitamin D deficiencies underlying many diseases like cancer and heart disease.... this is a more pronounced danger for dark-skinned people living far from the equator. With clothes on living in cities, many of us just don't get enough sun anymore! But be careful about advice...and worrying about skin cancer to the point of getting no UV exposure.

This article is misleading... as it says to avoid the powerful rays from 12-3 pm. Well some evidence suggests that these are the only rays that can break down cholesterol to form parental vitamin D3 in the skin... lower energy rays they suggest...can still burn you and may not even help you produce enough vitamin D. Couple this with the fact that many people do not mobilize dietary vitamin D across the stomach and intestine well, and there is a huge population at risk for vitamin D deficiency. My advice is to wear sunscreen 90+ percent of the time... but getting 10-30 minutes of pure rays... a few times a month is pretty important... the more pale skinned you are the more conservative you should be...

Report this comment

AnnJul 6th, 2008 - 18:11:54

Awww, c'mon...I had that 'turkey wobble' neck they talk about in this article and I stayed out of the sun religiously all my fifty some years, until just a few years ago! Who comes up with this anti-sun scare tactic stuff, anyway?

I admit that I ate a really bad diet most of my life, and I've since read refined carbohydrates (cakes, candies, sugars--my old favorites) age skin quick. After a neck tuck, a diet makeover and moderate sun exposure, years later I look and feel a whole lot better.

The diet change really helped. Studies show eating some fruits and veggies (carotenoids and lycopene?) gives you natural sun screen. When I garden my shoulders don't burn anymore.

I don't suggest that anyone lay in the sun to burn and blister, but the sun has been our friend for millions of years. The American diet has little if any Vitamin D to offer. In fact. to get enough vitamin D from milk (about 4000 IU) you'd have to drink 40 cups a day!! But most Americans can get as much as 10,000 IU through your skin by just lying in the sun for 15 or 20 minutes (if you have natural sunscreen, like a tan or dark skin, it takes longer).

If we dismiss the benefits of sunning (sans sun screen) in moderation we risk our health IMHO.

Report this comment

SkepticJul 6th, 2008 - 23:26:30

What Are they talking about? My derm. told me to use a sunscreen that contained Mexoryl because it blocks parks of the UV spectrum not covered by American sunblocks. Mexoryl is not approved by the FDA higher than a 15, so I order it from Canada. Well, EWG says Anthelios doesn't do a good job. On top of that, they say Neutrogena is unstable. Neutrogena is known for just that--it's photostability. Most of the sunblocks they recommend contain boring old zinc oxide. This whole recommendation is baffling. At first I though it was just bias by the EWG, but when I looked in to them, they seemed legit so I have no reason to think they're biased.

Report this comment

ZulJul 7th, 2008 - 02:04:05

I live in the tropics and am active in outdoor activities like kayaking and hiking. I've been using Sunplay Perfect Shield SPF 130 PA++ for years now.

This is a Japanese product of watery liquid formulation. It is also non-comedogenic (does not clog pores). Suitable for face and body. Water resistant and PABA free. It protects against harmful UVA and UVB rays.

I applied this religiously during my Annapurna circuit trek in Nepal. While most (if not all) of my friends had sunburn, I did not. I did get tanned though.

Apparently, SPF 130 does not work as well when I swam in the swimming pool. However, there is the Sunplay Water in UV SPF 25 PA++ available. Probably catered for swimming. Can't vouch for this, as I don't use it.

Based on my experience, the Sunplay Perfect Shield SPF 130 PA++ is a great product for outdoor activities. Am glad to have found it.

Additionally, the La Roche-Posay Anthelios Sunscreen is being recommended by my Centre to patients (especially for burns) for prevention of skin-discolouration. I did not use this as I've already found my preferred product.

Report this comment

D. ArmourMay 13th, 2009 - 17:19:07

While I have not tried many of the sunscreens mentioned, I do have to contest people's criticism of the source. Not only is it highly unlikely that the foundations who fund EWG have much stake in sun tan lotions, their analysis was likely based on chemical assays or at the least officially sanctioned descriptions. As far as the EWG's legitimacy as a whole, it's a little predictable that critics would attack 'extremely liberal' 'fear mongering' Green groups for tax purposes and lobbyist accusations.

Report this comment

EWG is a fraudMay 22nd, 2009 - 18:29:15

This whole list that the EWG created has large scientific gaps not to mention what they consider scientific gaps. If you look at the EWG you can see that all that data is complied reguardless of the concentration set by the toxicology. For exaple EWG states on their web site that Methylparaben has irritancy properties. If you look at the tox study you can see that methylparaben is a primary irritant at 30% of formula. The industry uses it at .2%. And I ask how is that a fair assesment of the provided data. 30% does not equal .2% and at .2 there is no irritancy.

Also the EWG has no industry experts in regards to this category on their staff. Take a look at what they consider experts look at the who works for the EWG. No toxocologists, one enviromental chemists who has no industry experience, but they do get press.

They hold the people hostage with half truths and truncated information. To get press. They pray on what people don't understand and their fears. They do more harm than good. Email them and ask for the EWG to explain their actions!

Report this comment