Sunscreen Not So Good for You? 616
j-beda writes "Don't like sunscreen? Maybe that tan is good for you. It looks like people are rethinking the common wisdom of avoiding sun exposure... "research suggests that vitamin D might help prevent 30 deaths for each one caused by skin cancer". Maybe if Kurt Vonnegut ever does address MIT grads, he will say something else..."
yeah, really nice... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yeah, really nice... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:yeah, really nice... (Score:3, Insightful)
Although, I'd say most family age geeks get occasional sun. Shrug.
I wonder if low spf (4/8) would block the production of vitamin d?
Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Some sun -> vitamin D production = good.
Ridiculous amounts of sun -> high risk for cancer = bad.
I didn't read the article, but most things are OK on modetate doses. Cholesterol, for example, is necessary for the body to function.
Too much of any one thing is seldom a good idea.
Re:Common sense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Common sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Funny)
All normal people can withstand 15 minutes. If you burn after five you're hypersensitive to the sun, and probably aware that you are.
I'm lactose intolerant, and I know that even though milk is good for you it's not good for me. (Fortunately there's lactose-free milk nowadays.)
Now, the proper way to comment on something like this:
I burn after 5 minutes in the sun, YOU INSENSITIVE CLOD!
Man is like no other animal (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I don't do anything unnatural to my food. No other animal cooks their food, so I don't cook anything I eat, or eat anything that I didn't pull from the ground or kill with my bare hands.
Also, I eat it without utensils, since no other animal does that, and I don't prepare anything I eat - I just pull whatever I want from the carcass right there. My backyard is starting to stink a lot, since I don't bury anything I kill since animals don't.
It's healthier because animals do it that way.
so you're the scientific authority? (Score:5, Informative)
1) Milk ISN'T good for you, period, [sic]
Actually, it all depends on who you mean by "you," and what your underlying assumptions are about resources, technology, etc. If you are lactose intolerant, then by all means stay away from milk. That doesn't mean you can't have cheese and yogurt, though. It is a well-accepted theory that the lactose tolerance mutation of northern European populations is one of the factors that enabled their success (and by success, I mean they didn't all die out). It is also true that Mongolian tribesmen may not have the resources to eat fresh kale to get their calcium, or to buy soy "milk" from their local organic grocery store. However, goats, sheep, and cows can digest grasses and produce milk with--guess what--calcium! But in fact, it's the casein in milk that supplies the protein, and many vegetarian cultures have relied on dairy products for a large part of their protein consumption.
2) humans weren't supposed to drink another animals milk [sic]
You should be careful when using words like "supposed" because you imply you have some sort of insight into the Way the Universe Should Be. Bullshit. You can't say humans weren't supposed to drink milk anymore than you can say humans weren't meant to jump rope. No other animal does that, either. No other animal writes poetry, or commits suicide, or contemplates philosophy. Just because humans differ from other animals does NOT imply any should or ought, so shut your mouth unless you have some Divine Insight. I would like to point out that other animals may not drink milk after infancy, but they do eat organ meat, entrails, eyeballs, and all sorts of other nutrient-rich animal parts that we tend to discard, these days--including partially digested food in the animal's intestinal tract. Maybe you'd prefer eating tripe to drinking milk?
3) This is ignoring the pitfalls falls of todays production techniques whereby they pump growth hormones into the cows so they produce milk far longer than they are normally capable of. [sic]
This is your single valid point, and it is only valid for milk from a regular dairy. Those same organic grocery stores that sell soy milk also sell milk from cows without all those hormones and (though you didn't mention it) antibiotics. But you're tangling the issues, here. That is an argument for better treatment of dairy cattle, not an argument against milk itself. I have a problem eating hot dogs, these days, but that doesn't make all meat repulsive to me.
Maybe someday it will be proven that milk is the poison you make it out to be. But now, the evidence is far from conclusive, and you obviously don't know your milk history. As it stands, milk was probably responsible for my ancestors' survival, and your burden of proof is pretty high. Oh, and a better grasp of English grammar and spelling might help you be more persuasive, in the future. It would be comical that you have a sentence "Milk ISN'T good for you period," ending in a comma, except that I'm pretty sure you didn't intend that.
Re:so you're the scientific authority? (Score:3, Informative)
3) This is ignoring the pitfalls falls of todays production techniques whereby they pump growth hormones into the cows so they produce milk far longer than they are normally capable of. [sic]
This is your single valid point, and it is only valid for milk from a regular dairy.
I wouldn't use the term 'valid'. As the son of a farmer, I know our farm never used rBST (growth hormone) and all the other farms that sold to our coop pledged not to use it either. *If* they found you were using rBST, the very
Re:so you're the scientific authority? (Score:3, Interesting)
In the event of you ever coming to Spain, you could taste the madejas (lamb intestines with oil, garlic and parsley), callos (tripes), morcillas (black pudding made of pork blood)
Adult humans NEED dairy products. (Score:5, Funny)
Every vegan I've ever met has been some degree of crazy. The less dairy they were willing to eat the crazier they were. Drink milk, stay sane.
Re:so you're the scientific authority? (Score:3, Insightful)
Completely off topic, but as a side note, lemmings do commit suicide, as do some ants and bees when tough times ensue. Not that I disagree with your counter post, but suicide isn't the best example of uniquely human behavior.
Re:so you're the scientific authority? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:so you're the scientific authority? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:so you're the scientific authority? (Score:3, Informative)
That's probably why they say ``not treated with
http://www.notmilk.com/ [notmilk.com]
Re:so you're the scientific authority? (Score:4, Informative)
Since BST is a peptide, it gets digested with all the other proteins and peptides in milk, and has bugger all effect. After all, if peptides with hormone activity could be so easily absorbed from oral ingestion, it would make diabetics lives a lot easier - but no, insulin gets digested, so they have to bypass the gut with injections.
Re:Common sense (Score:4, Informative)
Whoever modded this as troll was a bit lacking in basic biology.
Pretty much every mammal is lactose intolerant, and is only able to stomach the stuff during infancy. They lose lactose tolerance shortly after infancy. Some infants are lactose intolerant, and this used to be a big problem with finding some other source of food for baby.
The fact that most Europeans have lactose tolerance is a selected trait. Most other humans are not tolerant to lactose. And even those of us who are tolerant to lactose are only so up to a point. Your body can only produce so much lactase to break down lactose before it gets overwhelmed and has to let it all through, as many people who have drunk an entire gallon of milk in about 10 to 20 minutes without taking a lactase enzyme suppliment can tell you.
Re:Common sense (Score:3, Informative)
The Europeans were the first to have global colonies.
The Europeans tamed the mighty continent of Africa in terms of agriculture (and had to give it back to the warlords only to be put back in poverty)
The Europeans came to and populated most of America and that culture is what got us to the moon.
Nah, you should still say the Chinese.
1. While there is evidence pointing to a Chinese map that included North American pre-1500s, it is controversial evidence so
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
My daughter is highly alergic to corn protiens, meaning that most processed food is out since it contains corn syrup which will make her quite sick. Products listing "sugar" will usually give her a nasty rash at least, because they contain traces of corn from processing. "organic evaporated cane juice" will not contain trace corn protiens from processing. I'm sorry you have a problem with packaging actually telling you what it contains and how it was produced, but some of us like to know. It doesn't have "sugar" in the ingredients, so you're rolling on the floor laughing? That's fine, but I'm a liitle more interested in the fact that since it doesn't have "sugar" on the ingredients, my daughter isn't rolling on the floor vomiting.
Expensive health food companies have a clue, and try to tell you as much as possible about what you're eating as they can. Good thing, since the FDA (who could require such disclosures) is busy enforcing the dairy industies wish to assure you that "Milk" is all you need to know. Wouldn't want someone to tell you about how they produced your food without requiring them to assure you that the FDA doesn't know if it makes a difference.
Looking for "sugar" in the ingredients is a poor way to identify junk food in any case. Read all the ingredients. If there are more than four, it's probably junk. If there are any you can't identify, probably junk, and do you really want to eat that? Are you sure that's not obscure scientific terminology for pig shit?
The average american food consumer is an apathetic idiot, but according to you it's those of us who actually want to know what we're eating that are "morons". Ignorant twit.
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly. That's a quote on what "many scientists believe", not an outcome of the study(-ies). Other quotes from the article include that skin cancer has only been linked to chronic long-term suntanning, as in many hours per day over decades, and that "The skin can handle it, just like the liver can handle alcohol," suggesting that occasional multi-hour exposure to the sun (say a few times per month) might not be problematic at all. That being said, I don't think anybody would suggest enough exposure for sunburns is good.
Re:Common sense (Score:4, Insightful)
A little every day is best, a lot once in a while isn't good, but we can probably handle it, a lot once in a while but over an extended period of time will lead to problems.
I would get spending 5 hours in the sun every saturday will definitely cause skin problems later in life. While 45 minutes a day will cause a lot less.
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
But you certainly don't need sunscreen to cope with the 30 minutes you spend each day walking from your car to the office and back to the car again, and to and from lunch down the street and taking the garbage out when you get home at the end of the day.
And yeah, I'll repeat that - tans are gross. Darker skin is attractive if it's natural. More pale tones are attractive, if they're natural. But some white chick trying to tan herself into J-Lo is just gross and looks... uncomfortable.
Re:Common sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Ick ick ick.
Re:Common sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Do you imply that there's a GOOD picture of her?
Re:Common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
It feels good and it's needed. The sun is actually one of the best ways to find out where you're tense and letting it go.
People with lots of toxins in their system is probably what you're talking about. Nothing grosser than a tanned coffee drinking smoker.
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Common sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Common sense (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Common sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Land-based invertebrates, on the other hand, don't need the cholesterol to keep things flowing. So bugs are low in cholesterol. If that is good news for your diet, well, let's just say I don't have any recipes for you.
Re:Common sense (Score:4, Informative)
This is why it's foolish to watch food cholesterol content more closely than fat, which is the source of the rest of the cholesterol.
Ah (Score:5, Funny)
Kurt Vonnegut (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Kurt Vonnegut (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Kurt Vonnegut (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Kurt Vonnegut (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Kurt Vonnegut (Score:5, Informative)
In late May 1997, Chicago Tribune metro columnist (and "Brenda Starr" writer) Mary Schmich was walking to work along Lake Shore Drive, wondering what she was going to write about that day. It occurred to her that it was near graduation time and she thought she would write a column that read like a commencement address. As she wondered what advice she might offer, she saw a woman sunbathing on the shore of Lake Michigan.
"I hope she's wearing sunscreen," thought Schmich, 45, "because I didn't at that age."
And that's how newspaper columns are born.
A couple of months later, the column became an Internet hoax when a prankster - never identified except as "Culprit Zero" - copied it, labeled it as "Kurt Vonnegut's commencement address at MIT,"
Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like you just need to use a modicum of common sense. Too much of anything is bad for you. The less "natural" and more refined a product is the less likely it is to be good for you. It is healthy to get outside and do some exercise every now and then.
All this research seems to contradict itself every few years anyway. I suspect a lot of scientists misuse/misunderstand their own data, either to match their own preconceptions, or to make a headline grabbing story like this one.
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:5, Insightful)
It would appear that "science" still has much to "tell us" about what we should be doing. I'm not sure that "science" cares whether "it" grabs headlines or otherwise. Science, as a way of exploring the universe, will continue to be used long after we've stopped shovelling burgers down our fat, greedy necks!
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:5, Interesting)
And even the old wisdom that a fatty diet is bad for you, gets challenged. It seems that your LDL/HDL Cholesterine ratio is not easily to change with a low fat diet at all (it seems to be more predetermined by your genetics), and the so called mediterran diet (with 40% of the food energy coming from fat) seems to cause the people to live longer than the usually recommended 30%-energy-from-fat diets.
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:3, Interesting)
There are two parts to the claim.
Part 1 is that a very high-fat, very high-sugar diet is bad for you. Eating McDonalds every day, basically, will do terrible things to your health. Period. This we know for a fact, and has been proven many, many times.
Part 2 is that the details of the diet. Should we have any alcohol or none? What percentage of fats to carbs should we have? People make claims about these all of the time, a
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:3, Insightful)
Many of the theories in this area (health/diet) can be shot down by remembering correlation is not causation. Some studies seem to take a sample of people and find some correlation between x and y and then le
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the main problem is the same as with Slashdot submitters and editors: sensationalism.
Most researchers are careful about what claims they make. But 'journalists' come along and present their findings in a sensationalist and inaccurate manner in order to make the story appear more interesting.
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's in the news, then it becomes the thing to do to ensure good health. Atkins, South Beach, Omega-3, Macrobiotic, Whole foods, Eggs good, eggs bad, alcohol good, alcohol bad, fat, non-fat, some fat, low-fat, trans-fat, satur
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:3, Informative)
That's good advice, and not too far off from the generally accepted 5 "pillars" of healthy living: Eat healthy (5 balanced, small meals a day), drink plenty of water, get enough sleep, do so
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:3, Informative)
Sean
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:5, Informative)
Science is about repeatable controlled experiments that yield consistent results. Repeatable means that you need to understand what exactly is going on in your experimental setup so that somebody else can reproduce it. Controlled means you account for all variables and only vary one at a time.
The problem is that doing all this correctly with people costs a LOT of money. So, instead we settle for sloppy studies that aren't well-controlled, then everybody starts talking about how useless science is when five people do the "same" study and come up with different conclusions. Some of the common flaws:
The only really effective way to these kinds of tests on people is with placebo-controlled clinical trials. Take 2000 people, split them into a few groups which are as similar as possible in makeup, and make them all spend 15 minutes a day blindfolded in a tanning booth, and make them all take pills. Some groups don't actually get any UV, but the experience is simulated so that they don't realize this. Some groups do get the UV. Some groups get various vitamin D supplements (with or without vitamin A), and some groups get placebos. At least one group gets neither UV or a supplement. Then follow the group over 50 years and see what the results are. Such an experiment should be both conclusive and repeatable.
Of course, most scientists want their results next year and have limited budgets, so they're not going to start a 50-year study that they won't even be alive to see the end of. Instead, they just look at random dead people and try to guess how much time they spent in the sun and what pills they have taken.
Even modern drug clinical trials have all kinds of issues (clearly seen in recent high-profile drug recalls) - these trials are very carefully controlled trials subject to all kinds of review and which cost hundreds of millions of dollars to perform.
So, the problem isn't a failure in science. The problem is that sometimes we aren't patient enough or resourceful enough to use science, and instead resort to something else and call it "science". Science isn't very practical when dealing with people - they live a long time, you can't just put them in cages, you have to pay them, and you can't do much in the way of manipulating them. Most real biological science uses other animals as a result (Need some subjects with cancer? Just breed them to be prone to it.)...
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:3, Insightful)
Not only. The problem is that given that any two people are different in a million ways that it's simple not possible.
You can *never
Re:Bullshit Health "Science" (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, you're right. I'm giving up my granola bar snack and going to eat dog shit instead. It's much more natural and less refined. If I can't find dog shit I might try a scoop of mud. OK, I'm carrying it too far. In reality I'll just eat more natural vegetables like rhubarb. It can't possibly be harmful [tamu.edu] to me because it's natural.
Depends where you live (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Depends where you live (Score:3, Interesting)
Ain't that the truth!
I've been to the UK and California (during the northern hemisphere mid-summer) and could not believe how hazy the sky was compared to Australia and NZ.
I went from mid-winter here (NZ) to mid-summer in the northern hemisphere and (my then lilly-white body) didn't even get pink, despite spending several full days in the "blazing" sun.
Down these parts (as the original poster said), you can get lobsteriz
Oohh yeah, depends on where you live (Score:4, Funny)
It's been said before (Score:5, Informative)
alternate vitamin D sources (Score:4, Informative)
Re:alternate vitamin D sources (Score:3, Informative)
Except that fish contain high levels of mercury which is also pretty serious. [bbc.co.uk]
Damien
Re:alternate vitamin D sources (Score:4, Informative)
Skin Cancer Kills (Score:5, Informative)
You *should* wear sunscreen... (Score:5, Informative)
Not in Australia (Score:5, Insightful)
From personal experience I can also add that the sun in the Northern Hemisphere never seemed as hot or burning as the sun in Australia. I could walk around in the summer sun in Boston and barely get even a touch of colour. In Australia I would be burnt in less than an hour - probably quicker. Sun screen is very important in Australia as is a hat and a shirt.
And finally, this article demonstrates the quest of reporters to beat up each marginal scientific discovery into something that it isn't just to get a good headline. With medical news this invariably creates all sorts of problems. The study found that Vitamin D can be beneficial for treating cancers but said absolutely nothing about the delivery mechanism. Getting your Vitamin D directly from the sun also means you get wonderful melanomas via UVA and UVB radiation. Sure, Vitamin D on its own is fine but the side effects of getting it directly from the sun are pretty severe.
Re:Not in Australia (Score:3, Informative)
Here in Finland we get very little sun in winter. Leder of National Institue of Health in Finland said last winter that it would be cheaper to pay one week middle winter vacation in Spain for all finns than pay for the treatment of disases that come from lack of vitamin D. That is big amount of money.
[1] from the article:
Re:Not in Australia (Score:5, Informative)
It's the latitude. Boston is around 42 N. Australia is mostly between 16 S (Cairns) and 34 S (Sydney). In the northern hemisphere, you should be comparing yourself to somewhere in Mexico or North Africa, not the northern USA.
Re:Not in Australia (Score:3, Informative)
The fact that the summer sun is brighter in Australia than at a similar northern latitude at the equivalent time of year has an effect (do you know how large? A quick google search didn't tell me), but I'd guess it's on the order of moving a few degrees closer to the equator, not as big as the difference in latitude between Sydney and Boston.
Re:Not in Australia (Score:3, Interesting)
Hmm? That web page makes no such claim.
The claim might be true, but things are complicated. See here [ec.gc.ca] for recent measurements and here [ec.gc.ca] for what it was like in January.
I suspect the actual cause of the high skin cancer rate is really a combination of all of the factors: population that is mostly northern European, not adap
Re:Not in Australia (Score:3, Interesting)
There are studies that have gone on for over 30+ years that show Psoriasis patients who use UVB treatment frequently and responsibly do not show ANY increased risk of skin cancer when compared to the average person in day light sun.
The study suggests that a frequent moderation of UVB (beneficial for those living with Psoriasis) is not only good for treating Psoriasis but al
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Good For Depression Too (Score:3, Interesting)
Two Lessons (Score:5, Funny)
1) Everything in moderation.
2) Research causes cancer in lab-rats.
Whats the current score? (Score:5, Funny)
Cell Phones: not dangerous
Salmon: ok
Sudan-1: bad
Power lines: definately bad
Condoms: dont have holes
Beef: depends on country
Sunscreen: bad?
Lead piping: ok now?
GM food: border-line
Torture: 'acceptable in some situations'
Violent video games: leads to violent people
Flares: out
Mullets: out
Ironic Mullets: in but slipping
Re:Whats the current score? (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, condoms have one hole. It's if they have more that you're in trouble.
Sun-Care Chemical Proves Toxic in Lab Tests (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.mercola.com/2000/oct/15/sunscreen.htm [mercola.com]
The main chemical used in sun lotions to filter out ultraviolet light may be TOXIC, particularly when exposed to sunshine.
Octyl methoxycinnamate (OMC), which is present in 90 per cent of sunscreen brands, was found to kill mouse cells even at low doses in a study by Norwegian scientists.
It is not certain that the effects on mice are repeated in human beings, although the findings reported in New Scientist magazine suggest that human cells could be damaged if a sunscreen containing OMC penetrates the outer layer of dead skin and comes into contact with living tissue.
Terje Christensen, a biophysicist from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority, near Oslo, said her research showed that sunscreens should be treated with caution, and used only when it was impractical to stay indoors or to shield the skin from the sun with clothes.
The chemical is used as a filter for the more harmful UVB light. In Dr Christensen's study, mouse tissue grown in culture was treated with a solution of OMC at five parts per million - a much lower concentration than in sunscreens. Half the cells treated with OMC died, compared with fewer than 10 per cent in a control experiment.
When researchers shone a lamp for two hours to simulate midday sunshine, more cells died. Dr Christensen suggested that the reaction between OMC and sunlight created an effect that was twice as toxic as the chemical alone.
The Cosmetic Toiletry and Perfumery Association, which represents sunscreen manufacturers in Britain, said that OMC "has been thoroughly tested for safety" and was approved by regulatory authorities in Europe and the US.
Dr. Mercola's Comment:
We ALL need sunshine to stay healthy. It is one of the essential ingredients for staying healthy. It is not the perniciously evil item that traditional medicine suggests that it is.
That does not mean that we should all go out and get sunburned. That should be avoided as it is likely to lead to an increase in skin cancer. However, prudent exposure to the sun, integrating the listening to your body concept, will not.
Adding sun screens is NOT a good way to limit your sun exposure. Staying out of the sun early on in the season and limiting your exposure until your system adjusts by increasing melanin pigmentation in your skin is.
Additionally, consuming many whole vegetables will increase antioxidant levels in the body which will also provide protection against any sun induced radiation damage.
So the bottom line is to avoid the sun screens. They are not necessary and will actually increase your risk of disease.
Related Articles:
Absorbing Titanium from Sunscreens
Sunscreens Don't Prevent Melanoma
Re: Lancet nails the real cause of cancer (Score:5, Informative)
"In many [western] countries, peoples' diet changed substantially in the second half of the twentieth century, generally with increases in consumption of meat, dairy products, vegetable oils, fruit juice, and alcoholic beverages, and decreases in consumption of starchy staple foods such as bread, potatoes, rice, and maize flour. Other aspects of lifestyle also changed, notably, large reductions in physical activity and large increases in the prevalence of obesity."[18]
"It was noted in the 1970s that people in many western countries had diets high in animal products, fat, and sugar, and high rates of cancers of the colorectum, breast, prostate, endometrium, and lung; by contrast, individuals in developing countries usually had diets that were based on one or two starchy staple foods, with low intakes of animal products, fat, and sugar, and low rates of these cancers."[18]
"These observations suggest that the diets [or lifestyle] of different populations might partly determine their rates of cancer, and the basis for this hypothesis was strengthened by results of studies showing that people who migrate from one country to another generally acquire the cancer rates of the new host country, suggesting that environmental [or lifestyle factors] rather than genetic factors are the key determinants of the international variation in cancer rates."[18]
See also:
Scientists estimate that most cancers are associated with factors related to how we live, called lifestyle factors. Evidence reviewed by the American Cancer Society suggests that about one-third of the 550,000 cancer deaths that occur in the United States each year is due to dietary factors (for example, excess calories, high fat, and low fibre). Another third is due to cigarette smoking. Other lifestyle factors which increase the risk for cancer include drinking heavily, lack of regular physical exercise, promiscuous sexual behavior,
They made me do it (Score:3, Funny)
The dose makes the poison (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The dose makes the poison (Score:4, Informative)
If you have healthy endocrine system, kidneys and heart, and are eating right, it's almost impossible to do it when you DRINK water (I say almost because there is always be that one extra determined person). The real problem with water intoxication happens in hospitals when we start using iv fluids. In this setting it's pretty easy to muck up someone's hydroelectrolytic balance within a few hours and push them into a coma, or worse.
The majority of you are probably not even drinking near enough water.
The body is quite good at determining how much water it needs. Thirst is the best indicator of how much you should drink. It's never wrong. Like the man says, "obey your thirst".
There is an argument that people who drink "pop" are chronically dehydrated because of all that sugar upsetting the "osmotic balance" of the body. What they forget is that the body metabolizes glucose FIRST.
The metabolism of glucose actually PRODUCES water as well (empirically: C6H1206 + 602 --> 6CO2 + 6H2O). Any excess glucose is quickly turned to glycogen (non soluble and intracellular) and fat (also does not affect the osmotic balance since it's not soluble). The synthesis of these storage molecules ALSO produces water (they are condensation reactions). So that's another urban legend out the window. Otherwise people would die just by eating.
The only thing drinking pop all the time will do is make you fat, which increases your risk of type II diabetes, and THEN you will end up with osmotic problems. This is because of the pathology causing your blood glucose (and other things) to skyrocket, but that's a whole other kettle of fish...
Lewis Black called it! (Score:3, Funny)
'Your cholesterol is out of control, what have you been doing?'
'I dont know, I've been eating right, running, doing everything right...'
'Yeah, but have you been using sunblock?'
'Well, yeah'
'Whats the matter with you!? You should know better'"
Avoiding sun exposure (Score:5, Interesting)
I've struggled with acne/pimples a little more then your average Joe Blow, after spending a lot of money on chemicals and useless washing routines I found the cheapest and easiest solution.
Sunlight, I spend a few (moderate amounts) of time at the beach - and within 1 month of just a few hours per week at the beach, my acne was almost gone.
Even in winter I now try to spend a few hours per month atleast in my salt water pool, it works wonders. I also drag the laptop outside every few days and just spend a few hours in the moderate sunlight so my skin gets some extra special attention.
Actually Vonnegut did speak at my school... (Score:3, Interesting)
Rumor on campus was that he was drunk.
Vitamin D "science" backed by tanning assoc. (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately the article does not disclose the researcher's close dealings with the tanning salon industry [naatso.org]. Is the science real? Yes. Does it encourage tanning and irresponsible sun exposure? Yes. Solution: it's better to simply drink vitamin D-fortified milk & OJ.
Let's learn something from Australia [sunsmart.com.au], where 1 in 7 people get skin cancer in their lifetimes.
/.ers would do well to look further into the hard science and get past the industry-backed FUD.
Rather than, or in addition to, SPF lotion, wear clothing [coolibar.com]. This brand is lightweight, well-vented and has titanium dioxide built right into the microfiber. My mom (who is sun sensitive from medication) uses them.
Sunscreen made me ill... (Score:3, Funny)
Why is this on Slashdot? (Score:3, Funny)
Lewis Black, "White Album", Track 3 (Score:3, Funny)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00
Track 3 -- The Ozone, Sunblock, The Flu and NYQUIL.
Enjoy!
IronChefMorimoto
Melanoma deaths in Australia (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that while normally very rare, melanoma is the 4th most frequently diagnosed type of cancer in Australia, and rising.
Even if people there stopped going outside right now the incidence would probably continue to rise for many years, because of the delayed exposure.
It is highly curable but not good for you.
Melanoma vs. Carcinoma (Score:3, Informative)
Melanoma is deadly. Carcinoma is not something you want, but is generally not life-threatening.
There's a very strong positive correlation between sunlight exposure and Carcinoma. Not so melanoma.
A recent large study showed an inverse correlation between sunlight exposure and melanoma. Previous studies showed weak positive, or grouped all skin cancers together.
I don't think that anybody argues that skin-peeling burns are bad for you, but many experts are moderating previous advocacy of total sun-avoidance.
The most important line in the article: (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, challenge the currently accepted hypothesis, and be prepared for extreme backlash from those who have spent their careers supporting it, no matter how well thought out or researched your work is. Charles Fort was right. The high priesthood of science is exactly that. Blaspheme at your own peril.
15 minutes of sun every 2 weeks (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is news? (Score:5, Informative)
If you bothered to read the article, you would be aware that there are different forms of vitamin D, and that most pills contain a different form than that produced by sunbathing (and also not very much of it).
It also noted that excessive vitamin D from pills can lead to a build-up of calcium in the body (not a good thing), which is not an issue with sunbathing.
Vitamin pills shouldn't be necessary at all - if you need them, then there's something wrong with your diet and/or lifestyle.
Re:This is news? (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an overly scepticist view.
For instance, in Iceland it is so dark during the winter that it's simply not possible to get enough sun to avoid vitamin-D deficiency. Unless your view of a normal diet includes unusual amounts of cod-liver.
Dietary supplements wouldn't be necessary if everybody was living in a temperate environment and eating a good and varied diet. But most of the world's population don't fall into that category.
Do you eat fish twice a week? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes the people who've spread out over the world have moved to areas where they simply can't get the stuff their body needs in sufficient quantities through local produce.
It's only the last couple of decades scientists have even begun to understand how food affects our wellbeing and only the last decade that the inf
Re:The answer, like almost every argument on healt (Score:5, Insightful)
Too little would be calculated by your necessity for Vitamin D.. I'd imagine less than an hour of exposure weekly might put you in that category, but I'm no nutritionalist.
BTW, I'm not a programmer either, what's Lux?
Re:The answer, like almost every argument on healt (Score:3, Informative)
The lux (symbol: lx) is the SI derived unit of illuminance or illumination. It is equal to one lumen per square metre.
Re:Hardly Suprising - Not for the reason you think (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another guy sacked for his opinion (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Drink milk. (Score:3, Informative)
We also eat honey, which is for bees, not humans. And meat, which is for tigers, not humans. And fish, which is for bears, not humans. And plants, which are for cows, not humans.
It's kind of silly to worry about whether the food you're eating is "for" something other than you. All that matters is what it's made of, and cow's milk contains essentially the same stuff as human milk, but in different proportions.
BTW, what are "traces o
Re:Uhm (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Uhm (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Got Milk? (Score:5, Informative)
Just buying it might not be enough. You might want to take the next step and drink it as well.
The real debate underlying this article surrounds the appropriate "dose" of vitamin D. The current recommendations in the US (400 IU per day) are entirely based on requirements for maintaining normal bone mineral composition. This has absolutely no relation to other biological effects of vitamin D (cellular differentiation, immune cell activity).
Whereas you can get 400 IU per day by drinking vitamin D fortified milk, full-body exposure to solar ultraviolet radiation can produce as much as 10,000 - 40,000 IU of vitamin D. In the winter and at high latitudes vitamin D production from solar UV can drop to zero. Between diet, supplements, and sun exposure, the ideal combination and target dose for cancer prevention has not been established. It is almost certainly considerably above the 400 IU that you need to maintain healthy bones.
Re:Women Had Used Baby Oil! (Score:4, Funny)
Can you cook with it? What is the smoking point? Does it go rancid quickly like other animal fats? How about saturated fat content?
Would the fast food industry use this without our knowledge?
What about new cars? Could your motor benefit from baby oil for the first several hundred miles?