Sunscreen/sun/vacation threads

[growltiger]

Oh boy. I'm a massive sun worshipper. I hoped upping my usual factor 8 (if I bothered at all) to factor 50 would be enough. Darn it.

Still, I'm English. It matters for all of 1 week a year.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

[suburbanxcore]

I just had my first beach weekend of the year. I don't care about tanning or "laying out" or whatever, but I could read and sleep on the beach all day. And I love to swim and body surf and whatnot. I just constantly apply sunscreen SPF50 and above. I'll have to look into some of these 100+ ones and this badger sunscreen or whatever that was.

[Fala]

I like California Baby a lot, really thick white-out stuff.

[beez]

Hey guys, here's an article about SPF. I remembered reading somewhere that there is really not a lot of difference between SPF 50 & 100. Here's an article - just a single one without any extra links, sorry - about that. Please consider it a jumping off point and not the final word.

SPF 100 Sunblock | Mark's Daily Apple

Also I believe zinc oxide and titanium oxide are the best ingredients to look for in in sunscreens, both providing barrier protection. Also I'm gonna get some non nano zinc and mix it with some jojoba or something and see if I can't make my own! I'll update you guys, unless someone gets there first.

[SeeSea]

Hey guys, here's an article about SPF. I remembered reading somewhere that there is really not a lot of difference between SPF 50 & 100.

Agree - I've seen similar stuff as well. After about SPF 50, don't bother spending the extra marketing $$$. And I'm with ya on the ZnO and TiO2 for broad spectrum.

SPF 100 Sunblock | Mark's Daily Apple

Ok, he has a good argument for the SPF marketing BS, but this guy is full of BS in other ways. He recommends wearing a shirt instead? A typical shirt is SPF 8, and that goes down if the shirt is wet. Pah.

And he drops this little bomb:

It appears that for the past 30 years so-called sunscreens have been good at blocking UVB rays (the ones that burn) but not UVA (the ones primarily responsible for DNA damage and skin cancer). Thank you, FDA. Source: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/apollo-would-be-appalled/

Looks like he's a couple years late to the party. FDA has been talking about UVA protection since 2011: Sunscreen

[sOAPBOX] I work for FDA. Yes, there is a lot of dysfunction like the rest of government, but FDA seems to be a punching bag for uninformed blowhards like this guy who don't feel like doing a basic google search. And contrary to public belief, FDA does not manufacturer products or market products - FDA strives to ensure that marketing created by companies is accurate. It's hard to police a lot of overzealous marketing people who make claims that can't be substantiated.

To this end, in 2011, FDA came out very strongly with recommendations on how to read sunscreen labels. FDA spells out how to recognize sunscreens that cannot claim to protect against skin cancer. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/UCM258718.pdf

[/sOAPBOX]

Hey @beez - not knocking you - you provided good information. I'm just bent at some of the other BS that guy posted.

[HaydenRose]

My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that SPF doesn't matter except a lower number will need to be reapplied more often than SPF 50. Granted it is waterproof, sweatproof, etc. I always just grab SPF30 or 50/Zinc combo sunscreen. I never noticed better or different results between 30 and 50 SPF.

[Fala]

What @SeeSea, I can't claim that the homemade sunblock, which I sell to folks, cures colon polyps if I shove it up my butt? Come on, you (the FDA), are no fun ;) (FYI, I am familiar with GMP laws...)

[SeeSea]

What @SeeSea, I can't claim that the homemade sunblock, which I sell to folks, cures colon polyps if I shove it up my butt? Come on, you (the FDA), are no fun ;) (FYI, I am familiar with GMP laws...)

Oh sure, @Fala, you can claim that all you want! In fact, I believe such a product would be welcomed! We're just gonna make you do all those pesky clinical trials involving a bunch of butt-shoving. ;)

- - - Updated - - -

My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that SPF doesn't matter except a lower number will need to be reapplied more often than SPF 50. Granted it is waterproof, sweatproof, etc. I always just grab SPF30 or 50/Zinc combo sunscreen. I never noticed better or different results between 30 and 50 SPF.

No, SPF really matters! An easy reference I see is if you burn in 10 minutes, then using SPF 8 will allow you to stay in the sun up to 80 minutes (10 minutes * 8) without burning. And that assumes you keep applying it regularly. Putting more of it on doesn't get you an extension! :D

Get at least 30, and make sure it is "broad spectrum" so check your bottle of 30. This means it protects against UVB and UVA. The UVA is the one many sunscreens do NOT protect against (the cancer-causing one). Anything with the zinc/titanium would fit the bill.

[omeletta]

No, SPF really matters! An easy reference I see is if you burn in 10 minutes, then using SPF 8 will allow you to stay in the sun up to 80 minutes (10 minutes * 8) without burning. And that assumes you keep applying it regularly. Putting more of it on doesn't get you an extension! :D

That's what I've heard as well (mother-in-law is a dermatologist :rolleyes:). That said, the calculation doesn't seem to quite work anymore for high SPF. As far as I know, SPF 50 protects only a tiny bit longer than SPF 30 and is not really worth the money.

What’s Wrong With High SPF

[El Dolmago]

I'm allergic to the sun (essentially) and if I'm out in direct sun with anything lower than 45 I burst in to hives - trust me it's not just about not burning - anything less than 45 will affect your skin.

[Fala]

Hahaha @SeeSea. I know, I know! It's hilarious, and scary, what people claim with their products with no evidence to the contrary.

[PinkUnicorn]

@SeeSea, maybe you can get the FDA to allow more of the European sunscreens onto the US market please?!:)

Fresh sunscreen ingredients stuck in FDA backlog - SFGate

European sunbathers tend to wear less on the beach than their American counterparts, but they may be better protected when it comes to sunscreen.

Skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the United States, yet federal regulators have not added anything new to its list of approved sunscreen ingredients in 15 years.

FDA review of new sunscreen ingredients languishes, frustrating advocates - The Washington Post

The tourists flocking to the French Riviera or Spain’s Costa del Sol this summer will slather on sunscreen containing the latest ingredients for protecting against the sun’s most harmful ultraviolet rays.

But American beachgoers will have to make do with sunscreens that dermatologists and cancer-research groups say are less effective and have changed little over the past decade.

[irezumi]

I love hot, humid weather. I'm in my element. I seem to get more energy the more intense the heat and humidity grow. I do my best to keep up with the high SPF, though. Maybe its because I grew up in Canada and had to make the most of our horribly short summers. Toronto is pretty good for evil heat and humidity in July and August. I can't wait!

I've never been to Canada during the summer so I can't speak from my own experience on that, but I don't think anyone knows humidity like the deep south does. The worst I have ever encountered. Never before had I lived somewhere where you pretty much have to chew your air before breathing it.

It'll get 10 degrees hotter here in CO but still feel like an ocean breeze compared to the swamp-ass south. #dryheat

[SeeSea]

Hi @PinkUnicorn - I wish I could wave a wand and make it so! I agree, there is a log jam, but some of it is law over which the FDA has incomplete control. I'll try to give a high-level view to a complicated situation.

Regulations in the US and Europe are different - it's easier for products to get onto the market in Europe because the bar for safety and efficacy (if and how well the drug works) is lower outside the US. The safety-vs-speed pendulum leans more to the "safety" side over here. Now this doesn't mean that FDA thinks a person is overall more safe by not allowing a product to enter the market, but that the drug has solid evidence to back up that it is safe and effective for use. I can't speak to the specific sun screen applications because I don't review drugs (I review devices), but some don't have sufficient evidence that they are 1) safe and 2) do what they claim to do.

Here is a much cited example of US vs. Europe regulatory actions to illustrate this pendulum - the drug Thalidomide. It was prescribed as "completely safe" for morning sickness in the 50's/60's in Europe (the manufacturer had NO EVIDENCE to support this claim). Thalidomide was submitted to FDA but had not yet received US approval. Pressure was on FDA to approve the drug, but one scientist in FDA pushed back that adequate data to support safety and effectiveness was not provided. While this drama was in progress, 2000 babies in 46 countries were born with tragic birth defects (anyone recall babies with deformed hands/feet, no arms, etc.?) FDA declined to approve the drug, and it was eventually withdrawn elsewhere.

Anyway, this is a very obvious example of the difference between the two regulatory pathways. (I've also munged prescription regulation vs. over-the-counter regulation but for illustrative purposes.)

Regarding sunscreen and those ingredients ... this isn't all on FDA - it's also solidly in the lap of our Congress. FDA doesn't make laws - Congress makes laws that FDA has to enforce. FDA is bound by this part of the Food and Drug Act. There are other mechanisms such as the TEA process (Time and Extent Process) which is being used to get some of those European sunscreen ingredients allowed in the US, but this also requires rule-making, a period for public comment, and getting data for safety/effectiveness after an ingredient has been used for 5 years in the EU. (A cynic might speculate that the US is waiting for bad shit to happen elsewhere, and when it doesn't, the ingredient might be ok. This can allow a US manufacturer to avoid some/all costly clinical trials.) For those interested, more detail at a higher level is here: Regulatory Explainer: Understanding the Regulation of New Sunscreen Ingredients.

The approval process, if implemented in a timely manner, is not a bad process. The "timely manner" is the hard part. I could go on and on about challenges and inefficiencies, unethical manufacturers, political pressures to subvert safety for the sake of profits, etc. But those are stories meant to be told to the accompaniment of adult beverages.

[Colored Guy]

I use a Neutrogena 45 (usually a 2-pack deal at Target) and I just keep applying it during the day. I'm in and out of the pool or ocean and it tends to stay on for a while. I have a Coppertone 50 that works well too. Someone gave me a SPF 100 on the beach one day, but I needed a spatula to apply it, it was that thick and hard to wash out of anything, like Desitin we used on the kids.

Admittedly, my skin is probably not the best due to sun exposure over the decades. But my days using oil or a SPF 4 are long behind me.

Rob

[DJDeepFried]

Aw, man -- I remember slathering up with baby oil for a quickie tan back in the day rocking the Specials on my big-ass yellow Walkman or whatever else I listened to in high school. So so dumb in retrospect but we were all immortal then.

Nowadays we look at this site for sunscreen info:EWG's 2014 Guide to Sunscreens

[SeeSea]

Nowadays we look at this site for sunscreen info:EWG's 2014 Guide to Sunscreens

Nice! Thanks for the reference. Time to order some stuff online.

[El Dolmago]

Like the rest of you....I live in this...

I'm a devoted user of their aerosol 60 SPF

- - - Updated - - -

You are insane. ;)

Yes he is - ask @Mark Bee about dragging me around NYC in 40C - ugh. I barely survived the summers in Japan. I grew up in the desert - give me the dry heat any day.

@irezumi I lived in Japan and spent quite a bit of time in Malaysia so I can back up that Toronto is officially evil humid in the summer - not quite Louisiana but significantly evil.

[irezumi]

@irezumi I lived in Japan and spent quite a bit of time in Malaysia so I can back up that Toronto is officially evil humid in the summer - not quite Louisiana but significantly evil.

I really don't know anything about Malaysia but it just sounds like the most humid place on Earth. I'll accept your compare/contrast of the swamp-ass factor.

[SeeSea]

More on my sunscreen quest. I thought I was done, until I saw Consumer Reports 2013 Guide to Sunscreens. I couldn't understand why Consumer Reports and EWG ratings were so different for the same sunscreens, until I figured out how they rated relative ingredients for effectiveness. Most of this is based on effectiveness of UVA. If the UVA is good, the UVB protection is also good.

Note: EWG bases ratings purely on what's in the ingredients list and the stated SPF. Consumer Reports did a test with humans.

My findings smell of marketing and politics. (Although I think I smell much better.)

<tl;dr>: To get a good or top score, CR wants avobenzone (non-mineral based) and EWG wants zinc oxide (ZnO) and/or titanium dioxide (TiO2) (mineral based). Each seems to think the other is full of crap.

Consumer Reports:

---------------------

- rates every product with avobenzone with the highest UVA rating (5/5) if it's >3%. It's avobenzone or the highway.

- rates products with ONLY TiO2 as bad (1/5) for UVA. If TiO2 is ~11% or higher, it will bump the rating to 3/5. ZnO doesn't seem to be considered useful even >14%.

- If oxybenzone is included, it wants >3%

EWG:

------

- Wants ZnO > ~20% for top UVA rating. Has to be at least 13%, many sunscreens are only ~4%. Will give a top rating even if only ingredient is ZnO.

- any product that uses avobenzone as primary UVA blocker (with no ZnO or TiO2) gets no more than "moderate" for UVA protection.

- if using non-mineral ingredients, wants homosalate >10%, octinoxate>7.5%, octocylene >10% for UVA and I didn't see any with a rating better than moderate.

This doesn't take into account the EWG "Health Concern" rating. I only looked at the individual ratings for UVA.

Since Consumer Reports is by subscription, here are the ONLY ones they rate 4/5 or 5/5 for UVA protection. They are all non-mineral based.

- Coppertone WaterBabies SPF 50

- Equate (Walmart) Ultraprotection SPF 50

- Banana boat Utrla defense max skin protect SPF 110+

- Neutragena Ultimate sport SPF 70

[Edited: adding spray products]

The above from the Consumer Report list are all non-spray, since spray is already suspect due to coverage issues and some other stuff I can't remember. Below are the spray products with good or best CR ratings for UVA protection. Again, ALL are avobenzone-based rather than mineral based.

- Bullfrog water armor sports instacool SPF 50+

- Up and Up Target Sports SPF 50

- Well at Walgreens Sport SPF 50

- Coppertone Sport High Performance SPF 50

- CVS Sheer Mist SPF 30

[growltiger]

I admire your tenacity in researching this! I had no idea it could be so complex. Thank you for taking the time to post your findings.

Sent from my GT-I8190N using Tapatalk

[SeeSea]

I admire your tenacity in researching this! I had no idea it could be so complex. Thank you for taking the time to post your findings.

<rabid chihuahua thrashing on shredded slipper>

You're welcome :)

I only dug deeper when I noticed that CR trashed titanium dioxide after EWG sung its praises. Then my BS-o-meter went off.

... and my tattooer recently posted a video of someone bitch-smacking the shit out of someone else and added the comment, "This is what I do to my clients who fry their tattoos in the sun before I get the final healed picture."

O.O

[s3rndpt]

So I'm going to be the dork at the beach wearing this next week since my new tattoo pretty much runs the length of my left arm, and I don't want to risk irritating it with sunscreen while it heals. And no, I won't be getting in the water, at least not from the waist up.

[polliwog]

I love that rash guards are fashionable now. It's like the acceptable (and SPF-sensible) adult version of wearing a giant t-shirt into the water as a sullen teen, which I did often.

[SeeSea]

@s3rndpt

I am going on vacation next week and I'm about 2.5 weeks out from my last session (clearly the timing was planned!). I will be able to wear sunscreen but I was read the riot act to wear sunscreen AND wear a UV rash guard because this piece is in-progress and he wants NOOOOO fading and it has white in it already.

I didn't realize there were so many options. I purchased both of these below. One is a hoodie that is a little loose and of very lightweight material. The other is a very loose wrap kind of jacket you can throw on top of anything. I like them both because the material doesn't cry out "rash guard" or "UV material." It's a little stretchy and a lot like a cotton/polyester blend.

http://www.amazon.com/Coolibar-UPF-Womens-Seaside-Hoodie/dp/B00793ODR2/ref=sr_1_cc_1?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1403268344&sr=1-1-catcorr&keywords=coolibar+upf+50%2B+zno+seaside+hoodie+-+sun+protection

Coolibar UPF 50+ Women's Sun Protective Wrap at Amazon Women’s Clothing store

I also have a couple in-water UV rash guards because I'll be able to get into the water and do some diving.

This is also very cute and wrinkle resistant - I'll be wearing it on the plane so when we get out and if the sun is blasting, I won't have to had to put on sunscreen for the plane ride!!!

Women's Reflection Fall Tee