LiveLongAgeWell

Artificial Tanning Beds

Last month I covered sunscreens and sunless tanning lotions, and as a follow-up, there was a recent reclassification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that tanning beds should be raised to Group 1, that is, the highest risk level: “carcinogenic to humans”. While the artificial tanning bed industry has marketed their products as safer than the ultraviolet radiation from sunlight—and as not increasing the risk of melanoma (though they neglect to mention the increased risk of other forms of skin cancer)—the IARC reports a 75% greater risk of melanomas in people who start using tanning beds before the age of 30. Besides the cancer risks, while a tan might make you look better in the short run, in the long run you will end up more wrinkled. And though artificial tanning booths are dangerous, remember that sunless tanning lotions can be quite effective and safe.

Organic Food Not Worthwhile?

A headline from Reuters London caught my eye last week: “Organic food no healthier, study finds”. The author of the English study stated: “Our review indicates that there is currently no evidence to support the selection of organically over conventionally produced foods on the basis of nutritional superiority [italics mine].”  (Really, OK, maybe not proof, but no evidence at all?)

So a quick read might lead you to think it’s not worth the extra expense and trouble to seek out organic products. But this would be a false conclusion on at least two counts. First, the study only analyzed “nutritional content”; this is, what’s in the food, but most people choose organics because what’s NOT in them; i.e., pesticides and other organo-toxins (not addressed in this research). Second, if you look at what they consider “nutritional content”, you find they did not analyze antioxidant content, which is another reason to choose organic. While it’s true that there is not yet proof organics have a higher natural antioxidant content; for me, I’ll stick to organic products whenever I can. Unlikely any future research will find any health benefit whatsoever from eating foods with pesticides. It’s far more likely organic foods suffer less antioxidant loss during any processing, transport, and chemical additions.

Another Reason To Keep Your Cholesterol Below 200

If you know that your total cholesterol level is borderline or elevated, and you haven’t taken measures to change that, here’s another reason to take action. Published in the August Dementia and Geriatric Cognitive Disorders, researchers studied nearly 10,000 Northern California Kaiser Hospital members, and found that those who had total serum cholesterol levels over 200 mg/dL in their 40s, had a significantly great risk of dementia when they reached their 60s and 70s. The risk for either Alzheimer’s disease or vascular dementia was at least 50% percent greater in people with only mildly high levels—over 200. So take measures to keep your cholesterol in the normal range: whether it means a change in your diet and/or increased exercise, and if that doesn’t work, you should ask your doctor about possibly taking a “statin” drug to lower your lipid levels  (which—as logically follows from this study—have been shown may help prevent dementia.)

Here in LLAW we’ve recently covered sunscreens, and that the sun is responsible for a majority of the changes in our skin that we normally blame on aging. It’s not our age, but the amount of sun exposure we’ve accumulated over the years that gives us most of our wrinkles.

If you listen to dermatologists, they will say something like: “there’s no such thing as a safe tan”. Meaning, all tans, while they might make you look good, are manifestations of damage to your skin’s DNA. From a wrinkle- and cancer-prevention standpoint, a pale complexion, while not considered the most attractive, is certainly the most “healthy”.  I have several dermatologist friends who are really serious about the sun issue. They practice what they preach, and I have never seen them with a tan.  But, for me, I’ll take a bit of sun, a bit of that risk. Still, it’s nice to know there’s a decent alternative—self-tanning—something people are moving to as a way of avoiding the risk and damage altogether. Are self-tanners safe?…

In the last few years the cosmetic industry has developed products that won’t turn you a sickly shade of orange.  By blending the tanning chemical DHA (dihydroxyacetone) into a blend of moisturizers, and stabilizing the chemical release, most people can now get acceptably good results. And the active component DHA does truly appear to be safe. It’s derived from glycerin, is not absorbed into the bloodstream, and only works on the outmost layer of the epidermis of the skin. The brownish color is result of a chemical reaction between DHA and the proteins in your skin cells, and, since your dead outer skin cells are constantly shed off, the “tan” also sheds off within a few days to a week.

DHA has been around for 30 years in various cosmetics, and as far as I can find has never been found to be toxic or carcinogenic. While you might hear about other products, such as tyrosine, DHA is the only component that appears to be safe and effective. Certainly avoid any pill that promises to make you tan; these are all dangerous. (And don’t believe that some tanning beds are OK; none of them are safe sun alternatives.)

Sunless-tanning hints:

1. check out products from Jergens (the Natural Glow line, various products for different skin tones) and L’Oreal Sublime Glow Daily Moisturizer. If you like the more “chic” brands, try one made by Clarins.

2. consult the list of products approved by the Skin Cancer Foundation.

3. you might have to experiment with several to see which one works best for you. When you first use one, don’t use it on your face; find an out-of-the-way spot to check the result and to make sure you aren’t allergic.

4. first wash and gently exfoliate your skin before applying, so that your skin is a smooth surface to uniformly pick up the product.

5. use fairly generously, as you would sunscreen, but avoid too much around your elbows, hands, and tops of the feet. Here your skin is thicker and you might get more pigment change. If certain areas turn out too dark, you can partially reverse the process with a bit of hydrogen peroxide or even whitening toothpaste rubbed-in as needed.

6. wash your palms right away, and if you use on your face, don’t forget to apply to your ears.

7. remember you still need to use sunscreen if you get out into the sun! Neither the “sunless tan” or the product themselves will protect your skin from sun damage. However, there are new products that combine 15-30 SPF sunscreen into the self-tanners.

I suggest you try one of these products, particularly if you are worried about the damage you get from even a mild tan, or about possible toxic effects from sunscreens themselves. None of these DHA products out now are perfect, but most people can find one that works quite well.  And on the horizon, being developed in Australia, are self-tanners that work by stimulating our skin’s melanin. If they are shown to be safe (I wouldn’t be the first to use them), they will be a remarkable leap forward in sunless tanning.

Last week I presented some of the issues surrounding sunscreens and today I’ll give some practical hints. Unfortunately, there is still no sunscreen available that is even close to perfect; they all have potential issues regarding how well they block both UVA and UVB, how long they are effective, and how safe they are (particularly regarding absorption into the bloodstream). Still, protecting yourself from excessive sunlight is critical, not only to help protect from the number one cancer of all—skin cancer—but to avoid early aging. Consider this quote from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s excellent pdf fact-sheet “The Burning Facts”:

Up to 90 percent of the visible skin changes commonly attributed
to aging are caused by sun exposure.

11 Hints…What You Can Do

1. If you are very concerned about the potential toxicity of sunscreens, consult this summary from the Environmental Working Group, a non-profit consumer “watchdog” organization that has issued a list of what they consider recommended and relatively safe products. One problem is that you probably won’t find many of their recommended ones at your local drugstore, but you can probably find most online.

2.If you are not so concerned about theoretical chemical risks, you can consult this short list of American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) “recognized” products (while not as cautious as the EWG list, the AAD is still quite a careful group). One brand from their list I particularly like is Aveeno, which you will be able to find locally. Aveeno makes high-quality products that are not terribly expensive.

3. The last several years has seen release of several products that have longer-lasting, stablilized UVA protection (as well as the more standard UVB protection), and Mexoxyl and Helioplex are two components to look for. Helioplex seems to be the superior product, and of those brands with Helioplex, I like the Neutrogena brand, particularly Neutrogena Ulta-Sheer SPF 70 with Helioplex. It’s what I use. Some researchers have claimed that since these chemicals are partially absorbed into the bloodstream, that they might have an estrogen, hormonal-type effect internally. Talk to your physician if you are concerned about possible hormonal effects,  and you may not want to use one that is absorbed, on children.

4. If you want a sunscreen that is not absorbed, find a zinc oxide or titanium dioxide product (and see EWG report above), though these often leave the skin with an unattractive white cast.

5. It is probably best to avoid spray and powder sunscreens that have (ultra-small) nano-particles which might be inhaled.

6. Besides using a broad-spectrum UVA/UVB product, buy at least a SPF 30, and use enough of it! Shockingly, you need to use a “shot-glass” amount, about 1 oz. (1/3 of a typical 3 oz. tube) for your entire body, if you want to get the advertised SPF factor. Bottom line: use more than you think you should.

7. Apply 30 minutes before going in the sun to allow it to absorb.

8. Sunscreens lose potency over time. Look at the expiration date when you buy or use, and throw away any product at 3 years.

9. Reapply after going in the water, after significant sweating, and about every 2 or 3 hours. Even “waterproof” sunscreens come off after 40 minutes in the water, so if you are a water person, look for “very waterproof” which should give double water protection.

10. Don’t forget to apply to areas commonly forgotten such as: the entire surface of the ear (I can’t count how many ear skin cancers I excised and re-constructed when I was in California), any bald spots, the tops of your feet….and use a lip-sunscreen too (lip cancer is common)!

11. Avoid the sun during peak times, 10 am to 3 pm, wear a hat and don’t forget quality sunglasses to protect your eyes from cataracts! (a subject for a future post…)

Next: self-tanning products.

First, the big picture: the most important measure you can take to keep a “youthful” appearance—as much as your particular genes will allow—is to minimize exposure to UVA and UVB irradiation from the sun. Of course staying out of the sun as much as possible is the most sure way, but also it’s inconvenient, impractical, and not healthy from many aspects, including the psychological ones, so most people use sunscreens. The problem is finding a good one.

Sunscreen use is critical both to minimize wrinkles and cut the risk of skin cancer, which ranks as the most common cancer of all. But the subject has become complex in the past few years, so today let’s go over some of the current science of sunscreens, and the next post I’ll give some specific ideas on what you can use.

A few years ago it was easy to know what to do. Most people, even dermatologists, felt that if you used a SPF 15 or, then…wow…a 30, you would be highly protected and would not have to worry much, because a 30 was thought to allow you to be in the sun 30 times as long as if you didn’t use any sunscreen. But in the last few years as more products have been released, with higher and higher SPFs, the sunscreen field has become much more murky and confusing.

Some doctors have even gone so far as to state that using sunscreens will increase the risk for the deadliest form of skin cancer, melanoma, because many products will stop the burn (mostly from UVB), but will not stop UVA. This UVA irradiation doesn’t cause as much redness, but penetrates more deeply into the skin causing worse aging damage and a higher melanoma risk. So since you don’t get red, you think you are fine, while the sneaky UVA rays are causing their deep damage.

One simple way to remember the basic difference between A and B is: UVA,  a longer wavelength, is the aging radiation, and UVB causes more burning…however, both, in excess, lead to wrinkles, skin cancer, and even a diminished immune system. And if you sit by a sunny window, know that UVA radiation penetrates glass.

Here is a summary of some recent issues. But don’t get discouraged as you read this, because there are some solutions, which we’ll discuss in the next post…

1. The “SPF” rating only concerns the level of UVB protection. There are no good FDA standards or labeling or SPF ratings for UVA, and many products don’t offer, or even claim, good protection from UVA.

2. Many of the chemicals that do provide UVA protection, perhaps ironically, break down quickly in the sun, which is one reason sunscreens should be re-applied every 2 to 3 hours.

3. Toxicity: some of the chemicals used in sunscreens are absorbed into our bloodstream and may be toxic. Particular concern has been raised about two popular components, oxybenzone and avobenzone, which theoretically could alter our internal hormonal balance, and some doctors advise: don’t use these on pregnant women or children. Then there are the super-small, nano-particles used in some expensive new products. Again, while some have claimed these tiny particles might be absorbed, the super-cautious Environmental Working Group has concluded they are not. But the EWG recommends staying away from spray or powder products that might cause lung damage from the inhaled nano-particles. Finally, some sunscreen chemicals have been shown to produce free radicals when mixed with sunlight, and free radicals (which we try to neutralize with antioxidants) lead to skin aging.

4. While many of those issues are controversial, most doctors agree: very few people use enough sunscreen to provide adequate protection. A large Australian study showed that even “diligent” sunscreen users were only applying about half of what they should to get the advertised SPF protection, and most people only get about a quarter of the protection they think they are.

5. “Waterproof” sunscreens only last for about 40 minutes in the water, and for typical beach use, even these should be re-applied regularly.

6. If you read this blog often, you know I am a big fan of vitamin D, which we naturally get from sun exposure on our skin, and many people are vitamin D deficient. For some, this D vitamin shortage is rooted in excessive paranoia about sun exposure and many of these people use too much sunscreen. Like most things in life, moderation is the best route.

Next: SPFs and good sunscreens.

We will return to prescription brain drugs later this week, as today we make a brief news diversion to a substance many people consider a mind drug: sugar. An interesting article appeared in the New York Times a couple days ago about how the food industry is recently trending from using High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) as a primary sweetener, back to “natural” sucrose, that is, simply, sugar.

It’s interesting since HFCS has, over the past 30 years, crept into most all sweetened sodas, fruit juices, cookies and salad dressings and most every other food available in a bottle or a can. As it has silently and rather stealthily taken the place of sugar, many health experts have claimed that HFCS is a much less healthy replacement, and has been a major contribution to the U.S. obesity crisis. Food manufacturers, aware of their bottom line, substituted HFCS for sugar to boost their bottom line, as it was cheaper than real sugar. HFCS is easier to keep and transport, and extends the shelf life of many products, so it cut production costs, and initially few people seemed to care.

But more and more consumers have become alert to HFCS as a potential villain; the Times article mentions that Michelle Obama has pledged not to allow her children to consume it, certainly not good news for corn farmers. HFCS comes in various forms, but most commonly is chemically very similar to simple sugar (about 50% glucose and 50% fructose), though HFCS has slightly more fructose. HFCS is of course made from corn, but only after an extensive chemical process, this corn is magically transformed into…basically liquid sugar, but of course, it’s not exactly the same as the truly “natural” product.

If you want to wade into a big mess of a controversy, look into the various merits of HFCS vs. sugar. It’s hard to come to any good conclusion…is HFCS one of the reasons Americans have become so fat? Is fructose so much worse than sucrose for our livers? Does HFCS prevent us from feeling full? Does it lead to a rise in VLDL (the worst of the blood lipids)?

It’s hard to know what to make of the various arguments, and one reason is that many of the studies have been sponsored—sometimes indirectly so it’s difficult to know—by the sugar cane or beet or corn industries, and they can “buy” and release whatever research results they want. But here is what I have concluded so far: I would stick to simple sugar (sucrose) over HFCS whenever possible. Moreover, try to cut your sugar consumption as best you can, as those empty calories don’t do your body much good except provide a very temporary energy boost. The long term effects of sugar are for my book and later posts, but sugar does nothing good for your aging. There is intriguing research suggesting that sugar damages our skin proteins, and is one reason for diminished elasticity of our skin as we get older, and…premature wrinkling.