More sunshine = More Longevity?

More sunshine = More Longevity…according to this study. Roger Seheult MD is MedCram.

Is it the vit D or something else?

Can anyone find the paper?

3 Likes

How is that exactly “highly suggestive of cause”?

3 Likes

Right – more like highly suggestive of correlation. Seheult’s videos on sunlight and health revolve around potential health benefits of red/near-infrared/infrared light rather than ultraviolet light. He’s been convincing enough for me to have bought a red/near-infrared light box that I use during the 4 months of darkness (Mid-November to Mid-March) here in the Pacific NW.

3 Likes

The UV supplies vitamin D that is 100% used. The oral stuff is all over the place and the leftovers are a problem. Also UV converts vitamin A to a form that is used. There are also several things going on that nobody has figured out yet. This is what I’ve read. I’m convinced sun exposure is good unless you burn. Wrinkles and skin cancer that goes nowhere are downsides, but good health is worth it.

9 Likes

Sun exposure may has benefits for longevity but it also cause sun damage and made you look much older than you supposed to be, to be or not to be…

6 Likes

True but I wonder if the damage from the sun is caused by insufficient repair or excessive injury. Certainly insufficient repair is a part of it. My body’s ability to repair itself is not as good as it used to be. Is that inevitable? So far it is.

If I tried to argue that I wanted to avoid damaging my muscle by not using them, I would be laughed off this forum. Is skin so different? I wonder about it.

Maybe in moderate doses with sufficient recovery, the sun is good. Maybe taken in that way it is healthier than avoiding the sun. It is an old therapy…maybe it was a good one.

A good circadian rhythm is certainly a health tonic.

In any case, I get weekend sun doses in the morning while protecting my face and neck. And I use my red/NIR lamp for about an hour every day on some part or parts of my body. Light is a health lever for me so I’m betting I’m on the right track. (Finger crossed)

9 Likes

Probably an outdoors person’s face with full specks of dark sun damage pigmentation may outlive indoors night owl, but i have no idea to what extent of life expansion can have me sacrifice my look.

What if i can just take vitamin D pills?

Sun exposure is extrinsic damage not like muscle use an intrinsic micro tears easily be repaired. With the ozone layer gone thinner, the sunlight could be so harmful above any repair mechanism of human body.

i was a very outdoors person when i was young, now i need to pour DMSO solution of sirolimus & metformin to my face to try to dilute the dark spot on my cheeks…

3 Likes

Nope. Listen to Prof Prue Hart. Opened my eyes.

4 Likes

I really enjoy being out doors, walking in the woods, fields etc. I enjoy my first morning view of our sun filled yard, it gives me peace. When I know I’m going to have extended sun exposure I take measures before and after.

If Australia is any example, sun exposure is to be managed. At least for Caucasians.

5 Likes

Yes. Prof Prue Hart says that we all should get our skin checked regularly to catch issues early. That’s what we do for every other health issue. But avoiding sun all together (for those that do that to avoid sun damage or cancer) is going too far (according to Prof Prue Hart). I’ve taken her advice.

3 Likes

One of the issues with excessive UV exposure is the damage it does to our irreplaceable elastin.

Yes irreplaceable elastin.

Elastin is one of those things, kind of like how difficult it is to repair tendons and ligaments only more difficult if not, currently, impossible.

When I see a “cure” for elastin loss and rejuvenation, I’m going to finally believe in “longevity” :slight_smile:

7 Likes

They say moderation in all things :slight_smile: I’m on board with that except for a few things :slight_smile:

No fentanyl for me LoL! not even a tiny bit :slight_smile:

4 Likes

That makes sense. I’m just saying let’s don’t put sunshine into its own category of ”don’t get too much”. There’s an optimal dose for everything good. Zero sunshine can’t be the right dose given how life evolved on this planet …the branch that we come from anyway.

Plus Prof Prue Hart says studies show better health for people who get more sun. She even said that people who get skin cancer live longer than people who get little sun. I’m paraphrasing.

Anyway. I’m not trying to get skin cancer to live longer …. I do get checked once a year (and have stuff removed; no cancer so far), and I avoid burns, and I wear a hat whenever I’m out for long.

8 Likes

I’ll never be a mole man :slight_smile:

3 Likes

I’m betting at this point that any health benefits of sunlight come from near-infrared/infrared portion of the spectrum and not from UV. Since clothing and sunscreen filter out UV but not infrared (and we can supplement vitamin D), we can conceivably get all the potential benefits of infrared without the UV damage by getting outside and practicing UV protection.

2 Likes

Is it just more outdoor time is secondary to more exercise time?

3 Likes

I think the sun debate is pretty clear to me. Moderate sun is optimal, while no sun or too much sun is detrimental. Sunscreen is necessary to avoid skin aging.

5 Likes

@LukeMV Bingo! Simple.

3 Likes

Since sun causes skin cancer and aging, absent of causal evidence showing benefit, no irradiation from the sun is healthiest.

It’s interesting that people willingly expose themselves to radiation from a nuclear fusion reactor even though it’s proven that it will age their skin and cause skin cancer, because of some dubious association studies.

Just something that will be looked back at like using leeches and other dubious medical treatments in the Middle Ages.

2 Likes

This is a bold take. There are 17 references showing positive benefit at the bottom of this article.

5 Likes