I am male, 53 (but look in my mid 40s), have been eating clean for half my life (eat paleo for last year) and have been an avid natural sun worshiper for the last 5 years. Prior to that, I had used tanning beds for nearly 15 years. Rarely did I ever burn. I have naturally light olive skin, brown eyes/hair.
I love the feel of the sun, and a vibrant tan just breathes life into an otherwise pasty look. I refuse self-tanners and spray tans not only because they give me a orange-ish yellow hue, but because of the chemicals which get absorbed. I completely disagree with mainstream dermatologists in slathering on toxic commercial sunscreens at the slightest ray of UV. They have been shown to cause melanomas themselves.
So where do we draw the line between the much touted benefits (i.e. Vitamin D synthesis, re-synching hormones, circadian rhythm, prevention of SAD, etc.) by the sun advocates of the paleosphere such as Mark Sisson [ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/vitamin-d-sun-exposure-supplementation-and-doses/#axzz2LEGrKIkN ] - and the equally touted drawbacks we read about ( i.e., melanomas, skin aging/DNA damage, spots, etc)? [ http://www.skincarephysicians.com/agingskinnet/uv_photography.html ].
Just what is considered overexposure (we all have our own unique UV thresholds) that could cause oxidative stress, DNA damage, etc?
And should we cover our face to avoid melasma (too late for me + I HATE being pale since I look tired and sick)? Or are those impossible to for us sun junkies to avoid no matter what how clean we eat?
A tan is not necessarily a sign of "sun damage," though freckles, which are just concentrations of melanin I believe, may be otherwise; I'm unsure.
Both melasma and freckles can be genetic, so those predisposed will develop these benign skin conditions anyway.
The bottom line is that Paleolithic man did not wear sunglasses, slather on sunscreen or do fake spray tans.
asked byMark_34 (68)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!