Hacker News Reader

Comment by nugi | Hacker News Reader

Rant time:

Go outside more. Take 15 min with your shirt off in the sun. In some areas of the world this can be a true challenge, but cold exposure has its own benefits. It will boost mood, improve eyesight, and process vit D. Skin cancer is real, but unless you are getting burnt to the point of peeling or blisters, there is virtually zero risk as an adult. A good tan won't make you look like a lifelong smoker. Just beware akward tanlines, and curious neighbors when trying to eliminate said tanlines.

View on HN

I had a cancerous mole removed in 2013 (melanoma stage 1a) and my dermatologist basically told me tanning is NOT ok and was never ok.

"There is no such thing as a healthy suntan. Any change in your natural skin color is a sign of skin damage. Evidence suggests tanning greatly increases your risk of developing skin cancer. The increase in skin pigment called melanin, which causes your skin to tan, is a sign of damage. Once skin is exposed to UV radiation, it increases the production of melanin in an attempt to protect the skin from further damage. The increase in melanin may cause your skin tone to darken over the next 48 hours."

https://www.asds.net/10-Skin-Cancer-Myths-Debunked/

You shouldn't tan, but you also shouldn't avoid the sun all together. 15 minutes in the sun with your shirt off every other day doesn't even give me a tan or burn, and I'm the palest person I know.

What's your 'natural skin colour'? The colour of your skin if you never go outside? Or the colour if you spend a 'healthy' amount of time in the sun?

And soreness after every workout is a sign of muscle damage. It's desirable and makes the muscle grow back stronger. I'm not saying tanning is definitely good or bad, but I can confidently say that it is at least possible that occasional, low-grade skin damage is good for you.

I'm female. In many places, I literally cannot follow your advice without getting arrested.

Additionally, I'm too far north for this to do enough. December days are only 4-5 hours long. If I work a normal first shift, I'd have to do this during my half hour lunch or I'd miss daylight completely... plus the fact that the sun isn't strong enough to give me enough benefits.

Now, the good news: It isn't all bad advice. I had low vitamin D this winter, and felt pretty sick. The doctor's advice once I'm done with my 3-months of prescription vitamins: From September through April, I need to take a supplement. 20IU a day. The rest of the year, I need to be out in the daylight for 15 minutes a day, with at least arms exposed (not just my face). It isn't that one needs their shirt off, just skin exposure. This is quite doable.

There are many places and times of year where you just never cannot get enough sunlight through this method. Right now in the UK is midday, and it is completely cloud covered, and this will be the case most days for a large proportion of the year.

As far as I know, even in sunlight, you won't get enough UV to trigger vitamin D synthesis in UK in winter.

For the UK, the main criteria is latitude. It's only next month in April that, even when it's sunny, people in the UK can start to get vitamin D from the Sun.

(The UK is at the same latitude as Vancouver)

Indeed. Look for the "UV index" in your local weather reports. If it's below 3 [on a sunny day, during wintertime] it means that the low angle of the sun, even at noon, reduces UV intensity to such an extent that your skin cannot produce vitamin D.

Most of it is further north AFAICT - the south coast of the mainline is roughly inline with Vancouver, but then it extends a substantial distance north.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com