Source
ms_blaze•

The photo in the article is clearly just a color correction in photoshop. It's the EXACT same photo side by side with different colors. Look how her hair around her ears is the exact same.

I believe there is a connection with eating vegetables and looking vibrant, but it's crap like this that gives us a bad name.

17
dreams_or_reality•

The article does say that the first part of the study involved changing colour filters on photos to see which ones people find more attractive. This is probably the photo with and without the colour filter that represents more carotenoids.

9
RicoSoularFlylevel 5 vegan•

Quote from the article

I measured the colour change associated with changes in carotenoid levels and melanin levels in the skin. Then, using a computer programme, I allowed participants to adjust the levels of carotenoid and melanin colour in photographs of faces to make them look as attractive as possible. Participants chose to increase melanin colour slightly, but increased carotenoid colour lots.

Also it never claims to be a "before and after" photo. I presume the photo is more or less an example of what I quoted from the article.

I tend to agree that this stuff gives veganism a bad name, ie "veganism give you lighter eyes" (well I don't want lighter eyes), but it's been documented for a long time that carotentoids can darken your skin. The article also never mentions "veganism".

If this article gives veganism a bad name, that's just on the reader for no observing the article well enough. That said, I realize you said it's "stuff like this", and in general, I agree. Again with the "lighten your eyes" crap, that's just pseudo. The difference with this claim is that science backs it up... but it has nothing to do with giving up meat or being vegan, it has to do with eating more carotenoid-rich foods.

9
Octagon_Time_Machine•

It's also a blended image of many faces, not a single person.

3
durpyDash•

I came here to say exactly this. Good eye.

1
FacialClaire•

I knew about carotenoids before, but they don't really seem to work on me. Almost every dinner I prepare contains either tomatoes, paprika or both, but my skin is still as grey as usual.

6
cuberailOP•

How vegetables can give you that golden glow.

3
lunelixvegan police•

Considering UV-over-exposure is a more prevalent problem these days, it is good to know that carotenoids can help those of us who religiously slather on the sunscreen.

3
Botanical-Concepts•

Actually many people suffer from a lack of exposure to sunlight. Sunlight has been scientifically documented to treat over 150 common diseases and ailments. In fact this was a popular conventional treatment until not too long ago. Most significantly vitamin D deficiency is very common throughout the world, which contributes alot of many diseases.

2
idontknowanymooooorevegan•

Vitamin D is produced for only a short period of time when skin is exposed to sunlight, no more than 30 minutes. It is wise to use sunscreen when outdoors for longer than 30 minutes, and if Vitamin D is a concern then you can wait 10-15 minutes before applying. It still takes about 10-15 minutes for the sunscreen to be fully effective. Many regions will still need to supplement because it is not feasible to get your day's supply of D if you are far north, for example.

One sneaky thing about UV ray exposure is that it can even be worse on cloudy days, days when nobody thinks to use sunscreen. It's always good to check your local weather UV index before heading out for long hours, just to check if you need sunscreen when it's cloudy.

Most people do not get body checks for skin cancer and this is the first line of prevention

2
Botanical-Concepts•

It is quite easy to get enough vitamin D in most places around the world... And yes deficiency is so very common! Even deficiency is very common in pregnant women, for example in Japan around 90% of pregnant women are vitamin D deficient. Why is this? A big reason for this is phobia from the sun. And one of the driving factors for this fear is "skin cancer"... specifically melanoma skin cancer.

However sunshine can actually have a protective effect against cancers including melanoma. For example studies have shown that outdoor workers have lower rates of melanoma skin cancer compared with indoor office workers. There are also other lifestyle factors that need to be taken care of to reduce skin cancer, such as diet.

Skin cancers can actually develop on areas of the body that don't ever or hardly ever receive sunshine, such as around the pelvis. It's also worth noting that whilst countries like New Zealand and Australia have experienced increased rates of over the last decades melanoma, so too have various other cancers. Whilst I won't deny excess UV rays contribute to this, it's worth pointing out that Australia and New Zealand also have some of the highest melanoma survival rates (partly due to vitamin D).

The fact is even if sunshine does cause melanoma (which I don't think it does), you'd be better off getting the sunshine because you would be protected against hundreds of other terrible diseases like autism, asthma, various cancers, heart disease, erectile dysunfction, type one diabetes, mental illness like schizophrenia and depression, and much more. Your all cause mortality is reduced greater through sun exposure than sun avoidance.

We should be quicker to factor in the common western lifestyle into the melanoma equation before jumping the gun and blaming everything on the sun. For example, alot of people do not receive regular sun exposure due to work schedules. In New Zealand this basically leads to a bunch of pasty people who have been inside all year going out into the hot summer sun and baking. Another reason is alot of people shower unnecessarily regularly, which can prevent vitamin D absorption. This is because UVB rays which are absorbed through cholesterol (dehydrocholesterol) on the skin, which is later converted through vitamin D over a peroid of 24 hours. If you bath very quickly after sunbathing, it can "wash away" the cholesterol and vitamin D won't form.

Someone like me with well developed melanin or "tan" has a natural sunscreen and can handle more sunshine exposure than someone without developed melanin (pasty). A black person even moreso can handle more sunshine. I feel that alot of people forget to factor this (melanin) into the sunshine equation. The UVB rays actually cause DNA damage in your skin which stimulates melanin production (this is a normal healthy process).

Of course people shouldn't go out into the scorching sun and bake. You have to use some "common sense". If it's so hot and you feel start feeling pain/irritation that is a good sign from your body to get some shade! Fortunately for me I live in a very moderate climate where the sun is only very hot for about 2 months and even then only half the time. I probably spend an average of one hour in the sun every day, and I almost never get sun burned. Some people think sunscreen is a good excuse to go and roast in the sun, thinking they are protected.

This is one of the biggest dangers of sunscreen. People will stop using basic practice that humans have been doing for thousands or millions of year in relation to the sun. Because they feel sunscreen gives them immunity. Well it doesn't. Perhaps sun screens can protect against squamous cell and basal cell carcinoma, but those only make up about 4% of deaths from skin cancer. By far melanoma is the deadliest, and sun screens don't provide any protection against it! Not to mention all the toxic chemicals in the sunscreens which are so bad they can poison babies and water supplies.

There's just so many myths and misinformation surrounding this it's disgusting, it might just be on par with the meat and dairy (protein) myths. Anyway, I better stop or I'll keep going forever.

1
idontknowanymooooorevegan•

Anyone who is reading the post above needs to be warned that it is rife with misleading information and it is making factual claims which are not supported by current knowledge. These are mixed with claims that are generally okay, which may cause confusion. Regarding sun protection, UVB exposure, and skin cancer, individuals should follow the general recommendations of government agencies. I take great offense to the nonchalant way that you make your claims, which could have a great impact on an individual who reads your posts. As a biochemist working in research, I have extremely strong values regarding the responsibilities of those making claims which impact the health of readers.

Claim: It is quite easy to get enough vitamin D in most places around the world...

If you live above the 37-degree-latitude line then you are at a significant disadvantage in UVB exposure, especially in the winter, to make vitamin D. This is a result of the UVB wavelength (290-315nm) attenuation as latitude increases and you move further north. UVB intensity decreases and you do not absorb sufficient amounts of energy. If you live in the USA and are north of Georgia-Texas-Arizona then you fit in to this category.

In France, the latitude varies from 43deg to 51deg, and even in this area a significant effect on vitamin D levels is observed. Those living closer to 51deg have 29-31% rates of deficiency and those living closer to 43deg have only 6-9% rate of deficiency.(Chapuy et al 1997) This builds on previous research performed in the USA which found that latitude 52deg did not produce UVB rays that synthesize vitamin D, but latitude 34deg did.(Webb et al, 1988)

In the Netherlands, where the latitude is approximately 52deg like Northern France, skin tone plays a large role. Those with dark skin tone had roughly half the vitamin D levels of those with fair skin tone.(van der Meer et al, 2006) Women with fair skin tone were on average vitamin D sufficient, but the standard deviation was wide enough to drop perilously close to D insufficiency, presumably due to latitude effects. None of the dark skin tone women had levels close to sufficiency. Darker skin tone is known to decrease vitamin D synthesis and is associated with low vitamin D status.(Harris SS et al, 1998; Nesby-O Dell, 2002) It has been found that roughly 80% of the variation in vitamin D synthesis could be associated with UVB exposure and skin type.(Armas et al, 2007) Sub-Saharan Africans would then require 200% more UVB exposure than typical northern Europeans, based solely on their skin type. This is a linear relationship and UVB exposure needs decrease as skin tone lightens.

So, latitude and skin tone play a significant role in vitamin D synthesis and these factors are largely outside of our control. Certainly, it is not "quite easy" for everyone to get adequate exposure for vitamin D sufficiency.

Japan is interesting because it presents at 35deg latitude. Pregnant women in Japan are likely to be deficient because approximately 42% of adult women under 30 years of age in Japan may be vitamin D deficient, as compared to women over 30 years who work in the same setting.(Nakamura et al, 2001) This is found to be partially related to lower fish consumption in women under 30 but as of 2005 the cause was still unexplained.(Nakamura et al, 2005) Additionally, the vitamin D needs of the fetus is obtained solely through the mother’s intake, which increases vitamin D needs of the mother. If you are already deficient or insufficient, then your low vitamin D state is exacerbated.

Claim: Why is this? A big reason for this is phobia from the sun. And one of the driving factors for this fear is "skin cancer"... specifically melanoma skin cancer.

When thinking only in terms of the latest modern age of technology, predominantly indoor lifestyles do have a significant effect on vitamin D levels. Many individuals receive UVB exposure only when walking to or from their cars, or other short trips. This casual sun exposure can be enough to prevent deficiency but is not enough to prevent insufficiency. (Armas et al, 2007) This is not a phobia, but a side-effect of modern lifestyles and lack of outdoor physical activity. UVB rays are also filtered by window glass in buildings and cars by up to 85%, which does not bode well for a population that spends all day indoors or driving.(Kullavanijaya & Lim, 2005)

Yet, this is not truly a problem unique to the modern world. Before we knew anything at all about UVB rays and skin cancer, we struggled as a population afflicted with rickets. There are accounts of rickets as far back as the 2nd century AD in the Romans, and in the 1600s it was well recognized and documented as a common ailment in Western countries. Sunscreen and cancer had nothing to do with the prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in this era. There are other factors at play which go beyond the scope of this post.

I can keep going as well, but I am not sure that it would be worth it. The rest of your post is equally if not more misleading. Everyone should disregard it just to be safe.

  • Chapuy, M.-C., P. Preziosi, M. Maamer, S. Arnaud, P. Galan, S. Hercberg, and P.j. Meunier. "Prevalence of Vitamin D Insufficiency in an Adult Normal Population." Osteoporosis International 7, no. 5 (1997): 439-43.

  • Webb, A. R., L. Kline, and M. F. Holick. "Influence of Season and Latitude on the Cutaneous Synthesis of Vitamin D 3 : Exposure to Winter Sunlight in Boston and Edmonton Will Not Promote Vitamin D 3 Synthesis in Human Skin*." The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 67, no. 2 (1988): 373-78.

  • Van Der Meer, IM, NS Karamali, AJ Boeke, P. Lips, I. Verhoeven, and JD Wuister. "High Prevalence of Vitamin D Deficiency in Pregnant Non-Western Women in The Hague, Netherlands." Am J Clin Nutr 84, no. 2 (August 2006): 350-53.

  • Harris, SS, and B. Dawson-Hughes. "Seasonal Changes in Plasma 25-hydroxyvitamin D Concentrations of Young American Black and White Women." Am J Clin Nutr 67, no. 6 (June 1998): 1232-236.

  • Nesby-ODell, S., KS Scanlon, ME Cogswell, C. Gillespie, BW Hollis, AC Looker, C. Allen, C. Doughertly, EW Gunter, and BA Bowman. "Hypovitaminosis D Prevalence and Determinants among African American and White Women of Reproductive Age: Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1988-1994." Am J Clin Nutr 76, no. 1 (July 2002).

  • Armas, Laura A.g., Susan Dowell, Mohammed Akhter, Sowjanya Duthuluru, Christopher Huerter, Bruce W. Hollis, Richard Lund, and Robert P. Heaney. "Ultraviolet-B Radiation Increases Serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D Levels: The Effect of UVB Dose and Skin Color." Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 57, no. 4 (2007): 588-93.

  • Nakamura, Kazutoshi, Mitsue Nashimoto, Shigeki Matsuyama, and Masaharu Yamamoto. "Low Serum Concentrations of 25-hydroxyvitamin D in Young Adult Japanese Women: A Cross Sectional Study." Nutrition 17, no. 11-12 (2001): 921-25.

  • Nakamura, Kazutoshi. "Vitamin D and Prevention of Osteoporosis: Japanese Perspective." Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine Environ Health Prev Med 11, no. 6 (2006): 271-76.

  • Kullavanijaya, Prisana, and Henry Lim. "Photoprotection." J Am Acad Dermatol 52 (2005): 937-58.

2
cuberailOP•

that would be me. total sunscreen devote for 20+ years now. it makes a huge difference over decades. nobody knows how old i am until i tell them.

1
idontknowanymooooorevegan•

Please don't forget your eyes. UV rays are damaging to our eyes as well and we may not think about protecting them if it isn't extremely sunny. I have a pair of sunglasses that are very very lightly tinted sepia and have UV protection. I usually check the weather in the morning so if the UV index is high or moderate then I'll wear my light sunglasses. Sometimes UV can be high even when it is cloudy. We don't see the UV rays so we can't tell. I don't care if people think I'm nuts... UV is scary stuff!

1
shevenvegan•

Vegan orgy? Vegan orgy.

3
CTroy2vegan newbie•

-but I like being pale it makes my henna'd hair look more convincing!

1