is sun good?

[Lycaon]

so we read that sunight is good for the skin in moderation. sun is a trigger for many rosaceans, but is sun essential for rosaceans skin to some degree, as it is for healthy skin in non rosaceans.

:arrow:

[prryjones]

Hi,
The view that all any sun exposure is 'bad' is being reconsidered (see link below...great link, easy to read).
Many now suggest that sunlight in moderate ammounts is indeed very healthy for you (actually reduces cancer risk). Also aids in fighting depression.
Just don't expose your face.
I could go on, but check out the link. It's quite good and at least current with what we're being taught in pharmacy schools.
An oncologist mentioned to me the other day that the incidence of skin cancer was higher in North American blacks than in African blacks. Hmmm....
Again...just not on the face and neck. Read the literature and draw your own conclusions.
Regards,
Perry Jones
http://www.newstarget.com/007632.html

:arrow:

[Spav]

prryjones,

I don't think rosacea sufferers are considered in the artical. Surely for us any amount of sun could further weaken our blood vessels and progress our condition.

This is aside the fact that for many of us sun is a significant flushing trigger.

:arrow:

[prryjones]

Hi all,
The question was asked, "Is sun exposure healthy?". I am simply pointing to an article that gives a new perspective on sun exposure by no less than the Na'tl Cancer Institute (there is a link in the article to the NCI).
I may have looked at the question in black and white, but the idea that all sunlight is bad is a very general idea and is not consistent with at least one current study (READ THE ARTICLE).
I think it's important to do the research before giving advice or answers, unless one is an expert in the field. And to my knowledge, with what we discuss here, only Dr. Nase is.
Before coming to a conclusion, read the article, follow the links, do the reseach, and then decide.
By the way, the idea that sunlight is good for one is definitely NOT a popular idea at this time.
Perry Jones

:arrow:

[prryjones]

Marc,
I would expect nothing less than frankness from you.
I can't, from my PC, get an electronic copy (without paying for it) of the Feb. 2 Journal of the NIC (Actually, I'm not sure that the journal is available electronically, yet).
I'm sure the Univ has the Journal on microfish. I will try, if I think about it, to get a copy, but don't count on it, as I will prob. forget about it.
FYI, I have heard about the study, that corroborates basically what the article states.
See the info below, that DOES confirm the study as done by the NIC. Only one study to be sure, but thought provoking. You can go to the NIS website for yourself and confirm this:

Sunlight and Reduced Risk of Cancer: Is The Real Story Vitamin D?
Authors: Kathleen M. Egan; Jeffrey A. Sosman; William J. Blot

Source: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2 February 2005, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 161-163(3)

Publisher: Oxford University Press

Enjoy,
Perry

[granola grrrl]

Hi Guys :wink:
I have been wondering since a post from Dr. Nase some time ago about the degree to which we (with rosacea) avoid the sun like the plague and the effect that this has on thinning of the epidermis (v.v. low melanin production). I can't find his post on the RS. But I do remember at the time thinking hmmmm AM I doing the best thing by avoiding the sun in entirety (like a vampire....) :twisted:
Maybe moderate sun in the early day or late day when it is cooler and lower UV could have some benefit? Hard to say...
I don't really flush from the sun per se, just from the HEAT of the sun. It's a tough rope to balance though..........

Shelley

I think that a moderate amount of sun exposure whilst wearing a high SPF cream is perfectly healthy. I spend around 4-5 hours a day outside and have not had sunburn on my face for around 10 years.

obviously if yr going to go out for long periods of time in the height of the day with no SPF on you are going to do yrself damage, but with a nice wide brimmed hat and/or sunblock on yr face i think yr doing yrself no harm. Living like a vampire is not good for yr mental health.

PS marc do you have to make each post you write read like a statement of fact? Youve already stated in an earlier post that you are a layman and learn everything you state either from the net or Doctor Nase. i would much rather a layman phrased his posts so they were open to interpretation and discussion as otherwise people might just think that person was an expert.

[RedHotCanuck]

Rosaceans should wear sunscreen everytime they leave their house. Actually I wear it while i'm not sleeping ..

[prryjones]

Why do you have to make each post you write read like a statement of fact? Youve already stated in an earlier post that you are a layman and learn everything you state either from the net or Doctor Nase. i would much rather a layman phrased his posts so they were open to interpretation and discussion as otherwise people might just think that person was an expert.


Hi Sally,
I agree. There is a lot of enthusiasm on this forum, and most eagerly want to give advice to improve our quality of life.
I do agree with you, however, that sometimes in our rush to tell someone else what to take, not to take, what is good or bad...that we sometimes forget that we are not experts, such as Dr. Nase, in this particular field. In this case, in my opinion, it is best to paraphrase our statement with "I think", or "I believe", or "The evidence shows...." It also would be interesting and informative, especially concerning a controversial topic, to include a link or copy of an abstract relating to the topic. This way, one can research the matter later at their own leisure, and hey, might even, in the process, dig up some new information for us all.
I have always noticed that Dr. Nase very rarely makes a statement such as, "THIS IS BAD". He is ususually very careful in his advice, realizing through years of study and research that there are relatively few absolutes here that would warrant a "THIS IS THE LAW" sort of approach. The mark of a true professional (Dr. Nase, you can thank me later for all this praise 8)).
One can usually ascertain the knowledge of the advice giver by the ammount of caution he tempers his adivce with. No one wants to intentionally give wrong advice, but in portraying youself as an expert when you're not, you could potentially do someone else harm.
Perry
Dang I use a lot of commas....had a hard time in english....

[Mermaid]

Hey Shelley and Sally,

I agree totally with both of you, that a moderate amount of sun exposure in the early or late hours of the day can be extremely beneficial. In fact my IPL practitioner recommends it. Make sure you slap on your sunscreen, be sensible, listen to your skin and have a read of Dr Nase's post below. Tanning is not for everyone so use your discretion and care.

Mermaid

Hello Group,

There were lengthy debates over the last 6 months about whether
rosacea sufferers could still tan. One person even quoted a
physician that they could not.

I assure you that rosacea sufferers can still tan. I do not
recommend dark tans, but some can slowly and safely tan. This is
especially pertinent to the Melanotan trials on rosacea sufferers in
the future. Rosacea inflammmation does not damage melanocytes or
the production of melanin.

I hesitated many times over posting it, but I thought that a picture
says a thousand words. A few months ago I went to the beach with a
friend and went after my old bronzed tan. Each day I decreased the
SPF and then wore nothing. Below is the photo (not recommending
tanning, but want to put a myth to rest):

http://www.drnase.com/RosaceansCanStillTan-August2004.htm

[Peter]

I agree to as like most things in life sun exposure in moderation can be very beneficial. I find if I am sensible and build up slowly then I tan very easily and without any problems on my facial skin. In the past I have reacted to all sunscreens on my face so now I leave alone and find that if I take things slowly then the sun even seems to improve my skin.

As Mermaid says "Be sensible and listen to your skin"

There is a book I have called "The Healing Sun" by Richard Hobday which is well worth a read if you are interested.

Peter

[arcticlobo]

I spend a lot of times outdoors on the weekends (at least now that summer is here in DC). I have always been big on catching some sun, but I never used to use sunscreen, unless I was spending the entire day at the beach and I haven't gotten any sun in the past month or so. Anyway, I was diagnosed with rosacea about 5 months ago...so, I quickly figured out that using a sunscreen of spf 30+ will basically stop flushing, but if I go out in the middle of the day without it, I pay for it the next few hours.

My questions would be: Even with a powerful sunscreen on my face, am I still causing long term damage by allowing sun exposure?

[Warren]

----this post was made by Peter, not me.
Joined: 14 Jun 2005
Posts: 14
Location: UK
------------------------------
Ok I will be first off and hopefully we can get a sensible discussion going this time.

I read recently about a retired Nasa scientist called Professor William Grant who is Director of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Centre in California. It would appear that his controversial views on sun exposure are ruffling a few feathers as he advocates that limited exposure to the sun can actually decrease the risk of all cancers and other diseases e.g. osteoporosis, diabetes.

He argues that studies have proved that in North America that the further south you go, the greater the ultraviolet B doses in summer and the lower the rates of cancer.

I haven't got time now to go through the whole article but he does say that skin cancer is on the increase because overuse of sun cream stops skin darkening and thickening to stop UVA penetration and vitamin D deficiency is encouraging melanoma.

Interested on views on this and if anybody else knows of him ? The sun was my first trigger 20 years ago although I didn't know it was the start of rosacea. The paradox was that if I stayed in the sun after a few days my skin was normal again. Here in the UK the sun is not always guaranteed but I have now found over the last 6 - 7 years that since my condition is under control the sun is no longer a problem. I always felt previously it was more the heat generated by strong sun on my skin rather than the actually rays themselves.

Peter

[drnase]

Just pertaining to rosacea:

1. Modest exposure to sunlight with a low SPF (8 to 15 SPF) after 3 PM is good for rosacea as long as there is no major flushing during or after. Sunlight is the single best way to build a thicker, stronger epidermis. So, we are caught in a catch-22 sometimes. Stay out of the sun to avoid the trigger, but this does not allow our epidermis to thicken and be a better protective barrier to the sun and heat as the sun progresses. Every rosacea sufferer is unique in their response. Just know that if done wisely (no sunburns and always some degree of protection even an SPF of 4) should actually help deal with summer sun and heat when you are forced to do afternoon errands or outdoor activities. We dont even need to talk about skin cancer or Vitamin D or any of that stuff. It is about doubling the thickness of our thin epidermal lining so that the blood vessels and nerves are placed behind a stronger fortress.

2. The same thing applies to enviornmental influences such as wind and cold. A little bit of steady exposure tells the body to fortify the epidermis and you gain more protection....... but once again in moderation. Very modest.


3. DOES SUN CAUSE ROSACEA?

Sun damage plays a role in many rosacea sufferers; however, the overall importance of sun damage in causing rosacea is still unclear. There are currently three schools of thought on the importance of sunlight in the development of rosacea: (1) Sunlight is the sole cause of rosacea, (2) Sunlight does not cause rosacea, but is important in making rosacea symptoms worse, and (3) Sunlight has very little effect on any part of rosacea.

Over the last three decades, most medical textbooks suggested that rosacea was caused by sun damage because several well-known dermatologists found evidence of solar elastosis in their rosacea patients. Due to the great respect that these dermatologists had earned over the years, this speculation was considered to be fact. Well, this speculation is now known to be incorrect – rosacea is not primarily due to sun damage.

The leading medical authorities now feel that #2 is the most probable – i.e., sunlight does not cause rosacea, but UV rays can cause significant damage to facial blood vessels and skin, making rosacea symptoms much worse. Below are some medical references on this important subject:

• In the article, “The Role of Sunshine in Rosacea”, medical experts conclude that sun damage was not needed for the development of rosacea. (203) These experts did warn though, that sun damage to facial blood vessels can make rosacea symptoms much worse.

• Dr. Soybe indicates that while sun may aggravate rosacea in some patients, it is not the sole cause. (190)

• Drs. Logan and Griffith agree with Dr. Soybe, suggesting that sunlight was important in aggravating rosacea, but was not needed for the development of rosacea. (204)

• Dr. Matton and colleagues indicate that sun damage does not cause rosacea. (205) Many of their patients are business executives, office workers, and store clerks who report little sun exposure and demonstrate very little evidence of sun damage.

• In agreement with the above, Dr. Elliot and colleagues conclude, “Perhaps exposure to sun is a factor in some cases, but it clearly is not a universal cause.” (206)


4. DO ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS SUCH AS SUN, HEAT, COLD, AND WIND CAUSE ROSACEA?

This is a very interesting subject because these are all MAJOR TRIGGERS. But, the findings below clearly indicate that rosacea is a genetic disorder -- you must have the genetic predisposition to rosacea for these triggers to bring rosacea to the surface. If you do not have the rosacea gene(s) then you can get bombarded by the harshest triggers and never show rosacea or a broken capillary. It is important to note that while environmental factors may be important in worsening rosacea symptoms, they are not the sole cause of rosacea. Dr. Soybe performed in-depth examinations on 33 male laborers who worked for several years in extremely high temperatures all day (smiths, riveters, moulders, and factory hands); 40 women who worked in high temperatures all day (ironers, laundresses, cooks, and factory hands); and 30 men who worked outside in the daily heat and sun (fisherman and sailors), and found ABSOLUTELY NO signs of rosacea in any of these subjects. (190) This suggests that environmental factors are not the sole reason for rosacea.

[Bihbicat]

Okay, so here's a question to throw into the ring. Do the all-red LED lamps some of us are using do the job of helping to thicken to epidermis or is theirs another fuction entirely?

[drnase]

I have very little knowledge about the portable LED lamps.

I do know that they have been clinically proven to help the healing process and have been used for diabetic ulcerations.

Peter and Kristen know the most about these.

My only question....... is to heal the area does it increase blood flow to that particular area? I certainly dont know. In general, a damaged area that is healing has a higher metabolic rate. This requires more oxygen, nutrients and removal of metabolic waste -- thus the question about increased blood flow.

I leave this one up to the resident experts.

[SP1975]

I believe that the sun is not the cause of "rosacea" but a trigger for those that have rosacea. I myself do not find the sun to be that big of a trigger for my rosacea. I'm not sure but if the sun and uv rays were a cause of rosacea, then why doesn't everyone else that is considered a non sufferer not develop rosacea after excessive sun exposure? especially for those with the skin type for rosacea? This is something that has been unclear to me.

[drnase]

There are millions of extremely light skinned people on this earth that can get sunburn after sunburn and never develop rosacea because they do not have the genetic predisposition.

Just like a 60 year old that can gobble down candy, pasta, soda and ever type of carbohydrate (glucose raising substance) and never develop diabetes. He does not have the genetic predisposition for diabetes. Whereas his friend across the lunchroom has genetic diabetes and cant even look at one fig newton bar without having to take an insulin shot.

Its all about the genes.

[bethanne]

Dr. Nase,

In answer to your question about the all red LED
lamps and whether they cause an increase in blood
flow to the treated areas--they do. I'm no expert
on them as Kristen and Peter, but I've used them,
and according to the literature on the websites and
that which is delivered with the product, this is one
of the items stated .

Now it begs the question, is that increased bloodflow
contraindicated for Rosaceans?

Regards.
Beth

[Karla]

Based on Dr Nase quote below could Self Tanner (providing it's a formula that doesn't irritate due to other ingredients) for the face be used to obtain a similar result?

For the past 2 weeks I've been using a facial self tanner sample and have noticed that I barely flush (swollen feeling and intense redness of nose) even from triggers although the skin is in general still red overall. I'm not sure if this is due to the self tanner as I've also just started using Cutanix extra strength 2% which makes me very red after application but may be controlling flushing somehow??



Sunlight is the single best way to build a thicker, stronger epidermis. So, we are caught in a catch-22 sometimes. Stay out of the sun to avoid the trigger, but this does not allow our epidermis to thicken and be a better protective barrier to the sun and heat as the sun progresses. It is about doubling the thickness of our thin epidermal lining so that the blood vessels and nerves are placed behind a stronger fortress.

[Red_James]

It’s strange because we don’t really get much sun here in the UK but recently we had a bit of a heat wave and once again I’ve noticed that my rosacea flares up a lot less when it’s summer. I’m only 19 and have only had rosacea for about 2 and a half years, but I long for summer to arrive here in the UK because it’s so much better for my skin than when it’s cold. I find that when it’s cold my skin flushes really badly from the wind, and then when I go indoors because every building has the central heating on really high, the sudden change in temperature makes things even worse. My skin has been so much better recently that I’ve decided that I really want to live somewhere sunny when I graduate from university. Ideally I’d like to live somewhere on the west coast of the USA, but as it’s so hard to get a green card I think I’ll have to try and move to Australia instead. I must say that even though the sunny weather is better for my Rosacea I do put a lot of Rosacea Care’s sunscreen on before I go out anywhere.

[Peter]

I would never admit to being an expert on the use of a lamp for rosacea but obviously having used it for 7 years I know how my skin has reponded to it and in combination with other treatment it is the prime reason for the control I now have.

I cannot comment on LED because I haven't tried it but it is a shame Kristen isn't on the Forum as she has done much research into red light and as far as I know still uses the all red Dermalux and the LED.

Certainly with the Dermalux after a few weeks it removed the redness I had and also reversed the "woody" feel of my skin you can get with rosacea. I have noticed no side effects and after using it for 15 minutes my skin feels calmer rather than being irritated in anyway plus nothing to suggest increased blood flow to the face.

It is believed that red light can have an anti-inflammatory effect on the skin and in a report on the acne lamp it was stated "research over a number of years has shown that certain wavelengths of light in part of the red spectrum influence the healing of tissues by stimulating the white blood cells to produce fibroblasts, the building blocks from which new tissue is created, thus healing any abrasions. The wavelengths of the lamp are outside those which will cause damage to the skin, there is no risk of sunburn, sun ageing of the skin or the induction of skin cancer".

I still feel that sunlight in moderation can help the rosacea skin but as Geoffrey has stated every sufferer can be unique in their response and as Mermaid has said also "listen to your skin"

Hope this helps.

Peter

[Peter]

Hi

I have pasted in below the article which appeared in the Times about the benefits of sun exposure by Professor William Grant. It's long but worth reading. Interested in what Forum members think.

Peter

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decent exposure
Too much sun is bad, right? Simon Crompton meets the controversial scientist who says that we all need more sun to beat cancer





With the Met Office predicting a summer heatwave, Macmillan Cancer Relief this week issued its customary warning about the sun’s ultraviolet rays: responsible, it says, for the huge rise in skin cancers affecting 70,000 people a year. Put on a hat and long-sleeved shirt, it advises, keep in the shade in the middle of the day, and slap on suncream with a protection factor of 15 or above.

We all know it makes sense; it’s the message that’s been drummed into us for the past 20 years. Too much sun kills. But now there’s a fly in the suntan lotion, complicating the message’s clarity. It comes in the form of a thin, quietly- spoken and officially retired Nasa scientist, Professor William Grant, who says that sun doesn’t kill; in fact, it does us the world of good. What’s killing us, he says, is our obsession with protecting ourselves from skin cancer.

Grant is trying to turn the scientific world upside down. Talking to me on a trip to Britain this week, he revealed his startling — and at first appearance off-the-wall — new calculation that while excessive exposure to the sun is costing 1,600 deaths a year in the UK from melanoma skin cancers, insufficient exposure to the sun is the cause of 25,000 deaths a year from cancer generally. In other words, one sixth of all cancer deaths could be prevented if we sunned ourselves a little more; in comparison, the melanoma risk is insignificant.

The reason is vitamin D. Grant, the director of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Centre (Sunarc) he founded in California a year ago, says that he and other scientists have established vitamin D deficiency as a key cause behind 17 different types of cancer including melanoma, osteoporosis, diabetes, multiple sclerosis and other neurological disorders. Though the vitamin is found in small quantities in foods such as eggs, butter, meat and oily fish, by far the largest amounts are generated by our skin when exposed to sunlight. Grant says our forefathers often safely built up tans and vitamin production by working outdoors, whereas our indoor lifestyles leave 50 per cent of us depleted in vitamin D and more susceptible to diseases such as cancer. We need to get out more.

This is dangerous talk. Cancer Research UK, the Government and countless other organisations have spent millions trying to educate the public about covering up. Grant is not only saying that they are wrong, but is advocating that we expose ourselves at midday when the sun is at its strongest. How can he possibly justify promoting such a potentially dangerous message? Inconveniently, Grant, a Berkeley physicist, is no fruitcake. He’s not advocating that we all fry on the beach for eight hours. He knows the importance of scientific rigour and has gathered an impressive array of legitimate research to support his hypothesis.

At its centre are population studies showing an inverse geographical correlation between exposure to ultraviolet radiation and rates of breast, colon and ovarian cancer and multiple sclerosis. In North America, for example, the farther south you go, the greater the ultraviolet B doses in summer and the lower the rates of cancer.

What’s more, he has garnered the enthusiastic support of the respected health journalist Oliver Gillie, and even drawn grudging acknowledgement from Dr Michael Thun, the head of epidemiology at the American Cancer Society. Thun recently wrote to Grant that, although evidence that vitamin D decreased the risk of cancer was “accumulating rather than conclusive”, it did deserve “serious attention” but would have to be considered in the light of existing advice on sunscreens.

There’s even some acknowledgement in Australia that the cover-up from the sun campaigns may have gone too far. This March, Australian and New Zealand organisations for cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis issued a new statement acknowledging the importance of vitamin D in protecting against disease. They recommended five minutes sun exposure every day to face, arms and hands in the intensity of the Australian summer; and more in winter. A new analysis by Grant indicates that Australian melanoma rates continue to rise even though sunscreen is now so widely used.

“Wherever I look, there’s more and more evidence of a link between vitamin D deficiency and cancer,” says Grant, who quotes at length to demonstrate that his theory fulfils all the criteria of medical causality. “There’s even a very well acknowledged mechanism there. We know that vitamin D helps abnormal cells to commit suicide and if they don’t, then cancers start.”

If his case is so convincing, how come the medical establishment doesn’t seem to be listening? Grant thinks it may have something to do with his background; he’s not a medic and has come at the subject from a completely different angle from skin specialists. After starting his research career working on lasers and jet propulsion, he spent 15 years at Nasa researching the chemistry of the atmosphere. It was during this time, he says, that he became convinced of the health benefits of ultraviolet B light and began parallel health research.

“Medicine is there to treat disease, not to prevent disease,” he says. “In America, doctors get paid only if people are sick. The pharmaceutical companies will only develop drugs that they will make money from; they won’t look at the benefits of vitamins and minerals because they won’t make a buck. Another problem is the whole melanoma prevention side. In America they want a very simple message for the public, and what I’m saying confuses that.”

He is a self-confessed conspiracy theorist, which probably doesn’t do much for his cause. Dermatologists, he says, don’t understand; they see ultraviolet B light as a villain equivalent to tobacco and are in the thrall (if not the pay) of the sunscreen industry. By encouraging people to wear sunscreen at all times, he says, they are putting them at more risk. Since the creams work better against UVB than UVA, people are exposed for longer to potentially dangerous UVA, and protected from potentially beneficial vitamin D.

Grant insists that he has no financial stake in his controversial views; all his research is self-funded. What is vaguely frightening about him is that he is so convinced that he is right he seems unaware of the dangers of being wrong. When I asked about the confusion the public was bound to experience, given his recommendation to get into the sun if you don’t want cancer, I got a look of benign incomprehension.


Cancer Research UK, meanwhile, say he is misrepresenting the public health campaigns. “Our SunSmart campaign never has encouraged people to avoid the sun entirely,” says Sara Hiom, Head of Health Information.

When you dig a bit, you become aware that, if he wanted to, Grant could make his message far more palatable. Adequate vitamin D could be obtained using supplements, he says — 1000IU, or 25 micrograms (the upper safety limit advised by the Food Standards Agency). He’s also in favour of fortifying food; one American food company said this week it would be the first to add vitamin D to bread and chocolate to counter the population’s D deficiency. That, and his sensible advice for going out in the sun, build up gradually, never ever burn, makes him seem a lot less dangerous.

Perhaps he’s just a little too keen to be remembered as the man who changed everything. A couple of times he gripes that others have hijacked his work, or not given him due credit — on the link between Alzheimer’s and diet, for example. And he rather grandiosely says he takes consolation from the story of American chemists F. Sherwood Rowland and Mario Molina, who in 1974 said that CFCs released into the atmosphere through aerosols might be damaging the ozone layer. They met howls of derision from the American chemical industry. In 1995 they received a Nobel prize.

But his message has a beautiful simplicity: “Nature has a way of giving us little rewards for things that are essential for life. “We like sunbathing because it’s good for us; it’s the same reason we enjoy food and sex. The dermatologists have gone too far in making us keep out of the sun; no one should be afraid of their own shadow.”



Light and shade

CANCER RESEARCH UK SAYS


Skin cancer will double in the next 30 years thanks to excess sun exposure.

Young people and those with fair skins should avoid “excess” sun and burning.

Stay in the shade between 11am and 3pm.

Cover up with a T-shirt and use factor 15.

Deliberate sun exposure is not good for health.

DR GRANT SAYS


Skin cancer is increasing because overuse of sun cream stops skin darkening and thickening to stop UVA penetration, and vitamin D deficiency is encouraging melanoma.

Avoid burning.

Expose your skin for short periods in the middle of the day, when ultraviolet rays are strongest and vitamin D is produced fast.

Contact Cancer Research UK on 020-7242 0200; www.cancerresearchuk.org

[pjbear57]

Are there any rosaceans from Arizona out there? I'll be going from Indiana sun to Arizona sun in a few weeks when I visit my son in Phoenix and I'm a little concerned about how my skin will do in the different environment. The only place I really flush is my nose. The rest of my face just breaks out. I have some issues with sunscreen as in they usually make my breakouts worse. I have been out in the sun this summer here in IN, but do I need to do anything differently for AZ, I guess is my question. I'm also searching for a sunscreen to use on my face that I won't react to. Any help out there? 8)

[prryjones]

FYI, and sorry if this has been posted prior.

J Drugs Dermatol. 2005 May-Jun;4(3):326-9. Related Articles, Links


Rosacea, light, and phototherapy.

Lee M, Koo J.

Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, Chicago, IL, USA. melvin.lee@students.rosalindfranklin.edu

The long-established notion that rosacea is worsened by light is of particular concern in the phototherapy of diseases such as psoriasis, eczema, or vitiligo, which often can be coexistent with rosacea. A literature search was conducted and much evidence was found to challenge this belief that light adversely affects rosacea. In fact, more patients actually improved with sunlight in a more recent published survey. Several other studies have also shown that rosacea patients were similar to control subjects in sun exposure, solar skin damage, and sun sensitivity. Additionally, all clinical trials to date have failed to find a difference between rosacea patients and control subjects when challenged with ultraviolet light. Thus, phototherapy with rosacea may be safer than is commonly believed.

PMID: 15898288 [PubMed - in process]

[partymonger]

That was some very good reading on sun exposure. I personally, even when I was in high school and college, have laid out in the sun, but never between the hours of 1130 and 300, and only in moderation. Even ages ago, I always knew the peak tanning hours (between 11-3) were bad for you and I have NEVER used a tanning bed. For me it relaxed me from stress as well as cleared up my complexion.

Now, I have been diagnosed with rosacea several months ago. Did the sun cause this??? Probably not, because I had flushing/blushing in middle school. I used to move around alot, and would have to be introduced to a new class, and I would always hear people say, "I have never seen a face get so red before." :oops: So, I am kinda thinking we are born with it. We then all have our various triggers, and the older we get, the more our veins and capillaries have been dilated, we soon have seeable rosacea. Sun may trigger it for most of us, my biggest flushing comes from something I am having a problem with letting go of now, alcohol.

I think some sun in moderation is actually good for us, even now with rosacea, I still feel this way. Unfortunately, its like all those antibiotics, eventually the effect wears off, and the trigger may kick in, and in full force. Last summer, I did not know about my rosecea yet, I had been in the sun quite a bit. But then at the end of September, beginning of October, I had the worst acne breakout I have had since high school, so I went to the derm, and she told me about the rosacea and using sunscreen. Well, I have not been in the sun since October, and havent started to wear sunscreen until this past week because the weather is turning nice again.

I just saw the derm a week or two ago, and she said I look really good, and that she cant tell I have rosacea now. And well, I havent been in the sun at all in 5 months. So, my face is less red, but I still have the acne and small red bumps. So now I am left with spring time coming, and I know the sun is wonderful at healing, do I risk it and sit in the sun for 10-15 minutes a day, and then wear the sunscreen the rest of the day???

[Masanevre]

In my case the sun certainly didnt play a part in me getting rosacea I was diagnosed with it last june and I had only been on a beach for 1 days in 7 years. Never had been exposed to the sun for long periods of time.

[Chelsey]

That's interesting. Being really fair skinned I've always burned in the sun so have tried to avoid it, however I've always suspected that some tanning bed sessions (to get a base tan and avoid being burned on a trip to the Caribbean) and some bad sun burns when I was a kid have contributed to the onslaught of rosacea.

[sharona]

We are going on holiday to Florida in 6 weeks and I will obviously be sunbathing. Thinking back to past hols I have often ended up with a very red face even though I use suntan cream. Can anyone recommend a cream specifically for the face?

[moomy]

hi,
clinique city block is good and goes up to factor 40. I always wear a hat too.

[Rauno]

I have used Eucerin Age Protecting Face Cream(for sun sensitive skin) with SPF 25 and I'm quite pleased with it. But as I'm quite new to rosacea(quite new to knowing I have it actually) then I'm sure there are better ones...

[sharona]

thanks for the reply, I think I will try the clinique. A bit pricey but hopefully worth it.