Is Sun Protection Harming Our Health?
Why some risks might be worth taking ☀️
ICYMI 👉
💊 Join me TODAY, Tuesday 6/10 at 5 pm ET for a live conversation about GUT HEALTH—right here. Bring your questions about:
IBS (irritable bowel syndrome)
GERD (reflux)
and any gastrointestinal woes you might have
🙋🏻♀️ Programming note: My live show is moving to TUESDAYS at 5 pm ET. I hope to see you there!
Do you remember when lathering your face with baby oil at the beach seemed like a great idea?! And when SPF 10 was considered aggressive sun protection? The 80s theme song for the popular skin product “Bain de Soleil” (“the San Tropez Tan….” 🎵🎶) still lingers in my head. I used to love the bronzed look, but gone are my days of an intentional suntan—at least for now!
Nowadays, sun protection advice seems to change every few months. One week we're told to avoid the sun entirely, the next we're reading about the benefits of moderate sun exposure. Meanwhile, sunscreen shelves are packed with products boasting increasingly higher SPF numbers, each promising better protection than the last.
Recently, one of my patients mentioned she'd started avoiding her long weekend walks because she wasn't sure how to protect herself from sun exposure. "I read so many conflicting things about sunscreen," she quipped, "that sometimes it feels easier to just stay indoors!"
Her comment reflects a common dilemma I see: people caught between wanting to enjoy outdoor activities and uncertainty about how to do so safely in the sunshine.
It got me thinking about how we've oversimplified sun safety into a single metric—SPF—while missing what our bodies actually need.
The SPF Arms Race
Walk down any drugstore aisle and you'll see sunscreens boasting SPF 30, 50, 70, even 100+. The message seems clear: higher numbers equal better protection. But like many aspects of health, the reality is more nuanced.
Here's what the SPF numbers actually mean: SPF 15 blocks about 93% of UVB rays, SPF 30 blocks 97%, and SPF 50 blocks 98%. The difference between SPF 50 and SPF 100? A marginal increase from 98% to 99% protection. Yet many people assume SPF 100 offers twice the protection of SPF 50.
Meanwhile, SPF measures only protection against UVB rays, the ones that cause sunburn. But these same UVB rays are essential for vitamin D synthesis, a hormone crucial for bone health, immune function, mood regulation, and potentially cancer prevention. This creates a genuine health trade-off that deserves careful consideration.
The Vitamin D Dilemma
Vitamin D deficiency has become increasingly common, affecting an estimated 35% of adults in the United States. While supplements can help, many people struggle to maintain adequate levels through pills alone. Our bodies evolved to produce vitamin D through sun exposure, and for many people, brief periods of unprotected sun exposure remain the most effective way to support healthy vitamin D levels.
What makes sun exposure so efficient is the sheer amount of vitamin D our skin can produce in a short time. Just 10-15 minutes of midday sun exposure on bare arms and legs can generate 10,000-25,000 IU of vitamin D, far more than most people get from supplements, which typically contain 1,000-4,000 IU per dose. This efficiency makes sun exposure a uniquely powerful tool for maintaining adequate vitamin D status.
The irony is that meticulous sun avoidance—while protecting against skin cancer—may create other health risks. Low vitamin D levels are associated with increased risk of osteoporosis, certain cancers, autoimmune diseases, and mood disorders. For some people, the health benefits of moderate sun exposure may outweigh the skin cancer risks, particularly those living in northern climates or spending most of their time indoors.
The Chemistry Behind the Controversy
In addition, not all sunscreens are created equal, and the composition matters as much as the SPF rating. The two main categories—chemical and physical (mineral) sunscreens—work differently and carry different implications for both health and environmental impact.
Chemical sunscreens contain ingredients like oxybenzone, avobenzone, and octinoxate that absorb UV radiation and convert it to heat. These ingredients can penetrate the skin and enter the bloodstream, raising questions about hormonal disruption and potential health effects. The FDA has acknowledged that more research is needed on the systemic absorption of these chemicals, particularly with frequent, long-term use.
Physical (mineral) sunscreens use zinc oxide or titanium dioxide to create a barrier that reflects UV rays away from the skin. While generally considered safer for both human health and marine ecosystems, they can leave a white residue that many people find cosmetically undesirable, leading to inadequate application or avoidance altogether.
The effectiveness of any sunscreen depends heavily on proper application: most people use only 25-50% of the recommended amount, dramatically reducing the actual protection achieved. A thick, even layer applied 15-30 minutes before sun exposure, with reapplication every two hours, is essential, but rarely achieved in real-world use.
A More Sophisticated Approach
So, instead of viewing sun exposure as universally harmful, we need a strategy that considers individual risk factors, location, skin type, and overall health goals:
Strategic timing matters more than maximum SPF. The sun's UV radiation is most intense between 10 AM and 4 PM. Seeking shade during peak hours offers more protection than relying solely on high-SPF sunscreens. For vitamin D synthesis, brief morning or late afternoon sun exposure may provide benefits with lower cancer risk.
Consider your individual risk profile. Fair-skinned individuals with a family history of skin cancer need more aggressive protection than those with naturally darker skin. Geographic factors, personal history, and medications all factor into the equation.
Clothing and shade as primary protection. Wide-brimmed hats, long-sleeved UV-protective shirts, and shade provide more reliable protection than sunscreen alone.
Quality over quantity in sunscreen selection. Focus on broad-spectrum protection, water resistance when needed, and ingredients that align with your health values. SPF 30 applied properly and reapplied regularly beats SPF 100 applied thinly once.
Intentional vitamin D consideration. For many people, brief periods of sun exposure without sunscreen—perhaps 10-15 minutes on arms and legs several times per week—may support vitamin D production while maintaining reasonable skin cancer protection.
Finding Your Balance
Like most aspects of health, optimal sun protection isn't one-size-fits-all. It requires considering your complete health ecosystem: your genetics, lifestyle, geographic location, current health status, and personal values.
Recent research suggests that moderate sun exposure may offer benefits beyond vitamin D production, potentially influencing blood pressure, immune function, and even cardiovascular health through mechanisms we're still discovering.
This doesn't mean abandoning sun protection—skin cancer remains a serious health threat, and cumulative sun damage accelerates aging and increases cancer risk. But it does mean approaching sun safety with the same nuanced thinking we apply to other health decisions.
Your skin evolved to work with natural sunlight, not against it. ☀️
Let me know your thoughts! I’m all ears.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it widely!! And click the ❤️ or 🔄 button below so that more people can discover it on Substack 🙏
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are entirely my own. They are not a substitute for advice from your personal physician.
Finally! With osteoporosis and Vit D deficiency on the rise, a logical, nuanced perspective is long overdue. Our skin is an organ and slathering chemicals all over it - every day, "even if you are going to be in a basement all day" is unreasonable and harmful guidance (& yes I did hear that recommendation by a dermatologist).
I was very excited to see this topic. My vitamin D levels have hovered between 28-35 for the past 3 years and I keep getting advice from my primary care doctor to take 1000 IU of vitamin D which unfortunately causes terrible nausea, so I feel like I’m forced to choose between bone health or skin health. 😕 But also I wonder if 2 points below is really enough to trigger supplementing. Have tried lower doses, pills vs gummies vs liquids with the same effect, so have settled on prioritizing certain foods and getting sun exposure. Have been trying to use sunscreen when I’m out midday for long periods like a bike ride (the sun is intense in Southern California!) but otherwise not too religiously so I can get some sun exposure. I’m biracial — half Filipina, half European — so I have more melanin and tan quite a bit but can still burn if I’m not careful. One thing I’ve heard is that folks with darker skin need more sun exposure to produce adequate vitamin D and that a lot of the guidelines about 15 minutes a day are for people with lighter skin. Have you seen more nuanced guidance about the amount of time of sun exposure? What about supplementation during the winter months only? Thanks again for this helpful topic.