To not smother my DCs in suncream?

[CantankerousCamel]

I know there is a lot of information suggesting ‘there’s is no such thing as a healthy tan’ but AIBU to think it’s gone too far the other way?

I am very lax about suncream personally (choice partly and research mostly) but everywhere I look, people seem to be smothering children in factor 50 every second of the day!

This cannot be healthy surely? Some sort of happy medium is necessary? Obviously some skin needs heavy sun cream and some needs none (I have Spanish skin and my husband is South African, neither of us or the kids have burned when being careful with staying in the shade in midday sun and popping a thin layer on/hat if needed

Why the factor 50 in May?

AIBU to think NICE should be adjusting guidelines to ward off such thick use of creams on young children? It is important for skin to experience sunlight, especially in the Northern Hemisphere and especially this time of year when moderate exposure is easier, safer and will prevent burning later on in the summer.

But sitting in the shade won't stop you burning if you've got very fair skin. And some people will still burn in 5-10 minutes no matter how much you try and build up their exposure.

I would rather be pale and take vitamin D supplements than end up with skin cancer.

It's a balance. I use factor 30 on me & the dcs. DSs & I are pale, dd & dh not so pale. I don't like the idea of total block. My dsis had vit D deficiency & now has MS (there is a link with low vit D). Aldi suncream is really good btw 5* UVA.

I would LOVE to not have to put sunscreen on my kids, i find it a right faff but i have to.

In winter they both appear to have the same skin type and colour, but in summer their skins react differently to sun exposure.

The other day DH took them out for a walk to get some ice cream. They both wore knee length shorts, large t-shirt and hats. That evening after bath DC1's ankle's were white but the backs of the calves were a slight yellow/golden shade. DC2's ankles were white but the backs of the calves were bright pink. And this was an after school walk so 3.15pm onwards, hardly midday sun.

Suncream has only existed for a few generations.

I’m finding it very hard to believe that there are huge amounts of people who literally cannot survive without it.

Yes some people really need it all the time, no exceptions. But they have to be ridiculously rare. We are actually born with some defences against the sun which is a natural part of the world we have evolved to live on.

This time of year, the sun at 3pm is offen at its most fierce

CantankerousCamel

I burn. I always have done. my summers (before suncream and before I was allowed to stay inside) are memories of bright red skin and pain.

On sunny days about 20 minutes in the morning (pre 10) is enough, in the afternoon 5 minutes should do it.

I wear hats, cream and long sleeved tops.

I can survive without suncream, but I would prefer to put it on and have fun with my friends.

Dad, uncle and grandmother all have basal cell carcinomas. Grandmother on other side died from particularly aggressive form of skin cancer. For me there is little difference between sun exposure and getting burnt - if it’s warm enough outside for me to go out with enough skin bared to get sufficient vitamin D, chances are it’s also warm enough to burn. Kids’ skin isn’t quite as fair as mine so they will head out in the early morning without any on and I don’t put it on them unless they’re out in sun properly but with my family history it’s not really a risk worth taking.

I agree with you up to a point, OP. Vitamin D is essential, and I suspect (no evidence tho!) that acquiring it naturally from sun is probably better than from supplements. I would not slather my 3 year old in sunscreen very early or late in the day.

However, she is very, very fair and ginger. I am also fair, and have bad memories of horrific sunburn as a child (imagine Irish milk-bottle white skin covered in no more than factor 3 in Spain in August....). It was so, so painful. I now have bad sun-damage on my skin. Worst all, I got skin cancer in my thirties and now have some pretty disfiguring scarring. I would walk on hot coals to avoid that for my DD. So I think you need to take appropriate precautions for skin type and weather conditions. Were she a more Mediterranean type I would be a little more relaxed. As she is the fairest of the fair it's factor 50 between 10.30 and 5, and a very good vitamin D supplement.

I agree with you.
Lack of vitamin D causes behaviour problems and I think it's a real issue in schools.

Kids need sunlight

I am another person with pale skin and freckles who will definitely burn at 10am in May if outside for 30 minutes (I would be burnt in less than 15). OP please can you explain how I build up my tolerance to the sun? My skin does not tan, it only burns. Staying outside longer without suncream would just result in me burning more.

I agree with you up to a point, OP. Vitamin D is essential, and I suspect (no evidence tho!) that acquiring it naturally from sun is probably better than from supplements.

Not an RCT but quite digestible and shows some general information

BBC - The big vitamin D experiment

If mine are outside before 10am then it's sun cream free for 20-30 mins otherwise factor 30 or 50 all the way. They are both super pale & as an adult who burnt all the time as a child even with sun cream I don't want the same for my children.
I don't really care what other people do although I would insist on other children in my care being treated the same

I agree with you - I live in Aberdeenshire so hot sunny days are few and far between!
But I know on these days, my kids will spend most of the school day outdoors so I do pop the factor 30 on in the morning. I don’t use factor 50 as it completely blocks pores and the skin can’t breath. My son breaks out in horrible itchy rashes with factor 50.
When we go to Portugal in July, i won’t slather it on at 9am when we go for a walk to breaskast, but we do wear more covering clothes. It does get slapped on when they are at the pool 10-12, then 3-5. But we also have long sleeved swim tops and hats etc. Been 3 years in a row now and no-one has ever been burned.
But playing in our garden, unless it’s properly hot and sunny they go without.

I have very fair skin and I use factor 50 on myself. I'm out right now with sun cream on, if I didn't then I would be burnt. This is the first year I haven't had sun burn because I always underestimated how much protection I'd need and I'm not willing to risk it. I never get a tan.

DS is almost 5 and he has his dad's skin tone - a bit more olive than mine and he tans easily. I use a high factor on him but I do let him have short bursts in the sun with no cream on and he's never burnt. He hasn't got any on at the moment but as it gets hotter towards midday I'll put some on him.

SHOVING

I believe getting some moderate exposure to the sun is protection against burning

The damage to the ozone means that any defences that we have/had are not sufficient.

A tan is a sign of skin damage, I'm not going to spend the summer gradually damaging dc's skin so that he's cooked evenly rather than just burnt.

I wouldn't expose him to some other dangerous substance and keep upping the dosage daily so that his tolerance increases, why would I do that with the sun? Especially when by the time he feels the dangerous effects (e.g. cancer) it will be decades down the line. It isn't a risk I'm willing to take with his current or future health.

Scientific American - Fact or Fiction?: A "Base Tan" Can Protect against Sunburn

In study after study they have found that a base tan affords almost no protection against future ultraviolet exposure. In fact, it actually puts otherwise pale people at risk of developing skin cancers. A base tan only provides an SPF, or sun protection factor, of 3 or less, according to the U.S. surgeon general. For beachgoers, that means if a person would normally turn pink after 10 minutes in the sun, an SPF 2 base tan would theoretically buy her another 10 minutes (or 20 minutes in total) before she burns. That, says David Leffell, the chief of dermatologic surgery and cutaneous oncology at Yale University School of Medicine, is “completely meaningless” in terms of providing protection.

op I think you are taking this to the extreme now
Too much sun is bad for you with or without suncream
Suncream is fine and prevents burning and aging a bit. Probably some people overdo sun cream hence vit d deficiency.
Everything in moderation etc etc

MEMORIAL

Spend 2 mins outside without suncream
Then next day 3/4/5/6 etc

Build tolerance

The telegraph article I posted earlier explains an alternative view to the ‘no healthy tan’ belief

Even very fair children need some sunlight without heavy creams

Did you not read my post properly? My dd came out in a photosensitive raised rash without full block sun cream. Fact. You suggesting a bit of late afternoon sun is frankly laughable

She has now grown out of this and can tolerate factor 30 but we had this for a few years

Just Googled 'telegraph no healthy tan' before scrolling up to find the article posted earlier (on the app so can't search -find on a page)

This article came up

No such thing as a safe tan, warn health officials

NICE guidance which is based on evidence based medicine

The article posted is desperately sad but the plural of anecdotes is not data

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/11040119/A-suntan-is-not-only-healthy-it-can-be-life-saving.html

I tend to let my children play out without suncream in the morning and late aft. I try to make them come in between 12:00 - 15:00 but if they are going to be out then I do smother them in factor 50. We all have pale skin and burn easily.