oxidation_is_normal said:haidut said:oxidation_is_normal said:haidut said:oxidation_is_normal said:It is not correct to call this "sunscreen" - it does not block UV like sunscreen. It blocks the effects of UV. This is good because we want the UV-cholestrol reaction from the sun to produce vitamin D (which traditional sunscreen blocks). Simultaneously, we want to decrease the damage that UV radiation has on the skin (which is why most people use traditional sunscreen). These substances are not "screens" as the substances in traditional sunscreen are, though. Correct labeling will increase understanding.
I am sorry but I believe you are incorrect - SolBan is in fact a sunscreen. There are two types of "sunscreens", and I explained this in some of my other posts - a physical sunscreen and chemical sunscreen.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/chemical-vs ... 1402354797
Maybe this is a misnomer and only physical sunscreens should be called sunscreens, but for better or worse the convention is to call both types sunscreens. Physical sunscreen like zinc oxide will prevent the actual UV light from reaching the skin by reflecting it away. Chemical sunscreens prevent the damage caused by sunlight by absorbing the light or redirecting its energy in a way that prevents an increase in local inflammation and immunosuppression. SolBan does the second one, and one of the studies I posted at the beginning of this thread itself calls caffeine a sunscreen precisely b/c it absorbed the light like chemical sunscreen and also prevented most of the skin damage.
Thoughts?
So you're saying caffeine is the UV filter in SolBan? How is it blocking the UV? Especially @ 4% of the substance?
Some more info:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2011 ... kin-cancer
viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3692
Again, I realize that, but it isn't via the mechanism of "blocking" the UV. Any evidence that it blocks or absorbs UV? Then it isn't a screen - it is a "tanning oil" or something. Again, I'm not saying it isn't better than sunscreen - just that it shouldn't be called sunscreen.
How about this study:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16864596
"...Topical application of caffeine sodium benzoate (caffeine-SB) immediately after UVB irradiation of SKH-1 mice enhanced UVB-induced apoptosis by a 2- to 3-fold greater extent than occurred after the topical application of an equimolar amount of caffeine. Although topical application of caffeine-SB or caffeine enhanced UVB-induced apoptosis, both substances were inactive on non-UVB-treated normal skin. Topical application of caffeine-SB or caffeine (each has UVB absorption properties) 0.5 h before irradiation with a high dose of UVB decreased UVB-induced thymine dimer formation and sunburn lesions (sunscreen effect). Caffeine-SB was more active than an equimolar amount of caffeine in exerting a sunscreen effect."
If something reduces the occurrence of sunburn lesions, then it is a sunscreen in my opinion. Since the study also calls it a "sunscreen" effect so am I. I guess like said Such_Saturation, at some point it may come down to where draw the line. Caffeine is known to increase CO2 in skin, so this may be an additional chemical sunscreen effect.