Protezione tutto l'anno? Meglio evitare.

E adesso gli Americani scoprono (finalmente!) che...


Scoprono che proteggersi troppo dai raggi solari fa male. Che si va incontro a carenze di vitamina D. Un giorno o l'altro per dimostrare che l'acqua bagna dovranno fare dei test scientifici. In ogni modo, vi regalo l'abstract (direi che lo regalo soprattutto ai/alle fanatici/e della protezione coatta...e a chi si fa condizonare nella cura del sè, e della propria pelle, dalla "moda" del momento, dimenticando saggezza e buonsenso).

 

Patients that are actively photoprotected should be supplemented in vitamin D

Fifty-two patients suffering from lupus erythematosus who had been advised by their dermatologist to actively protect themselves against the sun had an average serum level of vitamin D of 63 nmol/l. Two thirds of the patients had a level that was lower than 75 nmol/l, level required to avoid the consequences of vitamin D insufficiency. The authors also found a correlation between the levels of vitamin D and the observance of photoprotection measures, evaluated using the « total sun eviction score ». Therefore, it appears that patients that strictly follow photoprotection advice, either for medical reasons or by an excess of caution, are at risk of having vitamin D deficiencies. It is important to prevent these vitamin D deficiencies as the latter is essential for bone mineralisation and other functions, namely protection against autoimmune diseases and cancer. Factors increasing the risk of vitamin D deficiencies are phototype, lifestyle and diet. The authors recommend the prescription of oral vitamin D for these patients which will enable them to avoid both the negative effects of sun exposure and of vitamin D deficiency. The recommended doses range between 400 and 1000 UI/day depending on the situations. The aim is to obtain a D vitaminemia above 75 nmol/l. 

Cusack C, Danby C, Fallon JC, et al.
Photoprotective behaviour and sunscreen use: impact on vitamin D levels in cutaneous lupus erythematosus.
Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed 2008 ; 24 : 260-267
Dal blog di Riccarda Serri