This is the clearest image of Telomerase so far

image

So what is telomerase? And why is this important?

Telomeres are junk attached to the end of chromosomes. Each time a cell replicates, its chromosomes replicate as well. Because the process isn’t perfect, the end of the chromosome gets cleaved off – the telomere. Eventually the telomere runs out, and the cell enters a state of senescence (”old age”) or dies.

image

Telomeres are like a health bar for our cells and all cells undergo this process – including the ones in our skin.

Telomerase can extend telomeres by adding back junk to the end of the chromosome. This allows the cell to replicate longer than it normally would have without errors.

Great right? Unfortunately, cancer cells also benefit from telomerases, which is a big problem.

By understanding the structure of telomerases, scientists can begin to research how it functions. This could eventually lead to understanding how to control its function and use it (or develop similar structures) as a treatment.

As one of the researchers, Juli Feigon, put it:

 “If telomerase were a cat, before we could see its general outline and the location of the limbs, but now we can see the eyes, the whiskers, the tail and the toes.“

One day we may never have to worry about skin ageing again.

image

As Lisle Von Rhuman says in Death Becomes Her:

“This is life’s ultimate cruelty. It offers us a taste of youth and vitality, and then it makes us witness our own decay.”

If you haven’t seen it and you love camp, Meryl Streep, Goldie Hawn, Bruce Willi–I think I’ve said enough, just go watch it!

P.S. If you see a skin care product or a beauty supplement claiming it can lengthen telomeres…RUN. Run far, far away – while giving it a dirty eye.

image


Read the discussion on /r/Science

Hello! I just found your blog and I really love it! And I already have a question. :)

… Basically I have a question about the last question you got. The person who asked mentioned that we’re required to use 1/2 teaspoon of sunscreen for the face alone and now I’m a little confused because I’ve thought that we “only” need 1/4 of a teaspoon? Or about 1.25 ml? Is that wrong? I’m sorry for asking, I’m just always worried about not using enough product to get the proper protection.

Great question, thanks for asking @naevery 🙂

It’s not right, and it’s not wrong…it depends!
Let me explain 🙂

The density of sunscreen used in SPF testing is always 2 mg/cm2

That means for every square centimeter or skin, 2 mg of sunscreen is applied.

This is easier to do when testing, because it’s done on the back where you can draw a 30 cm2 square and apply 60 mg to it.

Figuring out the area of the face is trickier.

The ¼ teaspoon or ½ teaspoon or 1.25 ml are based on two estimates.

The first estimate is the average area of a human face, and the second estimate is the average density of a sunscreen. Remember that ml is a measurement of volume, it provides no information about weight.

Water at 4°C has density of close to 1. 1 ml of water will weigh about 1 mg. However, oil for example has a lower density, 1 ml of oil won’t weigh 1 mg, it might weigh 0.8 mg (depending on the type of oil).

That makes things more complicated, because you can’t assume that 60 ml of sunscreen will weigh 60 mg, it might weigh 65 mg or 55 mg.

So the ¼ teaspoon, or ½ teaspoon are just estimates for an estimated human face, and an estimated sunscreen density.

These researchers for example used a beer bottle cap to measure out sunscreen.

So in order to know how much sunscreen, exactly, to apply you’ll need two measurements. The density of your sunscreen, which you can take by measuring out, say, 10 ml of sunscreen then weighing it. You’ll probably want a jewelry scale that has 0.001 g accuracy, and to measure a few times and average your measurements!

Finding out the area of your face is more difficult.

There are studies where people are told to apply sunscreen, and how much they’ve applied is weighed. It usually ranges between 0.5-1.5 mg/cm2, when they’re unprompted about applying 2mg/cm2. Their recommendation is to have people apply their sunscreen twice, instead of worrying about ¼, ½ teaspoon.

It’s up to you to how you decide to apply your sunscreen. Whether it be weighing it, measuring out the volume, or applying it twice, it’s better to err on the side on more for sun protection!

For Reference: ml = milliliter, mg = milligram, cm = centimeter, g = gram, and 1 mg = 0.001 g

Hope that helps!

Hi Stephen, I had a question for you about the UV protection in products like tinted moisturizers

…foundations, BB and CC creams. I see that they’re rated as highly as the straight sunscreens/sun creams. Theoretically, if we used the required 2mg/cm2 (1/2 tsp) of these products for the face, will they give the same level of protection as the straight sunscreens/creams? I’m asking because I’m wondering if I could be relying on a watery serum foundation for the entirety of my sun protection.

Yup! Anything that has an SPF is tested the same way.

While the US FDA, Colipa/ISO methods have a couple differences, it is always at the density of 2mg/cm2.

As long as it has an SPF rating, and you’re applying it at that density, you can be assured you’re getting that SPF – whether it’s called a serum, moisturizer, sunscreen, face pack, you name it!

Note of Interest: Only people with Skin Types I, II, or III are eligible to participate in the US FDA’s sunscreen testing protocol.

(I) Always burns easily; never tans (sensitive).

(II) Always burns easily; tans minimally (sensitive).

(III) Burns moderately; tans gradually (light brown) (normal).

Thanks for the question 🙂

image

I just came across a post where several studies mention that visible light can cause damage too

…Do you think the damage could have been caused by computer screen light/HEV light? Or is the aging effect of it minimal compared to UV damage?

Great question! The mechanism behind this is believed to be reactive oxygen species (ROS) being created by visible light (400nm to 700nm) and also infrared light (700nm to 1440nm).

Light is a form of energy, the larger the wavelength the less energy it has.

This is why UVA and UVB light, which has a shorter wavelength than visible light, is so harmful. UVC light which has even shorter wavelengths is incredibly damaging, but luckily it is blocked by diatomic oxygen (O2) in our atmosphere.

This paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology (Open Access) found less ROS in human skin models when a sunscreen with antioxidants was applied versus the sunscreen without antioxidants.

They also found the produced ROS led to an increase in pro-inflammatory chemicals (cytokines) and MMP-1 in the human skin models. MMP-1 is an enzyme that breaks down collagen in the skin.

Other researchers have proposed additional protection factors for sunscreen, such as Immune Protection Factor (IPF). It’s unlikely we’ll see these labels standardized or used any time soon though.

So, should we freak out and use antioxidants and sunscreen all the time?

image

I don’t think there is an answer to that yet. While we’re frequently told by cosmetic companies and anti-ageing gurus that free radicals and ROS are bad and will age/kill us, they also act as important signalers and mediators and have a beneficial function as well.

Recent studies have shown the function of free radicals, ROS, and antioxidants are much more complex than how it’s often portrayed in mass media

One study found that eliminating free radicals caused by exercise could prevent some of the beneficial effects

Another study with mice bred to produce excess free radicals found that they actually had better wound healing

This study found that antioxidant N-acetylcysteine, when applied topically, enhanced melanoma metastasis in mice

Of course there are plenty of other studies that show beneficial effects of antioxidants.

At this point, unfortunately, we just don’t know the long term benefits or effects. It’s becoming more apparent that the amount and context of antioxidants and free radicals is important in creating a beneficial or negative effect.

It’s also important to remember that many antioxidant chemicals have other mechanisms of action that are beneficial that aren’t related to its free radical scavenging ability!

Hope this helps 🙂

image


Join in on the discussion!

I’ve shared this post on /r/Asianbeauty and /r/SkincareScience

Hi, previous Anon here. Very nice graphs, and glad to hear you’re switching to something better =)

…I personally reference Skinacea’s UV filters chart and always pick sunscreens with zinc oxide and/or tinosorb. If the Bioderma is too expensive, there are definitely much cheaper Japanese and European sunscreens with great protection out there! Probably same amount of hassle in terms of shipping though

Thanks for writing back 🙂

Tinosorb S, M and Mexoryl SX, XL seem to have pretty similar protection. Though I haven’t looked at the numbers stringently I would say Tinosorbs tend to offer more absorbance (though I don’t have the concentrations)

image

image

(It’s not really fair to compare Mexoryl XL with Tinosorb S, it would have been better to compare Mexoryl XL with Tinosorb M as the curves are more similar)

I’m going to see if I can find more graphs with labelled axes for different sunscreens and actually graph them all together 🙂

Problem is, the amount used is still limited by Health Canada – not to mention companies choosing to manufacture with these sunscreens have to pay an additional fee. It’s worse in the US as their use is banned.

I’m pretty happy with the Bioderma’s texture, it’s a bit oily on me because of the dimethicone, and makes me shiny by the end of the day, but it’s a small price to pay.

While I do like the texture of Asian sunscreens, I don’t like the PA++++ system, as you can’t tell the difference between say, a UVAPF 20 and a UVAPF 16, as they’d both be the maximum PA++++.

image

Hi KindofStephen, I took a look at Ombrelle’s ingredients. It does not have good UVA protection

Unfortunately Health Canada doesn’t require UVAPF testing, so it’s not clear what the actual UVA protection is.

Ombrelle does contain 3 sunscreens with UVA coverage, but Health Canada has limited how much can be used:

Avobenzone 4%

Drometrizole Trisiloxane (Mexoryl® XL) 2.5%

Terephthalylidene Dicamphor Sulfonic Acid (Mexoryl® SX) 0.5%

image

image

You do raise a good point though, and it’s better to be sure than to assume. I’ll be switching to a European sunscreen, Bioderma Photoderm MAX SPF 50+ with a tested UVAPF of 42.

Having seen the photodamage on my face now, I think the extra hassle, shipping, and price is worth it.

Especially after you consider that UVA (which UVAPF is a protection factor for) is mainly responsible for increased pigmentation, as well as cell and DNA damage.

image