Acne.org Products
" "Your body doesn't really recognise what time of day it is. It is a little bit of a myth. "
Too bad they didn't monitor melatonin levels so they could see which monkeys were eating out of synch with their circadian clock.
Also too bad they repeat the vastly oversimplistic "a calorie is a calorie". In fact, some researchers have looked at inducing carb malabsorption as a means of weight reduction. A calorie that doesn't get digested definitely ain't the same as a calorie that does. 😀
Did you look into selenium? I have a "pet theory" of my own, namely that mercury released into the body because of amalgam fillings hinder the digestive system, help candida growth and cause all our related long term problems. Why else would the acne never go away? it doesn't make sense, the body usually heals itself quickly. Also, most teenagers get amalgam feelings because they start eating sweets a lot in those years. It would also explain why eating sugar increases our acne symptoms: It makes the candida growth worse, they feed off sugar. Normally the body would successfully fight the candida, but the mercury prevents that. I think I got my first filling when I was 12.
Of course, this doesn't have to apply to everyone. I'm sure acne has as many possible causes as cancer. But in my opinion it makes sense to assume some kind of deficit in vitamin intake - the body is pretty good at healing itself after all. The malabsorption in the intestines would be caused by mercury, which in turn makes it harder to absorb enough stuff to fight the problems.
Did you look into selenium?
Yes, it's on my list of most likely to be relevant, mainly because it is used in helping zinc transfer between various molecules (though also relevant to another anti-oxidant, glutathione).
I have a "pet theory" of my own, namely that mercury released into the body because of amalgam fillings hinder the digestive system, help candida growth and cause all our related long term problems. Why else would the acne never go away?
Innumerable theories can explain why acne "never goes away". But in particular, I've never had a filling in my life, so obviously I'm going to be disinclined towards that particular theory. 😀
But in my opinion it makes sense to assume some kind of deficit in vitamin intake - the body is pretty good at healing itself after all.
In my hypothesis, the body is too good at healing itself, and what's going wrong is that the mechanisms to shut down the immune system response to bacteria (anti-oxidants) are not functioning well enough. The immune system is designed to destroy, and it's not particularly good at distinguishing friend from foe once it gets wound up.
The malabsorption in the intestines would be caused by mercury, which in turn makes it harder to absorb enough stuff to fight the problems.
Hard to disprove from available data. However, it would be surprising if the subjects in the Japanese study of bright light's effects on malabsorption did not include significant percentages of people with mercury fillings (though, of course, that factor was not controlled for). Of course, they were likely to be getting mercury from fish as well. It seems less likely that system effects of bright light (e.g., increasing saliva) would reduce carb malabsorption if the root cause were mercury in the gut...
To be honest, I think I have some kind of problem in the intestines, but I'm hesitant to go to the doctor. It hurts occasionally, and my shit looks weird (type 6 on the bristol stool chart and fibrious) + I only shit every ~4 days. In my experience they have no interest and clue until you almost die from the pain. What could they do anyway, it's not like they have any way to fix it. Irritated bowel syndrom and all that is incureable. I guess I have very little confidence in the medical world. It's weird that I seem to shit better after eating something fatty.
I could go for a second round of accutane, but I'm not sure if that is a good idea. First of all, it could backfire, and secondly I'm not convinced it's such a good idea to downsize your oil glands just because you don't like oil. Fighting symptoms... on the other hand, I haven't followed your regimen 100% yet. Sure, I eat a lot less sugar, which helped a lot. I also occasionally use the lights for a few hours indoors, and I go outside for a few minutes each day. But I haven't really "gone through" with it.
Everything is just a pain in the ass, but I should do the regimen correctly first before going to a doctor. Regimen -> intestine doctor -> skin doctor. That would be the order if I want to visit one.
To be honest, I think I have some kind of problem in the intestines, but I'm hesitant to go to the doctor. It hurts occasionally, and my shit looks weird (type 6 on the bristol stool chart and fibrious) + I only shit every ~4 days. In my experience they have no interest and clue until you almost die from the pain. What could they do anyway, it's not like they have any way to fix it. Irritated bowel syndrom and all that is incureable. I guess I have very little confidence in the medical world. It's weird that I seem to shit better after eating something fatty.I could go for a second round of accutane, but I'm not sure if that is a good idea. First of all, it could backfire, and secondly I'm not convinced it's such a good idea to downsize your oil glands just because you don't like oil. Fighting symptoms... on the other hand, I haven't followed your regimen 100% yet. Sure, I eat a lot less sugar, which helped a lot. I also occasionally use the lights for a few hours indoors, and I go outside for a few minutes each day. But I haven't really "gone through" with it.
Everything is just a pain in the ass, but I should do the regimen correctly first before going to a doctor. Regimen -> intestine doctor -> skin doctor. That would be the order if I want to visit one.
You should definitely get your stool checked out. I had mine done a few months ago, I'd been having like full body aches and awefullness (its hard to describe) every time I ate anything with the slightest bit of sugar (even fruit). Found out I had bad bacteria and candida, I went on an antibiotic, which i was very skeptical about. I took TONS of probiotics and never suffered from diarrhea. In fact, my stools got WAAY better and my skin cleared up like crazy. Now Im on a long term anti-fungal and an anti-candida diet and my skin hasn't been clearer in years. So if you're debating whether to do accutane again I would definitely say NO F-ing WAY that stuff messes up your gut big time. Try and solve the problem internally before masking it with crazy drugs like accutane. I'd recommend you go to a specialist, someone perhaps a bitter smarter than your average doctor (cause we all know doctors are stupid) and get your stool checked out. Best of luck.
I did some real quick research on Boron. I found that in a study done on rats it increased their testosterone levels. Im smart enough to know that just because an article mentions a study and rats doesnt make it fact. Still it makes me a bit nervous. I've also been researching magnesium which is a super crucial nutrient and we need TONS of it. Have you looked at all into magnesium Databased?
I read The Paleo Diet and it says that grains bind up zinc and some other minerals that I can't remember, but zinc was in there for sure. I'm just starting this paleo diet so we will see how it goes. this might be an option for those who can't do this zinc-less regimen (I'm in a classroom all day, plus my extremely white skin does not allow for all day sunbathing)
I did some real quick research on Boron. I found that in a study done on rats it increased their testosterone levels.
It's interesting to speculate whether the decades-long trend of lowering testosterone levels in American men is due to dwindling boron intake in the food supply and/or diet.
Have you looked at all into magnesium Databased?
Never found any great relevance to acne in particular.
my extremely white skin does not allow for all day sunbathing
Note that it's not the bright light on your skin that matters, but in your eyes. I rarely get much skin exposure to the sun, even during the summer. In the Japanese research on bright light versus digestion, the subjects just stick their heads in a lightbox.
I'm only 19, so I can't really classify my acne as adult acne, but I just wanted to add that even though I have topicals that my face responds fairly well too, supplements, a fairly good diet, and low stress, the most important thing to preventing any new acne for me is my sleep schedule. I do my best to go to bed around 10-11, and I wakeup at 6-7 ish, without my alarm. I wake up feeling refreshed, and any acne I do have is much smaller. It doesn't matter what I eat either, so long as it isn't something that keeps me up like coffee cake 
.
Databased, or someone else, can you remind me [and save me the time of looking through previous posts] of the mechanism between sun exposure and digestion that prevents malabsorbtion please?
The Japanese did some studies that showed how much bright light exposure influences the body. They then did the study showing that bright light exposure reduces carb malabsorption. How precisely it works is not proven, but they note:
What physiological mechanisms are responsible for these findings? Previous studiesshowed that exposure to a bright light in comparison to dim light condition during the
daytime enhanced the nocturnal: decline of core temperature, increase in leg skin
temperature (Kim and Tokura, 1998), rise of salivary melatonin secretion (Park and
Tokura, 1999), and decrease in urinary noradrenaline concentration (Kanikowska et al.,
2001). Those findings strongly suggest that the human physiology is more relaxed and
parasympathetic nervous activity more enhanced by daytime bright-light exposure.
Actually, exposure to daytime bright-light exposure has been shown to activate the
parasympathetic nervous system during the following evening and nighttime period
(Nishimura et al., 2002). In this regard, exposure to bright light during the daytime seems
to alleviate the symptoms of diarrhea and constipation (Rutkowska et al., 1999).
Enhancement of the cholinergic tone of the parasympathetic nervous system under the
influence of the daytime bright-light exposure can increase the secretion of digestive juices
and the activity of gastrointestinal muscle (Ganong, 1999). This is beneficial for the
digestion and absorption of the evening meal. Recently, Kanikowska et al. (2002) found
that the salivary secretion rate was significantly higher under the influence of forenoon
bright light compared to dim-light exposure. Increased saliva secretion is favorable for
digestion of dietary starch resulting in less hydrogen production by the microorganisms in
the colon.
Ever noticed any connection between digestion problems and fibre?
I pay no attention to fiber. When living all day outdoors with my naked eyes in summer sunlight, I can eat just about anything, take no supplements, and remain clear. However, even then, I can still produce acne if I really screw up my sleep cycle and take quite massive amounts (e.g., >64oz of Coke) of fructose.
Databased,
I have had some very high success recently with digestive minded diets (use of probiotics, large volumes of high quality fibers, adequate water consumption and avoiding fructose and things which promote carb malasorption and avoiding things that cause gastrointestinal discomfort). However, I think you pose some interesting correlations in that maybe avoiding things that are gasterointestinally upsetting is really an address of the symptons and that suppressing daytime melatonin production so it's available at night for converting zinc into ZSOD might be a more direct approach.
I have some T8 fluoroscent fixtures in my cube, but they don't have a great view factor (line of sight) to my eyes. I was looking around at GE's website and notice they have many LED and compact self-ballasted units that simply plug into the wall and into normal light sockets respectively.
What emissivity properties are critical to emulating daylight? You mentioned greater retinal sensitivty to blue lights. Have you found that light bulbs are marketed and sold depending on their spectral emissivity? For example, some of the LED fixtures are rated at a color temperature of 4200k which is somewhat into the blue spectrum (think stock HID headlamps in cars like Acura or BMW for example). I don't see the GE Chroma so I cannot find what their color rating would be, and at anyrate, the temperature color is just an average frequency wavelength for the total output, not the specific light color. I.e. 4200k might have a spectral output center around 650hz/450nm but that doesn't indicate how tight the emission band is around this frequency/wavelength.
I am interested in finding a way to choose light bulbs to carry out this light therapy experiment since it's all but impossible to be in the daylight for 4 hours during the week day, let alone for 8-12 hours. Flurouscent linear bulbs required a ballasted fixture which isn't practical in most cases, but GE does have many products that fit in more conventional fixtures or in the case of LED's are self contained and can just plug into a wall. Take a look and let me know if you find anything interesting and I might try it out:
Architectual LED lights: https://secure.ge-lightingsystems.com/gels0...rchiLights.html
LED Lights: http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/...ath=LEDs_Retail Display
Self contained flurouscent units: http://genet.gelighting.com/LightProducts/...NNEL=Commercial
Edit: ALSO worthy of consideration. GE has a whole line of products whos sole purpose is to replicate outdoor light so that retail displays show what a product would actually look like under sunlight. I think these products could be ideal since they are obviously designed to replicate sunlight emission patterns as they exist near the surface of the earth (i.e. the light that actually gets to our eyes).
As a followup, there are some products on the market that are specifically designed as light therapy devices for treating things such as Seasonal Affected Disorder. From what I understand, they work in the same vein as melatonin regulation but instead are intended to affect serotonin.
Here's a $35 10K LUX unit: http://www.amazon.com/Omega-Therapy-Season...r/dp/B004FOQJJS
I might give this a try and let everyone know how it works.
Posting a late update. I have completely changed things around with grand success. I read the "Dietary Cure for Acne" by Loren Cordain and went on his paleo diet. It's been about 10 days and my face is crystal clear. There is very a clear relationship between grains, dairy and sugar's effects on acne.
I eliminated these poisons from my diet, substituting healthy fats, a variety of proteins along with plenty of fresh vegetables and some fruit. My face responded instantly. In about three days the redness started going away and all my active zits started to vanish. All my blemishes are now gone and all that remains is several red spots from prior breakouts.
For the first time in a many years my face feels great and there's nothing growing under the surface. I have found the cure for acne and am never looking back now 
I can't recommend this book enough!
mep8
Hi there, I am a woman, 31, and have hormonal related acne.
I am going to bed at 1 am every night and sleep only 5-7 hours at the moment with 2-4 interruptions per night. My skin is very bad since some weeks) previously I slept 8 hours per night without interruptions) and I was lately wondering what could be the case.
I am a vegeterian and eat very healthy (lots of grains, proteins, fibres, fruits, vegetables...). I am working from home in a bright room (lots of light from outside, the terrace door is always open (it's nearly always sunny outside) and I am sitting 1 meter beside the terrace door). Does this help to have so much light in a room or would I need to sit outside all day long?
I was wondering if it would even help me to work outside and to sleep better/longer if my acne is hormonal related?
I was looking around at GE's website and notice they have many LED and compact self-ballasted units that simply plug into the wall and into normal light sockets respectively.What emissivity properties are critical to emulating daylight?
No man-made bulb can emulate sunlight very well. All light is produced by electrons falling between different discrete energy levels in their atomic orbits. The sun has an enormous number of different energy levels for electrons to move between; manmade bulbs typically have just a few. Bulbs that are labelled "full spectrum" usually just aren't as obviously color-skewed wrt the sun as cheaper and more common bulbs.
Nevertheless, the real problem in indoor lighting is simply getting enough brightness in your eyes for enough hours. Getting bulbs that have a more realistic spectrum helps make up for the fact that you are very unlikely to achieve outdoor levels of brightness with electric lights.
If you buy the highest Kelvin rating you can find, you should get the most blue light. Also, if you pull the bulb (assuming we're talking 4-foot tubs) out of the package, you may find that they are actually "GE Chroma" being sold under somebody else's name (the GE name is on the glass at one end of the bulb).
Flurouscent linear bulbs required a ballasted fixture which isn't practical in most cases, but GE does have many products that fit in more conventional fixtures or in the case of LED's are self contained and can just plug into a wall.
Again, intensity is the root problem. Without a lot of big bulbs, you probably won't get much effect. I'm sitting under 12 4-foot fluorescents at the moment; my desk is brighter than any desk you've probably ever seen.
Getting bulbs with a higher Kelvin rating (more blue light) helps, but achieving intensity is the real problem. Take your laptop outside on a bright sunny day. See how washed out and hard to read it is in direct sunlight? Now take your laptop to your indoor "bright" light set up. See how it's not really washed out at all?
Hi there, I am a woman, 31, and have hormonal related acne.
It's been shown in rats that estrogen helps suppress pineal melatonin output. My theory is that when estrogen levels dip, you need more light in the eye to suppress daytime melatonin, which is needed to get the big nighttime surge needed to prevent acne. This explains both the acne of menstruation and of menopause. I don't view "hormonal" acne as anything different than just acne; it's just that fluctuating estrogen also influences the same systemic problem that causes almost all acne.
I am a vegeterian and eat very healthy (lots of grains, proteins, fibres, fruits, vegetables...).
Often, vegetarians are eating high-fructose diets. A large sweet apple has as much excess molar fructose (over glucose) as a can of Coke. They may also eat lots of processed carbs (e.g., pasta). Most acne theories about fructose are focused on insulin response. My belief is that's wrong; the problem is actually one of digestion. So, a big plate of pasta when you live in dim indoor light may be as much trouble for your skin as a 32-oz Coke sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. IMHO, that's why people who think "grains are poisons" sometimes get improvement by eliminating them; if they eliminate the starchy carbs more than the grains bacteria can't eat as easily, that should help. If they were living in summer sun all day long and sleeping long/regular hours in darkness, they could probably eat about anything (including starchy carbs) and not have acne.
I am working from home in a bright room (lots of light from outside, the terrace door is always open (it's nearly always sunny outside) and I am sitting 1 meter beside the terrace door). Does this help to have so much light in a room or would I need to sit outside all day long?
Our eyes perception of light intensity is highly non-linear. When you think something is twice as bright, it's closer to 10 times as bright. So, the room that feels "bright" probably isn't very bright at all compared to the sunlight we evolved to live in all day (without hats and sunglasses).
I was wondering if it would even help me to work outside and to sleep better/longer if my acne is hormonal related?
Try sitting outside with your eyes naked to the sky all day every day for a week. See what effect that has on your digestion, your sleep, and your skin. Note that you don't need direct sunlight in your eyes or on your skin; if the bright sky occupies most of your field of vision, that's about all you need.
Databased,
The forgoing is a long read, and I am not formally educated in biochemistry. However, my background is in scientific disciplines and applied sciences, so if you find the time to entertain my muses, you may PM me or respond here. I don't expect you to set aside time, but this are just some of the thoughts based on your posts.
I am aware of your point about the intensity of sunlight. Ever since I can remember, I have had photic sneeze reflex, so as soon as I see bright light (even behind glass in a car), it triggers a series of very thorough sneezes from me.
I have to contend points about living outdoor in bright light for the amount of time you are suggesting is probably modified by other behavioral and perhaps, genetic factors. Would you agree? In other words, I believe there is more to suppression of pineal melatonin (that other factors must somehow impact the behavior of the pineal gland) during the day than just stimulation of the ganglion. It would seem that some people are perfectly fine receiving much less than 12 hours of sunlight per day even when ingesting heavy amounts of carbs which could potentially inhibit absorption of tryptophan and zinc. Or that some people simply are less susceptible to suffering from carb malabsorption regardless of pineal melatonin levels. For these people do not suffer at all from acne or to a very minimal extent.
I have encountered two populations which violate every rule that you suggest is critical to a great or complete degree: my fraternity in college and my coworkers. In the case of the former, the majority of the population stayed up late drinking, had erratic circadian schedules (if one could call it that), ate carb rich diets and generally only received a maybe an hour or two of sun a day (when taking into account that the sunlight must be unaffected by glass, glasses, sunglasses etc). Yet among this population, there were exactly 4 individuals with minor or moderate acne (out of over 160 members over the years). The latter, being my co-workers, only receive sunlight during the brief walks between buildings (minor) and whatever time before or after work. Since we are here 9 to 10 hours a day, with a 1 hour car ride on either end, I can conclude it is only physically possible that they get at most, a few hours of sunlight per day. Yet, I have not encountered another adult with minor or moderate facial acne.
If member of these population are somehow in the ~50% of acne sufferers, they don't exhibit acne in the same manner most would consider to be most detrimental: minor or moderate facial acne. So the question becomes, why is it only a certain portion of the population suffers minor to moderate facial acne? For example, my acne is conspicuously limited to my face. The rest of my skin is completely blemish free, save for the sundry scars from different adventures and exploits. I dare say, I would gladly trade to have my chest or back sin on my face.
I don't believe your model is wrong, in fact, I believe it is quite right. I believe that availability of tryptophan to produce melatonin is inhibited by pineal melatonin levels and the role in melatonin to instruct the production of superoxide dismutase to form ZSOD is what helps suppress the auto-immunity dysfunctional reaction causing "acne". However, I believe there are more facets and the model is a subcomponent of the totality of acne. I know it cannot be true that the majority of the population without any acne (and those without less than minor acne) receive more than an hour or two of sunlight a day to aid in suppression of pineal melatonin. I would guess that at least some of that population does not have a healthy circadian cycle, either. I would guess at least part of that population does not receive any daylight nor have an established circadian schedule. And based on the lifestyles of modern civilization, there are a large amount of people that both are sun-deprived as well as having no circadian schedule but only suffer from acne to so minimally that most of us would be satisfied with that condition. That last population is probably the most significant and the one I'm interested in.
I believe there should be ways to achieve high levels or at least partial suppression of pineal melatonin during key times during the day through ganglion exposure to UVA/sunlight. There must also be other ways to suppress pineal melatonin such as physical activity. You mentioned taking a 20 minute walk in the sunlight right after lunch in lieu of being able to spend the whole day outdoors. I would suggest such a discrete exposure to the sun coupled with physical activity would suppress pineal melatonin to a great degree and that the transient response of the gland is slow enough to allow a great deal of digestion to occur while levels are low. However, we know that the reponse of of the pineal gland is influence by both the extent of intensity of blue light exposure. Not perfect, but big "bang for the buck". I tried taking a 15 minute walk after all my meals this past weekend and it certainly seemed to quell most of the digestive woes I usually suffer from, though I am not "blind" to the test parameters and it could possibly be placebo.
I also believe there should be ways to inhibit carb malabsorption in lieu of suppressing pineal melatonin through digestive system maintenance (sufficient fiber in diet, limited carb intake) and timing. For example, you argue that a 0 carb diet is nearly impossible to maintain which I wholly agree with. However, would it be possible to limit the intake of carbs to times when we CAN suppress pineal melatonin through the above techniques and time the ingestion of zinc and tryptophan rich foods during a times when no carbs are being ingested and/or during periods of pineal melatonin suppression? For example, you mentioned taking zinc on an empty stomach and during key times in the day. My suggestion is only that while I agree a 0 carb diet isn't possible, a 0 carb diet during specific times is and might be beneficial.
My thought process is that maybe eliminating acne is nearly impossible given the requirements of being outdoors that much for a large amount of people suffering, but it might be possible to minimize acne through using the most "cost-beneficial" aspects of the model which can be more readily incorporated.
However, this still doesn't explain the absence of any acne in a large (~50%) portion of the population, some of which we know must not receive great amounts of sunlight and/or have a regular circadian schedule. Is their auto-immune response critically damped? Or do they have some combination resistance to suffering from carb-malasorption, ability to naturally suppress pineal melatonin with less sunlight and ability to produce large melatonin levels regardless of circadian regularity?
My last thought is the use of drugs and their effects on pineal melatonin. Caffeine is very prevalent in society and while it may inhibit circadian regularity if abused, are there any effects to melatonin production?
Hi there, I am a woman, 31, and have hormonal related acne.It's been shown in rats that estrogen helps suppress pineal melatonin output. My theory is that when estrogen levels dip, you need more light in the eye to suppress daytime melatonin, which is needed to get the big nighttime surge needed to prevent acne. This explains both the acne of menstruation and of menopause. I don't view "hormonal" acne as anything different than just acne; it's just that fluctuating estrogen also influences the same systemic problem that causes almost all acne.
I am a vegeterian and eat very healthy (lots of grains, proteins, fibres, fruits, vegetables...).Often, vegetarians are eating high-fructose diets. A large sweet apple has as much excess molar fructose (over glucose) as a can of Coke. They may also eat lots of processed carbs (e.g., pasta). Most acne theories about fructose are focused on insulin response. My belief is that's wrong; the problem is actually one of digestion. So, a big plate of pasta when you live in dim indoor light may be as much trouble for your skin as a 32-oz Coke sweetened with high-fructose corn syrup. IMHO, that's why people who think "grains are poisons" sometimes get improvement by eliminating them; if they eliminate the starchy carbs more than the grains bacteria can't eat as easily, that should help. If they were living in summer sun all day long and sleeping long/regular hours in darkness, they could probably eat about anything (including starchy carbs) and not have acne.
I am working from home in a bright room (lots of light from outside, the terrace door is always open (it's nearly always sunny outside) and I am sitting 1 meter beside the terrace door). Does this help to have so much light in a room or would I need to sit outside all day long?Our eyes perception of light intensity is highly non-linear. When you think something is twice as bright, it's closer to 10 times as bright. So, the room that feels "bright" probably isn't very bright at all compared to the sunlight we evolved to live in all day (without hats and sunglasses).
I was wondering if it would even help me to work outside and to sleep better/longer if my acne is hormonal related?Try sitting outside with your eyes naked to the sky all day every day for a week. See what effect that has on your digestion, your sleep, and your skin. Note that you don't need direct sunlight in your eyes or on your skin; if the bright sky occupies most of your field of vision, that's about all you need.
Thanks a lot for your reply, databased.
I have to contend points about living outdoor in bright light for the amount of time you are suggesting is probably modified by other behavioral and perhaps, genetic factors. Would you agree?
Sure. But one can construct good ideas about how a hundred different things can affect any proposed biochemical mechanism of acne. If you can't sort out primary factors from less important factors, then you end up just saying everyone is different so no effective treatment can be proposed for most people.
I think the two key findings in acne of the last decade are the discovery that the Trobriand Islanders are utterly acne-free, and the finding bacteria touching toll-like receptors triggers superoxide anion spews that then proceed to kill human cells.
Cordain looks at the first finding and decides diet is the key, period. But we all know that even when diet helps a lot, it doesn't usually produce the reliable, 100%, never-get-a-zit response seen in those people. That's why I put light at the top of the list. It influences digestion, it's hard for the Trobriand Islanders to screw up, and hard for all of us to emulate them. It's key to explaining why they can be utterly acne-free, while about 40% of our adult population has acne on any given day. It explains why most acne sufferers are certain that diet matters, but are also certain that sometimes diet doesn't matter. It's not the only factor you need to be acne-free, but it's a primary factor. IMHO.
It would seem that some people are perfectly fine receiving much less than 12 hours of sunlight per day even when ingesting heavy amounts of carbs which could potentially inhibit absorption of tryptophan and zinc.
Remember, about 40% of the adult civilized population has acne on any given day. So, when you look around and think you see people who can be acne-free without a care, you are seeing: people with less acne (not none), people with less visible acne, people whose skin color makes acne less obvious, people who are having a "good week", etc.
I have encountered two populations which violate every rule that you suggest is critical to a great or complete degree: my fraternity in college and my coworkers.
That would be stunning -- if you held them all down and had a dermatologist scan their skin for acne lesions. Given the actual results of doing that on a population sample, you're really saying that you found two populations that violate the rule that 40% of adults have an acne lesion on any given day. That's statistically highly unlikely. Those two groups you cite almost certainly did have acne, they just didn't have it bad enough for you to notice.
If member of these population are somehow in the ~50% of acne sufferers, they don't exhibit acne in the same manner most would consider to be most detrimental: minor or moderate facial acne. So the question becomes, why is it only a certain portion of the population suffers minor to moderate facial acne?
I think that's the wrong question. All diseases are variable in response. We are all different. If you raise a bunch of kids without Vitamin D, they won't all get clinically significant rickets. But we don't focus our efforts on finding out what the difference is between those who get the most rickets and those who get the least rickets -- it makes more sense to uncover the fact that you need Vitamin D to avoid rickets and then make sure everybody gets "enough" (despite the fact that "enough" technically varies from one person to another).
I know it cannot be true that the majority of the population without any acne (and those without less than minor acne) receive more than an hour or two of sunlight a day to aid in suppression of pineal melatonin.
Right. You want to look at the kids who need little Vitamin D to avoid rickets and figure out how they're different than those who get severe rickets. That would be great, but it's even harder than proving what causes rickets in the first place.
I believe there should be ways to achieve high levels or at least partial suppression of pineal melatonin during key times during the day through ganglion exposure to UVA/sunlight.
Don't forget to also create all the other hormonal responses of bright light, such as those that increase saliva and other factors that make digestion more effective so you can digest the nutrients needed to make melatonin and ZSOD.
However, we know that the reponse of of the pineal gland is influence by both the extent of intensity of blue light exposure.
Nobody has studied the pineal gland during the day, AFAICT. Virtually all study is of the nocturnal surge, not of variations in the output when light has been present for hours.
I also believe there should be ways to inhibit carb malabsorption in lieu of suppressing pineal melatonin through digestive system maintenance (sufficient fiber in diet, limited carb intake) and timing.
Hey, Kurzweil injects his vitamins to bypass the digestive tract completely (though I suspect that not getting folate directly to the colon may elevate his risk of colon cancer). IMHO, if acne were not a systemic disease, there would be highly effective treatments. If it is a systemic disease, then the odds you will fix it without treating the entire system of things that go wrong in the modern lifestyle are greatly reduced.
My suggestion is only that while I agree a 0 carb diet isn't possible, a 0 carb diet during specific times is and might be beneficial.
I agree with you in principle. In practice, I think it's very difficult. If I treat acne systemically, then I don't have to understand in detail all the hundreds or thousands of details of the underlying mechanisms. If you want to try to avoid treating acne systemically, then you do need to understand all/most those things. Why exactly does bright light exposure amplify the nocturnal melatonin surge? I don't know. Why exactly does bright light reduce carb malabsorption? I don't know (maybe it sends a signal to the colon and affects its stockpile of melatonin, maybe it's due to amplifying saliva, stomach acid, etc., maybe it's something else).
However, this still doesn't explain the absence of any acne in a large (~50%) portion of the population
I know of no study that shows 50% of the population is absent acne. Note that finding that 50% of the population does not have an acne lesion on a given day does not (at all!) imply what you're assuming. My assumption is, the more times you inspect the same cohort, the more that percentage would grow, until something like 90% experiences acne lesions (and I bet the remaining 10% get regular sleep, work outdoors, etc.)
My last thought is the use of drugs and their effects on pineal melatonin. Caffeine is very prevalent in society and while it may inhibit circadian regularity if abused, are there any effects to melatonin production?
Since caffeine can both slow the metabolization of melatonin (good) and interfere with sleep (bad), I predicted that caffeine intake 8 hours or more in advance of bedtime should not exacerbate acne. That has been my experience when I put that prediction into practice. I can drink a lot of green tea before noon with no effect on acne. A more modest dose close to bedtime almost always shortens my sleep and exacerbates acne.
It has nothing to do with your eyes. It's the equivalent of blue-light therapy. When I used to get tanned 15 mins twice a week, I was acne free. The tanning light is a powerful blue light, and you wear goggles while getting tanned. So it's light's effect on your skin, which is all exposed to light when tanning, hence works even better than if you just stood outside fully clothed I'd guess.
I'm guessing the kind thing here is going to bed at regular hours, eating at regular hours, and being exposed to light a lot. Not much else.
My acne always cleared when I was spending all my days outside.
It has nothing to do with your eyes. It's the equivalent of blue-light therapy. When I used to get tanned 15 mins twice a week, I was acne free. The tanning light is a powerful blue light, and you wear goggles while getting tanned. So it's light's effect on your skin, which is all exposed to light when tanning, hence works even better than if you just stood outside fully clothed I'd guess.I'm guessing the kind thing here is going to bed at regular hours, eating at regular hours, and being exposed to light a lot. Not much else.
My acne always cleared when I was spending all my days outside.
It may very well be the case that blue light has an effect on the skin as well. In fact, it seems more reasonable to assume that it does rather than does not.
But... as databased has reiterated again, and again, and again, he was not necessarily getting direct sun exposure when he was doing these tests. His eyes were open to the sky in order to "collect" the light, but he often just sat in the shade. He still noticed results, especially as related to digestion and carb malabsorption.