databased, do you have strong dark eye circles? (or used to have) I'm just wondering because all your stuff makes sense to me, and I myself have pretty bad eye circles. People take me for a junkie, even though I do not smoke, I do not drink and I eat much much healthier than most everybody else. It's frustrating, I sleep 9h daily, I'm pretty well rested.

Is brown rice OK for carbs?

When you care about avoiding carb malabsorption, those specialists believe it is.

databased, do you have strong dark eye circles? (or used to have)

Hard to say. I don't think so especially (looking in the mirror), but it's somewhat subjective. Also, I've worn glasses forever, and I think that would make circles less noticeable.

Maybe I do more when it's allergy season. I used to live with someone who suffered badly from allergies and had pronounced dark circles. I don't suffer with them so much any more since I finally found a bedroom air filter that made a difference.

I keep looking at UVA ("near" UV, not the kind that creates Vitamin D). For some reason, I can't find any study testing its ability to affect pineal melatonin in humans via retinal exposure (maybe nobody wants to be liable for shining UV in people's eyes). However, in non-humans it certainly shows signs of being able to shut down pineal melatonin.

Consumer Reports claims that "Only CR-39 plastic lenses allow a significant part of the UVA spectrum to reach the eye.", which would imply that almost everybody who wears any kind of glasses (except the very cheapest) is blocking most UVA from the eyes. Of course, even wearing typical glasses (not gigantic old-folk wraparound style), some light is going to get in around the edges. It seems there is less UVA seasonal variability than for UVB.

There is a study on UVA tanning increasing melatonin levels, but I have to wonder how effective the goggles they "requested" the subjects use was at keeping it out of the eyes. In any case, the result was modestly lowered (daytime) blood levels of melatonin (wish they had measured peak night time levels). Serotonin levels were modestly higher (presumably since less was being burned to make melatonin).

It's possible that even non-tinted, non-coated eyeglasses help make it harder to have a normal melatonin cycle (by keeping melatonin from being shut down completely during the day).

I just wanted to agree with the sleep cycle bit. I find this to be very true for me. I was completely clear until I started working graveyards, and not even a set schedule of graveyards. Going back and forth between day sleeping and night sleeping and having the sleep poor either way had a major impact on my skin.

And I did The Atkins diet for a month and a half a few years back with NO cheating and though I lost quite a bit of weight quickly, my skin was worse than ever.

I was completely clear until I started working graveyards

Your experience jibes with Dr. Fulton's quote:

I can get pretty much anyone cleared up, unless they work the night shift.

At about 18 and 19, I worked nights each summer to pay for college (became a major night owl in college, to boot).

It's not impossible to imagine that that kind of experience causes persistent changes in the eye that don't quickly revert to "normal" once the night shifts are over.

Started a new experiment yesterday about UVA in the eyes. An hour before lunch, I got in about 45 minutes of walking staring at the sky with no glasses. Glasses may effectively block UVA, and UVA may be a part of the spectrum that activates the retinal-brain connection as well or better than blue light (evidence in non-humans, not tried in humans AFAICT).

Interestingly, by the end of the walk I was actually feeling some hungriness. I'm well fed enough that I don't normally feel hungry. Of course, that's the point of retinal light exposure, is to trigger systemic digestive changes (from saliva increase all the way through to the intestines) that wake the digestive system up so it can actually extract from your meal the nutrients needed (primarily tryptophan and zinc) to prevent acne. After lunch, I spent another hour reading a book in the outdoor light, again without glasses. It is amazing how much brighter the outside is without glasses, even though it was overcast much of the day (even overcast, trying to stare at the sky for any length of time would make me squint).

So that was about 3 hours investment instead of the 10 I normally reckon I need to stay clear from just bright light exposure. Can't tell much from one day, but what I could tell was that I slept like an absolute stone for >9 hours. It was a clearcut difference in sleep quality from what I've been getting. That's the other point of the retinal exposure, is to have a normal large melatonin surge.

If it turns out that UVA exposure to the eyes (which I normally am blocking somewhat effectively by wearing glasses) makes a significant difference, this would help explain why my uber-bright indoor lights are never as effective outdoor light, why sitting by a window (more glass that's effective at blocking UVA) never worked very well, and why I have to spend such a large part of the day seeking light exposure to stay clear. What would be nice (but too much to hope for) is if regular UVA exposure creates biochemical changes in the eye that last for more than a day, making it someday possible to have a week or three grace period of being acne-free without having to actively do anything.

would contact lenses (glass or plastic) produce the same effect as glasses in blocking UVA?

Aren't there rather substantial risks with subjecting your eyes to UV light?

would contact lenses (glass or plastic) produce the same effect as glasses in blocking UVA?

The American Optical Association claims some contact lenses are designed to block UVA, so I guess it's YMMV.

Aren't there rather substantial risks with subjecting your eyes to UV light?

I guess the equivalent question would be: did all our ancestors have more terrible eye problems in old age than us because they didn't have the extensive, life-long blocking of UV that modern man does?

AFAICT, the answer is "no". There's been a huge increase in cataract surgery in modern times (since sunglasses became popular). However, one can't draw any conclusions from that directly, since it's well-known that the higher the concentration of surgeons in any given area, the greater the number of surgeries that will be prescribed -- whether they are needed are not.

In my non-doctors opinion, I suspect this will be an eery parallel to the story of Vitamin D. Dermatologist teach people that the best sun is no sun, and tell people to use sunblock at all times. However, most skin cancers are non-fatal, while most cancers associated with low Vitamin D (from no sun) have a high fatality rate (colon, breast, etc.). Worse, it may be that the sunblock the dermatologists handed out for years was best at blocking UVB (Vitamin D creation) and worst at blocking UVA (skin cancer creation), thus worsening skin cancer (even amongst people with skin cancer, who survives best? -- the people with the highest levels of Vitamin D).

In the eye, it used to be believed that UVA (relevant to melatonin, the dark sister hormone of the hormone Vitamin D) caused eye problems. That seems to be an opinion that is reversing, and UVB is now blamed for (e.g., cataracts). So, doctors may once again have been blocking the wrong part of the UV spectrum and inadvertently trying to trade a relatively benign condition (cataracts, a fairly easy surgery with a high success rate) for an increased rate of more devastating auto-immune diseases (acne being the least, compared to things like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis).

But that's just one random nutjob opinion. 😀

I know you mentioned your view on ejaculation before but there really seems to be a correlation for me. Also, couldn't this (too) be a reason too why primitive tribes don't have acne? They practically don't masturbate and have sex only a very few times... However, in western societies, it's the exact opposite.

Or, would you say that if you get enough daylight and zinc, it shouldn't matter?

This is interesting. For the past two weeks my skin has been really, really good. I thought it was probably just a continuation of my skin's happy response to no more dairy or fruit, and better sleep. But I've also been wearing my glasses instead of my contacts recently, and that would mean more UV light is hitting my eyes.

I know you mentioned your view on ejaculation before but there really seems to be a correlation for me.

If you could do it without losing zinc or affecting sleep (melatonin), then that would imply some other mechanism.

why primitive tribes don't have acne? They practically don't masturbate and have sex only a very few times

Huh? The acne-free Trobriand Islanders have sex all the time from an early age to an old age -- it's one of the reasons they've been studied for so many decades.

Or, would you say that if you get enough daylight and zinc, it shouldn't matter?

Exactly. So long as you're actually digesting zinc and tryptophan (and no doubt many other useful nutrients, such as the Vitamin B family) and then having a big/long melatonin surge each night, I believe your immune system will moderate instead of going insane when P. acnes hits a keratinocyte.

But I've also been wearing my glasses instead of my contacts recently, and that would mean more UV light is hitting my eyes.

A big part of the point of the light in the eyes is to affect digestion. So to look for ways to get the same effect with fewer outdoor hours, I've been trying a 40-minute walk right after lunch, eyes naked and pointed at the sky (which is still rarely sunny here). Too soon to feel confident, but so far so good. My hope is that the moderate exercise timed to go near the time of eating also contributes to more effective digestion. Just like UVB, UVA is going to peak around the time the sun is highest in the sky (even with cloud cover). It could be that it would be more optimal to do the walk/light before eating, or maybe both. Or maybe better to have light before lunch, walking after. Who knows...

Most exercise/digestion studies seem to focus on athletes, not the normal walking-around exercise that primitive cultures get implicitly (but we don't, sitting at a desk in an indoor job).

I also take pills (e.g., Vitamin B complex) right at lunch time. If the problem is failing to digest nutrients, that's also a problem for the pills you take as well.

do you think these sheddiing white flakes (i dont know the exact english word for them, "scales" directly translated) are related to acne? I had acne longer than them, but they are really persistent. It didn't even stop during my accutane treatment, and I was dry like a stone back then and had zero new pimples.

>>did all our ancestors have more terrible eye problems in old age than us because they didn't >>have the extensive, life-long blocking of UV that modern man does?

You really can't argue like that. Our ancestors didn't live as long, and maybe had a lot of other factors that in their life that protected them from too much UV. Don't get me wrong, I share your opinion. It's just not solid logic.

I have been taking 50mg of zinc per day for about two months now, and I haven't seen any improvement--in fact, my skin is worse now, and I have way more pimples, than I ever have in 16 years of acne. Just wondering, does this mean the bright outdoor light thing wouldn't work for me either?

do you think these sheddiing white flakes (i dont know the exact english word for them, "scales" directly translated) are related to acne?

Possibly, though I've done little research. Without knowing much, I would propose that acne is a disease of trampling on your melatonin cycle. Melatonin slows cell division. The less you slow cell division, the more you get, possibly leading to accelerating skin cell shedding. I used to have that all the time. It pretty much goes away when I'm sleeping long and hard and on schedule every day.

You really can't argue like that. Our ancestors didn't live as long, and maybe had a lot of other factors that in their life that protected them from too much UV. Don't get me wrong, I share your opinion. It's just not solid logic.

Oh, there's lots of things that make it hard to say anything about the rate of cataracts. However, it's a fact that a) cataract surgery is a very old technique (modern-ish versions date to the 1700's) and b) the rate of cataract surgery has been going up in the same time frame that UV protective glasses have become popular. Doesn't prove anything one thing or the other, but it does make for more of a hurdle to claim that UV protective coatings are effective at preventing cataracts or that being outdoors without eye protection poses a significant additional risk of cataracts. This is in the category of things where you can't run a randomized controlled trial, so it's very hard to establish what effect, if any, is present.

Or, to quote real scientists with beards:

it is doubtful whether a clear answer to the question Does UV cause cataract will ever be provided.

I have been taking 50mg of zinc per day for about two months now, and I haven't seen any improvement--in fact, my skin is worse now, and I have way more pimples, than I ever have in 16 years of acne. Just wondering, does this mean the bright outdoor light thing wouldn't work for me either?

I believe the reason megadosing zinc (50mg probably doesn't quite qualify as megadosing for American-sized adults) helps some people is that it marginally lets a few more superoxide dismutase (SOD) molecules turn into ZSOD -- but the root problem is you don't have enough SOD molecules in the first place, so it can't help much if you don't fix that problem. So, I wouldn't bother taking zinc if you can't get sleepy at the same time each day, sleep deeply for 9 hours, and wake up feeling totally alert without an alarm clock at the same time each day. Paradoxically, if you can do those things, you probably don't need a zinc supplement (or at least not as large as 50mg). The way you get enough SOD molecules is by having a normalized melatonin cycle, since melatonin likely upregulates the SOD gene in skin cells.

Furthermore, zinc is difficult to digest. Increased carb malabsorption is associated with lower serum levels of zinc. So people who live in bright outdoor light all day most likely do a better job of absorbing zinc than you can, and therefore need little or no zinc supplement to have enough ZSOD to prevent acne. Of course, tryptophan is another nutrient whose absorption appears to be impaired by living in dim light, and it's the raw fuel required to make melatonin (also required for serotonin, which suggests a mechanism for connecting acne to depression). If you can't digest crucial nutrients very well, health problems should be expected in the long term.

Since it seems clear the zinc isn't helping you, I wouldn't bother taking it (though I doubt enough of it is getting absorbed to pose any risk to you whatsoever).

It's all very interesting but for most of us it's just not feasable !

I work indoors, it pays my mortgage and bills . I started taking zinc today,30mg capsules of zinc citrate. So many people have reported benefits from doing so, it seemed daft not to at least try it. I hate taking anything orally, pain killers, vitamins etc. but I have decided to make an effort with my acne of late.

I have always found that sunlight has helped my skin however, at least short term. I even used sunbeds a couple of years back and had the best Summer of my life with pretty clear skin plus a nice tan! but I realised this is just too dangerous long term.

I have recently purchased a Blue/Red LED light ( britebox led ) purely as sunlight was so successful at healing my skin I figured this was worth a try too. I do believe there is real benefit from lazing in the sunshine but to be real, it just aint possible in today's world.

Don

It's all very interesting but for most of us it's just not feasable !

That helps explain why about half of adults on any given day have at least one acne lesion.

Many people who can't spend the day in sunlight could arrange to have very bright artificial light that favors the blue area of the spectrum in their workplace, if they were motivated to. And most people could get more outdoor light in their eyes around noon (or at least stop doing the many things modern man does to avoid getting any natural light in the eyes), decrease the dietary factors most contributory to carbohydrate malabsorption, supplement nutrients that carb malabsorption impacts, and take steps to have a more normal sleep cycle.

Ok, I got my sunlight spectrum light and it's quite awesome (It makes the room so bright, for some reason it gives me a LOT more energy too). At the moment, I can't do anything on a schedule (including 'taking' enough light in), but in some weeks I'll be able to, so I'll report results.

decrease the dietary factors most contributory to carbohydrate malabsorption, supplement nutrients that carb malabsorption impacts, and take steps to have a more normal sleep cycle.

Do you mean the FODMAP diet? (or what it was called).

Yes, that's the closest thing I know of to anyone attempting to actually impact carb malabsorption in patients by just changing diet and demonstrating some success. As with all diets, knowing what you're eating is hard. It's easy to know that apples are a generally a high-fructose food or that , but that "healthy" energy bar that seems to have little or no "sugar" may have substituted chicory root fructans (fructooligosaccharides and inulin), which appear just as able to contribute to carb malabsorption.

This reminds me I have not tried the experiment someone suggested of just taking a glucose tablet with each meal (fructose can generally get digested better if there is a matching glucose molecule for each fructose molecule, or so it is claimed...).

Also, which nutritients would a carb malabsorption impact?

Evidence exists so far for zinc and tryptophan and folic acid. Not many nutrients have been checked. Interest in carb malabsorption and its implications are mostly only about a decade old, AFAICT.

Another question: Would going to bed at 00:00 EVERY night (so it's regular) be ok too? what if I'm using the artificial light?

I'm sure it's possible. The problem is controlling your light exposure. Can you really keep enough light from getting to your eyes until 9am each morning? If not, then your melatonin cycle may be truncated even though you continue to sleep. I don't know of detailed enough research to specify what your odds are of a normal melatonin cycle when trying to sleep past sunrise. For me, even in a room with blacked-out windows, with my eyes closed, and wearing a heavy sleep mask, I can still tell you whether it's past sunrise or not. After long enough in darkness, your eyes get uber sensitive. Whether that's enough to trigger shutting down the melatonin cycle or not is hard to conclude right now.

In my personal experience, it's getting enough hours of light in the eyes that is the most powerful effect. If I'm actually living with my eyes outdoors all day, I can stay up a little late, sleep in past sunrise, etc., to a fair degree and still not get acne.

The problem with this, is although getting sunlight in the eyes is likely the most effective way of dealing with carbohydrate malabsorption, in our American society, more and more lifestyles are being made sedentary and put indoors. Surely there are other ways to try and combat carbohydrate malabsorption? Perhaps through some degree of dietary change?

Also, you mentioned that fructose is generally more well-absorbed if combined with carbohydrates. Can the reverse be true? Can carbohydrates in the diet be more well-digested if the diet is supplemented with more fruit?

The problem with this, is although getting sunlight in the eyes is likely the most effective way of dealing with carbohydrate malabsorption, in our American society, more and more lifestyles are being made sedentary and put indoors.

Again, as a species, we clearly have some control over the indoor lighting we choose to work in. As an individual, you may be forced to work in a factory where you are not allowed to install your own lights, of course. We can reproduce most any spectrum of the sun -- if we know what parts of the spectrum actually matter. The Japanese studies demonstrating the relationship between bright light exposure and carb malabsorption had subjects stick their heads in light boxes that were using fluorescent bulbs. Clearly artificial lights can substitute for sunlight, though the optimal intensity and spectrum are far from established. Light intensity drops with the square of distance, so even people who imagine they work in a bright office are likely getting significantly less intensity than was used in these studies.

Surely there are other ways to try and combat carbohydrate malabsorption? Perhaps through some degree of dietary change?

The FODMAP diet. Or, a simplified guide. Obviously, it is also plausible to supplement with zinc, tryptophan, and Vitamin B, the stuff that goes into making zinc superoxide dismutase.

However, if it is the melatonin surge that is crucial to avoiding acne, then diet alone should not expected to be a reliable cure. People who spend the day in bright light have a bigger nocturnal melatonin surge. It has not been teased out whether that is due to decreased carb malabsorption, the affect of light on the circadian clock, better suppressed pineal melatonin production during the day, something else, or some combination of many things.

In fact, one of the most attractive things about this theory is that it explains why diets effect on acne is so variable. Most long-term sufferers have the strong feeling that a) diet has some kind of effect and b) sometimes it just doesn't -- because we've all seen periods where acne was improved or even just gone at the same time we were eating "unhealthy" foods. Light exposure controls the degree to which diet can affect acne. Which is why people are startled to see their skin get better when they go camping for extended periods, long enough exposure to the natural light cycle to restart a normal melatonin cycle.

Also, you mentioned that fructose is generally more well-absorbed if combined with carbohydrates.

No, there is a highly specific biochemical effect. A fructose molecule by itself has trouble passing through the intestine wall. If that fructose molecule can be paired with a glucose molecule, they can pass through together much easier (so it doesn't hang around in the intestine, binding with other nutrients and keeping them from being digested).

Most sugars in nature come with both fructose and glucose. The higher the ratio of fructose/glucose, the more left-over fructose molecules you have that aren't getting digested. I believe that's why some people find their acne gets worse when they switch to a "healthy" diet that is, in reality, a high-fructose diet. A large sweet apple has about as much excess fructose as a can of Coke.

Can the reverse be true? Can carbohydrates in the diet be more well-digested if the diet is supplemented with more fruit?

I know of no such effect. If the additional fruit has a high fructose/glucose ratio, or if it has a modest ratio but you just eat a lot of it (which is what happens when you drink OJ instead of just eating a small orange), I would predict worsening acne.