The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead.
The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Long story short: they asked 300 caucasian women if they were "sun-loving" or "sun-phobic", assessed their "apparent age" by a panel of people (how objective) and then calculated a vague correlation.
The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead.
It summarises the evidence from a number of papers. That exact quote comes from one, but the "Age" section alone includes 5 references to skin damage (not including those for melanoma).
The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong.
Asking "apparent age" seems a reasonable first step in assessing something as vague as "visible signs of aging"
I'm not going to defend every single thing out of a couple of random papers I googled for you.
The claim is reasonable and has evidence supporting it, and if the exact number is 60% or 90% or 40% it seems pretty reasonable to believe the point of the original comment.
Anecdotal, but a close relative was associate director of P&G R&D (Beauty division) for three decades and that figure has come up quite a bit in conversations I've had with him -- he's said all the research they did always just backed up that SPF was the only thing that had serious practical value, that nothing else really matters in comparison (I can't remember ever asking how much skin tone changes this figure though, I should really ask home about it next time I see him).
Comments
Source?
Seems accurate for white people anyway
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4344124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/
The first article does not claim that it quotes another article as a source instead.
The second article is a clusterfuck, it is not even wrong. Long story short: they asked 300 caucasian women if they were "sun-loving" or "sun-phobic", assessed their "apparent age" by a panel of people (how objective) and then calculated a vague correlation.
It summarises the evidence from a number of papers. That exact quote comes from one, but the "Age" section alone includes 5 references to skin damage (not including those for melanoma).
Asking "apparent age" seems a reasonable first step in assessing something as vague as "visible signs of aging"
Not when you claim percentages with 4 significant figures.
Look, you asked for a source.
I'm not going to defend every single thing out of a couple of random papers I googled for you.
The claim is reasonable and has evidence supporting it, and if the exact number is 60% or 90% or 40% it seems pretty reasonable to believe the point of the original comment.
Anecdotal, but a close relative was associate director of P&G R&D (Beauty division) for three decades and that figure has come up quite a bit in conversations I've had with him -- he's said all the research they did always just backed up that SPF was the only thing that had serious practical value, that nothing else really matters in comparison (I can't remember ever asking how much skin tone changes this figure though, I should really ask home about it next time I see him).