/fa/ - Fashion

>>12344055
this is a truck driver who's left side of his face was exposed to the sun while driving all day

To add to this
>>10469735 (You)
And to answer
>>10469741

Sun damage to the skin is not overplayed. Photoaging is one of the main factors to skin aging.

>Clinical signs of aging are essentially influenced by extrinsic factors, especially sun exposure. UV exposure seems to be responsible for 80% of visible facial aging signs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/

>Many of the changes that occur in skin structure as a result of aging are expressed prematurely in photodamaged skin, a phenomenon known as photoaging.

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/45002.pdf

>Extrinsic skin aging is superimposed on intrinsic skin aging process and is due primarily to UVR (solar ultraviolet radiation) and partly by other factors, such as infrared light, smoking and air pollutants.

http://www.anti-aging.gr.jp/english/pdf/2009/6-8.pdf

Those are the facts about it. I can fetch more if you want to.

---
Re. your examples:

The fact that sun ages the skin to a great extent does not mean that it makes people look noticeably bad in some way - not in the ages of the people you've given examples of, though. In the 30s-40s (sometimes 50s) it's just a matter of an extra amount of fine lines. The real difference is seen when you get into the 60s, and then you'll most likely look noticeably different to other people with less sun exposure. I can promise you that the guy in >>10469703 would not at all have as noticeable lines around the eye had he been exposed to less sun.

All of the people you've provided examples of would have had less wrinkles and fine lines /right now/ if they wouldn't have exposed themselves to as much sun. Then they can also pay for top dermatologists/plastic surgeons, so I wouldn't really use them as an example.

Pic related is my anecdotal evidence.
A trucker who has had much more sun exposure to the left part of the face.
That's photoaging for you.

To add to this
>>10469735
And to answer
>>10469741

Sun damage to the skin is not overplayed. Photoaging is one of the main factors to skin aging.

>Clinical signs of aging are essentially influenced by extrinsic factors, especially sun exposure. UV exposure seems to be responsible for 80% of visible facial aging signs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3790843/

>Many of the changes that occur in skin structure as a result of aging are expressed prematurely in photodamaged skin, a phenomenon known as photoaging.

http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/45002.pdf

>Extrinsic skin aging is superimposed on intrinsic skin aging
process and is due primarily to UVR (solar ultraviolet radiation) and partly by other factors, such as infrared light, smoking and air pollutants-

Those are the facts about it. I can fetch more if you want to.

---
Re. your examples:

The fact that sun ages the skin to a great extent does not mean that it makes people look noticeably bad in some way - not in the ages of the people you've given examples of, though. In the 30s-40s (sometimes 50s) it's just a matter of an extra amount of fine lines. The real difference is seen when you get into the 60s, and then you'll most likely look noticeably different to other people with less sun exposure. I can promise you that the guy in >>10469703 would not at all have as noticeable lines around the eye had he been exposed to less sun.

All of the people you've provided examples of would have had less wrinkles and fine lines /right now/ if they wouldn't have exposed themselves to as much sun. Then they can also pay for top dermatologists/plastic surgeons, so I wouldn't really use them as an example.

Pic related is my anecdotal evidence.
A trucker who has had much more sun exposure to the left part of the face.
That's photoaging for you.

this guy got some sick fades

>>8405440
>intentionally damaging your skin