where in that study does it say they only looked at white people?
The authors save 1 are all Anglo names (one is literally named Whiteman lul), and the text doesn't mention race/ethnicity which means they are exclusively done on whites, or at best a 90:10 split of whites:blacks (which effectively means the results only matter for whites)
really rigorous science you’re doing here. Are you really implying that you know the race of the participants in the study based on the author names?
Holy shit dude, yes. How do you not know this? It's a meta-analysis. That means they look at a bunch of different studies.
That means that, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, these are going to be mostly Western studies, which are done on populations that are overwhelmingly white.
If a Western study deals specifically with a non-white population, it almost always says so right in the title.
If you don't believe me just look at their references, and the names of the people/titles.
There are probably a few use cases, like if you're lifeguarding on the beach all day all summer long, even a dark-skinned person might benefit from it.
It's not just vitamin D, it's also seasonal affective disorder and thousands of other interactions unknown to science, because science only holds up a candle in an unlit auditorium (and in the case of funding for POC-centric studies, it's more like a glowing ember). Dark-skinned people evolved taking in plenty of sunlight, that's why they're dark. There are certainly dozens of downstream, subtle effects of light-deprivation which science hasn't even begun to describe. but yea
deleted by creator
The authors save 1 are all Anglo names (one is literally named Whiteman lul), and the text doesn't mention race/ethnicity which means they are exclusively done on whites, or at best a 90:10 split of whites:blacks (which effectively means the results only matter for whites)
http://ds-wordpress.haverford.edu/psych2015/projects/chapter/weird-populationsunrepresentative-sampling/
yes dude, it literally does. and there's no reason to wear it for the 1st hour of sunbathing.
Dark skinned people in general should err on the side of NOT using sunblock.
deleted by creator
Holy shit dude, yes. How do you not know this? It's a meta-analysis. That means they look at a bunch of different studies.
That means that, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED, these are going to be mostly Western studies, which are done on populations that are overwhelmingly white.
If a Western study deals specifically with a non-white population, it almost always says so right in the title.
If you don't believe me just look at their references, and the names of the people/titles.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-effect-of-sunscreen-on-vitamin-D%3A-a-review-Neale-Khan/9c77216902252c88dc801342a4a31493e9062078?sort=relevance&citedPapersSort=relevance&citedPapersLimit=10&citedPapersOffset=20
deleted by creator
There are probably a few use cases, like if you're lifeguarding on the beach all day all summer long, even a dark-skinned person might benefit from it.
It's not just vitamin D, it's also seasonal affective disorder and thousands of other interactions unknown to science, because science only holds up a candle in an unlit auditorium (and in the case of funding for POC-centric studies, it's more like a glowing ember). Dark-skinned people evolved taking in plenty of sunlight, that's why they're dark. There are certainly dozens of downstream, subtle effects of light-deprivation which science hasn't even begun to describe. but yea
deleted by creator
realistically, how many dark skinned people (or any people) are doing that? For most, it's better to err on the side of no sunscreen.
deleted by creator
Are you dark skinned though? As in this or darker?
deleted by creator