Heh, we didn't always wear sunscreen until I was in my teens... my skin does not thank me.

We do SPF50 or 100 on the kids (and us, of course). I think besides shady products, a lot of them are too hard to apply evenly, so you either spend 10 minutes trying to get it to spread, or you look funny with white smears here and there.

▲

OneMorePerson 5 days ago | parent [-]

If you look into advice from non-manufacturers (some other groups who are a bit less biased) it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30, because any higher means sunscreen is harder to re-apply (meaning psychologically you are likely to not re-apply as often as needed) and also because it really doesn't make a difference unless you are ultra sensitive and have some kind of skin condition.

▲

mvdtnz 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

> it's widely recommended to max out at SPF 30,

You're going to have to bring some receipts for a claim like that. I have never seen such a recommendation, ever.

▲

OneMorePerson 4 days ago | parent [-]

I can't remember where I first heard it but here's a few links.

https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/whats-wrong-with-high-s...

https://www.mdacne.com/article/why-spf-30-is-better-than-spf...

This one (https://www.skincancer.org/blog/ask-the-expert-does-a-high-s...) doesn't directly say its better or worse, but alludes to the idea that when you combine the various factors there's definite cons to SPF 50.

Potentially I slightly overstated, what I intended to say was "there's clear reasons why SPF 30 would be preferable in many/most cases". If you are a pale white person who is hiking through the Sahara with no hat SPF 50 might be the way to go.

	▲	mvdtnz 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		First link is some political organisation. Second link is a company that sells SPF 30 sunscreen. Third link doesn't even say what you're claiming.

▲

tehjoker 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Using higher SPF can help cover for thin application