sorry-harmful ingredients that you don't want to put on your body. Forgot what a tough crowd this is. my bad.

Please be aware that the Environmental Working Group is considered by many to be little more than an alarmist group with an agenda. Think PETA of the sunscreen world. Yes, we should be aware of chemicals and understand the impacts of using them, but please don't take everything the EWG says as gospel.

My master's team practices outdoors all summer
...
I don't always have someone to put sunscreen on my back before practice....

My master's team practices outdoors all summer (noon on Saturdays!) and I am trying to find a spray sunscreen that will stay on the whole workout and isn't full of harmful ingredients. I saw the sunscreen thread from 6/19 and this site was super helpful for lotions: breakingnews.ewg.org/2012sunscreen/best-sunscreens/best-beach-sport-sunscreens/ but I can't reach my own back and I don't always have someone to put sunscreen on my back before practice. I know sprays are not ideal, but burning my back is less ideal. All the sprays I have looked at have Oxybenzone in them.

Anyone know if a spray that works well during a water work out that does NOT have oxybenzone or other less than ideal chemicals?

If not, I guess the question is: is cancer causing sun exposure better or worse than cancer causing sun screen ingredients? [sigh]

Please be aware that the Environmental Working Group is considered by many to be little more than an alarmist group with an agenda. Think PETA of the sunscreen world. Yes, we should be aware of chemicals and understand the impacts of using them, but please don't take everything the EWG says as gospel.

For example, the zinc oxide they so dearly love doesn't provide much protection against UVA rays (the dangerous, cancer causing ones).

Editing to add - I highly recommend. Neutrogena Wet spray for good, stable UVA and UVB protection.

You couldn't be more wrong here as Zinc oxide screens out UVA better than anything else.

http://www.skincancer.org/...-on-my-face-and-body


Zinc Oxide does provide better UVA protection than Titanium Dioxide, but not better than anything else. I'm actually allergic to the sun, more specifically UVA frequencies. I can tell this because I can tell a big difference in wearing a Zinc Oxide sunscreen vs wearing a chemical sunscreen (my symptoms flare up with just physical block sunscreens) I'm going to speak a bit broadly, but a lot of dermatologists don't really fully understand PPD, photostability, etc in sunscreens.

And for the science types...

"Chemical" UV filters, more appropriately called organic (carbon-containing) filters, work by absorbing UV photons and "converting" them into heat. Physical UV filters, also called inorganic filters (zinc oxide/ZnO and titanium dioxide/TiO2), function by absorbing, scattering, and reflecting UV. While some of the most UVA-protective US sunscreens use physical filters, organic filters such as the Tinosorb and Mexoryl filters can provide superior UVA protection to sunscreens that rely on physical filters alone for UVA protection.

Research that has demonstrated the greater protection afforded by non-US sunscreens with Mexoryl and Tinosorb:
In J Am Acad Dermatol 2000;43:1036-8, it was shown that a high PPD sunscreen with the formulation: Mexoryl SX 3.3%, Titanium dioxide 4.1%, 4-Methylbenzylidenecamphor 5.0%, Parsol 1789 (butylmethoxydibenzoylmethane) 3.5% (i.e. Canadian formulations LRP Anthelios L 60, Ombrelle 60, or Vichy 60) was superior to a photounstable formulation with avobenzone and two formulations with only physical filters in preventing tanning.
"Sunscreen A, which induced the lowest pigmentation intensity, contained Parsol 1789, Mexoryl SX, and titanium dioxide for UVA protection. The second best, sunscreen D, was the only other sunscreen with Parsol 1789 and was followed by the 2 physical sunscreens and the 2 sunscreens with only benzophenones for UVA protection. The sunscreens that protected the least against UVA-induced pigmentation were the sunscreens with the second and third highest SPF (45 and 50), showing that selecting a high SPF sunscreen cannot be used as the only guide to compare UVA protection afforded by sunscreens."
Sunscreen D was not photostable: Parsol 1789 (butyl methoxydibenzoylmethane) 3.0% Octyl methoxycinnamate 7.5% Octyl salicylate 5.0% Oxybenzone 3.0%.

Here is a study which found that a sunscreen containing Tinosorb M was superior to a sunscreen containing only physical filters:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/...i?cmd=Retrieve&d

"One sunblock preparation is a UVB absorber containing zinc oxide (ZnO) and titanium oxide (TiO2) exclusively. The other sunblock preparation is a new organo-mineral sunblock containing Tinosorb? M, OCM, ZnO and TiO2. Evaluation of the photoprotective capacities of both preparations on hairless rat skin and on in vitro reconstructed human epidermis revealed that they were effective in preventing UVB-induced damage. In contrast, only the organo-mineral sunblock was effective in the prevention of UVA-specific damage such as dermal alterations characterized by the expression of vimentin."