In 2014, researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm published the results of a 20-year prospective study tracking 29,518 Swedish women. The finding was so counterintuitive, so contrary to decades of public health messaging about sun exposure, that it might reasonably have upended the conversation about sunlight and health. Instead, it received modest coverage, and the advice to avoid the sun continued largely unchanged. The study found that women who avoided sun exposure had the same life expectancy as smokers.
The Melanoma in Southern Sweden Cohort
The study, led by Dr. Pelle Lindqvist and published in the Journal of Internal Medicine, was part of the Melanoma in Southern Sweden (MISS) cohort — a large prospective study that enrolled women between 1990 and 1992 and followed them for two decades. The researchers categorized participants into sun-exposure habits ranging from active sun seekers to those who consistently avoided sun exposure.
After adjusting for confounders including smoking, education, body mass index, and physical activity, the data showed a clear inverse relationship: women with the highest sun exposure had the longest life expectancy, and women who actively avoided the sun had the shortest. The magnitude of the effect was striking. In terms of absolute mortality risk, those who avoided sun exposure had outcomes comparable to current smokers.
A follow-up analysis by the same group, published in the Journal of Internal Medicine in 2016, extended the findings to examine cause-specific mortality and confirmed the pattern across multiple causes of death. The researchers concluded that the risk associated with sun avoidance was non-trivial and merited serious reconsideration of population-level sun-avoidance recommendations.
What Makes This Study Different
Many studies examining the relationship between sunlight and health are cross-sectional — they capture a snapshot of behavior and health status at one point in time. The MISS cohort was prospective, following the same women over 20 years and capturing actual mortality outcomes, not surrogate markers. This design is far stronger.
The study also had the statistical power of nearly 30,000 participants tracked over two decades — making it one of the most substantial investigations of this relationship ever conducted. The researchers were able to control for the most important confounding variables, including the possibility that sick people might avoid the sun for reasons unrelated to sunlight itself.
Dr. Lindqvist and colleagues were careful in their interpretation. They did not argue that sunlight exposure is without risks. Skin cancer — particularly malignant melanoma — is a genuine concern with excessive UV exposure. What the data showed was that the balance of risks and benefits, at the population level, appears to favor moderate sun exposure over avoidance, and that the mortality costs of systematic sun avoidance may be substantially higher than previously recognized.
What the Study Cannot Tell Us — and What It Suggests
The MISS study is epidemiological. It demonstrates association, not causation. It cannot tell us precisely which mechanisms link sun exposure to survival. Multiple candidates exist: vitamin D synthesis is the most studied, but researchers including Dr. Richard Weller of the University of Edinburgh have proposed that sunlight-triggered release of nitric oxide from skin stores may contribute independent benefits through vascular pathways. The stimulation of serotonin and beta-endorphin synthesis through UV exposure on skin may also play a role in outcomes.
What the study does suggest, with considerable statistical power, is that framing sun exposure purely as a risk to be minimized may not reflect the full biological picture. The sun is not merely a cause of skin damage. For a photobiological organism that evolved under open sky, it is also a source of signals that the body has relied upon throughout its evolutionary history.
This is not an argument for unprotected excess sun exposure. It is an argument for nuance — and for recognizing that sun deficiency carries its own biological costs, which the MISS cohort quantified in terms of actual life expectancy.
The Silence That Followed
Despite the study's size, duration, and striking findings, it generated relatively little mainstream attention. Sun avoidance advice from dermatological organizations remained largely unchanged. The SPF message persisted.
This is not unusual in medicine. It often takes decades for major observational findings to shift guidelines, particularly when those findings challenge recommendations with strong institutional momentum behind them. The vitamin D research community has been making variations of this argument since at least the 1990s — that the balance of risks from sun exposure is more nuanced than mainstream guidance acknowledges, and that deficiency represents a real and underweighted risk.
The MISS study remains one of the most powerful pieces of evidence in that argument. It should be required reading for anyone counseling patients about sun exposure.
→ Take the free 3-minute Vitamin D Risk Quiz to estimate your current status. Over 95% of respondents discover they are not at optimal levels.