38 replies to this topic

[Legend]

I don't favour walking around pale, so logically I would use summertime to get some nice tan at the beach, however I have heard mixed opinions regarding harmful ray effect on skin. I would like to know more about this subject and maybe you could recommend me the best tanning regime.

[kismet]

Mixed opinions regarding tanning? I don't think so. Sunburn is obviously bad, but I think even sceptics (tianzi?) believe that any tanning through sun exposure poses a great danger to your skin (cancer risk, photoaging).
http://en.wikipedia....Sunless_tanning might be the smartest choice.

Anyway correct me if I'm wrong.

[pseudo-princess]

Definitely go for sunless tanning. Yeah it can be a bit of a nuisance, but it's better than skin cancer or looking 60 when you're 30.
I know a lot of people think that salon tanning is less harmful, but it really really isn't.

[VictorBjoerk]

Consume a lot of beta-carotene and you will get a nice colour

[zoolander]

don't do either. Get use to walking around pale.

Your in the wrong place as well because these forums are about life extension and not about ways to shorten your life by tanning.

[Legend]

I see. But what do you say about spray-on tan?

I understand that ultraviolet rays are harmful, however I don't want to look sickly pale. Also, what about vitamin D and special tanning lotions and creams?

[Ghostrider]

I see. But what do you say about spray-on tan?

I understand that ultraviolet rays are harmful, however I don't want to look sickly pale. Also, what about vitamin D and special tanning lotions and creams?

Hi Legend, a few days ago, I tried a sunless tanner called Touch of Sun. To get the tanning effect, one is supposed to apply it over a few days and the skin gradually starts looking less pale. I asked a question as to whether using a sunless tanner is harmful and the consensus was that it is not good for the skin, but much better than exposure to solar radiation. So if you really cannot stand your complexion, I would recommend Touch of Sun, it's a lotion that you rub on your skin that has tanning ingredients in it. However, since it is healthier for my skin to avoid all forms of tanning, I stopped using it, only used it once in fact. I would rather have more beautiful skin for the rest of my life than darker skin now. By the way, most celebrities and a lot of fashon models are pale white. I would not associate it strictly with sick or unhealthy. But I agree, it used to bother me when I was younger, in fact, I took skin damage due to sun burning to change it. It might have actually caused acne too.

[Legend]

It's weird, because I think tanning actually cures acne a little bit or makes it less obvious. If you have pale skin every pimple will be clearly seen, however a darker skinn makes them less noticable. Of course aristrocally white skin is beautiful, but only if it is smooth and clear.

[eldar]

It's weird, because I think tanning actually cures acne a little bit or makes it less obvious. If you have pale skin every pimple will be clearly seen, however a darker skinn makes them less noticable. Of course aristrocally white skin is beautiful, but only if it is smooth and clear.

I remember as a teenager when I saw a doctor about my acne, I remember her recommending me to stay outside few days without shirt or sunscreen. She basically recommended burning my skin couple of times per summer. Because it's good for acne, she said....Horribly advice, but I didn't know better back then.
There are many good ways to deal with acne and this is NOT one of them. For me, it was something as simple as changing my diet that got rid of it.

[Eva Victoria]

Th Sun's rays have some antibacterial effect which can make that acne gets better. At least for a while.
Also its drying effect is "good" for acne-prone skin.
However the results are short-lived and the prise you pay fro this short term improvement is not in balance with the damage what you cause to your skin.

http://www.imminst.o...ous-t20235.html

http://www.imminst.o...d33-t20109.html

http://www.imminst.o...-it-t18312.html

http://www.imminst.o...-2h-t20357.html

http://www.imminst.o...kin-t20248.html

There are better ways to stay healthy without acne.

http://www.imminst.o...n-A-t20360.html

It's weird, because I think tanning actually cures acne a little bit or makes it less obvious. If you have pale skin every pimple will be clearly seen, however a darker skinn makes them less noticable. Of course aristrocally white skin is beautiful, but only if it is smooth and clear.

[donjoe]

But still... given that there's some amount of damage that the skin can repair by its normal processes (especially if you're also helping it with antioxidants and retinoids), wouldn't it be possible to define a healthy tanning regimen, based on multiple short (sub-MED) exposure sessions?

Edited by donjoe, 10 April 2010 - 12:18 PM.

[Mia K.]

I don't favour walking around pale, so logically I would use summertime to get some nice tan at the beach, however I have heard mixed opinions regarding harmful ray effect on skin. I would like to know more about this subject and maybe you could recommend me the best tanning regime.

Hi Legend,


There is no "best" tanning regime other than sunless.  Then the professional spray probably gives the best result.  Haven't tried it myself; I favor the pale look:

         Pale is the new tan.

Now, if you're just getting some brief exposure for the vitamin D and happen to get a bit of color, well to me that is a different matter, and probably healthful.  I prefer supplementation. 

Best, Mia

[donjoe]

There is no "best" tanning regime other than sunless.

What about the point I just made before your post?

[drunkfunk]

But still... given that there's some amount of damage that the skin can repair by its normal processes (especially if you're also helping it with antioxidants and retinoids), wouldn't it be possible to define a healthy tanning regimen, based on multiple short (sub-MED) exposure sessions?

maybe even with a small cycle of melanotan one for better tanning and the occasional dermarolling-session to keep that collagen coming?

[Mia K.]

 

What about the point I just made before your post?

Well donjoe, reading your post more carefully, you may have a good option there.  When I think of tanning, it's always basking in the summer sun like a chicken under the broiler.  Getting nice and brown, maybe even blistered.  My preconception, sorry.

Perhaps you and drunkfunk could expand upon your ideas.  Thanks.

Regards, Mia 

[kismet]

But still... given that there's some amount of damage that the skin can repair by its normal processes (especially if you're also helping it with antioxidants and retinoids), wouldn't it be possible to define a healthy tanning regimen, based on multiple short (sub-MED) exposure sessions?

No the damage is largely irreversible. Repair is faulty and/or does not take place.

[donjoe]

No the damage is largely irreversible. Repair is faulty and/or does not take place.

Can you prove that's the case or is it just your opinion?

Edited by donjoe, 11 April 2010 - 05:17 PM.

[embean]

is there a reason why sunless tanner (DHA) would be harmful? everything I have read says it has no harmful effects.

[miklu]

But still... given that there's some amount of damage that the skin can repair by its normal processes (especially if you're also helping it with antioxidants and retinoids), wouldn't it be possible to define a healthy tanning regimen, based on multiple short (sub-MED) exposure sessions?

No the damage is largely irreversible. Repair is faulty and/or does not take place.

People who have truly faulty DNA repair mechanisms (a condition known as xeroderma pigmentosum) can develop blistering burns within minutes of sun exposure.

This proves that healthy people must have somewhat working repair mechanisms. Aging, by one possible definition, is then the accumulation of the damage that couldn't be correctly repaired.

[donjoe]

is there a reason why sunless tanner (DHA) would be harmful? everything I have read says it has no harmful effects.

It might not be harmful, but what it provides isn't really a tan either, since DHA doesn't actually stimulate the production of melanin, but reacts only with the superficial layer of dead skin to turn it darker, and the dark tint fades in 3-10 days as you shed your dead skin (which happens faster with sweating, abbrasion, prolonged soaking etc.).

What I'm looking for is a real tan, because that would give me long-term natural protection and allow me the pleasure of basking in the warmth of the Sun's rays like a lizard. Only the thing is: with my proposed regimen of max. 1 MED/day, I'd have to start out with exposures of less than half an hour a day and it would probably take a long time before I'd see any real colour.

(BTW, don't try the same with a DHA-induced "false tan", because that one, it seems, actually worsens the damage you get when you expose the treated skin to the Sun, it doesn't offer extra protection like melanin.)

---

- After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
- Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever.

[e Volution]

I remember a news article back in 2005, maybe earlier, that said they were working on an injection of some form that would make the body naturally produce melanin and give you a tan. And it wasn't even a purely aesthetic thing, they were selling it as going to be a much better form of sun protection for fair skinned people than sunscreen. I was really looking forward to that!

[niner]

I remember a news article back in 2005, maybe earlier, that said they were working on an injection of some form that would make the body naturally produce melanin and give you a tan. And it wasn't even a purely aesthetic thing, they were selling it as going to be a much better form of sun protection for fair skinned people than sunscreen. I was really looking forward to that!

That would be great. Sounds like melanotan. The problem with that sort of thing is in proving that it's safe. There's another alternative; oral lutein in reasonable doses (e.g. 20mg) has been shown to improve sunburn-resistance. The effect was on the order of a long-lasting SPF 2 sunscreen that covered all your skin. I've been using it for about 6 months, but haven't put it to any real test. I still use sunscreen; all I can say is that I haven't had any sun problems. Sorry I don't have a link to the paper. It's out there somewhere...

Donjoe, your idea is reasonable; you've described the safest way to get a tan, but unfortunately it isn't "safe", just safer than faster tanning. No matter how dark you got, you still wouldn't be able to stay in the sun forever. Even dark-skinned Africans can get a sunburn if they stay in the sun long enough.

[mustardseed41]

http://www.skincaret....html#post76909

[kismet]

No the damage is largely irreversible. Repair is faulty and/or does not take place.

Can you prove that's the case or is it just your opinion?

Sure I can. Go out & take a look at your grandfather or any other aged person. Can you still tell us that the damage - either intrinsic from aging or extrinsic from sun exposure - is reversible? Hence our mission; hence the science of biogerontology.

People who have truly faulty DNA repair mechanisms (a condition known as xeroderma pigmentosum) can develop blistering burns within minutes of sun exposure.

This proves that healthy people must have somewhat working repair mechanisms. Aging, by one possible definition, is then the accumulation of the damage that couldn't be correctly repaired.

Indeed they have, but this doesn't contradict my carefully worded post. The damage that matters is largely irreversible and repair is imperfect and/or non-existent. This is the basic dogma of modern skin care & dermatology.

Edited by kismet, 13 April 2010 - 05:34 PM.

[melanotan]

I remember a news article back in 2005, maybe earlier, that said they were working on an injection of some form that would make the body naturally produce melanin and give you a tan. And it wasn't even a purely aesthetic thing, they were selling it as going to be a much better form of sun protection for fair skinned people than sunscreen. I was really looking forward to that!

This is definitely about the melanotan peptides. There's a couple of good articles about them here:

FitnessRX: http://www.zinio.com...8...rev=si&p=75
Wired: http://www.wired.com...ce/2009/01/tan/

Cheers

[donjoe]

No matter how dark you got, you still wouldn't be able to stay in the sun forever.

Now who said anything about "forever"? I'd think "just enough" would be... enough. Something like 2-3 hours tops, or I'd get bored of lying there.

Go out & take a look at your grandfather or any other aged person. Can you still tell us that the damage - either intrinsic from aging or extrinsic from sun exposure - is reversible?

Huh?! My grandfather:
1. didn't use the method I proposed every time he went out in the sun and used sunscreen the rest of the time
2. didn't use any supplements or other methods of boosting his repair processes.
This is not proof of anything, sorry.

---

- After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
- Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever.

[Chaos Theory]

I'm probably wasting energy typing this here, but I find the benefits of sun exposure go far beyond what oral vitamin D produces. Vitamin D doesn't remedy seasonal affective disorder or a host of skin diseases the way UV exposure does.

I also can't understand why such emphasis is put on adopting a lifestyle that is so in sync with our evolutionary biology when it comes to diet, nutrients, exercise, sleep patterns, on and on.. Yet when it comes to sun exposure everything goes out the window and you guys avoid it like the plague.

Yeah, it is detrimental to the skin, but it's good for the body. I would argue that the simple stress relief and mood enhancement alone is enough to add years to your life. Though that obviously wouldn't apply if you've already convinced yourself that the sun is killing you every second you're in it.

I also don't understand the claims that sun damage is somehow any different from the other environmental damage we face every day. The body deals with it. Yes, it adds up, but it's a gross exaggeration to paint a picture of UV rays steadfastly mutating your DNA completely unchecked. If that were true you would see people who grew up in the tropics looking fifteen or more years older than they are, which simply is not the case.

At the end of the day I find that it's really a moot point. You aren't stopping wrinkles or aging. The appearance of aging indicators is going to accelerate when you reach older age whether you spent time in the sun or not.

What does it even mean to life extensionists? If we don't reach escape velocity in our lifetimes, then in cryo you might have a few less wrinkles than me. If we do reach escape velocity, then at that point don't you think there will be quite a few new treatments to reverse the signs of aging? It's only logical. If they cant even fix the skin then I don't see much hope for keeping the entire human body rejuvenated..

Bottom line.. If you enjoy the sun, or tanning... soak it up. Be responsible though. Check your skin regularly for abnormal spots or moles. Something everyone should do anyway.

I don't expect any of the regular members here to adopt this mentality or even be open to the idea. Not after religiously avoiding the sun and spending hundreds or thousands on supplements and topicals. If even one person reads it though, and it helps them shrug off the sun exposure scaremongering anxiety that is so fiercly imposed on everyone, and instead enjoy their life, I'll consider that a small personal victory.

[Luna]

Hi Chaos Theory!

I think for some it means being less wrinkled until the LEV is here, or if it's not here, to at least have a better looking body longer :/

But anyhow, I don't see how UV radiation exposure benefits a person in any way at all (in your first paragraph). Going to a walk outside in a pretty and sunny day can have a calming effects, but who said you're to limit yourself from this? just put sun screen, go out protected and have fun, enjoy both worlds

[Chaos Theory]

But anyhow, I don't see how UV radiation exposure benefits a person in any way at all (in your first paragraph). Going to a walk outside in a pretty and sunny day can have a calming effects, but who said you're to limit yourself from this? just put sun screen, go out protected and have fun, enjoy both worlds

UV exposure on the skin has many beneficial effects in the body from ß-endorphin release, vitamin D synthesis, immunomodulation, and effects on the HPTA just to name a few. Blocking the UV with sunblock will prevent most of these processes from taking place.

I'll dig up some abstracts tomorrow if anyone really cares. Not that I think it's going to change anyone's philosophy.

[Denjin]

I'm a natural redhead and running around outside with out any UV protection on seems like a terribad idea in my case at least. Even if I basically run from one building to the next and get like 5 minutes of unprotected exposure I end up getting freckles. Unfortunately my skin doesn't like any sunscreen (they all irritate me badly) so I'm trying lutein and astaxanthin soon to see if they help.

There are probably some people who don't need UV protection, but I find it doubtful that the benefits outweigh the risks if you lack the ability to tan at all.