I’m going to be spending some time out in the sun, but my tan’s totally faded over the winter. Would going to a couple “pretanning” sessions at a tanning salon help? I spoke to the woman that worked there and although she recommended a session this week and one next (the week before I go away), she didn’t impress me with any hard data.
I should like to note that it does seem to be a direct affront to my masculinity, but I’m willing to put that aside if it will help keep me from turning into hamburger on vacation.
Well, from what I’ve been told (I have no hard data either - I’m pale and white like a fish belly) the beds will provide little or no protection from actual sun (somthing about which sort of rays they use), but will damage your skin big time.
I would vote for avoiding the beds (if only because they’re nasty), and bringing steped sunscreens with you, if you must tan. Wear the highest # on the first day and work your way down.
Of course, my first vote would be to just get an SPF 60 and wear it the whole time, but most people ignore me.
I ould just use tan-in-a-can if you don’t want to look pasty your first few days. Combine that with different kinds of sunscreen once you are there and you should be all set.
(I am a guy and tan-in-a-can works pretty well these days).
I don’t think he’s worried about looking pasty, but rather using the theory that having darker skin will make him less likely to burn then if he goes out with light skin. Wheather or not it’s true though, I have no idea.
I’d have to go digging for the cite, but I read recently that a tan provides a natural SPF of about 2. And does nothing to protect you from cancer-causing UVA rays.
If that’s the case then the only route to go is sunscreen (SPF 15 or higher). Being out in the sun even with a tan isn’t healthy or safe at all. Even if you don’t get cancer, there is the inevitable premature aging that it causes. There is nothing nice about unprotected sun exposure.
This column from Cecil seems to support the idea that tanning may be a good source of cancer protection and that suntan lotion, by preventing tanning, may in fact make one more at risk for cancer.
Honestly, considering the number of cases of melanoma in the US a year, it’s bizarre we don’t have a better consensus on this. Stupid, lazy scientists.
We tried pre-tanning before a Spring Break vacation once. Had nice light tanning-bed tans. Put on sunscreen when we hit the beach. Sizzled and fried like a ten piece chicken combo. The plural of anecdote is not data, but it didn’t protect us one bit. We burned as if we were as white as we’d been when we started.
I don’t know about tanning beds, but I certainly burn much slower if I have a tan then otherwise. I’m no expert, but I doubt the tan you get from a bed is any different then one you get outside, so I’d assume that you’d get the same effect if you hit tanning beds ahead of time.
And really, if tanning doesn’t protect you from being burned, what’s the point? Why would we evolve a reaction to overexposure to sunlight that does nothing but makes it harder to produce vitamin D?
Aha, good replies. I am worried about burning up and not being able to spend more time outside. During the summer, I tend to get a decent farmer’s tan riding my bike around, but that’s generally only for shorter increments.
I did ask a dermatologist and he nicely didn’t laugh at me. He said the frequencies of light between the tanning beds and the sun are totally different and the sun will fry [you] all the same.
So, I suppose I’ll be keeping to the shade as much as possible.
See, I figured melatonin is melatonin, and so one tan is as good as the other and all this “different types of tan” stuff was an urban legend. Some googling gives me this site though which says:
From an MSU site so I imagine they know what they’re talking about. They also say:
So if I were you, I’d avoid tanning beds like the plague.
