First up, I apologise if this has been asked before, but I couldn’t find anything when I looked.
I was reading a book today and thought, seeing as it’s such a nice day, I’ll read it out in the sunshine bliss
When I came back in, my arms had caught the sun a heck of a lot more than my legs. Even though I was lying down and my arms and legs were equally exposed for the same length of time.
So…what gives? Is the skin different on your arms than your legs…or am I just weird? It’s ok, I can take it.
IANAD, Your legs have not been exposed to as much light in your lifetime as the rest of your body. Therefore, the pathway that the body sends melanin is not used as much, so it’s not as quick or efficient.
your hands and face get more exposure to UV so they tan quicker
surely though your legs would burn if there wasn’t as much melanin in the skin down there?
Here’s a thought: Are you a guy? If so, do you have really hairy legs? (Or you could be a girl with really hairy legs, to be non-descriminating). Just thinking that if you have hair on your legs it would help block a lot of the sunlight.
I think my legs tan at roughly the same rate as the rest of me…my shoulders and nose might start a little quicker but by the end of summer they all catch up.
'Cause your legs are farther from the Sun.
[sub]I know, I know, I’m going straight to hell . . . [/sub]
No, but really . . . the flux of the sunlight on your skin depends on the angle the Sun’s rays make with your skin. You arms spend more time in a roughly horizontal orientation, and thus recieve
[sub]Okay, I don’t really buy it either, but it’s more right than the being - farther - from - the - Sun one.[/sub]
How’s this? (Last try, I promise.) You already had a bit more of a tan on your arms (either from this year, or if this is the first time you went out without covering up, from last summer) and tanning just brought the difference out.
I’m a girl and I don’t have really hairy legs.
But that begs the question: Wouldn’t your arms tan slower given that they’re also covered in hair? If that’s the case, your arms and legs should tan at pretty much the same rate, right?
…see now this is what happens when I have too much free time.
Ack . . . “thus recieve more flux.”
Actually last year I spent a lot of time on the beach. As I recall my sis was astonished at the ‘lovely colour’ of my feet (of all things. And yeah, she’s weird) So anyway it was pretty much an even all over tan.
Obviously my legs catch up sooner or later… why? I dunno.
So… maybe… gravity got the better of my tanned legs and drained them but wasn’t strong enough to drain the top half of me?
Maybe not
I’m just the opposite. My legs are “tannish” year round, while the rest of me gets white. In the summer, my arms and stomach are the first things to get really tan, then my chest and face.
And my face is the first thing to lose its tan. My back and arms and chest can be a nice golden brown for a couple of weeks, but my face goes back to white in just a couple of days out of the sun.
Happy
I would guess that your arms have already received almost enough sunlight to show a tan, so they only need a little more. Your legs, having had less exposure, have a ways to catch up.