Tanning- give me your thoughts

123457

Replies

  • keiraev
    keiraev Posts: 695 Member
    I am 33 and I used sunbeds quite regularly in my twenties, I used them a handful of times before my wedding 3 years ago, and then for some reason I went on them AGAIN last year prior to going on holiday because I was so pale.

    I look so much better with a tan, being blonde and blue-eyed, but i have decided that this summer no matter how strongly I feel the urge I am going to steer well clear. I might not even know the damage I have done until much later in my life, but I am constantly checking my moles- of which I have LOADS (another stupid reason why wish I had never used a sunbed).

    This summer it's going to be Spray tan all the way and that is that. They are a lot better if you get them done professionally and they make you look just as slim as a "real" tan does.
  • ErinBeth7
    ErinBeth7 Posts: 1,625 Member
    I tan, but only in the spring months starting in mid March into June. I usually quit sometime in June because I'm already outside a lot and don't need to be any darker. It helps me not sunburn. I don't tan year round. I don't see the point in the fall or winter. I know a lot of people disagree with tanning beds and a lot of people like them. Its personal preference. I started about 3 years ago because I felt it would give me a confidence boost.
  • Snapplejac
    Snapplejac Posts: 65 Member
    Don't do it :) Your skin will thank you for it in the long run!
  • betaleonis
    betaleonis Posts: 176 Member
    Tanning got rid of my eczema. True story!
  • missprincessgina
    missprincessgina Posts: 446 Member
    I get the airbrush spray tan. The woman I go to does a great job, I look tan and natural. It lasts about 7 - 10 days for me since I work out alot and need to shower each day. Fewer showers and lots of lotion helps keep the spray tan on longer.
  • strunkm4
    strunkm4 Posts: 265 Member
    I used to be a tan fanatic. I would tan all the time. About 2 years ago I got diagnosed with acute melnoma on my back. It was a real wake up call. I've been melanoma free for about 10 months now.

    I've switched over to spray tanning. I absolutely love having some color on me, and the place that I get spray tanned does a phenomenal job. I've had people come up and ask me how long I tan for, etc etc and they cannot beleive it when I tell them it's a spray tan.

    If you feel you need a tan, spray tan!
  • yoovie
    yoovie Posts: 17,121 Member
    6 minutes after gym sess- love it
  • OnceAndFutureAthlete
    OnceAndFutureAthlete Posts: 192 Member
    I am pale, too. And don't tan much at all. As an early teen, I tried, but basically threw in the towel at about age 14. Since then I've been a high SPF girl (family has a house in Florida) and daily SPF on the face. Figured I'd just have to wait for delayed gratification.

    I did try a tanning bed at one time (a few sessions) but it really didn't do anything, so I gave it up.

    I did a professional spray tan once - in preparation for going to FL so I wouldn't look too white on the beach - and it worked great, but I walked into work afterwards and literally no one recognised me!

    I agree that you can see definition better with a tan, and that if you're overweight, you look better darker than pale, so I guess I'm resigned to losing the weight.

    The good news - I recently turned 50 and most people guess I'm in my mid-late 30s - hardly a wrinkle!
    (And my new clean diet has helped my skin a lot too.)
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    I started tanning off and on when I was college.. Mainly when I was preparing for spring break or w/e.. would stop and start again in spring. Got home from college and tanned at my gym January through Aug, and then just started up again at a different salon yesterday.

    Personally, I love tanning.. and get checked out every year to make sure nothing is out of the ordinary. I have a lot of moles on my body.. it's just how it is and I've had 7 taken off and checked.. and so far none have turned out to be cancer.

    I figure that as long as I get checked, and I don't over do it. I'll be ok. Everything in life seems to be capable of killing you now a days, so might as well enjoy it!
  • LoraF83
    LoraF83 Posts: 15,694 Member
    Spray tan, or lotion, YES! If you want some color, go for it!

    Cancer beds? NOOOOOOOOO Stay out of those. My dad just had a chunk cut out of his leg, for a mole that was just smaller than a pencil easer, they took out a piece of flesh the shape of a football and four inches long. NO thank you.

    The lighter you are, the higher your risk. SPF is your best friend!!!

    ^This! My step-mom has a piece of her nose missing and still has to go regularly for treatments for her skin cancer. She spent years worshipping the sun.
    I am very pale but I've learned to live with it! But, I'm considering spray tan this year, to help "celebrate" my weight loss. If you go to a good salon and get an experienced technician, it can look wonderful!
  • kdcj17
    kdcj17 Posts: 73 Member
    I don't do tanning beds anymore. My irish, very pale skin takes a long time to even develop color, and to me it's not worth the risk. I also have quite a few tattoos that I would rather not ruin with the exposure. I have tried a couple drug-store spray tans that work nicely. I heard the JWOWW [yeah, yeah, yeah...LOL!!!] brand works REALLY good. I want to try it. I've never tried spray-tanning at a salon, either, I'd be down to do that also.
  • ErinBeth7
    ErinBeth7 Posts: 1,625 Member
    I don't do tanning beds anymore. My irish, very pale skin takes a long time to even develop color, and to me it's not worth the risk. I also have quite a few tattoos that I would rather not ruin with the exposure. I have tried a couple drug-store spray tans that work nicely. I heard the JWOWW [yeah, yeah, yeah...LOL!!!] brand works REALLY good. I want to try it. I've never tried spray-tanning at a salon, either, I'd be down to do that also.

    JWOWW really does work!!! Its great lotion. I use it :-)
  • I'm super-pale and I like it that way--no tanning for me, ever. I see girls who are years younger than me but look way older than I am because they tan and already have wrinkles...I'd rather not damage my skin.
  • I hate this subject! I do NOT understand why people think you have to be tan to be beautiful. I have an albino baby girl and she will never ever have even a slight tan and she is seriously the prettiest thing ever! If I knew how to load pics I would. You can be pale and beautiful just pick the right colors to compliment your skin tone!
  • hillbillyannie
    hillbillyannie Posts: 139 Member
    Both of my parents have had skin cancer, not from sunning but just by everyday activities. It really hurts me when I see people who use a tanning bed and look like they have been cooked. If you want to see sun damage go under a black light and it will show up.
  • AnninStPaul
    AnninStPaul Posts: 1,372 Member
    Hello all!

    "... That aside... I've noticed I look less "glowing" "healthy" and actually look sick. Actually ive been told i look like someone who has a flu in pictures. ..."

    Going the opposite direction - are there certain colors or styles in which you feel and look fabulous? It could be that you are wearing colors (including haircolor) that are just wrong for your skin. I look like death in tangerine, this seasons hot color, and [based upon the compliments] fabulous in peacock blue, so I just skip the orangey sections of the store and focus on what is likely to work on me.
  • 5kidsforme
    5kidsforme Posts: 131 Member
    I just don't tan. In the sun or on the beds. I'm trying to embrace my paleness and just let it be. On occasion I use a lotion at home on my legs but that's it. Can't get the rest of me to look right using a self-tanner.
  • jobelle217
    jobelle217 Posts: 41 Member
    I used to tan when I was younger!!! LOVED the way it made me look. But it's not worth it....the increased risk of skin cancer you would be getting in order to maintain that look..... :(

    I did tan just before my wedding for a couple weeks, gradually....it was worth it that one time....but it's just not sustainable.
  • I work for skin cancer doctor!! DO NOT DO THE TANNING BEDS!!! It is worse than laying in the sun! Just use sunscreen and dont burn! You will get some color. I use to do it all but now with what I have seen CUT OUT of people....sun screen sun screen sun screen!!!!
  • clh126
    clh126 Posts: 115 Member
    I am very pale and know to steer clear of tanning beds (precancerous lesions removed at age 20!), so before going on vacation to Florida last year I opted for an airbrush spray tan. The lady talked me into getting a pretty dark shade even though I'm blindingly white and the surprising thing was that I didn't look orange! I had to tell people that it was fake - everyone thought it looked real. If airbrush tans weren't so expensive, I would definitely do it more frequently, but for now I'll stick with my jergens spf 15 fake tanner.
  • beersrod
    beersrod Posts: 28 Member
    I'm very fair, blue eyes, freckles...I've never stepped foot in a tanning bed nor have I ever had a tan....that being said, I've been diagnosed with stage 1 Melanoma and a less serious for of skin cancer....just sayin'...please, please, please stay out of the sun!!! That is all :)
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    Saying that sunlight is harmful and therefore should be avoided is as misleading as saying that water causes drowning, and therefore we should avoid water.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    While this serious approach to caution is just good sense, it needs to be noted that understanding the risks of UV exposure is not as straightforward as some suggest. Consider: Research has not established a "causal" relationship Between Melanoma and Indoor Tanning.

    Melanoma skin cancer is the most aggressive of the three major categories of skin cancer, accounting for only 5 percent of all skin cancer cases each year, but responsible for a majority of skin cancer fatalities (Approximately 8,000 annually).

    While melanoma has captured a great deal of public attention in the past 15 years, much of the discussion has been oversimplified in stating that melanoma is caused by overexposure to sunlight. In fact, the exact nature of the relationship between melanoma and ultraviolet light remains unclear, and the mechanism by which the two are related is still unknown – which is why some independent dermatology researchers even question whether the two are related at all. 1.While it is believed that melanoma is somehow related to ultraviolet light exposure, this relationship is not straight-forward and the photobiology research community still does not know how it works. That’s because while a minority of associative survey-studies have suggested a correlation between UV from indoor tanning and melanoma, no direct experimental evidence exists to show a causative connection. Even American Academy of Dermatology spokesperson Dr. James Spencer admits, "We don’t have direct experimental evidence" connecting indoor tanning and melanoma.

    2.Melanoma is more common in people who work indoors than in those who work outdoors, and those who work both indoors and outdoors get the fewest melanomas. Because this is true, the relationship between melanoma and sunlight cannot possibly be clear-cut. If it were a clear-cut relationship, outside workers would have higher incidence than inside workers. But the opposite is true.

    3.Melanoma most commonly appears on parts of the body that do not receive regular exposure to sunlight. Again, because this is true, the relationship between melanoma and sunlight cannot be clear-cut. If it were, melanomas would appear most often on parts of the body that receive the most sunlight.

    4.18 of 23 epidemiological studies ever conducted attempting to correlate indoor tanning and melanoma incidence show no statistically significant association – including the largest independent study, a 2005 multi-ethnic international European study which reported, "The relationship between UVR and melanoma is very complex and, despite many studies on the topic, remains a controversial issue. Some patterns of sun exposure may also offer protection, as some studies have suggested that people with heavy occupational exposure to the sun exhibit a lower risk for melanoma compared to individuals with intermittent sun exposure. In conclusion, sunbed and sun exposure were not found to be significant risk factors for melanoma in this case–control study performed in five European countries."

    5.A 2009 opinion paper published by an ad-hoc working group representing the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer has been widely misrepresented in the media. That report’s actual conclusion stated, "Epidemiologic studies to date give no consistent evidence that use of indoor tanning facilities in general is associated with the development of melanoma or skin cancer." While the report attempted to suggest that performing a meta-analysis of the old data showed a 75 percent increased risk for those who started tanning at an early age, the authors failed to disclose that conclusion failed to take into account that removing those with skin so fair it cannot tan – called Skin Type I – from the analysis made the overall results statistically insignificant. a.Dr. William Grant, founder of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center in San Francisco, published a peer-reviewed critique of the IARC report showing that, after adjusting for skin type, the analysis showed no increased risk with indoor tanning.

    b.Closer analysis of IARC report data (by Dr. Mia Papas and Dr. Anne Chappelle) – when separated by unsupervised home tanning equipment verses usage in indoor tanning facilities and medical usage of tanning equipment in doctor’s offices – reveals that no statistically significant increase in risk (6 percent) was attributable to commercial tanning facility usage, while larger increases (40 percent and 96 percent) were attributable to home and medical usage of tanning equipment.

    6.A 2010 University of Minnesota study on fair-skinned Minnesotans claimed to show a connection between tanning and melanoma but actually supported Grant’s point that UV-related risk seems centered on the fairest skin type. But the study also showed that those who got the most outdoor sun exposure had the lowest risk of melanoma – a divergent conclusion to the rest of the paper underscoring that whatever relationship UV and melanoma may have is still not understood.

    7.The relative risk of melanoma is very small – much less than 1 percent and very close to the relative risk for non-tanners – and is often misreported. As reported in the Wilmington News Journal, "Even the IARC’s strongest study – which followed more than 100,000 women over eight years – found that less than three-tenths of one percent who tanned frequently developed melanoma, while less than two-tenths of one percent who didn’t tan developed melanoma. Almost all the other studies in the report did not establish a strong link between the two. The overall risk of contracting melanoma – whether using tanning beds or not – remains well under 1 percent. For that reason, using the 75 percent statistic is misleading, said Dr. Lisa M. Schwartz, general internist at Veterans Affairs Medical Center in VT and co-author of "Know Your Chances," a book on understanding health statistics..."Melanoma is pretty rare and almost all the time, the way to make it look scarier is to present the relative change, the 75 percent increase, rather than to point out that it is still really rare."

    8."Absolute risk just tells you the chance of something happening, while relative risk tells you how that risk compares to another risk, as a ratio. If a risk doubles, for example, that’s a relative risk of 2, or 200 percent. If it halves, it’s .5, or 50 percent. Generally, when you’re dealing with small absolute risks, as we are with melanoma, the relative risk differences will seem much greater than the absolute risk differences. You can see how if someone is lobbying to ban something – or, in the case of a new drug, trying to show a dramatic effect – they would probably want to use the relative risk."-Ivan Oransky, M.D.

    9.The American Cancer Society’s key document measuring cancer rates in the United States – "Cancer Facts and Figures" – says that melanoma rates have not increased since 2000 and that rates are declining for women under age 50 - the opposite of what anti-tanning lobbying groups claim. "During the 1970's, the incidence rate of melanoma increased rapidly by about 6 percent per year. However, from 1981-2000, the rate of increase slowed to 3 percent per year and since 2000 melanoma incidence has been stable," the ACS "Cancer Facts and Figures 2008" reports. "The death rate for melanoma has been decreasing rapidly in whites younger than 50, by 3 percent per year since 1991 in men and by 2.3 percent per year since 1985 in women."

    10.A paper published by the British dermatology community in 2009 showed that "diagnostic drift" and more aggressive screening are responsible for the increase in "reported" melanomas, but that there isn’t an actual increase in thick melanoma lesions, which explains why the mortality rate is not increasing. According to the authors, "These findings should lead to a reconsideration of the treatment of ‘early’ lesions, a search for better diagnostic methods to distinguish them from truly malignant melanomas, re-evaluation of the role of ultraviolet radiation and recommendations for protection from it, as well as the need for a new direction in the search for the cause of melanoma.

    11.Many scientists and dermatologists have taken firm positions that melanoma's connection to UV light is unclear or doesn't exist at all. Dr Bernard Ackerman – a pioneer in dermatology pathology who was recognized as a master dermatologist by the American Academy of Dermatology – the Academy’s highest honor – insists there is no evidence connecting UV and melanoma in his monograph, "The Sun and the Epidemic of Melanoma: Myth on Myth. According to Ackerman:

    a."The American Academy of Dermatology, for decades, has kept up a drumbeat on behalf of faith in an epidemic of melanoma and rays of the sun as the major cause of it, at the same time that it has flayed, incessantly, the tanning bed industry. Although the organization is termed an Academy, never has it presented in fashion academic a whit of evidence, available readily, contrary to its position entrenched, namely, there is no epidemic of melanoma and that tanning beds have not been proven to be a cause direct of melanoma."

    b."There is no proof whatsoever that blistering sun-burns, no matter the number and even in childhood, enhance risk for development of melanoma and there is no evidence at all that sunscreens prevent development of melanoma. What is more, it has yet to be established that exposure excessive to sunlight (or sun lamps and tanning beds) alone, in the absence of inclination genetic, causes melanoma."

    12.Dr. Sam Shuster, Emeritus Professor of Dermatology at the University of Newcastle, penned "The Skin Cancer Cover-Up" to point out that there is no hard evidence that UV is the cause of melanoma or that there is an actual increase in melanoma incidence.

    13.Dr. Arthur R. Rhodes, Professor of Dermatology at Rush Medical College, in Chicago, believes that melanoma’s public message needs to stop focusing on UV light – pointing out that UV-melanoma campaigns are killing people who get melanoma who failed to recognize the disease because they never spent time in the sun.

    UV Light Does Not Deserve the Blanket Label of 'Carcinogen'

    The U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Toxicology Program in 2000 placed ultraviolet light on the federal government’s list of known human carcinogens. In July 2009 the World Health Organization wrote a brief report also declaring that UV light is a Class I carcinogen – a list that also includes red wine, birth control pills, salted fish and other highly used substances that, when experienced in their intended dosages, do not elevate cancer risk. Much like the NIH listing in 2000, WHO erred in not pointing out that the "list" doesn't mean a substance is dangerous in every-day dosages, but only potentially in "overexposure" situations.

    1.The listing does not mean that moderate tanning will cause skin cancer. The NIH listing criteria shows us why: "The Report does not present quantitative assessments of carcinogenic risk. Listing of substances in the Report, therefore, does not establish that such substances present carcinogenic risks to individuals in their daily lives." This exclusion – in the absence of any direct experimental research on indoor tanning and melanoma – makes this listing almost meaningless.

    2.The list does not take into account that there are positive effects to ultraviolet light exposure. Many forms of cancer – including breast, colon, prostate and ovarian tumors – now appear to be retarded or even prevented by regular exposure to ultraviolet light. This omission on the NTP list is conspicuous, given that positive effects are listed for other substances in the government's list of carcinogens that have positive effects, such as the breast cancer drug Tamoxifen, which is a Class I carcinogen.

    3.As a result, thousands of news reports suggest that "sun tanning is as dangerous as tobacco" – a blatant misrepresentation.

    a.Smoker’s risk of lung cancer: 15 percent – or 2,000 percent higher than that of non-smokers. Smoking introduces up to 60 man-made known carcinogens into the body – substances the body was never designed to process. Smoking is related to 1 in 3 cancer deaths.

    b.Tanner’s risk of melanoma: 0.3 percent – compared to 0.2 percent for non-tanners (a difference of 1 in 1,000) The body needs ultraviolet light to survive – calling it a carcinogen without that caveat is totally misleading.

    4.One thing we know for certain: You would be dead today if you did not receive any ultraviolet light.
  • kbmnurse
    kbmnurse Posts: 2,484 Member
    No tanning booths. Unless of course, you want skin cancer followed by chemotherapy followed by alopecia(loss of hair) and nausea and vomiting.
  • PaleoPath4Lyfe
    PaleoPath4Lyfe Posts: 3,161 Member
    No tanning booths. Unless of course, you want skin cancer followed by chemotherapy followed by alopecia(loss of hair) and nausea and vomiting.

    Correlation does not equal Causation.
  • jmach002
    jmach002 Posts: 113 Member
    i think tanning definately does make you look slimmer and defines muscles but its not worth the risk of cancer in my opinion. try using some of the self-tanning moisturizer they are pretty decent!
  • WanderingMe
    WanderingMe Posts: 216 Member
    Tanning = good for the mind (I feel happier after I tan) and bad for the skin. But I still do it. I love it. AND its so funny, I had cancer last year (not skin cancer) and the oncologist recommended tanning once a week for the vitamin d it gives you, and the emotional benefits.
  • kjm827
    kjm827 Posts: 12
    Yes, the Jergens gradual tan is the best stuff. Try it!
  • andrea198721
    andrea198721 Posts: 173 Member
    Now is a good time to experiment with the different lotions as well because it isn't quite swimsuit season :) I like the Jergen's gradual tanning lotion and I always get the FAIR, so you could start with that and then work your way up to MEDIUM.
This discussion has been closed.