Katie needs enlightening…I recently saw a billboard advertising that one session of indoor tanning was equal to 100 glasses of milk. Is that really true? Should I ignore all the warnings I hear about indoor tanning and just do it? Could it be that indoor tanning is actually healthy? 
The Left Brain burns bright:
I have to say that I find this whole effort by the indoor tanning industry to be disgusting. Encouraging people to expose themselves to UV radiation to get vitamin D is like telling people to smoke cigarettes to help them lose weight. Both can work, but both are awful ideas.
UV and Vitamin D
In answer to your first question, Yes, it is true that UV exposure does stimulate your body to naturally produce vitamin D in your skin. It’s the UVB light that does it however, not the UVA. UVB are the rays that also cause sunburning. In indoor tanning booths, the UVB rays are typically reduced to low level to prevent burning. The UVA (tan producing rays) are turned up.
Indoor Tanning Industry
The indoor tanning industry is taking this fact and using it to claim that exposure to UV is actually good for you. They even go as far to suggest that it’s a myth that UV exposure causes cancer.
They post some interesting findings in this report on the “truth about tanning” which can be summarized as follows.
1. People are deficient in Vitamin D and that’s causing health problems.
2. UV exposure is the best way to get your dose of Vitamin D.
3. Doctors warning against UV exposure are unscrupulous liars who are getting paid off by the sunscreen industry.
4. Tanning is safe & healthy as long as you don’t burn.
5. Indoor tanning is best because you can control whether you burn or not.
Unsupported Conclusions
Their conclusions about vitamin D deficiency are supported by recently published studies in peer reviewed science journals. Even the American Academy of Dermatology would agree. However, none of their conclusions after point 1 has any objective support at all.
For example, they say UV exposure is the best way to get Vitamin D. The opinion of dermatologists and researchers is that dietary supplementation is a better idea. Who should you believe, the doctors & scientists who study the subject or the tanning industry who is trying to convince you their product is safe?
Of course, I’m skeptical of experts, but I’m even more skeptical of sales people.
Are Doctors Liars?
The implication that dermatologists tell people to avoid UV exposure because they get kickbacks from the sunscreen industry is just ridiculous. Even if there were a few unscrupulous doctors are we really supposed to believe that the sunscreen industry is paying off everyone!? Isn’t it more likely that these people are doing their job by giving advice that they believe will best keep them healthy?
As long as you don’t burn
The indoor tanning industry prides itself on its campaign to “prevent burning”. They contend that if you don’t burn, you’re getting a healthy dose of UV exposure. Again, researchers dispute this. The fact is that there is a correlation between people who use tanning beds and increased risk of skin cancer. Whether you burn or not does not necessarily matter.
Darkside of UV exposure
It is true that no one has yet found a direct link between UV exposure and cancer. But according to doctors “the link between ultraviolet exposure from the sun or tanning beds and melanoma is indisputable.”
But in addition to the likely cancer risk, there is plenty of evidence that shows UV exposure results in faster aged, leathery-looking skin. Do you really want to risk tanning only to have to worry about wrinkles, age spots, and a leathery complexion? Better is to get your vitamin D from your diet and your tanned look from something containing DHA.
The Beauty Brains Bottom Line
While the question of the safety of indoor tanning is not cut and dried, it’s pretty clear that the people who are using tanning booths are not motivated to do so to get more vitamin D. According to the opinions of doctors, the safest option for ensuring you get the proper amount of Vitamin D is to get incidental sun exposure plus dietary supplementation. Baking in a booth for vitamins is crazier than a prion-loaded bovine.
What do you think of indoor tanning? Should people start doing it to make sure they get enough vitamin D? Leave a comment and let the rest of the Beauty Brains community know.
Loading ...
{ 8 trackbacks }
{ 31 comments… read them below or add one }
I’m one of the severely Vitamin D deficient. And it does indeed cause health problems. Last check my levels were 7 ng/ml instead of the healty fifty ng/ml.
That being said, I NEVER considered a tanning bed. Vitamin D3 is easily supplemented by popping a small round 2000 iu pill every morning and leaving the the “leathery look” and the tanning beds behind.
Before my skin allergies got too bad, I used the spray-on tan at a tanning salon for a summer. I wanted to be something other than lily white for my wedding, and it wasn’t a bad experience. I’m sure that the chemicals used aren’t terribly good, but they can’t be as bad as tanning (via a bed or the sun). As a redhead, I burn easily, so sun exposure is always limited.
I haven’t looked into how bad or good the spray-on tans are (MysticTan, I think, is the brand name the salons use). Might be a good article.
BTW, to get the amount of Vit D that many derms are recommending by sun alone, you need to expose to a full MED, or about 20-30 minutes in July NYC sun for lighter skinned individuals (up to as much as 90 mins for darker skinned folks).
Truth? Man evolved under the sun. There is no life without sunshine.
You mention milk even though milk accounts for more illnesses and deaths than sunlight.
A typical 15-20 minutes tanning session at a reputable salon will allow the body to produce between 12,000 – 18,000 International Units of Vitamin D3.
The current recommendation of 400 international units is so outdated since it accounts only for the minimal amount that a small child needs to prevent rickets. It does not take into account the massive need for D3 to protect multiple organs from multiple maladies…. even skin cancer!
The problem is that the medical society is convinced that people are to stupid to judge for themselves what is healthy exposure to what is unhealthy OVERexposure.
Overexpose yourself to anything and the results will turn from beneficial to harmful. Moderation is the operative word in health.
As well, whereas humans overdose from supplemental Vitamin D, they cannot overdose from Vitamin D produced in the body.
So, “THINK SUNLIGHT IS BAD? TRY LIVING WITHOUT IT!!!”
Mori Goldlist,
Toronto Canada
That’s pretty much what I’d expect someone who owns a tanning salon to say.
@Mori – Actually, there are plenty of creatures living at the bottom of the ocean who survive perfectly fine without sunlight.
You provide many “facts”. Do you have any scientific studies to back them up?
Milk kills more people than sunlight. Yeah, if they fall into a bucket of it and drown?
The ‘truth about tanning’ pdf focuses entirely on people who ‘can’ tan; they should. Those who cannot, should not. Fair enough. But they don’t ever address how those fair-skinned people get their Vitamin D: are fortified foods enough? If so, where does that put the argument?
The melanoma mortality chart shows that dark-skinned individuals have lower melanoma mortality than the fair-skinned–who, presumably, are more likely to be tanning. They seem to be conveniently overlooking the questions that tanning just cannot answer. If you can’t tan, you have no choice but to depend on fortified foods. Which appear to work.
And Janis, it sounds like you’ve discovered the perfect crime!
Oh lawd. Mori’s back! *eyeroll*
Maybe humans can’t overdose on vitamin D when it’s made by the body, but they can OD on the sun. Get sunburned. And get cancer. If not cancer, ugly, leathery wrinkly skin that’s prematurely aged.
Mori your argument is full of holes. But we all went through this last time. I’d be surprised if anybody listens to you.
Besides, there are other ways to get Vitamin D naturally, WITHOUT the damn Sun. It’s called eating.
“THINK SUNLIGHT IS BAD? TRY LIVING WITHOUT IT!!!”
For a human THAT is hard, but living without tanning booths has been pretty easy so far. Anyway, I’d rather eat fish and eggs than buy UVA rays…
*gasp* my milk can kill me!? Wait, what’s that white substance that mammals produce to feed their babies? It can’t be that god-awful and dangerous milk, can it?!
Cod liver oil is a great source of vitamin A&D since they are equally important and often go hand in hand…As far as milk is concerned in a lot of individuals it can produce allergies, mucus and inflamation.
There’s another angle to this — try living without sunlight, eh?
No one’s suggesting we try to live without sunlight. It’s FAKE SUNLIGHT we can live without. Why waste money and time on dangerous overexposure to UV rays when we habve a nice flaming ball of gas sitting 93 million miles away giving us FOR FREE what you purport to SELL?
Zillions of humans have been living perfectly healthy lives even in relatively sunlight-poor enviroments. What’s the life expectancy in Finland, might I ask? Probably better than in the US.
I wouldn’t want to live without sunlight, to be honest. That’s why I slap on some sunscreen and then WALK THE HELL OUTSIDE instead of wasting my time in a bulb-lined coffin that’s going to give me cancer.
“What’s the life expectancy in Finland, might I ask? Probably better than in the US.”
Not that different, really. 75.8 years for men (US: 75.2), 82.8 for women (81.0).
Now I’m going to nitpick: during the winter it’s dark, dark, dark; during the summer the even the nights are light – sun does set every night below the Arctic circle, but not not far below horizon. Plenty of sunlight then.
And of course indoor tanning is known, but sunless tanners are more popular among the population that, on average, is fried to crisp in two minutes.
I have been looking to see what people say about indoor tanning in areas that have little sunshine, not only due to the latitude but also due to climate, and I have found nothing.
In areas like Juneau, Alaska, people joke about the ‘big round orange thing in the sky’ when the sun comes out because even in the heart of summer when the sun is up over 18 hours a day, it is more often than not raining.
People here are Vitamin D deficient, I know multiple women who were at 0 ng/ml when they tested. So in areas where it is more likely you will be a snowman or waterlogged than sunburned (only 43 days of unobstructed sun a year according to the Western Regional Climate Center), is it safe to use a tanning bed to supplement Vitamin D?
I have even heard that some insurance carriers here will pay for people to go to tan sessions as preventative measures. I am not sure if that is true though…
At least in Finland the typical advice is to eat fish (or take vitamin D supplements, e.g. fish liver oil) or milk products. I don’t know about other countries, but here low fat and fat free milks have added vD (the amount equals the one of raw milk).
I can’t remember anyone suggesting indoor tanning as a supplement – all “my” sources talk about paying attention to nutrition, especially during the winter.
As you all know, the sun is not the only way to get sufficient Vit. D. To the Juneau poster, the best way to deal with Vit. D deficiency is to EAT items with Vit. D — just like native Alaskans did for thousands of years. We talk a lot about the sun & Vit. D, forgetting that diet can very easily take the place of UVB rays.
And that’s also why people are so pale in high latitudes (where they don’t eat tons of fish)–gotta let some rays in to get some Vit. D (and probably other things we haven’t discovered yet).
I highly recommend anything by Nina Jablonski if you want to read about the interplay of skin color and human evolution. Not without controversy, but highly interesting.
In college (just a few years back) I knew people who have used tanning beds religiously since high school, and their skin was already showing the effects of UV damage. (Who knows how much damage was done that was invisible to the eye). For those who tanned occasionally or seasonally (i.e. right before spring break), their skin did not show immediate damage, but from what I hear, it will affect their skin quality down the road.
I come from a family who practices UV protection. Though I’m too young yet to see if my preventative measures have paid off, I can say that my mom, who is in her 50’s looks 5-7 years younger (as opposed to the other women in her family, who haven’t been as diligent about sun protection).
The thought of sticking your naked butt in a small box to expose yourself to fake light just sounds gross. If I’m going to expose myself to UV rays of any kind, I want it to be the natural sun with a fresh breeze too!
You’re being sold by many groups. Chemical sunscreen manufacturers are pushing $35 billion in chemicals that don’t prevent melanoma. Yes that’s right… read the bottle. Cosmetic Dermatologists have grown 85% since they discovered the effectiveness of fear-based marketing and the so-called “melanoma epidemic” that doesn’t exist. (Check the governments SEER data report – Melanoma death rates have dropped in all categories in the past 20 years.) Dermatology lobby gets millions from sunscreen manufacturers (AAD received $8 million in 2007 alone) to market sunscreen’s melanoma prevention (because they can’t – class action lawsuit). It’s really a brilliant marketing initiative that has made both groups huge dollars. Plus, everytime they can create a new report(from the same weak studies), their sales jump. The last this country experienced a marketing coupe this powerful was back in the 60’s when big tobacco partnered with doctors to suggest smoking was healthy.
Forget everything you’ve seen and heard and ponder this: God or mother nature created humans under sunlight without any ability to avoid it. Nature provided us with the ability to create 25,000IU of the hormone vitamin D in one single 20-minute exposure to sunlight. Nature provided us with this life-saving hormone for a reason and there’s more research that supports vitamin D’s role in cancer prevention than there is supporting sunlight’s role in melanoma and yet those who profit from our fear of the sun say vitamin D is unimportant or just drink more milk. So now ask yourself – who do you believe – God or the “Sun Scare” industry?
Wasn’t God the one who created radiation, cancer, viruses, snake venom, earth quakes and tsunamis? Maybe God is trying to kill us.
Incidentally, the sunscreen industry doesn’t sell $35 billion in chemicals. The market is a bit smaller than that.
The latest research shows only 10-15% of our vitamin d comes from food and the best way to get it is from sunshine, but not too much sunshine.Even Vit D supplements might not contain D3, which is the best Vti D supplement. If you live in a northern latitiude area, or a cloudy area, controlled indoor tanning is almost the only way to make sure you can keep your vit D up to a healthy level. I indoor tan, along with many friends who are nurses. We feel under- exposure to UV is probably more harmful to your overall health than over-exposure. Low vit d is linked to many cancers, poor bone health, diabetes, depression and most autoimmune diseases. But, of course moderation in tanning-NOT burning!!
sunshine is essential to humans. your comment about “creatures living at the bottom of the sea” is totally irrelevant to humans since we were not evolved at the bottom of the sea.
cow milk is among the leading causes of diabetes in humans since we were not born suckling off cows, why are we told to drink cow milk? nature provides all the elements we need and that includes the sun.
@Trina – We’re not aware of any scientific evidence that demonstrates cows milk is a cause of diabetes. What is your proof?
All I’m hearing in these posts is a lot of judgemental personal opinions. All you people- have you actually experienced a tanning bed session? I’ve been tanning indoors for 25 years moderately. People tell me I look 10 years young for my age. Yes, the fact is, overexposure to the sun OR a tanning unit is dangerous. Can you say “in mod-er-a-tion”. All this anti-tanning anger is really based on fear of what you hear and want to believe-not what you have actually experienced. Most tanning salon owners are trying to make an honest living to survive and feed their families-especially in this economy and are not in the business of trying to kill people or make them look like they’re 20 years older. Shame on you who judge without knowledge. Sun is good no matter how you get it. Tanning indoors is not just for cosmetic purposes anymore so suck it up and respect those who believe they have a better chance of surviving skin cancer than colon or breast cancer if it ever happened to them, God forbid!.
Ok let’s all just use a little common sense and stop blaming God and cows and whatever else.I’m not a fan of fake n bake’rs because my 50 year old aunt looks older and more wrinkled then my 82yr old grandma thnx to the sunlight beds of death-so here’s the solution.Go to wally world and spend 5 bucks(way cheaper than tanning)on some vitamin D3 1000 IU or get off your lazy bums and take a walk outside a few times a week and we’ll all be a little better looking too
To whoever asked where the proof is that milk is dangerous, are you incapable of doing research? The information is readily available but you have to look. This kind of stuff doesn’t make it on TV. Just look up the two FOX reporters who tried to do a report on rBGH. Monsanto, as a giant powerful corporation, caused them enough legal trouble they were both fired and the report never aired. You can, however see the reports on their website.
As far as milk, cows are pumped full of hormones to make them produce more faster (for increased profits of course). They are also given tons of antibiotics. These things are not labeled on your milk. However, all of those hormones and antibiotics make it into your system every time you drink milk or eat dairy products. Anyone could see that isn’t good for you.
We like to base our conclusions on stronger evidence than “Anyone could see that isn’t good for you.”
Feel free to prove what you are saying. Proof in the form of scientific, peer reviewed studies. Googling things, Wikipedia, and opinion pieces is not research. Research is found in scientific journals like the ones indexed at PubMed.com
The truth is if sunshine was bad we would all be nocturnal. If you really think that lathering on chemical sunscreen on a daily basis is going to help you in the long run, you are sadly mistaken.
I believe in tanning moderately and when I am in a situation where my skin could possibly be overexposed I lather on the sunscreen, at that point it is a necessity; it was never intended for every day use and now everyone is so afraid of the sun they are missing out on all the benefits. Vitamin D insufficiency is an epidemic and is directly related to the big business cosmetic companies peddling fear. Don’t believe the hype, use your brain and your judgment and avoid overexposure, that is where the damage occurs. Whatever you do don’t stay out of the sun!
And the answer for the fair skinned red head,it takes 7 minutes of UV exposure for your melanocytes to become “active”. Therefore you can not develop a tan before 7 minutes. So fair skinned red heads, tan for 5 minutes a few times a week and watch your Vitamin D levels soar!
The fact is Vitamin D is called “The Sunshine vitamin” for a reason. The best way to create this hormone is from natural UV exposure; No if, ands or buts about it.
Think smart, tan moderately and only apply sunscreen in situations where overexposure is a possibility.
I would like to point out that I am extremely educated in this matter first and foremost. Sunlight is more natural than most of your hair colors. And if you were to go to a salon where they actually cared about you then you would never burn because every reputable salon owner knows that burning causes the most damage to the skin. Also pointing out if the sun is so dangerous at regulated exposures then why is it now, in the years that everyone has been avoiding the sun to such an extreme, than why our the rates of vitamin deficiency higher and those of skin cancer remaining at just about the same. Sunlight has many benefits for the body. People tan to treat cpnditions per doctors orders all the time. Again moderation is key. And just so you are aware, the UVA rays take much more to burn your skin and they provide oxidatives to your skin. My suggestion is if you have any questions about this matter you do your own research and find your conclusions from actual doctors and not opionionated people who may or may not be educated about what they are talking about. Tanning Truth is an amazing website and so it Smart Tan. Both have the goal of tanning people the most educated way possible and actually break skin types down. There IS infact a skin type that should not tan at all. Spray tans are a great option for people who are afraid of UV light but when going on vacation they really provide no resistance to sunburn and building a natural tan would be your best defense against sunburn which in all reality is the actual cause of skin cancer. FIND A QUALITY SALON NEAR YOU THAT IS SMART TAN CERTIFIED AND ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS YOU CAN !!
Ummmmm didn’t doctors, our educated health consultants, used to tell us cigs were healthy and good. For one I would never believe that they would actually tell us something false for their profit. Especially as americans! We have too much personal pride to sell ourselves for a buck let alone a million.
@Zipper – I don’t think anyone said cigarettes were good for you, they just didn’t tell you they were bad.
And the thing about science is that the conclusions reached are always tentative & subject to change. Doctors get smarter over time so the things they prescribed 50 or 100 years ago have been replaced with better treatments based on scientific research. And the stuff today will no doubt be different from the treatments in the future. But until we have more proof, the medical advice of doctors is the most reliable thing we’ve got.