[HN Gopher] Indoor tanning makes youthful skin much older on a g...
___________________________________________________________________
Indoor tanning makes youthful skin much older on a genetic level
Author : SanjayMehta
Score : 208 points
Date : 2025-12-21 05:21 UTC (17 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.ucsf.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.ucsf.edu)
| drooopy wrote:
| There was this lady who started going to the tanning salon across
| the street from my place. In 4-5 months her skin had turned from
| pale white into tanned leather. It was shocking watching this
| happen.
| eduction wrote:
| Isn't that precisely the expected outcome of going to a tanning
| salon?
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| Shockingly unnatural, I assume, not shocking scientifically.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yeah very similar story. A friend of my wife's started tanning
| and now she looks like an old bag of brown leather. Too much is
| never enough for her.
| adrianN wrote:
| I suppose the specifics are novel enough to warrant a paper, but
| on a layman's level it has been known for decades that UV ages
| your skin rapidly.
| baxtr wrote:
| I don't think it's super straightforward. Another thing laymen
| know: Most younger people in southern Europe don't look old.
| brabel wrote:
| I think that's because locals have some level of adaptation
| to their region. In Australia, you can really see how the
| high levels of sunshine affect the Northern Europe
| descendants who live there today. Some 30 yo women look
| easily 40.
| blell wrote:
| I actually live in southern Europe and most of my friends who
| are >35 and have been out and about for most of their lives
| do indeed look much older than they are.
| 7bit wrote:
| "known" is the wrong word. Laymen know a lot of things, like
| ingesting lead, radium, mercury and arsenic. Up until a couple
| of years ago, people "knew" that one glass of wine a day was
| healthy, when infact every drop is poisonous to the body.
|
| In reverse, people thought (and too many still "know") that MSG
| and pasteurization is bad.
|
| Don't use the word know, when in fact you mean "assume".
| djtango wrote:
| Is MSG not bad for you in the way aspartame is not bad for
| you? I totally get that MSG is naturally present in dashi but
| the chemistry of dashi (a very messy and complex mix of
| substances) vs purified msg is going to be different, and the
| concentrations the japanese consume food containing dashi are
| very different to the way UPFs and chinese restaurants
| gratuitously smother your food in it. MSG is to many cuisines
| what butter is to western cuisine (ie moar is always bettah)
| sallveburrpi wrote:
| MSG is only bad for you because it makes things taste
| amazing so you are going to eat more than you actually
| should. Nothing wrong with butter btw.
|
| As with most food stuffs if not consumed in moderation it
| can become a problem.
| padjo wrote:
| There's no evidence linking MSG specifically with any
| chronic health issues and little reason to suspect there
| would be in healthy people at the quantities generally
| consumed. Funnily enough many people who are wary of MSG
| and try to avoid it would be better off looking at their
| sodium intake, which we know for sure has long term health
| risks.
| jtbayly wrote:
| salt is bad again?
| shlant wrote:
| salt was always advised to be limited, especially for
| those with high blood pressure. This hasn't changed,
| there are just vocal diet ideologues (mostly
| carnivore/keto) that are trying to post-hoc rationalize
| otherwise.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| From what I understand it's only really a problem for a
| specific set of high blood pressure folks. Something
| genetic I think.
|
| I'm on blood pressure medication, and haven't received
| any advice about sodium intake.
| loeg wrote:
| Only ~50% of the population is hypertensive, and only
| about half of them are sodium sensitive.
| loeg wrote:
| Salt's bad if you have sodium-responsive hypertension
| (maybe 30% of the population).
| djtango wrote:
| Well it seems pretty accepted that refined sugar is worse
| for you than consuming sugars locked up in fibrous
| fruits. From a similar intuition glutamates locked up in
| natural sources probably has a different bioavailability
| profile to refined MSG, incidental sodium intake
| notwithstanding.
|
| In any case, everyone is different and catchall health
| advice lacks nuance. I have to very consciously consume
| more and more salt because I habitually cut it out to the
| point that I now suffer from hyponatremia especially as I
| exercise and sweat bucket loads.
| Noaidi wrote:
| I am someone who is sensitive to MSG and the new
| substitutes they put in food to replace it.
|
| It is not "dangerous", and I think that is the problem
| with the messaging, but it does increase my anxiety,
| insomnia and fibromyalgia symptoms. And I also thing for
| most people it is fine, but it certainly does not work
| with my family's genetics. My mother had the same issue.
|
| Many things in food now replace MSG. Any time you see a
| protein isolate, what they are isolating is the
| glutamate. Malted Barley Flour also contains high levels
| of glutamate and purines (like inosine) that work
| synergisticly with it to enhance flavor.
|
| Glutamate is an excitatory neurotransmitter, and it makes
| your taste buds more "excited". My mouth tastes like
| metal whenever I have foods with glutamate. It is not
| pleasant for me at all.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9883458/
|
| https://www.eurofins.com/media-centre/newsletters/food-
| newsl...
| throwup238 wrote:
| MSG is very safe in normal quantities with a similar safety
| profile to salt. You can drink MSG water to kill yourself
| but it'd be like drinking a gallon of seawater. It's
| monosodium glutamate. Monosodium as in NaCl (table salt)
| and glutamate as in the amino acid and neurotransmitter.
| Once they disassociate in water, they're both some of the
| most basic molecules used by all life, including for
| protein production.
| loeg wrote:
| A glass of wine a day is within epsilon of the most healthy
| possible option. You're making this out as if this is a big
| shift, but it isn't. There are just huge error bars on the
| measurements relative to the effect of the intervention.
| tannhaeuser wrote:
| We can do better than "known for decades, on a layman's level"
| folklore and the answer actually isn't as straightforward
| ([1]). Recently there's even been discussion (by a Brit
| scientist I believe but I have no reference) on skin cancer vs
| more serious forms of cancer, and also about skin pigmentation
| playing a role here.
|
| [1]:
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X2...
| anon373839 wrote:
| That link does not refute the claim that UV ages your skin,
| which it unquestionably does.
| adrianN wrote:
| Yeah of course scientists can still learn more, but at some
| point the layman can't really get any new information from
| the press release.
| Nevermark wrote:
| I think people way over cook themselves. The economics and
| amplified power of tanning beds at salons push people to highly
| overdose.
|
| I estimated that 1 minute of artificial tanning is comparable to
| the 10-15 minutes of sun a day that is recommended. But has the
| benefit of the whole body's largest organ kicking in for the
| health benefits. So I tan at home for 1 minute a couple times a
| week. You can't do this economically with a salon.
|
| I don't really get tan, just a little more color. But when I do
| get any lengthy sun time due to outdoor activities, I tan quickly
| instead of burn.
| Sparkyte wrote:
| I just walk outdoors.
| Nevermark wrote:
| Nude? :) I do think getting a bit of sun everywhere has to
| enhance the benefits. Thus my solution.
|
| I also walk a lot when I can and weather allows. I started
| walking with a weighted vest occasionally and it was like my
| body went into some kind of good shock. I was surprised how
| little soreness or fatigue I felt even the first time, after
| a two hour walk wearing 20 lbs. And the physical energy boost
| was dramatic. I switched to 40 lbs the second time and since.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _I do think getting a bit of sun everywhere has to
| enhance the benefit_
|
| Why? This is not how we naturally insolate.
|
| I'm not saying you're wrong. Just that the _status quo_ is
| different parts of your body getting sun each day. You're
| not replicating that, which places the burden of evidence
| on you.
| medstrom wrote:
| There are tan-thru clothes, if you want to be serious about
| it.
| djtango wrote:
| Depends where you live but where I am it's not unacceptable
| to go for a run in essentially swim wear so you'd be
| sunning not much less than what you'd get in a public
| tanning salon
| stevekemp wrote:
| Sure! Walk out of the sauna, over the garden, down the
| dock, then jump into the lake for a naked swim.
|
| Do that daily for about four weeks, come rain or shine,
| whilst enjoying your summer vacation.
|
| Of course that probably doesn't work for every country, but
| here in Finland it's normal enough. Too bad I'm a pale-
| skinned redhead, covered in freckles, and I get burned if
| I'm not too careful.
| iwontberude wrote:
| I too have played My Summer Car
| Krssst wrote:
| I just take vitamins if needed, saves time and no cancer.
| sebst wrote:
| The tricky part is defining "needed".
|
| After all, supplements are also artificial compounds
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33584011
| hgomersall wrote:
| If you know something everyone else doesn't, it would be
| great to see your paper describing how you do that and
| demonstrating efficacy. So far, the evidence seems to
| suggest it's not sufficient: https://www.sciencedirect.com/
| science/article/pii/S0022202X2...
| loeg wrote:
| This isn't super useful for UV exposure in winter, due to low
| angle of the sun, clouds, and of course clothing.
| willguest wrote:
| I love the idea that we believe that we can replicate all of
| the natural processes involved in getting a tan, and to such a
| precision that we can then speed up the process 10 fold, and
| that we can fit it all into a single unit that can be wheeled
| in and out of the room.
|
| Unless of course our calculations are a bit off, then we
| accidentally created a bed version of the wrong chalice from
| raiders of the lost ark, but I think it's fine.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Replicate the natural processes? It's literally just UV
| light.
|
| UV comes in an huge variety of strengths outdoors.
|
| There are no calculations to be a "bit off". It's just strong
| UV. You're making it sound a lot more complicated than it is.
| whycome wrote:
| Yeah. There are so many variables already. From angle to
| time of year to skin pigment to duration
| CAP_NET_ADMIN wrote:
| Sun also emits infrared which seems to cause positive
| effects counteracting some of the UV related problems.
| crazygringo wrote:
| Some cell and animal studies show that there is a slight
| possible effect. It hasn't been shown in humans, and even
| in extrapolation from animals, the protective benefit
| does not seem particularly significant.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| how do you tan at home? you bought some UVB bulbs?
| crazygringo wrote:
| > _I estimated that 1 minute of artificial tanning is
| comparable to the 10-15 minutes of sun a day that is
| recommended._
|
| That doesn't seem right. If you only tan in a strong tanning
| bed for 10 min (or 15 min in a weaker one), it's equivalent to
| only about an hour in the real sun around noon. I.e. if you've
| only been going to a tanning bed, you'll start to burn outdoors
| shortly after that. (And I'm talking about high-UVB bulbs that
| develop the long-lasting tan that protects against sunburn,
| just like the sun itself generates.)
|
| So the difference factor is more like 4-6x, not 10-15x.
| Honestly, 15x would be _insane._ Tanning beds aren 't as strong
| as some fearmongerers suggest. And that's assuming full-body
| exposure.
|
| When you say you artificially tan at home for 1 minute, how?
| Did you buy your own entire tanning bed? Because if you use the
| small portable devices (like a Sperti), they're providing only
| a tiny fraction of what a tanning bed provides, since they're
| so small.
| jwpapi wrote:
| How does this compare to Melatonan peptide?
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Melanotan makes your skin react to light more effectively and
| you can get a full tan quite quickly with it (even in a few
| days). I don't know whether that means it ages you less because
| it takes less UV exposure to get a good tan with it or if it
| has some other adverse side effect. But I have tried it once
| and it is definitely effective.
| jwpapi wrote:
| I assume both is unhealthy, but I also like to be tanned and
| take the risk. Preferably from safe sun, but when not
| possible I'm debating tanning bed vs Melatonan and I haven't
| found evidence.
| breve wrote:
| Why go to the expense of a tanning bed when you can get skin
| cancer for free.
| hbogert wrote:
| Geographically this is unpractical at some locations. Mild
| understatement. Do you happen to live in a year round sunny
| place?
| ImHereToVote wrote:
| This is true. As a society we often overlook the barriers to
| get skin cancer in many communities.
| hbogert wrote:
| The tongue in cheek is strong in this one ^
| doubled112 wrote:
| It's currently -10C with 50km/h wind gusts. The cloud cover
| suggests I'll see some snow today. There is no sun.
|
| I'll lend you my balcony if you want to try for a tan. Do you
| think it will happen before sunset? That's 430pm and it is
| currently 10:30am.
| Tempest1981 wrote:
| My job requires me to work indoors during high-UV hours. But
| I'll look into weekend exposure, thanks!
| everyone wrote:
| I live in Ireland, there's practically 0 opportunity to get
| exposed to the sun unless you work outdoors, and even then only
| your face and hands and perhaps forearms get exposed. I just take
| vitamin D tablets.
|
| Also I know UV goes through clouds, but when its raining all the
| time you tend to stay indoors and only go outside with raincoat /
| umbrella.
| faangguyindia wrote:
| After workout, i sit in the mild sun each morning before having
| my breakfast and have done so for many years now. I live near
| Himalayas and sun is always there, except for some weeks of
| winter.
| xandrius wrote:
| And?
| Xiol wrote:
| He's very fit but looks like he's 120 years old.
| iwontberude wrote:
| It's not just the working out -- it's the sun lounging that has
| really made you comprehend the differences.
| qubex wrote:
| As a naturist I've always wondered whether there's a difference
| in prevailing skin cancer rates, but I've never found any data.
| miladyincontrol wrote:
| Excessive UV exposure in general not a great time, tanning is
| just a way of speedrunning damage unless done in very short
| intervals.
|
| I'll never understand some people's fetishization with getting
| darker via tanning though. Theres nothing wrong with light skin,
| its only a few western countries that seem to have a weird
| fetishization with cooking your skin longterm to get darker short
| term. Meanwhile most other countries and peoples are willing to
| damage their skin in whole other ways trying to get the opposite.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| Cosmetic companies to blame? In the east, they fetishize white
| / fair skin, while in the west they fetishize dark skin.
| asdfasvea wrote:
| No, people who do it are to blame.
| miladyincontrol wrote:
| Possibly. Its actually insanely frustrating as someone pale
| that most western brands rarely approach the level of
| lightness I need to match my skin, and the few that come
| close often are almost always rather saturated, highly warm
| tones.
|
| They almost always just stick to tones within the realm of
| pantone's skin guide, treating it more like a skin bible
| instead.
|
| Haus labs and their triclone in 000 is one of the few
| foundations I've ever had match.
| prmoustache wrote:
| People with dark skin do also still struggle to find their
| tones in most western countries unless they live in a huge
| city.
| tveita wrote:
| They're both imitations of status symbols
|
| "wealthy people can stay inside while poor people work in the
| sun" vs. "wealthy people can vacation in sunny countries while
| poor people stay home in the cold"
| mrits wrote:
| The US has 200 million white people that live in a mostly
| warm and sunny climate. Women often tan before vacations or
| events so they look better in the pictures.
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| Men (7.4%) and women (11.5%) both do it, but yes women in
| the US in larger numbers. Worth mentioning it's still a
| substantial % of men.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5664932/#:~:text=9
| ....
| mrits wrote:
| What do you think those numbers represent? Just so
| everyone is clear, it's still 12% when we are talking
| about females who _frequently_ outdoor tan of all races
| with half the group over 45 years old in a tiny test
| group. Not exactly relevant
| viking123 wrote:
| I live in Asia and I think tanned white people do not look
| good at all most of the time, to me it just looks weird. I
| much prefer the pale look. People with naturally tan skin
| however I think look very good.
| echelon wrote:
| It's 100% cultural. I think the pale look is super
| unattractive and ghostly/ghoulish. Tanned skin is
| beautiful.
|
| It's not that it is a sign of wealth due to leisure.
| People who work outdoors are tanned too. It's the
| warmness. The glowing. The gradients. Something impressed
| upon me at a young age that this is the standard of
| beauty.
|
| When I'm in Asia and I see people carrying umbrellas and
| doing skincare, their skin looks clinical and less
| appealing to me than those who aren't doing it. I
| logically know the anti-sun regime is healthier for their
| skin, but my primate brain tells me it's unattractive.
|
| It's unfortunate that increasing melanin production from
| the sun causes DNA damage. Because it looks so good to
| me.
|
| There are a variety of drugs that induce pigmentation or
| melanocyte production, but none are FDA approved. Most of
| them can lead to cancer, either by uncontrolled cell
| proliferation, impact on unrelated cell populations, or
| disrupting normal hormonal signalling.
|
| Melanotan-II was popular some years back, but there are
| half a dozen others that use a variety of different
| mechanisms. None of them are approved.
|
| It's unfortunate that we haven't developed something
| better than exposing ourselves to DNA damage, but it's
| probably not the biggest priority.
| temp0826 wrote:
| I don't know if it's every Asian country, but Thailand
| absolutely has an obsession with skin whitening products
| (whiter skin is correlated with wealth/higher-class and
| not having to work outside). I found it hard to find a
| non-whitening lotion while there actually. I really doubt
| many of these products are safe and it looks very
| uncanny-valley and weird to me, which is maybe what
| you're picking up on as unattractive too. Definitely a
| cultural thing.
| viking123 wrote:
| The women look much much younger than western equivalents
| though because they avoid the sun. It's hard to look at
| western girls in twenties who look like they are in their
| mid 30s. However, the western girls who have used
| sunscreen tend to look super good with the original skin.
| temp0826 wrote:
| Oh don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the overcooked
| look either. The damage really adds up quick, I doubt
| many look ahead to their 40s-50s while torching their 20s
| away though (something something youth wasted on the
| young)
| viking123 wrote:
| I grew up in Northern Europe and I still think when
| people back home do tanning it looks so bad and makes
| them look super old. They look much better with the
| natural skin as it's not damaged and it's kind of even.
| Like I see women in their 20s easily looking like 35 no
| kidding. I am glad I avoided the sun from young age so I
| get comments now in my 30s that I look like early 20s
| which is mostly due to the skin.
|
| Like sometimes I watch American news and the fake tans
| are just yucky and kind of gross to me.
|
| Same with western women I see in Asia occasionally, age
| in 20s but looks easily 30+ while it's the opposite with
| many Asians. Eastern Europeans tend to avoid the sun
| more.
| Tha_14 wrote:
| You can always use Melanotan II instead to get a good tan while
| also increasing libido and sleep quality; )
| fhdkweig wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanotan_II says it is banned
| in the United States, and anything you get on the black
| market isn't guaranteed to be pure.
| 0_____0 wrote:
| Where does it say it's banned?
| fhdkweig wrote:
| Second paragraph mentions "regulatory restrictions".
|
| Clinuvel Pharmaceuticals intended to offer it as a
| cosmetic, but abandoned this pursuit in the 2000s due to
| regulatory restrictions and concerns about the promotion
| of suntanning. Unlicensed Melanotan II is found on the
| internet, although health agencies advise against its use
| due to lack of testing and regulatory approval.
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| It's banned for cosmetic use. You can still buy it as a
| "research chemical".
| echelon wrote:
| Do not buy it.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46345971
| IAmGraydon wrote:
| I'm pretty sure Melanotan carries the risk of retinal
| pigmentation, or at least that was the case with the
| original. Not sure if II is different.
| echelon wrote:
| BEWARE.
|
| Melanotan is dangerous, sadly.
|
| Tanning causes melanocyte production in your epidermis.
| Melanotan causes it throughout your body in an uncontrolled
| manner. In a wide variety of unrelated tissues.
|
| It can lead to uncontrolled melanocyte production that
| doesn't shut off - cancer. Aggressive melanomas.
|
| It disrupts normal hormone signalling which may downstream
| cause a variety of deleterious health effects and disease
| states.
|
| There are also crazy reports of kidney failure, which may or
| may not be caused by the drug.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7148395/
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23121206/
|
| https://www.actasdermo.org/en-eruptive-dysplastic-nevi-
| follo...
| victor106 wrote:
| > I'll never understand some people's fetishization with
| getting darker via tanning though
|
| While some darker skin people want to have lighter skin.
|
| Maybe at some deeper level it's something about being human. We
| always want something the other person has
| Bridged7756 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure it's just cultural. They don't want to be
| fairer, or darker, they want the social status that it,
| allegedly, signals.
| prmoustache wrote:
| > We always want something the other person has
|
| This. Same with curly vs straight hair.
| brap wrote:
| I'm naturally pretty pale and don't get much sunlight, I feel
| like I look like shit unless I get just a little bit of tan.
| What most people would consider just a healthy looking
| "baseline". It also puts me in a better mood although that may
| be entirely psychological.
|
| When I was younger I used to intentionally tan for short
| durations, but now I realize that's harmful so I just embrace
| the cave gollum look
| api wrote:
| The mood is probably part light and part vitamin D. The
| latter can be supplemented. The former can be reproduced with
| a full spectrum bright lamp or brief sun exposure in the
| morning.
| yunwal wrote:
| I mean sort of but you should probably just get some sun if
| you can. There's such a thing as too much tanning, sure,
| but getting no sun is not healthy either.
| nemomarx wrote:
| Be sure you're taking care of your skin doing it, though.
| Get the good European sunscreens and so on, you don't
| want to age yourself prematurely.
| hexbin010 wrote:
| I've tried all kinds of Vitamin D/bright bulbs/staring at
| the sun over the years and they do nothing for my mood
| viking123 wrote:
| I am white as paper, probably one of the palest people and I
| live in Asia and often get comment that I have the dream
| skin. While back at home my parents were teasing me about
| being a ghost and doctors asking am I sick. Interesting how
| it changes on cultural basis
| brap wrote:
| I think it's more than just cultural. Yes, it's definitely
| a factor, and there are cultures and there were times where
| paper white was considered beautiful.
|
| But I think on some level we naturally associate severe
| paleness with being sick or non-social.
|
| I say this as the original commenter
| viking123 wrote:
| Not sure really I am not an expert on this, where I live
| now and look at some of the wealthy people, they are
| extremely white like on purpose. Some of the leading
| politicians too. In fact, it's a bit difficult to find a
| very dark skinned celebrity or a powerful politician
| here, there are some but not many at all.
|
| To me personally, I like naturally tan skin (like Asian
| natural skin) > natural white skin > artificial tanned
| skin > heavy tanning. Tanned white people just do not
| look good to me.
|
| If you asked someone else where I live now, I bet answer
| would be different
|
| To me, something like RFK Junior skin looks disgusting. I
| always wince when I see a picture of him, like you could
| make that into leather bag.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Why don't you just spend time outside a little bit?
| retrac wrote:
| Exposing large amounts of skin to the sun has other health
| risks when it is freezing outside. :)
|
| Vitamin D deficiency is very common in Canada particularly
| during winter. The government recommends that everyone
| intentionally seek out vitamin D rich foods, or to take a
| supplement.
| scotty79 wrote:
| Just eat/drink a lot of carrots instead.
| notKilgoreTrout wrote:
| Orange is the new tan?
| lelanthran wrote:
| > I'll never understand some people's fetishization with
| getting darker
|
| > ...
|
| > Meanwhile most other countries and peoples are willing to
| damage their skin in whole other ways trying to get the
| opposite.
|
| The grass has more melanin on the other side.
| falcor84 wrote:
| But that's the thing, it's not about "more melanin", but
| rather about something like:
|
| The grass on the other side has a different amount of melanin
| be harder-to-achieve and thus more desirable because it
| previously signaled belonging to the higher socio-economical
| strata.
| fennecbutt wrote:
| And what's funny is Western countries idolise tanned skin
| whereas Asian countries tend to idolise lighter skin.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| It's indeed, baffling, ignoring health consequences: Get
| fashionably darker skin now: Make your skin look (reasonably
| universally) irreversibly uglier/older gradually over time.
| This is perhaps the most controllable way to affect how old you
| look.
|
| It becomes unmissable once someone is in their 30s: Some still
| have youthful skin, while others are wrinkly, splotched, and
| saggy.
| viking123 wrote:
| I often see women in their mid 20s looking like 35 simply
| because of the skin.
| kens wrote:
| The popularity of tanning is attributed to fashion designer
| Coco Chanel, who accidentally got too much sun on a
| Mediterranean cruise in 1923. Since she was a fashion icon,
| this made the tanned look fashionable.
|
| As an aside, the chemistry behind UV damage is interesting. You
| can think of DNA as a sequence of four letters: C, G, A, and T.
| If there are two neighboring T's, UV can move a bond, linking
| the two T's together (i.e. thymine dimerization). If you're in
| the sun, each skin cell gets 50-100 of these pairs created per
| second. Enzymes usually fix these errors, but sometimes the
| errors will cause problems during DNA replication and you can
| end up with mutations. Enough of the wrong mutations can cause
| skin cancer. So wear sunscreen!
|
| https://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/91
| kens wrote:
| It's too late to edit my previous comment, but I wanted to
| add one more random tanning fact: UV releases b-endorphin so
| tanning is literally addictive, to the point that naloxone
| will cause withdrawal symptoms, at least in mice:
| https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(14)00611-4
| mixmastamyk wrote:
| The book by Dr. Seuss, "The Star Bellied Sneetches" explorers
| the phenomenon.
| ekjhgkejhgk wrote:
| If you travel around you can see with your own eyes that
| countries that have both A) more sun and B) culture of
| intentional exposure (e.g. at the beach) people by the age
| they're 40 have on average noticeably worse skin. More wrinkles,
| more dark patches etc.
| testing22321 wrote:
| More skin cancer
| Bridged7756 wrote:
| What a stupid thing. Probably on par with people bleaching their
| skin with chemicals.
| doubled112 wrote:
| But my b-hole is b-hole coloured and what if somebody sees it?
| deadbabe wrote:
| In my experience, people who tan know this but the argument is
| always they don't care it's part of life and it's better to just
| enjoy now than spend time worrying about looking wrinkly in the
| future, because what's the point of being old and having smooth
| perfect skin?
|
| Fucking stupid, there is nothing better in life than looking
| young and beautiful forever IMO.
| viking123 wrote:
| Most people can barely think a month ahead, they will wake up
| one day and be like oh shit why do I look so old and panic hard
| and do all sorts of surgeries, skin creams etc. nonsense while
| they could have just avoided the sun or used the suncreen..
| deadbabe wrote:
| Most people thinking aging is something that happens to other
| people, but that they will always pass for 20 something. Then
| they get offended when you _correctly_ guess their age in the
| late 30s or 40s.
| hereme888 wrote:
| The UVB portion of sunlight indirectly increases dopamine levels.
| You find it mainly near noon-day sunlight, and tanning beds. So
| the feel-good effects may encourage users to come back for more.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Frequent tanning bed users all have this addict level
| rationalization for using them when everyone knows it's
| harmful.
| voidmain wrote:
| There's a history of finding really strong correlations between
| vitamin D levels and (many kinds of) health, and then
| disappointing results for RCTs of vitamin D supplementation.
| There are lots of possible explanations of this, but it seems
| like a plausible one is that there are some good things sunlight
| does for you other than produce vitamin D. So I'm a little
| nervous about everyone eliminating all sun exposure and then
| taking vitamin D geltabs to compensate, even though sunlight
| carries some risks. (But obviously too much ionizing radiation is
| also a problem, and it sounds like most users of tanning beds are
| getting a lot of intense exposure)
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I wonder how much correlation this has with exercise. Generally
| if you are getting good levels of sunlight, there is a good
| chance you are outside exercising, even if it's just walking.
|
| After all, exercise is the undisputed God tier all-time winning
| champion of "Studies show that ______ is good for xyz."
| jerlam wrote:
| Also gives you a brief respite from sitting in a climate-
| controlled environment and staring at screens.
| james_marks wrote:
| I remember a study where they shone light on the back of the
| knee to control for this.
|
| While I believe there are many benefits of being outside and
| exercising, there does appear to be specific benefits to sun-
| like UV exposure.
| jnwatson wrote:
| UVA triggers the release of nitric oxide from the skin into the
| bloodstream. This causes blood vessels to dilate, lowering
| blood pressure and improving circulation.
| cmclaughlin wrote:
| Here's a podcast on this:
|
| https://www.artofmanliness.com/health-fitness/health/podcast...
| manoDev wrote:
| There are multiple studies showing infrared enhances
| mythocondria function, and this is already used
| therapeutically.
| d3Xt3r wrote:
| Exposure to sunlight (or lack of it) affects our circadian
| rhythm and production of melatonin, which affects our sleep
| quality. Exposure to morning sun in particular is linked with
| better sleep quality, leading to better health.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12502225/
| scotty79 wrote:
| > There's a history of finding really strong correlations
| between vitamin D levels and (many kinds of) health, and then
| disappointing results for RCTs of vitamin D supplementation.
|
| This might just mean that bodies that are healthier in many
| other aspects are also better at managing their vitamin D
| stores which isn't all that surprising.
| koliber wrote:
| Some of the positive sunlight exposure benefits are trivial to
| see.
|
| - running around outside, because physical activity if healthy
|
| - spending an afternoon in the company of good friends or
| family
|
| - gardening, which can produce veggies that are pesticide free
|
| Not everything is a biochemical direct benefit of the sun's
| rays. Some of the positive effects are a few steps removed.
| scoofy wrote:
| There are plenty of foods with vitamin D. You don't actually
| need to supplement it unless you're a vegetarian, you just need
| to actively include those foods in your diet.
|
| The current argument I've read for why fair-skinned people even
| evolved near the North Sea and not anywhere else near the
| arctic is exactly that the Gulf Stream allowed a cereals-based
| diet rather than a meat based diet, which led to vitamin D
| deficiencies which caused problems in pregnancy, leading to
| people with fairer skin being the most likely to avoid those
| problems.
|
| You definitely don't need to get your vitamin D from the sun.
| hirvi74 wrote:
| > There are plenty of foods with vitamin D.
|
| My favorite one that I read about is mushrooms. If you grow
| them in the sun, some species allegedly acquire vitamin D. I
| am not sure how much nor if this is truly effective, but it
| gives me a good excuse to grow various mushrooms next spring.
| Noaidi wrote:
| Most of you would not even be close to guessing the top ten
| states with the highest skin cancer rates.
|
| Utah Minnesota Vermont Arizona Iowa Idaho New Hampshire South
| Dakota Nebraska Kentucky
|
| https://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/incidencerates/index....
|
| Skin damage, and skin cancer, is not just about the sun. It is
| about genetics and nutrition as well.
| riazrizvi wrote:
| It's like someone wrote an article in 1992 and finally decided to
| submit it.
| viking123 wrote:
| It's news for many Americans.
| loeg wrote:
| No it isn't.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Funny timing, I just went to a tanning salon for the first time
| yesterday. I asked for the weakest bed (level 1), which has the
| most UVB (for vitamin D production). They were shocked that I
| wanted to use level 1, apparently no one uses it. They also
| suggested starting at 5 mins instead of the 1-2 minutes I wanted
| to do. The machine itself has a notice saying not to go over 3
| mins for the first week.
|
| I was following the protocol from this paper, which started
| people at 2 mins and used low wattage UVB-heavy bulbs.
|
| Sunbeds with UVB radiation can produce physiological levels of
| serum 25-Hydroxyvitamin D in healthy volunteers
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5821157/
|
| Unfortunately the Science Advances paper being discussed is
| epidemiological and doesn't distinguish between the type of bulb,
| length of time, and other parameters used while tanning. However
| it is safe to say that the average tanner cares more about
| getting dark than anything else.
|
| I think there would actually be a market for vitamin D centered
| "healthy tanning" where only low wattage, high-UVB bulbs are used
| particularly in cloudy areas or where the winter is long. I'm
| that guessing the operating costs for that kind of business would
| be cheaper than your average tanning salon, too.
| Liftyee wrote:
| Interesting... What benefits does this have over vitamin D
| supplements?
|
| I've seen this "optimising for some perceived negative effects"
| thing with toothbrushes/toothpaste, where "whitening" and stiff
| bristles actually just means removing more (irreplaceable)
| enamel from your teeth.
| MaKey wrote:
| Stiff bristles also damage your gum more easily and can lead
| to gum recessions. I needed gum transplants because of this
| and a wrong brushing technique. For me even medium stiffness
| is too hard.
| nostrebored wrote:
| Vitamin D supplements don't work consistently across
| different populations. Very few (~10%) of people can absorb
| dietary vitamin D. If you aren't some form of Northern
| European, you probably need to take at least 10 times the
| daily recommended dose of vitamin D to influence your levels
| significantly.
|
| Most people need sun!
| notKilgoreTrout wrote:
| Don't most people who take supplements just take 10X the
| RDA? It is still a tiny amount of supplement that is safer
| and costs a fraction of the indoor tanning or traveling
| often to somewhere with adequate Sun.
| nostrebored wrote:
| I've never talked to someone supplementing vitamin D who
| was aware at all.
|
| I think that the correct approach would be start at 10x
| vitamin D with baseline bloodwork and adjust dosage from
| there.
|
| But yeah I'm in the camp of "sun is good for you, in most
| cases." I would be very unsurprised to find that there
| are precursor hormones released beyond vitamin D that
| impact efficacy. We don't really understand the endocrine
| system very well.
|
| I think that because we can see and understand the
| dermatological effects we overly weight them. Anecdotally
| older people I know who have not avoided the sun seem
| much better off mentally and physically, but I think
| because there isn't a measurable reason we're aware of,
| we completely discount any benefit.
| pazimzadeh wrote:
| Many people with inflammatory disease like IBD can't absorb
| oral vitamin D properly
|
| Even in healthy people, oral vitamin D is not always
| sufficient (there was a study done in Japan where sunlight is
| low but Vitamin D from fish is high - can't find it right
| now) and sunlight exposure might have other benefits than
| vitamin D anyway
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022202X2.
| ..
| sutterd wrote:
| I do exactly what you are describing and it seems to work for
| me, from a vitamin D perspective. I started this because I read
| a paper stating the same health benefits were not seen from
| supplements as with people who got the vitamin D from sunlight.
| I believe that is true, but of course can not be certain.
| beAbU wrote:
| What's old is new again:
|
| https://img.ifunny.co/images/5ab4dda29b9dd88acc439076537e0c4...
| Melatonic wrote:
| I looked into this extensively during lockdowns. There is a
| specific wavelength that maximises Vitamin D. And there are
| medically approved devices that use special fluorescent bulbs
| that output this. It's mainly used in Nordic countries.
|
| I tried to find an LED strip equivalent but couldn't not -
| there are strips that produce a lower wavelength than UV-A but
| from what I remember it was too low of a nm for good vitamin D.
|
| Could be an interesting product however ! I wanted to hand two
| strips in my shower and turn them on for a few minutes while I
| washed up during the winter.
|
| Unfortunately even the tanning beds you were using still
| produce a lot of UV-A which will age your skin. And funnily
| enough UV-B also produces a much longer lasting tan (though
| slower) which would mean less return trips for people who are
| just looking for aesthetics
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I use the Sperti Vitamin D sunlamp at home during the winter
| months. It wasn't cheap but wasn't crazy expensive either and
| seems to be what you want (e.g. UVB).
| nutjob2 wrote:
| It's $640.
|
| https://www.sperti.com/product/sperti-vitamin-d-light-box/
| yoan9224 wrote:
| The UV damage from tanning beds has been well documented for
| decades, but what's novel here is the genetic methylation
| analysis showing accelerated aging at the DNA level.
|
| What's wild to me is the economics. Tanning salons charge
| $30-50/month to give you skin cancer. Meanwhile vitamin D
| supplements cost $10/year and achieve the same health benefit
| people claim to seek from tanning.
|
| The only rational argument I've heard for controlled UV exposure
| is building a base tan before vacation to prevent burning. But
| even then, 1-2 minutes in a low-wattage bed would suffice - not
| the 20+ minute sessions people actually do.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Where are you seeing vitamin D supplements for $10/year? That's
| several orders of magnitude less than most OTC supplements.
| thwarted wrote:
| A Google search for vitamin d results in ads, ahem "sponsored
| results", for 180 servings for $27, which is about $55 for a
| full year assuming it's one serving per day, which is the
| same decimal order of magnitude as $10 (but, I suppose, since
| we are on HN, is three or four orders of magnitude in binary)
| feverzsj wrote:
| This reminds me of the "Tanning Mom".
|
| [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/26/justice/new-jersey-
| tannin...
| horizion2025 wrote:
| "The young tanning bed users had more skin mutations than people
| twice their age, especially in their lower backs, an area that
| does not get much damage from sunlight but has a great deal of
| exposure from tanning beds."
|
| So in other areas than the lower back, everyone - tan bed users
| or not - have these supposed seeds of melanoma as well? And that
| is for a much larger area of the skin than the one mentioned.
|
| Also I wonder about the quote that a mutated cell can never go
| back. The immune system could kill the mutated cells and thereby
| promote the unmutated ones. Though nothing is perfect of course.
| https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2020/jan/analysis-protective-lung...
| scotty79 wrote:
| > The immune system could kill the mutated cells and thereby
| promote the unmutated ones.
|
| This happens all the time. The mutated cells we see are the
| ones that immune system couldn't detect and kill. Fortunately
| they are still overwhelmingly non-cancerous, but unfortunately
| some might be.
| horizion2025 wrote:
| Yes I agree, I was just responding the article's ""We cannot
| reverse a mutation once it occurs, ..." I don't think that is
| entirely accurate. Also, I think it is a dynamic process, so
| even cells the immune system hasn't killed yet could be found
| later. Or the mutation could cause other deviancies that will
| make the cell uncompetitive with healthy cells. But it is a
| slow process - it takes years for former smokers' lung cancer
| risk to return to near that of never smokers. And it probably
| never gets there - some mutated cells may never be detectable
| and there's clearly also a threshold beyond which the cancer
| is irreversible, at least without intervention.
| erelong wrote:
| I thought the healthy consensus was to get a little of actual
| sunlight on the skin for vitamin D production and other things
| Gud wrote:
| What about red light treatment,
|
| https://platinumtherapylights.eu/?srsltid=AfmBOoo2cCKKYMO53w...
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| 80-90% of the visible signs of ageing come from the sun. This is
| why, in older people, you'll find their body generally looks
| younger than their face. This is because clothes protected their
| body from the sun, but their faces were fully exposed.
|
| Always wear sunscreen on your hands, face and neck every time you
| go outside. If you're the type of HN'er that is on the computer
| all day and rarely goes outside, doing this on the few occasions
| you do will take away one of the only opportunities the sun will
| have to age you.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-21 23:00 UTC)