Graphic by Thomas Lynch
Vitamin D does not rain from the sky, nor does it travel on the beams of sunlight to quench a thirsty body of its vitamin needs. It is, however, one of the few positive products of tanning.
In the 1920s, Coco Chanel overturned the fashionable preference for pale skin overnight when she appeared bronzed from a boating trip at several prestigious Parisian fashion shows. Before that time, the elite had remained indoors, fashionably lightening complexions with arsenic or lead powder, while farmers and laborers had worked outdoors acquiring a healthy tan. The social revolutions of the 1920s, however, lured the wealthy, upper classes to the great outdoors while the working classes spent many hours in dark factories, reversing the previous pattern and making tan skin the new desirable beauty must-have.
Today, tanning remains a part of fashion culture, though the link with increased skin cancer has given tanning a poor reputation.
“The risks primarily are due to increased chance of either skin cancer — squamous and basal cell — or malignant melanoma,” Student Health Director Dr. James Turner said. “Melanoma is much more serious and can be deadly,”
In addition to cancer, large amounts of sun exposure can lead to collagen depletion in the skin, uneven skin tone leading to “premature aging and skin cancer,” University Dermatologist Mark Russell said. Using a sunscreen of SPF 25 or more before prolonged sun exposure is key to avoid burning, Turner said.
Other research, however, has come forward supporting unprotected sun exposure at least twice a week to combat the surprisingly widespread vitamin D deficiency from which many people all over the world suffer.
Dr. Michael Holick published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine surmising the condition of this all too common deficiency. According to his and others’ research, vitamin D deficiency, in various forms, is linked to cancer, autoimmune diseases, osteoporosis, osteopenia, cardiovascular disease, schizophrenia, depression, wheezing and decreased lung function, muscle weakness, osteoarthritis and diabetes.
An estimated one billion people in the world have a vitamin D deficiency. In Boston, where the research was conducted, 32 percent of study participants had low levels of vitamin D even though they regularly took a multivitamin, drank milk and ate salmon, which contains a significant amount of vitamin D, about 400 IU or international units, a unit of measurement for vitamins.
The study concluded that a lack of sun exposure contributed heavily to the deficiency, and that sun exposure of the arms and legs for five to 30 minutes — depending on factors such as the time of day, skin pigmentation, latitude and season — twice a week is optimal for maintaining sufficient vitamin D levels. Adequate sun exposure can provide synthesis of around 3000 IU of vitamin D, on average.
“To tell you the truth, I think a little bit of UV is good for vitamin D formation, but, of course, only in moderation,” Russell said.
The crucial vitamin D component, vitamin D3, however, is synthesized in the skin with the aid of UVB rays. Areas above 35 degrees north latitude (Atlanta, Ga.) do not receive an adequate amount of these ultraviolet rays to enable D3 synthesis between November and February.
Even during summer months in the northern hemisphere, it has been found that melanin in the skin can inhibit vitamin D3 synthesis up to 99 percent for dark skin. Additionaly, an SPF as low as 8 prohibits synthesis from UVB rays up to 92.5 percent, while SPF 15 and above limits synthesis by 99 percent. The article interestingly recommended tanning beds, which can emit two to six percent UVB radiation, as a source of vitamin D synthesis. Holick, however, cautioned that tanning beds be used only in moderation, noting that tanning beds and outside tanning are equally dangerous.
“The United States Department of Health and Human Services has designated UV as a carcinogen,” Russel said. “People say ‘Oh, its natural,’ but there are a lot of natural things that can harm you, like mercury, lead or asbestos. You can get vitamin D from some UV exposure, but it’s when it’s taken to the extreme that you get premature aging and cancer.”
Kristin Daniels, a fourth-year College student and former assistant manager of a tanning salon, tans about three times a week in the spring and summer.
“I prefer [tanning] salons because it’s a controlled amount of UVA/UVB,” she said.
Despite possible health benefits, tanning beds nonetheless pose the risk of skin cancer.
“[I am worried] to an extent,” Daniels said. “The public magnifies the issues, but many also don’t know the correct way to tan, so I’m not worried about me as much as I am for people who don’t know what they’re doing.”
The desire for bronzed skin began as a status symbol and persisted as a fashion for various reasons. Turner suggested that tanning is inspired by “vanity, fashion [and] peer pressure.” Or perhaps it provides a self-esteem boost.
“Being tan makes you look five pounds thinner,” Daniels said. “It makes me feel good about myself. Also, tanning releases serotonin and dopamine in the brain and stimulates oxygen in the blood combating my stress … Tanning is a complex ritual.”
Whatever the psychological motivation, controlled amounts of tanning may now be acceptable for its potential to combat vitamin D deficiency, and along with it, a variety of other health concerns. As with most things, though, excessive indulgence can lead to several potentially dangerous conditions, such as skin damage and, even worse, an increased chance of developing skin cancer.
At least with a tanning bed at a properly managed salon the tanning unit shuts off after a pre-determined exposure time, set to the individual’s past history of tanning/burning. The sun does not shut off just because you’ve fallen asleep. Rain or shine the salon is open, providing adequate sunlight 12 months a year and late into the evenings.
Still, the best would be a tanning bed at home.
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0
It’s definately easier to control your exposure indoors at a tanning salon. I prefer going to a salon because I know the staff has been trained on the use of the tanning equipment and they can tell me how long I should tan. If I had a bed at home, I would not have that luxury. I like to tan in the winter to keep my Vitamin D levels high and fight SAD.
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0
That is a very interesting article. With the amount of time people spend on the computer, working indoors and playing video games, I’m not surprised everyone has low vitamin D. This message of moderate UV exposure seems to make a lot of sense.
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0
Vitamin D deficiency is 1000′s of times more dangerous than risking the remote possibility of melanoma from moderate sunbathing. The idea the sun is “bad”- is so ridiculous as to make me want to sue the AMA, the FDA, and the rest for iatrogenic negligence. The same negligence that has killed millions and sickened 100′s of millions (literaly) through D3 deficiency.
Within 2-3 years it will be painfully obvious that D3 deficiency is responsible for autism. Will the AMA own up to it? Not to mention the other diseases resulting from this absurd and misguided demonizing of the sun. In fact the list is nearly endless.
Does it seem to anyone else that the AMA’s directive to avoid direct sun is the most ridiculous, absurd thing ever to issue from a professional organisation? The sun for god sakes- the thing that powers all terrestrial life for more than a billion years?
Hello?
To answer my own question the AMA is about to be introduced to the ABA (American Bar Association) as never before. Tobacco and asbestos litigation will look like popcorn money when this class action rolls.
Imagine the rage when the parents of millions of autistic children figure this out.
Witness protection anybody?
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0
The ridiculous hyperbole from commenter “CLS” shows that he/she is likely a plant from the tanning industry, which is infamous for using scare tactics about the dangers of vit. D deficiency. Fifteen minutes of sun per day is sufficient to get the vit. D you need — tanning salons are 100% unnecessary and can triple your risk of getting squamous cell carcinoma or melanoma. UV radiation is a carcinogen and should be treated with respect and moderation, especially for those of use with fair skin.
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0
TT, you might want to read up a bit on working theories of the cause of autism. Also I fail to see where the “shill” is a proponent of tanning beds and the industry specifically. Seemed to me that they were merely pointing out the strong correlation between Vitamin D deficiency and Autism.
Vitamin D deficiency is a fledgling, but promising, potential factor in Autism. And it’s not just the tanning industry saying so. Scientific American published an article about it in April: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=vitamin-d-and-autism
Additional information (such as linking the growing rate of Autism over the last 20 years with the increase of sun avoidance which, I believe was CLS’ point) can also be found at http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/health/autism/vit-D-theory-autism.shtml.
Note that you say “15 minutes of sun a day is all you need”, well what if people live in a place (and are pregnant during) a rainy season or above certain latitudes where the sunlight isn’t strong enough to enable the synthesis – even assuming that you’d want to spend 15 minutes a day outside in shorts and a T-shirt in Boston in February. Couple that with high sunscreen usage, urban areas (where much of the available sunlight is shielded by tall buildings) or Govt sanctioned sun avoidance other times of the year and it’s not just “go spend 15 minutes outside, you’ll be fine!”.
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0
TT is obviously a plant from the American Academy of Dermatology, which is famous for attacking the Tanning Industry and even the sun in order to promote their causes.
Put on lip balm—-sponsor money for them
SPF’s—sponsor money for them
Visit a Derm monthly—money for them
wear a hat—-sponsor money for them
SPF protective clothing—more sponsor money for them
Umbrellas–more sponsor money for them
This is the same agency that pushes Botox….please
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0
Why plant this-plant that?
Don’t be a follower- Try doing some research for yourselves instead of listening to what every media outlet has to say. Don’t doubt it for one minute that they will tell you what sells.
It IS far more dangerous to our health to avoid the sun.
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0
There should be no argument about vitamin D levels.
It is very easy for everyone to get a 25(OH)D test. If your doctor won’t order one for you then they are not expensive.
Grassrootshealth D action do them for just $40 and post kits worldwide.
Either you have a level around 50~60ng/ml and have sufficient or you need either to supplement or to get more UVB exposure as you prefer.
We have got to face the facts of life and those are that our DNA evolved when we lived more or less naked outdoors most of the time. If current skin is unable to withstand UVB exposure then it has become maladapted and rather than telling us to avoid sunshine Dermatologists should be investigating why modern skin is unable to work naturally given exposure to it’s natural environment.
The answer to that question will probably be connected to the inflammatory nature of much industrially processed modern foods.
Omega 6 industrially made corn, soybean safflower and sunflower oil, and everything that contains them are first suspects on the list closely followed by refined carbohydrates. Increasing your daily intake of omega 3 fats will probably help as will returning to the natural saturated fats that would have been a part of Paleolithic diets.
But if your skin has a problem dealing with regular short exposures to UVB then this should be regarded as a warning sign that your body has become ill adapted to it’s natural habitat and you should be doing something about that problem.
The truth of the matter is that melanoma incidence has been rising in line with sales of sunscreen. The more sunscreen that is sold the more deaths from melanoma occur.
These are NOT UNRELATED.
If you want to understand how sunscreen actually causes skin cancer then watch the you tube video Skin Cancer/Sunscreen – the Dilemma it’s by a well known vitamin D expert Edward Gorham it takes around 45minutes so allow plenty of time.
Agree/Disagree:
2 
0
I agree with CB. All I’m hearing in all these anti-tanning posts is a lot of judgemental personal opinions. I’ve been tanning indoors for 25 years moderately. and I look 10 years younger than my age and I feel good about it. Yes, the fact is, overexposure to the sun OR a tanning unit is dangerous. So, don’t get sunburned!! All this anti-tanning is really based on fear of what you hear and want to believe-not what you have actually experienced. Shame on those who judge and are without knowledge. Sun is good no matter how you get it (outdoors or indoors). Tanning indoors is not just for cosmetic purposes, so please respect those who believe they have a better chance of surviving possible skin cancer than God forbid, increasing their chance of getting colon or breast cancers due to low Vitamin D levels!
Agree/Disagree:
1 
0