jj1984

I know this is long but..............

So before using a self tanner I know many people have success with using the california tan primer exfoliating towelettes to get any lotion and dead skin off.
i live on a lake and in the summer i am outside daily using waterproof sunscreen and then use the st. tropez line usually at night the step one exfoliating product works for me personally.

At least these are made for use with self tanning, other things you use to cleanse your skin from the sunscreen and oils will probably take off the self tanner too.

Let me explain .... your body absorbs the lotion you need and whatever is left is on top of the skin. Sunscreens with oils, especially when reapplying, leave a film on the top of the skin. This film which can help to lock in moisture also blocks out oxygen. This can be good but it interferes with the self tanner.
DHA in a self tanner reacts much like the effects when you bite into an apple and begins to turn brown when exposed to the air. DHA works with the proteins in your skin and oxgen on the surface of the skin to create a tan. This is why mineral oil as an ingredient in your sunscreen may cause some problems.
and mineral oil is "safe" for the skin, but not the best if you are trying to use another product after it. most products with mineral oil clog your pores. it has larger molecules and makes it harder to absorb anything in your skin, makes it dificult for vitamins to get in nevermind oxygen and the dha in the sunless tanner. and the reason it is so widely used is because it is extremely inexpensive and doesnt have a shelf life, its used as a filler in most products. its not easy to get off the skin so thats why not using it is easier then trying to think of some miracle to get it off. there might be other sunscreens that wont block the self tanner as much. maybe try to switch up the products, different ingredients...

i think everyone was trying to help but since you dont seem very eager to try any of these you could look into a sunscreen with sunless tanner in it. i know murad makes one, and i am sure other companies do as well. and maybe by next summer they will have a reliable sunscreen pill.. good luck with everything.

billable

Fast Eddie, you seem to be capable of a little research. instead of researching the wonders of petroleum, check out some of the benefits of moderate UV exposure and what you are doing to yourself by being such a "solarphobe." Follow Belvy's advice and get a little exposure before you go to the beach.

You are like the guy that is hitting himself in the head and wants to know what he can take for the pain. Take the advice and stop doing what is causing the problem, then you won't have to fix it.

FastEddieFelson

To jj1984 (response #11) and asleektan (response #10): THANK YOU for the info and ideas. I'll give your suggestions a try and let you know if they help. Just an fyi though: we have tried the pre-sunless-tanning treatments (the little tear-open packets) and exfoliation lotions many times with only marginal success --- that waterproof suntan lotion is very tough to remove. That's why I was asking around, I thought maybe somebody had come up with an easier or more elegant solution.

The reason I responded earlier with such a lengthy note was that there is clearly a lot of non-factual information being passed around this forum. As someone who has spent half his life working in medical research, I felt compelled to offer a few facts; not opinions, rumors, heresay, hunches or personal theories, just facts. Sorry if I disturbed the Kharma or lack thereof.

To "billable" (response #12): jeez, dude, grow up, . There are *many* of us who simply cannot tan, who cannot safely develop *any* base tan protection due to our particular skin pigmentation. That's just the way it goes sometimes. And trying to develop a base tan when you are very, very fair skinned simply damages your DNA and increases the chances of skin cancers. That's not my opinion, it is proven medical fact.

Finally, for those of you concerned about mineral oil, I suggest doing a bit of research. Though a tiny percentage of the population is sensitive to it, it is one of the safer and certainly one of the most tested and studied skin care ingredients. Whether you want to know this or not, it's used in one form or another in thousands of skin care products sold around the world, including the most expensive ones. Check the ingredients list on your fancy L'Oreal and Neutrogena lotions; paraffin, paraffin oil and propylene glycol are all made from mineral oil. Again, not my opinion, just the facts.

Best wishes to all and thank you again for your insights.

billable

Since you don't seem inclined to do any of the research I suggested, I will help you to with facts.

Connecticut Attorney General's Office
Press Release
Attorney General Says Sunscreen Labeling Rules Fail To Prevent False Claims, Urges FDA To Update, Enforce Regulations

http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2426&Q=317390

This is to provide a little insight to Two's advice that SPF above 30 is misleading.

And take a look at this. http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/534218.html

2. A study published in Anticancer Research confirms that solar UVB irradiance is associated with reduced risk of 16 sites of cancer, apparently through production of vitamin D. These cancers include 6 sites of gastrointestinal cancers, 3 cancers of female sites, 3 urogenital cancers, 2 types of lymphomas, and 2 upper aerodigestive tract cancers.

3. According to Cedric Garland, Dr.P.H., “Enhancing vitamin D status appears to be the single most important thing that people can do to reduce their risk of cancer, apart from avoiding tobacco and moderation in intake of alcohol. While solar ultraviolet B is not always available or convenient for synthesis of vitamin D and entails a possible small increase in risk of nonmelanoma skin cancer, vitamin D supplements are readily available and nontoxic in the preventive range of 1,000-1,500 IU/day.”

4. According to William Grant, Ph.D. “... recent studies recently found that it takes 1000 to 1500 International Units (I.U.) of vitamin D per day to reduce the risk of cancer incidence and death by 30-50%. In the U.S., dietary sources provide only 250 to 300 I.U. per day. People with fair skin living in the sunnier regions of the country can make 1500 I.U. of vitamin D in about 20 minutes near solar noon with 10-20% of their body exposed, i.e., arms and back in women and back or chest in men. Those with darker skin require 2-4 times as much time or body exposed for the same vitamin D production. This may help explain why black Americans have higher cancer incidence and mortality rates than white Americans, which was described recently in the Journal of the National Medical Association.” (You can not overdose on vitamin D through sun exposure.)

5. Dr. William Grant said “The public receives a steady barrage of public service messages to avoid the sun and wear sunscreens in order to reduce the risk of skin cancer and melanoma. Unfortunately, such messages do not mention that these risks are counterbalanced to a substantial degree by the advantages of producing vitamin D from solar UVB irradiance. Insufficient UVB irradiance and vitamin D costs society about 10 times what excess solar UVB does, and excess UVB irradiance is not required for optimal vitamin D production.” Cedric Garland said, "vitamin D in the appropriate dose is giving society new hope in the fight to prevent cancer.”

6. I normally don't look to the Reader's Digest for quality research, but an article in the September issue actually sites references for their information. http://www.rd.com/content/openConten...ontentId=28654 Check it out. You seem to like the condensed version for your research.


Why do you think that, until recently, all the research that you heard about was related to how harmful UV is to the human body? This is a quote from the Skin Cancer Foundation. Only applications for research projects relevant to skin cancer will be accepted for consideration. The Foundation's Grants Program is intended for pilot projects, which, if successful, can be further developed in order to be eligible for larger grants from other sources. Research must be conducted at institutions within the U.S. Preference is given to projects that address, at the basic science and clinical level, improved methods of prevention, detection, and treatment of skin cancers.

This means that the research has to be slanted toward the intended results. Let me give you an example of how that is poor science. The drug Imuran is known to cause an increased risk of skin cancers. My wife has had several skin cancers removed ranging from self keratinizing squamous cell keratoacanthomas to basal cell carcinoma. These were all directly related to 20 years of use of the drug imuran. If she had refused to take this drug for the last 20 years, she most definitely would have avoided having most, if not all of these skin cancers. She also would have lost her transplanted kidney many years ago. Even the definitive outcome of having skin cancer is far outweighed by the positive effects of the drug. And, yes, she tans. I don't have the time or the inclination to explain the ramifications of cholecalciferol defiency in end stage renal disease, but suffice it to say that Vitamin D is still important to her health and tanning is the most efficient way to get that benefit.

Moderate skin exposure to UV radiation MAY correlate to a higher risk of squamous cell and possible basal cell carcinoma. (Overexposure definitely increases your risk, but the research showing a link to minimal to moderate exposure is still being debated) It is also definitely linked to DECREASED risk of at least 16 types of major cancers. Take your choice.


Again, if you don't want to tan, fine. I don't care either way. you want to smear SPF 1000 on your pale butt, go ahead. Try some mineral spirits to get it off. (If you ever took a chemistry class in college, Remember the golden rule of solubility, "Like dissolves like.") However, don't belittle the advice or the providers of that advice when you don't know what you are talking about.

FastEddieFelson

To: billable

I think your response speaks volumes. As Shakespeare put it, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Good luck with your view of the world and your own personal view of scientific findings. I hope, sincerely, that it works out for you. The costs of placing your faith and health in what is by far the minority view can be high.

Best wishes.

mr belvedere

"By far the minority view"? What is the majority view, one more time, just for me?

__________________
"A dusty bible leads to a dirty life ..." -Synonymous

billable

Some people just have their mind made up and don't want to be confused with facts.

billable

And good luck to you well. By the way, if you try axle grease instead of the mineral oil, it already has a nice dark color and doesn't sweat off as easily.

You may well want to take a hint from history. Here are just a few ideas that went against the conventional wisdom of the medical community.


Arrhenius (ion chemistry)
His idea that electrolytes are full of charged atoms was considered crazy. The atomic theory was new at the time, and everyone "knew" that atoms were indivisible (and hence they could not lose or gain any electric charge.) Because of his heretical idea, he only received his university degree by a very narrow margin. More. Robert Bakker (fast, warm-blooded dinosaurs)
Everyone knows that dinosaurs are like Gila monsters or big tortoises: large, slow, and intolerant of the cold. And they're all colored olive drab too! :)
Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (black holes in 1930, squashed by Eddington)
Chandra originated Black Hole theory and published several papers. He was attacked viciously by his close colleague Sir Arthur Eddington, and his theory was discredited in the eyes of the research community. They were wrong, and Eddington apparently took such strong action based on an incorrect pet theory of his own. In the end Chandra could not even pursue a career in England, and he moved his research to the U. of Chicago in 1937, laboring in relative obscurity for decades. Others rediscovered Black Hole theory thirty years later. He won the 1983 Nobel Prize in physics, major recognition only fifty years. Never underestimate the authority-following tendency of the physics community, or the power of ridicule when used by people of stature such as Eddington.
Binning/Roher/Gimzewski (scanning-tunneling microscope)
Invented in 1982, other surface scientists refused to believe that atom-scale resolution was possible, and demonstrations of the STM in 1985 were still met by hostility, shouts, and laughter from the specialists in the microscopy field. Its discoverers won the Nobel prize in 1986, which went far in forcing an unusually rapid change in the attitude of colleagues.


B. Marshall (ulcers caused by bacteria, helicobacter pylori) 1983
Stomach ulcers are caused by acid. All physicians knew this. Marshall needed about 11 years to convince the medical establishment to change their beliefs and accept that their confident knowledge was wrong; was nothing but a widespread believe, and that ulcers are actually a bacterial disease.

Everyone is familiar with other more famous, well known cases of the intellectual community ridiculing something that turned out to be right (Lister, Gallileo, Goddard, etc). You claim to be a researcher. I merely provided you with a starting place to do a little research. You say that I provided too much, but then ridicule the information as being in the minority. I don't care if it is the minority or the majority. If you are capable, study for yourself and discover what is right, not necessarily what is popular.

If I have offended you with some of the sarcasm, I apologize. Don't take my information as fact. Study credible research and look at the source on every study that you take into account. Where did the money come from to fund the study and was it geared toward a given outcome? Then come back and we can discuss the findings. Until then don't try to dispute fact with conventional wisdom.

TanWorldOrder

billable

Or what Two said...