For tanning efficiency purposes (i.e. getting as tanned as possible with as little skin damage as possible) is it better to tan for 10 minutes without sunscreen or the equivalent x amount of minutes while wearing sunscreen? Or is there no difference?

| |
  • 1
    tanning IS skin damage – Kate Gregory Feb 24 '18 at 20:54
  • @KateGregory yes thank you but that is not the information I’m looking for. And since I live in a tropical country it’s hardly something I can avoid entirely, so preparing my skin for situations out of my control is the best I can do. – Sebastiaan van den Broek Feb 25 '18 at 6:57
  • 1
    Your comment reads entirely different than your question. Rephrasing the question and adding he detail from the comment is done with an edit. – LаngLаngС Feb 25 '18 at 12:29
  • Thanks but I don’t agree, those are details unnecessary to answer the question. I’m even regretting bothering to mention them after being baited by an offtopic comment. – Sebastiaan van den Broek Feb 25 '18 at 12:31
  • 1
    I didn't say "there is no difference" I said "tanning without skin damage is impossible." Spending time in the sun without skin damage is possible, but you want to get tanned. That means you want to damage your skin. – Kate Gregory Feb 25 '18 at 19:50

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.