Tanmaxxing: what dermatology knows about the trend for maximising your tan

What tanmaxxing is

Tanmaxxing is the practice of maximising sun exposure to get the darkest possible tan. The name joins tan with maxxing, the internet suffix for taking something to its limit, from the same family as looksmaxxing and fibermaxxing. In practice it means long hours in direct sun, combined with oils and accelerators, and deliberately skipping sunscreen.

Every summer brings a new version of the same idea. This one reached Porto the way most of them do: through a phone screen.

What sets this trend apart from earlier ones is how specific its instructions are. Where there used to be a vague preference for darker skin, there is now a method: particular hours of the day, particular products, and an explicit recommendation to go without sunscreen. That precision is what makes it easy to follow, and it is why it deserves an answer with the same precision.

The recommendations circulating in the videos repeat themselves:

• going outside precisely when the UV index peaks, rather than avoiding it

• skipping sunscreen, on the belief that it gets in the way of colour

• using oils to speed the process up

• adding tanning bed sessions

• displaying sharp tan lines as proof of results

The argument is aesthetic and comes largely from gym culture: the idea that darker skin makes muscles stand out, evens out the skin and gives a more defined look. It is the same logic that leads an athlete to oil up before a competition, transposed to daily life and sustained for weeks.

No scientific literature has yet been published on the term itself, which is only months old. What does exist, in quantity, is literature on each of the behaviours the trend brings together.

Why a suntan does not work the way social media says

A tan is the skin's response to damage. When melanocytes detect ultraviolet radiation, they produce melanin and distribute it to neighbouring cells in an attempt to shield them from what comes next. The colour that appears on the skin is the sign that this radiation has already reached the cells' DNA.

Two consequences follow, and both contradict what the videos promise.

The first: everyone is born with the number of melanocytes they will ever have, and there is a ceiling on the melanin each one produces. Pushing past that ceiling does not generate more colour, it generates more damage. This is why many people with fair phototypes, common in northern Portugal, burn repeatedly without ever reaching the tone they saw in the video.

The second: the so-called base tan does not protect against later burns. It is probably the most persistent myth about sun exposure, and it does not survive contact with the evidence. The idea that there is a safe tan obtained from the sun has no support in the dermatological literature.

Then there is the vitamin D argument, which appears in almost every video on the subject. The amount of exposure needed for vitamin D synthesis is far below what tanmaxxing proposes, and a deficiency is corrected through diet or supplementation, with blood levels measured first.

Tanning beds: what the numbers say

Artificial tanning has the advantage, for anyone wanting to assess risk, of having been studied precisely.

The World Health Organization classifies UV radiation and UV-emitting tanning devices in Group 1 of carcinogenic agents, the category that includes tobacco and asbestos (IARC, 2012).

The meta-analysis by Boniol et al. (2012), published in the British Medical Journal, pooled 27 studies conducted across 18 western European countries, Portugal included. The results: people who use tanning beds have a melanoma risk roughly 20% higher than those who never have; that risk doubles when use begins before the age of 35; and it rises by approximately 1.8% for each additional session. Of the roughly 64,000 new melanoma cases diagnosed annually in those countries, the authors attributed 3,438 to tanning bed use, most of them in women.

In Portugal the activity is regulated and access is prohibited to anyone under 18. Regulated does not mean recommended: no dermatological scientific society recommends artificial tanning for cosmetic purposes. Several countries have gone further. Brazil was the first in the world to ban the sale and use of these devices, in 2009, exempting only use prescribed by a doctor, which draws a clear line between clinical indication and cosmetic demand. Australia banned commercial solariums from 1 January 2015, with Western Australia following in 2016. On the vitamin D argument, routinely invoked in favour of these devices, Cancer Council Australia (n.d.) is explicit: there is no substantiated health benefit, including raised vitamin D, attributable to artificial ultraviolet radiation in a solarium. This is also where the aesthetic argument collapses on its own, because ultraviolet-induced skin ageing accumulates and does not go away.

Self-tanners: the only colour without radiation

Self-tanners work by a different mechanism. Dihydroxyacetone (DHA), the active ingredient in most products, reacts with amino acids in the outermost layer of the skin through a Maillard reaction, the same one that browns cooked food. The result is melanoidins, brown pigments that imitate the appearance of a tan. No melanin is produced and no melanocytes are involved.

The systematic review by Laferté et al. (2026), published in the Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery, examined the available studies on topical DHA. None demonstrated harm associated with its use, although the authors note that most of the work is low quality and that unresolved questions remain about free-radical formation. In March 2020 the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety concluded that DHA is safe up to 10% in lotions and creams, a limit that Regulation (EU) 2021/1099 made binding across the European Union from January 2022.

Two caveats matter for anyone using these products:

DHA offers no sun protection. The colour it gives does not filter radiation, and the skin underneath remains exactly as vulnerable as it was. Anyone using a self-tanner needs precisely the same sunscreen they would use without it.

Spray application raises different questions from topical application. The US Food and Drug Administration has never approved DHA for spray booths, because of inhalation exposure and contact with mucous membranes (U.S. Food and Drug Administration, n.d.).

A separate and more worrying case is injectable products and nasal sprays containing melanotan II, promoted on social media as a shortcut to a tan. Cancer Research UK is unambiguous: selling melanotan injections is illegal in the United Kingdom, and neither the nasal sprays nor the injections are safe (Cancer Research UK, n.d.). Serious complications have been published, including a case of renal infarction described by Peters and colleagues in 2020.

The clinical summary across all three routes: of the three ways to darken skin, only DHA gives colour without ultraviolet radiation, and none of the three protects against the sun.

How a wrong idea about skin spreads so fast

This is the part that tends to surprise people most, and it explains why accurate information does not reach the same audience.

The reference work on the subject is by Vosoughi et al. (2018), published in Science. The authors analysed around 126,000 stories shared on Twitter between 2006 and 2017 by close to 3 million people. False information spread farther, faster, deeper and more broadly than true information, across every category analysed. False stories were 70% more likely to be reshared. True information took about six times longer to reach 1,500 people. The authors attributed the difference to two factors: the novelty of false information and the emotional response it provokes (fear, disgust, surprise, against the anticipation and trust generated by true information).

Within dermatology specifically, the data point the same way.

Doyon et al. (2022) published a study in Dermatologic Surgery on TikTok videos associated with skin cancer: 18.7% carried pro-tanning messages and 15.6% contained misinformation.

Marcon et al. (2026) analysed 971 sunscreen videos in work published in PLOS Digital Health in June 2026. Most videos (86.8%) promoted sunscreen use, and only 1.5% claimed it causes harm. The significant finding is not the volume but the distribution of attention: misinformation comes from a small number of creators and generates engagement far above average, because it combines novelty, shock and a conspiratorial element.

A study published in JMIR Dermatology in 2025 examined the 100 most popular sunscreen videos: 35 contained accurate information and 57 were pure opinion. The authors' conclusion deserves slow reading by anyone working in health communication: user engagement is typically independent of content accuracy.

Closing the picture, a finding from the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology in 2024: of the sun protection videos analysed, only 16.6% had been produced by board-certified dermatologists.

There is also a well-documented psychological mechanism behind this, the illusory truth effect: repeating a claim increases the likelihood of it being accepted as true, regardless of whether it is. Someone who sees the same advice across fifteen different videos in one week is not evaluating fifteen sources. They are receiving fifteen repetitions of the same one.

What psychiatry has learned from viral phenomena

Research into behaviours that spread through networks did not begin with TikTok. Mass sociogenic illness, the name given to an outbreak of symptoms that spreads socially without an infectious agent, has been described in the medical literature for decades. What changed is the medium: Müller-Vahl et al. (2022) argue that recent cases constitute a new type, in which contagion no longer requires physical proximity between those affected.

Kirsten Müller-Vahl's group in Hannover proposed the concept of mass social media-induced illness. The study by Fremer et al. (2022), published in Frontiers in Psychiatry, followed 32 patients with tic-like behaviours and documented an overlap of symptoms with those of a single German YouTuber, whom the authors describe as a virtual index case. Transmission occurred exclusively by digital means, with no contact between the patients.

Andrea Giedinghagen developed the theme in a 2023 article in Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry on adolescents presenting en masse with symptoms apparently acquired by watching influencer content.

The comparison with tanmaxxing has obvious limits, and it is worth saying so plainly: sunbathing is a voluntary behaviour, not an involuntary symptom. But there are three things the two phenomena share, and they help explain what is happening.

There is a visible index case, or a small set of creators whose specific behaviour is copied faithfully. There is a relationship between time spent exposed to the content and the likelihood of adoption. And there is an online community where the behaviour is normalised, so that anyone inside it stops seeing it as unusual.

The difference is in the bill. A functional tic resolves, with appropriate care. Actinic damage accumulates silently and appears twenty or thirty years later, when the window for early intervention has already closed.

What to do with this over the summer

None of this requires avoiding the sun. It requires separating ordinary exposure from exposure that is actively sought.

For anyone living in Porto and Gaia, the UV index reaches high values between June and September, peaking between 11am and 5pm. That is the window tanmaxxing recommends seeking out and dermatology recommends avoiding, and there is no way to reconcile the two.

Recommendations that hold regardless of the trend of the year:

• broad-spectrum sunscreen at SPF 50+ on exposed areas, reapplied every two hours and after swimming or heavy sweating

• shade, a hat and sunglasses during peak radiation hours, particularly for fair phototypes

• self-tanner for anyone who wants the colour, always alongside sunscreen

• watching for new moles, or moles that change in size, shape, colour or border, and any lesion that bleeds or fails to heal

• annual dermatological mole assessment for anyone with a family history of melanoma, a fair phototype, many moles or childhood sunburns

If you have concerns about a mole, a dermatology consultation allows it to be assessed and monitored over time.

Frequently asked questions

What does tanmaxxing mean?

Tanmaxxing combines tan with maxxing, the internet suffix for taking something to its maximum. Applied to skin, it means maximising sun exposure to obtain the darkest possible tan, typically by seeking peak UV hours and going without sunscreen.

Is tanmaxxing dangerous?

The practices the trend recommends (sun exposure at peak UV index, no sunscreen, tanning bed use) are associated with increased risk of skin cancer and premature skin ageing. The risk does not come from the name of the trend, it comes from the behaviours it brings together.

Does a base tan protect against the sun?

No. It is one of the most repeated myths about sun exposure. A prior tan does not prevent later burns and does not substitute for sunscreen.

Are self-tanners safe?

Topical products containing dihydroxyacetone (DHA) within the limits set by the European Commission have no demonstrated harm in the available literature. They offer no sun protection whatsoever, so sunscreen is still required. Injectable products and nasal sprays containing melanotan are an entirely different case, and they are not safe.

Are tanning beds banned in Portugal?

The activity is permitted and regulated, with access prohibited to anyone under 18. Some countries have banned cosmetic use: Brazil in 2009 and Australia from 2015.

Do I need sun exposure to get vitamin D?

The exposure required for vitamin D synthesis is far below what tanmaxxing proposes. A deficiency confirmed by blood test is corrected with dietary guidance or supplementation.

How often should I have my moles checked?

An annual assessment is reasonable for most adults, and recommended for anyone with a fair phototype, many moles, a family history of melanoma or childhood sunburns.

References

Boniol, M., Autier, P., Boyle, P., & Gandini, S. (2012). Cutaneous melanoma attributable to sunbed use: Systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ, 345, e4757. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e4757

Cancer Council Australia. (n.d.). Private ownership and use of solariums in Australia. https://www.cancer.org.au/about-us/policy-and-advocacy/prevention/uv-radiation/related-resources/private-ownership-and-use-of-solariums-in-australia

Cancer Research UK. (n.d.). Tanning, fake tan and Melanotan. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/causes-of-cancer/sun-uv-and-cancer/fake-tan-and-melanotan-injections

Doyon, V. C., Liu, C., Bailey, K., & Beleznay, K. (2022). When tanning is trending: A content quality study of skin cancer on TikTok. Dermatologic Surgery, 48(9), 1021–1023. https://doi.org/10.1097/DSS.0000000000003538

Fremer, C., Szejko, N., Pisarenko, A., Haas, M., Laudenbach, L., Wegener, C., & Müller-Vahl, K. R. (2022). Mass social media-induced illness presenting with Tourette-like behavior. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 963769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.963769

Giedinghagen, A. (2023). The tic in TikTok and (where) all systems go: Mass social media induced illness and Munchausen's by internet as explanatory models for social media associated abnormal illness behavior. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 28(1), 270–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/13591045221098522

International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2012). Radiation (IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 100D). World Health Organization. https://publications.iarc.who.int/Book-And-Report-Series/Iarc-Monographs-On-The-Identification-Of-Carcinogenic-Hazards-To-Humans/Radiation-2012

Laferté, C., Oliel, S., & Pehr, K. (2026). Clinical use and safety of self-tanner (topical dihydroxyacetone) in dermatology: A systematic review. Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/12034754261418253

Lin, R. R., Pulumati, A., & Woolery-Lloyd, H. (2024). DermTok: Who's talking sun? A cross-sectional analysis of sun protection content on TikTok. Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, 23(7), 571–574. https://doi.org/10.36849/JDD.8179

Marcon, A., Zenone, M., Boniface, V., Peters, C. E., & Caufield, T. (2026). Sunscreen is overwhelmingly promoted on TikTok, but content with misinformation exhibits proportionally high levels of audience interaction. PLOS Digital Health, 5(6), e0001440. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001440

Müller-Vahl, K. R., Pisarenko, A., Jakubovski, E., & Fremer, C. (2022). Stop that! It's not Tourette's but a new type of mass sociogenic illness. Brain, 145(2), 476–480. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awab316

Olvera, C., Stebbins, G. T., Goetz, C. G., & Kompoliti, K. (2021). TikTok tics: A pandemic within a pandemic. Movement Disorders Clinical Practice, 8(8), 1200–1205. https://doi.org/10.1002/mdc3.13316

Peters, B., Hadimeri, H., Wahlberg, R., & Afghahi, H. (2020). Melanotan II: A possible cause of renal infarction: Review of the literature and case report. CEN Case Reports, 9(2), 159–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13730-020-00447-z

Roland-McGowan, J., Diehl, K., Tobey, T., Shafer, A., Clement, P., Wisco, O. J., Ortega-Loayza, A. G., & Leachman, S. (2025). Perception, quality, and accuracy of sunscreen content on TikTok: SkinMedia cross-sectional content analysis. JMIR Dermatology, 8, e70010. https://doi.org/10.2196/70010

U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). Sunless tanners & bronzers. https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-products/sunless-tanners-bronzers

Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559