Thin Ends

[Realhairdontcare]

My ends seem to be getting thin but it's getting longer. What does this mean? And is this a good or bad thing?

Sent from my iPhone using LHCF

 

[WaistLengthDreams]

It depends, it could mean that you are experiencing breakage or that your newer hair (new growth) is coming in thicker -- making your ends look thin in comparison.

When I noticed my thinner ends, it was a combination of the two.

 

[Saga]

It can either mean A) You have lead hairs (LHCF police do not shoot me, I believe in the lead hair unicorn theory)

or

B) Your ends are not well maintained and are breaking minimally as the hair from your scalp continues to grow.


I'd go with the lead hair theory, though.

*ducks under covers*

 

[CurlsOnFire23]

what's lead hair?

 

[PinkSunshine77]

I would say they need a trim.

 

[karenjoe]

I have thin ends too. I thought it was from having a relaxer forever.

when i was pressing my hair I had skinny ends. too...

I was told I have a lot of hairs but they r skinny...... whatever that mean..erplexed.

is that lead too?

 

[NappyNelle]

OP, are you protective styling? At CBL, you very susceptible to breakage. Also, how is regimen coming along? You may need moisture, protein, heavy sealing... there's so much that can be happening.

karenjoe That means you have a high density of fine strands. You may also have breakage, shedding, overprocessing, etc that can lead to 'skinny' or 'thin' ends.

 

[Nonie]

The optimistic explanation is the one by @WaistLengthDreams that better haircare and healthy living is leading to thicker, strands that look better than the hair you had before you started taking good care of yourself.

The realistic explanation is normal wear and tear has shaven off parts of your strands--especially if it's a long time since you dusted/trimmed. Magnified, strands look something like this:

As for the lead hair theory, I'm not the police and not shooting anyone but I have to throw in my POV lest everyone just follow blindly a theory that IMO holds no water. Better to decide when you've heard all sides hence my chiming in.

I showed in a previous discussion that there's no such thing as "lead hairs" that take off and grow so fast leaving other strands behind then they suddently stop growing and wait for other hairs to catch up. If you looked at the so-called lead hairs with a magnifying glass, you'd see the ends look like the strands I just posted. And what happens is these ends that were holding on for dear life break off to match the rest of the strands. I tried to show this in this post.

 

[karenjoe]

karenjoe That means you have a high density of fine strands. You may also have breakage, shedding, overprocessing, etc that can lead to 'skinny' or 'thin' ends.

that make sense in my wet set days. people would ask me if I was wearing a fall or wig(?) I thought huh? naw it's just clean!!

when my hair was pulled back in a ball or ponytail no questions or side eye looks.... skinny hair..... If I went natural I wouldn't be able to control my hair.
It hurt just thinking about it.... lol

 

[Lilmama1011]

Same thing with me, makes me want to cut it off but when it dries it thickens up

 

[Realhairdontcare]

I have been trying to do more protective styles. And when I got my hair done a couple weeks ago she clipped my ends and I didn't have any breakage. I get my ends clipped every time I go to the hairdresser which is every few months. And the rest of my hair is still thick and has not changed and the very little new growth I have does seem thicker than before. I really don't have much of a regimen. I try to just leave my hair alone but also wash condition and moisturize in between appointments. My ends is actually the part of my hair that is under processed and I do have shedding but nothing that seems too extreme. Thanks everybody for the helpful answers!

Sent from my iPhone using LHCF

 

[Realhairdontcare]

I forgot to add that the middle back of my hair is growing back from breakage I suffered there in 2011.

Sent from my iPhone using LHCF

 

[Saga]

The optimistic explanation is the one by @WaistLengthDreams that better haircare and healthy living is leading to thicker, strands that look better than the hair you had before you started taking good care of yourself.

The realistic explanation is normal wear and tear has shaven off parts of your strands--especially if it's a long time since you dusted/trimmed. Magnified, strands look something like this:

As for the lead hair theory, I'm not the police and not shooting anyone but I have to throw in my POV lest everyone just follow blindly a theory that IMO holds no water. Better to decide when you've heard all sides hence my chiming in.

I showed in a previous discussion that there's no such thing as "lead hairs" that take off and grow so fast leaving other strands behind then they suddently stop growing and wait for other hairs to catch up. If you looked at the so-called lead hairs with a magnifying glass, you'd see the ends look like the strands I just posted. And what happens is these ends that were holding on for dear life break off to match the rest of the strands. I tried to show this in this post.

Well, let's put it like this.
We can all agree that different parts of your hair are in different stages of their growth phase, right?

So if 40% of my hair was in the anagen phase, it would be actively growing. But 30% is in the catogen (resting phase) and the other 30 in the talogen phase (shedding), and so on and so forth. (these numbers are just examples, not accurate ratios) So if one part of my hair is in the resting phase, and another part in the growing phase, and another shedding, wouldn't it make sense that some hairs would be longer than others, and that the ones in the resting phase would eventually regrow and be shorter and the ones in the growing phase would be longer?

Now, I'm not saying this is the case for everyone. Some people really do straight up just have jacked up thinning ends that need to be hacked off in order to make the rest of the hair even. But, form my own personal experience and knowledge of the hair cycle, which is by no means extensive, my hair grows longer, then becomes thicker. I protective style 80% of the year, so I know that my thin ends are not a result of breakage. On top of that, after two months of having "thin ends" and what may appear to be low density hair, the rest of my ends seem to grow and my ends become thick, catching up to the rest of the hair but my overall length does not change. I have not trimmed in over a year, simply because I was losing a lot of length for no good reason. I thought I had thin ends, or that they were damaged because they would get knots. But after chopping them, it only took about three days before they're get gnarly again. Mind you, this is with me being careful about how I maintained my hair.

I'm not saying the theory is fool-proof, but I do believe there is some truth to it. Especially considering how many pictures I've seen of ladies on here who hair had thin ends, did absolutely NOTHING to even them out, and the ends thickened up as the length stayed the same. I think there's a difference between experiencing lead hair, and having your hair break off. When your hair breaks off, it's not just one portion, it's the whole thing. Meaning not just one layer of my hair is gonna break off to a certain point, the damage will be distributed equally and over time the ends will become so chewed up to the point where it may travel up the shaft and decrease the length of the hair over time.

what's lead hair?

It refers to the idea that while one hair, or a grouping of hairs are much longer than the rest, the majority of your hair will eventually "catch up" to that one of group of longer hairs because it is in a different phase form the others. I mean, if you had ten hairs that reached waist length, what is stopping the rest of your hair from also achieving that same length if the rest is only mid-back? So the idea is to not cut your 10 waist-length hairs, but use it as a marker for the rest of your hair to catch up to. This is especially true if your hair naturally grows in layers, like mine. So since my crown is not as long as my nape, it wouldn't make sense to try and even out my hair because my hair does not naturally grow blunt.

 

[Nonie]

Well, let's put it like this.
We can all agree that different parts of your hair are in different stages of their growth phase, right?

So if 40% of my hair was in the anagen phase, it would be actively growing. But 30% is in the catogen (resting phase) and the other 30 in the talogen phase (shedding), and so on and so forth. (these numbers are just examples, not accurate ratios) So if one part of my hair is in the resting phase, and another part in the growing phase, and another shedding, wouldn't it make sense that some hairs would be longer than others, and that the ones in the resting phase would eventually regrow and be shorter and the ones in the growing phase would be longer?

Now, I'm not saying this is the case for everyone. Some people really do straight up just have jacked up thinning ends that need to be hacked off in order to make the rest of the hair even. But, form my own personal experience and knowledge of the hair cycle, which is by no means extensive, my hair grows longer, then becomes thicker. I protective style 80% of the year, so I know that my thin ends are not a result of breakage. On top of that, after two months of having "thin ends" and what may appear to be low density hair, the rest of my ends seem to grow and my ends become thick, catching up to the rest of the hair but my overall length does not change. I have not trimmed in over a year, simply because I was losing a lot of length for no good reason. I thought I had thin ends, or that they were damaged because they would get knots. But after chopping them, it only took about three days before they're get gnarly again. Mind you, this is with me being careful about how I maintained my hair.

I'm not saying the theory is fool-proof, but I do believe there is some truth to it. Especially considering how many pictures I've seen of ladies on here who hair had thin ends, did absolutely NOTHING to even them out, and the ends thickened up as the length stayed the same. I think there's a difference between experiencing lead hair, and having your hair break off. When your hair breaks off, it's not just one portion, it's the whole thing. Meaning not just one layer of my hair is gonna break off to a certain point, the damage will be distributed equally and over time the ends will become so chewed up to the point where it may travel up the shaft and decrease the length of the hair over time.




It refers to the idea that while one hair, or a grouping of hairs are much longer than the rest, the majority of your hair will eventually "catch up" to that one of group of longer hairs because it is in a different phase form the others. I mean, if you had ten hairs that reached waist length, what is stopping the rest of your hair from also achieving that same length if the rest is only mid-back? So the idea is to not cut your 10 waist-length hairs, but use it as a marker for the rest of your hair to catch up to. This is especially true if your hair naturally grows in layers, like mine. So since my crown is not as long as my nape, it wouldn't make sense to try and even out my hair because my hair does not naturally grow blunt.

@DanceOnTheSkylines, that "assumption" has been used before to try and explain the "lead hair rumor" and again, I pointed out that it didn't add up. First of all, you have the percentages wrong. Majority of your strands are in the anagen phase; not just 40%. It's more like 80-85% in the anagen phase (growing phase). As each strand completes its growing phase, it enters the catogen phase where the follicle shrinks and this lasts about 2 weeks. And then comes the telogen phase where 10-14% of the strands are waiting to shed.

So suppose you cut your hair today bald. There will be almost 80%+ of your strands growing and 10%+ not growing waiting to shed. And each day you lose 0.1% and for each of those a new hair takes its place to make up part of the 80% of each day. So there's no reason only 5 hairs or ten or even 500 should just shoot out of nowhere and leave the rest...when MAJORITY are growing at a consistent rate.

Anyway, I address this suggestion in this thread: http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=572559

 

[Nonie]

It refers to the idea that while one hair, or a grouping of hairs are much longer than the rest, the majority of your hair will eventually "catch up" to that one of group of longer hairs because it is in a different phase form the others. I mean, if you had ten hairs that reached waist length, what is stopping the rest of your hair from also achieving that same length if the rest is only mid-back? So the idea is to not cut your 10 waist-length hairs, but use it as a marker for the rest of your hair to catch up to. This is especially true if your hair naturally grows in layers, like mine. So since my crown is not as long as my nape, it wouldn't make sense to try and even out my hair because my hair does not naturally grow blunt.

@CurlsOnFire23, just think about it. If almost 90% of your hair strands are growing at any one time, and the ones not growing are waiting to fall off...and all the strands are at different stages of growth but all growing TOGETHER at THE SAME rate...how on earth is there going to be any CATCHING UP happening?

That's like having hundreds of people start walking at the same pace, same strides but all starting from different starting points. They will never catch up with each other...and only way the people behind will catch up with the others is if the ones ahead stop walking and wait. What's more, it's not like the hairs have huge headstarts so that you can see the difference in length between the ones almost finishing the "race" and those not yet there. When you shave your head bald, you get a TWA that looks even length all round coz all strands are growing TOGETHER...and those shedding are so few that you don't see gaps. Instead as far as you're concerned, you were bald, then your hair was a TWA, then your hair was a small afro, then a big afro...and so on.

What's more, why is it lead hairs only happen when hair has been on your head for a while and grown OLD? We don't see lead hairs in TWA's. Anyone can see that's because wear and tear has taken its toll as your hair gets to SL and beyond. If lead hairs were an actual phenomenon, then those "blessed" with this magic hair would shave their hair and end up looking like this purple puppet:

...coz the supersonic speed hair would take off before the other strands and then hit the brakes and wait for the other hairs to catch up. Come on nah!

 

[Saga]

CurlsOnFire23, just think about it. If almost 90% of your hair strands are growing, and the ones not growing are waiting to fall off...and all the strands are at different stages of growth but all growing TOGETHER at THE SAME rate...how on earth is there going to be any CATCHING UP? That's like having hundreds of people start walking at the same pace, same strides but all starting from different starting points. They will never catch up with each other...and only way the people behind will catch up with the others is if the ones ahead stop walking and wait. What's more, it's not like the hairs have huge headstarts.

What's more, why is it lead hairs only happen when hair has been on your head for a while and grown OLD? Anyone can see that's because wear and tear has taken its toll. If lead hairs were an actual phenomenon, then those "blessed" with this magic hair would shave their hair and end up looking like this purple puppet:

Coz the supersonic speed hair would take off before the other strands and then wait for them to catch up. Come on nah!

But that's just it, not all the hairs do grow at the same rate, at least not on my head. The hair on my sides grows much faster than the hair in my nape. The hair in my nape, faster than the hair in my crown. Also, I know my percentages weren't correct, I stated that in the original post. But thank you for clearing that up for me.

Now, exactly how much faster does one portion of my hair grow in comparison to another? I don't know, I've never calculated to that extent. What I do know is I started my HHJ from a skin head, to a cesar, then started to allow it to grow into a twa. I have never had any layers cut into my hair, and yet no matter how many times I've "evened my hair out", the sides are always end up 1/2-1 inch longer than the nape. The nape is about 1/2 inch longer than the crown. I have consistently taken pics for the past 2 years that can clearly show this, with length checks, measuring tape and the whole nine. I also have pictures showing how my blowouts look different at different times of the year, or between different months. Using the exact same method. At times my ends are full and seem relatively consistent as far as length, or times there is more of a gap in-between lengths. Whether or not 80% of your hair is in the same stage, I haven't the slightest, truthfully I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all for any of us. So to say that everyone's has 80% of their hair in one particular phase at one particular time is a blanket statement regardless.

 

[Saga]

And as far as the picture goes, you mean to tell me you have never seen babies with just a patch of hair like this before? Or babies with sparse bits of hair scattered all around their head? What about them? Does the 80% theory also apply to infants and newborns as well? Granted, their bodies are developing so it is much different in comparison to an adult. But if, as a child, my hair grew in one area first, then later on filled out (like it does for many children) what's to stop it from happening to adults as well?

 

[SmileyNY]

@CurlsOnFire23, just think about it. If almost 90% of your hair strands are growing at any one time, and the ones not growing are waiting to fall off...and all the strands are at different stages of growth but all growing TOGETHER at THE SAME rate...how on earth is there going to be any CATCHING UP happening?

That's like having hundreds of people start walking at the same pace, same strides but all starting from different starting points. They will never catch up with each other...and only way the people behind will catch up with the others is if the ones ahead stop walking and wait. What's more, it's not like the hairs have huge headstarts so that you can see the difference in length between the ones almost finishing the "race" and those not yet there. When you shave your head bald, you get a TWA that looks even length all round coz all strands are growing TOGETHER...and those shedding are so few that you don't see gaps. Instead as far as you're concerned, you were bald, then your hair was a TWA, then your hair was a small afro, then a big afro...and so on.

What's more, why is it lead hairs only happen when hair has been on your head for a while and grown OLD? We don't see lead hairs in TWA's. Anyone can see that's because wear and tear has taken its toll as your hair gets to SL and beyond. If lead hairs were an actual phenomenon, then those "blessed" with this magic hair would shave their hair and end up looking like this purple puppet:

...coz the supersonic speed hair would take off before the other strands and then hit the brakes and wait for the other hairs to catch up. Come on nah!

Don't laugh... But I was born bald & my first hairs grew in the middle of my head Don't cha know my Mom put a barrette on it for family pitchas I don't know if it's a coincidence or not, but to this day my hair seems to grow at a faster rate in that part of my head. I always get a little more new growth there than the rest of my head. Those hairs reach longer than some of the the hair beneath em. I wish the rest of my hair grew at a faster rate.

Anyway, I say all that to say... I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't look just a little like that puppet if I shaved my head bald That said... I'm trying to reach WL by the end of the year, so I'm not willing to find out for sure anytime soon

Sent from my iPhone using LHCF

 

[Nonie]

And as far as the picture goes, you mean to tell me you have never seen babies with just a patch of hair like this before? Or babies with sparse bits of hair scattered all around their head? What about them? Does the 80% theory also apply to infants and newborns as well? Granted, their bodies are developing so it is much different in comparison to an adult. But if, as a child, my hair grew in one area first, then later on filled out (like it does for many children) what's to stop it from happening to adults as well?

@DanceOnTheSkylines c'mon nah! When did we go from talking about lead hairs to talmbout newborn babies' hairgrowth?

Newborn babies experience hormonal changes that happen in the mother so that their hair follicles are affected just like those of their mothers. Also newborns' follicles, unlike those of grown women on a hair forum that claim "lead hairs existence" reach their telogen phase at the same time, which is why some babies are completely bald. Also babies will lose hair in the parts of their heads that are always in contact with the mattress.

When I posted that photo, I was making the point that if lead hairs were legit, then GROWN FOLKS who claim to get lead hairs, would BC to zero hair and then their lead hairs would take off and they'd be posting progress photos like that. I don't think newborn babies post often on this forum.

 

[Lilmama1011]

@DanceOnTheSkylines c'mon nah! When did we go from talking about lead hairs to talmbout newborn babies' hairgrowth?

Newborn babies experience hormonal changes that happen in the mother so that their hair follicles are affected just like those of their mothers. Also newborns' follicles, unlike those of grown women on a hair forum that claim "lead hairs existence" reach their telogen phase at the same time, which is why some babies are completely bald. Also babies will lose hair in the parts of their heads that are always in contact with the mattress.

When I posted that photo, I was making the point that if lead hairs were legit, then GROWN FOLKS who claim to get lead hairs, would BC to zero hair and then their lead hairs would take off and they'd be posting progress photos like that. I don't think newborn babies post often on this forum.

Lol @ newborns posting

 

[Saga]

Nonie I brought it up because you made the statement about 80% of the hair being in one specific phase, but I was asking isn't it possible that not everybody has the same ratio of hair in one phase at one time? Also, isn't it possible for different parts of the hair to have different growth rates? So if a person has thin hair in specific portions of their head does it automatically have to be breakage, or can it be a result of either one or both of the statements above?

And perhaps my understanding of the lead hair theory is wrong, or simply different from yours. If it is then I'l definitely stand to be corrected. But all I can say is, I've seen the proof in the pictures, and in my own scalp, and the pictures don't lie.

 

[Nonie]

erplexed

But that's just it, not all the hairs do grow at the same rate, at least not on my head. The hair on my sides grows much faster than the hair in my nape. The hair in my nape, faster than the hair in my crown. Also, I know my percentages weren't correct, I stated that in the original post. But thank you for clearing that up for me.

DanceOnTheSkylines...if your sides grow faster than your nape...then your sides will continue to grow faster than your nape. And the only way the hairs will ever catch up is if you cut your sides or your sides break off. The point I'm making about RATE is the follicles do not change their rate of growth rate to accommodate a made-up theory of lead hairs.

Now, exactly how much faster does one portion of my hair grow in comparison to another? I don't know, I've never calculated to that extent. What I do know is I started my HHJ from a skin head, to a cesar, then started to allow it to grow into a twa. I have never had any layers cut into my hair, and yet no matter how many times I've "evened my hair out", the sides are always end up 1/2-1 inch longer than the nape. The nape is about 1/2 inch longer than the crown. I have consistently taken pics for the past 2 years that can clearly show this, with length checks, measuring tape and the whole nine. I also have pictures showing how my blowouts look different at different times of the year, or between different months. Using the exact same method. At times my ends are full and seem relatively consistent as far as length, or times there is more of a gap in-between lengths. Whether or not 80% of your hair is in the same stage, I haven't the slightest, truthfully I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all for any of us. So to say that everyone's has 80% of their hair in one particular phase at one particular time is a blanket statement regardless.

I don't doubt that your follicles in one area may have a different growth rate from those in another area. But that will remain the same regardless. Meaning if your nape grows 1/8 an inch a month and your sides grow 1/2 an inch a month. Assuming no wear or tear and that you retain all you grow, then your nape will have increased in length by 1.5 inches in a year while your sides will have increased in length by 6 inches. And that RATE will remain like that, meaning your sides are NOT lead hairs. They will NEVER be caught by the nape. You will always have a difference in length if rates are different.

The only way your hair will ever "catch up" is if the longer sides break or you cut them.

Now about layers... A round head doesn't NEED to cut hair in layers. If all my strands are 6 inches long, the ones at the nape will reach my shoulders... while the ones by my ears will reach my neck, the ones at my crown may almost reach my ears... I will have layers if I try to get my hair to hang down because I have a round head and all hairs are growing from different points relative to each other.

 

[Saga]

erplexed

DanceOnTheSkylines...if your sides grow faster than your nape...then your sides will continue to grow faster than your nape. And the only way the hairs will ever catch up is if you cut your sides or your sides break off. The point I'm making about RATE is the follicles do not change their rate of growth rate to accommodate a made-up theory of lead hairs.



I don't doubt that your follicles in one area may have a different growth rate from those in another area. But that will remain the same regardless. Meaning if your nape grows 1/8 an inch a month and your sides grow 1/2 an inch a month. Assuming no wear or tear and that you retain all you grow, then your nape will have increased in length by 1.5 inches in a year while your sides will have increased in length by 6 inches. And that RATE will remain like that, meaning your sides are NOT lead hairs. They will NEVER be caught by the nape. You will always have a difference in length if rates are different.

The only way your hair will ever "catch up" is if the longer sides break or you cut them.

Ok, I can understand that. But I do still hold the belief that there is another reason for thin ends aside from breakage, not split up rough ends but ends that appear healthy on the surface but are just observantly thicker than the hair from your scalp.

Now about layers... A round head doesn't NEED to cut hair in layers. If all my strands are 6 inches long, the ones at the nape will reach my shoulders... while the ones by my ears will reach my neck, the ones at my crown may almost reach my ears... I will have layers if I try to get my hair to hang down because I have a round head and all hairs are growing from different points relative to each other.

I wasn't referring to layers as in the place that different portions of your hair hits, I was referring to layers as in when you take a ruler to different portions of hair, they measurements are numerically different. I know that the hair in the very front that you pull over your nose would never hit shoulder at the same time as your nape or sides, because they are at different locations on your head,

 

[Nonie]

@Nonie I brought it up because you made the statement about 80% of the hair being in one specific phase, but I was asking isn't it possible that not everybody has the same ratio of hair in one phase at one time? Also, isn't it possible for different parts of the hair to have different growth rates? So if a person has thin hair in specific portions of their head does it automatically have to be breakage, or can it be a result of either one or both of the statements above?

And perhaps my understanding of the lead hair theory is wrong, or simply different from yours. If it is then I'l definitely stand to be corrected. But all I can say is, I've seen the proof in the pictures, and in my own scalp, and the pictures don't lie.

I just answered your question about different rates. Yes it is possible. And it'd be abnormal to have hair of a different percentage in the anagen phase. No matter what percentage you want to use the point is MAJORITY of your strands (unless you have damaged follicles like bald people) are INCREASING in length at any one time. A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE is not growing. Hair grows on average at 0.3 mm a day. That is 1/3 of this line -. So even you if cut your hair all the same length (meaning MAJORITY OF YOUR STRANDS) and 10% stopped growing today...then the ones that continue growing will only be this - much longer than those at rest in 3 days. So the difference in length due to hairs being in different points on the growth cycle is minimal for people with even growth rates all over.

Now if someone has thin hair in a section of their head due to faster growth of some follicles interspersed with slow growing ones, then cumulative growth rate means you will end up the longer strands getting WAAAAAAAY longer than the slower strands. So we're talking about this sort of range

I used the example of your sides and your nape and you can see in a year you'd have 6-1.5=4.5 inch difference in length.

In two years, the difference in growth between slow areas and long areas would be 12-3=9 inch difference in length

In 3 years, the difference in growth would be 18-4.5=13.5 inch difference in length between these areas.

See what I mean? There would NEVER be any catching up.

No you don't understand it wrong. You totally get what the proponents of the theory claim. What I'm telling you is there's no logical explanation for it. And every way they've tried to explain it has come up empty.

In fact, if you'd clicked at the link I posted earlier, you'd have seen how I pointed out holes in the "evidence" pics.

 

[Nonie]

Ok, I can understand that. But I do still hold the belief that there is another reason for thin ends aside from breakage, not split up rough ends but ends that appear healthy on the surface but are just observantly thicker than the hair from your scalp.

I think in your last line you meant "thinner"? Yes, one explanation is one that @Supergirl has shared before and which was touched on earlier in this thread. That if you start taking care of your hair and health, the new growth will be of better quality from better nourishment and as it will be growing out of the healthier you...and so you may not see the evidence of healthy hair until your old hair sheds and this new hair grows to take its place. Or you cut the old hair and enjoy new stronger fuller strands all the way.

The only other explanation is ORGANIC things wear out. There's no way you can expect hair that is not living in a vacuum to not experience some form of friction that will wear away cuticles. It's not made of steel. It's not invincible. And the longer it's been on earth, the more likely it is to age, and like all things organic, break down. To act like this is a farfetched theory is to be in denial. Heck, I dust my hair regularly and practice low mani. Yet, even *I* know I have split ends. I once magnified my hair to a point where you could see a thin end that was this long _ or this long __ And THAT was at a great magnification that made my thumb nail several times its normal size. That split was from NORMAL WEAR and TEAR. If you had looked at my strand, you'd swear it was whole because not only did it look thick except for that dot end that I'd not have been able to see w/o straining--considering I had to magnify it so to see it. You'd also have thought it was whole coz it wasn't SPLIT into a fork. I dust every 8 weeks, yet I had a split.

Imagine someone who doesn't dust at all or often. Who styles her hair often (friction). Washes her hair (friction). Swings her hair or even rubs hands over the surface of the hair (friction). Exposes hair to the environment where the elements throw in their own abuse. And this hair goes through this over and over and over. Gosh, let's not even discuss detangling which IMO is one time when filing away of the hair surface happens. Even with the most careful of handling, you will cause a deterioration of the surface of your hair coz it is ORGANIC! And with that wearing comes cuticle stripping. That the surface of the hair. That will affect thickness. That means weaker strands that succumb to normal wear and tear faster. More thinning of strands...and then breaking...leaving see-through hair. I don't know why this is so hard for people to accept.

You see, I have had thin ends. I wasn't dusting regularly so I wasn't removing the weakness before it took its toll on my strands. It took only 4 months for my fine strands to develop 2 inch thin ends. 4 months. When I was dusting regulary (every 2 months) I was retaining 3/4 of an inch. Meaning, in those 4 months, instead of losing 2 inches of hair, I'd have kept the 2 inches and added on 1.5 inches! So in a way I lost 3.5 inches coz I let the wearing of my strands extend further up the strands instead of cutting off the weakness when it was small.

I wasn't referring to layers as in the place that different portions of your hair hits, I was referring to layers as in when you take a ruler to different portions of hair, they measurements are numerically different. I know that the hair in the very front that you pull over your nose would never hit shoulder at the same time as your nape or sides, because they are at different locations on your head,

I just threw that in there coz folks mean that when they talk of hair growing in layers. What you described (sides growing faster than nape) would actually not make it look like you have layers; it'd look as if you were cutting your hair to fall to the same length. Coz if you are relaxed and you cut your hair to fall to the same level, the nape would be cut really short while the sides would have to be longer to go past your ears and fall down to your where your nape falls.

 

[melissa-bee]

I have thin ends but thats because of breakage.
I believe in lead hairs.

 

[Saga]

I understand the concept of hair not being invincible. Heck, it's DEAD. It can't repair itself, it can't regenerate after it has already escaped our follicles. Maybe that's why I don't care so much about trimming one way or the other, because when I dusted/trimmed religiously my ends would get "raggedy" again only a few days after doing it. After a while I noticed that I stayed at the same length for an entire year because I'm a slow grower and I was trimming away any potential retention I could've had. Ever since I stopped trimming, I finally made it to APL. I just accept SSK's and unperfect ends as something that comes with having naturally curly fine type 4 strands that enjoy twisting around each other and matting like crazy. Now I just do my bets to keep my hair stretched 24/7, whether it's loose or in a PS.

So yea, I do expect the hair at your ends which has been hanging for years to look much thinner than the hair newly emitted from your scalp, but that's something out of our hands and unavoidable. It doesn't matter how much trimming you do, that will happen regardless. I was touching on breakage that is specifically due to handling your hair poorly, so we both agree that not all hair thinning is a result of breakage in the sense that someone has been damaging their hair and the only possible recovery from it is to trim.

I just threw that in there coz folks mean that when they talk of hair growing in layers. What you described (sides growing faster than nape) would actually not make it look like you have layers; it'd look as if you were cutting your hair to fall to the same length. Coz if you are relaxed and you cut your hair to fall to the same level, the nape would be cut really short while the sides would have to be longer to go past your ears and fall down to your where your nape falls.

*sigh* that was not what I was describing, here's a better explanation. My Sides fall at Full APL. My nape, also APL but doesn't go quite as far down. My "bangs" are chin length, inching their way to my neck and my crown would probably be EL. So when my hair is down and out you can see the staircase effect of having different parts of your hair falling at different places, creating a layered effect. Since the crown doesn't reach the shoulders, the hair at the nape that reaches APL is just kinda by itself. Like, when I wear braidouts I get this weird mullet affect because the back and sides are so long in comparison to the top and the front which frame my face.

 

[NappyNelle]

Lively debate! Not that OP's question didn't matter, but if the title of this thread was "Do you believe in lead hairs?" or something like that, I'm sure more perspectives would chime in.

 

[Saga]

Lively debate! Not that OP's question didn't matter, but if the title of this thread was "Do you believe in lead hairs?" or something like that, I'm sure more perspectives would chime in.

Haha, you're right. I apologize if I diverted the topic OP, but I love intelligent debates

 

[PinkSunshine77]

I have thin ends too. I thought it was from having a relaxer forever.

when i was pressing my hair I had skinny ends. too...

I was told I have a lot of hairs but they r skinny...... whatever that mean..erplexed.

is that lead too?

This right here describes my hair. I have thick hair once my strands are all together. But each individual strand of my hair is fine. I only know from examining them over a period of time. I wondered why some ladies can use heat like it's nobody's business and why my hair seemed to get damaged more easily. This is why