Heat Damage or Chemical Damage?

[**SaSSy**]

Which is worst in your opinion?

I have personally experienced both in my life when it comes to my hair. When I was first relaxed from the age of 10 to 18 I stayed in the range of NL to APL. I think my main problems were not being educated in hair care, and relaxing my hair way too often (6 to 7 weeks). When I graduated HS I decided to grow my hair out and BC my hair 10 months later. For 5 years I was natural but only grew my hair to NL/SL; my problem there was still being uneducated in terms to hair growth/retaining and using high levels of heat every week.

There is this lady at my job who might be a in the range of 3c to 4b who has the potential to have thick long hair, but ever since I been working at my job it has stayed at the same length (NL to SL). It looks like she has really bad heat damage in the front from daily styling and is basically obsessed over hair. I always hear her talking about growing her hair out, and when her hair use to be long, etc. But I feel she is like me when I was ignorant to hair care and really doesn't know how to grow her hair out.

So I added a poll and just wanted to get other people's opinion on to what is worst to have and is only repairable with a pair of scissors.

 

[silvergirl]

to me both would be the same, it would also depend on the extent of the damage. both heat and chemical damage to the hair can be mild, moderate or severe and unrepairable. so i can't vote in the poll.

 

[BlackMasterPiece]

For *ME*, chemical damage is definitely worse.

The bottom line was, I had less of a margin for error because I was systematically weakening my naturally thick coarse strands....as soon as I stopped doing that, my strands became resilient and I could get away with not too hot hair practices, like pressing my hair with every wash for like two years straight with no breaks and still retain hair at or past APL....my relaxed hair could never have handled that.

When I really started to get into healthy haircare I made simple changes like getting sulfate free poo's and DCing a little more often...I achieved MBL within a few months.

I press my hair very frequently during the winter...and the only result of that is a loosening of the curl pattern toward the ends of my hair. I'm still consistently retaining length so for me....I'll take some moderate heat damage any day.

As for the lady at your job...yea she really needs to chill with the daily heat...thats a recepe for baldness

 

[melissa-bee]

I voted chemical, but this has already been discussed there's already a thread with a great number of respondents.

 

[30something]

Both are points of no return, snip snip.

 

[melissa-bee]

I found the other thread, here you go http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=415876

 

[la mosca]

to me both would be the same, it would also depend on the extent of the damage. both heat and chemical damage to the hair can be mild, moderate or severe and unrepairable. so i can't vote in the poll.

I agree. It's like the old riddle: which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of bricks?

It all depends on the extent of the damage. Heat and chemical damage can be equally devastating to the hair.

 

[topnotch1010]

Both are points of no return, snip snip.

 

[GabbanaGirl]

I have to agree it depends on the degree of damage done. I have had both (chemical damage, and heat damage). And I can't say that one is better than the other. At both points my hair was absolutely horrendous, and there was nothing I could do to camouflage the damage done to my hair, my only solutions in both cases was a haircut.

 

[Angel of the North]

I didn't vote, IMHO damage is damage, regardless of the cause and they pretty much leave you with the same result

 

[I Am So Blessed]

how would you know if you had heat damage anyway. anybody??

 

[Junebug D]

how would you know if you had heat damage anyway. anybody??

If you are natural, it will more than likely show up as strands that are randomly straight or more loosely curled than they used to be.

If you are relaxed, it'll present itself as strands that are porous, splitting, and/or breaking.

Both can be pretty bad. Especially if you have both (which I think is the case with 95% of black women with short, broken, dry hair troubles). Neither looks good. Both may end up needing to be cut off.

 

[arosieworld]

I have heat damage and I like it. I had chemical damage and it was awful. But all of my head is effected so its not patchy maybe that's why I like it. My hair has loosened some and it straightens easier like it has given up. But it is still soft and now it doesn't really tangle.

 

[beans4reezy]

Both are points of no return, snip snip.

I couldn't have put this better myself. Well, maybe heat damage would be the lesser of two evils as protien treatments may bring the natural curl pattern back.

 

[NikkiGirl]

I definitely think chemical damage. I decided to highlight my relaxed hair a couple of years ago and my hair fell out around the front. Like down to a couple of inches. It was horrible. I went natural to get it healthy again and didn't relax or color. But I definitely found out that the double processing was not for me and my hair was telling me STOP. But I am relaxed now and healthy.

 

[YankeeCandle]

I've never had a perm at all much less too many or one gone wrong, so I can't really testify as to the relative problems of chem v. heat damage.

But heat damage is pretty darn bad IMO.

case in point:

My sister has very hardy-textured, thick individual strands that are genetically programmed to be 3-ish curls. It takes a lot to mess with her hair, because it's so resiliant (compared to mine).

Years of once-every-2-weeks blowouts and Chi presses have left her with a mane of scraggly strands that are half-2 ish and half 1-ish on each. In the rare moments I see her hair done in a wash-and-go without heat, she looks a wild, frazzled mess, as though straw is sticking out of a bird's nest.

She's trapped. Now she really does have to keep getting it done with heat in order to camoflauge the harm already done.