HEAT DAMMAGE vs CHEMICAL DAMAGE-which is worse?

[Monroe Lee]

So I just got off the phone with a friend and we had the longest debate ever.

Naturals - You know how when you keep straightening your hair over time your curl pattern starts to loosen up and inadvertently, may become permanently wavy or straight in some parts? (Even though you may be like a 4a/4b? You could be sporting a 3b in the back, 4a at the sides and a 3c in front..)
Well, my dear friend calls this "healthy heat trained hair", and claims her hair is more manageable now!

Well, I told her that when the integrity of her hair strands have been compromised in any way, so that when she washes her hair some of them don't revert back to fully natural, or seem looser etc, then that's heat damage.
In her rebuttal, she pointed out to me that chemicals similarly compromise the integrity of the hair strands and asked whether we can say everyone with chemically treated hair then has chemical damage?

I thought long and hard and said yes, but that heat damage is far worse because it is progressively damaging with each heat application until the hair gets so weak and breaks off, whereas with "chemically damaged" hair, if proper care is taken to apply to just new growth, the hair strands have a much better shot at staying intact, even though they have been weakened.

Anyway we went back and forth and couldn't come to a conclusion. What do you ladies think? Is it better to have "heat trained hair" or "Chemically trained hair"??


***Clarification***:
We are trying to compare hair strands that have been permanently altered due to progressive heat application (heat trained natural tresses) to hair strands that have been permanently altered due to chemical application (relaxed tresses).
We're assuming everything else is healthy: scalp, hair care regimen, diet etc.
Sorry for the confusion.

 

[laurend]

I can't have heat trained hair because it will break off, however, for my friend, heat training hasn't bothered her hair. I guess it depends on the individual IMO.

 

[jamaraa]

..............................

 

[*Muffin*]

Had to edit my post. If we're talking about damage, I'd probably much rather suffer heat damage than chemical damage (though, ironically, I'm a relaxed head). I, for one, HATE getting chemical burns on my scalp. Heat damage only affects your hair and you can always cut it off and start over. But mess your scalp up too many times, and it's over.

But if we are talking about alterations (which is better), it's up to the individual and what they want from their hair.

 

[jamaraa]

....................................

 

[*Muffin*]

Frankly, I'm not so sure "training" is actually "damage". That seems a rather big assumption w/o little to back it. If the hair reverts, it's fine, IMHO. (This only referring to heat straightening, not perms)

I guess it also depends on an individual's perception of "damaged". Some people think any deviation from one's natural hair texture is damaged hair, even if it looks healthy (like in the case of relaxed hair). Others consider hair to be damaged only when it "looks" unhealthy.

 

[melissa-bee]

I didn't vote because i think they both are as bad as each other.

 

[Barbie83]

Even though I'm relaxed, I think chemical damage is worse than heat damage. Neither is healthy, but relaxers actually compromise the inner structure of the hair, removing protein bonds and making the hair strand permanently weaker.

 

[Bubblingbrownshuga]

With both, the end result typically involves cutting of the damaged strands, so in the strand sense, both. As far as the scalp's concerned, I think chemicals can wreak more havoc overall, but heat to the scalp is damaging also.

 

[BSweet]

i donno..damage is damaged..don't matter how it got damaged..it's still damage and it has to go..

i'm suffering from chemical damage..so maybe that might be worse cause it's closer to the root and that is where it has broken off..where as heat damage just causes split or damaged ends..

 

[Aggie]

With both, the end result typically involves cutting of the damaged strands, so in the strand since, both. As far as the scalp's concerned, I think chemicals can wreak more havoc overall, but heat to the scalp is damaging also.

I agree with this post. Both heat and chemical burns to the scalp can really cause some irreversible damage.

Also if the natural hair is straightened to the point where the curl pattern in sections is missing/straight as a pin, how would that look on a person with all natural 3 or 4 type hair when they wear their hair curly?

It is still cosmetically unappealing and as BBS stated, would have to be cut off. Either way, it's all equally bad IMO.

 

[jamaraa]

......................................

 

[vkb247]

From what I have read chemical damage is worse because it does a great amount of structure change at one time but heat damage is accumulated slowly over time. Not everyone who uses heat gets permanent damage but that change is the whole point of having a relaxer.

I don't think it is a matter of opinion. It's a fact but many don't like to here it. That's my opinion

 

[destine2grow]

They both are bad but I think that chemical damage is worse than heat damage. If I had to choose between the two I would rather have heat damage.

 

[jennboo]

IMO damage is damage. Heat damage and chemical damage are both bad. I won't say which is worse.

You know that riddle: Which is heavier, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers?

Some folks choose the pound of feathers (you can fathom why), when in actuality the feathers and bricks are equally as weighty.

Relaxed hair is damaged just by virtue of the fact that it is relaxed imo...so is heat stretched natural hair. I have experienced both, and my hair was never broken off or visibly unhealthy (when straight). It looked like crapola when wet and natural though...straight squiggly pieces jutting out everywhere.

In both states (relaxed and heat damaged) my hair appeared healthy...but from a structural standpoint...it was not.

So, hey, if the hair isn't giving you problems (falling out, breaking off, looking raggedy and chewed up) then it isn't so bad i guess...outta sight, outta mind.

All i know is that...all the heat straightened naturals i've encountered in my life...those who'd been doing it for years and probably incurred heat damage, had the longest, thickest, most vibrant heads of hair i'd ever seen on a black woman. Chemical damage has been more apparent, from what i have seen, with folks having broken off hair and balding and such.

ETA: As far as the actual strands of hair goes, damage is damage, but i think the relaxing process is more dangerous and can lead to more damaging effects.

 

[LongCurlz]

I voted heat trained hair is better, even-though improper use of both can be damaging, I think heat is far less worse. Heat cannot cause scalp burns, alopecia, damage to the scalp causing balding, health issues, ect.

All heat will do is make your texture a little looser and at worse cause some breakage and brittleness. The two should not even be compared IMO.

 

[AllieCat0817]

I personally HATE HATE heat damaged hair more than anything. I will shave it off first. The smell of burnt hair makes me want to HURL and it stays with you. So I say heat damaged is worse (for me).

 

[NikStarrr]

I also don't think the GRADUAL loosening of natural curls from straightening over time is "damage". It's perception--if the person still wants their original texture or plans to wear highly textured natural styles, then that person may consider it "damage". If the person, plans to wear their hair straight usually or they always wear manipulated styles like braidouts, for example--that person may consider it "trained" and are actually happy with it. Heat stretched hair doesn't always equal physical damage to the hair strands--that's why I said gradual. If someone goes and gets their hair pressed and overnight they have straight pieces--I think that the hair was probably burned and it is REAL damage there that could possibly split and/or break off. But if someone's hair loosens overtime, I don't think that would equal damaged hair. I have too many friends and fam with natural hair who press, who's hair is BSL and longer and who's hair is "trained"--for me to believe that trained automatically equals damage. But that's just my theory.

But to answer the question--I would say chemical damage is worse.

 

[Mitey Cyrus]

All i know is that...all the heat straightened naturals i've encountered in my life...those who'd been doing it for years and probably incurred heat damage, had the longest, thickest, most vibrant heads of hair i'd ever seen on a black woman.

Now this is interesting...did they every wear it natural or was it always straightened?

 

[la mosca]

double post

 

[la mosca]

IMO damage is damage. Heat damage and chemical damage are both bad. I won't say which is worse.

You know that riddle: Which is heavier, a pound of bricks or a pound of feathers?

Some folks choose the pound of feathers (you can fathom why), when in actuality the feathers and bricks are equally as weighty.

This was my thought as well. Plus, it really depends on the individual and what their strands can handle. Some handle chemicals better than heat. For others, it's the reverse. When it comes to these matters, I think it's more important to know what works for one's own hair than to generalize.

 

[jennboo]

Now this is interesting...did they every wear it natural or was it always straightened?

These were girls i went to school with, so during the school year their hair was always pressed straight..i don't know what they did during the summer months though. I also dont know how frequently they got their washed and hair pressed.

I can say from personal experience...i used to get my natural hair washed, deep conditioned, blow dried, pressed, and curled at a salon every 2 weeks for about 2.5 years. This was in middle/high school. During the summer i'd wear an afro puff. My hair was never broken off, it was thick as heck, and looked really healthy (though it really wasn't as evidenced by permanently straightened/straighter sections of my hair due to the pressing).

 

[FAMUDva]

I'm a natural who straightens and who has also overcome heat damage... that mess is damage; period

I don't believe in "heat training". If the heat is changing your hair, it's damaging it. Now that I know better, I do better. I still have my hair straightened, but so far I haven't had any heat damage. That's not to say it's never going to happen again, but honestly I get sick of living for my hair, so I wear it how I like to now; curly or straight

 

[FAMUDva]

I can say from personal experience...i used to get my natural hair washed, deep conditioned, blow dried, pressed, and curled at a salon every 2 weeks for about 2.5 years. This was in middle/high school. During the summer i'd wear an afro puff. My hair was never broken off, it was thick as heck, and looked really healthy (though it really wasn't as evidenced by permanently straightened/straighter sections of my hair due to the pressing).

This is my hair now that I've overcome heat damage.

 

[PinkSkates]

I also don't think the GRADUAL loosening of natural curls from straightening over time is "damage". It's perception--if the person still wants their original texture or plans to wear highly textured natural styles, then that person may consider it "damage". If the person, plans to wear their hair straight usually or they always wear manipulated styles like braidouts, for example--that person may consider it "trained" and are actually happy with it. Heat stretched hair doesn't always equal physical damage to the hair strands--that's why I said gradual. If someone goes and gets their hair pressed and overnight they have straight pieces--I think that the hair was probably burned and it is REAL damage there that could possibly split and/or break off. But if someone's hair loosens overtime, I don't think that would equal damaged hair. I have too many friends and fam with natural hair who press, who's hair is BSL and longer and who's hair is "trained"--for me to believe that trained automatically equals damage. But that's just my theory.

But to answer the question--I would say chemical damage is worse.

Excellent, excellent post NikStar couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[jennboo]

This is my hair now that I've overcome heat damage.

My heat damage was definitely there, but bc it didnt translate into looking damaged when it was pressed straight, i didnt even care. I always wore my har pressed straight, except during the summer. My afro puffs woud still be puffy, but they did not look the way they do in my siggy pic...also when i'd attempt to twist, the twists would look like "shoe strings on crack" (got that from another poster lol). The damage was only apparent when i wore my hair in its natural state.

It was gradual though..the damage. When i first started pressing maybe the first few times, i didnt noticce anything. But remember, i got my hair blow dried, pressed, and curled at constant intervals for a long time...so the damage showed up eventually.

I need to get a scanner. I have pics of all of this.

 

[msa]

IMO, damaged is damaged. Whether it's chemical, thermal, or mechanical. If the bonds are broken or cuticle layers are missing/chipped/cracked then the hair is damaged. Everyone's hair is damaged to some extent.

Heat "trained"=heat damaged. If the hair can't revert back to it's original state, then it's damaged and it doesn't matter if it happened over 10 years or 10 minutes. Relaxed hair is also damaged (in the sense that bonds have been broken or permanently rearranged). Neither is healthier than the other, but depending on the person's hair, one may have more negative consequences.

 

[Supergirl]

I would say both. They both damage the protein structure of the hair.

 

[ebonylocs]

Methinks that's the main underlying theme here and the point of this thread. Sorry, but this ain't Nappturality and that sort of hardline about other people's hair just isn't on. shrug. Folks should do as they please and quit worrying about other people's hair choices.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that *all* the people who think all deviation from natural is damaged are necessarily taking some kind of militant pro-natural stance. I mean, some people who like their hair straight actually think that.

Sometimes it's just based on their understanding of the chemical structure of the hair, and how that is affected by heat or chemicals.

(But I do agree with you re the judgemental tone that some people adopt in these discussions, and I find it similarly annoying - even as a lover of natural hair.)

 

[Monroe Lee]

This is my hair now that I've overcome heat damage.

Your hair is beautiful. I Agree with your previous post!
If your hair changes from its natural state, then it is damaged.
At the same time, we can't live for our hair, our hair should live for us. It's an accessory. We should wear it which ever way we want to curly today, curly tomorrow. We should keep it as healthy as we can with our regimens whether natural or relaxed. But we should keep it real when it's damaged and has got to go!!!