How much of her hair would u trim off. [Second Opinions]

S

summerof1990

Well-Known Member
1o37dy.jpg


She wanted to know how much I told her she needs a super cut because all of that is unhealhty TO ME:ohwell:

BUT if she wanted to trim and keep some i would say cut up where the top red line is because everything below that is different and doing gymnastic splits.:yep:

The hair wasn't flat iron or anything and it just got cut in feburary and NO dusting THIS IS WHY DUSTING IS IMPORTANT
 
Last edited:
I got to go get a trim in two more weeks was told my ends are thin and she better not give me a hair cut either and I will dust if she doesn't cut off a lot in 4 weeks and if I can hold out longer four weeks and plan to do that with no major trims to retain length. I think it came from the hair dresser applying it to my ends twice and the third time i said something because I let her do it the first time because I thought she was doing a corrective touch up because some parts was under processed but the second time before I realized was too late and u just stopped going there
 
cut.jpg

I put a blue line where I would cut. Some may disagree but I would hate to have to handle my hair in an excessively delicate manner. Length doesn't even look admirable when the ends are thin. I guess I think for your friend's hair to look really good and as well as not be a hassle to maintain, I'd cut up to the blue line. Although in terms of technique when cutting, I would cut off hair gradually and observe its appearance along the way -- cutting from the first red line then observing, going up to the second red line and doing the same, until you're satisfied with the length and appearance. Sometimes by doing this technique, you'll end up cutting off less and still having it look presentable. Good luck to your friend.
 
Aireen said:
View attachment 151677

I put a blue line where I would cut. Some may disagree but I would hate to have to handle my hair in an excessively delicate manner. Length doesn't even look admirable when the ends are thin. I guess I think for your friend's hair to look really good and as well as not be a hassle to maintain, I'd cut up to the blue line. Although in terms of technique when cutting, I would cut off hair gradually and observe its appearance along the way -- cutting from the first red line then observing, going up to the second red line and doing the same, until you're satisfied with the length and appearance. Sometimes by doing this technique, you'll end up cutting off less and still having it look presentable. Good luck to your friend.
Click to expand...

yes this is why dusting is important
 
when I first joined my hair was that way but worse. Cut to the blue line if she is totally willing and has a working regimen and be sure those are splits and not leads
 
I think it depends on how she will be taking care of her hair afterwards. I don't believe in dusting (unless you frequently use heat) and I don't believe in gradual trims. Just get it over with. I would cut a bit above the blue line and just work from there.I had to cut from below BSL to SL. I was pissed at first but my hair was SO healthy and has been flourishing ever since then (that was the start of my hair journey so of course I took very good care of it).

Tell her to get a nice good cut. It' summer so new beginnings! I'm more concerned about why her ends look like that after getting a trim less than 4 months ago. Did she get an "up to the red line trim" and that's why it looks like that? If so, then that trim meant nothing. She needs inches off not cm. If heat has her hair looking like that, I'd stay away from heat at least for a year so her hair can have a chance to grow back without any potential damage.
 
Last edited:
silenttullip said:
when I first joined my hair was that way but worse. Cut to the blue line if she is totally willing and has a working regimen and be sure those are splits and not leads
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If she only got a cut in February and the ends were left healthy then those ends are just as likely to lead hairs.

Are they split or otherwise damaged? If not LEAVE THEM ALONE and wait and see what happens. The rest of her hair might just catch up and become one length. Otherwise you cut them and they just grow out again the same way - don't learn the hard way.
 
They don't look split or damaged to me. I think they are lead hairs.
If she wants to even up then I would say cut to the first red line.
 
I hate thin ends so I would probably cut above the top red line, but I would check the ends for splits, ssks, and just to see if they feel rough. If the hair is healthy, I'd cut much less but still trim a little.
 
Last edited:
the ends aren't split and there are no ssks. they look like lead hairs to me. i'd dc like crazy and grow it to a certain place (apl, bsl, mbl) then trim.
 
Last edited:
Lol, I guess you would chop a lot of my hair off then. It appears your friend has fine hair that is a little frizz prone, very similar to my own. Frizzy hair can give the appearance of unhealthy hair, but is definitely not always unhealthy.

She does not need a supercut as her hair will grow back exactly the same way. Maybe a 1/2-2inch trim if she is concerned about having fuller more even hair. How much she cuts really depends on her goal. If she is trying to grow her hair long, I would do a 1/2 to 1 inch trim. It appears she has lead hairs but it's hard to tell from the photo. If that is the case, she needs to wait for the rest of her hair to catch up to the longest pieces, and in the meantime do a small trim under 1.5 inches. If it's splits, you can usually tell if you hold hair up to bright light (at least with mine I can).

If she is concerned about growth, I would introduce her to the concept of dusting, as all fine haired ladies need to have this as a part of their regimen. From the photos her hair appears to fit into this group.
 
I'd cut to the blue line. Hair grows but scraggly ends aren't a good look imo. There are lead hairs and there are situations where ends are uneven coz there's been a lot of breakage. Splits is a different issue.
 
:wallbash: There is no such thing as lead hairs. :lol:

Y'all would be telling me when my ends were getting thin that I had lead hairs when I never had them before until I stopped trimming.

ThinEndsDismissed-vi.jpg


That my hair used to be so full and then all of a sudden I had thin ends that stuck out like a sore thumb longer than the rest doesn't mean I had lead hairs. It means my hair strands were breaking off from wear and what I was seeing as "lead hairs" were the thin ends that were getting ready to break. Heck it was those "lead hairs" that kept me at SL for over 30 years of my life so I know what da hayle I'm talmbout.

The whole theory of "lead hairs" is an oxymoron coz what y'all telling yourselves is that out of 90% of strands growing, a large fraction will slow down growing so that some supersonic few spring forward and take the lead. And then these supersonic ones hit the brakes and wait for the others to catch up. :huh:

Nein, nein, nein! What happens is splits cause weakened strands to break off creating see-through hair. ALL HAIR continues to grow (meaning both broken off strands and the ones still holding on for dear life) and over time the see-through ends too meet their demise because they are weak from splitting and they break to where the others had broken off. So all hair is now the same length. But all the hair has been growing...so all hair now looks even and longer but not longer than where the lead hairs would be reaching given your growth rate. There was no catching up with lead hairs occuring. The so-called lead hairs broke off to the point where the other hairs were broken so they all look the same length now.

I mean, y'all can't really believe that if hair grows at 6 inches a year that LEAD HAIRS wait for the other hair to catch up? Why don't they continue to get longer and continue to be lead hairs? What possesses the follicles of those hairs to pause and wait? And what in the name of all that is sane made the follicles that hold these strands suddenly take off so they became lead hairs? :nuts: Makes no ounce of sense. But if y'all believe in fairy tales and they make your life rosy, then continue to live in delusion and to believe in "lead hairs".

OP, I'd cut at the blue line and then dust regularly after that. Trimming gradually when you have damage does no good but allows the damage to continue as it has been and retention continues to be a dream.
 
Last edited:
Nonie said:
:wallbash: There is no such thing as lead hairs. :lol:

.
Click to expand...

I believe in lead hair because it something that I saw on here due to someone's progress. It wasn't just made up and people started to go along with it. I can't even remember the member's name but she had around waist length hair.

ETA: this was the thread I was talking about.
http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=498690&highlight=+lead+hairs

comic-p.jpg


I'm not saying that all thin ends could be a case of "lead hair" but it is possible especially as I don't see any damage from the pic.
 
Last edited:
Depends on her regimen and her "stomach" for shorter hair

I'd either cut at the blue line someone posted upthread, or maybe slightly above

OR

I'd cut at the lower red line as she works to treat her hair better, and uses protective styles and dusts periodically.
 
Nonie said:
:wallbash: There is no such thing as lead hairs. :lol:

Y'all would be telling me when my ends were getting thin that I had lead hairs when I never had them before until I stopped trimming.

ThinEndsDismissed-vi.jpg


That my hair used to be so full and then all of a sudden I had thin ends that stuck out like a sore thumb longer than the rest doesn't mean I had lead hairs. It means my hair strands were breaking off from wear and what I was seeing as "lead hairs" were the thin ends that were getting ready to break. Heck it was those "lead hairs" that kept me at SL for over 30 years of my life so I know what da hayle I'm talmbout.

The whole theory of "lead hairs" is an oxymoron coz what y'all telling yourselves is that out of 90% of strands growing, a large fraction will slow down growing so that some supersonic few spring forward and take the lead. And then these supersonic ones hit the brakes and wait for the others to catch up. :huh:

Nein, nein, nein! What happens is splits cause weakened strands to break off creating see-through hair. ALL HAIR continues to grow (meaning both broken off strands and the ones still holding on for dear life) and over time the see-through ends too meet their demise because they are weak from splitting and they break to where the others had broken off. So all hair is now the same length. But all the hair has been growing...so all hair now looks even and longer but not longer than where the lead hairs would be reaching given your growth rate. There was no catching up with lead hairs occuring. The so-called lead hairs broke off to the point where the other hairs were broken so they all look the same length now.

I mean, y'all can't really believe that if hair grows at 6 inches a year that LEAD HAIRS wait for the other hair to catch up? Why don't they continue to get longer and continue to be lead hairs? What possesses the follicles of those hairs to pause and wait? And what in the name of all that is sane made the follicles that hold these strands suddenly take off so they became lead hairs? :nuts: Makes no ounce of sense. But if y'all believe in fairy tales and they make your life rosy, then continue to live in delusion and to believe in "lead hairs".

OP, I'd cut at the blue line and then dust regularly after that. Trimming gradually when you have damage does no good but allows the damage to continue as it has been and retention continues to be a dream.
Click to expand...
lead hairs simply mean the hair is uneven. for example, the hair at my nape is about 12-14 inches long and reaches MBL. The hair directly above it is about 16 inches long but falls at about BSL. The crown hair would need to be about 18+ inches to fall the same place (MBL) as the nape hair, even though the nape hair is technically "shorter" in length.

When my hair is down and straight, it "looks like the last couple of inches are thin, but it's just that the crown hair hasn't caught up to the nape hair (hair below my ears) yet. Also, remember that the nape hair continues to grow, it will get to WL, while the crown hair is still trying to get to MBL. I have to over trim my nape just to downplay the difference between it and the crown.

When folks say lead hair, this is what I think they mean, hence why when folks are growing out a twa, they get a mullet :lol:. Once I learned to leave my hair alone and let the crown hair catch up, i've reached longer lengths. Constantly trimming does nothing because within a few months the lower layers of hair will outpace the upper layers just based on their location on your head.
 
Kurlee, I agree with your post - varying hair lengths or "lead hairs" makes complete sense if you think about it logically. Take a child for example, my dd is 7 years old, no chemicals, minimal heat and limited mechanical handling as her hair is typically in some form of protective styling (braids and twists). When I do straighten it for a special occasion, its obvious that her hair is not even and that is because she didn't start off at birth with a blunt cut so her hair length varies depending on where it hits her body part. Her nape hair is the longest (tailbone), the row of hair directly above the nape hits her about whip length, crown hairs hit her around waist length and front hairs hits about BSL. So its not a question of lead hairs waiting for others to catch up but the fact that people's hair do not grow trying to reach a "blunt state" which is a preferred styling ideal. If you think about it, when you shed, those new hairs replacing the shed hairs will have a long time in catching up to those which have been around for years and are a quite a lot longer. Btw I do trim as needed but the goal isn't to get all the hairs to land equally at the same place as that would mean a massive hair cut (and a lot of :cry:) to get it all blunt and even. I hope this makes sense.
 
Aireen said:
View attachment 151677

I put a blue line where I would cut. Some may disagree but I would hate to have to handle my hair in an excessively delicate manner. Length doesn't even look admirable when the ends are thin. I guess I think for your friend's hair to look really good and as well as not be a hassle to maintain, I'd cut up to the blue line. Although in terms of technique when cutting, I would cut off hair gradually and observe its appearance along the way -- cutting from the first red line then observing, going up to the second red line and doing the same, until you're satisfied with the length and appearance. Sometimes by doing this technique, you'll end up cutting off less and still having it look presentable. Good luck to your friend.
Click to expand...


I would go about a quarter of an inch higher than the blue line.
 
hair4today said:
Kurlee, I agree with your post - varying hair lengths or "lead hairs" makes complete sense if you think about it logically. Take a child for example, my dd is 7 years old, no chemicals, minimal heat and limited mechanical handling as her hair is typically in some form of protective styling (braids and twists). When I do straighten it for a special occasion, its obvious that her hair is not even and that is because she didn't start off at birth with a blunt cut so her hair length varies depending on where it hits her body part. Her nape hair is the longest (tailbone), the row of hair directly above the nape hits her about whip length, crown hairs hit her around waist length and front hairs hits about BSL. So its not a question of lead hairs waiting for others to catch up but the fact that people's hair do not grow trying to reach a "blunt state" which is a preferred styling ideal. If you think about it, when you shed, those new hairs replacing the shed hairs will have a long time in catching up to those which have been around for years and are a quite a lot longer. Btw I do trim as needed but the goal isn't to get all the hairs to land equally at the same place as that would mean a massive hair cut (and a lot of :cry:) to get it all blunt and even. I hope this makes sense.
Click to expand...
kids are the best example because they usually aren;t getting trims, so you see how the hair "stacks" on top of itself.
 
i would cut at the top red line and dust every 3-4 weeks. she would need to stay on top of her conditioning and moisturizing her ends.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
How straight does transitioning hair need to be in order to get an
Replies
3
Views
867
Anacaona
Anacaona
Momesque
How Do U Dust/Trim the Back of Your Hair?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Jewell
J
S
Does your stylist cut/trim your hair wet, blowdried, or flat-ironed?
Replies
29
Views
4K
Aireen
Aireen
Fine 4s
How do you self trim?
Replies
2
Views
1K
truequeen06
truequeen06
Momesque
Do U Use Special Scissors for Dusting?
Replies
8
Views
4K
zenith
zenith
Back
Top