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

[irisak]

My hair tends to look like that at a certain length too. Couple that with a natural v shape and trim by a stylist could be a nightmare. Now I dust I just never thought of it as dusting. I dust everyone's hair when I trim them lol. Dusting has made my ends maintain their fullness better do I do see where Nonie is coming from. And in the picture used as a lead hair example her progress pic looks slightly shorter to me also.
Eta: to answer the original op I would cut to the second red line initially then section the hair and trim as needed.

Sent from my HTC EVO using LHCF. any spelling errors should be blamed on auto-correct.

 

[silenttullip]

thanks Nonie I never knew they didn't exist.

 

[Lurkee]

Nonie, do you have link to a post on how to dust. I know some naturals dust by snipping little ends off their twists but I am relaxed. I think I need a trim too. Do you suggest trimming first then start dusting on a schedule or to slowly dust my bad ends away.

TIA

 

[melissa-bee]

LOL, Nonie goes HARD.

I still believe in lead hairs. I've seen a at least 2 other example in this forum. Including the one that was posted further down from my post. And one wear the the sides had a growth spurt and caught up with the tail and that one didn't have thin ends either. We can't just assume that these people are having breakage.

 

[Lilmama1011]

Lead hairs makes sense to me, our hair don't grow at the same rate but can't determine if it's breakage unless I see her actually comb

 

[Nonie]

Nonie, do you have link to a post on how to dust. I know some naturals dust by snipping little ends off their twists but I am relaxed. I think I need a trim too. Do you suggest trimming first then start dusting on a schedule or to slowly dust my bad ends away.

TIA

Hi Lurkee

I don't have a link but if I were relaxed and did not trust anyone to give me a dusting, I would put my hair in small braids and then trim off a tiny bit from the ends. The smaller the braids the better control you have to dust and not affect the overall appearance of your hair.

I believe in getting a trim first if it has been a while since you dusted or if you never have because hair does wear and tear as time passes, the oldest part (ends) being the ones with most wear. The finer your hair is, the more easily it wears and becomes breakage prone and hanging onto damage just allows it to affect more of your hair and cost you retention. So yes, get a trim then maintain your ends with regular dusting from then on. Since the trim is bigger than the dustings you will be doing, I would have it done professionally. To be on the safe side, I would take someone with me to be an extra pair of eyes to make sure they don't cut more than you ask--and I would ask for a little less than I need but not by much. That way if they are scissor happy, you may get just the trim you needed and start with healthy ends.

How long betwwn dustings depends on the individual but since 6-8 weeks is the suggested schedule I started with that and then settled for 8 weeks. The thing to remember is the longer the time between dustings the more time microscopic splits have had time to grow so to get them off you needed a bigger trim. So the sooner you dust, the more at peace you can be taking off a tiny bit coz split--which are inevitable in all hair--have not had a chance to grow. You dust them off when too small to be visible and you may never see them.

Make sure your scissors are sharp and only used for hair, and then seal and PS those healthy ends. If you only retain 4 inches a year from doing this it will be a healthy 4 inches which will show beautifully. And it may be as much as you retained when not dusting anyway, only then your strands had wear that they won't have this time so no trimming will be necessary. The other plus will be that your ends will not tangle as much as they do when they have splits. A very dilute ACV rinse at the end of your wash--so dilute that one can't tell by looking that you have anything in the water except for the faint smell of ACV--will further help in giving smooth strands that are not tangle prone.

 

[DaiseeDay]

Her hair looks thin, but I don't see split ends going up to even the first line.

It's hard to tell, I'd cut to the first line and see how it looks after that to decide if I want to cut further.

 

[irisak]

Hi @Lurkee

I don't have a link but if I were relaxed and did not trust anyone to give me a dusting, I would put my hair in small braids and then trim off a tiny bit from the ends. The smaller the braids the better control you have to dust and not affect the overall appearance of your hair.

I believe in getting a trim first if it has been a while since you dusted or if you never have because hair does wear and tear as time passes, the oldest part (ends) being the ones with most wear. The finer your hair is, the more easily it wears and becomes breakage prone and hanging onto damage just allows it to affect more of your hair and cost you retention. So yes, get a trim then maintain your ends with regular dusting from then on. Since the trim is bigger than the dustings you will be doing, I would have it done professionally. To be on the safe side, I would take someone with me to be an extra pair of eyes to make sure they don't cut more than you ask--and I would ask for a little less than I need but not by much. That way if they are scissor happy, you may get just the trim you needed and start with healthy ends.

How long betwwn dustings depends on the individual but since 6-8 weeks is the suggested schedule I started with that and then settled for 8 weeks. The thing to remember is the longer the time between dustings the more time microscopic splits have had time to grow so to get them off you needed a bigger trim. So the sooner you dust, the more at peace you can be taking off a tiny bit coz split--which are inevitable in all hair--have not had a chance to grow. You dust them off when too small to be visible and you may never see them.

Make sure your scissors are sharp and only used for hair, and then seal and PS those healthy ends. If you only retain 4 inches a year from doing this it will be a healthy 4 inches which will show beautifully. And it may be as much as you retained when not dusting anyway, only then your strands had wear that they won't have this time so no trimming will be necessary. The other plus will be that your ends will not tangle as much as they do when they have splits. A very dilute ACV rinse at the end of your wash--so dilute that one can't tell by looking that you have anything in the water except for the faint smell of ACV--will further help in giving smooth strands that are not tangle prone.

Do you recommend dusting on as stringent of a schedule if you PS 99.2% of the time or do you think there is more wiggle room?

 

[Keen]

Trimming is a temporary solution. Without proper hair care, the person will be back to thin ends again. I can testify to that.

 

[KhandiB]

ALL-A-DIS!!!

My hair started looking like that a few months ago, I chopped that mess off, health before length!

There is no such thing as lead hairs.

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.

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.

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? 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.

 

[MyInvisibleChyrsalis]

Have I ever said how much I love Lhcf? Cuz I does. Carry on

 

[MotionThickness]

Nonie

You ALWAYS back up what you say. I love that!

Here are the photos again:

OK, first of all, while I know it's very difficult to take progress photos that are good comparison, I would like to point out that the second photo in this set is an enlarged version of the first photo. How do I know this? There is a porcelain throne aka toilet in front of model so my guess is she's standing at more or less the same spot in both photos, but notice the size of the mirror that is in front of her in the first photo compared to the mirror in the second photo. What's more, notice how small her mid-section looks in the first photo vs the second enlarged photo. And one last thing is her head in the first photo is closer to the top of the frame than the second photo...so while shoulders seem to be level, we're looking at lengths that cannot be compared coz one is starts from higher than the other so you'd not see the difference in length as you would if both heads were on the same level.

While I don't claim to be able to create a perfect comparison set, below I post the same images and then immediately below I show how I shrunk the second photo a touch to get the model to be about the same size she is in the first photo. She still looks a touch bigger if you look at her mid-section but it's close. I also moved her up a bit so that the top of her head in the second image is sort of on the same level as first image. (Now I know some of you will ask about her shoulder to our right in second pic that appears higher than that in the first pic. That's because she's raised that shoulder higher. If you look at her left shoulder on both pics, they are at the exact same level. You can see the emphasis in the raise of right shoulder in the second pic in the slight lean of her torso to the left in the same pic)

Now here are the things to notice in the two photos at the bottom:


[*]First of all, I don't see thicker hair in the second pic than in the first. in fact all I see is strands that were spread out before being pushed toghether to create the illusion of no fullness. This is pretty obvious if you look at how the width of the hair reduced by about 1/3-2/5. To see this another way, in the first image the width of the hair below APL is wider than it is at the ear or camera level because the hair is spread out. In the second photo, the hair below APL is as wide as the hair at cam or ear level because the strands have been pushed closer together.
[*].
[*]Do you notice in the original photos where her waist is? You can see an outward curve after her waist in the both original photos. Her long hairs are about her camera height away from the waist in the first image, but notice, they are not the hairs in the middle only...but hairs on the side too. If anything, she appears not to have a V in her hair growth there. It's either nape hairs all at the same length across the spectrum and so falling to that near waist length...or she has ends that could use a tiny trim so that they don't break off.
[*].
[*]Now I just pointed out in the last point how the hairs on the outside were about as long as the hairs in the middle. I don't see the phenomenon that @Kurlee and I are talking about where the sides are shorter than the nape hairs in that first image. If anything I see hair all falling to more or less the same length in the first image. But in the second image, the sides seem to be so much shorter. While previously the hairs on the side were a camera height away from the waist, they are now 2 camera heights away. They didn't catch up; they broke off and are much shorter.
[*].
[*]But what about the center section? It is still long so does that mean that middle hair did not break like the sides? No, it doesn't mean that at all. You see, if you don't try to even out your hair to fall to the same length, the nape will always hang longer than the sides because the hairs at the nape are planted at a lower point on your head than the hair say by your ears. So the shape you see is what I would expect from someone (like me) who isn't trying to get hair to fall to the same length but keeping all the strands say at 11 inches or at 20 inches or whatever. Sadly, that middle section too did indeed break off just like the sides. And do you know how I know? Because between April 2010 and Sept 2010, hair growing at a perfect rate should be at least 3 inches longer. But since it's not a perfect world and wear and tear occurs, we should at least see about 2 inches or so in that time. So those middle hairs should be at waist now. But that hair appears not to have budged because it broke off just like the sides.
[*].
[*]The reason the sides broke off more is because hair on your head experiences the same trauma as you wash, condition, etc. So let's say you're starting off with one inch of hair all over. All those strands go through the same washing, styling, cold, hot experiences together. As months go by, that inch that started the journey will have been taken through the wringer. It will be the same age all around and it will be on the ends of your hair. As your hair gets to SL, the nape will hit shoulders first and so start to experience friction first. If you're bunning or trimming to even hair out, this will not be a problem and you may not even notice it, because you will cut off the damaged nape hairs or bunning will keep them from getting damaged and breaking off quickly. I don't know which of these the model in the photos was doing but clearly her hair was all falling to the same length as if she'd been cutting it that way before April 2010. Now remember, when you cut hair to fall to the same length, the hair at the nape gets a good cut so all damage is removed and that area will have the healthiest strands coz you cut off most of the old hair. The side get a trim too but the ends will be older than the nape hair since you leave longer hair there which has been around for a while when cutting to have hair fall to the same length.

So what happened IMO is the sides broke off by the time Sept came along to the point that was as old as the nape hair left is. In other words, think of the one inch that started the fictional journey I mentioned above. Either it had been cut off to even out the hair from the nape before April 2010 or gradual friction from SL length caused nape hair to be weakened so that that old hair broke off on its own. The sides which were higher were still holding onto those old ends but they were weak from age and in time due wear, they too broke off...so that she now has hairs that are the same length all around and which now fall to different lengths.

Think of how I keep saying that dusting stops hairs from tearing up the stands and breaking off on their own. Me thinks because the model didn't nip that tearing up the strands, the hair just tore up to where it was strongest and then the weaker ends broke off to give natural layers where she now REALLY has the lead hairs that Kurlee was talmbout. But hair didn't budge in length but rather she lost some length on the sides.

 

[Your Cheeziness]

I vote blue line chop. I don't believe in the lead hair theory. I prefer not to have unsightly ends (split, or not), so I vote cut. Her hair does not look healthy to me, whether split or not.

 

[dyh080]

Thank God (in advance) for Nonie. She certainly convinced me of the importance of dusting fine hair. I recently cut off damaged ends last week and will be dusting on schedule. I can't wait to report on the results.

I think it was the photos of invisible split ends that finally convinced me that she knew what she was talking about.

She has given an exhaustive explanation not only in this thread but in others. Definitely more than I would have because after a certain point of trying to help people and being barraged with disbelief, I let them go.

 

[Nonie]

Do you recommend dusting on as stringent of a schedule if you PS 99.2% of the time or do you think there is more wiggle room?

@irisak, I think if you PS, you have more wiggle room, but people like Wanakee who PSed all the time still kept to a stringent schedule of trimming every 6-8 weeks. So I think it's one of those things where you can play it by ear and see what works for you.

Adrienne0914 who had waist length hair in the early days of my membership on LHCF used to PS most of the week and wear her hair down one of those days, IIRC. So you can use trial and error and see what works. The good thing is, if you find out you made a mistake not dusting on a strict schedule, you can correct that with a trim and just be more meticulous next time. At least it's not the end of the world if you try one thing and it doesn't work.

Another thing you could do is be meticulous while trying to reach a length goal and then try out the wiggle room when you have a length you're happy with. At least you know will know then, should your experiment fails and you have a setback, that you can/are able to achieve that length again and not despair, yanno?

In case you haven't read Yvette's story, it's a very inspiring one about sacrificing "fun" for a great celebration later on. Check it out: http://www.longhaircareforum.com/showthread.php?t=5635

 

[Nonie]

Her hair looks thin, but I don't see split ends going up to even the first line.

It's hard to tell, I'd cut to the first line and see how it looks after that to decide if I want to cut further.

@DaiseeDay, split ends are not always visible. Sometimes you don't even see them because some arms of the split break off and leave a single arm that you would not be able to tell w/o magnifying it x(a large number) that it is split hair missing some of its mass.

Haven't you ever seen this image below I once posted which appeared to show a full lock and then a split one?

First of all, if we didn't have the thicker strand to the left and all we had was the one on the right and if the tiny branched out arm on the right lock was missing, we'd not be able to tell that the bottom part of the backward facing C to the right was split. It would look whole because once the arm breaks off, we see just what looks like a "whole single strand". Without a way of measuring the diameter of all strands along their entire length, we couldn't be sure if what we are SEEING is split hair (meaning one that's lost part of its whole) or not. This is why I think Search and Destroy is a futile task...coz unless you're measuring the diameter of the strands from base to ends with a vernier caliper and unless you're looking at each of 100K+ strands, you will not be able to know what's split and what's not and you will not be able to get rid of damage but will leave a lot of it behind after wasting hours staring at what your eyes cannot see.

Anyway, since we have the strand to the right and it is clearly thicker, it's pretty easy to tell which one is split just by looking: the one to the right has lost some mass and is clearly, not only split (as seen from the arm) but part of the split has broken off hence why that arm is short (leaving the lower end thinner than the top part before the split). And if that tiny arm broke off, it would not change the fact that we'd be looking at a damaged hair.

Now this is where it gets interesting. Believe it or not, the strand on the left is also damaged. Indeed, I cheated by "erasing" the split arm of that lock to make the point that just coz hair doesn't have a fork that clearly screams "SPLIT END!" doesn't mean it's a healthy strand. Below is the original image untouched:

All I did in the first image is remove the top arm of the split in the lock on the left. I didn't fatten the bottom arm of the split. I just left it as it was. But do you see that the naked eye couldn't tell that it wasn't a full strand or end? So how can anyone claim by looking at strands that they can tell they are not split when hair strands are so skinny that if they lost 1/10 of their mass or even 50% it wouldn't even be obvious?

Splits start off so small that you would need a magnifying glass to see them or the thin hair left after they fall off. In fact the image of the ugly split shown below is that of a section of a hair is so tiny that it'd fit into a space that is 1/10th of this line -

​

So if splits look so ugly at such a small scale, how much worse must they be when they get to a size your eye can see? Clearly those skinny arms will break off like dust and not even be seen disappearing coz they are so tiny. So by the time you see thin ends, the damage is so far gone.

Hence the reason I say, don't WAIT to see splits; dust before you see them because when you do, you don't allow the damage to stick around long enough to cost you. For as long as your hair is organic, wear and tear is inevitable and it will happen faster for some than others. So aim to keep this wear to a minimum by striking while the iron is hot. In other words, think PREVENTION not CURE because the cure may cost you dearly. And if you dust early enough then you can trust the damage is still at a small scale and feel at peace taking off a tiny amount that you won't miss.


​

 

[leona2025]

I can't say what other people's hair do. I can't provide you guys with an essay on hair strands and growth patterns, so I can just talk about my hair and my experiences. I've been growing my hair out since 2008. I've cut, watched, trimmed, damaged, dusted, melted off, conditioned, and stopped conditioning.

So I know MY hair. I know that my bangs and sides grow faster than my nape and crown. I know that no matter what time of the year it is I don't get growth spurts. I've had what appeared to be thin ends. I cut them back. My hair grew back out with the same natural V. I know what breakage is also. So no one can tell me that my lead hairs broke off to the point that they were the exact same length as my shorter hairs.

I believe in lead hairs and they believe in me, lol..

Also I now know the difference between thin ends, split ends, and damaged crunchy ends. I've had them all. In my opinion if ends are healthy and not damaged the only reason to cut them would be because you want because you like the way they look.

 

[summerof1990]

Wow this was so long ago

 

[CodeRed]

I remember this thread. Nonie used to back her ish up with pictures, science and thorough explanations while everyone else was just like "XYZ is true because in my theory it should be so let me tell you what I think". Good times

 

[beingofserenity]

This has convinced me to start trimming/dusting on a schedule.

 

[lilikoi]

@CodeRed I totally agree. I really miss @Nonie and her logical, data-backed posts.

@summerof1990 Thank you for reviving this classic LHCF golden oldie. Good times,good times!

I'm just here cracking up about how that last post was a total conversation stopper. Lol!

 

[lilikoi]

P.S. And LOL at all those saying "cut above the blue!" About someone else's hair...they're likely the same people who post "evil scissor happy stylist gave me a haircut when I just wanted a trim boohoo!"

 

[charmtreese]

P.S. And LOL and all those saying "cut above the blue!" About someone else's hair...they're likely the same people who post "evil scissor happy stylist gave me a haircut when I just wanted a trim boohoo!"

I was thinking the same thing. People go hard when it's somebody else's hair! Let it be their hair and it's a whole different story. Same person that said cut above the blue line would be like "I'm just going to protein treat and wait for the new moon to dust".

 

[GGsKin]

I was thinking the same thing. People go hard when it's somebody else's hair! Let it be their hair and it's a whole different story. Same person that said cut above the blue line would be like "I'm just going to protein treat and wait for the new moon to dust".

 

[happycakes]

Remember that hairs on our head grows at different rates. While it may appear that her hair is thinning at the ends, it not be the case. It may be lead hairs.

Look for split ends (that look like tree branches), otherwise I would cut off 1/2 and tell her to do protective styles and come back for another trim in 3 months.

I had the same problem and my then stylist trimmed off 3 inches and I was just devastated. I was very close to waist length. I haven't gone back to her since for a trim.

To maintain healthy ends, I have my ends checked every 3 months. And because I am practicing protective styling and finger detangling, I only need about 1/8 trimmed off.

Good luck and thanks for sharing!