-
⏰ Welcome, Guest! You are viewing only 2 out of 27 total forums. Register today to view more, then Subscribe to view all forums, submit posts, reply to posts, create new threads, view photos, access private messages, change your avatar, create a photo album, customize your profile, and possibly be selected as our next Feature of the Month.
Layers/Uneven Hair/Bangs Cause Hair to Thin & Grow Slowly???
- Thread starter Carlie
- Start date
⏳ Limited Access:
Register today to view all forum posts.
Poohbear
Fearfully Wonderfully Made
I don't agree with it. It seems more like an opinion than anything. I think once your hair has grown out of your head and you decide to layer it or cut bangs, it is not going to affect the growth. I don't think the body knows when you cut your hair because the hair is outside the body. Same with fingernails.
moneychaser
Well-Known Member
IMO, it makes your hair appear thinner
moneychaser
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with it. It seems more like an opinion than anything. I think once your hair has grown out of your head and you decide to layer it or cut bangs, it is not going to affect the growth. I don't think the body knows when you cut your hair because the hair is outside the body. Same with fingernails.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly hair is not alive, its DEAD
I don't agree with it. It seems more like an opinion than anything. I think once your hair has grown out of your head and you decide to layer it or cut bangs, it is not going to affect the growth. I don't think the body knows when you cut your hair because the hair is outside the body. Same with fingernails.
[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly hair is not alive, its DEAD
Carlie
New Member
I didn't think it was true because my hair is not all one length and it all seems to grow at about the same rate...of course I'd be happy if it grew faster (say, about 2"/mnth, lol) but I don't think it grows slow.
...but for a second I thought, is this why certain people seem to have more shedding than others? /images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif
Doesn't George Michael (the hair guy) have a similar theory?
...but for a second I thought, is this why certain people seem to have more shedding than others? /images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif
Doesn't George Michael (the hair guy) have a similar theory?
Sharpened
A fleck on His Sword
You would be correct
His words on LHL
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, Dr. Michael explained that the most important step for growing the longest, healthiest hair possible is to have hair that's all one length. That means absolutely no bangs (or "fringe", to our European friends). Dr. Michael told me, "Bangs are like worms!", which I took to mean they're a pretty bad thing. Fortunately, he explained what he meant.
"Hair is not at its strongest with bangs or layers," Dr. Michael said. "Because humans are mammals, nature will try to equalize the hair by excessively shedding in order to even out all the shorter hairs. This creates an abnormal loss of hair which leads to unhealthy, straggly locks."
Dr. Michael also explained that people, especially women, with blunt-cut long hair have the strongest, healthiest hair possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
His words on LHL
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, Dr. Michael explained that the most important step for growing the longest, healthiest hair possible is to have hair that's all one length. That means absolutely no bangs (or "fringe", to our European friends). Dr. Michael told me, "Bangs are like worms!", which I took to mean they're a pretty bad thing. Fortunately, he explained what he meant.
"Hair is not at its strongest with bangs or layers," Dr. Michael said. "Because humans are mammals, nature will try to equalize the hair by excessively shedding in order to even out all the shorter hairs. This creates an abnormal loss of hair which leads to unhealthy, straggly locks."
Dr. Michael also explained that people, especially women, with blunt-cut long hair have the strongest, healthiest hair possible.
[/ QUOTE ]
Carlie
New Member
Re: You would be correct
Since this is supposed to be the time for "seasonal" shedding ---
In that article Nymphe posted, the quote George Micheal mentioned about shedding is making me kinda nervous: [ QUOTE ]
"Hair is not at its strongest with bangs or layers," Dr. Michael said. "Because humans are mammals, nature will try to equalize the hair by excessively shedding in order to even out all the shorter hairs. This creates an abnormal loss of hair which leads to unhealthy, straggly locks."
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm just gonna have to rebuke that quote and speak only positive things to my hair! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Since this is supposed to be the time for "seasonal" shedding ---
In that article Nymphe posted, the quote George Micheal mentioned about shedding is making me kinda nervous: [ QUOTE ]
"Hair is not at its strongest with bangs or layers," Dr. Michael said. "Because humans are mammals, nature will try to equalize the hair by excessively shedding in order to even out all the shorter hairs. This creates an abnormal loss of hair which leads to unhealthy, straggly locks."
[/ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm just gonna have to rebuke that quote and speak only positive things to my hair! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Mahalialee4
New Member
Re: You would be correct
Curious. Is grass dead? Whole grains? or does it only communicate through effect? How can you tell if a plant, leaves or flowers are alive or dead? I do not think my hair is dead as long as it has not fallen out of my head or fried out to a crisp and blows off my head and away in the wind. Just my opinion. Bonjour
Curious. Is grass dead? Whole grains? or does it only communicate through effect? How can you tell if a plant, leaves or flowers are alive or dead? I do not think my hair is dead as long as it has not fallen out of my head or fried out to a crisp and blows off my head and away in the wind. Just my opinion. Bonjour
alliyah4eva203
Active Member
there might be some truth to it. years ago when i accidently set half of my hair on fire(my hair was out, the fire on the stove was on and i was bending down to get something in the oven and poof. it was on fire for a good 3-5 seconds. plenty of time to do some damage). whoever said that hair was highly flammable was not lying. any way one half of my hair got burnt down to about 2 inches. the other half(where the flames did'nt touch ws about 6-7 inches. within a year the burnt side had grown back fully to catch up with the other half. thats about 4 inches while the other half had hardly grown at all.
i did'nt know anything about hair care then so i was'nt retaining any length. the unburnt half only grew about 1-2 inches.
now someone explain that to me.
i did'nt know anything about hair care then so i was'nt retaining any length. the unburnt half only grew about 1-2 inches.
now someone explain that to me.
FlowerHair
Reclaiming my time
My conclusion: Since all hair is not even at any point in time (unless ALL of your hair grew out at the same time and shed at the same time) this theory must be wrong.
Tracy
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
there might be some truth to it. years ago when i accidently set half of my hair on fire(my hair was out, the fire on the stove was on and i was bending down to get something in the oven and poof. it was on fire for a good 3-5 seconds. plenty of time to do some damage). whoever said that hair was highly flammable was not lying. any way one half of my hair got burnt down to about 2 inches. the other half(where the flames did'nt touch ws about 6-7 inches. within a year the burnt side had grown back fully to catch up with the other half. thats about 4 inches while the other half had hardly grown at all.
i did'nt know anything about hair care then so i was'nt retaining any length. the unburnt half only grew about 1-2 inches.
now someone explain that to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, your experience would tend to contradict the theory in question, then.
This theory very specifically posits that hair that is somehow "shortened" while the rest of the hair stays longer will cause the long hair to shed. NOT the other way around - I think George Michael even specifically clarified this on his site (or it may have been LHL that I saw the theory discussed in detail - I forget) that the hair will not be caused to GROW faster, and the the shorter hair can not and WILL not grow to catch the longer hair. The theory is specific - the hair that is cut shorter will cause the longer hairs to SHED. Your hair not shedding after the incident with the fire is proof positive that at least on YOU, the theory doesn't hold up.
there might be some truth to it. years ago when i accidently set half of my hair on fire(my hair was out, the fire on the stove was on and i was bending down to get something in the oven and poof. it was on fire for a good 3-5 seconds. plenty of time to do some damage). whoever said that hair was highly flammable was not lying. any way one half of my hair got burnt down to about 2 inches. the other half(where the flames did'nt touch ws about 6-7 inches. within a year the burnt side had grown back fully to catch up with the other half. thats about 4 inches while the other half had hardly grown at all.
i did'nt know anything about hair care then so i was'nt retaining any length. the unburnt half only grew about 1-2 inches.
now someone explain that to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, your experience would tend to contradict the theory in question, then.
This theory very specifically posits that hair that is somehow "shortened" while the rest of the hair stays longer will cause the long hair to shed. NOT the other way around - I think George Michael even specifically clarified this on his site (or it may have been LHL that I saw the theory discussed in detail - I forget) that the hair will not be caused to GROW faster, and the the shorter hair can not and WILL not grow to catch the longer hair. The theory is specific - the hair that is cut shorter will cause the longer hairs to SHED. Your hair not shedding after the incident with the fire is proof positive that at least on YOU, the theory doesn't hold up.
Carlie
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there might be some truth to it. years ago when i accidently set half of my hair on fire(my hair was out, the fire on the stove was on and i was bending down to get something in the oven and poof. it was on fire for a good 3-5 seconds. plenty of time to do some damage). whoever said that hair was highly flammable was not lying. any way one half of my hair got burnt down to about 2 inches. the other half(where the flames did'nt touch ws about 6-7 inches. within a year the burnt side had grown back fully to catch up with the other half. thats about 4 inches while the other half had hardly grown at all.
i did'nt know anything about hair care then so i was'nt retaining any length. the unburnt half only grew about 1-2 inches.
now someone explain that to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, your experience would tend to contradict the theory in question, then.
This theory very specifically posits that hair that is somehow "shortened" while the rest of the hair stays longer will cause the long hair to shed. NOT the other way around - I think George Michael even specifically clarified this on his site (or it may have been LHL that I saw the theory discussed in detail - I forget) that the hair will not be caused to GROW faster, and the the shorter hair can not and WILL not grow to catch the longer hair. The theory is specific - the hair that is cut shorter will cause the longer hairs to SHED. Your hair not shedding after the incident with the fire is proof positive that at least on YOU, the theory doesn't hold up.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was just about to point out that same thing. /images/graemlins/up.gif
Alliyah4eva203, I'm sorry you had to go through such an ordeal. But I thank God that the fire left you w. at least 2 inches of hair. You are really blessed that your hair was able to grow back. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
[ QUOTE ]
there might be some truth to it. years ago when i accidently set half of my hair on fire(my hair was out, the fire on the stove was on and i was bending down to get something in the oven and poof. it was on fire for a good 3-5 seconds. plenty of time to do some damage). whoever said that hair was highly flammable was not lying. any way one half of my hair got burnt down to about 2 inches. the other half(where the flames did'nt touch ws about 6-7 inches. within a year the burnt side had grown back fully to catch up with the other half. thats about 4 inches while the other half had hardly grown at all.
i did'nt know anything about hair care then so i was'nt retaining any length. the unburnt half only grew about 1-2 inches.
now someone explain that to me.
[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, your experience would tend to contradict the theory in question, then.
This theory very specifically posits that hair that is somehow "shortened" while the rest of the hair stays longer will cause the long hair to shed. NOT the other way around - I think George Michael even specifically clarified this on his site (or it may have been LHL that I saw the theory discussed in detail - I forget) that the hair will not be caused to GROW faster, and the the shorter hair can not and WILL not grow to catch the longer hair. The theory is specific - the hair that is cut shorter will cause the longer hairs to SHED. Your hair not shedding after the incident with the fire is proof positive that at least on YOU, the theory doesn't hold up.
[/ QUOTE ]
I was just about to point out that same thing. /images/graemlins/up.gif
Alliyah4eva203, I'm sorry you had to go through such an ordeal. But I thank God that the fire left you w. at least 2 inches of hair. You are really blessed that your hair was able to grow back. /images/graemlins/smile.gif
SherryLove
Active Member
yeah right.......my hair has always grown at an unevenly fast rate....... /images/graemlins/rofl.gif /images/graemlins/rofl.gif
model_chick717
New Member
I don't agree with that article, either. I've had bangs and layers my hair still grew at the same rate...
ms_kenesha
New Member
Another whole in this theory is this. When all hairs on your head are the same length it appears to be layered because of the different points on your head where your hair is growing. A blunt cut has the longest portions of your hair on top and the shortest on the bottom so they can all reach the same point, say bra-strap..for your hair to be bluntly bra-strap the hair on your nape would have to be like a foot (depending on how tall you are), but the hair on your crown would have to be at least 6 inches longer than the nape hair to reach bra-strap.
I'm doing a little experiment to see how fast different areas on my head grow because my hair is all the same length now, 3-4", and my hair is neck length on my nape and not even past my eyebrows in front (damn big forehead) /images/graemlins/lachen70.gif
I'm doing a little experiment to see how fast different areas on my head grow because my hair is all the same length now, 3-4", and my hair is neck length on my nape and not even past my eyebrows in front (damn big forehead) /images/graemlins/lachen70.gif
I have had bangs at several points and my hair has always grown in layers and besides that, I have had it cut into layers several times. I've never noticed any increased shedding because of it, and my growth rate never changed.
Even when my bangs and shorter layers caught up, I had the same predetermined growth rate.
Even when my bangs and shorter layers caught up, I had the same predetermined growth rate.
See this NEVER made sense to me. They say to do a blunt cut to promote faster growth BUT hair growing out in NATURAL layers is in fact EVEN hair (to me anyways). If my hair is 12" in front and 12" in back isn't that the same??? But, in fact to look at it on my head...it'll look layered. I dunno...makes no sense to me.
Poohbear
Fearfully Wonderfully Made
I think each area of where your hair grows has a predetermined growth rate. I remember before I ever had a relaxer and before I ever had a hair cut that my edges and kitchen area was shorter than the rest of your hair. So starting out, your hair is never ALL the same length...even when you are a baby you have more hair on the top or crown area of your head. I do not think your body is looking for a balance in having the same length of your hair in order for it to grow faster. Hair just grows out at different rates whether its in the front or back of your head or whether that piece of hair is long or short. /images/graemlins/antlers.gif
And here's a fact that I found about the active-growth phase of hair:
This protein strand (the hair you comb or brush) is not living tissue. The only living parts of hair are the cells within the hair follicle in the skin. /images/graemlins/up.gif
And here's a fact that I found about the active-growth phase of hair:
This protein strand (the hair you comb or brush) is not living tissue. The only living parts of hair are the cells within the hair follicle in the skin. /images/graemlins/up.gif
Carlie
New Member
[ QUOTE ]
Another whole in this theory is this. When all hairs on your head are the same length it appears to be layered because of the different points on your head where your hair is growing. A blunt cut has the longest portions of your hair on top and the shortest on the bottom so they can all reach the same point, say bra-strap..for your hair to be bluntly bra-strap the hair on your nape would have to be like a foot (depending on how tall you are), but the hair on your crown would have to be at least 6 inches longer than the nape hair to reach bra-strap.
I'm doing a little experiment to see how fast different areas on my head grow because my hair is all the same length now, 3-4", and my hair is neck length on my nape and not even past my eyebrows in front (damn big forehead) /images/graemlins/lachen70.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
True, when hair is all one length when combed back, it's like having reversed layers. Maybe, a rapid hair growth hormone triggers in the body when all of the ends touch? /images/graemlins/rofl.gif
Another whole in this theory is this. When all hairs on your head are the same length it appears to be layered because of the different points on your head where your hair is growing. A blunt cut has the longest portions of your hair on top and the shortest on the bottom so they can all reach the same point, say bra-strap..for your hair to be bluntly bra-strap the hair on your nape would have to be like a foot (depending on how tall you are), but the hair on your crown would have to be at least 6 inches longer than the nape hair to reach bra-strap.
I'm doing a little experiment to see how fast different areas on my head grow because my hair is all the same length now, 3-4", and my hair is neck length on my nape and not even past my eyebrows in front (damn big forehead) /images/graemlins/lachen70.gif
[/ QUOTE ]
True, when hair is all one length when combed back, it's like having reversed layers. Maybe, a rapid hair growth hormone triggers in the body when all of the ends touch? /images/graemlins/rofl.gif
Carlie
New Member
Hmmm../images/graemlins/scratchchin.gif I was waiting for someone w. an even blunt cut to post that 1"/mnth was normal for them (w/o vitamins) and that they only shed 1 hair/yr. /images/graemlins/lachen70.gif
Well, I guess majority wins in this post! {Thanks Ladies /images/graemlins/wink.gif} George Micheal obviously doesn't have a clue! /images/graemlins/grin.gif
Well, I guess majority wins in this post! {Thanks Ladies /images/graemlins/wink.gif} George Micheal obviously doesn't have a clue! /images/graemlins/grin.gif
SouthernGirl
New Member
Funny this article was mentioned because I've been debating about cutting bangs to have a change in lieu of layers. I think it has helped to deter me from cutting them now, but I don't know that agree with the "balance and growth rate" theory.
I do agree with what she said about the blunt cut, which is why I cut my hair that way.
SG
I do agree with what she said about the blunt cut, which is why I cut my hair that way.
SG
SouthernGirl
New Member
Hey Carlie /images/graemlins/wave.gif,
When I did the blunt cut several months ago, I cut about 4 inches off so I got rid of lots of split ends and unevenness. Doing this definitely helped with the shedding because I put an end to the raggedy ends, but I'm not sure about the faster growth. My hair still sheds occasionally, but cutting improved the overall condition of it. I'm not one of those that believes cutting your hair makes it grow faster, but keeping it trimmed (split ends), in my opinion, keeps it looking healthy so your growth is more visible. I believe growth happens based on how you take care of your hair (vits, handling, hair products, etc.), but since I relax and my hair is thinner now, the blunt cut makes it look thicker.
Hope that helps!!
SG
When I did the blunt cut several months ago, I cut about 4 inches off so I got rid of lots of split ends and unevenness. Doing this definitely helped with the shedding because I put an end to the raggedy ends, but I'm not sure about the faster growth. My hair still sheds occasionally, but cutting improved the overall condition of it. I'm not one of those that believes cutting your hair makes it grow faster, but keeping it trimmed (split ends), in my opinion, keeps it looking healthy so your growth is more visible. I believe growth happens based on how you take care of your hair (vits, handling, hair products, etc.), but since I relax and my hair is thinner now, the blunt cut makes it look thicker.
Hope that helps!!
SG
