Re: What\'s the big deal about Cathy Howse\'s methods?
Blkmane,
I must agree with you. I think the hooplah about her methods and products are underrated - at best. Just my opinion, but there it is. /images/graemlins/cool.gif
I tried both her methods and her products for 6 months . Her methods are relatively standard, but I had to stop using the conditioner (the ready made version) after two months because IT broke my hair (I have never had a conditioner break my hair off like that). I caught it before it was a disaster, but I credit my ability to do that with knowing a bit about hair myself and understanding immediately that protein overload was the problem. I worry about the people that don't know that too much protein can be a problem, yet
continue to use her regime because they applaud her efforts, and lose their hair before it's too late. She is very dogmatic - I dislike that in a hair care "expert".
I personally feel the faultiest part of her regimen is the idea that ANYONE can care for their hair by simply using her conditioner and maintenance suggestions and grow longer stonger hair. For me, this was simply not true. I need an actual MOISTURIZING CONDITIONER after a protein treatment of any kind - and especially one as strong as Cathy's. Simply "moisturizing" the hair with mositurizer that you are to use daily after using her conditioner, and before styling, just wasn't enough for my hair. The protein in her formula dried my hair out too much and it began to break. My hair needs and actual MOISTURIZING CONDITIONER after the protein. A lot of folks' hair DO AND WILL OBJECT STRENUOSLY IF IT DOESN'T GET IT! /images/graemlins/crazy.gif
The fact that this may be true for others, and that Cathy seems to be very adament that her EXACT regimen will work for ANYONE is, to me, irresponsible. She doesn't leave much room for tailoring her regimen to the individual and wasn't very nice when I emailed her my experiences and asking for advice.
Someone mentioned above that the people who MAKE the conditioner from the recipe she published in previous editions of her book have better results. I believe this is probably true, and is the case because there are few conditioners on the market that contain the amount and type of protein that Cathy uses in her formula. Therefore, anything you use in the mix will be gentler - and gentler still if you add oils and such as the recipe requires. Not as much protein. And many ready made "reconstructors" - which is what the recipe calls for - also include moisturizing conditioners in the mixture, which probably combats some of the drying I experienced.
She should have stuck to the recipe. Marketing her sorry attempt at a conditioning product was her demise IMO. Or will be. Mark my words.
As to trimming - I tried her suggestions on that as well, against my better judgment, because I was desperate to see how long I could get my hair, and was curious to see if not trimming would help me retain more length without me having to cut too much by the end of the journey. However, for me, not trimming wasn't the answer. My hair needs a trim to maintain a certain neatness and add a level of strength to the ends. The bluner they are they easier they are to keep on my head. Even layers present a problem. I agree with her that trimming doesn't affect the roots of the hair and possibly that the hair may not split all the way up the strand as we have been taught to believe. But for my hair, that neatness and strength that trimming afforded counted enough for me to reclaim trimming as a semi-regular part of my regime. To be fair, I did realize I didn't need to trim as often as I was, but I still need to trim. I feel that her dogma on this point is simply a function of her trying to play semantics to discredit other people's views moreso than it being something she truly believes is a problem that affects black hair on the whole. Black folks are hardly known for not being able to grow hair because they trim too much - after all. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Overall, I respect her efforts but I feel her approach is faulty and onesided, and will work only for people that have exactly her hair type, texture, density and needs. Obviously, this can't work for everyone and so isn't universally pragmatic as far as hair care regimes go. When I suggested as such she said it was because my hair was type 3. And we all know how much I LOVE that assesment. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif I feel so much more goes into hair differences and similarities, that this is a simplistic way to explain my lack of success with her method. It let her off the hook a little too easily. And reveals how basic her knowledge and "research" really were. If she had built a little more flexibility into her plan, and had researched somewhere besides her won mirror, it would be more widely useful, and might even be more lucrative for her.
Cathy does not get my vote.
