PDA

View Full Version : Long Hair Good for Follicles!



mellie
September 26th, 2008, 09:08 PM
I found this study when I was researching copper peptides for hair, but this quote is especially interesting:

http://www.skinbiology.com/2004RussiaHairRemodeling.html

Dr. George Michael (founder of the George Michael Long Hair Clinics) emphasized that longer hair is healthier hair. It is possible that hair follicles require some tension produced by the weight of a heavy hair shaft in the same manner that muscles and bones whither when not stressed and exercised. Michael remembered that, in the Russia of his youth, women in their sixties often had healthy, waist-length hair. Later, when he worked in New York City, he found that virtually no women of this age possessed such healthy hair.

Lady Jane
September 26th, 2008, 09:23 PM
How interesting! I've heard that about bones in older people, that weight bearing exercise increases bone density and such but I wouldn't have guessed it applied to hair! The things you learn on LHC . . .

nappywomyn
September 26th, 2008, 09:44 PM
Interesting. That would also seem to indicate that overall, the longer you have long hair, the longer it can get.

Did most of the people who have world record length hair have long hair from very young, I wonder? I also wonder if that's why sometimes after a long stall, your hair will start growing again? I wonder if scalp massages assist that too, since your often gently tugging on your hair. And wasn't there a study that showed that gentle hairpulling helped it grow faster? Hrm, that sounds like an old wives tale. :lol:

Most interesting.

Teazel
September 26th, 2008, 10:12 PM
Brushing would give your hair follicles a work-out, too. :hmm:

But does anyone else automatically discount an article with spelling errors (muscles and bones whither), or is that just me?

Delila
September 26th, 2008, 10:41 PM
... But does anyone else automatically discount an article with spelling errors (muscles and bones whither), or is that just me?

Not just you, LOL!

I'm just glad I don't make my living as a writer, watching for typos must be such a struggle.

kittymomma
September 26th, 2008, 10:51 PM
YES! YES! I'm a technical training editor, and these types of errors, esp. in MEDICAL articles, really discredit the author/publisher for me.

But then again, I can't read a novel anymore and enjoy it. :rolleyes:

Slug Yoga
September 27th, 2008, 02:11 AM
Hehe, yeah, I've worked as a copyeditor for medical publications, and just because someone is highly educated in medicine or science doesn't mean they're good with writing. That's what I tell myself, that they're competent in their field and I'm competent in mine.

Until someone, say, doesn't see the difference between using "and" and "or." Then I get scared, because that's an important distinction!

Nat242
September 27th, 2008, 02:33 AM
<snip>
Until someone, say, doesn't see the difference between using "and" and "or." Then I get scared, because that's an important distinction!

Useless fact: Actually, where I live, a judge made a ruling that "and" could actually mean "or".

So when your law professor tells you to do an assignment focusing on statutory or case law, she means *and* case law. I learned the hard way :rolleyes: ;)

Teazel
September 27th, 2008, 02:53 AM
Oh, well, I'm glad I'm not the only one. Formal written English should be correct, after all....
Sorry, mellie; my question seems to have derailed the thread a bit. :o

sapphire-o
September 27th, 2008, 05:47 AM
So is that why my hair's terminal length is not great? I never had long hair until my 30s? Maybe if I pulled it everyday it'd grow longer? :) Sorry but I just have trouble believing that guy's various hair theories.

mellie
September 27th, 2008, 06:07 AM
I believe it is a Russian article that has been translated, so it's actually a wonder that it makes any sense at all, LOL! :-)

ChloeDharma
September 27th, 2008, 06:44 AM
Yes it say's it's a translation so the mistakes could probably be blamed on whoever translated it as opposed to meaning the research is crap.
I remember reading that about GM's theory on hair length years ago.....kind of interesting, i think i read it used in an article on brushing hair to argue that it benefited hair growth.
In a weird way i can see how it *could* make sense, but i can also see how it could be seen as a bit far fetched....though i quite like far fetched ideas personally :p
Actually i have a friend who said she thought that the reason her hair grows so long easily is because she's always kept hers long.....quite depressing for me as my hair has never been longer than a bit below shoulderlength until my mid 20's. Funnily enough (now i'm thinking of people i know) my sister who has kept her hair long most of her life has fast growing thick hair and my other sister who cut her hair short as a teenager has much thinner hair that would be harder to grow. Probably no link in reality but it just goes with the theory.

akka naeda
September 27th, 2008, 06:58 AM
I don't think it's true. I had BSL hair until 7, pixie until 13, BSL until 16, shaved until 20 (or so...) after which I grew it out, and right now it is knee and carrying on happily. So if you take my age into account I've had "long" hair for less than half my life.

George Michael is the guy who reckons you can't have a fringe because it causes the rest of your hair growth to slow down doesn't he? That doesn't apply to me either. I wonder how much truth there is in what he says?

winter_star
September 27th, 2008, 07:01 AM
Thanks for sharing mellie. This article whether true or false has definatly left a few of us pondering...

mellie
September 27th, 2008, 07:43 AM
Yes, it is an interesting idea, at any rate!

Wavelength
September 27th, 2008, 08:09 AM
George Michael is the guy who reckons you can't have a fringe because it causes the rest of your hair growth to slow down doesn't he? That doesn't apply to me either. I wonder how much truth there is in what he says?

Yep, I'm pretty sure it's the same guy. He also said that all hair "wants" to grow at the same rate and that if you cut bangs or layers in your hair, it'll slow down growth. Uhh... I'm thinking that's a crock. :rolleyes: Hair is largely made of dead cells, and I can't really believe that all the hairs on our head have some magic way of communicating so that they can compare how long or short they are and then adjust their growth accordingly. When you think about it, that's pretty unbelievable. Also, new hairs are growing all the time, so of course some will be shorter than others, even if there's no layers at all.

Personally I think this guy just likes to make outrageous comments so he'll get quoted.

WavyGirl
September 27th, 2008, 08:09 AM
I don't think it's true. I had BSL hair until 7, pixie until 13, BSL until 16, shaved until 20 (or so...) after which I grew it out, and right now it is knee and carrying on happily. So if you take my age into account I've had "long" hair for less than half my life.

George Michael is the guy who reckons you can't have a fringe because it causes the rest of your hair growth to slow down doesn't he? That doesn't apply to me either. I wonder how much truth there is in what he says?

I don't really believe GM's theories either. I think he is just selling a product/service and he wanted a unique selling point. I think anyone who is willing to pay his sort of prices is going to be pretty serious about taking care of their long hair and that's why his clients have such good results: they do the hard work between visits. Obviously that is just my opinion and it is in no way based on fact or research. :shrug:

Mellie I looked at the link for the copper treatment too. I'm always wary of new treatments. After reading it I looked up copper on Wikipaedia and read a bit about why we need it. It's not something I'd want large amounts of building up in my body. High levels can lead to neurological and liver problems apparently. I wonder how he plans to monitor levels in his subjects over time. However, it was an interesting article so thanks for posting.

Pierre
September 28th, 2008, 08:51 AM
But does anyone else automatically discount an article with spelling errors (muscles and bones whither), or is that just me?

I believe it is a Russian article that has been translated, so it's actually a wonder that it makes any sense at all, LOL! :-)
That and the nutritional surfer supplements. At least no one's singing in the polecat at the bottom of birth (yes, that does make sense in Russian).

The theory that hair follicles grow bigger when they have to support long hair makes sense. Brushing wouldn't do it; it's the constant stress of the weight of the hair.

I hear Italian calcium players need lots of soccer for their bones ;)

Anje
September 28th, 2008, 02:01 PM
I don't tend to buy GM's theories, as a general rule. I can't help wondering that if this latest claim is true, does wearing hair up (especially on top of the head, where the weight isn't on the follicles, as many super-longhairs do to prevent hairline pulling) undermine growth by reducing tension on follicles? Do people who tie their daily braids with heavier hairtoys get faster growth?

aisling
September 28th, 2008, 02:18 PM
One more George Michael hair theory I can't swallow. First, factual error: "during his childhood in Russia", he is either pretty young or ancient if he spent his childhood in Russia. "During my childhood in the Soviet Union" doesn't sound as nice, does it?

Them comparing the hairs of elderly women in the Soviet Union and New York and making a theory about hair growth based on that, is pretty thick. From what I know, dyeing, perming, washing your hair very often, blow drying and so on, weren't that common treatments among elderly women in the Soviet Union, still isn't among those women in Russia. I think it's pretty safe to say that those treatments were much more common among women of all ages in New York when he moved there (60's, 70's?) and you all know what they can do to your hair. So, this comparison misses a lots of fact and circumstances, the claim that long hair is good for the follicles based on this comparison is something I can't buy.

Little_Bird
September 28th, 2008, 02:29 PM
I've hear about this one long ago, still in the MLHH. I hope it's true :)

spidermom
September 28th, 2008, 02:31 PM
If we felt like looking for it, it would probably be possible to find an article claiming that long hair puts too much stress on the follicles and that is why hair should be cut.

Amara
September 28th, 2008, 02:33 PM
Speaking of typos, there's one right on the front page here.

http://madoralonghairheaven.com/

:eyeroll:

Anje
September 28th, 2008, 03:37 PM
Speaking of typos, there's one right on the front page here.

http://madoralonghairheaven.com/

:eyeroll:
Eesh. Do people really think that lousy grammar isn't held against them? Or are they just too darn lazy to learn the difference between "its" and "it's"?

Elenna
September 28th, 2008, 03:51 PM
I find George Michael's ideas hard to believe in too, but he did love long hair. One of his better ideas is that long gray hair on older women looks majestic. I'd forgive everything else he said for that remark.

I had long hair in my youth and I don't think that it grows any better than average. I think that it is just a preference for long hair.

The only people that can answer whether long hair is good for the follicles is a super-long hair. How does their hair grow so long?

mellie
September 28th, 2008, 05:14 PM
One of his better ideas is that long gray hair on older women looks majestic. I'd forgive everything else he said for that remark.

Haha, true that, Elenna! :-)

dancingbarefoot
September 28th, 2008, 05:29 PM
I wonder how much truth there is in what he says?

As do I. Does he have any experimental basis for his claims, or are these just his personal preferences? My money's on his personal preference. He doesn't like bangs, so he decides bangs are bad for growth. He likes a right part, so he decides that's ideal for growth. :rolleyes:

AnneAdeline
September 28th, 2008, 08:12 PM
I agree that this is an interesting theory, but until it's been proven...
The longhair in me is saying "yay" while the scientist in me is just shaking her head slowly. ;)

rubyredslippers
September 28th, 2008, 08:51 PM
Some interesting theories whether or not they're true . . . but they are just theories and shouldn't be presented or accepted as fact. Too many variables uncontrolled, with no way to control them, to test.

I'm of the firm opinion that you can find "evidence" to support any opinion, no matter how outlandish, on the internet.:twocents: