Cambridge research claims GHD Platinum can *decrease* hair breakage. Can we discuss?

[MeganJoan]

So, when I joined LHC and decided to grow my hair to long, healthy, mermaid-esque length I did what most of us do; I gave up heat and chemical colour.

I'm a absolute Google research junkie. I research everything. Both when I need an answer or a solution to a problem or just to guard myself against bad impulsive decisions.

So a couple of days ago I set about researching the damage heat style has on hair. My motivation was not to disprove the damage is real, but instead to get such a thorough understanding that I could self-motivate to give it up forever, and resist the temptation when it would be vastly more convenient (but still ultimately unnecessary) to whip out the ol' hairdryer.

I stumbled upon a couple of interesting things. The first was this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3229938/) study into air drying vs blow drying. It seemed to suggest that both damaged in different ways. I searched for hours for an unbiased take from someone who could better understand the technical subject matter and I could. I found this blog (http://science-yhairblog.blogspot.com.au/2014/10/huh-air-drying-is-bad-for-hair.html) and felt that cleared things up well. But it's good to know that if I do need to dry my hair I now have proper data on the best way to do it with the least damage.

The two nights ago I found something else, which is the topic of this post.

I started wondering if I should just sell the plethora of heat styling tools that I have. I have a VS Sassoon Curl Secret, a VS Sassoon Brush Styler, and a GHD Platinum among others. I hadn't really researched the GHD Platinum before I bought it. My old straightener that had been expensive and innovative a decade ago died. So, I just went out and bought what was said to be the best and most innovative one out recently.

But in my research I found really interesting stuff. Mostly interviews with Dr Tim Moore, the Chief Technical Officer at the GHD research lab in Cambridge. The mostly talk about the research that went into the creation of the Platinum and how they based it on what they found regarding heat and hair health. The two best articles with the most information can be found here (http://www.mamamia.com.au/do-straighteners-damage-hair/) and here (http://mashable.com/2015/09/01/hair-science-uk-brandspeak/#2_9nXN1WSkqR).

A lot of great points are brought up, including people applying too much pressure, getting hair physically caught in the straighteners, and that changes in temperature using the process can cause a lot of damage (something I wasn't aware of before but makes sense).

What struck me is this claim: "Platinum had 54 per cent less breakage than 230 degree [irons], and 45 per cent less breakage than virgin [i.e. untreated] hair. It’s actively conditioning the hair because it’s not cooking it," Dr Moore says."

That is a huge claim.
They're essentially saying that using the GHD Platinum at it's 180 degree "ideal" temperature (and presumably only passing over the hair ONCE) saw less breakage than virgin hair untreated by heat at all. It also claims to improve shin in virgin hair.

Obviously I am suspicious of this research. They are, after all, trying to sell a product. I can't find anywhere the raw data from the study, and it makes sense that they wouldn't publish it because even if it was all exactly as they say it is, their competitor companies would have access to it. And I find that other studies on heat styling aren't applicable as they using higher heats (the Platinum seems to be the first of its kind with this set low heat, and able to keep heat even through use).

I know most people here hate heat styling, and for obvious reasons. But I'm really interested in finding out the truth of the matter here. I want to do what's best for my hair, or at least know what options I have.

Does anyone with more in depth knowledge of the structure and chemical reactions of hair have any input on this? Does anyone have more information on this claim that hair can actually benefit from the "right" amount of heat treatment? I'm so eager to know more about this, and understand better if I can.

[Sarahlabyrinth]

Mmm. I don't think I will be believing them.

[Llama]

Reminds me of this time I was at the mall and the lady at the hair straightener kiosk tried to reel me in by boasting that Chi flat irons broke off her long hair up to chin length and that the irons she was selling will not do that and actually improves hair condition. She was really excited about it and clearly just trying to make a sale.
It was not GHD, it was some brand I had never heard of.
These are bs claims.
High, direct heat is going to damage your hair :p

[Sweets]

I know this is LHC, but I still don't believe the company's study about their own product. Didn't the tobacco industry do this too??

[Horrorpops]

In my opinion, research studies funded by a company with a stake in the outcomes, or if the authors are in some way financially involved with a company that has a stake are at a higher risk of bias than one which isn't funded in this way. Unfortunately though the way funding goes, often the only people wanting to pay for these kinds of studies are the companies who standing benefit from them. So you can't really hold that against the study, however I think it definitely can influence the results or the way the results are packaged to the public.

Soooo.... I'd like to read the original research articles where you can better analyse the method and analysis used to look for bias. At the moment I'd be pretty skeptical of the claims, especially the claim that their straightened hair was subject to less breaking than virgin. Is this breakage immediately after using the product or hours/days/weeks down the road? I am assuming it would be almost immediately following the heat treatment. And if so, is that outcome relevant in daily life? Not really. What I (and most people I imagine) are more concerned about is long term damage and breakage.

This has piqued my curiosity because I do enjoy occasionally heat styling my hair, and would do so much more often if it didn't damage my hair, or even improved my hair. However I am a bit skeptical of this at the moment. I'll try and find the original research article and have a look at that. I don't like internet articles which 'interpret' a studies results for me. I find I usually get a lot more information when you can look at the actual methods and data :)
Thank you so much for sharing this MeganJoan :o

[KittyBird]

I wonder how they would be able to measure the breakage. Are they only talking about breakage during detangling? If so, what detangling methods were used? Did they rip a brush through the hair, or was it gentle detangling with a tangle teezer or comb? Breakage also happens when one isn't brushing, so how would they know how many hairs broke off during daily activities? Did the participants in the study have the same hair types? Some are more fragile than others and break easier, even without heat styling.

[restless]

...45 per cent less breakage than virgin [i.e. untreated] hair. It’s actively conditioning the hair because it’s not cooking it," Dr Moore says."

Oh dear... This is :bs: at its finest. Of course he´ll claim this is a healthy, super awesome miracle tool because dr Moore is:


the Chief Technical Officer at the GHD research lab

In other words its his job to say it is a healthy, super awesome miracle tool. It wouldnt be good business to say "Guys, listen. This is a new design, but its actually just as damaging as any other heat styling tool out there"

[lapushka]

A hot tool is still a hot tool, whatever "research" goes into developing new and "improved" ones. It's the temperature that ultimately decides the breakage. If you set it low enough, you'll not get that much, but if you overheat, yes, then of course you'll have more breakage. It all depends on how you use those tools. Even a blowdryer (often called blowfryer here in the past) will cause damage if you set it on the highest heat. It all depends on how you use the tool. If you can hold your hand in the airflow comfortably without it burning, it will be OK for your hair. Higher heat? Don't count on it.

Yes, and I also don't buy research done by an employee of GHD. Please! :rolleyes:

[Anje]

Yeah, show me the research published in a peer-reviewed journal and verified in a second lab, and I'll be a lot closer to believing it.

Edit:

In my opinion, research studies funded by a company with a stake in the outcomes, or if the authors are in some way financially involved with a company that has a stake are at a higher risk of bias than one which isn't funded in this way. Unfortunately though the way funding goes, often the only people wanting to pay for these kinds of studies are the companies who standing benefit from them. So you can't really hold that against the study, however I think it definitely can influence the results or the way the results are packaged to the public.

Isn't that the truth! Usually when I've been involved in such things, though, there are declarations of conflicts of interest and an accounting of all the funding that went to the researchers involved. It's virtually impossible to get money that isn't attached to something, so the usual take is that transparency is the next best thing.

[MeganJoan]

This has piqued my curiosity because I do enjoy occasionally heat styling my hair, and would do so much more often if it didn't damage my hair, or even improved my hair. However I am a bit skeptical of this at the moment. I'll try and find the original research article and have a look at that. I don't like internet articles which 'interpret' a studies results for me. I find I usually get a lot more information when you can look at the actual methods and data :)

If you manage to find it please do share! I had no luck in finding the original :(

The thing that piqued my interest is that this research was not just GHD handing over a new product and paying for it to be tested. Rather their R&D lab did a whole bunch of testing on how heat effects hair and what happens at different temperatures, etc. prior to making the new product, or at least that's how it reads to me. Then they designed the new product based on what they'd found in their research. Which is really interesting and I want to know more about what they found. Prior to this product most straigheners were using way more heat, so it's not like they just followed the market trend.

I'm not saying I believe the research on face value, but if it's accurate then it's something I definitely want to know more about.


I wonder how they would be able to measure the breakage. Are they only talking about breakage during detangling? If so, what detangling methods were used? Did they rip a brush through the hair, or was it gentle detangling with a tangle teezer or comb? Breakage also happens when one isn't brushing, so how would they know how many hairs broke off during daily activities? Did the participants in the study have the same hair types? Some are more fragile than others and break easier, even without heat styling.

These are questions I'd like answers to as well. I really wish there could be more transparency with R&D studies.

[LongCurlyTress]

All I know is that heat is heat. If I don't use heat at all, I don't get those fairy knots. If I use a dryer, I get fairy knots. That is all the evidence I need to know... any heat is still heat... My own empirical study is on my own hair. I would always consider the source since the GHD research lab did the study about their own product. Um... just say no.... There are plenty of ways to straighten hair naturally...just do a youtube search and you will find many ways to do this without heat. My hair is 3b curly, but if I dry it in a lwb or a cinammonbun, it dries wavy.... yes it takes all day to dry this way, but I know it isn't damaged from using any heat.... ;)

[Horrorpops]

Yeah, show me the research published in a peer-reviewed journal and verified in a second lab, and I'll be a lot closer to believing it.

Edit:

Isn't that the truth! Usually when I've been involved in such things, though, there are declarations of conflicts of interest and an accounting of all the funding that went to the researchers involved. It's virtually impossible to get money that isn't attached to something, so the usual take is that transparency is the next best thing.

I agree, which is why I've been looking for the original article. That should have made the conflicts of interest and methods all a lot clearer. Unfortunately I haven't been able to locate it, which is a little dodgy to me. It suggest either my search isn't perfect (very likely) or that the paper wasn't published in a peer review journal (also very likely).


If you manage to find it please do share! I had no luck in finding the original :(

The thing that piqued my interest is that this research was not just GHD handing over a new product and paying for it to be tested. Rather their R&D lab did a whole bunch of testing on how heat effects hair and what happens at different temperatures, etc. prior to making the new product, or at least that's how it reads to me. Then they designed the new product based on what they'd found in their research. Which is really interesting and I want to know more about what they found. Prior to this product most straigheners were using way more heat, so it's not like they just followed the market trend.

I'm not saying I believe the research on face value, but if it's accurate then it's something I definitely want to know more about.



These are questions I'd like answers to as well. I really wish there could be more transparency with R&D studies.
Sadly I've had no luck but I might try again tomorrow when I have more time. It isn't helping that we don't have any author names, only Dr Tim Moore. I suspect it wasn't published in a peer review journal and if so IMO you can't trust any of the findings.

I'd also like to note for anyone interested that while the research was done in Cambridge it has no links to Cambridge University. I found the wording a little misleading and lended an air of authority and reliability to the research that it may not deserve. :)

[spidermom]

I have come across the information that if you want to flat iron without destroying your hair, you have to use the lowest temperature that will work, use a silicone spray to protect the hair (because it's a poor heat conductor and adds slip), make sure the hair is combed out nice and smooth so that nothing doesn't snags in the iron, and pass the flat iron over each hair section only once. This seems to be the same thing they are saying about the GHD Platinum, but I suspect that you could get similar results with any flat iron as long as you can control the heat. I've seen flat irons that only have one temperature - boiling lava.

[lapushka]

GHDs are notorious for not having heat adjustable settings and for being *hot*. No wonder they work so well. So of course a lower heat setting is introduced as a big breakthrough. Yeah, shocker. Lower heat settings. Duh.

[Anya15]

I don't see how flat-ironing can be beneficial in any way. Yes, doing it on a lower setting will reduce the damage, but not eliminate it entirely.

[Anje]

I don't see how flat-ironing can be beneficial in any way. Yes, doing it on a lower setting will reduce the damage, but not eliminate it entirely.

Honestly, if they're using it on fine super-curly hair and comparing how that hair then responds to rapid and rough combing, yes, I can actually see how it would reduce breakage. But only if the techniques used are inappropriate for the curlier hair. One of the articles says "very curly hair ... takes quite a lot of effort (and elbow grease) to style". If you're using elbow grease, there's a problem.

[LongCurlyTress]

Honestly, if they're using it on fine super-curly hair and comparing how that hair then responds to rapid and rough combing, yes, I can actually see how it would reduce breakage. But only if the techniques used are inappropriate for the curlier hair. One of the articles says "very curly hair ... takes quite a lot of effort (and elbow grease) to style". If you're using elbow grease, there's a problem.
LOL!! :applause

[meteor]

MeganJoan, in the original post you mentioned some study on this, can you please share a link? :) I'd love to read it. :)

It's just that I often see that newspapers, marketing teams can somewhat distort findings or put spins on findings, so I'd like to read the original study in full.

By the way, a while ago, I compiled a list of studies on thermal damage here: http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=136845&p=3191167&viewfull=1#post3191167
And from what I've read, it was pretty convincing that high heat (especially direct heat) is damaging.

There is also an interesting study that partly explains why hair can appear shinier or "healthier" after heat-styling (despite the fact that it's a damaging practice):
- Influence of internal structures of hair fiber on hair appearance. III. Generation of light-scattering factors in hair cuticles and the influence on hair shine: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.553.9320&rep=rep1&type=pdf, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14528388

The effects of thermal treatments on hair fiber induced by blow-drying have been investigated. It was found that the hair shows whitish and powdery appearance after heat drying, especially when dark hair is rapidly dried from a wet condition. For all kinds of hair, the appearance of numerous glittering speckles was confirmed on the cuticle surface by optical microscopic observations. SEM images of hair transverse and longitudinal sections with glittering speckles revealed that the splitting of cuticle layers generated by blow-drying occurred not only at the outermost parts of cuticle cells but also at the inner parts of the cellular interfaces. The release and uptake of moisture through fiber surfaces induces deformation of cuticle cells, probably because of anisotropic swelling or drying of the cells. The cuticles with glittering speckles are found to be fragile and are easily damaged in combination with other mechanical stresses such as combing force. Furthermore, the authors have found an efficient system for both improving hair shine and preventing cuticle damage caused by the blow-drying/combing process.

And about that Korean study that you mentioned (Hair Shaft Damage from Heat and Drying Time of Hair Dryer - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3229938/), it did show that all blow-drying was damaging to the cuticle (the higher the heat and the shorter the distance - the more damaging it was). I think it's great that the study also demonstrated damage to the Cell-Membrane-Complex with air-drying and thus pointed to the importance of drying hair quickly and avoiding hygral fatigue, but they did call for further research on this ("This effect of natural drying has not been studied or described before. ... Further evaluation about contact time with water or wet environment and hair damage is needed.")
I think a small problem in the study design vs. the conclusions was that the hair that was washed ("using 1% (w/w) sodium dodecyl sulfate, and then thoroughly rinsed with tap water") and dried daily for 30 days was just separate untreated tresses, not hair on people, attached to scalp. If the hair was still connected to scalp, it could still accumulate a bit of sebum to help protect it from this daily washing and drying process. But, the way the study was set up, it shows you what happens to natural hair on extensions/wigs if it's washed daily (it's not recommended to wash wigs/extensions often!), not what happens to hair still attached to scalp (which obviously gets a better chance to get oily).
Also, there were no pre-treatments, no oiling sessions, no conditioning at all, no styling products - so no product "barrier"... Not really what typically happens with daily washing... Basically, the hair was washed when it wasn't dirty or oily and didn't need to be washed - and we already know not to over-wash already clean hair.
I think the same % surfactants can affect already cleansed hair slightly differently compared to how they would affect oily hair or hair with build-up (i.e. probably stripping it in the former case and simply cleansing it in the latter case).

[Upside Down]

Lol yes, elbow greace and hair styling.

Look, I think Anje is on to something. Straight hair is waaay easier to maintain and style with way less damage.

At least that is my experience, having naturally curly but keratine streightened hair.

And I never know how to spell streight. Gone googlin'

[MeganJoan]

MeganJoan, in the original post you mentioned some study on this, can you please share a link? :) I'd love to read it. :)

It's just that I often see that newspapers, marketing teams can somewhat distort findings or put spins on findings, so I'd like to read the original study in full.

By the way, a while ago, I compiled a list of studies on thermal damage here: http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=136845&p=3191167&viewfull=1#post3191167
And from what I've read, it was pretty convincing that high heat (especially direct heat) is damaging.

There is also an interesting study that partly explains why hair can appear shinier or "healthier" after heat-styling (despite the fact that it's a damaging practice):
- Influence of internal structures of hair fiber on hair appearance. III. Generation of light-scattering factors in hair cuticles and the influence on hair shine: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.553.9320&rep=rep1&type=pdf, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14528388


And about that Korean study that you mentioned (Hair Shaft Damage from Heat and Drying Time of Hair Dryer - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3229938/), it did show that all blow-drying was damaging to the cuticle (the higher the heat and the shorter the distance - the more damaging it was). I think it's great that the study also demonstrated damage to the Cell-Membrane-Complex with air-drying and thus pointed to the importance of drying hair quickly and avoiding hygral fatigue, but they did call for further research on this ("This effect of natural drying has not been studied or described before. ... Further evaluation about contact time with water or wet environment and hair damage is needed.")
I think a small problem in the study design vs. the conclusions was that the hair that was washed ("using 1% (w/w) sodium dodecyl sulfate, and then thoroughly rinsed with tap water") and dried daily for 30 days was just separate untreated tresses, not hair on people, attached to scalp. If the hair was still connected to scalp, it could still accumulate a bit of sebum to help protect it from this daily washing and drying process. But, the way the study was set up, it shows you what happens to natural hair on extensions/wigs if it's washed daily (it's not recommended to wash wigs/extensions often!), not what happens to hair still attached to scalp (which obviously gets a better chance to get oily).
Also, there were no pre-treatments, no oiling sessions, no conditioning at all, no styling products - so no product "barrier"... Not really what typically happens with daily washing... Basically, the hair was washed when it wasn't dirty or oily and didn't need to be washed - and we already know not to over-wash already clean hair.
I think the same % surfactants can affect already cleansed hair slightly differently compared to how they would affect oily hair or hair with build-up (i.e. probably stripping it in the former case and simply cleansing it in the latter case).

Unfortunately the GHD study doesn't seem to be online. At least not that I have been able to find. As it was part of R&D for an innovative product I'm not surprised they didn't publish it, as then their competitors would have access to the research they finance as well. But it's still really frustrating. I really want to know that hair they used, their method, etc. because it's impossible to make an assessment on their claims without knowing. I'm convinced that it's better than a high temp straightener, but not at all that low heat could be beneficial for hair.

I guess the real question is whether there is inherent damage caused by getting your hair to the malleable stage (called the glass ceiling by Dr Moore) with direct heat provided that it doesn't actually burn or melt the hair. I'm seeing a lot of people say that heat is damage no matter what, but plenty of people support the use of steam caps to get curls and they only work because they heat the hair to a malleable stage and then let it cool in a curled state. It's the same or similar chemical process using a different method is it not? When we create no heat curls we're using water to get our hair to the malleable state without heat. I'm very interested to know the scientific similarities or differences without just having a knee jerk reaction to the idea of straighteners, the GHD brand and their previous product reputation for high heat, or the stigma of direct heat. It's a really fascinating topic to me.

That's for clarification on the Korean study. I'm glad I found that study and did the research afterwards, because it really highlighted the importance of oiling hair pre-wash to me. I like understanding why something works and is important, rather than just knowing that it is "good" to do.
My hair has actually started drying a lot faster since it's become more healthy. I know that the general rule is that healthy hair takes longer to dry, but mine has definitely gone the other way. I think my hair was just so porous before that a huge amount of water was getting into the membrane whereas now it is much less. My hair also went quite tacky and dewing when when before (for lack of a better explanation). It was much more jelly and weak so I couldn't run my fingers through it to get air in lest it break. Now I'm able to air out my hair better while it dries and it only takes a couple of hours. Previously it would take 3 hours and still not be dry and I'd often have to finish it off on a low heat with the hairdryer so it would completely dry.

[MeganJoan]

Lol yes, elbow greace and hair styling.

Look, I think Anje is on to something. Straight hair is waaay easier to maintain and style with way less damage.

At least that is my experience, having naturally curly but keratine streightened hair.

And I never know how to spell streight. Gone googlin'


We all want and envy what we don't have, though! Haha. I've always thought wavy haired people have it the absolute best.

I have 1a hair and I can let it air dry with just a serum in it and it looks nice... if you like straight hair. Of course I've always wanted curly hair so for me to get my hair how I like it (with volume and waves or curls) takes a lot of product and damage and never really lasts well anyway.

I think low-damage means we all have to embrace our natural texture, which is easier said than done!

[sarahthegemini]

Yeah, no that's complete and utter rubbish. How the hell would a burning heat tool make the hair healthier than if no heat was used?! Hahaha.

[lapushka]

Yeah, no that's complete and utter rubbish. How the hell would a burning heat tool make the hair healthier than if no heat was used?! Hahaha.

Yes, am I the only one surprised we're even still discussing this. :hmm:

[Anje]

I have 1a hair and I can let it air dry with just a serum in it and it looks nice... if you like straight hair. Of course I've always wanted curly hair so for me to get my hair how I like it (with volume and waves or curls) takes a lot of product and damage and never really lasts well anyway.

I think low-damage means we all have to embrace our natural texture, which is easier said than done!

Pretty much, though it's way easier to get straight hair to have waves or curls without damage than for curly hair to be gotten straight! Braids or rag curls in your damp hair should do the trick without damage. ;)

But yes, I think the best route it to embrace your natural texture. I love curls, but it's more trouble than it's worth for me to try to get them.

[meteor]

Unfortunately the GHD study doesn't seem to be online. At least not that I have been able to find.

Oh yes, sorry, :oops: I posted before reading the other posts where it was discussed that the original study is yet to be located online. I haven't been able to find it either, using key words like "GHD", "tri-zone technology" and "Dr. Tim Moore"... If somebody knows the name of the study, I'll try to locate it. ;)

By the way, on Dr. Moore's public LinkedIn page, if you scroll down a bit, you can find links to his hair styling apparatus patents (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/tim-moore-46766a1), but I can't see specific details on the research there.


I guess the real question is whether there is inherent damage caused by getting your hair to the malleable stage (called the glass ceiling by Dr Moore) with direct heat provided that it doesn't actually burn or melt the hair. I'm seeing a lot of people say that heat is damage no matter what, but plenty of people support the use of steam caps to get curls and they only work because they heat the hair to a malleable stage and then let it cool in a curled state. It's the same or similar chemical process using a different method is it not? When we create no heat curls we're using water to get our hair to the malleable state without heat. I'm very interested to know the scientific similarities or differences without just having a knee jerk reaction to the idea of straighteners, the GHD brand and their previous product reputation for high heat, or the stigma of direct heat. It's a really fascinating topic to me.

That's for clarification on the Korean study. I'm glad I found that study and did the research afterwards, because it really highlighted the importance of oiling hair pre-wash to me. I like understanding why something works and is important, rather than just knowing that it is "good" to do.
My hair has actually started drying a lot faster since it's become more healthy. I know that the general rule is that healthy hair takes longer to dry, but mine has definitely gone the other way. I think my hair was just so porous before that a huge amount of water was getting into the membrane whereas now it is much less. My hair also went quite tacky and dewing when when before (for lack of a better explanation). It was much more jelly and weak so I couldn't run my fingers through it to get air in lest it break. Now I'm able to air out my hair better while it dries and it only takes a couple of hours. Previously it would take 3 hours and still not be dry and I'd often have to finish it off on a low heat with the hairdryer so it would completely dry.

You are raising some great questions there, MeganJoan! :D

First of all, about porosity and drying time... I really don't know... I actually feel like your case of less porous hair drying faster makes a lot of sense, because virgin hair has some water-repellent properties (thanks to intact structure, tight cuticle, sebum and intercellular lipids...), while more porous and damaged hair has a greater chance of absorbing more (water and other things). Sure, it lets out water easily too, but it can take some time. I don't know though... I haven't seen specific studies on this topic.


About steaming, we discussed this a bit over at the Hair Science Thread (from this post http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=136845&p=3191005&viewfull=1#post3191005 and a bit further down). I'm not sure but I don't think there is much benefit to keeping hair wet or steamed - IMHO, the only time it's useful is to wash, help some treatments diffuse into hair faster and as a wet-setting technique, i.e. as a healthier alternative to other forms of curling/straightening. Why I think wet-setting is "healthier"? Well, your hair gets wet and is starting to dry after washing anyway, so might as well use that moment to set it, rather than later use heat (which is certainly damaging (see studies (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=136845&page=10&p=3191167&viewfull=1#post3191167)), and the higher the heat, the longer the exposure and the shorter the distance, the more damaging it is).

Here is a good article on steaming, and it mentions that steaming for longer than 30 minutes can cause disulfide bonds to break (that's hair damage): http://www.thenaturalhavenbloom.com/2014/01/are-steamers-really-worth-buying.html Interestingly, it mentions that steaming can allow hair to stretch more than dry or even wet (cool or warm water) hair (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uS5Q1jQzc94/UtRwIcTNuoI/AAAAAAAABPQ/E7R9TqBh17g/s1600/effect_of_steam_on_hair.jpg).
Here is more on hair swelling and water: http://science-yhairblog.blogspot.ca/2013/07/hair-swelling-in-water.html, http://www.hair-science.com/_int/_en/topic/topic_sousrub.aspx?tc=root-hair-science%5Eso-sturdy-so-fragile%5Eproperties-of-hair&cur=properties-of-hair
Another potential issue with steaming is the high temperature of water - higher temperatures can cause more hair swelling and potentially more oil and protein loss, more on this here: http://science-yhairblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/do-cold-water-rinses-make-hair-shine.html

And back to that Korean study (Hair Shaft Damage from Heat and Drying Time of Hair Dryer - http://pmcc.web-t.cisti.nrc.ca/articlerender.cgi?accid=PMC3229938), I think it also showed that being water-logged for a long time (2 hours drying time in this study) is not good for hair (see bulging in the intercellular lipid layers of the cell-membrane-complex pictures (http://pmcc.web-t.cisti.nrc.ca/articlerender.cgi?accid=PMC3229938&rendertype=figure&id=F5)), and it even showed that all washing and all drying caused some reduction in natural moisture content of hair (compared to untreated tresses, see graph for details (http://pmcc.web-t.cisti.nrc.ca/articlerender.cgi?accid=PMC3229938&rendertype=figure&id=F6)):

"It took over 2 h to dry the hair tress completely under ambient conditions. The hair shaft swells when in contact with water, as does the delta-layer of the CMC. The delta-layer is the sole route through which water diffuses into hair, and so we speculate that the CMC could be damaged when it is in contact with water for prolonged periods. Longer contact with water might be more harmful to the CMC compared to temperature of hair drying. Moisture content decreased in all treated groups (with and without the hair dryer) compared to the untreated control group. However, the differences between the groups were not statistically significant. The methods used to dry wet hair might not affect moisture content. With regard to color, the hair became lighter after repeated shampooing and drying. Drying under ambient temperatures and at 95℃ resulted in earlier changes in hair color (after just 10 treatments). The reason why the hair color is brighter after repeated shampooing and drying is unknown. On TEM examination, no decrease of melanin granules was found. However, after repeated shampooing and drying, definite damage to hair cuticle was evident on SEM examination. Therefore, we assume that the hair color change might be because of the damage to hair.
[...]
damage to the CMC was noted only in the naturally dried group and earlier changes in hair color were seen in this group and the 95℃ group. This effect of natural drying has not seen studied or described before. It is conceivable that a long lasting wet stage is as harmful as a high drying temperature (and may be even more dangerous to the CMC).

[Simsy]

Pretty much, though it's way easier to get straight hair to have waves or curls without damage than for curly hair to be gotten straight! Braids or rag curls in your damp hair should do the trick without damage. ;)

But yes, I think the best route it to embrace your natural texture. I love curls, but it's more trouble than it's worth for me to try to get them.


Oh yes, sorry, :oops: I posted before reading the other posts where it was discussed that the original study is yet to be located online. I haven't been able to find it either, using key words like "GHD", "tri-zone technology" and "Dr. Tim Moore"... If somebody knows the name of the study, I'll try to locate it. ;)

By the way, on Dr. Moore's public LinkedIn page, if you scroll down a bit, you can find links to his hair styling apparatus patents (https://uk.linkedin.com/in/tim-moore-46766a1), but I can't see specific details on the research there.



You are raising some great questions there, MeganJoan! :D

First of all, about porosity and drying time... I really don't know... I actually feel like your case of less porous hair drying faster makes a lot of sense, because virgin hair has some water-repellent properties (thanks to intact structure, tight cuticle, sebum and intercellular lipids...), while more porous and damaged hair has a greater chance of absorbing more (water and other things). Sure, it lets out water easily too, but it can take some time. I don't know though... I haven't seen specific studies on this topic.


About steaming, we discussed this a bit over at the Hair Science Thread (from this post http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=136845&p=3191005&viewfull=1#post3191005 and a bit further down). I'm not sure but I don't think there is much benefit to keeping hair wet or steamed - IMHO, the only time it's useful is to wash, help some treatments diffuse into hair faster and as a wet-setting technique, i.e. as a healthier alternative to other forms of curling/straightening. Why I think wet-setting is "healthier"? Well, your hair gets wet and is starting to dry after washing anyway, so might as well use that moment to set it, rather than later use heat (which is certainly damaging (see studies (http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/showthread.php?t=136845&page=10&p=3191167&viewfull=1#post3191167)), and the higher the heat, the longer the exposure and the shorter the distance, the more damaging it is).

Here is a good article on steaming, and it mentions that steaming for longer than 30 minutes can cause disulfide bonds to break (that's hair damage): http://www.thenaturalhavenbloom.com/2014/01/are-steamers-really-worth-buying.html Interestingly, it mentions that steaming can allow hair to stretch more than dry or even wet (cool or warm water) hair (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-uS5Q1jQzc94/UtRwIcTNuoI/AAAAAAAABPQ/E7R9TqBh17g/s1600/effect_of_steam_on_hair.jpg).
Here is more on hair swelling and water: http://science-yhairblog.blogspot.ca/2013/07/hair-swelling-in-water.html, http://www.hair-science.com/_int/_en/topic/topic_sousrub.aspx?tc=root-hair-science%5Eso-sturdy-so-fragile%5Eproperties-of-hair&cur=properties-of-hair
Another potential issue with steaming is the high temperature of water - higher temperatures can cause more hair swelling and potentially more oil and protein loss, more on this here: http://science-yhairblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/do-cold-water-rinses-make-hair-shine.html

And back to that Korean study (Hair Shaft Damage from Heat and Drying Time of Hair Dryer - http://pmcc.web-t.cisti.nrc.ca/articlerender.cgi?accid=PMC3229938), I think it also showed that being water-logged for a long time (2 hours drying time in this study) is not good for hair (see bulging in the intercellular lipid layers of the cell-membrane-complex pictures (http://pmcc.web-t.cisti.nrc.ca/articlerender.cgi?accid=PMC3229938&rendertype=figure&id=F5)), and it even showed that all washing and all drying caused some reduction in natural moisture content of hair (compared to untreated tresses, see graph for details (http://pmcc.web-t.cisti.nrc.ca/articlerender.cgi?accid=PMC3229938&rendertype=figure&id=F6)):

Just for the record, I love reading replies from Meteor and Anje. Always informative and I can learn something interesting.

[meteor]

Thank you so much, Simsy! :blossom: