PDA

View Full Version : Do bangs stunt hair growth?



lynnala
March 8th, 2008, 07:56 PM
So while the site was down, I admit to being unfaithful and surfing the web for hair-releated comfort. I came across a site that said that cutting bangs actually slowed down the growth on the length of hair, because "the body seeks perfection, and it puts all it's energy into growing the shorter hair to catch up to the longer hair". Hmm. Bangs do seem to grow faster than length. Opinions? Comments?

jojo
March 8th, 2008, 07:58 PM
I have seen this wrote somewhere too, i personally think its a load of baloney theres loads of people on here with uber long hair and fringes. Ive had waist length hair in the past with a fringe.

Hair grows from the roots and it has no way of communicating with the other hairs, imagine

"okay lads, fringe alert, were going on strike no more growth overtime until the fringe grows!"

eadwine
March 8th, 2008, 10:24 PM
Yeah.. nonsense.

Besides.. it would put all the energy in the even shorter hair, like pubic hair and such!

Nah, if all that were true us banged folk should grow much slower than those without bangs, and it is all just genetics.

GlennaGirl
March 8th, 2008, 10:29 PM
Not mine. :)

lynnala
March 9th, 2008, 12:13 AM
I agree, it sounds like nonsense. But when I have bangs, they DO seem to grow faster than my length, what gives? Is it just an illusion because it's easier to see the growth?

eadwine
March 9th, 2008, 01:00 AM
Most likely, yes :)

nowxisxforever
March 9th, 2008, 01:07 AM
Nope- all an illusion :]

nastasska
March 9th, 2008, 01:20 AM
I've had a fringe all along and my hair has grown

Gothic Lolita
March 9th, 2008, 03:04 AM
Would be nicei f it was like that. I wish my layers would grow out. But why should they? Like others said, hair grows from the roots, and how should a root know, if the hair it produces is shorter than others are?

I think some people believe this, because bangs seem to grow faster than other hair.

violetflower
March 9th, 2008, 03:20 AM
It seems like that but the fringe/bangs are so short that you really notice that growth, more than the length.

Nat242
March 9th, 2008, 04:40 AM
That's just not my experience, and I can't really see the logic behind it. I have bangs, and I henna, which allows you to observe this sort of thing. My "roots" grow through equally, all over my head, bangs and all.

*Elvina*
March 9th, 2008, 05:55 AM
I sometimes have the impression that my longest layer grows faster, just the oposit. However, I really don't believe hair can know which part is longer or shorter.

Chamomile betty
March 9th, 2008, 06:53 AM
I've had bangs my whole life and my hair has continued to grow.
I think it may be an optical illusion that the length doesn't grow as fast if you have bangs.

florenonite
March 9th, 2008, 07:26 AM
My bangs definitely grow reaaalllly slowly, although finally I can get them to fit into a high ponytail for a while (not yet the entire day, though :(), so they definitely don't grow faster than the rest of my hair.

Silver & Gold
March 9th, 2008, 09:05 AM
Right now I wish it were true because I'm trying to grow layers and bangs out.

Count me in with those who feel it is an optical illusion. It's far easier to detect growth on shorter hair.

jojo
March 9th, 2008, 09:14 AM
though i must say my layers do 'seem' to grow quicker but maybe that's because i can't see the back of my head, when i had a fringe it was in my face so i was more conscious of it growing. bit like saying a shaved grows quicker, it doesn't just seems to. Once hair gets past shoulders you don't tend to notice how much its growing, if that makes sense!

Moondial
March 9th, 2008, 09:31 AM
I agree with everyone else. How should the root of one hair "know" whether another hair has been cut off or not???
Anyway, I have a fringe at the moment, but also have had no fringe in the past, and for me, it made no difference at all.
Wasn't it the long hair priest George Michael who brought this theory into existence? If so, he says other things that I don't believe, either. Like he recommends so many products for just one session. His routines would make my hair suffocate for sure. For my fine hair, less is definitely more.

Ponytale
March 9th, 2008, 10:53 AM
Yes, this is from George Michael. I almost laughed when my GM stylist first said this. Welcome to pseudo-science 101!

I like the GM treatments, and they got me to quit washing my hair so much which helped immensely, but other things he recommended, like the "100 strokes" a day, I just ignored....

PonyTale

Shanarana
March 9th, 2008, 01:01 PM
I've always wore a fringe and had no problem with my hair growing.

JKRBeloved
March 10th, 2008, 01:52 PM
I have gone in and out of bangs several times in my life, and have not noticed a difference in my growth rate either way.

kwaniesiam
March 10th, 2008, 02:28 PM
Your hair doesn't know how long certain parts of it are..That's just silly. We can add that to our hair myth thread :)

I think you just notice it more because they're right in front of your face all the time, rather than behind your or able to be in an updo.

Sarahmoon
March 10th, 2008, 02:31 PM
Hair just grows and then it falls out. I don't believe individual hairs are bothered with being shorter than the other hairs :lol:
I've had tailbone length hair and fringe myself in the past.

OhioLisa
March 10th, 2008, 02:48 PM
You know, I always wanted to ask a question of the people who believe this theory. If your hair does somehow magically seek balance, why does some people's hair naturally grow at different rates on different areas of the scalp? For instance, some people's hair grows faster in the back or on one side. Doesn't seem like that "magical balancing force" is working to me. Rubbish, I say.

Little_Bird
March 10th, 2008, 04:16 PM
I think bangs grow faster than the rest of the hair simply because they are much shorter so you can see progress much better. Also, bangs are in your face, so you hae a lot of reference points of progress such as your eyebrows, eyes, nose...

I don't think that is true... My sister had bangs while her hair grew, and she has very fast growth!... But I also believe that a perfect long hair is blunt, all one lenght hehe... :D

jojo
March 10th, 2008, 05:32 PM
I think bangs grow faster than the rest of the hair simply because they are much shorter so you can see progress much better. Also, bangs are in your face, so you hae a lot of reference points of progress such as your eyebrows, eyes, nose...

I don't think that is true... My sister had bangs while her hair grew, and she has very fast growth!... But I also believe that a perfect long hair is blunt, all one lenght hehe... :D

from the photos i have seen of the back of your sisters hair, it certainly grew and it grew and it grew, beautiful hair from what i remember. Incidentally whens your new video out?

LadyLongLocks
March 10th, 2008, 05:55 PM
I dont believe that bangs stunt hair growth. I had bangs for years and never had a growing problem. I have grown my bangs out now for 3 years and they have a way to go to catch up with the rest of my hair. I think everyone has 100s of lenths of hair on their head so I tend not to believe that myth that is stunts growth. Nobodys head can have all hairs all the same length, its almost impossible. I miss my bangs but wanted that center part with long hair.

Celebrian
March 10th, 2008, 06:03 PM
I have bangs, and all of my hair grows pretty fast..

Emichiee
March 11th, 2008, 11:05 AM
So while the site was down, I admit to being unfaithful and surfing the web for hair-releated comfort. I came across a site that said that cutting bangs actually slowed down the growth on the length of hair, because "the body seeks perfection, and it puts all it's energy into growing the shorter hair to catch up to the longer hair". Hmm. Bangs do seem to grow faster than length. Opinions? Comments?

That cant even be true if you look at it from a scientific aspect. We always have shorter (regrowth) hairs. The hair follicle produces hair at the same speed no matter what length the rest is or even if you trim.

I used to think my bangs grow incredibly fast..turned out they only grow half as fast as the back. :lol:

heidi w.
March 11th, 2008, 12:39 PM
This idea stems from the George Michael long hair system. He calls it the 'theory of equalization' in his book.

Here's my understanding of what's meant.

It does not mean that if you have bangs, fringe, that length will cease growing.

It means that between the extreme polarities of bangs/fringe and longer tresses, that one may not be able to reach the longest lengths they might otherwise potentially because nature's way is to achieve balance between such extremes. It means, only, that your hair may not grow as long if all the hair is generally the same length. That's all.

It means, essentially, that it tries to equalize, balance between the two extremes. It does not mean growth is stunted.

In GM's book, he uses the Sutherland Sisters as his case study, and a dog.

The Sutherland Sisters were 7 daughters of John Fletcher (I think it was John), and he noticed that when the daughters traveled and sang that people tended to come more to observe their hair than their singing. These women existed in the mid to late 1800s. This was the time when women didn't have a lot of options for income and marrying well was important. This was pre-IRS and pre-FDA. This was the era of dandruff cures, hair growers and the like to make some serious money. SO, the father invented a 'baldness' cure. In this era, baldness, like dandruff, was seen as a systemic malady. The first year of sales was $90K. The sisters sang with the Barnum & Bailey sister, and one married one of the co-owners of the circus. Not sure the order of things exactly. These women resided around the area of Niagara Falls NY and it was viewed that their hair was like the falls and mists of Niagara. There is a museum there with plenty of Sutherland documentation and paraphernalia. They expanded to hair 'fertilizer' and built a distribution business nationwide by means of long haired women USA nationwide. They began extremely poor, on a farm, and they became extremely wealthy, yet spent their way back to penury by their deaths.

It is claimed that in total, the 7 sisters had 37 feet of hair. Someone at some point, GM's book relays, talked the sisters, or most of them, into cutting in bangs, which was the fashion then. In GM's book he discusses the subsequent result which was that they lost some length over a bit of time because of nature's impulse to attempt to achieve balance between extremes.

He goes on to discuss how one side of a dog's flanks were shaved and the other side tried to 'equalize' by shedding hair and having less length.

This theory is not about that the bangs know they're there and all this energy goes into growing the bangs while the length remains stagnant in growth.

This theory is greatly misunderstood. In my mind, while I don't agree that having bangs means you can't grow length, even quite long, I do tend to agree that nature does sometimes attempt a balancing act of sorts. I look at trees that are windswept and the side that can grow tends to be a little less than a tree that is not and grows round on all sides. Small example; small case to be made because there are a variety of variables such as what kind of tree, is it being trimmed at all to help it grow best or carry the weight of fruit properly (if that kind of tree).... I have seen shaved dogs, such as after surgery and never noticed less fur, less denseness or length, but I have not made a scientific study of it. GM's book makes a statement about the hair length lessening, but there's no sourcing.

Despite this, I do believe GM is to be appreciated for his contribution of (a) making a long hair book at all; discussing the things we discuss here such as nutrition, proper detangling, microtrimming, wearing hair up, swimming, and so on.

The reason I bother to post is to edify. I do not post to agree per se nor disagree per so .... only to explain so that understanding is clearer. Everyone is free to arrive at their own conclusion.

Clearly if one has bangs, they can have long hair. It's been going on since hair has been growing, and through the millenium bangs haven't hindered gaining length. There's no real way to necessarily determine of fringe/bangs reduces one's potential because one would need to know their potential. GM is a big advocate of hair that is generally all one length.

heidi w.

vdhendrix
October 28th, 2009, 10:17 PM
i dont see how your body would know that your bangs were shorter than the rest of you hair?

clairenewcastle
October 28th, 2009, 10:27 PM
Your post on the Sutherland sisters was very interesting heidi w - I recently saw the most amazing photo on the internet of the sisters lined up together taken from the back (LHC style) with their parents standing to one side. The photo showed the incredible impact this family's combined hair had on people.
As for hair growing quicker when it's all one length.....I've found this to be the case for me (for whatever reason). Yet I believe my face suits bangs so out come the scissors....my hairgrowth slows so I grow them out again.
For me, hair which is all the one length is the ideal.

adiapalic
October 28th, 2009, 10:28 PM
The only way bangs could noticeably grow faster than the longer hair is because their shortness doesn't allow the same amount of damage--ie. tangles, breaking off, being tugged on, etc. Thus they grow in thicker and more evenly.

Also, it's probably easier to notice bangs more when growing than the length because they're right at a person's face :)

ericthegreat
October 28th, 2009, 10:36 PM
All the hair growing outside of your scalp is dead protein. The only part of your hair that is living are your hair follicles which are below your scalp. When you cut your hair, it doesn't send any signals to your follicles that it has been cut.

Bangs should not stunt the growth of the rest of your hair. There are plenty of members here with superlong hair who also have bangs. If you would like to try out bangs and see if they suit your face, feel free to try them out. :)