Credits to Terminal Length.

[Smitts]

I'm not too sure If I believe in this.

Can someone here please direct me to who is the founder of hair terminal length? Who does the credit goes to and and are they a professional or well renown at anything?

Thanks in advance.

[Calista]

I´m not sure I understand you. Terminal length is a physical fact, not an invention. :confused:

[aisling]

The credits goes to logical thinking and physical facts.

[Finoriel]

Yup :) terminal length is nothing to believe in or not. Everything stops growing longer sooner or later :wink: otherwise I could easily drink out of the drip rail by now.

Seriously though. At terminal length the hair does not suddenly stop growing, that´s a misunderstanding and I guess here´s the root of your ´believe problem´ Smitts - At terminal length the hair stops gaining length :wink: small but important difference.

Depending on the length of ones shedding cycle, the individual hair has a certain timeframe where it grows before it sheds.
People with fast growing hair and long sheding cycles have a longer terminal length as opposed to people with slow growing hair and short shedding cycles.

[GlassEyes]

I think you might mean who first compiled the facts that we now KNOw about terminal length. I haen't a clue--it's probably something that's been backed up in a few studies, and logically, almost all things reach a point where they stop growing. :shrug: It's not really something you can argue against--it's evident from observation, and there are several members here who have reached terminal.

[Smitts]

I'm not confused...
I know it isn't a convention.
I know it means it stops gaining length, not growth

The above was right. I said the facts about the hair cycle and it isn't logical. Your nails continue to grow forever and ever even after death until they decompose completley.

So that being said, anyone know who the title of founder of the hair shedding period goes to? Until I've seen some type of legit research I won't believe it.

Thanks again in advance

EDIT: If you don't know, then name a few of the studies on it please.

[Kuchen]

Neither hair nor nails grow after death, it's just that the flesh around them shrinks, so they look longer :flower:

[enfys]

Also, we see animals reach their terminal lengths through not cutting their hair (fur). My cat's fur definately stopped growing at a certain length and I never trimmed her!

Would that make it easier to understand? Look at an animal's fur and see that every hair has a tapered end but the over all length never increases, pretty much like a human's but ours tends to have a much longer terminal, and with more variation through diet and treatment and so on.

[Smitts]

I'm asking for who did the research and where it originated from.

[Cholera]

I believe you have an illogical reason to think that terminal hair growth is illogical. It's a well-proven fact, many people here on LHC have experienced their hair taper and stop gaining length.

Also, about the nail-continuing-to-grow-after-death thing, I copied this from Wikipedia:

"Contrary to popular belief, nails do not continue to grow after death; the skin dehydrates and tightens, making the nails (and hair) appear to grow"

I couldn't exactly find anything on a terminal length for nails, but I doubt they grow on forever and ever, it's just that it's inconvenient to figure out what it would be.

I hope this helps you, I'm honestly not trying to put anyone down. :)

[TammySue]

I'm asking for who did the research and where it originated from.

Google search?

[Thinthondiel]

I'm not confused...
I know it isn't a convention.
I know it means it stops gaining length, not growth

The above was right. I said the facts about the hair cycle and it isn't logical. Your nails continue to grow forever and ever even after death until they decompose completley.

So that being said, anyone know who the title of founder of the hair shedding period goes to? Until I've seen some type of legit research I won't believe it.

Thanks again in advance

EDIT: If you don't know, then name a few of the studies on it please.

Yeah, but nails don't fall off (unless you injure your fingers or toes). Hair does fall off - we shed lots of hair every day. Which means that they don't just continue growing forever like nails do - they fall off and are replaced with new ones.

[Smitts]

I believe you have an illogical reason to think that terminal hair growth is illogical. It's a well-proven fact, many people here on LHC have experienced their hair taper and stop gaining length.

Also, about the nail-continuing-to-grow-after-death thing, I copied this from Wikipedia:

"Contrary to popular belief, nails do not continue to grow after death; the skin dehydrates and tightens, making the nails (and hair) appear to grow"

I couldn't exactly find anything on a terminal length for nails, but I doubt they grow on forever and ever, it's just that it's inconvenient to figure out what it would be.

I hope this helps you, I'm honestly not trying to put anyone down. :)

I was trying to get my point across.
It doesn't matter whatever what I am reasoning. I'm asking a question about the founder.

Here is an example:
The pythagorean theorem works like this.
Question: Who founded that?
Answer: Pythagorus

EDIT: Google hasnt been helping me. Maybe I'm just not typing in correct keywords but I havent found yet.

[Thinthondiel]

I was trying to get my point across.
It doesn't matter whatever what I am reasoning. I'm asking a question about the founder.

Here is an example:
The pythagorean theorem works like this.
Question: Who founded that?
Answer: Pythagorus

EDIT: Google hasnt been helping me. Maybe I'm just not typing in correct keywords but I havent found yet.

I don't think you can talk about a "founder" in this case. I think it's just a conclusion that lots of people have come to through observation and logical thinking. I'm guessing that's why googling it doesn't help.

[enfys]

Ah. Do you mean the maths behind it? Like hair grows x-inches per months mulitplied by n-months of growth to calculate your own terminal? Because I don't think that has been calculated properly and scientifically, it's just something you work out for yourself.

I think Igor wrote the article about calculating terminal length, maybe she can help?

ETA: Here's the article: http://forums.longhaircommunity.com/vbjournal.php?do=article&articleid=75

[sally_neuf]

I don't think there is a founder either, is like "who discovered the circle?"
Anyway, maybe you want to search some articles.
http://endo.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/142/6/2533

http://journals.lww.com/clinicalobgyn/Citation/1964/12000/Physiology_of_Hair_Growth.14.aspx

http://www.springerlink.com/content/d5465644325311vh/
Oh yes, you have to pay to read most of published scientifical articles, but anyway, if you really want to know

[Arctic]

There used to be a great e-book online made by PG, but they seem to have taken it down.

Maybe this book explains it. LINK (http://www.google.com/books?hl=fi&lr=&id=4HI8dGHgeIQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA255&dq=%22terminal+length%22+human+hair&ots=2kO440UEp-&sig=C-pE1mGhn3DJy-QCFlSiyn-XdcQ#v=onepage&q=%22terminal%20length%22%20human%20hair&f=false)

If it doesn't take you to the right page, scroll down to page 258, chapter 8.1.3. There are some names even, that might give you something to start from if you're interested to find out more.

[Arctic]

Oh yes, you have to pay to read most of published scientifical articles, but anyway, if you really want to know

That's true. If the OP is a university student or has an university near her/him, s/he can use their databases and subscribed journals, both online and paper versions.

[teela1978]

I doubt that any of us know who coined the term 'terminal length' in regards to human hair. I would guess that it is a term that was adapted from other creatures (like the previous cat example). If you're interested in finding more about it, doing a search on pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed) for 'hair terminal length' maybe including human would be a good place to start researching. If there's a university nearby, their library should have online access to the journals you would need to look at.

[Heidi_234]

Smitts, and who discovered that staying in the sun makes you tan? Or that you might catch a cold when hanging in a windy place with a wet head? Or that hairs always grow back after you pluck them? There are so much "uncredited" knowledge around us. I believe that in more ancient times when cutting your hair wasn't as common as it is now, terminal length was rather known fact. No need to be aggressive.

[Smitts]

Smitts, and who discovered that staying in the sun makes you tan? Or that you might catch a cold when hanging in a windy place with a wet head? Or that hairs always grow back after you pluck them? There are so much "uncredited" knowledge around us. I believe that in more ancient times when cutting your hair wasn't as common as it is now, terminal length was rather known fact. No need to be aggressive.
I wasn't being aggressive.
Besides, I'll use the example with what I told another kind member here. Many people "logically" assumed that the world was flat. Those that didn't had tried to prove it with experiments or information that could be tested by others for themselves.

How I look att hings. Just because you are in the sun doesn't mean the sun gives you a tan. There could be other factors influencing that. of course, i believe it gives you a tan because it has been proven by tests.

Sigh*. I wont find my answer for this question here. Thanks for trying though. I do appreciate you all putting your time into trying to figure out what I was asking for. :)

[Heidi_234]

There are members of these community who actually reached terminal length. If you may please conduct a years long research to prove its existence or discover that the world is actually round, then we will be happy to hear about it.

[Smitts]

There are members of these community who actually reached terminal length. If you may please conduct a years long research to prove its existence or discover that the world is actually round, then we will be happy to hear about it.

thanks for letting me know!
...but I have that little bit covered already.

the first part that is. The second one. well, I don't really need to research something that has been proven many times by legit information.

[florenonite]

Here (http://www.dutasteride.com/articles/hair-growth-cycle.html) is a good article that provides information as to why hair has a terminal length. Each hair grows for a certain amount of time. Then the hair falls out. Hence each individual hair can only grow to a certain length, a product of the speed at which it grows and the amount of time for which it grows. Terminal length, then, is the length to which a person's hair can grow without cutting because the individual hairs will not grow any longer than this. Although this particular article might not be the most reliable source, it is information I have read in numerous places and I do believe it to be scientific fact. It explains why we shed hair, and why we have many different lengths of hair on our heads

Here (http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/hair+growth+cycle) is an article from the Hutchinson encyclopedia that explains each human head hair lasts 2-4 years. From this logically each human head hair can only grow to a certain length, as discussed above.

This (http://www.jstor.org/stable/25180500?&Search=yes&term=anagen&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Danag en%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3Dhair%2Bgrowth%26Search%3DSea rch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=9&ttl=217&returnArticleService=showArticle) article (which you won't be able to see without a subscription to JSTOR), discusses the hair growth cycle in relation to male pattern baldness, explaining that "the duration of anagen is the main determinant of hair length; as it decreases in successive cycles, the new anagen hair is shorter than its predecessor...Ultimately anagen duration is so short the emerging hair does not reach the skin surface". From this it can be extrapolated that ordinary head hair, too, can only grow to a certain length.


I was trying to get my point across.
It doesn't matter whatever what I am reasoning. I'm asking a question about the founder.

Here is an example:
The pythagorean theorem works like this.
Question: Who founded that?
Answer: Pythagorus

EDIT: Google hasnt been helping me. Maybe I'm just not typing in correct keywords but I havent found yet.

Who says there has to be a founder? Some scientifically-accepted things have no known founder.

[Calista]

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/nahrung/c010.gif

[florenonite]

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/nahrung/c010.gif

How'd you manage that? It's less than ten characters, isn't it?

[Calista]

How'd you manage that? It's less than ten characters, isn't it?
There are two possible solutions to this task:

a) Insert the emoticon and any number of additional dots (.......). Make the dots white (......).

b) (This is what I did) Use an emoticon from an external source (www.cheesebuerger.de). The code will be longer than 10 characters.

[teela1978]

I'm curious as to what exactly you disbelieve about it Smitts...

[Fractalsofhair]

Terminal length is a fact. It's probably more clear with body hair. Does your arm hair(or back, or eyebrows, eyelashes etc. Think of a place where you don't remove hair. Remember, the only places where humans don't have hair are the soles and palms of our feet and hands and our lips.) grow terribly long and never stop growing, or do they stop after an inch or a couple of inches? That's the terminal length for the hair, even if the hair isn't split. And the Pythagoras theorem wasn't written by Pythagoras first, it is commonly thought he is the first to write it down, but similar ideas go back to ancient times before him, such as in some of the first written tablets with lists of Pythagorean triples. It's like trying to figure out who invented calculus and who first thought of the ideas but not the math!

Skin sheds. No one discovered that. Hair sheds as well. No one discovered that. I'm sure an animal notices when their fur sheds a bit, and thus it stands to reason that humans have always known our skin and hair sheds.(Skin possibly being more iffy, but when you get a burn or such, the scabs falls off) When it's been fashionable for people to have long hair, they learned ways to prevent damage and to be able to grow their hair to the longest they could. Terminal length is ALWAYS a teensy bit of a false terminal, as it's impossible to stop all damage, but the goal with terminal length is to prevent damage so it's as close to true terminal as possible. (A newborn infant's hair is the only type of hair without much damage. In reality, a fetus's hair is the only type without ANY damage.)

A scientifically accepted idea is that sunlight is warm(Has heat and is warmer than absolute zero.). No one discovered that. People proved it by figuring out wave lengths of light and things like that, and thus that light has energy and all that fun stuff!

Another scientifically accepted idea is that metal melts upon heating. This can be proved scientifically, but as for the first person who discovered that a rock placed in a fire sometimes melts, turns shiny, and then melts again, we have no idea.

If you want scientific proof of the terminal length, I'm certain a member here with good access to journals could find it! If you want to find out who discovered that hair sheds, we may have some problems. Should you wish to build a time machine and defy laws of physics and go back in time to discover it, I'm totally in on it! XD

[Syaoransbear]

How can common sense have a founder? You cannot compare nails and hair because nobody sheds their nails while everyone sheds hair. Unless you DO NOT shed any hairs like you don't shed your nails, then you have a terminal length unless each hair has a predetermined age that is older than what you will grow to(like single hairs growing to age 200, but that's probably around the odds of impossible). As long as you shed hairs, you will have a terminal length. Fact.

[Smitts]

Terminal length is a fact. It's probably more clear with body hair. Does your arm hair(or back, or eyebrows, eyelashes etc. Think of a place where you don't remove hair. Remember, the only places where humans don't have hair are the soles and palms of our feet and hands and our lips.) grow terribly long and never stop growing, or do they stop after an inch or a couple of inches? That's the terminal length for the hair, even if the hair isn't split. And the Pythagoras theorem wasn't written by Pythagoras first, it is commonly thought he is the first to write it down, but similar ideas go back to ancient times before him, such as in some of the first written tablets with lists of Pythagorean triples. It's like trying to figure out who invented calculus and who first thought of the ideas but not the math!

Skin sheds. No one discovered that. Hair sheds as well. No one discovered that. I'm sure an animal notices when their fur sheds a bit, and thus it stands to reason that humans have always known our skin and hair sheds.(Skin possibly being more iffy, but when you get a burn or such, the scabs falls off) When it's been fashionable for people to have long hair, they learned ways to prevent damage and to be able to grow their hair to the longest they could. Terminal length is ALWAYS a teensy bit of a false terminal, as it's impossible to stop all damage, but the goal with terminal length is to prevent damage so it's as close to true terminal as possible. (A newborn infant's hair is the only type of hair without much damage. In reality, a fetus's hair is the only type without ANY damage.)

A scientifically accepted idea is that sunlight is warm(Has heat and is warmer than absolute zero.). No one discovered that. People proved it by figuring out wave lengths of light and things like that, and thus that light has energy and all that fun stuff!

Another scientifically accepted idea is that metal melts upon heating. This can be proved scientifically, but as for the first person who discovered that a rock placed in a fire sometimes melts, turns shiny, and then melts again, we have no idea.

If you want scientific proof of the terminal length, I'm certain a member here with good access to journals could find it! If you want to find out who discovered that hair sheds, we may have some problems. Should you wish to build a time machine and defy laws of physics and go back in time to discover it, I'm totally in on it! XD

Thank you for a little understanding.
I even said, but many neglected, if no one knew of a founder than list some tests.
Sadly enough. People have completely overshot my question, spammed, or shot me down because I don't believe everything I read as true fact.

Please, send that user to my page so he/she can send me some articles.

if no one founded it, hthen how can you know something exists if it hasn't been founded yet?

[MsBubbles]

Many people "logically" assumed that the world was flat. Those that didn't had tried to prove it with experiments or information that could be tested by others for themselves.

Sigh*. I wont find my answer for this question here. Thanks for trying though. I do appreciate you all putting your time into trying to figure out what I was asking for. :)

What else could you have possibly been asking for? It seems to me this thread has covered the main aspects of the origins of the concept of 'terminal length'. Do you agree?

Those people that believed the world was flat, hadn't seen all of it. People who grow their hair indefinitely throughout their lives without cutting it have seen their hair and some have seen it get to a terminal length. So I don't really see how the two examples are relevant to each other, unless I am completely missing the point of your question. It's true that I can't answer for somebody's terminal length hair on the other side of the world that I have never met. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with 'credit' for the pioneer of the concept of terminal hair length.

How about:

Can someone here please direct me to who is the founder of hair terminal length? No

Who does the credit goes to nobody

and and are they a professional or well renown at anything? No

[Smitts]

What else could you have possibly been asking for? It seems to me this thread has covered the main aspects of the origins of the concept of 'terminal length'. Do you agree?

Those people that believed the world was flat, hadn't seen all of it. People who grow their hair indefinitely throughout their lives without cutting it have seen their hair and some have seen it get to a terminal length. So I don't really see how the two examples are relevant to each other, unless I am completely missing the point of your question. It's true that I can't answer for somebody's terminal length hair on the other side of the world that I have never met. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with 'credit' for the pioneer of the concept of terminal hair length.

How about:

Can someone here please direct me to who is the founder of hair terminal length? No

Who does the credit goes to nobody

and and are they a professional or well renown at anything? No

Now , thanks for answering that.,...what about my other question that came up please? The study of hair growth. Tests and facts, not theories.

[Fractalsofhair]

I don't know of any of the users here who can help you, but florenonite did give you a list of links that explain it.

Also, using logic can help you understand something without "Official" proof of it. All science is is logic applied to specific situations. Official proof is good, but taking a look at your arm or back and looking at the hair and seeing that it can't normally grow as long as your head hair may be helpful. I mean, my eyebrows don't ever grow as long as my head hair is currently.

Are you dealing with a terminal length issue yourself?

[Igor]

Now , thanks for answering that.,...what about my other question that came up please? The study of hair growth. Tests and facts, not theories.

I have never seen the phrase “terminal length” used outside the longhair “world”. But my guess is, its of no interest for the medical world and just us that are curious :lol:

The names of the hairs growth phases doesn’t suggests any “discoverer” or “founders” (Anagen, catagen and telugen)

The only thing I think you can possibly find is when the different phases where named and when
:shrug:

[Fractalsofhair]

Also, people can't presume the world is flat when we use measurements done in different areas of the planet. Even the very horizon makes us realize the earth isn't flat.

[enfys]

Honestly, I think the reason there is so little proof about the science of terminal lengths is that no-one sees fit to fund the research. To chart a hairs growth from start to shed would take seven years on average (no original source on the seven years, it's the figure I see most commonly used) and in an age where most people don't care to grow their hair past shoulder length I don't see why anyone would deem it neccessary or worthwhile to fund such research, even a hair-based company. Say Pantene were funding some research, would they do for terminal length or colour-locking dye and hiding split ends?

I just don't think the masses care enough for much research to be done. That's why there is so little evidence, back-up, data, statistics, lab research, anything.

[enfys]

I have never seen the phrase “terminal length” used outside the longhair “world”. But my guess is, its of no interest for the medical world and just us that are curious :lol:

The names of the hairs growth phases doesn’t suggests any “discoverer” or “founders” (Anagen, catagen and telugen)

The only thing I think you can possibly find is when the different phases where named and when
:shrug:

If you don't know I doubt anyone does! You're one of our authorities Igor.

Where did you learn the phrase words?

[3azza]

Your nails continue to grow forever and ever even after death until they decompose completley.

You do not shed your nails, that's why they keep growing, but you do shed you're hair, that's why it reach a limited length.

[Xanthippe]

One of the earliest scientific studies of hair growth phases I found online was by Dr. Herman B. Chase in the 1950s:

http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/34/1/113


Here is an example:
The pythagorean theorem works like this.
Question: Who founded that?
Answer: Pythagorus

Actually it wasn't Pythagoras

[pdy2kn6]

Ohh I thought this thread meant who has got terminal length hair on this site and thus deserve credits/props. lol. I was going to say EdG would get the terminal length reward because he is known for his terminal fairytalers

[Sofoulee]

I found a video of a doctor explaining the cycles of hair growth. Maybe it'll help explain a little bit better.

(Please disregard the title, it barely speaks about that)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW0DpYcJpIU

[florenonite]

There are two possible solutions to this task:

a) Insert the emoticon and any number of additional dots (.......). Make the dots white (......).

b) (This is what I did) Use an emoticon from an external source (www.cheesebuerger.de (http://www.cheesebuerger.de)). The code will be longer than 10 characters.

Ah cheers. Sometimes I do several spaces, hit enter, then insert the emoticon, but you didn't have anything in front of it so I couldn't work out how you'd done it.


Should you wish to build a time machine and defy laws of physics and go back in time to discover it, I'm totally in on it! XD

Going back in time isn't defying the laws of physics! The Doctor does it and the Doctor is obviously real xD


One of the earliest scientific studies of hair growth phases I found online was by Dr. Herman B. Chase in the 1950s:

http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/34/1/113



Aww, I can't get that article, even with ATHENS (and I'm not spending £10 to view it ;))

[Heidi_234]

Going back in time isn't defying the laws of physics! The Doctor does it and the Doctor is obviously real xD

Unless you do something to your grandpa, or don't do something to your grandma :shudder:

[Fractalsofhair]

florenonite- Well, I suppose we can just randomly make up new physics. XD That's pretty much what a lot of quantum physics is. And Doctor Who I guess can be the next new Newton(I am not saying Einstein, because we all know Emilie DuChatelet thought of the ideas before him!) and create the first time machine.

[Calista]

Ah cheers. Sometimes I do several spaces, hit enter, then insert the emoticon,...
And I didn´t know spaces counted as characters. Good to know. :D

[florenonite]

And I didn´t know spaces counted as characters. Good to know. :D

Only if you do them before. If you do them after they don't.

[pdy2kn6]

I found a video of a doctor explaining the cycles of hair growth. Maybe it'll help explain a little bit better.

(Please disregard the title, it barely speaks about that)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW0DpYcJpIU


Useful info...I am not too sure how much the title related to the actual document lol. I'm surprised to hear him say most women can't even grow to hips, he seemed a bit astonished that Crystal Gayle could grow to her hips (has he not seen her standing up and her hair touching the floor?) lol. I am sure if he saw all the longer than hip haired ladies on here he would be taken aback abit....

[Jennie80]

If you look at your body the hair on different places have a stop for growing. Eye brows,hair on the legs and so on..And no the hair doesn`t grow after death..Why should it???

[zule]

I guess you'll think I'm attacking you, but I'm not.

My mother's mother never cut her hair. It only grew to her calves. My father's mother never cut her hair. It draped onto the floor and was a train of about three feet behind her.

Different genetics. I actually knew TWO women whose hair didn't grow beyond chin length.

It's simple science. Buy Paula Begoun's The Beauty Bible and she lays it all out for you.

Moreover, when researching, it's best to do the research yourself, rather than asking others to do it for you without pay. I'm a professional researcher and get a bit over $65/hour for private research, and I'm one of the cheapest.

I think this post should cost about $1.50.:cheese:

[Fractalsofhair]

pdy2kn6- Probably given that most women damage their hair a lot, it's not surprising. Also, if you know your hair stops growing at BSL or so, why would you try to get your hair to grow any longer. A lot of people just give up after a while. A lot of us with fine, easily damage hair are told that our hair has to be shorter.(Seriously, when I was in 4th grade, my hair stylist insisted that I had to use Paul Mitchell as opposed to soap bars, and he claimed my hair wouldn't grow given how fine it is. I had thigh length hair then. The cones in Paul Mitchell made my hair break off up to shoulder length.)

[enfys]

I guess you'll think I'm attacking you, but I'm not.

My mother's mother never cut her hair. It only grew to her calves. My father's mother never cut her hair. It draped onto the floor and was a train of about three feet behind her.

Different genetics. I actually knew TWO women whose hair didn't grow beyond chin length.

It's simple science. Buy Paula Begoun's The Beauty Bible and she lays it all out for you.

Moreover, when researching, it's best to do the research yourself, rather than asking others to do it for you without pay. I'm a professional researcher and get a bit over $65/hour for private research, and I'm one of the cheapest.

I think this post should cost about $1.50.:cheese:

I have to laugh at that. So many people here would give up their toy collection for calf length hair! You have very good genes based on that though. Longest my family managed was about knee.

Do you take Paypal?

[Yozhik]

If you search on google books or google scholar for "human hair" + "terminal length," a lot of articles/books appear by academics writing on the topic. Some of them seem to speak about base pairs and molecular structures, which is a little above my head, but there are others (research which was done decades ago) that go into terminal length, which does have to seem more cache in the beauty/personal care world than in scientific studies.
HTH :)

[zule]

I have to laugh at that. So many people here would give up their toy collection for calf length hair! You have very good genes based on that though. Longest my family managed was about knee.

Do you take Paypal?
Re-reading, it would be an insane statement anywhere except here! Mine won't grow to either length. I think. I've always cut it at around TB.

For you, it's all free. ;)

[Xanthippe]

Aww, I can't get that article, even with ATHENS (and I'm not spending £10 to view it ;))

That's soo weird. Just this morning it was free! I guess too many people clicked on it. :lol:

[sally_neuf]

Mmm.. I think there is a misunderstanding..

You DON'T prove a fact, you prove a theory.

Hair reaching a terminal lenght is a FACT

You prove the theory, Is it because hair growth has a cycle? Is it because little fairys cut it at night? after a number of observations, you can then conclude and choose wich theory best explains the facts.

[renarok]

Did anyone else laugh a lot while reading this thread? I also learned a lot. There are so many kind people here on this site who will go well beyond what is expected to educate others. So many helpful links.

[Gypsy]

I've nver seen a million dollars before, but I know it exists.
Same story with terminal length.

[Amoretti]

I'm amazed at how kind and patient some of our members here are. LOL.

[Calista]

It´s the good training we´ve had from the mods. :D

[Smitts]

If that were the case there would be less spam going around.
Aside that, Those links, most didn't give credit to the person that wrote the article or where they got the info. from.

Arctic and a few others came of help.
Still, I disbelieve. Oh, and unless something isn't proven by tests. It's a theory/hypothesis.

[Calista]

If that were the case there would be less spam going around.
Please stop being offensive.

[florenonite]

Those links, most didn't give credit to the person that wrote the article or where they got the info. from.

Perhaps because it's accepted as common knowledge by the scientific community? It's common knowledge that ATP causes increased urination (ok, it's been years since I've done bio, all I can remember at the moment is that ATP chants "no more pee!" :silly:), does a well-meaning person have to cite the person who told them that?



Still, I disbelieve. Oh, and unless something isn't proven by tests. It's a theory/hypothesis.

However, in science, theories, hypotheses and conjectures are very different things. Theories are accepted as almost certainly true (like Einstein's Theory of Relativity), there's just no way of proving them. They explain things and make sense, but there's just no way of proving it's true. Hypotheses and conjectures are more open to disagreement, because they are things that have yet to be fully explained and proven.

Just because it's a theory doesn't mean it's wrong or even particularly open to disagreement, save from specialists in the area.

[Nat242]

I found references to terminal length of rat whiskers in a study titled, "Changes in hair growth characteristics following the wounding of vibrissa follicles in the hooded rat", published in the Journal of Embryology & Experimental Morphology.

Surely the use of the term in a paper regarding hair growth (albeit in rats) published in a scientific journal would lend some credibility to the concept? I'm unable to find (or rather, can't be bothered finding out) what sort of peer reviewing process is required for papers to be published in J Embryol Exp Morphol, but I imagine there are some.

[Heidi_234]

It´s the good training we´ve had from the mods. :D
No kidding :hatchet:

[Xanthippe]

Just because it's a theory doesn't mean it's wrong or even particularly open to disagreement, save from specialists in the area.

Exactly. I remember reading a book for my philosophy of science class that laid this difference between hypothesis and theory painstakingly clearly and some people still didn't understand the idea. :shrug: I guess it's ingrained from common usage.

[mwedzi]

If that were the case there would be less spam going around.
Aside that, Those links, most didn't give credit to the person that wrote the article or where they got the info. from.

Arctic and a few others came of help.
Still, I disbelieve. Oh, and unless something isn't proven by tests. It's a theory/hypothesis.

If you found a study of the life cycle of a hair, would that show it to you? If hair has a life cycle, that is equivalent of "hair doesn't grow forever". You agree with that, right? In the same way that humans have a life cycle ending with death, which is the equivalent of saying humans don't live forever.

[missmagoo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calista View Post
It´s the good training we´ve had from the mods.

No kidding :hatchet:

okay that made coffee come out of my nose.

[Wind Dragon]

Did anyone else laugh a lot while reading this thread? I also learned a lot. There are so many kind people here on this site who will go well beyond what is expected to educate others. So many helpful links.
Ayup. I am in awe. :bowtome:


It´s the good training we´ve had from the mods. :D
:spitting: Rats, now I have to clean my monitor again.

[Little_Bird]

Yes, there isn't a founder, it's just a fact, like "the sky is blue"... there's no founder for that.

Nails don't stop growing because you don't shed your nails. But hair sheds, about 100 stranda a day. That's the big diference. These stranda are replaced for new ones, that grow on and on... but they fall again. Your total lenght will be equal to the lenght that the individual strands can grow before they fall (shed). Shedding doesn't have a founder or theory either... just run your fingers trough your hair and it will shed.

Some people can grow strands of hair untill after floor lenght before they shed out... other people grow up to shoulders and shed already. Those people's hair simply grows slower and/or sheds faster.

This is all about physics, and if you research about growing long hair, you will most likely find the growth cycle explained everywhere...

Hope this helped :) Don't worry about it tough! Waist lenght is almost always guaranteed! :)

[Peter]

...

Still, I disbelieve. Oh, and unless something isn't proven by tests. It's a theory/hypothesis.
Nope. Theories are ideas that explain sets of facts. They have repeatedly verifiable evidence to back them up. A hypothesis is more like an "educated guess" that hasn't yet been verified time and time again.

As an example... there is the fact of gravity, and the theory of gravity. The fact is that objects with mass experience an attractive force to each other; the theory is what tries to explain that fact.

[burns_erin]

I found a video of a doctor explaining the cycles of hair growth. Maybe it'll help explain a little bit better.

(Please disregard the title, it barely speaks about that)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FW0DpYcJpIU

I can only imagine he is assuming that everyone must trim their hair a quarter of an inch or more a month if he thinks most women can't grow their hair out past hips.

[Presto]

Smitts, I cannot offer any answer to your question, but after reading this thread I have a question of my own.
You don't believe what is generally accepted here about terminal length.
This makes me want to ask you what is your hypothesis of what is taking place with the hair on your head?

I mean, what causes you to discard the theory of terminal length? (Aside from the rest of us not quoting authoritative sources.)

Do you have an observation about your own hair that doesn't seem congruent with what others speak of as terminal length?

It may help in searches for studies if we had some idea what you think is going on with hairs and their growth. :)

I'm really curious, and I don't intend this to be spam in your thread, it seems relevant to find out what you think is going on with hair follicles.

[spidermom]

I am not sure what it is that you do not believe. I mean - hair sheds. Don't you lose hairs every day when you comb, brush, wash, etc? Those hairs have stopped growing, which means that they grew as long as they were genetically programmed to grow, then they shed out. You can tell that they shed naturally because they have a small root bulb on one end. If there is no small root bulb, the hair broke off. I can find lots of studies and conclusions about human hair growth just by googling it. Since the information isn't applicable for the military, not much is made of it. If they could make a weapon from information about human hair growth then we'd all know as much about it (the names, the dates) as we know about the atomic bomb.

[wahmof9]

I'm not confused...
I know it isn't a convention.
I know it means it stops gaining length, not growth

The above was right. I said the facts about the hair cycle and it isn't logical. Your nails continue to grow forever and ever even after death until they decompose completley.

So that being said, anyone know who the title of founder of the hair shedding period goes to? Until I've seen some type of legit research I won't believe it.

Thanks again in advance

EDIT: If you don't know, then name a few of the studies on it please.

That is a myth...the skin receded making the nails appear longer...when your dead it all stops.

[GlennaGirl]

Is this an oversimplistic way to look at it?: Every individual hair must have a terminal length. Otherwise, if a person never cut his or her hair, there would be at least a handful of hairs that would end up being dozens of yards long. Right?

Maybe that *is* oversimplistic.

But, okay. My hair grows .5" a month. I've been alive for 504 months (yikes). Much of my hair, even if I'd never cut it in my life, would be accidentally yanked out, say, with brushing, or might have snapped off due to some sort of damage or other...but it stands to reason with the tens of thousands of hairs on my head, a firmly countable number of hairs would have made it through the years.

If the hairs did not have a terminal length, that would mean I would have at least a few hairs would be 252" long (21 feet).

It would not make reasonable or biological sense for any animal that grows hair, to have that hair grow indefinitely without some point at which the hair would stop growing and fall out. It does vary on the body, of course--the terminal length for armpit hair, for example, might only be an inch or two. But again. If hair in general had no terminal length, then a non-shaver would have, given a puberty of about age 13, 102" (8.5 feet) of underarm hair by the age of 30.

[above_rubies]

If hair in general had no terminal length, then a non-shaver would have, given a puberty of about age 13, 102" (8.5 feet) of underarm hair by the age of 30.

:scared::run:

[GlennaGirl]

Still, I disbelieve.

Well, and that's okay too. It's your prerogative to believe in something or not; people can believe in things they can't see, and disbelieve what has literally just happened in front of them. Frankly, if you're unwilling to do your own research into papers on this subject, you can't really expect others less vested in the answer than you to do your research for you, and in some cases to even pay money to access that research. Therefore the disappointment you seem to feel in the members of this community is misplaced; it is more appropriate that you should feel disappointment in yourself for not having cared enough to find the answer, since you profess its importance to you. That's not a judgment...it's just a pretty obvious observation.

You may disbelieve in the face of the links that have been provided to you, though it's slightly rude to hardly (if at all) acknowledge that work that was done for you, and if you'd like to delve further, you are free to do it yourself...nobody's stopping you...but another possibility is that you do not want to believe it, and so it doesn't matter how much research is there. So that should probably be where you want to go from here: Do you "want" to disbelieve it? That could be what's blocking you here. And if you do want to disbelieve it, why is that a crime? So disbelieve it. That's your right and you don't have to defend it. At the same time, however, don't expect people to defend the information they've already given you with even more information that you're just as likely to say isn't credible based on your previous responses.

If you disbelieve, then you do, and meanwhile many of us have gained some interesting insights from the links in this thread. :) You too can learn more science about this cycle by reading the links, which I'm not sure yet that you did since you haven't really commented on their content. OTOH, you may have. Either way you have surely learned something new and so have we all.

[Buddaphlyy]

Well, and that's okay too. It's your prerogative to believe in something or not; people can believe in things they can't see, and disbelieve what has literally just happened in front of them. Frankly, if you're unwilling to do your own research into papers on this subject, you can't really expect others less vested in the answer than you to do your research for you, and in some cases to even pay money to access that research. Therefore the disappointment you seem to feel in the members of this community is misplaced; it is more appropriate that you should feel disappointment in yourself for not having cared enough to find the answer, since you profess its importance to you. That's not a judgment...it's just a pretty obvious observation.

You may disbelieve in the face of the links that have been provided to you, though it's slightly rude to hardly (if at all) acknowledge that work that was done for you, and if you'd like to delve further, you are free to do it yourself...nobody's stopping you...but another possibility is that you do not want to believe it, and so it doesn't matter how much research is there. So that should probably be where you want to go from here: Do you "want" to disbelieve it? That could be what's blocking you here. And if you do want to disbelieve it, why is that a crime? So disbelieve it. That's your right and you don't have to defend it. At the same time, however, don't expect people to defend the information they've already given you with even more information that you're just as likely to say isn't credible based on your previous responses.

If you disbelieve, then you do, and meanwhile many of us have gained some interesting insights from the links in this thread. :) You too can learn more science about this cycle by reading the links, which I'm not sure yet that you did since you haven't really commented on their content. OTOH, you may have. Either way you have surely learned something new and so have we all.

Very nice post. I feel similar but I probably wouldn't have said it as nicely (which is why I didn't post, lol).

[RancheroTheBee]

If that were the case there would be less spam going around.
Aside that, Those links, most didn't give credit to the person that wrote the article or where they got the info. from.

Arctic and a few others came of help.
Still, I disbelieve. Oh, and unless something isn't proven by tests. It's a theory/hypothesis.


http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b198/emagdalene/FacePalm-1.jpg

First of all, I'm at a loss as to what you consider to be "spam". Second, typically it's poor form to insult a forum's moderators with baseless claims that they're failing to do their job.

Also, if the only way you'll believe that hair grows, and then falls out at some point is to read credited articles from academic sources, you have has much luck finding that as finding a similar article about how water is generally wet.

Lastly, a theory and a hypothesis are different things. Oh, and a final note: I find it hilarious that you refuse to believe our information about hair physiology, but you do believe that a bunch of complete strangers will help you perform rigorous research into something that is a confirmed fact while you continue to insult our every attempt to help you.

[Renbirde]

Apologies-- my Science Geek just kicked in. (This is a general FYI, not directed at anyone in particular.)


However, in science, theories, hypotheses and conjectures are very different things. Theories are accepted as almost certainly true (like Einstein's Theory of Relativity), there's just no way of proving them. They explain things and make sense, but there's just no way of proving it's true. Hypotheses and conjectures are more open to disagreement, because they are things that have yet to be fully explained and proven.

Law: We've tested it to death and we know it holds true, but we haven't worked out (or just plain can't explain) why. Eg: the Law of Conservation of Mass, that bundle that Newton worked on...

Hypothesis: A testable statement. (NOT an educated guess! Sorry-- pet peeve of mine. ;)) Eg: Hair grows. Null hypothesis: Hair does not grow. Can be easily tested by looking at root growth on dyed heads (or shaven people).

You devise an experiment to prove or disprove (not as a fact, see below. You merely support it or not.) your hypothesis. (Or to back up someone else's theory...)

Theory: A hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested and not disproved. If it's included in the theory, we know how it works. Eg: The theory of DNA replication.

Fact: Does. Not. Exist.


:cheese: I'm done with my definitions for now.

Who wants to play "Design the Experiment!"? I, for one, can't figure out how to go about measuring the existence of terminal length... you can measure growth at the root and total growth of the length, time, all that... but terminal itself?

I'd be game for doing one, but I can't if I don't know what I'm doing! :D Things to measure, controls, a body of test subjects... funding might be nice too...

[RancheroTheBee]

I'd be game for doing one, but I can't if I don't know what I'm doing! :D Things to measure, controls, a body of test subjects... funding might be nice too...

I'd love to be a test subject, but seeing as the terminal length for a lot of my family members is +classic... You know. That'd be silly.

[Renbirde]

I'd love to be a test subject, but seeing as the terminal length for a lot of my family members is +classic... You know. That'd be silly.
:D I'm very silly-- I'm at the widest part of my hip right now with almost no taper. :) We might come out about even.

:cheese:

[RancheroTheBee]

:D I'm very silly-- I'm at the widest part of my hip right now with almost no taper. :) We might come out about even.

:cheese:


:p My current length is collarbone. You'd have to wait a looooong time for any reliable data.

[florenonite]

Theory: A hypothesis that has been thoroughly tested and not disproved. If it's included in the theory, we know how it works. Eg: The theory of DNA replication.
.

My apologies for getting it wrong :) My point still stands, though - theories aren't really something non-scientists are at liberty to disbelieve. Yes, you're free to believe or disbelieve whatever you want, but from a scientific standpoint unless you're well-versed in the theory at hand (for instance the people who developed String Theory, which, incidentally, is really a conjecture, were well-familiar with the Theory of Relativity), you're probably not going to get very far without accepting it.



Arctic and a few others came of help.


I've been debating whether or not to respond to this for a while. I don't want to seem rude, but this is a rather offensive statement. I spent about 20 minutes searching, including reading an article in language totally out of my range of comfort (I do literature, not biological texts), from which I then conveniently summarised the salient points for you because I figured you wouldn't be able to see it. I'm sure there were others who put in as much effort, and yet you completely ignored my post, ignord others, and shot down still others.

If you're going to ask people to do research for you because you, effectively, don't believe what they're telling you to be truth, it is polite to at least addres their research in a courteous manner.

I was trying to be helpful, as were the others in this thread, and yet you completely overlooked my post and then made snide comments about how people were ignoring you and not answering your question properly.

[Renbirde]

No apology necessary, florenonite! I'm sorry-- I didn't phrase my post quite right, I didn't mean to get after you or anything. :)

There's no shame in getting your wires crossed. It's something science teachers get wrong all the time.

[enfys]

The only way I can think you could research or test or prove or whatever terminal length is to wax your subjects head so the new hair all starts growing from the same point, all tapered tips, then collect every hair that is shed over the next ten years or something?! I can't see the point in that. Not enough people care for it to be worth doing.

I didn't go off and research things because that's what I've done since I got the internet and started researching long hair. I've had longer hair than most people believe their terminal is, never mind find out. I've spoken to many people about the subject. I don't care enough to do the research because I have no desire to know my terminal length. I know it's longer than I want to grow to. At classic I didn't have taper! Why would I hunt down scientific articles about long hair? For myself, never mind anyone else. Very little new information comes up now that I have an interest in.

[teela1978]

I think it'd be much easier than that. Many people in this world belong to cultures/religions that do not allow haircutting. A survey of those people (asking how long their hair has grown without ever cutting) would give an idea of how long human hair can get.

ETA: I also think that 'who coined terminal length' isn't really the right question. The question, is more about 'who discovered the hair cycle, and is it universally applicable'... I have no idea who first started looking at skin samples with hair in them, but the idea of hair cycling through phases is a universally recognized one that can be found in any biology book. That cyclical nature implies that there is a defined limit to how long hair can grow, and different cyclical timing in different people would infer that different people would be able to grow their hair to different lengths. Is it universally applicable? I doubt that anyone has non-cycling (non-shedding) hair on their head. I suppose its feasible (anything is possible... ) but its unlikely.

[Sofoulee]

http://www.keratin.com/aa/aa010.shtml (http://www.keratin.com/aa/aa010.shtml) - A short summary of research on human hair growth.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/question100.htm (http://www.howstuffworks.com/question100.htm) - A short summary of why the hair on different parts of your body are short and why some are long.

http://hair-care.suite101.com/article.cfm/factors_affecting_the_length_of_hair_growth (http://hair-care.suite101.com/article.cfm/factors_affecting_the_length_of_hair_growth) - An article on the different factors that contribute to hair growth and the hair growth cycle.



Though these may not be from what you consider “medical” or “scientific” journal articles; all of these articles have some very similar things in common. They discuss the hair growth cycle through some well known ­ “hypotheses” (thank you Rinbirde) agreed upon and backed up by scientific research. Let's put these all together and look at them…

1. Hair grows at a certain rate, influenced by lifestyle choices, damage, health, vitamins and supplements, but mainly just plain old genetics.

2. All hairs follicles on our body go through cycles of growth in which they produce the protein we recognize as our hair, then when they stop growing and shed this hair and then start over and grow a fresh strand of hair. (The people here on this forum discuss different methods to maximize their results in hair length during the growth cycle through reducing damage, proper nutrition). This in NO way means that people will be able to grow their hair indefinitely, just that you are getting the maximum length out of it while it’s still in the growth phase.

3. At any point in time any person will be able to find hairs on their head in any one of the cycles of hair growth. Active growth, the rest period, and then new growth… (this explains the long hairs on your head, empty hair follicles, and the baby hairs you see popping up when you part your hair)

Do you agree with these three things? I doubt that you need any type of scientific proof that these three things occur; any investigation of your own would enable you to prove these things to yourself.

From these three factors you should be able to confidently deduce that hair does have what we here at The Long Hair Community call a “terminal length”. Now, if you have some other theory to what kind of growth cycle hair really goes through, I’d be open and willing to hear it. Actually, I’d LOVE to hear it.

And finally, this post is not to ‘prove’ to you that a terminal length exists… because that hope appears to be futile. But after seeing your reactions (or lack thereof) to our attempts to be helpful to you, and seeing that you either do not have or refuse to share your theory as to why terminal length does not exist I felt the need to compile a short list of why I believe it does.

I truly hope that this helps you and you find what you’re looking for.

[Islandgrrl]

Everything that *is* is not attributable to a specific person.

That's all I'm gonna say.

[Carolyn]

Everything that *is* is not attributable to a specific person.

That's all I'm gonna say.Exactly. And does it REALLY matter anyways? I've got more important things on my mind :p

[ladycatpurrs]

Well, and that's okay too. It's your prerogative to believe in something or not; people can believe in things they can't see, and disbelieve what has literally just happened in front of them. Frankly, if you're unwilling to do your own research into papers on this subject, you can't really expect others less vested in the answer than you to do your research for you, and in some cases to even pay money to access that research. Therefore the disappointment you seem to feel in the members of this community is misplaced; it is more appropriate that you should feel disappointment in yourself for not having cared enough to find the answer, since you profess its importance to you. That's not a judgment...it's just a pretty obvious observation.

You may disbelieve in the face of the links that have been provided to you, though it's slightly rude to hardly (if at all) acknowledge that work that was done for you, and if you'd like to delve further, you are free to do it yourself...nobody's stopping you...but another possibility is that you do not want to believe it, and so it doesn't matter how much research is there. So that should probably be where you want to go from here: Do you "want" to disbelieve it? That could be what's blocking you here. And if you do want to disbelieve it, why is that a crime? So disbelieve it. That's your right and you don't have to defend it. At the same time, however, don't expect people to defend the information they've already given you with even more information that you're just as likely to say isn't credible based on your previous responses.

If you disbelieve, then you do, and meanwhile many of us have gained some interesting insights from the links in this thread. :) You too can learn more science about this cycle by reading the links, which I'm not sure yet that you did since you haven't really commented on their content. OTOH, you may have. Either way you have surely learned something new and so have we all.

:applause
I was very impressed with the concern you guys have shown on this thread for this subject. Not to mention, on the whole, your manners have been impeccable.-- I have learned a lot about hair growth through these articles you provided. So here is a thank you, just in case you didn't get one..

[Tressie]

I have no idea!! Interesting question~ (o:

[DragonLady]

DragonLady dons her flameproof undies, and tiptoes into the fray

I don't think anyone knows who "founded" the idea. The very first ...person...to figure it out may not have even been "human" as we know it.

I once read about a gorilla crossing a stream. It grabbed a big fallen branch, and carefully tested the depth of the water before taking each step. It's very possible that terminal length is known among non-human primates. The fact they haven't told us all about it doesn't say they don't understand.

Who figured out that seeds produce plants? We don't know. It may have been a neanderthal. It may have been known, talked about and joked about for a half a century before the first ...person...decided to purposefully plant a seed and raise a pet plant. Another half-century may have gone by before the first kitchen witch decided to grow her own herbs so she wouldn't have to walk around looking for them. We know some facts, but there are more questions than answers. We know wheat grew at Jericho. We know Otzi had medicinal herbs in his bag. We know native Americans grew corn...but we just don't know who -or what, as the case may be- "founded" the idea.

We know that in the days of Socrates the system of using longitude and latitude lines had already been invented. They knew the world was round. But wars, famines, plague and the fall of Rome caused so much knowledge to be lost that the only source of education was the church, who didn't teach much that wasn't in the Bible. So...common, uneducated people believed the world was flat, while better educated, travelled people believed it was round. But no one had proven it either way. It was under debate, and those who were willing to stand up and offer evidence were in danger of losing their heads; so very few were in any hurry to prove themselves "dead right." And, just to really confuse things, "Flat Earther's" still exist. They don't believe the world is round, and nothing you say or do will convince them. "The Man Will Never Fly Club" is another good example of people who refuse to believe what they can plainly see...although, to be fair, most of them are just being tongue-in-cheek about it.

Back to terminal lenght; hair falls out. We know this. Every day when you comb it you'll probably lose a couple. Unless you broke them, they were at their terminal length, grew as long as they were able to grow in that time and despite whatever damage they suffered, and fell out. No one knows who first discovered it...maybe the guy who invented the comb? Maybe the woman who first dreamed of hair that would stretch all the way across the Nile? No one knows.

[Aero]

If you think about it, hair can't just keep growing forever, there is a cycle of growth and shedding. It depends on your genetics how long your hair can grow.

[Aero]

Wow Dragon Lady, amazing reply!