PDA

View Full Version : Terminal could be...



moon-flower
May 3rd, 2008, 08:58 PM
When ones hair tapers alot at the ends, and hasn't grown for a while, you start to wonder if you are at terminal. Well I have knee length hair and overall it is kinda thin. About 3 years ago, it started thinning.
Sept. 2002, was the last time I cut/trimmed my hair. (yes expains taper) Right before I got it cut, it was at the top of my hips. After that cut, it was under chest length.(cut about 6 inches..?)
Is it true that the average hair life span is 4-7 years? If I estimate my hair lenght it is probable 8 years worth total, even after the 2002 cut.
So if I thought my terminal length was knee, could it actually be longer if the cut hair was part of my recent hair's life cycle. I think so, cause my hairs didn't start falling out after the cut.
(I haven't grown really at all since 2002)
Some people said I am to young to be at terminal. Do I just have to wait and see until a new hairs growns out from the top to my mid-calves?
I'm not complaining, or trying tobe self-centered, but just curious.
Because yesturday I was thinking, my hair could be longer than knee cause of the Hair Cut, therefore I wouldn't be at terminal, and could have really long hair like some of the people in this community.

Emichiee
May 3rd, 2008, 11:08 PM
Hair grows from about 3-7 years..so very wide range.
Some hairs anagen phase is even longer which produces floorlength and beyond :)
Terminal depends more on your genes not so much on your age. I dont think your trim has really shortened your hairs terminal length.
I think if I would not trim for a very long time my hair would stop growing very soon.
Have you tried maintaining it with trims at knee for a while to see if it continues growing.
Hair stops growing because it falls out but not all at once..every single hair has a different age, so all a trim does is slow down your growth and keeping the hair from tapering a little. I dont think that my terminal length will be shortened by trimming ;)

Nat242
May 3rd, 2008, 11:13 PM
I think trimming can create an artificial terminal length. Perhaps your terminal length (or rather, terminal 'time') is 7 years. In 7 years, if left alone, that hair might reach your calf. But if you trim, it will continue to grow, but because you set it back, it won't have time to reach ankle, and might only get to mid thigh by the time it becomes 7 years old and falls out. Does that make sense?

-- Natalie

ETA: So, you might be at the longest point your "current" hair can grow, because of trims, but if you don't trim the new growth, you might discover that the maximum length potential of the new hair is longer.

jojo
May 4th, 2008, 04:43 AM
I think trimming can create an artificial terminal length. Perhaps your terminal length (or rather, terminal 'time') is 7 years. In 7 years, if left alone, that hair might reach your calf. But if you trim, it will continue to grow, but because you set it back, it won't have time to reach ankle, and might only get to mid thigh by the time it becomes 7 years old and falls out. Does that make sense?

-- Natalie

ETA: So, you might be at the longest point your "current" hair can grow, because of trims, but if you don't trim the new growth, you might discover that the maximum length potential of the new hair is longer.

excellent explanation, i get it now!

freznow
May 4th, 2008, 08:35 AM
Knee is rather long.

Consider this: When you chopped your hair, the longest uncut ends probably went from being 4 years old to 3 years old (I'm probably not explaining this well...) so, by this point in your hair growing career, the hairs that were affected by the cut have likely already fallen out. The hairs that remained untouched by the cut are now up to 9 years old, while the ones that were affected by it are probably 10 or older, and so have likely fallen out.

So... I think you have a decent chance of being at terminal, but hair is funny. Some people don't believe in terminal... And depending on your diet and hair care, it can change. So I wouldn't count on it being terminal until you've taken ultimate care of it for at least a year, but there still is a chance that you may be there.

zift
May 4th, 2008, 12:32 PM
Dear moon-flower,
As you expressed hair tapers and yours does too and only a few proportion of your entire length reaches the very long lengths. Soo if you have cut the longest possible growers throughout their journey ,yes they couldn't reach their maximum length and your terminal length will shorten but since only those have the ability to reach really long than yes you have to wait for them to grow down there again.And that 3-7 years before falling out is average, many of us have longer anagen phases (like you and me).

Ursula
May 4th, 2008, 12:48 PM
I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around for how long a hair stays on the head before being shed. But I've never seen the numbers linked to any type of study on the issue. I'm not even sure if it is something that a scientist would study. It's moderately interesting to us, but would seem to have little medical application, and it would be very hard to track. How do you keep track of one hair on someone's head, and how long it stays? How do you get study participants to commit to never trimming and never doing things that might damage the hair and let it fall out sooner? How do you enforce such a committment?

The only honest answer to the question of how long a hair grows before it is shed is that we really don't know, except that we know that it is measured in years, as opposed to days or months.

About the only thing I can think for you to do is leave your hair alone, and report back to us in five years.

birdiefu
May 4th, 2008, 04:10 PM
I agree with freznow's theory. Since the shed/growth cycles of indiviual hairs is random, when you trimmed back you probably also trimmed back to hairs that had a fresh little taper from a previous shed and on their way down (rather cutting off growth). They were probably even neighbors right next to your 'longest' hairs (usually around back of head) I don't see it as the hairs that you cut off were your potentially longest, the newer ones could be too.

If you had to wait the total length of time (whatever your growth cycle is) again to get your longest hairs, that would mean that most of your hairs shed out at the same time, leaving you with very sparse hair at some point. I doubt that is the case

spidermom
May 4th, 2008, 04:18 PM
I've seen a lot of numbers thrown around for how long a hair stays on the head before being shed. But I've never seen the numbers linked to any type of study on the issue. I'm not even sure if it is something that a scientist would study. It's moderately interesting to us, but would seem to have little medical application, and it would be very hard to track. How do you keep track of one hair on someone's head, and how long it stays? How do you get study participants to commit to never trimming and never doing things that might damage the hair and let it fall out sooner? How do you enforce such a committment?

The only honest answer to the question of how long a hair grows before it is shed is that we really don't know, except that we know that it is measured in years, as opposed to days or months.

About the only thing I can think for you to do is leave your hair alone, and report back to us in five years.

I agree with this. It's fun to speculate, and we seem to do it endlessly, but we don't really know. The sikhs revere hair, and they've done a number of studies which have produced vastly different results than what most of us believe. For instance, they believe that trimming stimulates unnatural growth. There is a web site about the studies they have done and the conclusions they have made. I don't know how to post links, but if you type "hair power" into your search engine, you should find it.

lapushka
May 4th, 2008, 04:25 PM
I think the whole terminal length issue is BS, and that it only applies to chemically treated hair, or badly damaged/unhealthy hair. Yes there is a growth cycle, but a healthy hair that falls out is basically replaced by another hair. I think the ladies with extremely long hair prove this. Of course if you let your hair grow without trimming it at all, it is only natural that your ends will start thinning. This is resolved by having either 4 to 8 years more patience all the while trimming slowly or by maintaining the same length for a year to a few years. You cannot have quantity and quality all at once at long lengths.

memee1978
May 4th, 2008, 04:40 PM
i wonder what my terminal length is.:)

moon-flower
May 4th, 2008, 05:01 PM
Oh, I was wondering if the 6 inches that were cut, would be apart of my length now, so my terminal may be calf? Because I hadn't have a lot of shedding back then, only gradual shedding about 2-3 years ago. Yes, my hair is tapered cause I do not trim it and it has been 5 years since my last trim. As an apostolic/pentecostal young lady, I do not trim my hair. So, Ursula, I could let you know in another 5 years.
I know for sure my ends are the same hairs before the cut, (Hence the inch below knee hairs are about 8 years old) so I was thinking I'm not at terminal. I guess I will have to wait for the longest hair to finally fall out and see how long the new growth/shorter hairs grow. If this works, I might have calf length hair by 24 or 25 years of age.

I am happy with the lenght, It doesn't bother me if it doesn't get longer,(though more thickness would be nice) I don't grow it to claim super long lengths, but it is a part of my lifestyle.
Terminal length has always been a interesting curiousity of mine. I have studied how hair grows on numerous sights, but no one can quite explain it clearly. I have always been terrible with science though.

kimki
May 4th, 2008, 05:08 PM
I agree with this. It's fun to speculate, and we seem to do it endlessly, but we don't really know. The sikhs revere hair, and they've done a number of studies which have produced vastly different results than what most of us believe. For instance, they believe that trimming stimulates unnatural growth. There is a web site about the studies they have done and the conclusions they have made. I don't know how to post links, but if you type "hair power" into your search engine, you should find it.

The sikh's are interesting to research. Like you say they revere hair believing it has a spiritual function.

Here is a website which has an extract from the book you quoted spidermom http://www.sikh.net/sikhism/W/Hair1.htm

memee1978
May 4th, 2008, 05:10 PM
moon flower,do your hair shed?:)

spidermom
May 4th, 2008, 05:29 PM
The sikh's are interesting to research. Like you say they revere hair believing it has a spiritual function.

Here is a website which has an extract from the book you quoted spidermom http://www.sikh.net/sikhism/W/Hair1.htm

Thank you so much for posting that. We have a sikh member here but I can't think of her user name right at the moment.

kimki
May 4th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Thank you so much for posting that. We have a sikh member here but I can't think of her user name right at the moment.


Pleasure. It's interesting stuff. I enjoy studying religion.

spidermom
May 4th, 2008, 06:26 PM
Because yesturday I was thinking, my hair could be longer than knee cause of the Hair Cut, therefore I wouldn't be at terminal, and could have really long hair like some of the people in this community.

I don't think that terminal length is as easy to determine as that. You have hairs at all different lengths, right? Therefore when you cut back in 2002, yes - you shortened the length potential of your longest hairs. However, you had a lot more hairs that were younger and shorter. Some of them were at the same length as the hair that you had cut back, but had never been trimmed because they were shorter than the longest ends until the cut. They continued to grow. A number of your older, cut hairs probably reached the end of their cycles and shed out, but the shorter hairs didn't. They are now numbered among your longest hairs, and their length potential has never been shortened by cutting (since you haven't cut since 2002).

moon-flower
May 4th, 2008, 08:54 PM
Spidermom, that makes sense, that my shorter hairs 5 years ago are some of my longer hairs. But I may have some of my old hairs that haven't fallen out. Hence the taper slowly falling out.
No, I don't think I have major shed, cause It hasn't thin a lot in the last year. Only a few years ago I had a major shed. When I shampoo and Condition(twice a week) I only lose 2-3 hairs. When I comb with a pick style comb, with wider teeth, then burhing with a BBB, I lose 4-6 hairs, but that's fairly normal right. I find it impossible to count shed.

spidermom
May 4th, 2008, 08:59 PM
I don't count my shed hairs, either. Sometimes I shed more, sometimes less, but I don't worry. I've heard that shedding as many as 100 hairs a day is within the range of normal.

harpgal
May 4th, 2008, 09:07 PM
I think the whole terminal length issue is BS, and that it only applies to chemically treated hair, or badly damaged/unhealthy hair. Yes there is a growth cycle, but a healthy hair that falls out is basically replaced by another hair. I think the ladies with extremely long hair prove this. Of course if you let your hair grow without trimming it at all, it is only natural that your ends will start thinning. This is resolved by having either 4 to 8 years more patience all the while trimming slowly or by maintaining the same length for a year to a few years. You cannot have quantity and quality all at once at long lengths.
I tend to agree with most of lapushka's post. Only a very few have hair that grows so evenly and is so hardy, that they can have extreme lengths along with full hemlines.

Terminal length is the result of many different factors. Genes are probably the biggest one. Gentle care, good diet, and exercise are part of the equation also. Along with that, I am guessing it is the result of having a certain amount of follicles who hold onto their strands for a very long time vs those that don't and the differing speed at which the entire head of hair grows. It is all based on the bell shaped curve and it is unique to each one of us.

memee1978
May 5th, 2008, 03:40 PM
When ones hair tapers alot at the ends, and hasn't grown for a while, you start to wonder if you are at terminal. Well I have knee length hair and overall it is kinda thin. About 3 years ago, it started thinning.
Sept. 2002, was the last time I cut/trimmed my hair. (yes expains taper) Right before I got it cut, it was at the top of my hips. After that cut, it was under chest length.(cut about 6 inches..?)
Is it true that the average hair life span is 4-7 years? If I estimate my hair lenght it is probable 8 years worth total, even after the 2002 cut.
So if I thought my terminal length was knee, could it actually be longer if the cut hair was part of my recent hair's life cycle. I think so, cause my hairs didn't start falling out after the cut.
(I haven't grown really at all since 2002)
Some people said I am to young to be at terminal. Do I just have to wait and see until a new hairs growns out from the top to my mid-calves?
I'm not complaining, or trying tobe self-centered, but just curious.
Because yesturday I was thinking, my hair could be longer than knee cause of the Hair Cut, therefore I wouldn't be at terminal, and could have really long hair like some of the people in this community.
your hair is very long and beautiful!!!!!

Leisa
May 6th, 2008, 01:54 PM
[quote=moon-flower;95284]Oh, I was wondering if the 6 inches that were cut, would be apart of my length now, so my terminal may be calf? Because I hadn't have a lot of shedding back then, only gradual shedding about 2-3 years ago. Yes, my hair is tapered cause I do not trim it and it has been 5 years since my last trim. As an apostolic/pentecostal young lady, I do not trim my hair. So, Ursula, I could let you know in another 5 years.



Hi Moon Flower, this is off topic but I was wondering what the belief was of your religion pertaining to hair?
It's great that you have support in not cutting your hair.:)

moon-flower
May 6th, 2008, 08:53 PM
Read I Corinthians chapter 11, which is in the New Testament.(so it is not an old law)

I Cor 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5: But every woman that prayeth of prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6: For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7: For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, foramuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8: For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man.
9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10: For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
11: Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12: For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; abut all things of God.
13: Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncoverd?
14: Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
15: But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her long hair is given to her for a covering.


I'm not trying to bash others beliefs, but as a Christian, I try to follow the bible. It is stating in I Corinthians 11, that long hair on a woman is A. her power, B. Her glory(which many others her agree), C. her Covering(that's why I dont' always wear a hat) D. showing her subjection to her husband, brother, father ect. and mostly God. E. Because of the angels that check and are sent to protect by God, they rejoyce in the uncut hair.

moon-flower
May 6th, 2008, 08:56 PM
Once again those are my beliefs as a Christian who follows the bible. It is not meant to accuse or assult others who do not follow the same beliefs on LHC.

Whe are all here to grow longer hair, and I think that is great. I honestly think long hair on a woman is more femine than short hair and boost her self esteem. Besides it is much more fun to have and care for long hair.

If you have more questions, messege me on my profie.

So hopefully that explains something Leisa.