"permanent blow dry" article

[ginalaurie]

Just thought my fellow hair fanatics would enjoy this. Wonder what's in that stuff?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=566490&in_page_id=1879

[lora410]

Is it me or does her hair seem more shine in the "before" pict? it seems like he heated silicone to her hair. I hate to see what her hair looks like in 3 months once it wears off :lol:

[Future CCC-SLP]

I'm intrigued

[Tabitha]

It sounds a little similar to the thermal reconditioning/"Japanese hair straightening" ... the business about not getting it wet for several days afterwards. But that was a two-step process with neutraliser similar to a perm.

I wonder how long the effects last? It would have been ideal for me when my hair was a shoulderlength pyramid of frizz (had I had that kind of dosh to chuck around).

[Faepirate]

I'm also curious to know exactly what that stuff is.
And why it has to be straightened in...

[Miss Murphy]

It does sound intriguing! But it's of no interest for me, as I never wear my hair down.

I can see the appeal for somebody else, though.

[spidermom]

I like the before picture better. I truly do.

[young&reckless]

45 Minutes with a blow dryer, ahhhh!

Can you say burnt scalp?

[suicides_eve]

sounds neat, but i would be scared of the repercussions afterward- if your hair is already so damaged wouldn't the addtional blow frying and straighting it only add to the damage not to mention the chemicals they are using yikes!

[florenonite]

I like the before picture better. I truly do.

Ah, glad I'm not the only one :D

[Aisha25]

That does not sound good at all but painful and burning ouch,espessially the price 200pounds my god here it will be like 400bucks to ruin your hair more,,gosh.

[Islandgrrl]

From a marketing person's point of view, I'm intrigued by the before and after photos. In the before photo (which I actually like better), she's not got the same kind of makeup on. Her head is at a different angle - she's looking more directly into the camera, the hair is in front on both shoulders and the top she's wearing is only slightly short of hideous. Her hair is glossy and the color is so, so pretty!

In the after photo, you notice that one side of her hair is forward, the other back, her chin is more down and her makeup gives her face a softer, less shiny/harsh appearance. Her hair is a darker color - more contrast with her skin. She's also wearing blue - an inviting, soothing color, and uh, she's got plently of boob showing. And if you look really closely, you notice that the photo has been reversed.

The "total package" is made to look less attractive in the before photo and sexier and more alluring in the after photo.

I don't see that her hair is a frizzball in the first photo at all. Her hair in the second photo looks nice, but not worth the money (to me, anyway).

[Faepirate]

Another one here for preferring the "before" picture... :rolleyes:

And yes, indeed, I'd be worried about the long-term effects on the hair. I'm a little suspicious of the statement that it works better the more damaged the hair is.... :confused: Treatments like this might seem to improve the hair's condition at the time (or perhaps just.... kill the pretty waves... :p) but anything that changes the structure of the hair can't be good for it in the long-term, right......? Or maybe I'm just biased against it. ;)

[Lixie]

Islandgrrl, you pretty much said everything I was going to say and then some. Interesting how they expect nobody to notice the photo trickery. :rolleyes:

[k_hepburn]

I actually like the look in both pictures. Different, but both nice. With a slight tendency towards "natural beauty" in the before picture" and a more rigidly polished look in the after picture. And I get a feeling that, in spite of the non-hair differences pointed out by Islandgrrl, the before picture wasn't taken as a classical before picture. The hair colour in the after picture is noticeably darker and the article mentions some kind of hair dyeing accident a few weeks prior with that result, so it appear the before picture must have been taken a while back, not just before the treatment described in the article. On balance, I too prefer the before picture, since her smile is nicer in that one (not being male, a display of female boobs is unlikely to sway my opinion :D ).

I do like the sleekness of her after look, but given the procedure described - 45 minutes blowfrying with an additional serving of hair straightening on top - it seems to defy experience that this would actually improve the condition of the hair (rather than just mask it with loads of fried in silicon for a brief period). I'd really like to hear from a reliable source (personal friend, LHC member) about their experiences with it, especially the condition of the hair by the end of the three month period the treatment is supposed to last for, before I would risk the health of my hair by submitting it to such an onslaught. And hearing about the after care instructions (no water, no physical pressure on the hair at all for three days) makes me all the more weary, since it sounds like the treatment leaves the hair VERY vulnerable until all the chemicals applied have set and stabilized.

Still, if it genuinely worked without damaging the hair, I can see how I would be tempted (always assuming I'm going to acquire that golden egg laying goose soon...).

Greetings

katharine

[Awalia]

Why before pic is always in ugly shirt and bad lighting and make up? Hmm... I am not impressed. Why pay 200$ for something you can archive by just good haircare and NOT frying your hair everyday?

[Tabitha]

Why pay 200$ for something you can archive by just good haircare and NOT frying your hair everyday?

You can double that! 200 of our English pounds is about US$400 :mad:

When my hair was the length that hers was, I could just about achieve her "before" look by lengthy, arm-aching blowdrying (I suspect her "before" pic is after a home blow-dry, not after airdrying, from how she describes her natural hair - albeit in horribly OTT terms). The "after" look could only be got by a salon blow-dry. So I can see the attraction for someone who might not know, or care, about the possible damage they were doing to their hair.

[TheSpottedCow]

I'm more concerned with the fact that she's trying to convince us that her "before" hair was "wolly" and "fluffy" and "frizzy" when it's actually shiney and thick.

The beauty industry has done a good job convincing women there's something wrong with them when there's not.

[florenonite]

I'm more concerned with the fact that she's trying to convince us that her "before" hair was "wolly" and "fluffy" and "frizzy" when it's actually shiney and thick.

The beauty industry has done a good job convincing women there's something wrong with them when there's not.

Very true. That's disturbing.

[Carolyn]

I would think it would be every bit as damaging as a perm, so no thanks. I love her after look but I love the look of straighty straight blow dried hair. I'd still be blow drying if it wouldn't wreck my hair. I think her before is just kind of "meh" but some of it has to do with the butt-ugly top and the lack of make up.

[Tangles]

She looks so much prettier in the before picture, and her hair isn't frizzy there at all. Complete waste of money. There's a way to blowdry hair so it looks straight but still natural; the picture on the right looks very processed and professional and blah IMO.

[MakeItADouble]

I like both pictures, but this is an interesting new method - I'd like to know the ingredients. I probably wouldn't do it myself, as my hair is usually flat unless I blow it dry.

I also agree with the sentiments here - the before looks nice. Like a simple, quick home blow dry, or air dry. The 'after' picture looks like someone professionally blew her hair out. I'd have liked to see some action shots of her actually getting the procedure done.

[Nynaeve]

Ok. That's honestly a bit creepy.
I liked the before picture just fine...
and I sure as heck do NOT want to know what is in that stuff. shudder:

[Unofficial_Rose]

Have to concur with the OP - I would love to know what.is.in.this.stuff. Bet it's nothing as special as they make out - proteins and botanical ingredients my @rse. Silicones and polymers more like. That's it - they've finally come up with a way to laminate hair :eek:

I'd be very curious to know the profit margin on the £200 - "stuff" plus 1 hour labour:cool:

Also: Blow-drying plus flatirons for 45 mins - aaagghh!! :scared:

[sapphire-o]

The only difference girls can see would be the shirt, and what guys can see would be the cleavage. :D She's too hard on herself. Nobody would notice the hair and her expensive "investment".

[Áine]

She could have just gotten a regular relaxer and called it a day. I'm all for people doing whatever it is they want for styling, but she allowed them to use a million dollar army tank to kill a fly when a 99 cent fly swatter would do. What a waste of perfectly good hair... and money. Hope her hair is still in her head three months down the road.

[ladystar]

Funny, my cousin did this to her hair. I tried to convince her not to, cause its to new and you don't know the long term effects. She did it anyway. I think she payed about 250 or something like that. I saw her hair it looks pretty straight, she had beautiful curls before which I loved. She loves the results. I guess in do time we will know the long term effects.


I had the Japanese relaxer years ago and I will never do a relaxer ever again. The first year my hair was beautiful. After that i had waist length hair and had to cut it. My splits were all over my hair. I had to cut it off, it sucked. NEVER AGAIN FOR ME!!!

[atlantaz3]

so what happens to the roots as her hair grows out?

[Blueglass]

At first it sounded good, but the operative word is permenant, it's really a perm/ straightoner, repackaged. I'm guessing it's just as damaging.

[swanns]

It's just completely bizarre to me how so many women somehow idolize straight, unnaturally shiny, frizz-free hair. If done with hair-straighteners or, in this case, with that whatever method it is, it just doesn't look natural.

[Delila]

I for one am intrigued to find out what the author's hair would look like if she let it air dry and worked with the curl, not against it.

[nappywomyn]

It sounds like another version of the Brazilian Keratin Treatment - esp. the no ponytail holders and no getting your hair wet afterwards.......

[Emme76]

I also like the before picture better. Love here color in the before picture and it has like a summer glow!

/Emme

[kwaniesiam]

Who says coarse, thick hair is frizzy? There are a lot of members here with gorgeous coarse hair. It sounds like her hair was just fried from heat styling, and no amount of fancy product is going to help it. I don't understand the mentality of how the slightest wave in hair must be ironed out within inches of its life. The before picture is much prettier, IMHO. The latter looks coated in gunk to smooth it down.

[freznow]

Am I the only one who thinks that the pictures are supposed to look the same? Because the before picture is definitely a picture of her hair blowdried. This was supposed to show that now she has relatively the same hair, only without the 20 minutes of extra time in the morning.