Hair Length Names

[BrightEyes7]

So I was thinking today... where did these come from? Well not really all of them, just one specifically... classic.

I get APL, BSL, Waist, TBL... but classic? Where the heck did that come from?

And pixie too. But I can kinda see where that one came from.

So does anyone know where the term "classic length" came from???

[Nae]

Hmmm.....pretty sure it is a George Michaels thing.

Oh yeah, here is a link. http://www.ida.net/users/northstr/hairlength.html

Look carefully you may see some LHC members on this site. *waves at Trolleypup*

[pepperminttea]

Oh yeah, here is a link. http://www.ida.net/users/northstr/hairlength.html

Look carefully you may see some LHC members on this site. *waves at Trolleypup*

Totally off topic, but Trolleypup, those trousers are extraordinary! :D

[Venefica]

I asked why hair to the top of the thigh was called classic a while back on this forum and what I got as a reply was that it was called so because ladies in classic paintings and art typically have hair in this length. Human hair typically can grow to the top of the thigh, some people have a gene which makes it possible for them to grow it even longer, but for most people classic is maximum length, so it makes senses that ladies in old paintings would have hair to this length, they generally never cut their hair so their hair would grow as long as it got, then to classical so old painters and sculptors and so on depicted women with hair in this length. Or at least that is the explanation I got for the name classic, and I think it is a good explanation.

I have no idea why it is called pixie cut, I guess some pixies is drawn with hair like that, however most pixie pictures I have seen show pixies with long hair or buns. Tinkerbelle for example, the arcetypical pixie in our modern times have a bun and bangs not a pixie cut.

[newbeginning]

Nae thanks for the link. It was very helpful.

[BrightEyes7]

Hmmm.....pretty sure it is a George Michaels thing.
Oh yeah, here is a link. http://www.ida.net/users/northstr/hairlength.html


Thanks for that link!


I asked why hair to the top of the thigh was called classic a while back on this forum and what I got as a reply was that it was called so because ladies in classic paintings and art typically have hair in this length. Human hair typically can grow to the top of the thigh, some people have a gene which makes it possible for them to grow it even longer, but for most people classic is maximum length, so it makes senses that ladies in old paintings would have hair to this length, they generally never cut their hair so their hair would grow as long as it got, then to classical so old painters and sculptors and so on depicted women with hair in this length. Or at least that is the explanation I got for the name classic, and I think it is a good explanation.

I have no idea why it is called pixie cut, I guess some pixies is drawn with hair like that, however most pixie pictures I have seen show pixies with long hair or buns. Tinkerbelle for example, the arcetypical pixie in our modern times have a bun and bangs not a pixie cut.

Makes sense I suppose. I just was kinda wondering where the heck they got the word classic.


Totally off topic, but Trolleypup, those trousers are extraordinary! :D

Those are freaking awesome trousers! He looks like Elmo's half brother... :laugh:

[Tuntenut]

It had to be called something, and "butt-crease length" was deemed too silly?

I'm with Venefica on this one. Women in (neo) classical are are often portrayed with this hair length, and there seems to be a general consensus that classicis the maximum length for most people.

Where does the idea that classic=terminal originate from, anyway? Does anyone know? I've heard it many times, but I also stumble across more and more posts that seem to contradict it. :confused: There seems to be dozens of factors that can influence terminal length, so I'd really like to find out how classic was established as the line where DNA becomes the ultimate factor for growth.

[KittyLost]

I remember a thread a while back discussing the nature of the name as it being that classic fairytales and paintings portrayed women with hair that length.

I've noticed on the Long Hair Care Livejournal however that another name for Classic is iliac? Would anyone know why that is? I haven't asked there because I do not post, but I was wondering if LHC'ers could possibly shed some light on it.

[Scarlet_Heart]

I've seen on the longhair livejournal community, a length called "illiac length" but I have no idea where that name comes from or even how long that actually is!

[Yozhik]

According to wikipedia, the iliac crest is part of the pelvis -- the largest uppermost bone, apparently.

I'm not sure why this is classic, though, because because of the description, that sounds more like it would be around hip length. :confused:

As for classic, I've heard the above explanation about classical paintings, but I think I've also heard an explanation that has to deal with the golden mean, and the idea that it's classic because it's approximately 1/3 of one's body's length. :shrug:

[invisiblebabe]

I asked why hair to the top of the thigh was called classic a while back on this forum and what I got as a reply was that it was called so because ladies in classic paintings and art typically have hair in this length. Human hair typically can grow to the top of the thigh, some people have a gene which makes it possible for them to grow it even longer, but for most people classic is maximum length, so it makes senses that ladies in old paintings would have hair to this length, they generally never cut their hair so their hair would grow as long as it got, then to classical so old painters and sculptors and so on depicted women with hair in this length. Or at least that is the explanation I got for the name classic, and I think it is a good explanation.

I have no idea why it is called pixie cut, I guess some pixies is drawn with hair like that, however most pixie pictures I have seen show pixies with long hair or buns. Tinkerbelle for example, the arcetypical pixie in our modern times have a bun and bangs not a pixie cut.

Maybe it is called pixie because the people who look best with it are built small and slight like pixies?

Longest my hair has ever been was maybe two inches past classic, at one point in high school (and it got trimmed pretty quickly after that). I trimmed it every month or two, so I don't know if it would have been able to grow longer.

[Panth]

Where does the idea that classic=terminal originate from, anyway? Does anyone know? I've heard it many times, but I also stumble across more and more posts that seem to contradict it. :confused: There seems to be dozens of factors that can influence terminal length, so I'd really like to find out how classic was established as the line where DNA becomes the ultimate factor for growth.


Human hair typically can grow to the top of the thigh, some people have a gene which makes it possible for them to grow it even longer, but for most people classic is maximum length, so it makes senses that ladies in old paintings would have hair to this length, they generally never cut their hair so their hair would grow as long as it got, then to classical so old painters and sculptors and so on depicted women with hair in this length. Or at least that is the explanation I got for the name classic, and I think it is a good explanation.

Ok, just did a search on ISI Web of Knowledge, a respectable search engine for scientific articles, pretty similar to PubMed with the only difference being I can use it. :p Anywho, my search terms were 'hair length' within Dermatology, English-language articles only. That brought back 922 articles from 1962-2011, several of which were unrelated, some of which were about genetic disorders or alopecias, some which were about male balding, some about commercial hair-growing animals (angora goats and such-like!), some about epilation, etc., etc., etc.

Anywho, the only ones that were anything to do with human hair length were the following:

Khumalo NP (2006) African hair length: The picture is clearer. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. 54, 886-888.
- an article describing how 3 African individuals with virgin hair had very short hair lengths, diagnosed as being due to daily combing.

Nissimov J (2004) Normal head-hair length is correlated with its diameter. Clinical and Experimental Dermatology. 29, 649-657.
- as it says in the title; bear in mind the mean length of hair of the individuals in the study was 16.7cm and this was due to haircuts.

Robbins C & Robbins MG (2003) Scalp hair length. I. Hair length in Florida theme parks: An approximation of hair length in the United States of American. Journal of Cosmetic Science. 54, 53-62.
- as it says in the title; bear in mind that this is merely an observational study of the length people wear their hair at; also it's Florida, so hair length might be affected by trying to be comfortable in the heat; also, although they say that updos only affected their estimates of shorter lengths, not of longer lengths, I'd beg to differ - I bet they wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a 1a/F/i at classic+ and a 3-something/C/iii at BSL.

Robbins C & Robbins MG (2003) Scalp hair length. II. Estimating the percentages of adults in the USA and larger populations by hair length. Journal of Cosmetic Science. 54, 367-378.
- related to the article above - they used those estimates, worked out estimates of actual length based on people's average height and then used that to estimate average hair lengths; anyway, the same problems apply, mainly that this is based off how people wear their hair, not the maximal possible length it could grow to.


Anywho. The basic summary from that is that there are no (reasonably accessible) scientific studies on the maximum length human hair can grow to, or on the average terminal length for humans. It is known from studies (and even just from looking around at other mammals, and at other hair types on humans, such as eyebrows, eyelashes, leg hair, etc.) that hair usually grows to a certain length and that it can take a genetic mutation, or a rare genetic "hand of cards" to make it grow longer than that - think angora rabbits or long-haired cats - they have a particular rare genetic makeup that allows their hair to be so much longer than normal rabbits/cats.

So, yes, it could be true that most people don't grow past classic. However, I'd bet it's hardly as cut-and-dried as that. If you think of eyelashes, eyebrows, leg hair, armpit hair, there is an average usual length. Then, there is freaky-long ... but that isn't to say that there's a lot of variation within "normal" before you get to "freaky-long" (not meaning that in a bad way at all!).

As for the claim that no one can grow past classic unless they are one of the rare holders of the magic "extra hair growing" gene. That is patently ... :bull: :poop:
For starters, I can think of two variables that influence terminal hair length: length of anagen phase in time and rate of hair growth over time. There are likely to be many more variables controlled, like hair colour, by numerous genes.

I suspect it comes under the George Michael :bull: :poop: list, along with his assertion that the hair "just knows" if some of it is cut into a fringe or layers and the rest won't grow until it all gets back to being one length again. Not scientifically proven in the slightest and probably just is George Michael's own personal preference for haircuts that he has chose to couch in pseudoscientific terms to con people into going along with "if they want long healthy hair".


[Apologies for the rant / babble!]

[Anje]

Ok, just did a search on ISI Web of Knowledge, a respectable search engine for scientific articles, pretty similar to PubMed with the only difference being I can use it. :p:rollin: (I've been hooked on Google Scholar lately, myself.)

I suspect if one were to design a study, some of the religious populations that don't cut hair at all would be the best to use. Some groups of Pentacostals are like this, I think. Also, Sikhs would be a good male group to compare to, in case there's any difference in maximum attainable lengths between genders. (I suspect the error bars would swallow any differences.) ETA: Had to look it up -- apparently Sikh women also leave hair totally uncut. So it would be a great group to look at for both.

[WaitingSoLong]

As for classic, I've heard the above explanation about classical paintings, but I think I've also heard an explanation that has to deal with the golden mean, and the idea that it's classic because it's approximately 1/3 of one's body's length. :shrug:

ONE THIRD??? WOW those would be some long legged people. :p Half my body length is TBL on me. One third is about waist on me.


Those are freaking awesome trousers! He looks like Elmo's half brother... :laugh:

I am glad I was not drinking anything I would have spewed! I LOL'd at this, and I really did LAUGH OUT LOUD this is super funny!


Maybe it is called pixie because the people who look best with it are built small and slight like pixies?

I like that explanation.

[BrightEyes7]

ONE THIRD??? WOW those would be some long legged people. :p Half my body length is TBL on me. One third is about waist on me.

That's what I was thinking... Classic would be a little more than 1/2 my body length. I was sitting there looking in the mirror thinking "I don't look freakishly proportioned... DO I?!?"

[Tuntenut]

<snippity-snip>

As for the claim that no one can grow past classic unless they are one of the rare holders of the magic "extra hair growing" gene. That is patently ... :bull: :poop:
For starters, I can think of two variables that influence terminal hair length: length of anagen phase in time and rate of hair growth over time. There are likely to be many more variables controlled, like hair colour, by numerous genes.

I suspect it comes under the George Michael :bull: :poop: list, along with his assertion that the hair "just knows" if some of it is cut into a fringe or layers and the rest won't grow until it all gets back to being one length again. Not scientifically proven in the slightest and probably just is George Michael's own personal preference for haircuts that he has chose to couch in pseudoscientific terms to con people into going along with "if they want long healthy hair".


[Apologies for the rant / babble!]

Wow Panth, thanks for checking up on the science behind it and putting so much work into your reply. :bounce:

So if I understood you right, the conclusion is basically that it was George Michael who started the notion that classic length is somehow the "normal" terminal length. But why classic? That's what baffles me. The more I learn about hair growth, the more arbitrary it seems. Why not hip or TBL or knee?

I don't for a moment fool myself thinking there's a definitive answer to this. I just wonder about it, since it seems to be (or have been) widely accepted, and has certainly influenced me and my hair goals.

Right, enough ranting. Sorry about the minor thread-jack. :oops:

[WaitingSoLong]

I have never heard the term Classic length anywhere but here (LHC). Neither have I heard terminal length, I think that is a foreign concept to most people. Really, waist length meant hip length to me. People in general just so not classify their hair in universal length names IRL that I have ever heard. Must be because I am rural?

[growingpains]

I have never heard the term Classic length anywhere but here (LHC). Neither have I heard terminal length, I think that is a foreign concept to most people. Really, waist length meant hip length to me. People in general just so not classify their hair in universal length names IRL that I have ever heard. Must be because I am rural?

I live in a big city and I don't hear length terminology either. In real life I think I hear things more like, "it's around my chin" or, "her hair covers her boobs" or, "omg her hair is so long, it's like down here [inset hand gesture to hip area]"

I think pixie hair cut equated with pixie's makes total sense. Or maybe it's like pixie=little, so pixie hair=little hair.

Classic, I think the old photograph thing makes sense. It could also be cause hair that length was popular in the classical era...?

[Panth]

Wow Panth, thanks for checking up on the science behind it and putting so much work into your reply. :bounce:

So if I understood you right, the conclusion is basically that it was George Michael who started the notion that classic length is somehow the "normal" terminal length. But why classic? That's what baffles me. The more I learn about hair growth, the more arbitrary it seems. Why not hip or TBL or knee?

Why classic? I think perhaps because it is his personal preference, just like it is his personal preference that long hair have no fringe or layers in it. So, yes, completely arbitrary.