PDA

View Full Version : A Question of Trims.



Nicole Marie
March 16th, 2008, 12:51 PM
I have a question for all of you well-educated hair experts, about the effects of trimming, and a rumour I heard a short while ago. I heard that when your hair is cut, your body can somehow 'sense' this, and channels extra nutrients to the hairs that have been cut, causing them to grow back more quickly, with more strength. Apparently, this is why cutting bangs and/or layers supposedly makes growing out very difficult - your body sends all the nutrients to the shorter hairs in an attempt to 'even' everything out. I think that was the major point of this opinion, that the body is very much concerned with 'balance' and being evened-out, so the body tries to grow hair to all one length, depriving nutrients from the longest locks and sending them to the shortest.

Although even as I write this I think it sounds silly, it also has a crazy kind of sense to it. What does everybody think, from what they've heard and their own experience? Also, has anybody found it more difficult to grow their hair out with layers/bangs than with hair that is all one length?

Feisty Redhead
March 16th, 2008, 12:56 PM
There's been a ton of debating over this already - you might want to try searching for the threads that we've already got going here about this kind of thing.

In my experience - it's not true. I've had layers frequently, and I had bangs not too long ago too. All my hair continued to grow at it's usual rate regardless of if it was the longer "main" length or the shorter layers/bangs. If my body had put more energy into making those shorter hairs catch up the the longer ones my hair would not be half as long as it is right now, because I'd have spent the past 5 years with only layers and bangs growing out and the rest of the length staying the same length/not growing at it's usual rate.

rhubarbarin
March 16th, 2008, 01:00 PM
I think this is a myth too. Hair is dead keratin and what happens to the end of a strand has no effect on the living root.

I kind of wish this was true though, because then the damaged areas of my hair would grow faster and catch up to the longer, healthy part!

terriej
March 16th, 2008, 01:52 PM
I never trim my hair and it grows fine. When I have had it cut, it did not grow any faster or slower.

I have read that compared to other parts of the body, the hair and the nails already have the fastest cell turnover. I suspect that your body probably wouldn't put any extra effort into your hair and nails when it has much more important things to put effort into.

FrannyG
March 16th, 2008, 03:14 PM
This is a complete and total myth.

Having said that, I have found that with my fine, straight hair, my hair can thin at the ends very quickly. After almost getting to waistlength last year, I cut off six inches of spindly ends.

Since then I have been maintaining my ends by trimming a third of my growth bimonthly. The difference in the thickness of my length is astounding, and I believe that some of it might be due to catching some of the damage before it gets too bad.

I know that my thinking is somewhat controversial here, but there's no doubt that it works for me.

Of course, I dye my hair, so no matter how much care I give it, I am inflicting damage on it, so I consider my small trims to be another form of damage control, while still achieving more length.

enfys
March 16th, 2008, 04:28 PM
I always think it's a bit like saying that if you cut a skirt shorter your belly will be warmer. I doesn't make sense other than through comparisons. I think shorter hair looks like it grows quicker because its proportionately increasing length quicker. If your hair was an inch long, after 2 months it would be twice as long. If it's waist length it will be years and years before it's twice as long. It grows the same rate but doesn't look to be as quick. And don't we know it....

spidermom
March 16th, 2008, 04:48 PM
Sometimes hair can break off faster than it will grow; I've had that happen. Regular small trims make my hair seem to grow faster. I think that's because it keeps me one step ahead of that point where it breaks off too fast. This past year I had trims only every 4 months, and that wasn't enough. I recently cut off at least 2 inches of bad, dried out, split to pieces ends. I think I would have been a lot better off if I had stuck with my more frequent small trims. Live and learn.

ChloeDharma
March 16th, 2008, 05:46 PM
This is a complete and total myth.

Having said that, I have found that with my fine, straight hair, my hair can thin at the ends very quickly. After almost getting to waistlength last year, I cut off six inches of spindly ends.

Since then I have been maintaining my ends by trimming a third of my growth bimonthly. The difference in the thickness of my length is astounding, and I believe that some of it might be due to catching some of the damage before it gets too bad.

I know that my thinking is somewhat controversial here, but there's no doubt that it works for me.

Of course, I dye my hair, so no matter how much care I give it, I am inflicting damage on it, so I consider my small trims to be another form of damage control, while still achieving more length.

Hun, first i'm wondering what's contraversial?

But more interestingly.....what do you mean about the growth? Do you mean that you think that if you trim (less than you grow of course) that you can grow hair with a thicker bulk further down than if you don't trim?

I worded that badly but my brain's foggy. I mean i know with no trimming the hairs grow at different rates, but ok, see if i can make my question clearer.....say i don't trim for 2 years in one experiment and start that at bra strap. The ends of my hair 2 years later would of course be thin from fairytailing. Then say i grew from the same length for the same duration but microtrimmed to keep a neat hem. Do you think that the untrimmed hair would start loosing thickness higher up than the trimmed hair?

I hope i explained it clearly.

freznow
March 16th, 2008, 07:57 PM
Hun, first i'm wondering what's contraversial?

But more interestingly.....what do you mean about the growth? Do you mean that you think that if you trim (less than you grow of course) that you can grow hair with a thicker bulk further down than if you don't trim?

I worded that badly but my brain's foggy. I mean i know with no trimming the hairs grow at different rates, but ok, see if i can make my question clearer.....say i don't trim for 2 years in one experiment and start that at bra strap. The ends of my hair 2 years later would of course be thin from fairytailing. Then say i grew from the same length for the same duration but microtrimmed to keep a neat hem. Do you think that the untrimmed hair would start loosing thickness higher up than the trimmed hair?

I hope i explained it clearly.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that it works that way. The hair would be the same thickness at the same length in both situations, it would just appear thicker in the trimming situation because it'd be much shorter. I don't think that the amount of damage inflicted in this situation would really change. Granted, there are certain factors worth considering. Say if you wear your hair down in both situations. The longer hair would get caught in more things and therefore inflict more damage on the levels, and it may affect it, but that's hypothetical and I don't think the difference would be at all noticeable.

I was probably no clearer than you were lol, but in summary I don't think they'd really have a difference, but the trimmed hair may appear thicker, as trimmed hair is wont to do.

spidermom
March 16th, 2008, 09:16 PM
Hun, first i'm wondering what's contraversial?

But more interestingly.....what do you mean about the growth? Do you mean that you think that if you trim (less than you grow of course) that you can grow hair with a thicker bulk further down than if you don't trim?

I worded that badly but my brain's foggy. I mean i know with no trimming the hairs grow at different rates, but ok, see if i can make my question clearer.....say i don't trim for 2 years in one experiment and start that at bra strap. The ends of my hair 2 years later would of course be thin from fairytailing. Then say i grew from the same length for the same duration but microtrimmed to keep a neat hem. Do you think that the untrimmed hair would start loosing thickness higher up than the trimmed hair?

I hope i explained it clearly.

Food for thought there. Yes, I think if you grow it without trimming it, you will get thin ends much quicker than if you trim ends. I believe this because I have a few strands of hair that grow very fast. If I left them alone, it is conceivable that I would have 20 hairs that got to classic length twice as fast as my average-growing hairs. My hem would be very thin indeed. I trim them back so that I gain length at the rate of average-speed growing hairs. In fact, I may be trimming off so much that I gain length at the rate of the slowest growing hairs. I like having a hem, but I think before this hair-growing journey ends, I might try no trimming to let my hair "go wild". I've never done that in my life.

SHADOWSCODE46
March 16th, 2008, 09:57 PM
I think this is a myth too. Hair is dead keratin and what happens to the end of a strand has no effect on the living root.

I kind of wish this was true though, because then the damaged areas of my hair would grow faster and catch up to the longer, healthy part!

You know?! :D

Cinnamon Hair
March 16th, 2008, 11:27 PM
I've never understood this theory. Hair is always going to be more than one length. If you only had one length of hair on your head, then it would all grow and shed at the exact same time, meaning at some point you would be bald, then the cycle would repeat. Otherwise, you're going to have hair of varying lengths all over your head, even if technically you have "one length" hair (meaning the ends are even & no bangs or layers). So how could your scalp possibily know the difference between natural growth and salon cut layers, let alone compensate for these artifically shorter hairs? Pseudoscience.

Nicole Marie
March 18th, 2008, 09:57 PM
LOL this confirms my suspicions that considering such a theory was just complete sillyness! I didn't see how your head would be able to tell if the 'dead' hair was cut off or not...ahhh but it would have made life so much easier were it true. I suppose patience is the only way...!

tiny_teesha
March 25th, 2008, 05:41 AM
If you look at the big picture and you want really long hair or hair close to your terminal length (what ever that may be) You will esentially be causeing thinner ends. Every inch you chop now, is one inch shorter then your hairs life cycle. that's the way i see it.
Hence why i am only doing trims to change my hemn shape.
I don't believe the end knows what is happening to the root. S&Ds get rid of breakage so trims aren't necessary (most of my splits are up the length not at the ends.