hair growth cycles
Printed From: HairBoutique.com
Category: Long Hair Happenings
Forum Name: Long Hair Support
Forum Description: Growing it long takes commitment and support.
URL: https://talk.hairboutique.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1140
Printed Date: July 07 2025 at 4:40pm
Topic: hair growth cycles
Posted By: korsakovhatt3
Subject: hair growth cycles
Date Posted: November 19 2004 at 11:17pm
|
I just came across this: "Healthy hair has an average lifetime of 2-6 years. After a rest period of three months the single hair falls out, and a new fiber starts to grow out of the bag. The lifetime depends on circumstances and the person, too. The lifetime of hair is responsible for the maximum of hair length you can have. Waist length hair takes about 6 years to grow out from a short hair cut, periodic trims included. If your hair has a lifecyle of 2 years, you will never achieve a nice waist length mane." I always thought that everyone could have really long hair if they chose to grow it. I was wrong.  ------------- My user name is WAY too long. Just call me Juliana. :-) |
Replies:
Posted By: Bob S
Date Posted: November 20 2004 at 12:26am
|
For most women, this is bullcrap! Is is possible the author wishes to discourage women? Seems it. Bob ------------- |
Posted By: korsakovhatt3
Date Posted: November 20 2004 at 2:16am
|
Hi Bob. These must just be averages. Obviously, people with super long hair have been growing their hair for more than 6 years. I'm pretty sure it took me longer than 6 years when I grew my hair down to my butt. I found a couple more resources. One says that the growth phase lasts 2-3 years (sometimes much longer); the other one says 2-9 years. Some resources: http://www.emedicine.com/ent/topic16.htm - http://www.emedicine.com/ent/topic16.htm http://www.ishrs.org/hair-loss/hair-loss-cycle.htm - http://www.ishrs.org/hair-loss/hair-loss-cycle.htm http://cosmetology-ce.com/ewebquiz/FloridaCourse/COLOR04.htm - http://cosmetology-ce.com/ewebquiz/FloridaCourse/COLOR04.htm ------------- My user name is WAY too long. Just call me Juliana. :-) |
Posted By: eKatherine
Date Posted: November 20 2004 at 10:28am
|
I was looking for information on hair growth, terminal growth, etc, on the internet a while back, and I came to the conclusion that most of the sources quote each other, and there is in fact very little real, rigorous research available. Some of the supposedly high-quality pages I found used pictures that clearly contradicted the principles they were supposedly illustrating. For instance, you know how you have read the number of hairs on the head of a redhead, brunette, blonde, or a woman with black hair? A German scientist in the last century published this information after counting the hairs on the head of one woman with each hair color. It completely disregarded thickness or fine/coarseness of the hair. So clearly, it is not useful information. Someone could actually do research to come up with meaningful numbers, but hair research is low-status, apparently. Terminal length can only be studied by finding a large number of people who have actually achieved terminal length, the maximum length that their undamaged hair can grow. My feeling is that most of the people who think they have reached terminal length actually are observing their damaged hair breaking off at the ends. One online textbook I saw stated that for most people, terminal length is somewhere between shoulder length and waist length. There was no source for this information. Maybe the author was basing it on his own experience, as a bald guy? It used to be common for women to have hair that was somewhere between classic length and floor length. Were they all freaks? ------------- 
Just looking for a few good hair slaves - is that too much to ask? |
Posted By: korsakovhatt3
Date Posted: November 20 2004 at 11:39pm
|
According to the info I have read, they MUST have been freaks! LOL. I read somewhere that redheads have the fewest hairs on their heads. Another source said blondes have the fewest. One source said that blondes have the MOST. I have naturally auburn hair. It's very fine in texture, but I have a HUGE amount of it; so do all the other redheads, blondes AND brunettes in my family. Go figure. Maybe I should just stop reading all this "research".  ------------- My user name is WAY too long. Just call me Juliana. :-) |
Posted By: AnaisSatin
Date Posted: November 21 2004 at 12:15am
|
I agree here that a lot of the research out there quotes the others. And for that reason I stopped studying the science of OTHER people's hair and focused on what could help only the Asian hair type. Maybe that's just the case because I have a crazy fallout and crazy growth, and I just want to give myself some comfort by narrowing my odds down to the genes in the family-- and the two aunts who reached super length. Let's all stop reading research done by bald men :) Anais |
Posted By: strawberryfine
Date Posted: November 28 2004 at 3:55pm
|
When I first started growing my hair back out, I read a lot of this research. I found it to be very discouraging. I wonder how they tracked all those little individual hairs. Did they tag and number them? Tag weight? Their conclusions are based on their postulates; if x, then y. Empirical logic tells me otherwise. I've seen way too much very long healthy-looking hair, well past waist length to believe that very long hair is unattainable. Again, my grandmother, had fingertip length hair and I don't know if that was as long as it would grow or as long as she would keep it. Anyway, I think there are many variables to be considered before one states truths on an average. The research does not appear to be thorough or accurate. Sounds like it is only intended to discourage. If its not positive, its negative. If its negative, get rid of it. Just my 2-cents worth. Don't let them see you sweat!  ------------- strawberryfine 2aFii 12/25.5"/terminal length after reaching "small of my back length" |
Posted By: DaveDecker
Date Posted: November 28 2004 at 8:06pm
|
I am living proof that the growth cycle for a given hair strand can be at least 9 years (closing in on 10). Some of my individual strands are as long as 58 inches in length (at least), and my hair has consistently grown at the average rate of 6 inches per year. Anais has it right. I seriously doubt the scientific methods applied by those so-called "authorities" who claimed a much shorter hair growth cycle. Hair care techniques, hello? Trims and cuts, hello? Strawberryfine, I don't know that I would assume a motivational bias to their publicized conclusions. Maybe it's just sloppy research. ------------- |
Posted By: strawberryfine
Date Posted: November 29 2004 at 5:54am
|
Yeah, I think I may have kind of slipped up and overreacted on that one. That did sound kind of paranoid on my part, didn't it? Not my usual mind set. I think sloppy research is a much better possibility.  ------------- strawberryfine 2aFii 12/25.5"/terminal length after reaching "small of my back length" |