new thread
Hey, theres 2 hair related things Ive heard and I wanted to find out if anyone knows whether theyre true or not, first if someone lets their hair grow out from birth thats the only way to get it to maximum length, meaning if that person cuts it short then trys regrowing it it wont reach its original length again.
The second is that if a baby is born with a full head of hair that theyre supposed to have great hair when they get older.
Has anyone else heard this before?
On other hair related message boards I've been on, a common complaint people have is that they used to have very long hair, ended up cutting it, and that it never grew back as long or thick as before. However due to the way terminal length works, I dont think cutting hair has anything to do with how long it gets. As for the second saying, I dont have any idea, but since I didn't have much hair when I was born, I hope it isnt true..
That happened to a friend of mine. I think it's very strange, considering that hair is dead and that cutting shouldn't have an effect on it. She used to have long thick hair that was down past her waist, but she cut it up to her shoulders and now it's thin, limp, and wispy. I'm not sure if this is a general rule, but if it is, I sure as heck ain't gonna cut my hair!
I've never heard of a baby with a full head of hair. It's not needed in the womb, and grows once the child is born. Besides, that would be weird, wouldn't it? ^_^
~Jenn
that is weird, but I guess its true about cutting really long hair, it doesnt make any sense but oh well.
well its not common for a baby to be born with a full head of hair,
but it does happen. thats why I was wondering..
I was a "bald baby." When I was 13 I was sitting on my hair and had it cut to shoulder.
I had long hair, except my bangs, any time I can remember. I told my mom to stop cutting my bangs when I was 7. At 13 I was sitting on it.
My aunt sits on her hair now, but cuts her bangs.
For those of you who don't know "bangs," It's the top front of your hair ... the stuff that hangs in your eyes. My bangs now reach my shoulders. My back is just below my waist.
Hey when i was a baby i use to have a full set of hair but of course im a indian i dont know if that makes a difference. But most babies you see dont have hair but most babies do have hair so i dont know.
yeah I was born with a full head of hair too, even though Im not indian, but still Id like to find out if that sayings true.
I'll take a shot.
This is not as simple to answer as it sounds at first. Suppose that there is no maximum length. There are those rare people whose hair never seems to fall out. These are the people who can grow their hair 20 feet long. Obviously, the statement would be true for them. However, they are unique.
Now let's deal with everyone else. In everyone else's case, what happens is that the hairs that were cut continue to grow if they were actively growing at the time they were cut. However, they stop growing when they would have stopped growing before. But since they were cut, they are shorter when they stop growing. This batch of hair will remain in place, shorter than maximum length, until they fall out to make way for the next hair. If maintenance trims are done to even things up, the overall hair length will remain at this length.
If the person were to leave the hair alone completely, though, eventually all the hair that was cut would fall out as the new hair was growing in. These hairs fall out as their replacement grows in, so full length is not achieved until the last of these cut hairs falls out.
However, meanwhile, what I call male-pattern short hair kicks in. You are probably familiar with the term male-pattern baldness. Well, even those people who are not bald have the same pattern, but the hair is shorter instead of absent in the pattern we would normally look for baldness in. This baldness/shorter hair pattern becomes more dramatic with age. This same person, though, would have achieved the same terminal length at the same age. Their terminal length simply decreases with age once it peaks.
There's probably some correlation. After all, the baby could not have had a full head of hair without good hair genes in the first place.