View Single Post
Old 06-20-2013, 09:24 AM   #15
Firefox7275
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wavydaze View Post
Okay, so moisturize with water and condition with oils/butters. I can understand that easily. But if the effect is the same, silkier, softer, more elastic or simply not dry hair, what does it matter? I guess it's always good to be more specific. Or does it matter because for some folks moisturizing works but conditioning doesn't or the other way around? Like some people need more humectants and others more emolients? Or most people need both?
I didn't say to condition with oils and butters. You normally condition with products containing emollients like fatty alcohols and cationic surfactants, you may or may not also have humectants and occlusives in a conditioner formula. You might just about get away with describing the feeling after oiling your hair as conditioned, it's preferable to inaccurately describing the feeling as moisturised. What something feels like is not necessarily what it is, feeling dry doesn't mean your hair is lacking in water, my hair can feel rough and 'dry' when I have overproteined but it's still dripping wet.


I've explained why I think it matters to use roughly the right words
"You don't need to be spot on with your terms but in the right ballpark is helpful, my big bugbear is describing ingredients that do not attract or increase water even repel water as moisturisers. Certainly oils and butters can seal in water if you applied to damp hair, you *might* colloquially describe the total act of wetting hair and then applying oil as 'moisturising'. But that does NOT make a plain oil or butter a moisturiser, if you apply an oil or butter to dry hair you have not 'moisturised' because water has not been added or increased.

If you applied a conditioner product to dry hair you *might* colloquially describe that act as 'moisturising', since you are adding the water found within the product and the ingredients might be able to attract more water from the air. It is my bugbear because it's clear some people end up thinking they can condition or moisturise with occlusives alone, they then miss out on all the benefits of the classic humectants and emollients
."

"Just because words are used by people incorrectly doesn't change the meaning of a word, at best it adds a meaning (slang). The problem with slang is that it is not universal, it's specific to a friendship group, generation, culture, college, city, country. When we are talking science, albeit at an amateur level, and have newbies and different nationalities in the same conversation it's deeply unhelpful to accept erroneous definitions or slang for words like 'moisturise' and 'vitamins'. All that happens is that people get confused and misunderstand one another."
__________________
2a-2c, medium texture, porous/ colour treated. Three years CG, growing out mechanical and chemical damage = breakage and very high porosity. Past armpit length heading for waist.

CO-wash: Inecto coconut
Treatments: Komaza Matani, coconut oil, Hairveda Sitrinillah
Leave in: Fructis Sleek & Shine (old), Gliss ultimate volume, Inecto argan
Styler: Umberto Giannini jelly, Boots Essentials gel
Experimenting with: going back to basics

Last edited by Firefox7275; 06-20-2013 at 09:31 AM.
Firefox7275 is offline   Reply With Quote