Go Back   CurlTalk > Hair > General Discussion about Curly Hair

Like Tree48Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-20-2013, 01:29 PM   #21
 
CurlyGrey3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 508
Default

What does feeling dry mean to you? To me, it means rough and frizzy. If my hair feels soft and smooth, then I think it's not dry. I still don't know if that's moisturized or conditioned and I'm even more confused now.
chloe92us likes this.
__________________
Salt & pepper wavy mix 2B/2C
Low to normal porosity, coarse, kinky, normal elasticity
Current favorites:
Low poo: Yes To Cukes Color Protection (the no sulfate one)
Conditioners: Renpure MPHIP, CJ Smoothing Lotion, AB LI, CJ Curl Rehab, CJ Argan/Olive, Darcy's Pumpkin
Style: FSG, BRHG
Pre-poo/DT: Conditioner with honey & coconut oil

iHerb discount code: PNQ285
CurlyGrey3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 01:35 PM   #22
 
chloe92us's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyGrey3 View Post
What does feeling dry mean to you? To me, it means rough and frizzy. If my hair feels soft and smooth, then I think it's not dry. I still don't know if that's moisturized or conditioned and I'm even more confused now.
Yes, that! ^^^^
__________________
2C/ Coarse/ Normal porosity/ SW Florida/ Transitioning to gray
Cleanse: CJ Daily Fix, JC Cleansing Cream, TJ Tea Tree Condish
Condish: JC Too Shea, CJ Curl Rehab (both as RO & LI)
Stylers: UFD CM, CJ PP, JC Spiralicious, Darcy's Cream Gel & Cocoa bean whip
chloe92us is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 01:51 PM   #23
 
wavydaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox7275 View Post
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.
Argh yes you did. You said: "Your hair might feel silkier, softer or more elastic, you might correctly describe the result as emollient or at a push even conditioning." I don't know what the verb of "emollient" is so I used "condition" since "at a push" it's correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox7275 View Post
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."
Argh, yes, I read your response. I'm from the US and I use "vitamins" to mean what you mean as "vitamins." You don't need to re-copy and paste. It comes off as snarky.

The point that I was trying to make is that on my hair at least, I get the same results from emollients and humectants. Not-dry hair. I think many curlies get the same results as well which why the terms are being used interchangeably. Sure I'm there with you about being scientific and specific about what each term does. So then if "moisturize" means to draw in water, then what is the verb for the either one? The one for adding oil to your hair giving off the same effect... but apparently not "condition"? I'm just trying to establish some consistency, even if it's a placeholder.
__________________
fine - low porosity - medium density - normal elasticity. Very high dews. Soft water.

Cowash: CJ Daily Fix
Low-poo: CJ Gentle Cleansing Shampoo, Giovanni 2chic BK&AO
RO: TN Radiant Care, Giovanni SaS, Ogx BKT*, Sukin Nourishing, SS Caitlin's, various
LI: sometimes TN Radiant Care
Styler: FSG with CNPF, CJ Pattern Pusha, Volumax Mega, Ouidad Climate Control*, Ogx BKT serum*
PT: CJ Repair Me, IAgirl's gelatine

*have cones
underline = I love these!

iherb discount code: CFN646
wavydaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 01:52 PM   #24
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chloe92us View Post
Firefox, when I say a "product is moisturizing", "provided moisture", "hair felt moisturized", should the proper terminology be something like "my hair felt conditioned"? I think I'm more confused than ever about when to use moisturized as a description! Moisturized as an adjective, to me, means the opposite of dry (referring to hair that is either wet or dry!).
Sorry I am confusing you!

Dry would normally refer to hair that doesn't have enough water or doesn't have enough oil, but a lot of us do say that when actually our hair is rough feeling which might be the cuticle raised by an alkaline product or simply not conditioned as we are used to. As you say moisturised would mean the opposite in respect of water content of the hair.

It is a bit different to say your hair feels moisturised to saying it is moisturised. If you used a new conditioner containing humectants and your hair feels less brittle, softer, bouncier or more elastic your hair is probably conditioned AND moisturised so you could say either.

If you used a silicone based frizz serum or straight up natural oil your hair might feel soft, silkier and less brittle, you should not say moisturised (because water was not involved) but you could say it feels in much better condition or specify exactly what you feel or see "it's so soft and shiny".

Even dilute vinegar rinses can make hair feel conditioned, my hair goes super slippy and soft as the cuticle is sealed but it's neither moisturising nor conditioning my hair. Some people even report their hair feels almost greasy and others that their hair feels crunchy, so what we feel can be deceptive.
Lynaea and chloe92us like this.
__________________
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
Firefox7275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 04:33 PM   #25
 
Lynaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 394
Default

.deleted, starting over
__________________
2A / F / MD / LP / ?E / BSL --- CG since Dec. 2012

This is what I'm happiest with right now.
Co-wash: CJ DailyFix
Lo-poo: DermOrganic low-poo
RO: SS Caitlin's co
Leave-in: SheScentIt Okra Repair condish
PT: SS Caitlin's + SS PT
Stylers: Volumax Mega Gel, Max Green Styling Gel, DermOrganics Spray Gel
Techniques: Plopping & Pixie Diffusing.
glycerin, honey, oils & butters Protein!

Last edited by Lynaea; 06-20-2013 at 04:58 PM.
Lynaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 06:16 PM   #26
 
alslgirl2002's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 210
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyGrey3 View Post
Iwas thinking it was something like this. OTOH, I've had great luck with doing a long pre-poo with a combo of conditioner, coconut oil, and honey. I added the conditioner just to make it easier to distribute, but maybe my hair wants the moisture with the oil. Or maybe I'm just washing the oil away before it has time to penetrate
I think I like mixing my oil with a condish better for the same reason. It definitely seems to be easier to distribute evenly. I think it might wash out better as well.
__________________
Type 2B - 3A
Med-High Porosity (partial highlights), medium & corse mixed textures

CG Day 1: May 16, 2013

Poo: CJ Daily Fix Cleansing Condish (as needed)
CO: Tresemme Naturals Vibrantly Smooth Condish
RO&LI: CJ Beauticurls Argan & Olive Oil Daily Hair Condish
Styling: CJ Pattern Pusha or FSG, TRESemme Flawless Curls - Bouncy Curls Defining Gel, Giovanni LANaturals HardHold Gel (canopy only)
DT: CJ Curl Rehab, Coconut oil, SS Repairing PT

Techniques: Scrunch-n-pump, tshirt wrap
alslgirl2002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 06:46 PM   #27
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wavydaze View Post
Argh yes you did. You said: "Your hair might feel silkier, softer or more elastic, you might correctly describe the result as emollient or at a push even conditioning." I don't know what the verb of "emollient" is so I used "condition" since "at a push" it's correct.

Argh, yes, I read your response. I'm from the US and I use "vitamins" to mean what you mean as "vitamins." You don't need to re-copy and paste. It comes off as snarky.
Condition with and describing the feel as conditioning are different concepts, albeit linked. Also see emboldened. I prefer the word 'emollient' to conditioning in the context we were discussing, but I doubt others agree.

If you do not like my straightforward and no nonsense posting style please don't ask me questions in future. Not being snarky I am simply here to chat about haircare not get personal.
__________________
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
Firefox7275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 07:36 PM   #28
 
Lynaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 394
Default

Okay, first of all it was not my intention to give anyone a complex about using the 'wrong' terminology or to imply that using oils or butters is bad. I'm just seeing a lot of what appears to me to be conflicting information and usage of certain terms. That is at least partly my ignorance of the actual definitions of some of these terms.

I've linked a bunch of stuff I found and have found definitions for some of the more common terms. I have tried then to put them in my own language by kind of thinking out loud. If i'm still off on something please let me know.


Conditioning Agents for Hair and Skin

This article defines several different types of conditioning agents but never really defines what a conditioning agent is/does, it also has a combined category for oils and emollients.

Hair Conditioning Agents
This article actually defines the term conditioning agent, this is the only real definition I found. It sounds like conditioning is essentially a cosmetic effect. 'Conditioning' the hair makes it look and feel 'good' and maybe offers some environmental protection, but doesn't have anything to do with providing moisture, strength, nutrients, etc

Definitions from the TightlyCurly sites' ingredient dictionary TightlyCurly.com

Emollient: Waxlike, lubricating, thickening ingredients that can prevent water loss and have a softening and smoothing effect on skin and hair.
So ingredients with emollient properties can both aid in moisturization because they are occlusive (prevent water loss) and condition the hair (make it soft and smooth). BUT this is a broad category and ingredients labeled emollients may have other functions and may be more conditioning and less 'moisturizing' or vice versa. So "emollient" does not equal "an ingredient that moisturizes" like I thought.

Occlusive: When used to describe an ingredient, it means that it's moisturizing because it prevents water loss.
(essentially any ingredient described as emollient will have this property to some extent.)

Oils: Such as Vaseline, mineral oil, plant oils, shea butter, lanolin, castor oil): These are emollient oils, and have great conditioning ability for hair, but use caution when putting them on your scalp. They can clog hair follicles, which can stunt the growth of healthy hair.
So oils prevent water loss (emollient/occlusive) and condition (make hair look and feel 'good'). BUT they can't moisturize by themselves, there has to be water in the hair for them to hold. Also once the hair shaft is completely occluded (coated with oil/butter) adding more oil just leads to build up. This is a concern in products that are oil/butter based, using one such product will provide a benefit but using an entire regimen that is mostly oils and butters will likely lead to build-up issues. **Note that Coconut and Olive oil which absorb into the hair and have little occlusive ability are not listed.

Emulsifier: Keeps a product from separating into its water and oil components.

Fatty alcohol: These are made from fatty acids (ingredients found in plant and animal fats). These are often used to thicken products, and as emollients. Begoun pg 1280. Cetyl, Stearyl, Lauryl, Myristyl are examples of these. Cetyl and Stearyl alcohols moisturize, giving a velvety feel. Lauryl and myristyl are used in cleansers.
So fatty alcohols are close relations of oils and can have similar properties, but because they are an alcohol plus a fat, and alcohol and water can mix they can also act to stabilize an emulsion (mixture) of oils/fats with water. I think this is the property that makes them so useful. An oil by itself can only hold in water that is added separately but a fatty alcohol in a product with water and oils can 'bring' the water (moisture) and the oil (occlusive) to hold it in the hair. Also, because these alcohols actually bring their own fats they can occlude all by themselves so the addition of (in my opinion, heavier) straight oils isn't necessary. This may not matter or even be a real benefit to coarse, high-po curlies, but my fine, low-po hair definitely appreciates this distinction (assuming i'm understanding/explaining it right)

Coconut (and Olive) Oil: Excellent moisturizing plant oil. It can penetrate the hair's cortex, so it may make hair stronger. However, it has little effect on the cuticle, so you still need a slippery ingredient in the conditioner to comb through hair. And nothing can repair hair once it's been damaged.
I'm not sure how these oils strengthen hair. Is it mechanical in that they essentially 'fill up' the cuticle and trap whatever proteins and water have been absorbed in with them?

All of this leads me to what I have seen Firefox say repeatedly; A mixture of these ingredients is best for good haircare. An imbalance of oils to water can lead to issues. Which actually makes me wish I had included humectants in here but this is enough for now. I'll try to figure out those and proteins over the weekend
Geek_Chic likes this.
__________________
2A / F / MD / LP / ?E / BSL --- CG since Dec. 2012

This is what I'm happiest with right now.
Co-wash: CJ DailyFix
Lo-poo: DermOrganic low-poo
RO: SS Caitlin's co
Leave-in: SheScentIt Okra Repair condish
PT: SS Caitlin's + SS PT
Stylers: Volumax Mega Gel, Max Green Styling Gel, DermOrganics Spray Gel
Techniques: Plopping & Pixie Diffusing.
glycerin, honey, oils & butters Protein!

Last edited by Lynaea; 06-20-2013 at 08:03 PM. Reason: Italicized copied info
Lynaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 07:52 PM   #29
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,594
Default

Lynaea would you mind clarifying which parts are copy and paste and which are your interpretation?
__________________
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
Firefox7275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 08:13 PM   #30
 
Lynaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 394
Default

Edited the above although the italics are difficult to discern i think, I can bold it instead if that will help.

I've reread through this thread a couple times trying to absorb all of this info and I think my definition for Conditioning in my last post isn't quite right. I get the impression that it's not 'just cosmetic' but the ingredients actually do make the surface of the hair smoother and that the act of moisturizing and coating the hair makes it more pliable, both of which would make it softer and easier to work with (manageable). All of the ingredient categories I listed before are conditioning agents and I left several out. I'm gathering that Moisturizing is only about increasing the water content within the hair. Conditioning is more about the other effects that some of these ingredients can give (soft, smooth, manageable), which are real benefits that also decrease the likelihood of damage from environmental factors, tangling, friction, etc.

Yes? No?
Firefox7275 likes this.
__________________
2A / F / MD / LP / ?E / BSL --- CG since Dec. 2012

This is what I'm happiest with right now.
Co-wash: CJ DailyFix
Lo-poo: DermOrganic low-poo
RO: SS Caitlin's co
Leave-in: SheScentIt Okra Repair condish
PT: SS Caitlin's + SS PT
Stylers: Volumax Mega Gel, Max Green Styling Gel, DermOrganics Spray Gel
Techniques: Plopping & Pixie Diffusing.
glycerin, honey, oils & butters Protein!
Lynaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 08:18 PM   #31
 
Lynaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by alslgirl2002 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by CurlyGrey3 View Post
Iwas thinking it was something like this. OTOH, I've had great luck with doing a long pre-poo with a combo of conditioner, coconut oil, and honey. I added the conditioner just to make it easier to distribute, but maybe my hair wants the moisture with the oil. Or maybe I'm just washing the oil away before it has time to penetrate
I think I like mixing my oil with a condish better for the same reason. It definitely seems to be easier to distribute evenly. I think it might wash out better as well.
This makes sense to me given what (I think) I've figured out about emulsifiers/fatty alcohols. Most likely the conditioner is bridging the gap between the water and the added oils. I have no doubt this helps with washing out the excess oils as well.
__________________
2A / F / MD / LP / ?E / BSL --- CG since Dec. 2012

This is what I'm happiest with right now.
Co-wash: CJ DailyFix
Lo-poo: DermOrganic low-poo
RO: SS Caitlin's co
Leave-in: SheScentIt Okra Repair condish
PT: SS Caitlin's + SS PT
Stylers: Volumax Mega Gel, Max Green Styling Gel, DermOrganics Spray Gel
Techniques: Plopping & Pixie Diffusing.
glycerin, honey, oils & butters Protein!
Lynaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 08:37 PM   #32
 
Lynaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wavydaze View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox7275 View Post
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.
Argh yes you did. You said: "Your hair might feel silkier, softer or more elastic, you might correctly describe the result as emollient or at a push even conditioning." I don't know what the verb of "emollient" is so I used "condition" since "at a push" it's correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox7275 View Post
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."
Argh, yes, I read your response. I'm from the US and I use "vitamins" to mean what you mean as "vitamins." You don't need to re-copy and paste. It comes off as snarky.

The point that I was trying to make is that on my hair at least, I get the same results from emollients and humectants. Not-dry hair. I think many curlies get the same results as well which why the terms are being used interchangeably. Sure I'm there with you about being scientific and specific about what each term does. So then if "moisturize" means to draw in water, then what is the verb for the either one? The one for adding oil to your hair giving off the same effect... but apparently not "condition"? I'm just trying to establish some consistency, even if it's a placeholder.
Sorry guys, it looks like I'm confusing everyone more but THIS and the confusion Chloe and others expressed is exactly my issue.

Until today saying something 'conditioned' the hair didn't really mean anything to me, its just such a broad term. Basically I thought a conditioner conditions because it's a conditioner, but what does THAT mean??

The same is true with the dry hair versus moisturized hair. I think we all sort of realize this is an issue because when someone posts about having dry hair we ask for a more specific description. We all KNOW that when we say our hair feels or looks 'dry' we don't necessarily mean it is as lacking in moisture as the desert. We know it could mean rough, stiff, frizzy, flyaway, etc and those issues could have a number of causes not related to it's moisture content. But when asked to put into words the difference between moisturized hair and hair that is lacking in moisture we are at a loss and end up using vague descriptions of how it looks and feels.

Maybe there isn't a better way or more specific terms but I think it does help if most of us know we are speaking the same language. You know, like the product abbreviations, there's still occasional confusion but most of the time we all know what we're all talking about.
Firefox7275 and wavydaze like this.
__________________
2A / F / MD / LP / ?E / BSL --- CG since Dec. 2012

This is what I'm happiest with right now.
Co-wash: CJ DailyFix
Lo-poo: DermOrganic low-poo
RO: SS Caitlin's co
Leave-in: SheScentIt Okra Repair condish
PT: SS Caitlin's + SS PT
Stylers: Volumax Mega Gel, Max Green Styling Gel, DermOrganics Spray Gel
Techniques: Plopping & Pixie Diffusing.
glycerin, honey, oils & butters Protein!

Last edited by Lynaea; 06-20-2013 at 08:43 PM.
Lynaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2013, 09:19 PM   #33
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,594
Default

Italics are good for me, that is how I was taught to quote at university anyway.

Emollients are not automatically occlusives many are humectants, it's a different mechanism of reducing or slowing (not preventing) water loss. As you say it is a broad category. Many emollients are water soluble so must be water permeable.

Coconut oil and olive oil do have occlusive properties, they are composed of more than one fatty acid, the main ones (lauric acid and oleic acid) absorb into the hair shaft very slowly and incompletely over many hours or days. The remainder stays on the surface unless purposefully removed with shampoo say, it's not like the hair is a sponge soaking up all the oil by the time the hair is dry. These oils can also help to reduce combing friction or provide 'slip', it has been demonstrated in a study that coconut oil reduces protein loss during combing which would suggest it is indeed protecting the cuticle.

The lauric acid in coconut oil reduces porosity and increases elasticity (less brittle) so alters two of your hair properties, and helps preserve structural proteins, all these relate to strength or resistance to further damage. I can't tell you exactly what the oleic acid in olive oil does, I am not aware that the research has been completed.
http://journal.scconline.org/pdf/cc2...175-p00192.pdf
http://journal.scconline.org/pdf/cc2...283-p00295.pdf

Fatty alcohols are water soluble, they are made from oils but are not that closely related and only share some properties. They are not occlusive they are emollient, the fatty acid molecule has been fundamentally changed so it is not water repellent any more. Cationic surfactants, bar soaps and even anionic surfactants such as sulphates are often made from palm or coconut oils yet two of those are extremely harsh on skin and hair.

The vast majority of the time the only change we could do with making to our language is not to default to the word moisturise but instead to default to the word condition, it may not be the ideal choice of word but it's closer to being an appropriate blanket term for what I *think* people are trying to say.

I also can't see why we have perfectly good and very descriptive words in common parlance to describe what we are seeing or feeling or wanting (eg. soft, shiny, bouncy, silky, smooth, frizz-free, defined) yet choose to translate that into a super vague term and sometimes totally inaccurate term 'moisturised'. I don't agree that most of the time we all know what we are talking about, plenty of newbies don't, I don't.
__________________
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 09:21 PM.
Firefox7275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 04:34 AM   #34
 
Lynaea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 394
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox7275 View Post
Italics are good for me, that is how I was taught to quote at university anyway.

Emollients are not automatically occlusives many are humectants, it's a different mechanism of reducing or slowing (not preventing) water loss. As you say it is a broad category. Many emollients are water soluble so must be water permeable.
Okay, this has been part of my confusion. In some references fatty alcohols and / or emollients in general are stated to 'help hold water in the hair'. As you say that seems different then 'preventing water loss' through occlusion. Those don't seem super different when stated that way but it sounds like its the difference between using a sponge versus a water bottle to keep water 'contained'. So emollients is a really broad category of ingredients that both help keep water in the hair (either thru attraction/binding or through occlusion) AND provide conditioning benefits like softness, smoothness, manageability.

Quote:
Fatty alcohols are water soluble, they are made from oils but are not that closely related and only share some properties. They are not occlusive they are emollient, the fatty acid molecule has been fundamentally changed so it is not water repellent any more. Cationic surfactants, bar soaps and even anionic surfactants such as sulphates are often made from palm or coconut oils yet two of those are extremely harsh on skin and hair.
Yeah, another broad category that I was misunderstanding. Emollient does not equal fatty alcohols or vice versa. Fatty alcohols are one of many ingredient types that have emollient properties, they also have other properties based on their structure. I've obviously been over simplifying really broad terms to the point of misunderstanding their true meaning /characteristics. To an extent this is necessary in order to pick a product without hours of research or vast knowledge of the unique properties of each individual ingredient. But if I want to understand how oils and fatty alcohols can be so different yet both be labeled emollient, I need to broaden my scope.

Quote:
The vast majority of the time the only change we could do with making to our language is not to default to the word moisturise but instead to default to the word condition, it may not be the ideal choice of word but it's closer to being an appropriate blanket term for what I *think* people are trying to say.
This is because we are actually talking about how our hair feels and looks, not doing an at home water content analysis on individual strands. (Right?). So how does this translate to the term over-moisturized? Is that a valid description of hair that has been cowashed, had a RO & LI applied daily and weekly DT's to the point that it is limp and flat? How is that different from product build-up which (I think) would be caused by the 'conditioning' part, not the moisture. Well I guess symptoms and products used usually give us clues. Ugg, now I'm not sure what I'm asking.....

Quote:
I also can't see why we have perfectly good and very descriptive words in common parlance to describe what we are seeing or feeling or wanting (eg. soft, shiny, bouncy, silky, smooth, frizz-free, defined) yet choose to translate that into a super vague term and sometimes totally inaccurate term 'moisturised'. I don't agree that most of the time we all know what we are talking about, plenty of newbies don't, I don't.
Right, okay so as was said earlier, when we say dry we might mean rough, frizzy, etc, etc and by moisturized we mean the list above and it would be more clear if we used either these more specific terms OR the general term of conditioned (looks and feels good) or unconditioned (?, or similar) (looks /feels bad) rather then vague and fairly inaccurate terms like moisturized and dry.
Firefox7275 and wavydaze like this.
__________________
2A / F / MD / LP / ?E / BSL --- CG since Dec. 2012

This is what I'm happiest with right now.
Co-wash: CJ DailyFix
Lo-poo: DermOrganic low-poo
RO: SS Caitlin's co
Leave-in: SheScentIt Okra Repair condish
PT: SS Caitlin's + SS PT
Stylers: Volumax Mega Gel, Max Green Styling Gel, DermOrganics Spray Gel
Techniques: Plopping & Pixie Diffusing.
glycerin, honey, oils & butters Protein!
Lynaea is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 05:58 AM   #35
 
CurlyGrey3's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 508
Default

By the way, thanks for starting this thread. I'm learning a lot!
Aktmama and shellyRN07swavy like this.
__________________
Salt & pepper wavy mix 2B/2C
Low to normal porosity, coarse, kinky, normal elasticity
Current favorites:
Low poo: Yes To Cukes Color Protection (the no sulfate one)
Conditioners: Renpure MPHIP, CJ Smoothing Lotion, AB LI, CJ Curl Rehab, CJ Argan/Olive, Darcy's Pumpkin
Style: FSG, BRHG
Pre-poo/DT: Conditioner with honey & coconut oil

iHerb discount code: PNQ285
CurlyGrey3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 08:47 AM   #36
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lynaea View Post
Okay, this has been part of my confusion. In some references fatty alcohols and / or emollients in general are stated to 'help hold water in the hair'. As you say that seems different then 'preventing water loss' through occlusion. Those don't seem super different when stated that way but it sounds like its the difference between using a sponge versus a water bottle to keep water 'contained'. So emollients is a really broad category of ingredients that both help keep water in the hair (either thru attraction/binding or through occlusion) AND provide conditioning benefits like softness, smoothness, manageability.

Quote:
Fatty alcohols are water soluble, they are made from oils but are not that closely related and only share some properties. They are not occlusive they are emollient, the fatty acid molecule has been fundamentally changed so it is not water repellent any more. Cationic surfactants, bar soaps and even anionic surfactants such as sulphates are often made from palm or coconut oils yet two of those are extremely harsh on skin and hair.
Yeah, another broad category that I was misunderstanding. Emollient does not equal fatty alcohols or vice versa. Fatty alcohols are one of many ingredient types that have emollient properties, they also have other properties based on their structure. I've obviously been over simplifying really broad terms to the point of misunderstanding their true meaning /characteristics. To an extent this is necessary in order to pick a product without hours of research or vast knowledge of the unique properties of each individual ingredient. But if I want to understand how oils and fatty alcohols can be so different yet both be labeled emollient, I need to broaden my scope.

Quote:
The vast majority of the time the only change we could do with making to our language is not to default to the word moisturise but instead to default to the word condition, it may not be the ideal choice of word but it's closer to being an appropriate blanket term for what I *think* people are trying to say.
This is because we are actually talking about how our hair feels and looks, not doing an at home water content analysis on individual strands. (Right?). So how does this translate to the term over-moisturized? Is that a valid description of hair that has been cowashed, had a RO & LI applied daily and weekly DT's to the point that it is limp and flat? How is that different from product build-up which (I think) would be caused by the 'conditioning' part, not the moisture. Well I guess symptoms and products used usually give us clues. Ugg, now I'm not sure what I'm asking.....
Overall you are doing brilliantly in understanding something quite complex, that is basically in a 'foreign language'. If you are going to ask 'yes but how' ... well that to me makes you a born scientist!! 'Curl chemist' Tonya McKay's take on emollients in haircare
No-poo Jillipoo: The low-down on emollients


I don't fully understand the science behind 'over moisturised'. I do understand that overwetting of skin, hair or nails affects the coiling of the keratin molecule, and that shape of a protein molecule is intimately linked to what it can do (the 'structure-function relationship'). The bonds that hold hair in the curly/ wavy position are weakened temporarily, if that occurs for an extended period the bonds may be permanently weakened. Exactly why 'over moisturised' seems to last for a few washes I do not know, biochemistry is not my strongest suit!

"Can you overcondition your hair?

I used to regard this as a nonsense term but when I did some research, I do now know that it is possible. A study done on nails (same keratin protein as hair) was performed to find out why nails get weaker with repeated water exposure. The study found that exposing nails to water for over 15 minutes (remembering that at 15 minutes the protein is saturated) led to the keratin coiling different from normal and this was linked to softening and weakness (BBA,pp 210-216,1999).

There are many naturals who will condition their hair for hours at a time because they like the softness that it develops. If you are in this group, you are someone who likes over-conditioned hair. The softness you are feeling is most likely related to the change in the keratin and you should be careful when handling your hair when it is that soft as it will be weaker until it has time to recover its stronger conformation.
"
THE NATURAL HAVEN: Do you need to deep condition your hair? Can you over-condition hair?

"Hair is a highly complex biomaterial composed of layers of differing materials, ranging from varying types of keratin structures to pigment molecules to fatty acids. When it is saturated with water and swells and then subsequently dries via natural or thermal means, it undergoes what is known as differential drying and differential deformation (because each separate type of molecule within the overall structure dries and deforms at differing rates).."
Mineral Oil Versus Coconut Oil: Which is better?

More on the structural bonds if you want to go cross eyed
Elasticity and Healthy Natural Hair | Curly Nikki | Natural Hair Styles and Natural Hair Care

To me 'build up' is not necessarily related to how much water is or is not in the hair, it's down to how much product is weighing the hair down. It *may* be in some instances the product is not simply on the surface, the cortex of the hair may be totally saturated with, say, lauric acid or hydrolysed protein molecules might be 'clogging' the pores in the cuticle. When people say 'overconditioned' that would seem to me to encompass the two closely related concepts.

"Those with very porous hair may find that coconut oil penetrates too much into the interior of the hair, which can cause its own set of problems such as frizz, greasiness, and limp hair."
Mineral Oil Versus Coconut Oil: Which is better?

Which neatly brings everything back around to us agreeing everything in balance and moderation!
__________________
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
Firefox7275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 09:15 AM   #37
 
wavydaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox7275 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavydaze View Post
Argh yes you did. You said: "Your hair might feel silkier, softer or more elastic, you might correctly describe the result as emollient or at a push even conditioning." I don't know what the verb of "emollient" is so I used "condition" since "at a push" it's correct.

Argh, yes, I read your response. I'm from the US and I use "vitamins" to mean what you mean as "vitamins." You don't need to re-copy and paste. It comes off as snarky.
Condition with and describing the feel as conditioning are different concepts, albeit linked. Also see emboldened. I prefer the word 'emollient' to conditioning in the context we were discussing, but I doubt others agree.

If you do not like my straightforward and no nonsense posting style please don't ask me questions in future. Not being snarky I am simply here to chat about haircare not get personal.
So the result is "conditioned" but the hair actually isn't "conditioned"? Don't you think that's a little embedded in semantics? Especially since we have no way to prove or scientifically check that our hair is or isn't conditioned, we're just going by the result anyway which is how it feels? This is what I was getting at.


Anyway, LYNAEA, I think this thread is very helpful! I don't think you've confused me more, I've had the same questions as yourself!
__________________
fine - low porosity - medium density - normal elasticity. Very high dews. Soft water.

Cowash: CJ Daily Fix
Low-poo: CJ Gentle Cleansing Shampoo, Giovanni 2chic BK&AO
RO: TN Radiant Care, Giovanni SaS, Ogx BKT*, Sukin Nourishing, SS Caitlin's, various
LI: sometimes TN Radiant Care
Styler: FSG with CNPF, CJ Pattern Pusha, Volumax Mega, Ouidad Climate Control*, Ogx BKT serum*
PT: CJ Repair Me, IAgirl's gelatine

*have cones
underline = I love these!

iherb discount code: CFN646
wavydaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 09:43 AM   #38
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wavydaze View Post
So the result is "conditioned" but the hair actually isn't "conditioned"? Don't you think that's a little embedded in semantics? Especially since we have no way to prove or scientifically check that our hair is or isn't conditioned, we're just going by the result anyway which is how it feels? This is what I was getting at.
"If you do not like my straightforward and no nonsense posting style please don't ask me questions in future. Not being snarky I am simply here to chat about haircare not get personal."
__________________
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
Firefox7275 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 11:18 AM   #39
 
wavydaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,567
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefox7275 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by wavydaze View Post
So the result is "conditioned" but the hair actually isn't "conditioned"? Don't you think that's a little embedded in semantics? Especially since we have no way to prove or scientifically check that our hair is or isn't conditioned, we're just going by the result anyway which is how it feels? This is what I was getting at.
"If you do not like my straightforward and no nonsense posting style please don't ask me questions in future. Not being snarky I am simply here to chat about haircare not get personal."
What kind of response is this?

I am seriously asking a question.

We seem to have (as noted above by yourself and Lynaea) different ways of softening the hair:

1. by emollients (by keeping in water)
2. by emollients (added to dry hair, softens, no extra h2o involved)
3. by humectants (draws in water from the air)
4. by fatty alcohols (draws in water and keeps water in as well?)
5. cationic surfactant
6. others?

Anyway, to me all the methods above lead to non-dry hair, but they do by chemically/physically different ways. SO, what I'm trying to ask is that we don't have terms for the different ways the above ingredients actually "soften" the hair. I'm using "soften" as a very general term to describe what we feel and commonly describe as "conditioned." "Softened hair" as the opposite of "dry hair."

Like Lynaea I don't actually know what "conditioned" really means and it can obviously be used to describe hair that is not dry but reaching that effect is done by many ways.
__________________
fine - low porosity - medium density - normal elasticity. Very high dews. Soft water.

Cowash: CJ Daily Fix
Low-poo: CJ Gentle Cleansing Shampoo, Giovanni 2chic BK&AO
RO: TN Radiant Care, Giovanni SaS, Ogx BKT*, Sukin Nourishing, SS Caitlin's, various
LI: sometimes TN Radiant Care
Styler: FSG with CNPF, CJ Pattern Pusha, Volumax Mega, Ouidad Climate Control*, Ogx BKT serum*
PT: CJ Repair Me, IAgirl's gelatine

*have cones
underline = I love these!

iherb discount code: CFN646
wavydaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2013, 12:51 PM   #40
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,162
Default

Wavydaze I'm so glad you asked this question because I'm a new natural & I'm completely confused about what products/ingredients do what. The hair in the 'headband' region of my head is hard & crunchy. ( for lack if a better way to describe it) I can't find anything to permanently soften it & make it feel like the back. So I need to know what will soften & moisturize my hair. If possible with very little frizz.
curlicious13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Trending Topics[-]hide

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com