Jay Dezelic wrote:
I stopped using shampoo in my hair about a year ago.  I just use a mild solution of baking soda and water followed by a mild solution of vinegar and water. My hair is in much better condition today than ever.  I also found that a small amount of coconut oil works better than any hair product I have ever used. 

Are hair products designed to screw up your hair so that you need to buy more products to fix it?

No. No. 1,000 times no.

Consider that what may work for your hair may suck for my hair and vice versa and that doesn't mean that the product I use is bad or that the product you use is intentionally problematic, it just means that we have different needs and maybe your hair needed something that was fragrance free and super gentle to flourish.Hair products, just like make-up and clothes are not "one size fits all". You found a routine that works, revel in that...

Miss Photog wrote:
lol doubtful.
some ridiculously overpriced stuff may not be any better than a drugstore version, but I cannot think of a legitimate reason why a company would make a hair product to purposely screw up your hair. That would just turn people away from buying products from that company. I have very long wavy hair and I only use shampoo/conditioner (nothing super expensive...just Dove) and my hair is in great shape!

I used expensive hair stuff for many years.  As long as I washed my hair every other day and kept conditioner in it, it would look great.  But it was expensive, time consuming, and would not last long.  Last year I had read about people not using shampoo and thought I would give it a try.  I had also read that it takes a while for your hair to get back to a "natural" normal.  I think the general idea with shampoos is to strip all the natural oil out and then replace it with synthetic compounds. This works great, except that you are then dependent the process to keep your hair looking good.

What would happen if you stopped washing your hair for a week? If you are like most people, it probably would not look so hot.

Tiffany_B wrote:

No. No. 1,000 times no.

Consider that what may work for your hair may suck for my hair and vice versa and that doesn't mean that the product I use is bad or that the product you use is intentionally problematic, it just means that we have different needs and maybe your hair needed something that was fragrance free and super gentle to flourish.Hair products, just like make-up and clothes are not "one size fits all". You found a routine that works, revel in that...

Human hair is generally pretty similar in how it grows.  What makes it so different is most likely the chemicals it is exposed to--both what you eat and what you put on your hair.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
I used expensive hair stuff for many years.  As long as I washed my hair every other day and kept conditioner in it, it would look great.  But it was expensive, time consuming, and would not last long.  Last year I had read about people not using shampoo and thought I would give it a try.  I had also read that it takes a while for your hair to get back to a "natural" normal.  I think the general idea with shampoos is to strip all the natural oil out and then replace it with synthetic compounds. This works great, except that you are then dependent the process to keep your hair looking good.

What would happen if you stopped washing your hair for a week? If you are like most people, it probably would not look so hot.

Expensive stuff. What expensive stuff?
I have no idea what your using..
As far as stripping your hair.. What the hell are you using??
They do not strip the hair and no good shampoos do not use synthetic compounds.
Read what you are putting in your hair..
Most good brands use natural ingredients (yes they even brag about it). In fact thats their selling point (have you ever heard of Aveda??)
I'm a hairstylist too... so know and I know what is in shampoo..

http://pureabba.com/commitment-to-purity

http://www.aveda.com/ingredients/index.tmpl

http://www.pureology.com/systems/hydrate/shampoo

http://www.mophair.com/

Jay Dezelic wrote:
I stopped using shampoo in my hair about a year ago.  I just use a mild solution of baking soda and water followed by a mild solution of vinegar and water. My hair is in much better condition today than ever.  I also found that a small amount of coconut oil works better than any hair product I have ever used. 

Are hair products designed to screw up your hair so that you need to buy more products to fix it?

Yes. Even now the movement away from sulphates is evidence of the consumer market wising up. Basic shampoo is full of sulphates which strip the natural oils. conditioner is full of silicone to synthetically add the appearance of moisture. This si true of the vast majority of commercial shampoo and conditioner - check the ingredients and look for sodium lauryl/laureth sulphate in the shampoo, and anything ending in 'cone' in the conditioner.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
Human hair is generally pretty similar in how it grows.  What makes it so different is most likely the chemicals it is exposed to--both what you eat and what you put on your hair.

This isn't entirely true. Consider that there are huge textural differences in hair based on ethnicity and that serves as a factor as well, in fact it can be a pretty core factor in the manner in which your hair responds to certain products. I have really coarse, really thick hair and as such it can withstand products that would weigh down and weaken thinner hair. On the other side of that though there are certain products that simply don't work for me for those same reasons. As such it's entirely possible that your own hair care issues were relative at least in part to using products that weren't formulated for it, especially since you seem to have the mindset that all hair is pretty similar. That would be akin to someone with dry skin using a face wash for someone with oily skin, wondering why it didn't work and then questioning the validity of the products they used when they finally stumbled onto something that worked. While hair care isn't 100% personal it is something that has to be individualized to a certain extent.

Tiffany_B wrote:
This isn't entirely true. Consider that there are huge textural differences in hair based on ethnicity and that serves as a factor as well, in fact it can be a pretty core factor in the manner in which your hair responds to certain products. I have really coarse, really thick hair and as such it can withstand products that would weigh down and weaken thinner hair. On the other side of that though there are certain products that simply don't work for me for those same reasons. As such it's entirely possible that your own hair care issues were relative at least in part to using products that weren't formulated for it, especially since you seem to have the mindset that all hair is pretty similar. That would be akin to someone with dry skin using a face wash for someone with oily skin, wondering why it didn't work and then questioning the validity of the products they used when they finally stumbled onto something that worked. While hair care isn't 100% personal it is something that has to be individualized to a certain extent.

True to a point, but the main differences with hair are contained within the cuticle. Despite some hair having fewer layers of cuticle, or different shaped strands or even asymmetric para/ortho cortex, essentially all you are aiming to do with shampoo is clean the dirt from the outer layer of cuticle and reset the hydrogen bonds reformed with previous styling. Most claims from shampoo, volume, shine, straightening, curling etc are totally spurious. How could it do any of that when it is being rinsed out completely? So essentially, shampoo is for cleaning. Thats it.

Scalps will affect the hair, as very oily scalps equal oily hair. But skin health is primarily affected by diet and lifestyle. Face wash etc is a superficial chemical that can't change anything, you just select the kind that is the best balance of clean and comfortable.

Jay Dezelic wrote:

I used expensive hair stuff for many years.  As long as I washed my hair every other day and kept conditioner in it, it would look great.  But it was expensive, time consuming, and would not last long.  Last year I had read about people not using shampoo and thought I would give it a try.  I had also read that it takes a while for your hair to get back to a "natural" normal.  I think the general idea with shampoos is to strip all the natural oil out and then replace it with synthetic compounds. This works great, except that you are then dependent the process to keep your hair looking good.

What would happen if you stopped washing your hair for a week? If you are like most people, it probably would not look so hot.

I only wash my hair once a week, twice at the most, and it looks great. In fact, I prefer how it looks from the 3rd day on.  The salon that I work in has lots of regulars who do the same, and come in one to two times a week for shampoo and blow outs.  Your body will regulate itself - if you are constantly stripping oil from your scalp every day/every other day, then your body will produce sebum accordingly. You can chose to be gentler and allow your scalp to adjust to a less rigorous routine.
Product is good, depending on what your natural hair texture is, and what result you're looking for.  As stated above, it's not a one-size fits all.  And certainly not a conspiracy.

Jay Dezelic wrote:
I stopped using shampoo...

Jay you posted this same rant six months ago to the day...
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=851103

Do you have an ulterior agenda?

Jay Dezelic wrote:
Human hair is generally pretty similar in how it grows.  What makes it so different is most likely the chemicals it is exposed to--both what you eat and what you put on your hair.

Not exactly. This is my inner biology nerd speaking, so bare with me.
Everyone's hair is different. My hair is naturally dark brown with 3 other colors in it, wavy, and very thick. I'm supposedly 100% Russian (some think Ukraine, my birth parents are unknown O_o).

Your hair traits depend on your mom and dad. If your mom and dad both had thin, light colored hair, your hair will likely result in such traits. Where your geographical past is, your parents genetics, etc... all depend on the traits in or on your hair.

ArtistryImage wrote:

Jay you posted this same rant six months ago to the day...
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=851103

Do you have an ulterior agenda?

I have a diabolical plan to rid the world of unnecessary toxic chemicals. You have uncloaked my evilness.

Alannah J wrote:
OP, are you only talking about one ethnicity/type of hair texture?

No, I think all humans could equally be victims of a scam.

Breakin Chains wrote:
as far as salon brands vs drug store brands.. most salon brands put their $$ into research and rely on the stylist to sell the product via referral, recommendation and trust.. and the drug store brands put their $$ into marketing and celebrity name  dropping..
the "expensive" part can come from either higher standards for quality that  some brands use (like purology, which is vegan), or just the same concept that brand name clothing has: some ppl just wanna pay more for a name.. but in reality, its not the 70's anymore and 12 bucks aint that much to pay for shampoo (EVEN when the drug store stuff is only 7)

I disagree. While the expensive brands *may* contain less filler chemical and more active ingredient, they are on the whole, all owned by the same parent company and have access to the same laboratory research.

Estée Lauder owns: Aramis, Aveda, Clinique, Bobbi Brown, M.A.C, Origins, Jo Malone, La Mer, Tommy Hilfiger fragrances, Bumble + bumble, American Beauty, Flirt, Good Skin, Grassroots, Michael Kors Beauty, Darphin, Ojon, and Donna Karan Cosmetics.

    L’Oreal owns: Maybelline New York, Garnier, Lancôme, Helena Rubinstein, BioMedic, Vichy, Biotherm, Shu Uemura, Kiehl’s, Soft Sheen-Carson, Redken, Matrix, Kerastase, Giorgio Armani, Inneov, Sanoflore, CCB Paris, Dermablend, The Body Shop, Skinceuticals, Ralph Lauren, La-Roche-Posay, and Yves Saint Laurent.

    Procter & Gamble owns: Cover Girl, Max Factor, Anna Sui, Olay, DDF, Aussie, Camay, Clairol, Head & Shoulders, Herbal Essences, Ivory, Infusium-23, Pantene, Fredric Fekkai, Gillette, Noxzema, SK-II, and Zest.

    Johnson & Johnson owns: Neutrogena, Aveeno, Clean & Clear, RoC, Rogaine, Lubriderm, Purpose, and Ambi.

    Beiersdorf owns: Nivea, La Prairie, Eucerin, and Juvena

    Unilever owns: Dove, Pond’s, Vaseline, and Sunsilk

    Louis Vuitton-Moet Hennessy (LVMH) owns: Dior, Guerlain, Givenchy, Benefit, Fresh, Make Up For Ever, and Sephora’s namesake line.
    Shiseido owns: Cle de Peau (CDP), Dicila, Ipsa, Ettusais, Carita, Decleor, Ayura, Asplir, DeLuxe, Selfit, Whitia, Pure & Mild, Kesho Wakusei, Yuxia, 5S, NARS, Maquillage, Aupres, JS, Za, UNO, Jean Paul Gaultier cosmetics, and Issey Miyak.

KDM wrote:
I see what the OPs saying though... Kinda like I think lots of prescription meds are scammy. Drug comps don't want to make us well because then we wouldn't need to buy their products anymore.

This is exactly my suspicion with personal care products from major corporations.  It is very easy to develop products that create addictive market behavior.  There is no law against making hair products that replace the natural systems to invoke dependance.  The downside is that you need to continue using the brand (or similar brands) to keep your hair looking good.  This strategy makes billions of dollars for these companies while potentially exposing customers to toxic chemicals that can cause cancer and other diseases.

I was using Sexy Hair brand for a number of years.  It worked great, but if I didn't use it frequently, my hair would only become a sexy place for rats to nest.  Now I get the same look with just coconut oil and a little water anytime between washings.

I found that just using natural methods produces better results, requires less time, has reduced toxic chemical exposure and is substantially cheaper.

I don't mind buying things that have real value, but I am not seeing it with most things sold by major corporations these days.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Several years ago there was a major news show or product watchdog show or something like that which did a report on all the major, more expensive hair products on the market. It was so long ago that I just didn't remember who did the report but it was a major program like 20/20 or 60 minutes...something like that. So they did double blind tests with numerous subjects testing over several months about ten different hair products ranging in price. Some were bought off the shelf in the supermarket, some had to be purchased in a high-end salon. You know what came in #1 in customer satisfaction?

Horse shampoo.

Yep, shampoo used on horses beat all the major brands.

I think it was specifically Mane and tail shampoo.

I have not had the same experience with my own hair but like I said -- with my own hair the conditioner seems to be more important than the shampoo.

Chicchowmein wrote:
Maybe the baking soda solution and vinegar rinse works for the OP but for my hair I have massive issues with tangling and snarling and I can tell you from personal experience that the conditioner is the most important part of my hair care routine.

I don't shampoo every day -- it depends on my hair. I was when I need to but if I don't use a good conditioner my hair is a one big rat's nest in the back.

No way would baking soda or a vinegar rinse cut it for me.

If it works for you great but from the pictures you have posted in your portfolio I am not seeing the level of shine I would want for my own hair.

But I have not seen your hair in person.

For several months after I stopped using shampoo, I still used conditioner to keep my hair from getting tangled.  The same was true when I used shampoo.  I use coconut oil as a conditioner now (which didn't work all that well at first).  Now it works great since I think my hair has adjusted to not getting the natural oil stripped out of it. 

I was never able to get up in the morning and run a comb through my hair without disturbing families of little rats that moved in during the night.  I had to use a brush. Of course that lead to lots of split ends that required products that promised "repair".  Now I can easily use a comb even though my hair is about 4 inches longer than it was last summer.

I haven't added any new shots to my port since what I did last summer. But I seem to get a more compliments on my hair now than before.  I have been too busy with other projects to shoot but will try and get some new stuff shot and posted soon.

It is a process to ween yourself off of chemical dependance (of any kind).  The advantage for me was better hair, less exposure to toxins and less time spent dealing with my hair-- and saving about $500 per year!

Shot By Adam wrote:
Several years ago there was a major news show or product watchdog show or something like that which did a report on all the major, more expensive hair products on the market. It was so long ago that I just didn't remember who did the report but it was a major program like 20/20 or 60 minutes...something like that. So they did double blind tests with numerous subjects testing over several months about ten different hair products ranging in price. Some were bought off the shelf in the supermarket, some had to be purchased in a high-end salon. You know what came in #1 in customer satisfaction?

Horse shampoo.

Yep, shampoo used on horses beat all the major brands.

Saw that as well. It was a good show.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Several years ago there was a major news show or product watchdog show or something like that which did a report on all the major, more expensive hair products on the market. It was so long ago that I just didn't remember who did the report but it was a major program like 20/20 or 60 minutes...something like that. So they did double blind tests with numerous subjects testing over several months about ten different hair products ranging in price. Some were bought off the shelf in the supermarket, some had to be purchased in a high-end salon. You know what came in #1 in customer satisfaction?

Horse shampoo.

Yep, shampoo used on horses beat all the major brands.

Chicchowmein wrote:
I think it was specifically Mane and tail shampoo.

Doesn't that sell for about the same price as Pantene or Garnier though?  So it's not really a matter of 'the man' trying to take your money.

Heather J M wrote:

Breakin Chains wrote:
as far as salon brands vs drug store brands.. most salon brands put their $$ into research and rely on the stylist to sell the product via referral, recommendation and trust.. and the drug store brands put their $$ into marketing and celebrity name  dropping..
the "expensive" part can come from either higher standards for quality that  some brands use (like purology, which is vegan), or just the same concept that brand name clothing has: some ppl just wanna pay more for a name.. but in reality, its not the 70's anymore and 12 bucks aint that much to pay for shampoo (EVEN when the drug store stuff is only 7)

I disagree. While the expensive brands *may* contain less filler chemical and more active ingredient, they are on the whole, all owned by the same parent company and have access to the same laboratory research.

This is sad. I don't let many chemicals into my life anymore since I don't trust the formulation or the parent companies. It is a great thing that people are starting to question it. My hair was so brittle then I started doing egg/coconut oil/ banana masks and recycled every bottle in my bathroom. It hasn't felt better, and now there aren't products everywhere.

Sophie turnberg wrote:
Hair products such as purology and redken are not a scam the hair strand is a complex structure and each layer needs  nutrients and specialised ingredients. I am not saying you need to load your hair up with product every day! But shampoo twice and comdition mid shafts to ends once with a product that is  right for your hair every other day or every two days and add maybe one product it makes a huge difference! I ama hairstylist and product specialist i think redken or sexy hair would be perfect

Thank you for this.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I guess it depends on how you define 'scam.'  I don't think that the products are a scam, but a lot of the individual brands and lines are scams, yes.  There are cheap alternatives that perform just as well as the expensive stuff.  There are also expensive products that perform much better than cheaper ones.  Personally, Suave works just as well for me as the expensive stuff, but several years back it didn't.  I don't know if that's because they changed the recipe, or because my hair isn't as long as it was then.

Conditioner may or may not be a scam as well.  If your hair isn't naturally dry or tangly, then you probably don't need conditioner unless you use shampoo every day.  That's especially true for people with short hair.  I've never used leave-in conditioner or other treatments, but I've been told by a lot of people that those are generally good products.

As far as styling product, same thing there.  I've used expensive product that worked a lot better than the cheaper stuff (Night Rider pomade comes to mind), but an awful lot of it is the same stuff at higher prices.  When I had longer hair and went to an actual salon, the woman that I saw used to tell me which products I should buy from her, and which ones I should get from the supermarket.

Shot By Adam wrote:
Several years ago there was a major news show or product watchdog show or something like that which did a report on all the major, more expensive hair products on the market. It was so long ago that I just didn't remember who did the report but it was a major program like 20/20 or 60 minutes...something like that. So they did double blind tests with numerous subjects testing over several months about ten different hair products ranging in price. Some were bought off the shelf in the supermarket, some had to be purchased in a high-end salon. You know what came in #1 in customer satisfaction?

Horse shampoo.

Yep, shampoo used on horses beat all the major brands.

Doesn't that sell for about the same price as Pantene or Garnier though?  So it's not really a matter of 'the man' trying to take your money.

The price went up as I recall aaaafter that report came out. Mane and tail never worked well on my hair.

As I sais and as my hair dresser has said the conditioner was always more important to my hair than the shampoo. I would also think it would depend on the length and texture of your hair.

Long hair tends to tangle more. Short hair not as many issues.

Jay Dezelic wrote:

Human hair is generally pretty similar in how it grows.  What makes it so different is most likely the chemicals it is exposed to--both what you eat and what you put on your hair.

No it's not, that's  patently absurd, my very fine, straight oily hair is very different than my African American neighbor's, or anyone else's. pretending that curly, thick hair, and fine straight hair, and everything in between, of all ethnicities, is the same and need the same treatment is simply wrong. The no shampoo thing appears periodically among the alternative medicine community, and it's fine for some for a while, but shampoo is not part of some vast conspiracy and is an essential part of hygiene for many,

Jay Dezelic wrote:

For several months after I stopped using shampoo, I still used conditioner to keep my hair from getting tangled.  The same was true when I used shampoo.  I use coconut oil as a conditioner now (which didn't work all that well at first).  Now it works great since I think my hair has adjusted to not getting the natural oil stripped out of it. 

I was never able to get up in the morning and run a comb through my hair without disturbing families of little rats that moved in during the night.  I had to use a brush. Of course that lead to lots of split ends that required products that promised "repair".  Now I can easily use a comb even though my hair is about 4 inches longer than it was last summer.

I haven't added any new shots to my port since what I did last summer. But I seem to get a more compliments on my hair now than before.  I have been too busy with other projects to shoot but will try and get some new stuff shot and posted soon.

It is a process to ween yourself off of chemical dependance (of any kind).  The advantage for me was better hair, less exposure to toxins and less time spent dealing with my hair-- and saving about $500 per year!

I don't believe in one size fits all. I do believe that there is such a thing as marketing hype but I know from personal experience with my own hair that only one or two conditioners that I have used work worth a damn to detangle my hair.

And sorry I am going to go with the opinion of a trained professional over some random  guy on MM.

I have used vinegar on  my hair ( not only does it smell vile but it strips the moisture out).

No thanks.

You are free to do as you like, not wash your hair, not cut your hair, dress like a woman  if you feel like it but it does not mean you are going to bring people around to seeing things your way.

I have also tried mayo, olive oil and other " Natural" conditioners rather than commercial conditioners.

They did not work for me.

Strength Studios wrote:

No it's not, that's  patently absurd, my very fine, straight oily hair is very different than my African American neighbor's, or anyone else's. pretending that curly, thick hair, and fine straight hair, and everything in between, of all ethnicities, is the same and need the same treatment is simply wrong. The no shampoo thing appears periodically among the alternative medicine community, and it's fine for some for a while, but shampoo is not part of some vast conspiracy and is an essential part of hygiene for many,

Thank you!

Chicchowmein wrote:
...No thanks.

You are free to do as you like, not wash your hair, not cut your hair, dress like a woman  if you feel like it but it does not mean you are going to bring people around to seeing things your way...

It's only a suggestion.  I am not running for public office.  Sorry if you have a problem with my appearance.  It wasn't intended to be the subject of this thread.

Chemically enhanced shampoos are a pretty recent invention compared to the time humans have been on earth.  A few companies make a huge amount of money convincing people that their miraculous formula is better than nature.  I am just suggesting that it may not always be true.  Believe what you want, but please don't build the logic of your argument on your disapproval of my appearance.

Yes. It is a scientific fact that human hair is far more similar across all races than with any other animals.  What makes it considerably different between humans is more to do with the food and substances you consume.  If you put shit in your body, you will end up with shit on your head.  If you put a lot of shit in your body, then you will need industrial strength cleansers to get the shit out and specially formulated ointments to mask the resulting damage.

Jay Dezelic wrote:

It's only a suggestion.  I am not running for public office.  Sorry if you have a problem with my appearance.  It wasn't intended to be the subject of this thread.

Chemically enhanced shampoos are a pretty recent invention compared to the time humans have been on earth.  A few companies make a huge amount of money convincing people that their miraculous formula is better than nature.  I am just suggesting that it may not always be true.  Believe what you want, but please don't build the logic of your argument on your disapproval of my appearance.

Yes. It is a scientific fact that human hair is far more similar across all races than with any other animals.  What makes it considerably different between humans is more to do with the food and substances you consume.  If you put shit in your body, you will end up with shit on your head.  If you put a lot of shit in your body, then you will need industrial strength cleansers to get the shit out and specially formulated ointments to mask the resulting damage.

My statement was a general statement -- not necessarily directed at you.

Different people have different texture and different types of hair and it has nothing to do with what they put in their body. That is the way it grows out of their head.


We bathe horses -- athletes that are fed organic and balanced everything. I am not talking about your everyday backyard variety animal here. I am talking about show horses and polo ponies at the top of their game.

They would never have the level of shine and appearance that they do without shampoo ( that is specially PH balanced and developed for horses)


People also rarely bathed back in the day -- and frankly they stunk -- they were not consuming chemicals. People also died of Bubonic Plague --

I know vegans, vegetarians and pretty healthy people that don't eat processed foods -- they still wash their hair.

My father is 75 years old and kicks butt on the tennis court - I don't know how old you are but he looks to me to be the same age as you are. He uses shampoo on his hair.

Show me something based on scientific fact and I would  me more inclined to listen to what you have to say.