8 replies to this topic

[Vanbelle]

So, I know 1/2th the people here think that sebum can be manipulated/regulated externally, while 1/2th the people here think sebum output can only be influenced by androgens (internally and topically), or nothing can change output rates. SO.... what say you about the "no poo" method? This is the movement where people forego shampoo (and usually conditioner) to control scalp oil. Apparently there is a transition phase where your skin slowly produces less oil; however, if you can't regulate this, then what's the deal? What would you account for this transition phase, where slowly you see less and less oil on the scalp?

Quote

The truth is that when transitioning from shampoo to no poo, there can be an adjustment period when the hair will continue to overproduce sebum as it did when the the natural oils were being stripped from the follicles daily by sudsy shampoo. This transition period can last anywhere from a week to two months and may not occur at all with some people. If the no poo method is done properly, this temporary increase in oil production will end once your body catches on that there’s no need to produce that much sebum anymore.

Anyone?

[borie88]

I saw one of bryan's posts that said the scalp doesn't really produce its own sebum. Oils from the fingers/ other external areas moisturize the scalp. I think that if someone were to stop "poo" they would probably also be careful to not touch their scalp and there would be less oil transfer. I haven't washed my face other than dabbing with a tissue for about 6 months. I don't think it has caused less oil to be produced, but it lessens the inflammation that a soap would cause me.

[Vanbelle]

The scalp definitely produces it's own sebum, but I know bryan thinks that the sebum doesn't travel down the hair shaft. He cited some research on it.

I honestly don't think people stop touching their hair when they stop shampooing it. For example, if I go a day without shampooing, let's say I barely touch my hair. My roots are a mess and my ends are always dry. In theory, there should be equal distribution of oil from my hand contact. Just doesn't fit.

That said, most people note their ROOTS being furiously greasy upon transitioning, not the ends of their hair. On a normal day, I mess with my ends, hardly ever the scalp; so it seems completely contradictory, the idea of how oil gets onto the hair. Ultimately, this is true: sebum doesn't travel down the hair, should I believe the research bryan has provided in the past. It also agrees with me anecdotally, so I'm willing to entertain it. However, the idea of sebum regulation doesn't agree with, essentially, this ENTIRE movement of transitioning to "no poo." Just a simple google search and you'll see how popular it really is, and they all tout the same philosophy: "the scalp will adjust to producing less oil once it realizes it's no longer being stripped of it on a daily basis by shampoo."

What am I missing here...

Edited by Vanbelle, 17 November 2011 - 08:13 PM.

[bryan]

Where exactly did you see this "no poo" theory being discussed? Was it being discussed by doctors and dermatologists (unlikely), or just laymen who express similar theories about sebum production on the rest of the skin (the "feedback theory")? If you're interested, I can show you a thread I started a while back in which the same "feedback theory" was refuted by Kligman, but specifically on the scalp; he and his colleagues found, while doing some unrelated testing, that the amount of sebum being produced on the scalps of some volunteers had nothing to do with how often they shampooed (over a range of shampooing regularly, to not shampooing at all). Do you want to hear more about it?

[Vanbelle]

bryan, on 17 November 2011 - 11:27 PM, said:

Where exactly did you see this "no poo" theory being discussed? Was it being discussed by doctors and dermatologists (unlikely), or just laymen who express similar theories about sebum production on the rest of the skin (the "feedback theory")? If you're interested, I can show you a thread I started a while back in which the same "feedback theory" was refuted by Kligman, but specifically on the scalp; he and his colleagues found, while doing some unrelated testing, that the amount of sebum being produced on the scalps of some volunteers had nothing to do with how often they shampooed (over a range of shampooing regularly, to not shampooing at all). Do you want to hear more about it?

No, I have not heard scientists talk about going "no poo." That's actually not the point AT ALL (just making that clear). Here's the point: thousands of people all over the internet are having major success with reducing oil output after allowing several weeks of adjustment. I'm not saying they're THEORIES are correct, but moreso, I'd like to know why their BAD THEORIES are having any practical application; after all, these same THOUSANDS of people are seeing reduction in oil after stopping using shampoo with their BAD THEORIES. The point is not to denigrate the bad theory and refute it with contradictory research (that has to be taken superior by default if we just throw the "are they a scientific professional" card), but use the opposing camp's research to explain why people see a reduction in oil anyway. If oil can't be reduced externally, then what's missing? What IS the explanation, not what's wrong with the other one. See where I'm going with this? I'm neither here nor there about who's right and wrong and who is scientifically/professionally conducive to their theories, but what is the opposing camp's theory as to why this movement sees success?

If your research can explain it, then I'd be as happy as a clam. Sorry for all the caps. I just want to talk about my real question, not argue semantics.

Edited by Vanbelle, 18 November 2011 - 12:58 PM.

[bryan]

Why do some lay people believe some of the things they do, especially the "feedback theory" regarding sebum production? I'm not completely sure, although I've speculated about it in the past; the "feedback theory" has been SOUNDLY tested and refuted in the past. I just don't think there's any truth to the idea that not shampooing anymore causes the scalp to gradually start producing less and less sebum.

[Vanbelle]

bryan, on 18 November 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:

Why do some lay people believe some of the things they do, especially the "feedback theory" regarding sebum production? I'm not completely sure, although I've speculated about it in the past; the "feedback theory" has been SOUNDLY tested and refuted in the past. I just don't think there's any truth to the idea that not shampooing anymore causes the scalp to gradually start producing less and less sebum.

Again, missing the point.

[bryan]

How am I "missing the point"?

[Modestm]

When I first glanced at the title of this thread I thought it said "Tickling the skin to produce less oil." You might as well "tickle" the skin if you think you can curb sebum output with trickery.