• We will be performing necessary maintenance on the forum and related hardware from Satuday 25th of September onward. Users might experience some downtime, which we will ensure that it is limited - if at all noticeable.

Growth: afro / asian/ caucausian

coolsista-paris

Well-Known Member
Growth: afro / asian/ caucausian (true?)

So, this is what i found on a french internet site :

For African type hair, implantation is superficial (2.5 mm), the stem is oval, flattened, and has a helical twist: the hair is twisted, the growth is slower.

Asians are the lucky ones. Their hair is equipped with a rod wide and round, deeply implanted (7 mm from the scalp), resulting in a hair stronger and faster to shoot. These are also the leading provider of real-hair wigs for the rest of the world.

Between the two, the hair of Caucasians , more or less round and flattened, giving rise to a multitude of varieties: straight hair, wavy or curly, thick or thin stems. The growth rarely exceeds 1.5 cm / month for the fastest. The maximum length is also highly variable from one individual to another: it depends of course on the speed of hair growth but also of his life and, again, we are not all equal in nature:

the life cycle of a hair male varies between 2 and 4 years
that of a woman, between 4 and 7 years!

ok, so after the battle of us saying yes and no to this...what shall we beleive?
:perplexed just stick to it (reality?)
 
Last edited:

Nonie

Well-Known Member
Re: Growth: afro / asian/ caucausian (true?)

So, this is what i found on a french internet site :

For African type hair, implantation is superficial (2.5 mm), the stem is oval, flattened, and has a helical twist: the hair is twisted, the growth is slower.

Asians are the lucky ones. Their hair is equipped with a rod wide and round, deeply implanted (7 mm from the scalp), resulting in a hair stronger and faster to shoot. These are also the leading provider of real-hair wigs for the rest of the world.

Between the two, the hair of Caucasians , more or less round and flattened, giving rise to a multitude of varieties: straight hair, wavy or curly, thick or thin stems. The growth rarely exceeds 1.5 cm / month for the fastest. The maximum length is also highly variable from one individual to another: it depends of course on the speed of hair growth but also of his life and, again, we are not all equal in nature:

the life cycle of a hair male varies between 2 and 4 years
that of a woman, between 4 and 7 years!

ok, so after the battle of us saying yes and no to this...what shall we beleive?
:perplexed just stick to it (reality?)

@coolsista-paris, while science does give factual info from research done, one cannot deny what they witness with their own eyes. So many will fall within the parameters science states but many will also defy science and fall outside that. While I will not question whether my hair grows slower than Asian or Caucasian, I do question the theory about our hair growing slower than 1.25 cm/month = approx. 1/2 an inch only because I have witnessed my own grow at that rate, and I don't consider myself a fast grower. Between August 2001 and August 2002, I went from one inch to 5-6 inches. Between August 2002 and August 2003 I went from 5-6 inches to 9-11 inches. I was dusting 1/4 inch every 6-8 weeks. Yet I gained about 4-5 inches each year. So MY reality is that our hair does not necessarily grow way slower than 0.5 inches a month.

I do like that the info is there though because it helps us not feel discouraged if our Asian friends appear to go from nothing to sitting on their hair in a short span of time.

Here's another article from hair scientists on this topic: http://www.hairscientists.org/hair-growth-cycle.htm For those who don't want to read the whole article, scroll to the last 3 paragraphs.
 
Last edited:

southerncitygirl

Well-Known Member
how would they know? shrinkage hides our growth and unless our hair is flat-ironed you can't see truth length. if you had a relaxer and lots of new growth that you didn't flat-iron very straight you also wouldn't see the length. retention is an issue for black women because of the issues with dryness, chemicals, heat, and too tight braids/weaves. people of african descent also have the most variety of different hair types, thickness, and density all of which require separate types of care in terms of moisture,protein,ceramides, deep conditioning, etc.
 

Nelli04

Well-Known Member
Kind of makes sense to me...well the fact that 'african' hair grows slower. But that doesn't mean we can't get to the lengths we want, it just means it may take a little longer.
 

ChristmasCarol

Well-Known Member
I don't believe it at all. I know for a fact that mine and my 3 DD's hair grows just as fast as other races. My youngest DD is past WL, goddaughter is past TBL. Little girls of other races that I know haven't grown their hair any faster or longer. My DH's secretary (Caucasian) has been growing out a cropped 'do and grows hair at about the same rate as I do - about 7" a year.

The whole "Asians and Whites grow 15" of hair each year" is a lie from the pit of hair hell. They simply RETAIN nearly every bit of hair they grow. When we do the same, our hair "seems" to grow just as quickly.

With that said, within each racial grouping, there will be people who grow 3"/yr and some who grow 8"/yr.
 

My Friend

New Member
I think it Africian hair does appear to grow slower. I'm talking 4xyz. My theory is as follows:

....... Many African Americans have very curly, flattened hair follicles in their skin that produce highly coiled hair. Some research suggests that the hair follicles are actually spiral/spring shaped if you were able to look down the length of these hair follicles.

The fastest distant between two points? A straight line.

Because our follicles are spiral like, our hair has to go around and around then out to the scalp.

I also think once 4xyz is mixed with something else that follicle changes. If you are able to take a DNA test and if it shows indian, asian, or european that changes the games for me.
 

ChristmasCarol

Well-Known Member
I think it Africian hair does appear to grow slower. I'm talking 4xyz. My theory is as follows:

....... Many African Americans have very curly, flattened hair follicles in their skin that produce highly coiled hair. Some research suggests that the hair follicles are actually spiral/spring shaped if you were able to look down the length of these hair follicles.

The fastest distant between two points? A straight line.

Because our follicles are spiral like, our hair has to go around and around then out to the scalp.

I also think once 4xyz is mixed with something else that follicle changes. If you are able to take a DNA test and if it shows indian, asian, or european that changes the games for me.[/QUOTE]

My Friend

As to the first bolded: I doubt curly hair grows around and around for 4 or 5 inches before it emerges. That wouldn't explain any visible length differential, IMO.

As to bold#2: African Americans are a mixed-race people, generally. So, that would mean most of us should have no problem growing WL+ hair, by that line of reasoning.
 

My Friend

New Member
I think it Africian hair does appear to grow slower. I'm talking 4xyz. My theory is as follows:

....... Many African Americans have very curly, flattened hair follicles in their skin that produce highly coiled hair. Some research suggests that the hair follicles are actually spiral/spring shaped if you were able to look down the length of these hair follicles.

The fastest distant between two points? A straight line.

Because our follicles are spiral like, our hair has to go around and around then out to the scalp.

I also think once 4xyz is mixed with something else that follicle changes. If you are able to take a DNA test and if it shows indian, asian, or european that changes the games for me.[/QUOTE]

@My Friend

As to the first bolded: I doubt curly hair grows around and around for 4 or 5 inches before it emerges. That wouldn't explain any visible length differential, IMO.

As to bold#2: African Americans are a mixed-race people, generally. So, that would mean most of us should have no problem growing WL+ hair, by that line of reasoning.


:look: I never said it grows around 4-5 inches :nono: Do you have a scientific answer to how many inches it does grows around? I'm sure follicle's would/could be different per person right?

#2 If you look at the 23andme thread you can see the percentage of european/asian/indian varies per person and even between siblings. Unless you are able to see each and every follicle on a person heads, than my theory is a possiblilty.

I'm sure you've read post regarding different textures of hair on different parts of the scalp right?

AA dont normally have a problem growing hair :nono: They have a problem retaining hair :drunk:

THIS IS MY THEORY. Thanks for reading it and taking it into consideration.

How about you share yours :yep:
 

ChristmasCarol

Well-Known Member
:look: I never said it grows around 4-5 inches :nono: Do you have a scientific answer to how many inches it does grows around? I'm sure follicle's would/could be different per person right?

#2 If you look at the 23andme thread you can see the percentage of european/asian/indian varies per person and even between siblings. Unless you are able to see each and every follicle on a person heads, than my theory is a possiblilty.

I'm sure you've read post regarding different textures of hair on different parts of the scalp right?

AA dont normally have a problem growing hair :nono: They have a problem retaining hair :drunk:

THIS IS MY THEORY. Thanks for reading it and taking it into consideration.

How about you share yours :yep:

@My Friend

I did share my theory.:yep:

If you read my first post, I stated that RETENTION was the problem and not growth. That is my theory. So, we agree on that.

If the hair only grows around a tiny bit before emerging, that would only explain a tiny bit of growth differential. It would not explain a large amount, such as 4 or 5 inches. That was the point I was trying to make. An inch or two difference in growth each year between races would not explain why many AAs are stuck at EL and NL.
 
Last edited:

virtuenow

Well-Known Member
I've heard all of this before... Except that African hair is "superficially" implanted and asian hair is "deeply" implanted. This makes me kind of depressed. First we have a smaller hair diameter than anyone, more thinly spread-- and now this?! We just can't win *anger* *frustration*.

At first I didn't believe black people had finer strands than everyone--- until I came here. My hair strands are like thread. Thicker than any white or asian hair I have ever seen. Plus any hair I've done in the family or friends have very thick strands (except one person who was from S. Africa). But on lhcf, everyone seems to say they have fine strands.

As far as thinly spread hair. I always thought black people had more strands of hair b/c our hair appears so thick. But these science studies show we have less hair. I don't know if I buy any of this. Seems like all these negative reports about black people in general are made up.
 

ChristmasCarol

Well-Known Member
virtuenow

Girl, don't be depressed! They can say "whatever", but that don't make it true.

If you look closely, in the article Nonie referenced, it states that the study on the actual numbers of hairs for each race was done in the 1800s. I don't think I need to elaborate upon how many of the Victorian scientists used "science" to always make sure people of African descent fell at the bottom of any study. :sad:
 

discodumpling

Well-Known Member
Open Letter :)

So what? Should we all just go kill ourselves? My hair grows slower BUT it grows steadily with care & attention. That's all that really matters. I'm not in a race with Whites & Asians.
 

yorkpatties

Well-Known Member
I've heard all of this before... Except that African hair is "superficially" implanted and asian hair is "deeply" implanted. This makes me kind of depressed. First we have a smaller hair diameter than anyone, more thinly spread-- and now this?! We just can't win *anger* *frustration*.

At first I didn't believe black people had finer strands than everyone--- until I came here. My hair strands are like thread. Thicker than any white or asian hair I have ever seen. Plus any hair I've done in the family or friends have very thick strands (except one person who was from S. Africa). But on lhcf, everyone seems to say they have fine strands.

As far as thinly spread hair. I always thought black people had more strands of hair b/c our hair appears so thick. But these science studies show we have less hair. I don't know if I buy any of this. Seems like all these negative reports about black people in general are made up.

I don't take this as "negative" information. We can be different from them, but it doesn't have to be negative. I know that my strands are the thinnest of the thin, and once my hair is straightened out you can see just how thin my hair is. I don't see any of this as a negative though. Out hair is supposed to puff out, that hides it's thinness. As beauty standards, we like the look of full hair, and our hair inherently has the fullest look of them all.
 

Vintagecoilylocks

New Member
virtuenow

Girl, don't be depressed! They can say "whatever", but that don't make it true.

If you look closely, in the article Nonie referenced, it states that the study on the actual numbers of hairs for each race was done in the 1800s. I don't think I need to elaborate upon how many of the Victorian scientists used "science" to always make sure people of African descent fell at the bottom of any study. :sad:

You have a valid point about the view of the study. For one Why did this society of 1999-2012 go so far back to get their info. 1800"s????? And in this 1800"s study their referance to Afro hair having wool properties is bias. I work with sheep and spin and process wool. First if you do a little research you will find that caucasian hair and afro hair have the same properties that are similar to wool. Afro hair is no more wool like then caucasian hair. Second sheep have both wool and hair on them. I don't think with that type of skewed info one can rely that they were being completly scientific. Then the referance to the Afro Caribian being presented as if they were some sort of weak species of humans knowing the British and French at that time had a great disdain for mixed blood people from that area makes one also wonder.
History photo's presented on this website has shown Afro Americans with long hair. I really don't see where this man took great time an interest in studying people of color using real statistics and sample groups.

I mean look around, we are proving all of this "science" wrong daily. And if the same amount of AA woman attempted to grow long hair as caucasian then and only then could you really have a proper study and analysis.

Check out Long hair community. Many a slow growing fine haired caucasian woman struggling to acheive longer locks.
 
Last edited:

Nonie

Well-Known Member
I've heard all of this before... Except that African hair is "superficially" implanted and asian hair is "deeply" implanted. This makes me kind of depressed. First we have a smaller hair diameter than anyone, more thinly spread-- and now this?! We just can't win *anger* *frustration*.

At first I didn't believe black people had finer strands than everyone--- until I came here. My hair strands are like thread. Thicker than any white or asian hair I have ever seen. Plus any hair I've done in the family or friends have very thick strands (except one person who was from S. Africa). But on lhcf, everyone seems to say they have fine strands.

As far as thinly spread hair. I always thought black people had more strands of hair b/c our hair appears so thick. But these science studies show we have less hair. I don't know if I buy any of this. Seems like all these negative reports about black people in general are made up.

I also never heard of the idea that our strands are superficially implanted. That'd not only squash the theory about growth being spiral so taking longer to show as our strands would have a shorter distance to travel, but it'd also mean our strand can fall off at the slightest little thing. :rolleyes:

I also don't think it's true we have fine strands, but I can believe that our strands are weaker than Asians. :yep: Not only does the flatter shape of our strands mean the "edges" are easy to tear...

Compare these cross-sections of three hairs, all of different racial types: (left) Asian, (center) Caucasoid, (right) African
but we apparently also have a groove along the length of our strands which may make our strands weaker.


African hair (electronmicrograph): the longitudinal grooving is very common in this type of hair

(Source)
In all the races there'll be thick strands and fine strands, so I don't think we can say that one race is void of thick strands. But I suppose Asian strands will always appear thicker in general by virtue of their cross-section being round so that the strands show the same thickness no matter what side you're looking at.

But with all the mixing of races that has occurred over the years, really how accurate can any of these studies be? So rather than have distinct parameters into which they slot people, I think what there is more a continuous spectrum with those who have no inter-racial unions in their families representing the original results and the rest having characteristics that could put them in overlapping cells or in categories that previously only had other races.

Also as others have pointed out, we have no idea how this study was done: like did they stretch the hair to measure or were they just looking at shrunken strands? You might remember that the Guiness Book of World Records biggest afro of yesteryear didn't impress many here who know someone else with hair that could form a bigger afro. Granted none of those BAA folks signed up so the trophy went to the one who did. Still we all know that many people don't GET our hair. I can personally tell you that I find myself explaining my hair over and over to the same people and still there never seems to be an end to questions about it. I don't mind though, coz I love my hair and love to talk about it. So if even people who are up close and personal need many sessions of teaching to begin to understand our hair, what of those who don't live with us who only see our hair in the lab or as they pass us by and use that observation to come up with hypotheses and theories of how our hair grows? Heck even some us :)wave:) didn't get our own hair fully until we were in our 30's!!! And yet *I* for one have had this hair with me all my life. Hello?

Anyway, it'd be fun if one of us redid this study and gave it a makeover and created an apocalypse of sorts in the world of Trichology. :grin: We have some scientist on board so how about it eh? :poke:
 

Lynnerie

Well-Known Member
This topic has been discussed too many times. If you want to grow your hair long then you can. This site should be all the proof you need and retention is key! The info OP found was on a French site and they are always trying to put our race at the bottom.
 

loolalooh

Well-Known Member
The rate of hair growth shouldn't be the focus. Hair retention should.

I'm Nigerian American and my hair grows relatively slow (~1/3 inch per month). However, I've been able to reach MBL and I'm well on my way to WL. At the end of the day, retention is what matters.
 
Top