The barbers always tell me this whenever I tell them I want to keep my long hair: “Oh no, that means you’ll go bald! You have to keep your hair cut short if you don’t want to lose it!”
Sceptical Doper that I am, I want to fight ignorance. I suspect it’s nothing more than an old wives’ tale. The barbers, of course, are not financially disinterested in bringing in more business by persuading you to get more frequent haricuts. So I can’t take their word at face value. I need independent, unbiased confirmation.
One thing I can tell you is that despite letting my freak flag fly, I have kept much more of my hair on top than my Dad had at this age (43—today’s my birthday). Dad always has had short hair, but it didn’t save him from a very receding hairline. My paternal grandfather (a barber) had the same sort of baldness. Whereas my maternal grandfather lived to be 89 and kept all of his hair his whole life long. So I think it’s actually genetics that determines how much hair you keep, not frequency of cutting. I think you notice a greater quantity of long hair departing your scalp, just because it’s longer, and therefore more noticeable, not that a greater number of hairs fall out. What say the Dopers in the know?
I’m asking because I need to go back to the Hair Cuttery to get my split ends trimmed off, and I know I’m going to hear that old wives’ tale again. (Never fails.) Therefore before going I want the factual Straight Dope™ needed to refute it.
I’d like an answer to this too. Mainly becuase I still haven’t figured out if plucking actually reduces future growth. I’m thinking specifically of my bugger grips (call them what you like, I always though that was a funny one)/squire’s tufts/hairy bits above the normal shaveline on a chaps face.
To answer you JM, Happy Birthday and, if plucking does/can reduce future growth then long hair might be more likely to be pulled out than short hair by brushing/washing/sleeping etc… Otherwise, I think it’s an OWT - I had a receeding hairline well before I grew my hair and don’t think that the 5 years of long hair made that much/any difference.
I kept my hair fairly long for years, I even let it grow out to the middle of my back as I appoached my 40th birthday. I now keep it much shorter but I still have a very full head of hair. My father uses a comb over to hide his bald spots and my younger brother has very little on top. I think it all has to do with genetics, plain and simple.
This sounds like myth to me. One site I just looked at said that the maternal grandfather thing was a myth as well.
I could see that longer hair would be more likely to be pulled out and that it’s larger size would make it more noticeable in the drain.
The “maternal grandfather thing”? Was “a myth too”? I didn’t know this was reified. I was just citing my own example. Didn’t know anyone else had made a theory of it.
Here’s a bonus question: When I was in India, I bought some of the fragrance oil they have over there and put it in my beard. The Indians said, “Oh no! That will cause your hair to turn gray!” How would fragrance oil make hair gray? I’m skeptical and think it’s another old wives’ tale. Anyone got any good cites on hair science?
"Many people believe the myth that baldness comes from the mother’s side of the family. The truth is that a tendency to baldness is inherited from either side of the family. A maternal grandfather and uncles with thick heads of hair are no assurance against baldness. "
"