Shampoo - enriches your hair

I was taking my shower this morning, and being free of thoughts or worries I took time to read the bottle of shampoo, before I washed my hair, what's left of it.

The bottle reads "enriches your hair, contains balsam" and all the other additional things they write on these consumerables we buy.

I had to laugh, but may be I am wrong to laugh.

The shampoo must be on my head for a max of 30 seconds as I lather it, scroll it around my head and hair, and then rinse it off.

"Can this shampoo and its contents in this time span really 'enrich' my hair?", I thought to myself.

I would have thought that the entirety of my hairs' health would depend upon my vitamin, calcium and other intakes from the foods that I eat.

Are there any scientists here who work in the field of shampoo or similar products that can give me an indicator that my laughter was in the wrong vain?

-m.

I'm not a scientist in the relevant field, but the shampoo won't enrich your hair in any meaningful sense, though it will clean it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not a scientist in the relevant field, but the shampoo won't enrich your hair in any meaningful sense, though it will clean it.

So are we deliberately misled into believing 'cleaning' is actually 'enriching'?

Of course, being clean is a richening experience, but enriching implies an added benefit to being clean, doesn't it?

I'm slightly confused about what I read.

Does the indicator that it contains 'balsam' give me an added confidence about how much it enriches or cleans? I don't know if balsam can give my hair an added tendency within 30 seconds of application. Could it? That must be a question for the scientist.

I could wash my hair with 'Head and Shoulders' at normal increased cost, or I could choose a cheaper local supermarket shampoo, at 1/7th the cost which has no indicators of ingredients or nutrients but possibly with the same resultant, couldn't I?

-m.

Originally posted by mikelom
So are we deliberately misled into believing 'cleaning' is actually 'enriching'?

Of course, being clean is a richening experience, but enriching implies an added benefit to being clean, doesn't it?

I'm slightly confused about what I read.

Does the indicator that it contains 'balsam' give me an added confidence about how much it enriches or cleans? I ...[text shortened]... of ingredients or nutrients but possibly with the same resultant, couldn't I?

-m.

What gets me is you are in the shower, the rest of the family has upteen bottles of whatnot and you want some soap and you look at the labels and the enriching, bla bla bla stuff is written in huge letters and you want to know what the hell the stuff is, like is it conditioner, shampoo, body wash, what? So you have to frigging go over the bottle with a fine tooth comb and finally you get to the tiny wording that says body wash or whatever.

Originally posted by mikelom
So are we deliberately misled into believing 'cleaning' is actually 'enriching'?

Of course, being clean is a richening experience, but enriching implies an added benefit to being clean, doesn't it?

I'm slightly confused about what I read.

Does the indicator that it contains 'balsam' give me an added confidence about how much it enriches or cleans? I ...[text shortened]... of ingredients or nutrients but possibly with the same resultant, couldn't I?

-m.

In general I would say advertisers are allowed too much leeway in deceiving customers. Sure, you can't lie outright, but you can stretch the truth pretty far.

Personal hygiene products/cosmetics are very sensitive to marketing because it's hard to see any difference between cheap and expensive varieties and people find their appearance very important and are thus inclined to spend a lot on it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
In general I would say advertisers are allowed too much leeway in deceiving customers. Sure, you can't lie outright, but you can stretch the truth pretty far.

Personal hygiene products/cosmetics are very sensitive to marketing because it's hard to see any difference between cheap and expensive varieties and people find their appearance very important and are thus inclined to spend a lot on it.

There is practically no difference in any of these products, I think people pick the ones that smell the best, or has the nicest color which of course is just an application of the proper kind of molecules that happen to smell like something people like, like pine or jasmine or looks like.

Of course all that stuff is just manufactured in a vat and we don't even know the long term consequences of such chemicals.

i never use shampoo or conditioner or bodywash or any of the other nonsense they have.

shampoo artificially dehydrates your hair making it necessary to use conditioner to artificially re-hydrate it, damaging it along the way.

just use soap, sparingly.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
I'm not a scientist in the relevant field, but the shampoo won't enrich your hair in any meaningful sense, though it will clean it.

I believe some shampoos do contain chemicals that react with your hair. What these reactions are and whether or not they are more than removing oil or adding oil I cant say without research, but I think it is incorrect to assume that they only clean it. Certainly, different shampoos have different effects.
'Enriching' is of course another question as it very much depends on what you want your hair to be like as to whether or not you would consider a change 'enriching'.

I mostly use shampoo for its anti-dandruff properties - which definitely do work.

A quick browse around and I came across this:
http://www.suite101.com/content/how-shampoo-works-a130330

Shampoos Strip the Sebum Off
All shampoos strip away the sebum from the hair. However, the sebum is important for protecting hair shafts. Thus, shampoos must contain an ingredient that replaces the sebum. Shwartz describes how silicones like dimethicone coat the hair and replace sebum. The hair shaft is covered with translucent cells that overlap each other like roof shingles. In damaged hair these shingles are rough. Dimethicone can smooth the shingles, changing hair's reflective properties. This gives hair that much sought-after shine.

enrich is presumabely just a marketing term that pushes the consumer button

however, imagine a rope that is frayed at the end. The loose unravelled fibers are weak and frizzy. they break easily and cannot be "managed" easily, meaning tied into knots or aligned in a nice orderly way. They also wouldn't make a nice clear reflective or refractive image.

Along comes a solution with a glue-like substance that essentially "heals" the frayed end and stops it from unravelling any further. As the rope continues to be made longer at the "growing" end, with the frayed end sealed, the rope gets longer and stronger. it's "richer," from a certain point of view.

Originally posted by mikelom
I was taking my shower this morning, and being free of thoughts or worries I took time to read the bottle of shampoo, before I washed my hair, what's left of it.

The bottle reads "enriches your hair, contains balsam" and all the other additional things they write on these consumerables we buy.

I had to laugh, but may be I am wrong to laugh.

The sham ...[text shortened]... ar products that can give me an indicator that my laughter was in the wrong vain?

-m.

I've kept my scalp shaved for over 5 years now. It's saved me at least $500 in haircuts alone, and probably $100 in shampoo. AND I don't need to carry a comb around.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I've kept my scalp shaved for over 5 years now. It's saved me at least $500 in haircuts alone, and probably $100 in shampoo. AND I don't need to carry a comb around.

i did that for a while, doing the vin diesel look, but got too lazy since i had to shave every few days.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I've kept my scalp shaved for over 5 years now. It's saved me at least $500 in haircuts alone, and probably $100 in shampoo. AND I don't need to carry a comb around.

Another cheap alternative is long hair - I haven't been to a hairdresser in about 10 years, and I never need to shave my scalp!

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
i never use shampoo or conditioner or bodywash or any of the other nonsense they have.

shampoo artificially dehydrates your hair making it necessary to use conditioner to artificially re-hydrate it, damaging it along the way.

just use soap, sparingly.

hear hear

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Another cheap alternative is long hair - I haven't been to a hairdresser in about 10 years, and I never need to shave my scalp!

consequently, that's the path i'm on now. unfortunately, it has earned me the nickname 'sasquatch'

Originally posted by coquette
enrich is presumabely just a marketing term that pushes the consumer button

however, imagine a rope that is frayed at the end. The loose unravelled fibers are weak and frizzy. they break easily and cannot be "managed" easily, meaning tied into knots or aligned in a nice orderly way. They also wouldn't make a nice clear reflective or refractive image.

...[text shortened]... ealed, the rope gets longer and stronger. it's "richer," from a certain point of view.

That's a very convincing theory. It has just one unfortunate flaw: it's not true.

Every single time this stuff is tried in a lab by someone who is not paid by Proctor, Gamble &al. to spout the desired numbers, the practice turns out to be completely different. These magical, nutricialising, enrichifying hair care products, now with NEW! Extra all-natural hairostrengthol (tm), do nothing at all that a normal shampoo doesn't, except make it feel smoother for all of half an hour and extract another ten quid a bottle from your wallet.

If you don't believe me (and there's no reason why you should), ask any customer protection organisation (and there are very good reasons why you should believe them over the manufacturers).

Richard