mensimageconsultant
Distinguished Member
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,600
- Reaction score
- 145
Here is a brand-new article. What do you think? Should it include more explanations and factoids?
STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.
Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.
Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!
Styleforum is supported in part by commission earning affiliate links sitewide. Please support us by using them. You may learn more here.
Here is a brand-new article. What do you think? Should it include more explanations and factoids?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070516/hl_nm/hair_dc Just read this one . . . hope springs eternal.
The laser comb, kind of a massage, has been shown to help, a little.
Hair multiplication will soon be available and then none of this stuff will matter.
Self-care that prevents hair loss is good for other things. That is one argument against solely waiting/hoping for a cure. The usual high cost of fixing a significant amount of lost hair is another. The article has been revised to better explain additional reasons for active prevention.
Like Minoxidil, all these "prevention" techniques (eating omega 3's, scalp massage, dandruff shampoo) can possibly do is to make existing hair more healthy or slightly thicker. They cannot prevent hair loss due to genetics. Not a bad thing, but let's be clear about this.