Captain's Log: Engaging on a No-'Poo Mission

Day 1
Greetings -

I am writing this blog, the first a new series, after having just emerged from the shower (seriously, just sittin' in a towel here).  Today is the first day on a new experiment I'm trying - not shampooing my hair.

At this point, most of you are are probably pulling a face of disgust, and maybe a few are getting excited because they've read about this movement, if you can call it that, before or perhaps have even tried it themselves.

But before you judge me as either a grease-ball or one of those I-Don't-Shave-My-Armpits kind of hippies, let me explain.

I came across this article the other day on how not-shampooing is the best decision this girl had ever made for her hair, and all the benefits that came with it. It sounded like there were a lot of other lurkers out there who had taken this seemingly drastic step as well and have never looked back.  I had already suspected what this article confirmed for me - the reality of the beauty industry is that most products that are marketed as good for us, as helping us to improve our health or image, are in fact very, very bad for us.  Now, there's a whole separate blog here waiting to be written about how so many chemicals in every-day products have never actually be tested under TSCA (the Toxic Substances and Control Act) and NONE have been tested for how they react with the other chemicals they may be combined with in a product, and NO PRODUCTS have been tested to consider a life-time's worth of applications.  But that's not even the main point here.  

Many seemingly innocuous products like lip balms, lotions, and shampoos, have chemicals in them that disrupt our bodies' natural production of compounds and oils, actually exacerbating the problems these products are supposed to fix.  It's a sneaky, marketing trick that creates a positive feedback loop of need for and a continuing dependence on a product.  

I had suspected already that the shampoo/conditioner industry was in on this scheme too, and I was right. See, most shampoos are designed to strip the hair of natural oils, promising cleaner, shiny, non-oily, hair with lots of body and a good smell.  But these natural oils are necessary for hair health and you have to have a healthy foundation or you'll never get good style or shine anyway.  So the shampoos are at once stripping your hair of the natural oils and then having to replace them artificially in order to give you the shine and body they promise in the first place.  Now, your body knows that your hair isn't getting the oils the scalp is producing, so it starts to over-produce oil, fighting the shampoo.  If this sounds counter-productive, it's because it is.  Your body comes to believe that this elevated excretion of hair oils is natural and necessary, so when you skip the shower for a day or two, you immediately become a greasy mess.  It's obvious to see; your hair gets weighed down with the extra oil, it can be lumpy, it's darker and duller, and it just feels gross. You need to shampoo it to strip away all that oil again!

The only way to break this vicious cycle is to quit using shampoo.  I've read many accounts of people who have made the leap before me, and I can't find a single person who regrets it.  Everyone seems to extol how, after a period of adjustment, their hair became shinier, fuller, easier to style and able to hold style longer, and just overall healthier, once they ditched the 'poo.  

This doesn't  come overnight though and that's why I'm starting this log.  It takes time for your body to adjust and start producing oil at a more natural rate and for you to learn how to best deal with a no-'poo lifestyle.  

Supposedly, the stages will go like this:

First, there will be a rough adjustment period that may last a couple weeks, when your scalp is still over-producing oil and your hair feels dirty a lot, and you're having to experiment with the right combination of weekly rinses, and whether to use home-made concoctions of baking soda/water or lemon juice or not. This is the hardest part to get through because you may feel gross and self conscious and frustrated. 

Second, though, will come a period of a few more weeks when your scalp produces less oil and you've kind of figured out how to deal with it.  You may notice your roots feel thicker, and you're learning how to brush that oil down to your tips.  Benefits are starting to show, though.

Finally, after a couple months (I've read accounts anywhere from 1 or 2, to 4. Everyone's different I suppose) you are reaping the true benefits and are loving your new locks!

That's what I expect, from reading other people's logs, at least. I'm keeping mine to see how my experience compares.

I'm doing a cold-turkey method.  It was probably not so smart of me, but I decided to start this no-'pooing thing today after I got back from a run.  I was feeling my grossest, and my hair was damp with sweat, and dirty already from skipping my shower this weekend. So this is a big test! Mainly, when I was in the shower, I just felt really nervous and like "there is no way this is going to work. I'm going to feel disgusting."

I remember one girl's blog that said she "shampoo'd" with conditioner once in a while to get her through the rough adjustment period and to deal with the initial smell (this smell supposedly goes away after your scalp adjusts and produces the right amount of oil again). I rinsed and rinsed with water, but my hair still felt really tacky, like it does after you get out of the ocean or the pool or something. So I decided to start off my experiment by washing with conditioner only.  

By now, my hair has air dried about half way, and so far I can't really tell a difference. Since I used my conditioner, it still has the same after-shower smell. The texture is pretty much the same.  Close to my scalp does feel a bit waxy, almost like I didn't fully rinse out the suds, but I definitely did.  

I'm not going to use anything - not even conditioner - for the rest of the week. I shall keep you informed by updating this post, so subscribe and keep checking back! 

I'd love to hear your stories of trying this, or what you think of this crazy idea in the comments!


Captain's Log: Day 2 - Feeling Dirty

It's only been one day since I stopped washing my hair with shampoo (though admittedly my hair was pretty dirty yesterday when I decided to start this project).
The tips look and feel normal, but the roots look really dirty. You know when your hair is really dirty and it is kind of like helmet hair and it just stays however you put it? Yeah..that... The roots feel very oily to the touch too. No detectable smell yet thank goodness.  I'm going to purchase a boar hair brush today and will probably "wash" again tomorrow so I'll update after that.
Right now, my biggest concern is grossing out my boyfriend or his family thinking I'm crazy.  Luckily, I work from home.
Question for anybody who's tried this before: I've heard that when you don't have time to shower, you can sprinkle some baby powder onto your roots to absorb the extra oil and make yourself look a bit more passable; does that actually work, and would that work in this case or would that be counter productive?


Captain's Log: Day 3 - So far, OK

Well crew, today's experiment can be classified as a tentative success.  I washed my hair tonight with nothing-just water.  It took me a while since my hair is thick and I was trying to wash it as thoroughly as I could with just water, but after getting out of the shower, my hair felt no different from washing it with shampoo! It combed out easily and didn't have any weird texture. A few hours later, now that it has dried, I can report this:  I thought my hair would be tangley and tacky but it's not. It combed out just as easily as it always has and, generally it feels washed. The texture at the mid section is normal, but the ends feel a bit dry and I am noticing many more fly-away hairs than normal.  I expect this to change with time, but it's what I'm seeing now.  My hair is drying with much more crimp in it than it usually does and the roots do look a tad bit dirty, but not really that noticeable.  Hair smells good still.

I won't be updating every single day now, just when I have something new to report.  Update me in the comments with your experiences! 

Captain's Log: Day 5 - Research is Conflicting

I've been reading more accounts and discussions an the no-'poo method over the last days, looking not only or advice, but also for a wider range of opinions on the method.  I've found quite a few people by this point who have tried ditching shampoo, but couldn't take it.  For some, it yielded no results. For others, the gross factor was just too much.  But still, the vast majority of people who have stuck with the method for a few months call tell the same story - once the scalp adjusted it's oil production, things got better and they're never going back.  In contrast to this is the largest No-poo thread on reddit, which cites a study that claims to show that the scalp does NOT change it's production of oils in response to any stimuli - whether that's increased shampooing or decreased.  What changes, this study suggests, is our baseline perception of what "oily" and "dirty" are.  Now, this is only one study and I don't know who did it. And they didn't compare shampooers to non-shampooers, but rather regular shampooers, to those using a much more mild, sulfate-free shampoo (sulfur compounds are the chemicals that adhere to the oils and wash them away). As far as I am aware, a long term study comparing shampooers to non-shampooers doesn't really exist. Considering all this, and the blatant disagreement of those for whom the no-'poo method has worked, I am not ready to conclude that the results aren't real.  I may find that the method doesn't work for me, but it's only been 5 days! Though my ends are still a bit dry and my crown still a bit oily, this has not been NEARLY as bad as I had expected.

Is Twitter Making Us Better Writers?

The limiting of language and thought to 140 characters has been bemoaned since Twitter became a "thing."   It's the butt of many jokes, despite the obvious and indisputable power it has proven to be in the realms of news reporting and marketing.

But could the popularization of Twitter be a watershed moment in the evolution of our language?

The major languages spoken around the world today are living languages, always evolving. We know that each generation of students has an increasingly difficult time understanding the works of Shakespeare, and even the documents and writings on which the foundation of this country (the United States) was built!  And though this is sad, it's not necessarily the students' fault.  The students are not more stupid than their predecessors, the material isn't any less relatable; it is just that the ways in which we speak have evolved since those times, making them difficult to follow.  I remember sitting in my high school history classes, reading primary documents and getting frustrated. "Why does this sentence never end?? Where was the subject of that sentence?? This one seems to end in the middle of a thought, for Christ's sake!"  It took a lot of work to unlock the key to reading such a verbose language style. The reason was that I trying to impose today's rules of proper writing on yesterday's literature.

Though language arts have largely been neglected in favor of STEM education (don't get me started there), today's English classes still teach certain style preferences: Sentences should not run on too long or contain more than one thought.  A strong sentence has a rigid structure of subject-verb-object, with one or two prepositional phrases thrown in for color, max.  We DIAGRAM sentences, for fuck's sake.  It is highly formulaic.

So it's no wonder our language has evolved to be shorter and more concise, and this is neither worse, nor better. It simply is.

Advanced students are also taught how to most effectively convey their thoughts, usually with use of the Golden Rule: "SHOW, don't tell."  We learn to use the active, rather than the passive voice.  We learn to get away from vague statements and to provide specifics details, to prove or demonstrate our claims. "Show me how the man felt when he saw his lover, don't just tell me he was sad!" yelled many a Creative Writing teacher.

Therefore, given today's rules of what "good" writing is - conciseness, specificity, directness - could Twitter actually be improving students' writing?

If you've ever read a paper written by an average high schooler, you probably know how much help they need in this department.  Thanks to what I told you not to get me started on earlier, the quality of writing - as judged by the ability to meet current standards of good writing - has drastically diminished in recent generations.  I teach an undergraduate science laboratory class and have encouraged an increased emphasis on writing even in these "practical" classes because students obviously aren't getting enough of it elsewhere. I was alarmed when I graded the very first white paper assignment from my students and felt that I was not in fact reading college-level work, but rather had somehow mixed up my stack of papers with that of a middle school science teacher! One of the largest problems in my students' writing has consistently been an inability to actually say anything.  I get the 2-3 pages I asked for, but there is only about a paragraph's worth of actual information.

We've taught our students to fill up space with words, without teaching them how to say anything.

I removed the page requirement and told my students for the next assignment that I didn't care how long it was; I cared about the content.  If they could tell me everything I needed to know in under a page - do it. What I got was again papers between 1 and 3 pages in length that still didn't convey clearly many of the main points.

Obviously, there was a problem.  There was no critical thinking going on in here; all I was getting was a regurgitation (and usually some bastardization) of what I had said in class or what was printed in the manuals in front of their faces.  Perhaps to some of you I seem harsh to say these were brain-dead papers with absolutely no thought gone into the structure, flow, or syntax and much less the actual implications of their work.  But I would remind you that most of these students were upperclassmen about to graduate from a premier institution of higher education in this country, and before you suggest it, none of them were science majors.

So what does all this have to do with Twitter?  My hypothesis is this: By forcing us to convey as much information, and as much feeling, attitude, and nuance as possible in 140 characters, maybe Twitter can help teach a generation how to communicate effectively by today's standards.  No one has time for the verbosity of the 18th century anymore, but it's much harder to say more in less time anyway.
I believe Twitter could have a profound influence on language.  It can improve the writing skills of today's youth by forcing them to be more concise, and it could also further the evolution of language towards a denser style.  Perhaps one day, our great-great-grandkids will have trouble reading the pleonastic works of today :)


Click below to watch Stephen Fry - one of the most effective communicators I've ever seen, with one of the largest vocabularies I've ever heard - talk about this same idea with the ever funny Craig Ferguson.

Troubled by Your Practices: A Letter to PNC Bank

My letter to PNC bank.  Please share and send one of your own.

To whom it may concern:

I am a relatively new PNC customer and chose to bank with PNC over other competitors out of convenience.  I have been very pleased with the services so far and have enjoyed being a PNC customer.  However, I recently discovered that despite the Green Commitment touted on your website and in customer communications, you lend a lot of money to companies involved in mountaintop removal coal mining.

As a native West Virginian, this is incredibly troubling to me and upon learning about this association, I immediately felt dirty and guilty about my ignorant choice to bank with you.  You cannot fund this destructive practice in good conscience.  Mountaintop removal (MTR) has buried over 2,000 miles of Appalachian streams, and has poisoned the wells that so many mountain communities depend on completely with toxins like lead and cadmium.  MTR is associated with degraded downstream water quality and the destruction of some of the most biologically diverse forests in the world.  Did you know that? Did you know that the forests of Appalachia are second only to the rain forest in biodiversity?  And did you know that the "reclamation" process performed by coal companies after they've leveled a mountain cannot regrow forests because the soil has been removed and the rocky moonscape has been seeded with invasive species of grass?  

I know all of this and more.  I know it because I grew up there, and I've been fighting against this practice that impoverishes and poisons humans unlucky enough to live near MTR sites since I was 16 years old.  I know because now I hold a degree in environmental studies and am almost done with my masters in environmental science.  

What I don't yet know is what kind of company you are.  Are you the kind of company that plays word games but has no moral fiber?  Last year, a representative of your bank said you no longer funded companies with a majority of their business tied to MTR, but that was an easy commitment to make, since no one's business is primarily MTR.  It's really not good enough.

You have to completely divest your company from this practice if you want to keep customers who are even half way informed about the environmental and human capital destruction this practice causes.   It's really in your best interest, because as long as the people of Appalachia are under the thumb of King Coal, they will never have enough money to put into your bank.

You have an opportunity to do what's right here, and I hope you are brave enough to take it.  If individuals like me can be brave enough to stand against injustices like MTR, then a big powerful company like you should be too.  If you prove to not be as brave as you need to be, you'll lose customers like me left and right.  And I'll lead the way.

Sincerely,

Nicole Holstein

West Virginian native, D.C. resident

Activist, Student, Marketing Professional