But didn't really notice a huge difference in growth or thickeness than when they were shorter-but then again-maybe I didn't give it the chance to thicken up-it's possible it may take years when you think about it. I'm sort of on the fence about the GM theory. It does make sense, but I hadn't heard any other trichologist or anyone else in the hair growth industry mention it. But then again, George Michael was a medical doctor and went to medical school so knew a lot about the human body and cells and stuff-something most in the hair care industry don't.
BTW Inch by Inch I think you look great without bangs, you've got that wave thing going on so you'll do great!
Ooo, good for you for growing them out so long! I have never actually had
no bangs, but below shoulder would be close to that in my book. I do wonder if it would take a few years to feel the difference in thickness. Were you doing GM's other suggestions at the time: brushing bent at waist with a BBB, washing bent at waist, no layers, etc., etc.?
I am not sure what to think about GM's theory of hair equalizing itself, but I would think that hair all one length would be more protective and allow the hair to be stronger. (Of course, there will be hair at varying lengths all over the head at any given time, but I'm sure he means the bulk of the hair being one length.) And I have read elsewhere that the follicle stimulation from brushing with a BBB bent at the waist has helped hair to grow a bit thicker, as well as shinier. Someone else said that she loses fewer hairs per day. I am all for the benefits! GM maintained that once bangs were past chin length that hair shedding would reduce. Also, that the longer the hair, the fewer hairs that fall out. Sign me up!
Thank you so much for your sweet compliment. I really am hoping I'll look OK without bangs. My bangs are wavy, so they are happy to blend into the rest of my hair when they are long enough. I just need to keep growing them now and not cut them. That is my mission.