Hair highlights (xpost)
Emily
I'm supposed to be a bridesmaid on 9/4 (day before
my due date), and of course would like to look my best.
While not pg, I've been doing highlights in my hair
(at a salon), but haven't since ttc, so they're all
grown out now. The hairdresser says that with highlights,
the stuff doesn't come in contact with your scalp,
so there's minimal chance of anything getting into
your blood stream/to the baby.
I'm going to schedule a haircut, at least, for before
the wedding, but I'm debating about doing highlights
at the same time. Assuming I can make the appointment
at all, I'll either be at term, or nursing a newborn.
I'm posting looking for information/opinions on highlighting
under such circumstances.
Thanks!
Emily
--
DS 5/02
EDD Labor Day 9/5/05
Plissken
"Emily" <e...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:OvydnZ9V8qh...@comcast.com...
I got colour and highlights while preggers with DD#1. My doc said it was
fine as long as I was past my first trimester.
JennP.
Emily wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I'm supposed to be a bridesmaid on 9/4 (day before
> my due date), and of course would like to look my best.
> While not pg, I've been doing highlights in my hair
> (at a salon), but haven't since ttc, so they're all
> grown out now. The hairdresser says that with highlights,
> the stuff doesn't come in contact with your scalp,
> so there's minimal chance of anything getting into
> your blood stream/to the baby.
She's right. Highlights are perfectly safe. I had them done throughout
both of my pregnancies. HTH
JennP.
Mum of Two
opinion than anything else. I would feel more comfortable knowing that it
wouldn't be absorbed directly through my skin. Some of it would be breathed,
but I shouldn't think anything like as much. I wouldn't hold the baby while
you have it done though!
--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/
"Emily" <e...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:OvydnZ9V8qh...@comcast.com...
xkatx
As a (former, schooled) hair stylist, I will say that highlights are 100%
safe during pregnancy. With highlights and lowlights, coloring is done by
foiling, and with foils, nothing touches the scalp. I have always added and
changed high and lowlights before I was pregnant, and I didn't stop when I
was pregnant. It's been a while since I've actually done a full blown
coloring, but highlights are completely safe, so if you are pregnant or
nursing when you want to do your hair, go for it!
If you want to feel and look your best as a bridesmaid, knock yourself out
with highlights! They're safe and simple and would definitely add a nice
touch, IMHO!
Emily
Thanks, everyone. Maybe I will go for it :-)
Emily
jennyblack
know why people are told not to get color while pregnant? It has
absolutely nothing to do with the chemicals...it is because your hair
changes with pregnancy and there is a risk of the color not taking. I
have had experience with doing highlites on a pregnant woman and she
had to process twice as long as before because the hair just won't
budge. Color does not penetrate thru your scalp and get to the baby.
it is a ridiculous myth
Ericka Kammerer
Ummm, you might wish to reconsider that statement:
There are no consistent results from assorted studies, so the
jury is still out. Coloring during pregnancy might or might
not be related to problems. However, it is not "a ridiculous
myth." It is a valid area of concern under study with mixed
results so far.
Best wishes,
Ericka
IMB
i...@comcast.com:
Hmm... whenever the story about hair dye is up in the press here, they are
talking about the sort you use at home.
I dont think I've ever heard the dye used by hair dressers mentioned. In
the news that is.
--
Inger Marie Brunsgaard
Please remove "nospam_" from my email adress if you reply to my message
Emily
> Ummm, you might wish to reconsider that statement:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ccxoq
>
> There are no consistent results from assorted studies, so the
> jury is still out. Coloring during pregnancy might or might
> not be related to problems. However, it is not "a ridiculous
> myth." It is a valid area of concern under study with mixed
> results so far.
That study is making me wonder if I should go ahead with my
highlighting appointment tomorrow. They studied children
born betwen 1992 and 1994, and looked at how maternal hair dye
in the month before conception and during pregnancy affected
the odds of childhood brain tumors. They found an odds ratio
of 1.6 (meaning, I think, that the child is 1.6 times more likely
to get a brain tumor if the mom used hair dye, but that's 1.6
times a small number to start with, I bet). The odds ratio
is worse for temporary hair dye (2.0) than permanent (1.4), but
they don't break it out for method of application (which might
include highlights v. not?), color, or particular chemicals.
Some interesting further snippets from the full text: They
find that the odds ratio is lower for women who don't smoke (1.3
v. 2.2 for any hair dye, 1.1 v. 2.2 for permanent hair dye, but
2.1 v. 1.7 for temporary hair dye) and for women with a college
degree (1.1 v. 1.7). (Although they note that these results
are "imprecise", whatever that means.) They speculate that the
former effect has to do with the combined action of multiple
carcinogens (from smoking and hair dye), and that the temporary
v. permanent distinction might have to do with whether the dye
was self-applied (leading to absorption through the hands) as
opposed to applied by a hairdresser. The education effect they
don't comment on so much, but I'm guessing that higher socio-ecomonic
status generally correlates with lower exposure to carcinogens
(e.g., in the workplace), and so it's similar to the smoking
situation. Finally, they note that "[a]bsorption or penetration
of dyes through through human skin is the primary concern regarding
their potential carcinogencity".
Since I don't smoke, I do have a college degree, and I'm
planning on highlights (reportedly no contact with the scalp,
certainly at least a lot less), it seems like my personal risk
is probably lower than the 1.6 that they report.
Here's another study:
(also published this year) finds a 50% increase in the odds
ratio of childhood brain tumors if the mom was exposed to
"beauty products" in the five years preceding the child's birth,
but no particular association between hair dye in pregnancy or
the month before conception and brain tumor risk. They were
looking at kids born between 1976 and 1994, and it seems like
things got worse after 1980 (perhaps due to some change in
the chemicals used?). They conclude "Data from our study provide
little evidence of an increased risk for CBT with mothers'
exposures to beauty products."
Your original point still holds --- this isn't a myth but
rather an open research question --- and I'm still deciding
what to do about it :)
Emily
Ericka Kammerer
> Since I don't smoke, I do have a college degree, and I'm
> planning on highlights (reportedly no contact with the scalp,
> certainly at least a lot less), it seems like my personal risk
> is probably lower than the 1.6 that they report.
Probably, and it's also not a particularly strong
study design.
> Here's another study:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/dqocv
>
> (also published this year) finds a 50% increase in the odds
> ratio of childhood brain tumors if the mom was exposed to
> "beauty products" in the five years preceding the child's birth,
> but no particular association between hair dye in pregnancy or
> the month before conception and brain tumor risk. They were
> looking at kids born between 1976 and 1994, and it seems like
> things got worse after 1980 (perhaps due to some change in
> the chemicals used?). They conclude "Data from our study provide
> little evidence of an increased risk for CBT with mothers'
> exposures to beauty products."
>
> Your original point still holds --- this isn't a myth but
> rather an open research question --- and I'm still deciding
> what to do about it :)
Yeah, you just have to check it all out and decide what
risks you want to take or not. Personally, I wasn't too worried
about it and didn't feel bad about occasional coloring. My
SIL doesn't color her hair, and her baby *did* end up with
neuroblastoma :-/ (but fortunately she's now a happy and
healthy 9yo).
Best wishes,
Ericka
Emily
> Probably, and it's also not a particularly strong
> study design.
I guess it's not like you can take a group of pg women
and randomly assign them to dye or not-dye groups. I
guess it would be better to at least pick a group of
women and their kids to follow (probably as part of some
longer study), and thus gather more reliable information
on things like when/how women dye their hair. Such
a study would be quite expensive, I imagine, and careful
thought would have to be put into deciding which information
to gather along the way.
> Yeah, you just have to check it all out and decide what
> risks you want to take or not. Personally, I wasn't too worried
> about it and didn't feel bad about occasional coloring. My
> SIL doesn't color her hair, and her baby *did* end up with
> neuroblastoma :-/ (but fortunately she's now a happy and
> healthy 9yo).
I'm glad your niece is healthy now! (Especially since I just
saw an article about how many survivors of childhood brain
cancer have long term side effects, even when they're in
remission.)
I think I'm going to go for the haircoloring. The real thing for
me is that contact with the scalp seems important, and highlights
(what I'm doing) minimizes that...
Unless, of course, this baby decides to start making his appearance
before tomorrow afternoon!
Emily
JennP
> That study is making me wonder if I should go ahead with my
> highlighting appointment tomorrow. They studied children
> born betwen 1992 and 1994, and looked at how maternal hair dye
> in the month before conception and during pregnancy affected
> the odds of childhood brain tumors. They found an odds ratio
> of 1.6 (meaning, I think, that the child is 1.6 times more likely
> to get a brain tumor if the mom used hair dye, but that's 1.6
> times a small number to start with, I bet).
Except highlights usually aren't dye. They are usually some type of
bleaching process that don't touch your scalp. I'd still go ahead with it.
JennP.
Ericka Kammerer
> Ericka Kammerer wrote:
>
>> Probably, and it's also not a particularly strong
>> study design.
>
>
> I guess it's not like you can take a group of pg women
> and randomly assign them to dye or not-dye groups.
Yup ;-)
> I
> guess it would be better to at least pick a group of
> women and their kids to follow (probably as part of some
> longer study), and thus gather more reliable information
> on things like when/how women dye their hair. Such
> a study would be quite expensive, I imagine, and careful
> thought would have to be put into deciding which information
> to gather along the way.
It wouldn't necessarily have to be part of a
larger study. Just making it prospective study would
help a lot--identifying a study pool to follow, and
asking them about their use of products *as it happens*,
rather than relying on their memory. Still, that is a
much more time consuming and expensive study design.
>> Yeah, you just have to check it all out and decide what
>> risks you want to take or not. Personally, I wasn't too worried
>> about it and didn't feel bad about occasional coloring. My
>> SIL doesn't color her hair, and her baby *did* end up with
>> neuroblastoma :-/ (but fortunately she's now a happy and
>> healthy 9yo).
>
> I'm glad your niece is healthy now! (Especially since I just
> saw an article about how many survivors of childhood brain
> cancer have long term side effects, even when they're in
> remission.)
Her tumors weren't actually in the brain. They
were in her abdomen, near her spine. I don't know if that
makes a difference. She had a lot of chemo, and the surgery
to get them out was complicated, but thank goodness it was
successful.
> I think I'm going to go for the haircoloring. The real thing for
> me is that contact with the scalp seems important, and highlights
> (what I'm doing) minimizes that...
>
> Unless, of course, this baby decides to start making his appearance
> before tomorrow afternoon!
I don't know whether to wish you happy highlighting or
happy birthing ;-)
Best wishes,
Ericka
Ericka Kammerer
But when they talk about hair coloring products,
there really isn't enough research to know *which* elements of
the products are the problem--the dyes, the bleaching agents
in most, or what. I'm not aware of any studies that look to
see, e.g., whether it's worse if you're going lighter (which
usually has more bleaching agents) or darker (which usually
has fewer or none).
Best wishes,
Ericka
Emily
>> I
>> guess it would be better to at least pick a group of
>> women and their kids to follow (probably as part of some
>> longer study), and thus gather more reliable information
>> on things like when/how women dye their hair. Such
>> a study would be quite expensive, I imagine, and careful
>> thought would have to be put into deciding which information
>> to gather along the way.
>
>
> It wouldn't necessarily have to be part of a
> larger study. Just making it prospective study would
> help a lot--identifying a study pool to follow, and
> asking them about their use of products *as it happens*,
> rather than relying on their memory. Still, that is a
> much more time consuming and expensive study design.
I figured that it would more likely be done as part of
a larger study because of the expense. If you're going to
find a large enough group of women, and keep track of
their children for long enough (looking for all sorts of
health outcomes), it would seem cost-effective to track
as many variables as you can from the start. Sort of like
that nurse's study we keep seeing results from, looking
at associations (I think) between various aspects of diet
(and maybe other things?) and long-term health outcomes.
>> I think I'm going to go for the haircoloring. The real thing for
>> me is that contact with the scalp seems important, and highlights
>> (what I'm doing) minimizes that...
>>
>> Unless, of course, this baby decides to start making his appearance
>> before tomorrow afternoon!
>
> I don't know whether to wish you happy highlighting or
> happy birthing ;-)
Well, no baby yet, so I'm guessing I'm going to get my hair
colored this afternoon. (And DH is off on his weekly day trip,
so it would be nice not to go into labor *at least* until he's
on his way back, preferably tomorrow after he's had a chance
to rest up...).
Emily
Mum of Two
news:m4KdnXVOZKs...@comcast.com...
This is a separate issue, but wasn't it specifically dark hair dyes that
were associated with an increased risk of ovarian cancer with long term use?
days...@gmail.com
New look Day Spa and laser is the Best Beauty salon in Virginia we offer best Services for Hair Services like Hair Cut,Hair Wash&Style, Hair Color,Permanent Waves,Hair Highlights for Men& Women&kids in Herndon,Reston,Sterling,Ashburn, Chantilly,Fairfax, Mclean. Your hair is the ultimate accessory and every day can be a great hair day at the New Look Day Spa & Laser. Experience a style, cut and color that adds volume, dimension and movement while honoring the time restraints on your morning hair ritual. Ask about our conditioning and glossing treatments to revive and enliven your tresses.
For More Details Please visit our Website: http://newlookdayspaandlaser.com/hairservices.html
Communication Address:
412 Elden Street,Herndon, VA-20170, USA.
Tel : 703-435-2448
In case of any queries please feel free to drop a mail at: in...@newlookdayspaandlaser.com