Re: BTMS - responses to Dave & Angie

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/28/04 12:24:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,

candles@... writes:

> Angie, my hair is similar to yours: mid-way down my back (but with

> lots of layers - a " millenium " Farrah Fawcett, if that makes sense,

> LOL). It is color treated, dry (lacking oils), and dehydrated

> (lacking moisture). It is beautiful when nourished correctly

> (cyclomethicone is a miracle " instant fix " ) but dull when not

> treated well - it loves extra conditioning, oils, and

> water/moistures! Although I have lots of it, it is medium/fine

> textured and thus I have build-up problems if I'm not careful.

>

> I started out with Amy's formula at your website, and rated

> it " almost perfect " for my hair - but I needed a bit

> something " extra " I felt. And then I started going down the wrong

> path... I kept adding oils and cationics, and then the conditioner

> started to feel " gummy " and " waxy " on my hair, so I added *more*

> oils and cationics, and this just made it worse. I did not know

> enough about the " feel " that different ingredients give to the

> product, and made some assumptions that were incorrect! In the end,

> I think I am getting back to your formula, and just adding a touch

> more cetyl (alcohol or esters, I like both)and 2% more oils (I

> *really* like EmEster in this!), and it seems better! I am not

> quite there yet, but I am getting closer to the right formula - my

> book is full of almost 40 formulas, and yours (Amy's) is in the top

> 3, still, and it was my first formula!

>

> I will post on the Think Tank about the only conditioner that has

> ever " wowed " me - it is the Terax Crema from Italy. Expensive, but

> has very simple ingredients in it. But the pH of this conditioner

> is 8!!!! I would love to analyze that formula and see why it is SO

> good for hair like mine...

>

> Thanks for your help sweetie - have I told you how much FUN it is

> formulating stuff and learning the chemistry behind ingredients?

> (Especially the Herbarie's stuff - it blows me away that this stuff

> is available to me!) I am have having the best time

> (mentally/educationally) since college 12 years ago. Labrat (and a

> few others, too) have a lot to do with that, too... they inspire me

> to learn more and more.

>

>

Hi Barbie,

Thank you for your nice comments! I'm not sure why the Italian conditioner

works so well in your hair?? I wouldn't have guessed it with a high pH. It's

hard to go wrong with anything Italian though

It does sound like our hair is similar---I decided to grow mine out again

since I turn 50 this year I don't add any additional oils/emollients beyond

3% tops....and usually prefer EmEster since it's so light and provides shine.

My own " tresses " haven't been analyzed in a lab, but it's surprised me that

I've not noticed any buildup at all. But then I don't use a high solid

conditioner every time I shampoo either. Amy does though and there's no obvious

evidence of buildup. I need to take a picture of her hair for the website

Anyway, research does show that cationic conditioners will build up on hair

overtime (especially damaged hair with negative sites) and are difficult to

remove.

I was trying to find an article that compares guar hydroxypropyltrimonium

chloride with polyquaternium 10 and some others but can't find it. It was my

recollection that the guar demonstrated less of a problem with buildup than the

polyquaternium 10--which was one reason why we went with the guar in the first

place (but I don't trust my memory on that one...I'll keep looking for the

article The conditioner formula (Italian) that works for you contains

quats

which have a positive charge and create those build up problems....as well as

the cationics in Amy's Conditioner. It sounds like this could be the problem

for you. If you are already using the National Starch product (Flexan II)

and it's not working for you, this sorta blows our theory of using it to remove

any cationic buildup, doesn't it? Hmmm. I'm baffled.

This sounds like a job for Maurice

Angie

The Herbarie

Natural Source Ingredients for Toiletries & Cosmetics

http://www.theherbarie.com

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 1/28/04 12:24:37 PM Eastern Standard Time,

candles@... writes:

> Angie, my hair is similar to yours: mid-way down my back (but with

> lots of layers - a " millenium " Farrah Fawcett, if that makes sense,

> LOL). It is color treated, dry (lacking oils), and dehydrated

> (lacking moisture). It is beautiful when nourished correctly

> (cyclomethicone is a miracle " instant fix " ) but dull when not

> treated well - it loves extra conditioning, oils, and

> water/moistures! Although I have lots of it, it is medium/fine

> textured and thus I have build-up problems if I'm not careful.

>

> I started out with Amy's formula at your website, and rated

> it " almost perfect " for my hair - but I needed a bit

> something " extra " I felt. And then I started going down the wrong

> path... I kept adding oils and cationics, and then the conditioner

> started to feel " gummy " and " waxy " on my hair, so I added *more*

> oils and cationics, and this just made it worse. I did not know

> enough about the " feel " that different ingredients give to the

> product, and made some assumptions that were incorrect! In the end,

> I think I am getting back to your formula, and just adding a touch

> more cetyl (alcohol or esters, I like both)and 2% more oils (I

> *really* like EmEster in this!), and it seems better! I am not

> quite there yet, but I am getting closer to the right formula - my

> book is full of almost 40 formulas, and yours (Amy's) is in the top

> 3, still, and it was my first formula!

>

> I will post on the Think Tank about the only conditioner that has

> ever " wowed " me - it is the Terax Crema from Italy. Expensive, but

> has very simple ingredients in it. But the pH of this conditioner

> is 8!!!! I would love to analyze that formula and see why it is SO

> good for hair like mine...

>

> Thanks for your help sweetie - have I told you how much FUN it is

> formulating stuff and learning the chemistry behind ingredients?

> (Especially the Herbarie's stuff - it blows me away that this stuff

> is available to me!) I am have having the best time

> (mentally/educationally) since college 12 years ago. Labrat (and a

> few others, too) have a lot to do with that, too... they inspire me

> to learn more and more.

>

>

Hi Barbie,

Thank you for your nice comments! I'm not sure why the Italian conditioner

works so well in your hair?? I wouldn't have guessed it with a high pH. It's

hard to go wrong with anything Italian though

It does sound like our hair is similar---I decided to grow mine out again

since I turn 50 this year I don't add any additional oils/emollients beyond

3% tops....and usually prefer EmEster since it's so light and provides shine.

My own " tresses " haven't been analyzed in a lab, but it's surprised me that

I've not noticed any buildup at all. But then I don't use a high solid

conditioner every time I shampoo either. Amy does though and there's no obvious

evidence of buildup. I need to take a picture of her hair for the website

Anyway, research does show that cationic conditioners will build up on hair

overtime (especially damaged hair with negative sites) and are difficult to

remove.

I was trying to find an article that compares guar hydroxypropyltrimonium

chloride with polyquaternium 10 and some others but can't find it. It was my

recollection that the guar demonstrated less of a problem with buildup than the

polyquaternium 10--which was one reason why we went with the guar in the first

place (but I don't trust my memory on that one...I'll keep looking for the

article The conditioner formula (Italian) that works for you contains

quats

which have a positive charge and create those build up problems....as well as

the cationics in Amy's Conditioner. It sounds like this could be the problem

for you. If you are already using the National Starch product (Flexan II)

and it's not working for you, this sorta blows our theory of using it to remove

any cationic buildup, doesn't it? Hmmm. I'm baffled.

This sounds like a job for Maurice

Angie

The Herbarie

Natural Source Ingredients for Toiletries & Cosmetics

http://www.theherbarie.com

[Guest guest]

Dave E. posted:

" Have you looked at FlexanII for removing

cationic build up? I'm currently evaluating it for a thermal protect

pre spray before curling or straightening:- "

__________________________

Dave, yes, I LOVE it in my " volumizing " SHAMPOO formula! I use it

at 1%, though I think I can go up to 2% with even better results. I

also use PVP @ .5% in this formula, along with a touch more

surfactants than my " moisturizing " formula and no cationics, and it

does the trick - it volumizes like crazy and it removes some of the

excess conditioner buildup. It can thus also be called

a " clarifying " shampoo, in my opinion. I have read the literature

on FlexanII, ordered a sample, and like it for this application. I

have not played with it for thermal protection, or any other

property...

Barbie

__________________________

Angie, my hair is similar to yours: mid-way down my back (but with

lots of layers - a " millenium " Farrah Fawcett, if that makes sense,

LOL). It is color treated, dry (lacking oils), and dehydrated

(lacking moisture). It is beautiful when nourished correctly

(cyclomethicone is a miracle " instant fix " ) but dull when not

treated well - it loves extra conditioning, oils, and

water/moistures! Although I have lots of it, it is medium/fine

textured and thus I have build-up problems if I'm not careful.

I started out with Amy's formula at your website, and rated

it " almost perfect " for my hair - but I needed a bit

something " extra " I felt. And then I started going down the wrong

path... I kept adding oils and cationics, and then the conditioner

started to feel " gummy " and " waxy " on my hair, so I added *more*

oils and cationics, and this just made it worse. I did not know

enough about the " feel " that different ingredients give to the

product, and made some assumptions that were incorrect! In the end,

I think I am getting back to your formula, and just adding a touch

more cetyl (alcohol or esters, I like both)and 2% more oils (I

*really* like EmEster in this!), and it seems better! I am not

quite there yet, but I am getting closer to the right formula - my

book is full of almost 40 formulas, and yours (Amy's) is in the top

3, still, and it was my first formula!

I will post on the Think Tank about the only conditioner that has

ever " wowed " me - it is the Terax Crema from Italy. Expensive, but

has very simple ingredients in it. But the pH of this conditioner

is 8!!!! I would love to analyze that formula and see why it is SO

good for hair like mine...

Thanks for your help sweetie - have I told you how much FUN it is

formulating stuff and learning the chemistry behind ingredients?

(Especially the Herbarie's stuff - it blows me away that this stuff

is available to me!) I am have having the best time

(mentally/educationally) since college 12 years ago. Labrat (and a

few others, too) have a lot to do with that, too... they inspire me

to learn more and more.

Kind regards, Barbie (Sweet Scents LLC)