-
What do you think of the new “revolutionary” hair restoration ingredient sh-Oligopeptide-78?
No sooner had humanity moved away from testing Olaplex products, when a new brand K18 Hair appeared on the market with more active claims about hair restoration.
According to legend, hair treated with K18, after bleaching, remains absolutely the same quality as before bleaching.
Of course, I am skeptical about all statements about the restoration of inanimate matter (especially by cold methods, without heat treatment).
Having quickly studied the composition of the products, I saw that their active ingredient is on average in 8th place in the list of ingredients.
I know that peptides and proteins are not added in large quantities, so the question arose: what do you think of this brand, their technology, and perhaps you know something about the sh-Oligopeptide-78 ingredient?
I think this is an ordinary conditioner. Furthermore, I am not sure that this price is justified in terms of the effect on the hair.
-
2 Replies
-
I start my evaluation of new technologies from a position of skepticism. I try not to be cynical so remain open minded to whether a new technology will “work” or not.
It’s important to define what “work” means though. You see even if this technology did what they say (building more bonds, making hair stronger, etc.) that still wouldn’t mean that it “works” in my opinion.
Working to me would satisfy the condition that “if a consumer used a product would they notice a substantial difference from just using a standard shampoo and conditioner”? Since I know consumers are absolutely terrible at noticing differences, then even if this product did as they claim, I would contend that it doesn’t actually work. On a blinded basis and from a consumer perspective this product will do nothing that Pantene, Tresemme, Fructis, etc. rinse-out conditioners will do.
I mean their main claim
“when should i expect to see results?“
You will start to see stronger, softer, healthier hair after just one use.This is the same claim every single hair conditioner can make!
There are a number of red flags. Why does the about page feature salon professionals rather than the scientists who invented the product? Why do they include Behentrimonium Chloride in the conditioner product when the peptide is supposed to be doing the work? Why include wheat protein and wheat starch when that will just interfere with the peptide? And $75 for a 50 mL sample that contains mostly water, alcohol, and propylene glycol…oh my!
Their evidence isn’t even a little convincing. Where are the comparisons of Shampoo vs Shampoo / Conditioner vs their product? Where are the combing studies? Where are the Diastron/Instron measurements comparing this technology to silicones or standard conditioners or even Olaplex?
Perhaps I’m wrong. I’ve not seen any evidence about the technology that I am, but I remain willing to change my mind.
-
Perry said:I start my evaluation of new technologies from a position of skepticism. I try not to be cynical so remain open minded to whether a new technology will “work” or not.
It’s important to define what “work” means though. You see even if this technology did what they say (building more bonds, making hair stronger, etc.) that still wouldn’t mean that it “works” in my opinion.
Working to me would satisfy the condition that “if a consumer used a product would they notice a substantial difference from just using a standard shampoo and conditioner”? Since I know consumers are absolutely terrible at noticing differences, then even if this product did as they claim, I would contend that it doesn’t actually work. On a blinded basis and from a consumer perspective this product will do nothing that Pantene, Tresemme, Fructis, etc. rinse-out conditioners will do.
I mean their main claim
“when should i expect to see results?“
You will start to see stronger, softer, healthier hair after just one use.This is the same claim every single hair conditioner can make!
There are a number of red flags. Why does the about page feature salon professionals rather than the scientists who invented the product? Why do they include Behentrimonium Chloride in the conditioner product when the peptide is supposed to be doing the work? Why include wheat protein and wheat starch when that will just interfere with the peptide? And $75 for a 50 mL sample that contains mostly water, alcohol, and propylene glycol…oh my!
Their evidence isn’t even a little convincing. Where are the comparisons of Shampoo vs Shampoo / Conditioner vs their product? Where are the combing studies? Where are the Diastron/Instron measurements comparing this technology to silicones or standard conditioners or even Olaplex?
Perhaps I’m wrong. I’ve not seen any evidence about the technology that I am, but I remain willing to change my mind.
Thank you so much for such a detailed and helpful answer!
Log in to reply.