[Red_Head]

ngarayeva001 said:

whenever I find a product with bis-aminopropyl dimethicone I buy it. I have a crush on this silicone

I see Dimethicone BA most often in P&G products. One of the greasiest products I’ve ever bought is the Aussie SOS Supercharged Moisture. 
It is absolutely not slippery, but at the same time it is very heavy on the hair. I don’t like that because it detangles my hair badly, smells weird and doesn’t make my hair soft, but this is solved with leave-in conditioners or oils. This product really kill frizz, although I’m unlikely to buy it again.

[Red_Head]

ketchito said:

@Red_Head Why would you think Dimethicone deposits better than Bis-aminopropyl dimethicone? 

About bis-aminopropyl dimethicone i read:

“It actually bonds to damaged areas on the hair’s cuticle”

That is, it sticks like amodimethicone, only to negatively charged areas of the hair, but better than amodimethicone (it seems to me) and worse than dimethicone. Logically, this means that regular dimethicone will stick everywhere, not just selectively, like BA dimethicone.

If dimethicone accumulates better (not to the point of build-up, I think build-up is almost impossible considering that most shampoos are SLES + CAPB), does this not mean that it will protect the hair better, because it is more difficult to wash off, sticks more and reacts less to physical actions (combing, touching hands, styling hair)?

Another thought is that most of the big companies use dimethicone, amodimethicone, dimethiconol in their formulas. I see BA dimethicone only in products from P&G (I mean from the mass market).

I haven’t had a chance to compare dimethicone and BA dimethicone in the same formula, so all I’ve said is just a theory that may have nothing to do with the real situation, which is why I asked.

[Red_Head]

Perry said:

It has nothing to do with the fatty alcohols. Rather, it is the Stearamidopropyl Dimethylamine and the Bis-Aminopropyl Dimethicone, plus it has a very well liked fragrance.

I’ve always wanted to ask you why Pantene uses bis-aminopropyl dimethicone in their formulas instead of regular dimethicone. As far as I know, dimethicone sticks to hair better. So, if you follow my theory, conditioners with ordinary dimethicone will work better. But this is only theoretical. I know from this forum (and BB, thx) that P&G spends the most money researching the effectiveness of their products and that Pantene won the blind consumer test.

[Red_Head]

Happy Birthday!

Thanks to you, my little blog about hair care has become scientific and incredibly useful.
Special thanks for this forum and everything you do for the world.
Hello from Ukraine!

[Red_Head]

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!

[Red_Head]

In my country, a popular remedy is Masil 8 Seconds Salon Hair Mask, but my favorite is still Garnier Fructis “Goji Long Lasting Color”