Karen is inquisitive…Can you kindly explain what makes Pureology shampoo feel so much different than anything else I’ve tried? I’m guessing it’s not the botanical infusion!

The Right Brain responds:
Good guess, Karen, the difference has nothing to do with green tea or sandalwood. It’s all about the cleansers and conditioners.

Pureology ingredients

Most shampoos are based on a blend of 1 or 2 primary surfactants with another 1 or two secondary surfactants. Pureology (at least the Anti-fade variant), has 7, count ‘em 7 different cleansing agents: Sodium Lauryl Sulfoacetate, Disodium Laureth Sulfosuccinate, Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate, Sodium Lauryl Sarcosinate, Cocamidopropyl Hydroxysultaine, Cocamidopropylamine Oxide, and Decyl Glucoside. (Actually the total number of surfactants is more like 9 or 10 if you count some of the minor ingredients.) This cleansing blend gives Pureology an extraordinarily rich lather for a sulfate-free shampoo.

On top of that, it’s formulated with three potent conditioning agents: amodimethicone, a organo-modified silicone that provides excellent conditioning effect; Polyquaternium-7 which also gives excellent wet slip; and a chemically modified guar gum that smooths hair.

Is Pureology perfect?

So what’s the downside, you ask?  For one thing the claims about controlling color fading are over stated.  Based on research we’ve seen, sulfate-free shampoos do not strip less color than their sulfate containing cousins. Plus, at $28 for 10 ounces, Pureology is not cheap! You might want to consider trying EverPure shampoo because it’s a similar formula that costs a lot less.

Would you spend $28 on a bottle of shampoo? Leave a comment and share your thoughts on shampoo spending with the rest of the Beauty Brains community.

This month Mid Brain reports on new cosmetic science stories while the Left and Right Brains take time off to work on the new Beauty Brains book.

Mid Brain reports:

It sounds sketchy to me, but here’s a new hair care product designed to prevent acne: Kairos Anti-acne Hair Care Treatment.

The active ingredient is Salicylic acid, a legitimate anti-acne ingredient (that has anti-dandruff properties as well.) But I don’t get it. It’s a shampoo so I see how it could help control acne on your scalp. But is scalp acne really a big problem? I usually don’t get zits on the top of my head. Or, are you supposed to wash your face with it while you wash your hair so it’s a kind of two in one product? Sounds more like a marketing gimmick than a product breakthrough to me.

What do YOU think? Would you use an anti-acne shampoo? Leave a comment and share your pimply prose with the rest of the Beauty Brains community.

Left Brain laments…

I read this shampoo post over at Salon and was outraged that a credible site like that would pass on such nonsense.  I am a cosmetic chemist.  I’m a scientist.  I’ve formulated shampoos.  And I can say that many of the things claimed in the article are just wrong.  For example…

Shampoo Ingredients

Let’s ignore the blatantly false sub-headline calling shampoos virtual toxic dumps and move along to the initial claim.  According to the author

“Of the 22 ingredients in this bottle of shampoo, three clean hair.  The rest are in the bottle for the psychology of the person using it.”

Here is the list of ingredients taken right from a Pantene Shampoo bottle.

Water, Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate, Ammonium Laureth Sulfate, Sodium Chloride, Cocamide MEA, Glycol Distearate, Dimethicone, Fragrance, Panthenol, Panthenyl Ethyl Ether, Cetyl Alcohol, Polyquaternium-10, Sodium Citrate, Sodium Benzoate, Ammonium Xylenesulfonate, Disodium EDTA, PEG-7M, Citric Acid, Methylchloroisothiazolinone, Methylisothiazolinone

The first part of the claim is almost true.  Really only 2 ingredients in the formula, Ammonium Lauryl Sulfate, Ammonium Laureth Sulfate, clean your hair.  Cocamide MEA might have some cleansing ability but that is not why it is in the formula.  Ammonium Xylenesulfonate could also clean hair but it is not used at a high enough level.

The second part of the claim “The rest are in the bottle for the psychology of the person using it” is not true.

The preservatives (Methylchloroisothiazolinone, Methylisothiazolinone, Sodium Benzoate) are put in to protect you from potential disease-causing microbes.  These things can & do contaminate the detergents.  If manufacturers didn’t have to use these ingredients, they wouldn’t.  There is no benefit to the user’s psychology.

The ingredients added for formula adjustment are also not added for the user’s psychological benefit.  Ingredients such as Disodium EDTA, Citric Acid, and Sodium Citrate help to adjust the shampoo pH so it cleans properly, remains stable and free of microbial contamination.

The only ingredients put in purely for “psychological” reasons are the Fragrance, Panthenol, and Panthenyl Ethyl Ether.  Not quite the 19 claimed by the author.

What do you need?

The next claim is that “One shampoo ingredient is all you need: detergent”.  This is also not true.  In reality, you don’t “need” to wash your hair at all.  Plenty of people go through life without washing their hair and they are perfectly healthy.

But if you want your hair to look better than what nature will give you, you’ll need more than just detergents.  True, detergents will remove the oil and dirt but they will also leave your hair tangled and dull.  To get the hair style you want, you “need” the conditioning ingredients such as Dimethicone and Polyquaternium-10 too.

Does Shampoo Need to Be Thick?

The claims about why shampoos are thick is just silly.  It is not true that “Thickness guarantees people use more than necessary”!  A thick product gives you better control over how much you use.  The detergents are naturally thin.  Imagine how much you would waste if shampoo was water thin.   Half the product would end up on your shower floor.

The thickeners are also added to the formula to help suspend the Dimethicone.  Without those thickeners, this conditioning ingredient would separate out and not be effective.

And another thing, Cocamide MEA is not toxic!

Shampoo Fragrance

The author complains about fragrance in shampoos.  Clearly, he hasn’t smelled the detergents in their natural state.  Fragrance is important because the odor of surfactants is not pleasant. Would you really want your hair to smell like a melted crayon?

And complaints about fragrance safety are never supported by actual data.  Sadly, this author relies on the public’s natural chemical ignorance and fear to create a sensational story.

Animal Ingredients

Few shampoos actually use animal derived ingredients any more. Not that there’s anything wrong with it as it seems a useful application of the waste from a slaughter house, but we can ignore that for the moment. No brand wants to be associated with animal products so most have stopped using animal derived ingredients.

Chemical Labeling

The author makes the claim that most shampoo ingredients have “several aliases and fake IDs” – This is BS. You can find the chemical listing of any ingredient in your shampoo listed in the INCI dictionary.  While some smaller manufacturers mislabel their products, big companies like the ones who sell at Target and Walmart follow the industry rules.

Beauty Brains bottom line

Don’t worry about the ingredients in your shampoo. Despite what this author and other chemical fear mongers want you to believe, there is no evidence that using shampoo is going to cause you significant health problems.

Are you afraid of the ingredients in your shampoo? Leave a comment and let the rest of the Beauty Brains community know what you think.

The Right Brain returns:

In our post on “Too Many Shampoo Choices” we quoted Rob Fisher’s blog. Rob came back with some excellent comments clarifying his earlier rant. Rather than keep his points buried in the comments section, we thought we’d followup with another post. Take it away Rob:

Are there too many choices?

It was fun to find my article mentioned here and read your comments, so I thought I would respond.
In answer to each of your comments:

1) There are too many choices if you just want to buy some shampoo quickly, but don’t want to end up with your hair accidentally volumised or something. Of course, if you really care about getting the best possible product there can *never* be too much choice. To turn it around, I think there can never be too many electronic gadgets, but a technophobe would not necessarily agree.

2) Because it was written as a fun rant, I think I came across as more cynical than I really am in that article. I agree that companies are responding to the market and that is exactly what they should do. I certainly don’t think that they are deliberately misleading people, or that there is anything wrong with creative language. It’s just that that type of marketing doesn’t work for me. Perhaps the marketing guys are missing a niche, or perhaps there’s just no money to be made from marketing a Ronseal-style “does exactly what it says on the tin” shampoo.

3) I was thinking of readers of a certain style of beauty magazine raving over the latest product and showering it with awards when I used the words “stupid” and “gullible”. I would certainly encourage skepticism when it comes to evaluating products, and I’m sure most people do. This website does just that, for instance “Paraben Perils” article is exactly the type of thing people should be reading to help them evaluate products. I certainly agree with your final point.

So, I’m still looking for the ideal shampoo that will make my fine hair look as good as possible, without smelling funny or coming in a pink bottle or having any new-age sounding ingredients like ginseng. Got any recommendations?

The Beauty Brains bottom line

Thanks for the kind words and for taking the time to follow up with us Rob. We appreciate it. As far as recommending a shampoo for you that doesn’t “smell funny” or ” come in a pink bottle, ” well, our expertise is reviewing the science of the product and not making aesthetic judgments. But maybe our readers could help you out with some ideas. Anyone have any suggestions for Rob?

Rosarita rejoices…Hey, I totally agree with Rob about too many shampoo choices.  Those aisles in the big box/drugstores are overwhelming. Even relatively simple choices like soap are crazy. Too many choices in the modern world, but no, I’d rather not return to the days of Prell only. Wasn’t that stuff dishwashing liquid in a different bottle?

The Right Brain responds:

It’s funny that you should mention Prell, Rosarita, because that’s one of our favorite old school shampoo brands.

A passion for Prell

For those of you too young too remember, Prell was one of the top two best selling shampoos in the US for years. (The top seller was Head & Shoulders.) But its history goes back much further: It was introduced by Procter & Gamble in 1947.   It was famous for being one of the first products in a plastic tube instead of a glass bottle and for being so concentrated that all you needed was a “finger full.”  In 1950s Prell was marketed for “women who wanted their hair to have that radiantly alive look.” But our favorite memory of Prell is from the late 60s early 70s when their TV commercial demonstrated the product’s richness by dropping a pearl in the bottle in will slink slowly to the bottom. You can see another nostalgic, albeit a bit creepy, commercial by clicking the link below. Trust me, it’s worth it.

Unfortunately, modern shampoo users haven’t shown the same passion for Prell and in 1999 Procter & Gamble sold the brand to Prestige Brands International. You can still find it in some stores – if you’re lucky.

Dissing dishwashing soap

But back to your question – was Prell just dishwashing soap in another bottle? While we can’t go back in time and look at the ingredients used in the first Prell formula back in 1947, we can tell that the “modern” version is a pretty standard deep cleansing formulas based on ammonium lauryl and laureth sulfates and cocamide DEA.  These have been commonly used for decades and are certainly NOT just a dishwashing formula. Those are based on other surfactants designed for cutting grease and  have a different cleansing and foaming profile. So another urban myth bites the dust. (BTW, you could wash your hair with dishwashing soap but it would likely dry out your scalp and leave your hair feeling like straw.)

The Beauty Brains bottom line

Do YOU have any fond memories of Prell or Breck or or any other nostalgic shampoos? Leave a comment and share your nostalgia with the rest of the Beauty Brains community. (And tell us what you thought about the husband washing his wife’s hair in that commercial. Something about that seems just a little bit odd.)