At first, I thought it was going to be group about low maintenance hair styles for the fatigued!
(Recently, I've found that hair dangling over my face leads to roseacea - I need it short).
A quick google made it look like there has been problems with quackery and hair analysis in the past. Is this a new test? As ever, I'd encourage people to be cautious about what tests they pay for, what treatments follow, and what they put in their bodies. It's best to try to make decisions based upon published data, rather than trusting someone who claims to be an expert. Good luck all.
LOL, I thought the same thing about the forum. I could certainly use a hair style that is low maintainance.
I agree out the about the potential for quackery. There have been studies where the same hair has been sent to different labs and they come up with different results.
Hair analysis is neither a valid nor reliable test. Things from hair dye, the water used for washing hair, exposure to things like cigarette smoke, your shampoo or just being out in the sun can influence the results of hair analysis.
I will come back later with some citations about hair analysis.
Please be careful, people. There are too many scams out there when our money can be used more effectively. That being said, it's a personal choice so I can only speak for myself that I choose to go by the science than by a theory that has not been proven.
Take care.
Barb C.:>)
Just out of curiosity, why is this thread under general treatment and not under alternative treatments? Absolutely not my decision, that but as I said just curious.
The following study is just one of many but I chose it as it cites other studies.
Assessment of Commercial Laboratories Performing Hair Mineral Analysis
Conclusions Hair mineral analysis from these laboratories was unreliable, and we recommend that health care practitioners refrain from using such analyses to assess individual nutritional status or suspected environmental exposures. Problems with the regulation and certification of these laboratories also should be addressed.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/285/1/67