Has Anybody Got Scientific Evidence As How Long Hair Is Good For You?

[Khalsa_Girl_1]

(8)LET IT GROW..LET IT GROW..LET IT GROW!!(8)

*ahem..

yeah

so umm...yeah..

let it grow

just dont use fake things to make it longer...

peace...

GurFateh.

[singh_sandhu]

(8)LET IT GROW..LET IT GROW..LET IT GROW!!(8)

*ahem..

yeah

so umm...yeah..

let it grow

just dont use fake things to make it longer...

peace...

GurFateh.

THEHL MAKES IT LONG, READ MA POST IN THE "KESI ISHNAAN" THREAD.... ITS USEFUL :TH:

Vaheguru

[doctor_mani]

(8)LET IT GROW..LET IT GROW..LET IT GROW!!(8)

*ahem..

yeah

so umm...yeah..

let it grow

just dont use fake things to make it longer...

peace...

GurFateh.

Lol. Somehow I don’t think she was referring to body hair!

OK I have been reading this topic for some while and I couldn’t help resisting myself adding a few thoughts. To be frank, I think the bulk of ‘scientific’ evidence given here is absurd and not remotely plausible.

I will elaborate:

My evidence is what the Guru wants. Guru says keep long kaysh, so I will. If Guru told us to do so, then Waheguru wants us to do so.

This in the remotest sense is not scientific evidence, which the thread starter quite eloquently requested.

The more a person has , the more secure one will be.

I know only this much.

OK your proposal here at it highest possible value is merely a theory. Is there any evidence to support it? I would like to see if there is.

well, not exaclty science but logic, if we cut off a finger thats not good for you, neither is cutting hair.

Can you elaborate? Why?

scientifically, energy from the food we eat and the sun etc must be consumed for the hair to grow, so cutting it is just wasting that energy. all that energy, nutrients, vitamins etc going to waste, and then the bidy has to generate more energy, vitamins and minerals to re grow the hair you cut

The energy consumption in hair growth is, as far as we’re concerned, an irreversible process, and as a consequence, energy consumed for hair growth cannot be re-utilised by the body for other organic purposes – unless of course your planning to ingest your hair supplemented with synthetic proteases potent enough to digest hair, which unfortunately are not yet known to man. How can then cutting the hair be ‘wasting energy’, which once locked up within the hair molecules, is never utilised again by the body? In addition, under normal physiological rhythm, hair follicles are continually synthesising hair components regardless of whether you cut it or not. So effectively, cutting hair does not ‘waste’ energy and nor does it increase energy consumption.

Moustaches can produce a filter-like shelter for the nose to prevent dust from entering.. good for asthma..

So do you think the sole purpose (if any) of moustaches is to reduce inhalation of large particles and thereby to minimise any chance of an asthma exacerbation? I find it hard to believe. At any rate, if minor advantages are truly significant explanations, then surly we must also consider disadvantages such as ‘hair entering mouth’? Both explanations are ludricous and can not be more significant than the other.

..Hair on head and other hairs increase surface area of body - so improved absorption of vitamin D that you cant get from diet.

This claim is utterly ridiculous, and highlights nothing but a complete lack of scientific understanding. Vitamin D is in fact absorbed by the gut – not hair! If your talking about vitamin D production, then this occurs in the epithelia of the skin (not hair), facilitated by exposure to UV light. So your argument is scientifically flawed in which ever way you choose to address it.

There this story of a nuclear leak and it seemed only suitable for a kesadhari singh to go through and shut it off. Need to confirm that.. forgot where I heard it form! lol

What’s your ‘scientific’ explanation to this? If there is any, that is.

1) Greek and Italian Scientists such as Leanardo Di Vinci as wells many others beleived that long hair was able to pick of cosmic energy that is all around us. Although no one has really been able to prove this, neither has anyone been able to disprove this.

In an unproven state, this argument is merely a theory and we can’t therefore falsely pass it off as scientific evidence.

2) Keeping long hair gives a good indication as to how healthy you are. If your diet is poor you hair will show signs of this e.g it may begin to fall out, or change colour etc... Other diseases and traumas can cause temporary or permanent loss of hair, either generally or in patches.

None of this remotely implies that cutting your hair could possible be a determent to your health. So which part of this do you label ‘scientific evidence’ for growing hair?

3) You have eyes so you can see, you have ears so you can hear, nose so you can smell/ breathe, etc.....

God gave everything on our bodies for a reason. People will beleive everything the read or hear on Tv and in newspapers but when our Guru's tell us to keep long hair we cant stop questioning this decision.

I’m sorry but we can’t class religious duty as scientific evidence? Two completely discrete perspectives.

4)long Hair tied in a jora is able to protect your head. (This isnt scientific but Common sense).

Fat is abundant in sites where cushioning is required - namely the buttocks, suprarenal surfaces, periorbital and etc. Logic would now suggest, that if cushioning of the skull was vital for human survival, then humans would have over the millennia – according to Darwinian evolution – developed a predominant fat layer around the cranial bones.

5)Long Hair is able to block harmful UV rays from reaching our skin. Why else do you think skin cancer rates in punjab were so low compared to other parts of the world where people cut there hair.

Do you have evidence that skin cancer has a lower incidence in Punjab? If so, I would love to see it. However, even if skin cancer is less prevalent in Punjab, it would be hideous to predicate this is because less people cut their hair in Punjab. It could quite simply down to other cancer causing paraphernalia such as diet, background/occupational radiation, genetic variance, selective advantages and etc. Without proof we can only speculate why skin cancer prevalence in Punjab is lower in Punjab, if indeed it is at all!

6) Darwins thoery of natural selection states that all beings evolve in order to better adapt themselves to their environments. Therefore we have evolved into having long hair for a reason. One of the problems is that we have not been able to fully understand the benifits of long hair. But bear this in mind our Guru's told us not to consume alcohol/tabacoo/drugs hundreds of years before any scientists proved their negative effects on our body. They told us, so we could be protected from them. Our Guru's told us to keep long hair and maybe one day some scientists will be able to fully explain its benefit

This is perhaps the most plausible explanation, but only when you look at it superficially. Without knowing the exact evolutionary purpose/advantage of long hair, we cannot argue it has in fact evolved to give us a biological advantage. However, in complete contrast, a Darwinian scientist would argue, we have evolved from our ancestral primates (the ape) to shed most of our bodily hair because its lack of purpose and significance. This completely turns your amateur explanation on its head.

also adding onto this when you tie your kesh into a joora it covers your dasam duar and protects it.

This argument is flawed again, for the same reason as my explanation to Marison Singh’s 4th point.

Also if your cold your hair sticks out this is also becuase your body hair acts as an insulator and keeps all heat trapped.

By the same mechanism, hair can hinder heat radiation/convection from then skin in exposure to high temperatures. So which carries greater importance – the advantage or disadvantage?

thirdly im going to describe the hair you get in your arm pit, this stops your arm pit from colliding from your your chest causing friction and causes rash

True, but we’re looking for scientific evidence to keep scalp hair. In any case, you could again argue the disadvantages of axillial hair (sweating>bacteria>infection>heat>>>more sweating), and again argue that we in fact have evolved to be less hairier.

spiritually, when you do waheguru simran, and meditate on it you will feel the power of the simran flowing through your body and your body hairs will vibrate as this is natural, and getting in the way of this will be going against the flow of nature as its natural for hair to grow and more importantly against guru ji's will. and dont think having hair growing in different places is a bad thing as there is a reason for everything,

why do we have have eye brows?

so that water doesnt get into our eyes, protecting them from water.

and ive explained about under arm hairs.

Is there evidence that vibrations generated from meditation of a deity’s name, will serve a beneficial purpose via vibrating in bodily hairs? If there is, I would again love to see it – and if there isn’t then you are making weak assumptions which fail to logically explain any valid scientific purpose of growing hair. Simply stating ‘there is a reason for everything’ is rather insulting to the plausible scientific evidence we do have for many of our religious values.

Although I agree whole-heartedly with the point quite rightly made by many, that Guru orders must ultimately serve beneficial, this does not in way answer the original question posed – ‘Has Anybody Got Scientific Evidence As How Long Hair Is Good For You?’ There has been no plausible scientific evidence posted which supports the Sikh practice of growing bodily hair. When we try pretentiously hard to reconcile religious practices with scientific evidence, we are almost invariably likely to propose a whole plethora of superficial concepts which are fundamentally flawed. However, I’m not predicating that our religious practices are in some way obscure or flawed – far from it! While we should enjoy any scientific evidence presented which compliments and conforms to religious practices, we should refrain from justifying religious practices with a scientific explanations, as attempts of the later are invariably futile.

So in answer to the original question posed, I’m not aware of any significant scientific evidence which predicates that growing your hair is in any way beneficial.

[king singh]

(8)LET IT GROW..LET IT GROW..LET IT GROW!!(8)

*ahem..

yeah

so umm...yeah..

let it grow

just dont use fake things to make it longer...

peace...

GurFateh.

Lol. Somehow I don’t think she was referring to body hair!

OK I have been reading this topic for some while and I couldn’t help resisting myself adding a few thoughts. To be frank, I think the bulk of ‘scientific’ evidence given here is absurd and not remotely plausible.

I will elaborate:

My evidence is what the Guru wants. Guru says keep long kaysh, so I will. If Guru told us to do so, then Waheguru wants us to do so.

This in the remotest sense is not scientific evidence, which the thread starter quite eloquently requested.

The more a person has , the more secure one will be.

I know only this much.

OK your proposal here at it highest possible value is merely a theory. Is there any evidence to support it? I would like to see if there is.

well, not exaclty science but logic, if we cut off a finger thats not good for you, neither is cutting hair.

Can you elaborate? Why?

scientifically, energy from the food we eat and the sun etc must be consumed for the hair to grow, so cutting it is just wasting that energy. all that energy, nutrients, vitamins etc going to waste, and then the bidy has to generate more energy, vitamins and minerals to re grow the hair you cut

The energy consumption in hair growth is, as far as we’re concerned, an irreversible process, and as a consequence, energy consumed for hair growth cannot be re-utilised by the body for other organic purposes – unless of course your planning to ingest your hair supplemented with synthetic proteases potent enough to digest hair, which unfortunately are not yet known to man. How can then cutting the hair be ‘wasting energy’, which once locked up within the hair molecules, is never utilised again by the body? In addition, under normal physiological rhythm, hair follicles are continually synthesising hair components regardless of whether you cut it or not. So effectively, cutting hair does not ‘waste’ energy and nor does it increase energy consumption.

Moustaches can produce a filter-like shelter for the nose to prevent dust from entering.. good for asthma..

So do you think the sole purpose (if any) of moustaches is to reduce inhalation of large particles and thereby to minimise any chance of an asthma exacerbation? I find it hard to believe. At any rate, if minor advantages are truly significant explanations, then surly we must also consider disadvantages such as ‘hair entering mouth’? Both explanations are ludricous and can not be more significant than the other.

..Hair on head and other hairs increase surface area of body - so improved absorption of vitamin D that you cant get from diet.

This claim is utterly ridiculous, and highlights nothing but a complete lack of scientific understanding. Vitamin D is in fact absorbed by the gut – not hair! If your talking about vitamin D production, then this occurs in the epithelia of the skin (not hair), facilitated by exposure to UV light. So your argument is scientifically flawed in which ever way you choose to address it.

There this story of a nuclear leak and it seemed only suitable for a kesadhari singh to go through and shut it off. Need to confirm that.. forgot where I heard it form! lol

What’s your ‘scientific’ explanation to this? If there is any, that is.

1) Greek and Italian Scientists such as Leanardo Di Vinci as wells many others beleived that long hair was able to pick of cosmic energy that is all around us. Although no one has really been able to prove this, neither has anyone been able to disprove this.

In an unproven state, this argument is merely a theory and we can’t therefore falsely pass it off as scientific evidence.

2) Keeping long hair gives a good indication as to how healthy you are. If your diet is poor you hair will show signs of this e.g it may begin to fall out, or change colour etc... Other diseases and traumas can cause temporary or permanent loss of hair, either generally or in patches.

None of this remotely implies that cutting your hair could possible be a determent to your health. So which part of this do you label ‘scientific evidence’ for growing hair?

3) You have eyes so you can see, you have ears so you can hear, nose so you can smell/ breathe, etc.....

God gave everything on our bodies for a reason. People will beleive everything the read or hear on Tv and in newspapers but when our Guru's tell us to keep long hair we cant stop questioning this decision.

I’m sorry but we can’t class religious duty as scientific evidence? Two completely discrete perspectives.

4)long Hair tied in a jora is able to protect your head. (This isnt scientific but Common sense).

Fat is abundant in sites where cushioning is required - namely the buttocks, suprarenal surfaces, periorbital and etc. Logic would now suggest, that if cushioning of the skull was vital for human survival, then humans would have over the millennia – according to Darwinian evolution – developed a predominant fat layer around the cranial bones.

5)Long Hair is able to block harmful UV rays from reaching our skin. Why else do you think skin cancer rates in punjab were so low compared to other parts of the world where people cut there hair.

Do you have evidence that skin cancer has a lower incidence in Punjab? If so, I would love to see it. However, even if skin cancer is less prevalent in Punjab, it would be hideous to predicate this is because less people cut their hair in Punjab. It could quite simply down to other cancer causing paraphernalia such as diet, background/occupational radiation, genetic variance, selective advantages and etc. Without proof we can only speculate why skin cancer prevalence in Punjab is lower in Punjab, if indeed it is at all!

6) Darwins thoery of natural selection states that all beings evolve in order to better adapt themselves to their environments. Therefore we have evolved into having long hair for a reason. One of the problems is that we have not been able to fully understand the benifits of long hair. But bear this in mind our Guru's told us not to consume alcohol/tabacoo/drugs hundreds of years before any scientists proved their negative effects on our body. They told us, so we could be protected from them. Our Guru's told us to keep long hair and maybe one day some scientists will be able to fully explain its benefit

This is perhaps the most plausible explanation, but only when you look at it superficially. Without knowing the exact evolutionary purpose/advantage of long hair, we cannot argue it has in fact evolved to give us a biological advantage. However, in complete contrast, a Darwinian scientist would argue, we have evolved from our ancestral primates (the ape) to shed most of our bodily hair because its lack of purpose and significance. This completely turns your amateur explanation on its head.

also adding onto this when you tie your kesh into a joora it covers your dasam duar and protects it.

This argument is flawed again, for the same reason as my explanation to Marison Singh’s 4th point.

Also if your cold your hair sticks out this is also becuase your body hair acts as an insulator and keeps all heat trapped.

By the same mechanism, hair can hinder heat radiation/convection from then skin in exposure to high temperatures. So which carries greater importance – the advantage or disadvantage?

thirdly im going to describe the hair you get in your arm pit, this stops your arm pit from colliding from your your chest causing friction and causes rash

True, but we’re looking for scientific evidence to keep scalp hair. In any case, you could again argue the disadvantages of axillial hair (sweating>bacteria>infection>heat>>>more sweating), and again argue that we in fact have evolved to be less hairier.

spiritually, when you do waheguru simran, and meditate on it you will feel the power of the simran flowing through your body and your body hairs will vibrate as this is natural, and getting in the way of this will be going against the flow of nature as its natural for hair to grow and more importantly against guru ji's will. and dont think having hair growing in different places is a bad thing as there is a reason for everything,

why do we have have eye brows?

so that water doesnt get into our eyes, protecting them from water.

and ive explained about under arm hairs.

Is there evidence that vibrations generated from meditation of a deity’s name, will serve a beneficial purpose via vibrating in bodily hairs? If there is, I would again love to see it – and if there isn’t then you are making weak assumptions which fail to logically explain any valid scientific purpose of growing hair. Simply stating ‘there is a reason for everything’ is rather insulting to the plausible scientific evidence we do have for many of our religious values.

Although I agree whole-heartedly with the point quite rightly made by many, that Guru orders must ultimately serve beneficial, this does not in way answer the original question posed – ‘Has Anybody Got Scientific Evidence As How Long Hair Is Good For You?’ There has been no plausible scientific evidence posted which supports the Sikh practice of growing bodily hair. When we try pretentiously hard to reconcile religious practices with scientific evidence, we are almost invariably likely to propose a whole plethora of superficial concepts which are fundamentally flawed. However, I’m not predicating that our religious practices are in some way obscure or flawed – far from it! While we should enjoy any scientific evidence presented which compliments and conforms to religious practices, we should refrain from justifying religious practices with a scientific explanations, as attempts of the later are invariably futile.

So in answer to the original question posed, I’m not aware of any significant scientific evidence which predicates that growing your hair is in any way beneficial.