Cracks / Breakage are not mentionedas a hairloss factorin Dermatology books. No hair crack photos in Dermatology books.
I would go a step further. There may not any crack or break in hair. For a non-existent problem, a meaningless, unproven solution is offered in high decibels. You can check that out with a fallen hair. Use a magnifying glass. You may not notice any crack. We normally do not go for microscopic analysis of our skin and hair
Articulation: There are routine periodic shouts about cracks in the hair and consequent breakages due to that. The shouts are manufactured tales. If there be cracks, a shampoo, a hair cleaner, cannot certainly close it. No seller shows any proof.
Hair has a strong Disulphide bond. A hair can easily lift a weight of 80gms. It is a bit elastic too, upto85 gms weight. It may break around 90 gms.
Shampoos are sold with the claim that it can improve the strength of the hair. If a shampoo can improve the hair strength, a shampooed hair should be able to lift a weight of at least 90 gms. This proof can be easily shown on the TV too.
No proof has been shown on TV in the last 40 years. If one seller says that the shampoo would double the strength, the next one says 5 times and the third one says 10 times. They have the conviction that their claim will not be questioned and they will not be jailed for misleading the public.
Simple proofs against Cracks
1. For a minute, let us accept the cracks claim and think. If a woman has 12 inches long hair, cracks can be anywhere between 0.1 inch to 11.9 inches. They have to be at different points and cannot be uniform at the same point on all the hair. Agreed? While combing, hair has to / will break at the cracks. That is, on the comb, there have to be hair of different lengths. Similar would be the position of the left over hair on the head, with lengths ranging from 0.1, to 11.9 inches.
The small short hair, the other remaining part of the broken hair strands on the head, say between 0.1 to 2 inches, cannot be combed down –with different lengths, some hair would stand up. The head hair would look like a porcupine style. Have you seen anyone with such a style? I have not seen any in my 75 years. That is sufficient to say that all these ‘hair strength improvement’ and ‘crack closure’ claims are baseless.
2. Test 2: Make a small " V" Shaped cut in a Nail. Use a crack closer shampoo. The cut will not close even after a month or two, even as the nail grows. You can test that out. If the nail cannot close the gap, how can the hair? Both are keratin based. [I have tried that in 1993].
Risk with a Crack closer Shampoo
Just accept for a minute that the shampoo can really close the crack. Now pause and reflect. Why the shampoo should take the trouble of locating the hair with a crack, bring the separating parts close together and then seal them.
Instead, it may as well join 4-5 hair strands in lesser time. Why not?
Shampoo is a cleaner. That is all. Ignore such claims.
Misrepresentation - one proof
For razor ads, the facial hair is as thick as a copper wire. And for selling shampoo, the head hair turns brittle and is full of cracks? Two Companies, owned by the same parent, make 2 different statements.
Dermatology and most other Therapies have no definitive cure to safeguard a normal hair. So the question of locating a crack, if any and closing them is just a meaningless fantasy.
" A lie, repeatedly told, sounds like the Truth' - a Chinese Proverb.
No point in chasing a crooked shadow