Skip to main content

Antioxidants II: the shampoo

Recently I had a little rant about antioxidants and how much they were misused as a selling tool by making it sound as if a product was better for you than it really was. I thought the way antioxidants were being pushed in food and drink was the limit of such dishonesty. Silly old me.

I often find the rest of the family has borrowed my shampoo, so I sometimes get my revenge by borrowing theirs. Imagine my surprise when I discovered this morning I was washing my hair with a product that boasts antioxidants as its main selling point. Yes, it's Alberto Balasam antioxidant shampoo. How do they justify this? Here's the bumf:
Pomegranate, the "superfruit" packed full of anti-oxidants, is now great for your hair too. This Pomegranate shampoo deeply cleanses and strengthens your hair and leaves it smelling "superfruity"!
Oh, wow. Now, to be fair they don't make any claims for benefits from the antioxidant (or should I say anti-oxidant), and they even qualify the cringe-making term superfruit with "embarrassment inverted commas". Even so this is one of the most extreme examples of taking a word that sounds if it should be good for you, and making use of it in a way that has no relevence at all (even if it worked in the first place, which it doesn't). This is surely one step better than all those products that claim to 'nourish' your (dead) hair. 

What's next? Homeopathic shampoo? Now there's a thought...


  1. Brian
    Matthew Parris is a great advocate on the non-use of shampoo; in the attached article he has turned his attention to moisturising creams and suggests that engine oil should be just as effective.


  2. As I have mentioned previously, shampoo manufacturers totally miss the point with shampoos you can use every day: we want to be able wash our hair as infrequently as possible:


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope