HowTo Beauty Edition
Hair · Chapter Five · The Molecules

Read the bottle. Intelligently.

Read the back of the bottle the way you'd read a wine list. Hair-product hysteria is louder than skincare's because the science is older and the regulation is lighter. The four pieces below cover the molecules that actually matter — and the ones that don't.

Edited by Nelly Updated Spring 2026 Reading time 8 minutes
V. · Four ingredient guides

The chemistry without the noise.

4 guides →
01
/ the-two-debates

The Two Debates

Sulphates and silicones have been condemned by the same marketing logic and defended by the same peer-reviewed literature. The misinformation around both is symmetrical: sulphates are not categorically harmful and silicones are not categorically evil. The honest answer for both involves concentration, formulation, and the porosity of the hair they are going on. This piece covers both together, because they belong together.

cleansing debate
02
/ protein-and-bonds

Protein & Bonds

Hydrolysed proteins and bond builders are frequently confused and frequently misused — protein overload is real, and so is the opposite, a strand depleted of structure and wondering why its elasticity has gone. The structural-repair argument only makes sense when both molecules are in the room. One rebuilds what the hair shaft is made of; the other repairs the disulphide bonds that hold the scaffold together. Treating them separately is how you end up with more damage.

structural repair
03
/ humectants

Humectants

Glycerin, panthenol, urea, and the other moisture-attracting molecules that most conditioners are built around. What humectants actually do is pull water from the environment into the cortex — which is excellent in high humidity and counterproductive in dry climates, where they pull from the strand instead. The concentration matters. The climate matters. The occlusive you layer on top matters. This piece covers all three.

moisture
04
/ oils

Oils

Argan, coconut, jojoba, marula, castor — there is a meaningful difference between a penetrating oil and a sealing oil, and using the wrong one for your porosity is one of the most common ways a good routine produces mediocre results. Light oils penetrate; heavy oils seal. The right one depends on whether your hair needs moisture in or moisture locked. Wash cadence determines how much oil is appropriate without it becoming the problem it was meant to solve.

lipid sealing
Editor's note Nelly · Beauty Director On ingredients
vs. marketing
The sulphate debate is not a science debate. It is a marketing debate that borrowed some science to make itself sound credible. If you understand what sulphates actually do — at what concentration, at what pH, to what cuticle — the "sulphate-free" badge on a product tells you essentially nothing about whether that product is good for your hair.
— Nelly Whitcombe · Beauty Director · Spring 2026

Hair ingredient hysteria as a marketing tool.

Most of what you believe about hair ingredients was planted by a brand that wanted you to buy a different product. Here is what the chemistry actually says — without the capslock and without the revolution.

The sulphate argument is overstated

Sodium lauryl sulphate is a surfactant. It removes oil from surfaces. At high concentrations in a low-pH formula, applied repeatedly to a depleted cuticle, it can cause damage — particularly to colour-treated or chemically processed hair. That is the accurate version of the sulphate concern. The inflated version, which the "sulphate-free" movement relies on, suggests that any sulphate in any shampoo is categorically harmful and should be avoided at all costs. This is not what the evidence supports. Ammonium lauryl sulphate and sodium laureth sulphate, which appear in most mainstream shampoos, are milder than SLS and are well tolerated by the majority of hair types when used at appropriate wash frequencies. The person with fine, straight, non-colour-treated hair who washes every two to three days is not the target of the sulphate warning. They have been caught in the crossfire of marketing copy aimed at someone else.

The silicone argument is misunderstood

Silicones were vilified in the same decade that sulphates were, and for similar reasons: a brand needed a "free-from" claim to justify a price premium, and silicones were available to be demonised. The factual concern with silicones is narrow: certain heavy, water-insoluble silicones — dimethicone being the most cited — can accumulate on the hair shaft over time if not periodically removed with a cleansing shampoo. For fine hair used with co-wash-only routines, this build-up can create a weight and lack of volume that feels like damage. That is the real issue, and it applies to a specific set of conditions. For coarser, drier, or more porous hair types, the same dimethicone provides slip, reduces breakage during detangling, and helps retain moisture — at which point the "silicone-free" claim is not a benefit but a subtraction. Water-soluble silicones (cyclomethicone, dimethicone copolyol) rinse out without any special protocol. The build-up concern does not apply to them at all.

Protein overload is real but oversold

Hydrolysed proteins — keratin, wheat protein, silk amino acids — temporarily bind to the hair shaft and fill gaps in a damaged cuticle. For hair that is highly porous, colour-treated, or heat-stressed, they provide genuine structure and reduce breakage. The problem is frequency. Hair that receives protein treatment every wash in a routine that already contains three protein-containing products will eventually become rigid, brittle, and prone to snapping — not because it has been strengthened but because it has been over-structured. Porosity is the variable. High-porosity hair tolerates and benefits from regular protein. Low-porosity hair, which does not absorb product easily, can reach saturation point quickly and tip into brittleness faster than people expect. The correction is balance — a protein treatment every two to four weeks for most hair types, with moisture-focused products in the sessions between.

Porosity as the master variable

Almost every ingredient decision in a hair routine comes back to porosity. Low-porosity hair has a tightly bound cuticle that resists product absorption; applying heavy oils or protein-rich treatments on top produces build-up rather than penetration. High-porosity hair — from bleaching, repeated heat, or natural structure — has a raised cuticle that absorbs quickly and loses moisture just as fast. The products that work on high-porosity hair (richer conditioners, sealing oils, weekly masks) are often the exact products that weigh down low-porosity hair and produce that flat, coated sensation that people mistake for too-much-product when it is actually the wrong product. Understanding which side of the porosity spectrum you are on — even approximately — is worth more than any individual ingredient claim.

Two ingredients and not fifteen

Most hair routines need two functional categories: a humectant and an occlusive. The humectant draws moisture into the cortex; the occlusive seals it in. Every other product in a routine is either redundant, addressing a specific concern that may or may not apply to you, or serving a marketing function rather than a chemical one. The brand economy depends on convincing people that their hair needs a primer, a pre-shampoo treatment, a clarifying step, a bonding mask, a leave-in, a styling cream, a serum, and a finishing oil applied in a specific order. In most cases, a well-formulated conditioner containing panthenol or glycerin followed by a light sealing oil is the entire routine. The rest is inventory.