how often to shower??
12,167 hours of washing our bodies.
That’s how much life you use, if you spend 20 minutes per day washing and moisturizing your skin and hair (and you live to be 100, as we all surely will).
That adds up to nearly two entire years of washing every waking hour.
Not to mention water usage and the cost of cosmetic products—which we need, because commercials tell us to remove the oil from our skin with soap, and then to re-moisturize with lotion. Other commercials tell us to remove the oils from our hair, and then re-moisturize with conditioner. And of course we want to smell a certain way afterwards.
It’s not just the fault of advertising, but it's also our own perception that if we go a few days without showering (even one day!?) we will become oily, smelly beasts.
But what if you push through the oiliness + smelliness; embrace it, and go forward with only one shower every other day... or heaven forbid every 3rd day?
------------------------------------
Out of curiosity—not laziness—I tried it.
At first, I was an oily, smelly beast. The odor of bodies is the product of bacteria that live on our skin and feed off of the oily secretions from the sweat and sebaceous glands at the base of our hair follicles. Applying detergents (soaps) to our skin and hair every day disrupts a sort of balance between skin oils and the bacteria that live on our skin. When you shower aggressively, you obliterate the ecosystems. They repopulate quickly, but the species are out of balance and tend to favor the kinds of microbes that produce odor.
But after a while, the idea goes, your ecosystem reaches a steady state, and you stop smelling bad. I mean, you don’t smell like rosewater or Axe Body Spray, but you don’t smell like B.O., either. You just smell like a person.
Because, evolutionarily, why would we be so disgusting that we need constant cleaning? And constant moisturizing and/or de-oiling? If we do more to allow our oil glands and bacteria to equilibrate, the theory goes, skin should stop fluctuating between oily and dry.
-------------------------------
a green chemistry view of cosmetics (from C2C, Dr. Braungart's EPEA) is included at the end of this blog.
-------------------------------
Showers feel fabulous — but how frequent is too frequent for skin ecology?
James Hamblin is tired of being asked if he's smelly.
Hamblin, a physician and health reporter, has been fielding the question since 2016, when the article he wrote about his decision to stop showering went viral. The piece outlines compelling reasons why one might want to spend less time sudsing up: Cosmetic products are expensive, showering uses a lot of water, and the whole process takes up valuable time.
Perhaps most importantly, bathing disrupts our skin's microbiome: the delicate ecosystem of bacteria, fungi, mites and viruses that live on (and in) our body's largest organ - our skin. Most of these microbes are thought to be benign freeloaders; they feast on our sweat and oils without impacting our health. A small number cause harmful effects, ranging in severity from an irksome itch to a life-threatening infection. And some help us out by, for example, preventing more dangerous species from taking up residence.
Researchers are in the early days of developing the full picture of just how substantially this diverse living envelope influences our overall health, and many of their findings suggest that the microbes on our skin are even more important than was previously understood. Skin has long been considered to be our first line of defense against pathogens, but new studies suggest that the initial protection may come from the microbes that live on its surface.
Meanwhile, the health care and cosmetics industries are already at work developing new categories of "prebiotic" treatments and skin care products that claim to cultivate our skin's population of beneficial microbes and banish the troublemakers.
But Hamblin says most of the time when people learn that he hasn't showered in five years, they just want to know if he stinks. He dutifully explains that he still washes his hands with soap frequently, occasionally wets his hair to get rid of bedhead and rinses off any time he's visibly dirty. But he finds the question tiresome — and also revealing.
"We've gotten a lot better, culturally, about not judging people about all kinds of things, but when people smell or don't use deodorant, somehow it's OK to say, 'You're gross' or 'Stay away from me!' and it gets a laugh," he says. "I'm trying to push back against the sense of there being some universal standard of normalcy."
We spoke to Hamblin, who is a staff writer and the co-host of the podcast Social Distance for The Atlantic, about the benefits and social dynamics of showering less, and the coming wave of microbially-optimized cosmetics.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length:
Q: "Your book sets out to challenge some cultural norms about hygiene. What types of cleansing do you think are overdue for reexamination, and which are critical?"
A: There's a distinction between "hygiene" and "cleansing rituals" that's especially important in this moment. "Hygiene" is the more scientific or public health term, where you're really talking about disease avoidance or disease prevention behaviors. Removal of mucus, vomit, blood feces ... any behavior that signals to people "I am thoughtful about not transmitting diseases to you, and I'm a safe person to be around." That would include hand-washing, brushing your teeth, cleaning of open wounds, even mask-wearing. I don't think any of that stuff is due for questioning.
But a lot of the other things that we do are class and wealth signifiers — like combing your hair or whitening your teeth or wearing deodorant — which actually have nothing to do with disease avoidance or disease transmission. They're really much more of a personal or cultural preference. And that's where people are experimenting with doing less.
Q: Why do you think that some of these cultural practices deserve to be reexamined?
A: So many reasons. We're spending a lot of money (or at least we were pre-pandemic, I don't have new data) on products and practices in this enormous industry-complex of self-care, skin care, hygiene and cosmetics — which is barely regulated, which is a huge and important part of people's daily lives, which people worry a lot about, which people get a lot of joy from, which people bond over, which people judge, and which causes a lot environmental impacts in terms of water and plastic.
And there's the emerging science of the skin microbiome. Being clean [has historically] meant removing microbes from ourselves, so it's an important moment to try to clarify what, exactly, we're trying to do when we're doing the hygiene behaviors.
Q: Some people are misconstruing the central thesis of your book as "shower less like I did." And that's not what you're advocating. So is there a thesis statement or call to action in your mind?
I think that many people — not everyone — could do less, if they wanted to. We are told by marketing, and by some traditions passed down, that it's necessary to do more than it actually is. Your health will not suffer. And your body is not so disgusting that you need to upend your microbial ecosystem every day.
If you could get by doing less without suffering social or professional consequences, and [your routine] isn't bringing you any value or health benefit, that's the space where I say, "Why not? Why not try it out?"
Q: You wrote that you think we're at the edge of a radical re-conception of what it means to be clean. What do you mean by that?
A: That's harder to answer now because I don't know how the current moment is going to change things. But I believe there's a shift in the very near future upon us, similar to what we saw with the gut microbiome.
Twenty years ago, the idea of kombucha, and probiotics, and trying to have a healthy biome in your gut were really fringe hippie concepts. And now we're doing clinical trials of fecal transplants. It's very mainstream to think about your microbiome. People are being more conscious about things like antibiotic overuse because they don't want to potentially disrupt the gut microbiome. That has been a really radical shift.
And something like that [for] the skin would be even more radical in terms of the effect on our daily lives, and consumer behaviors and spending, because a lot of what has been done traditionally [in terms of hygiene] is predicated on eradicating microbes.
Q: After reading your book, I'm bracing myself for an avalanche of new probiotic and prebiotic cleansing products to hit shelves in the near future. What do you think the average consumer should know as they evaluate whether or not a product is likely to be useful?
A: Well, if things like acne, eczema and psoriasis are the result of an interplay between your immune system and the microbes on your skin, it is, indeed, scientifically a very promising and cool hypothesis to think that we can shift that microbiome and help people through their flares or outbreaks. That science is supersound.
But if it's possible that we can [use products to] make things better, then it's possible we can make things worse. If a product does meaningfully shift your biome, then it has the capacity to create effects that you didn't want.
We're really riding a fine line between drugs and beauty products here, which makes it very hard for consumers to know.
Q: What's the danger of that fine line?
A: Most likely these products are not doing anything. Because there's so little regulatory oversight on this type of product, we don't even know for sure that they contain what they claim to contain. And if they were significantly changing your skin microbes, I would want to be extremely careful that there was indeed evidence to back up that that change was good and worth making.
I think a lot of people buy products like this thinking, "It can't hurt, right?" And I would suggest keeping in mind that if something can help, that it can hurt.
So just because scientists are learning that the microbiome might be important for our health, the solution to skin problems is not necessarily "go to the drugstore and buy a probiotic shampoo."
I think that's a great takeaway. And actually, I think we are too culturally inclined to seek topical solutions most of the time. I certainly have been. The skin is very often an external manifestation of our overall health. Very rarely is something limited to the skin.
Everyone has experienced that when you're stressed out, not eating well, haven't exercised, not sleeping, you look — and quite possibly smell — worse than at other times. And our inclination is to go seek a product to cover that up. Sometimes that's the only course of action.
But in an ideal world, we would be able to take that as a sign that something was off, and needed attention in our overall approach to health. We can miss important signals when our immediate inclination is to go find a product to cover things up.
Q: How did your identity as a cis-gendered white male influence your reporting on this subject?
A: Probably one of the main reasons I've been able to go so long without using [shampoo and deodorant] is because of the privilege of my position in American society. To the degree that these standards are culturally determined, I am coming from the group that has created these norms. That is why I believe I was able to push against them without more discriminatory consequences. I mean, people call me "gross." But I didn't suffer professionally to my knowledge. And other people would have.
I'm not telling anyone that they should do less, basically. I'm only trying to understand why we do the things that we do.
Q: Where do you stand on the most controversial question on the Internet: washing your legs in the shower?
A: Personal preference. From a scientific hygiene perspective, it's an elective practice. It might be something people enjoy doing or feel better for having done. If it brings you value, then it's absolutely worth doing.
In our video series If Our Bodies Could Talk, we’ve been exploring the microbiome in a three-episode series. The final segment is out today, embedded below. In it, I talk with microbiologist Martin Blaser about the consequences of cleaning our bodies as avidly as many people do. I also talk with a scientist at a biotech company called AOBiome that is selling live bacteria for people to spray on their skin in attempt to create a more Earthy ecosystem. Here’s the episode:
The common definition of "clean" might be detrimental to our skin.
In the course of meeting these people and thinking more about skin microbes, I started using less soap, and less shampoo, and less deodorant, and showering less. I went from every day to every other day to every three. And now I’ve pretty much stopped altogether.
I still wash my hands, all the time, which remains an extremely important way to prevent communicable diseases.
I still rinse off elsewhere when I’m visibly dirty, like after a run when I have to wash gnats off my face, because there is still the matter of society. If I have bed head, I lean into the shower and wet it down. But I don’t use shampoo or body soap, and I almost never get into a shower.
At first I did smell bad, especially as I went without deodorant. I didn’t quit cold turkey, but transitioned from a traditional aluminum-based stick to Soapwalla, which is just some plant oils and starches. Aluminum is the “active ingredient” in many deodorants, specifically because it works as an antibiotic. As annoying as it is when things that are marketed as “natural”—because, what does that mean—Soapwalla works well. But I’ve lately stopped that, too.
And everything is fine. I wake up and get out the door in minutes. At times when I might’ve smelled bad before, like at the end of a long day or after working out, I just don’t. At least, to my nose. I’ve asked friends to smell me, and they insist that it’s all good. (Though they could be allied in an attempt to ruin me.)
Obviously if you work in close quarters with people who are upset by the smell of bodies, trying this is inconsiderate. You may have to move to the wilderness first, or to a sailboat house (which you could buy with the money you save on skin and hair products). And as with anything I suggest, consult the people you love and your life coach before attempting.
I don’t know if everyone will achieve detergent-free steady state, which is extreme, but I do think there’s room to question the endless marketing of cosmetic skin and hair cleansers and the need for daily showers.
The biggest dilemma might be what to do with all the extra time. Two extra years of life. How to fill the days?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Green Chemistry (EPEA - Cradle-to-Cradle) view of cosmetics and skin cleaners/lotions:
Consumables and cosmetics have a considerable influence on our personal health and the wellbeing of our environment. Substances of toxicological concern enter into the body when in contact with the skin and then pass into the environment via waste water after use. The microplastic often contained in many consumables and cosmetics constitutes an additional challenge. The tiny particles are extremely difficult to filter and therefore pose a risk for both humans and animals.
Manufacturers of consumables and cosmetics react to this with the promise to replace the problematic constituents with alternative substances in the future. However, the aim should be a healthy and environmentally friendly design of consumables, cosmetics and their packaging from the outset.
Cradle to Cradle® not only avoids using problematic constituents. All constituents are also positively defined at a chemical level. This way, components of consumables and cosmetics are optimised for use - i.e. contact with the skin - as well as for after use. Or in other words: for the biological as well as for the technical cycle. This means that they can create added value for humans, the environment and the responsible manufacturers.
Not only the cosmetic product, but also its packaging is optimised. Plastic packaging of consumables and cosmetics can be reintroduced to the technical cycle via a take-back system, thus presenting high-quality recycling as a solution for the increasing amount of packaging waste. Chemicals such as some kinds of parabens which are said to have a potential hormonal effect causing health problems, would disappear from our households.
For more than 30 years, we have been working together with suppliers and manufacturers of chemicals, packaging, cleaning agents and cosmetics on a global scale. We support companies with global supply chains in the implementation of Cradle to Cradle® and jointly develop solutions for technical and biological cycles: from the optimisation of the constituents to recyclable packaging.
- Material / chemical evaluation and optimization
- Design for Disassembly
- C2C Certified™ Certification
- Transparent supply chain
- Development of take-back systems
The EPEA science team has comprehensive expertise in the areas of chemical and biological compositions, additives and packaging characteristics for consumables and cosmetics. We use this know-how for the optimisation of products with regard to material safety and recyclability. When designing and implementing C2C products, every single constituent is therefore examined for compatibility with the environment and health.
The consumer goods and cosmetic products optimised for contact with the skin cannot only be recycled as nutrients but are also as far as possible made using renewable energies and under fair social conditions. This is beneficial for our oceans, rivers and forests, creates social added values and makes each of us part of the solution when buying these products. Together, we can achieve:
The highest ecological product quality
Knowledge about all ingredients of a product
Transparent and fair supply chains
A positive CO2 footprint
Recyclable and sustainable products
How about moderation - doing a backpacker's style of bathing? You barely use any water and only a hint of soap for the underarms could be refreshing, at least for those around you (lol). I know Steve Jobs was a pioneer but it obviously irked enough people that he was asked to pay attention to improving his basic hygiene.
ReplyDelete