Indigo Color Application

7/26/2019 Indigo Color Application

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/indigo-color-application 1/41

Follow

Y & HOW TO USE NATURAL HAIR DYES : HENNA + INDI... https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-how-use-natural-hair-dyes-henna...

41 1/9/2016 09:50



For Brown, auburn, chestnut, or chocolate hair coloring use a one step process by

combining INDIGO with HENNA.

Sign In


41 1/9/2016 09:50



SPECIAL NOTES:

Join Today Sign In


41 1/9/2016 09:50



If you have trouble with the brown/auburn color staying in your hair, you can try

adding the following:

For Black and deep brown hair coloring use a 2 step process. Apply HENNA to

your hair for a deep red base then apply the blue INDIGO to create the rich deep

browns and blacks.

Join Today Sign In


41 1/9/2016 09:50



If you have short hair then, take 100 grams of indigo, if you have medium length

hair, then 200 grams of indigo will do and if you have long hair then you will

need 300 grams of indigo. But if you have thick and curly then you may need

more amount.

Join Today Sign In


41 1/9/2016 09:50



SPECIAL NOTES:

> Add salt to the warm water that you are mixing into the indigo. About 1

tablespoon per 100 grams of powder that you are mixing.

> Add amla to the indigo. Mix the amla powder at a ratio of 1 part amla to 4

parts indigo. Mix both powders together dry then add the warm water.

Join Today Sign In


41 1/9/2016 09:50



This method is good for someone who is trying to blend their grey hairs without a

drastic color change.

Mix equal parts of dry henna and indigo powder in bowl. Stir in enough just

boiled water to make a paste the consistency of pudding. Let the paste set,uncovered for 1 hour. Apply paste to freshly washed hair and wrap head in plastic

wrap, then place a shower cap over the top of that. Allow paste to remain on the

hair for 30 minutes, then rinse it out.

h t t p : / / y og ig lo ba ls . t r u st pa ss .a l i b ab a .com / p r od u c t

/ 1579 1739 6 -10 6 172457/ H ENN A_ POW D ER .h tm l

h t t p : / / w w w . in d i am a r t .com / y og i g l ob a ls / h enn a -po w d er .h t m l

h t t p : / / w w w .henn aa n d i n d i go .com / m a i n -p r od u c ts

/ H en n a + Pow d er .p h p # H en n a Pow d er

h t t p : / / w w w .exp or t e r s in d i a .com / y og i -g l ob a ls

/ p r od u ct s.h t m ?s l n o= 5950 4 8

h t t p s : / / w w w . fa cebo ok .com / y og i g l ob a l s

/ m ed i a _ set ?set = a .4 6 38 8 3140 4 2176 4 .10 737418 28 .10 0 0 0 4 0 0 24558 19&

ty pe= 3

h t t p s:/ / w w w .l i n k edi n .com / p u l se/ 20 14 0 6121533 17-19 7952 78 6 -10 0 -

pu r e-na tu r a l - sa fe -ba q -henn a -pow de r

What is LinkedIn? Join Today Sign In


41 1/9/2016 09:50



h t t p : / / y og ig lo ba ls . t r u st pa ss .a l i b ab a .com / p r od u c t

/ 172338 568 -10 6 1724 57/ I N D I GO_ POW D ER .h tm l

h t t p : / / w w w .henn aa n d i n d i go .com / m a i n -p r od u c ts

/ I n d i g o+ Pow d er .p h p # I n d i g o Pow d er

h t t p : / / w w w . in d i am a r t .com / y og i g l ob a ls / h er ba l -

po w d er s .h t m l# i n d i go -po w d er


/ p r od u ct s.h t m ?s l n o= 916775

h t t p s : / / w w w . fa cebo ok .com / y og i g l ob a l s

/ m ed i a _ set ?set = a .50 5538 61958 954 9 .10 737418 29 .10 0 0 0 4 0 0 24558 19&

ty pe= 3

h t t p s: / / w w w . l i n k edi n .com / p u l se/ 20 14 0 9 22 20 554 7-19 795278 6 -10 0 -

pu r e-na tu r a l - an d - f r esh - i n d i go - l ea f -pow der

h t t p : / / w w w .y og i g l ob a l s .com / h er ba l -po w d er s.ht m

h t t p : / / w w w .henn aa n d i n d i go .com / p r od u c ts

/ H er b a l + Pow d er s.p h p # H er b a l Pow d er s

h t t p : / / w w w .i n d i am a r t .com / y og i g l ob a ls / h er ba l -po w der s .h t m l

h t t p : / / y og i g l oba l s .t r us tpa ss.a l i ba ba . com / p r odu c tg r ou p l i s t -



41 1/9/2016 09:50



Written by

10 6 1724 57/ H er b a l _ Pow der s.h t m l

h t t p : / / w w w .hen n aa n d i n d i go . com

h t t p : / / w w w .y og i g l ob a ls .com

h t t p : / / y og i g l oba l s .t r us tpa ss.a l i ba ba . com

h t t p : / / w w w . in d i am a r t .com / y og i g l ob a ls


Follow

Like Comment



41 1/9/2016 09:50



I won’t mince words: in my opinion, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans,

ust released today, are a national embarrassment. They are a betrayal of the

diligent work of nutrition scientists, and a willful sacrifice of public health on the

altar of profit for well-organized special interests. This is a sad day for nutrition

policy in America. It is a sad day for public health. It is a day of shame.

I know, I should tell you what I really think. Maybe next time.

I want to make clear that the scientific report on which these new Dietary

Guidelines for Americans (DGs) were allegedly to be based was outstanding.

Perhaps not perfect — what ever is? — but truly outstanding.

That’s a position I have asserted before, many times, encompassing the report’s

Follow



f 41 1/9/2016 09:50



very appropriate inclusion of sustainability . I raise it again now for two reasons.

First, I want to make unmistakably clear that my criticism here is of the political

adulterations of the excellent work of scientists, and not one iota about the work

of those scientists. Second, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee(DGAC) Report has been subject to unprecedented abuse since the day it was

released. Many in the vanguard of those assaults have pretended it was an effort

to challenge, and thus improve, the quality of the science. It was not. It was

foreplay for this. It was softening up support for the work of true public health

scientists so that politicians could stick it to the American people, and line the

pockets of their influential friends.

There will be — indeed, it has already begun — a Tsunami of ink (well, electrons,

mostly) allocated to this topic, today and after. It will be parsed in its every

particular. I myself may weigh in again, and get more specific. For now, a rather

high-level critique will suffice.

Where the DGs are good, and there aren't many places in the lengthy document,

it's where they preserved key components of the DGAC report. For example, they

respected recommendations about key nutrient thresholds, such as limiting

saturated fat intake, not limiting total fat intake, and perhaps most importantly,

limiting added sugar. They also preserved the idea, if not a sensible

representation of it, of healthy dietary patterns, and provided examples to show

that these are variations on a theme. I can give this very little bit of credit where

so little credit is due.

Otherwise, as compared to the DGAC Report, the DGs represent a disgraceful

replacement of specific guidance with the vaguest possible language. A term that

recurs often, clearly intended to sound like something while saying next to

nothing, is ‘nutrient dense foods.’ That replaces reference to specific foods that

populate the original document. It might mean broccoli, it might mean Total

Cereal. I guess it might even mean pepperoni. We can’t tell, and that is clearly by



f 41 1/9/2016 09:50



design.

There is an astonishing effort to shoehorn in advice to keep consuming ‘all food

groups.’ When is the last time we have even heard that term? Not only is this

document a display of complete submission to special interests, it is a submissionto special interests stuck in 1950! Seriously, eat from all ‘food groups’?

There is a disgraceful backtracking on clear recommendations to eat less meat

and more plants. The report advises particular age groups of men and boys to cut

back somewhat on meat intake, but all this does is highlight the abandonment of

the recommendation in the DGAC Report that “less” meat was advisable to the

general population for the sake of people and planet alike.

There is overt hypocrisy on display as well. The DGs explicitly, even in the

Executive Summary, emphasize the importance of physical activity. I am entirely

in support of this recommendation, make no mistake. But how is this a “dietary”

guideline? Congress decided, some months ago, that sustainability would NOT be

included in these guidelines because it was beyond the mandate of the DGAC.

Really? The ability to keep supplying the food recommended is not considered

relevant enough, but a topic that isn’t about food at all –is? I really don’t think

you even need to be able to spell hypocrisy to smell it here.

While the report talks about foods being emphasized over nutrients,

recommendations about what NOT to eat (or, even, what to limit) are entirely

cast in terms of nutrients. We are advised to limit our intake of saturated fat, for

instance- but there is virtually no language, and none featured prominently,

indicating what foods to avoid to achieve that. Much the same is true of added

sugar. Clearly advice about eating less of anything conflicts with the interests of

some big industry sector the federal agencies and their bosses in Congress don’t

want to upset. So, somehow, we are left to cut back on our intake of saturated fat

and sugar while washing down our corned beef with Coca-Cola. Good luck, folks.



f 41 1/9/2016 09:50



The DG document is not even internally consistent. There is a specific

recommendation FOR eating meat and poultry, as well as fish, ostensibly in the

service of achieving a ‘variety’ of protein sources, and eating from all food groups.

Nonetheless, the DG does offer a vegetarian pattern as an example of healthy

eating. This made perfect sense in the context of the DGAC Report, which made itclear that less meat was a good idea. It looks like lip service and gobbledygook in

the context of a document specifically recommending meat intake. The DG,

shockingly, even carves out space to say it is ‘ok’ to eat ‘processed meats and

poultry’ provided that nutrient thresholds are respected. This is absurd in the

aftermath of a WHO report identifying processed meat as carcinogenic, in

addition to its many other established liabilities. It is also another example of

hypocrisy in these guidelines, since we are told the emphasis will be on foods

rather than nutrients, but then told it’s fine to eat bad foods as long as certain

nutrient levels are vaguely…good.

The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans is, alas, a virtuoso display of

linguistic contortionism to remove from the nation’s official nutrition policy

document the actionable clarity of the DGAC at every opportunity. Specific advice

about what to eat more of, and especially what to eat less of, has been replaced

with the vaguest possible language about food groups, nutrient dense foods, and

the idea that everything is OK provided a few nutrient thresholds are minded. The

DGs include the topic of “shifts,” allegedly how to trade up by replacing foods in

our diets with better choices, but here, remarkably, the language itself “shifts”

again from food to nutrients, so we have no hope of knowing what we shouldn’t

eat. Perish the thought- that would be money out of someone’s pocket. We are left

with a very clear, and genuinely helpful notion that we can probably just eat

whatever the hell we want, and all will be well.

Except it won’t. We are awash in preventable chronic disease. We are eating away

our own health. We are eating our children’s health, and their food, and drinking

up their water. We are, into the bargain, devouring our very planet. Yet we are

told here to keep on keeping on. That’s what you get when it is politics, rather



f 41 1/9/2016 09:50



than science, on the plate. Bon appétit.

The good news- and there isn’t much this day- is that we don’t have to swallow

this. Having chewed on it, and choked on it, we can just spit it out (aim carefully,

please- there are nice shoes out there).

I call on you to do just that. The 2015 DGAC Report is in the public domain. Our

hypocrisy, thank goodness, has not yet advanced to the level of expunging the

work of true scientists entirely. So, ignore the DGs, and turn to the DGAC Report

for guidance instead. It is accessible to you, and it is about you- not the wealth of

Congressional cronies.

I call upon my colleagues in public health and science, as indeed I have done, to

band together and express our views directly, and in a common voice, cutting out

the political middleman. We have the capacity to do that, and the public has the

opportunity to decide whom to trust.

The bad news is that our Dietary Guidelines are pretty awful. The good news is

that guidance isn’t guidance if no one follows- and we don’t have to follow where

this national embarrassment leads. We have been betrayed. We have received a

plate full of festering politics as usual. But...we don’t have to eat it!

- f i n

David L. Katz, MD, MPH, FACPM, FACP, FACLM

D i r ec to r , Yale University Prevention Research Center; Griffin Hospital

Pr esi d en t , American College of Lifestyle Medicine

Founder, The True Health Initiative



f 41 1/9/2016 09:50



Written by

Fo l l ow a t : LinkedIN; Twitter; Facebook

Read a t : INfluencer Blog; Huffington Post; US News & World Report;

About.com

Follow



f 41 1/9/2016 09:50





f 41 1/9/2016 09:50

Indigo Color Application

Documents

Transcript of Indigo Color Application