30 Month Window To Regrow Hair

[Oliver510]

You may have read the study which states treatment for balding should start no later than 30 months since the start of it, due to to fibrosis and scar formation around the hair follicles, but I'm wondering if this applies to hairs that have stopped growing completely or all hairs that have started to thin. Meaning hairs that have miniaturized/thinned and started to do so for longer than 30 months, but still grow as long as other non-thinning hairs, could they be thickened by say Propecia or would fibrosis and scar formation prevent them from thickening.

http://www.ehrs.org/conference.../130-Konstantinova.htm

 

[Oliver510]

Bump.

 

[pegasus2]

I haven't seen that study before. Thanks for sharing it. I'm not convinced fibrosis is a major issue with long lost hair though. I think it's the lack of progenitor cells. If it is fibrosis then why do feminizing drugs work on slick bald areas after years? The estrogen could increase cell proliferation, but would do nothing for fibrosis as far as I know.

 

[pegasus2]

Also, I wonder what effect starting and stopping treatment would have on this. I had a pretty good bit of regrowth and significant amount of hair about three years ago. Since then I've started and stopped treatment a couple times. I wonder if that bought me some time if this study is correct.

 

[Oliver510]

I haven't seen that study before. Thanks for sharing it. I'm not convinced fibrosis is a major issue with long lost hair though. I think it's the lack of progenitor cells. If it is fibrosis then why do feminizing drugs work on slick bald areas after years? The estrogen could increase cell proliferation, but would do nothing for fibrosis as far as I know.

Yea this study has had me discouraged lately, I don't know what to think.

 

[Oliver510]

Bump.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Am I reading that correctly that only 15 people were used for this study? That's too small of a sample to consider credible in my opinion. Unless there's more to it than that. I stopped after seeing "15". haha

 

[Oliver510]

Am I reading that correctly that only 15 people were used for this study? That's too small of a sample to consider credible in my opinion. Unless there's more to it than that. I stopped after seeing "15". haha

Yea but you should read the rest of it, and I really wish it isn't true but it's something I found across many forums and blogs.

 

[pegasus2]

http://thenode.biologists.com/gone-...number-drive-hair-thinning-and-loss/research/
"This allowed us to halt the ongoing cause of hair loss to ask whether diminished follicles were irreversibly damaged. We found that some follicles remained in the quiescent phase and did not generate a new hair. However, others continued to make new hairs and actually restored themselves, increasing the number of DP cells and generating bigger hairs in ensuing cycles. The difference between these two fates was determined by the number of DP cells that remained when the toxin was switched off. A follicle with a few more cells would generate a new hair and restore itself, while a follicle with a few less DP cells no longer contributed new hairs to the pelage."

 

[Oliver510]

http://thenode.biologists.com/gone-...number-drive-hair-thinning-and-loss/research/
"This allowed us to halt the ongoing cause of hair loss to ask whether diminished follicles were irreversibly damaged. We found that some follicles remained in the quiescent phase and did not generate a new hair. However, others continued to make new hairs and actually restored themselves, increasing the number of DP cells and generating bigger hairs in ensuing cycles. The difference between these two fates was determined by the number of DP cells that remained when the toxin was switched off. A follicle with a few more cells would generate a new hair and restore itself, while a follicle with a few less DP cells no longer contributed new hairs to the pelage."

Interesting. Seems like their wasn't any analysis of fibrosis however. I wish someone could confirm that they were able to regrow hair that starting thinning for longer than 2.5 years. Maybe your own regrowth that you mentioned? I have read studies of finasteride being able to decrease fibrosis, but decrease could mean prevent further fibrosis and not necessarily reverse the existing fibrosis.

 

[pegasus2]

There is a window of opportunity to get regrowth, but it's not the same for everyone, and it's not because of fibrosis. It is because of the lack of progenitor cells. You can take slick bald skin and put it on a mouse, and hair will grow. That wouldn't be possible if fibrosis was the problem that people think it is.

 

[Oliver510]

There is a window of opportunity to get regrowth, but it's not the same for everyone, and it's not because of fibrosis. It is because of the lack of progenitor cells. You can take slick bald skin and put it on a mouse, and hair will grow. That wouldn't be possible if fibrosis was the problem that people think it is.

I see. I've read progenitor cells lie dormant until they're activated to replace cells that die or get damaged. I imagine they're not activated when DHT starts to shrink follicles or else nobody would experience the thinning since progenitor cells are at work. I wonder how and why would their be a lack of progenitor cells in the case male pattern baldness. What activates them to regrow hair after male pattern baldness?

 

[Oliver510]

That's the million dollar question. The androgen cascade shuts them off. How do we turn them back on again? Dermarolling, lithium chloride, stemoxydine are all effective to a degree.

If androgen shuts off progenitor cells, by that I assume you mean prevents them from activating and not destroying them, wouldn't finasteride allow them to activate?

 

[pegasus2]

If androgen shuts off progenitor cells, by that I assume you mean prevents them from activating and not destroying them, wouldn't finasteride allow them to activate?

Simply stopping the DHT isn't enough. After the cells have been exposed to it for so long they just flat out stop proliferating. You have to find a way to signal the cells to start proliferating again.

On another note, I have hair pictures going back to 2012 which is when my hair loss got really bad and I first experimented with minoxidil. 2010 is when I first started losing hair. My hair hit its worst point in March of this year. Right now I'm about where I was in late 2013, early 2014. So that's right at your 30 month window.

If I could get back to where I was in mid 2011 most people won't even notice I'm balding. I need to get back to some point in 2010 before I'll be happy. The last time I know my hair was perfect was March of 2010. Unfortunately for me, that's more than double the window. From mid 2011 to late 2013 is when I lost the most hair. From early 2013 to this year was a slow loss. As such, even though I've gotten back 30 months worth of hair loss, it's not that big of a difference. It's the 30 months prior to that which took me from NW1 to NW3. Since then I went from NW3 to NW4, and then back to NW3. Based on the vellus hairs that I have growing in, it looks like I can get back to where I was in 9/2012, which was NW2. That's the oldest close up I have of my hairline, which is the point where it got so bad I first tried minoxidil. I wish I had stuck with it then instead of quitting after a month or two. I don't think I will be able to improve beyond that without a hair transplant.

 

[Oliver510]

Simply stopping the DHT isn't enough. After the cells have been exposed to it for so long they just flat out stop proliferating. You have to find a way to signal the cells to start proliferating again.

On another note, I have hair pictures going back to 2012 which is when my hair loss got really bad and I first experimented with minoxidil. 2010 is when I first started losing hair. My hair hit its worst point in March of this year. Right now I'm about where I was in late 2013, early 2014. So that's right at your 30 month window.

If I could get back to where I was in mid 2011 most people won't even notice I'm balding. I need to get back to some point in 2010 before I'll be happy. The last time I know my hair was perfect was March of 2010. Unfortunately for me, that's more than double the window. From mid 2011 to late 2013 is when I lost the most hair. From early 2013 to this year was a slow loss. As such, even though I've gotten back 30 months worth of hair loss, it's not that big of a difference. It's the 30 months prior to that which took me from NW1 to NW3. Since then I went from NW3 to NW4, and then back to NW3. Based on the vellus hairs that I have growing in, it looks like I can get back to where I was in 9/2012, which was NW2. That's the oldest close up I have of my hairline, which is the point where it got so bad I first tried minoxidil. I wish I had stuck with it then instead of quitting after a month or two. I don't think I will be able to improve beyond that without a hair transplant.

So how does that explain the hardcore femenizing drugs regrowing hair on slick bald area after years?
http://www.hairloss-research.org/UpdateProofThatHairFolliculesNeverDie8-12.html

 

[pegasus2]

So how does that explain the hardcore femenizing drugs regrowing hair on slick bald area after years?
http://www.hairloss-research.org/UpdateProofThatHairFolliculesNeverDie8-12.html

My theory is that in the complete absence of testosterone, estrogen is able to repair the damage to the cells.

 

[Oliver510]

My theory is that in the complete absence of testosterone, estrogen is able to repair the damage to the cells.

I'm not sure nature would design women with better self repairing mechanisms than men, in fact I think it's the opposite, or at the very least equal. Your hairloss sounds like Norwood hairline recession, where I believe the loss advances towards the back of the head over time but the loss is more aggressive in the sense that the hairline loses hairs completely and changes position.

 

[pegasus2]

Believe what you will, no one really knows for certain. I don't think any serious researchers still buy into the fibrosis theory though.

 

[Oliver510]

Believe what you will, no one really knows for certain. I don't think any serious researchers still buy into the fibrosis theory though.

I hope they're right.