I love how you propose a correlation and then use a hairy celebrity with a good head of hair for his age as your example. Kinda goes against your argument.
You can vote and believe what you want, but there is no correlation. Serum DHT has nothing to do with the tissue DHT that is produced locally at the scalp tissue by the 5AR and that attacks the follicle, biopsy shows that the balding part of the scalp has more 5AR and less aromatase. Why? Nobody knows, and when nobody knows, they all blame it on genetics and come with different theories, but if you take a look at the grand scheme of things, it's clear that genetics plays a role, even if it's not the only one... Take a look at your relatives, it's very rare to go bald if you don't have baldies in the family, there are cases, but very rare, it usually follows the same pattern as your moms dad, his brothers, your dad, his brother, or dads dad or brothers...
That's why there are tons of hairy bald men and tons of non hairy bald men, or very haired men with a bush on their heads also, nothing complicated about this, just the same old people from the internet with their infinite and never ending theories.
And another thing, the body hair only grows from the DHT, because the follicles were there since you were in your mothers womb, that's why some grow beards and some not, that's why some have patches on their back or shoulders, we have aprox 5 million follicles on our bodies, from which 150-200k are on the head, but keep in mind that from these 5 million, a lot are just vellus hair that never get terminal, at least not without some stimulation. DHT helps them to grow, even on the head but as they say, some of them, from the top of the head especially, are sensitive to this DHT, some theorized recently that the other head hairs are not androgen dependent and that's why they don't fall, but it needs more studying before actually proving something...
You can vote and believe what you want, but there is no correlation. Serum DHT has nothing to do with the tissue DHT that is produced locally at the scalp tissue by the 5AR and that attacks the follicle, biopsy shows that the balding part of the scalp has more 5AR and less aromatase. Why? Nobody knows, and when nobody knows, they all blame it on genetics and come with different theories, but if you take a look at the grand scheme of things, it's clear that genetics plays a role, even if it's not the only one... Take a look at your relatives, it's very rare to go bald if you don't have baldies in the family, there are cases, but very rare, it usually follows the same pattern as your moms dad, his brothers, your dad, his brother, or dads dad or brothers...
That's why there are tons of hairy bald men and tons of non hairy bald men, or very haired men with a bush on their heads also, nothing complicated about this, just the same old people from the internet with their infinite and never ending theories.
And another thing, the body hair only grows from the DHT, because the follicles were there since you were in your mothers womb, that's why some grow beards and some not, that's why some have patches on their back or shoulders, we have aprox 5 million follicles on our bodies, from which 150-200k are on the head, but keep in mind that from these 5 million, a lot are just vellus hair that never get terminal, at least not without some stimulation. DHT helps them to grow, even on the head but as they say, some of them, from the top of the head especially, are sensitive to this DHT, some theorized recently that the other head hairs are not androgen dependent and that's why they don't fall, but it needs more studying before actually proving something...
Most of this is true, but I can't say that I've EVER seen a "non-hairy" bald guy whose hair loss wasn't from some other disorder beyond male pattern baldness. It's just not common. There is likely a statistical correlation. You probably mean there is no evidence of causation/relatedness.
It will always be beyond me why people will dislike a objective factual post like this, just because they do not like the reality of the information. I assume that these are the same kind of peope that do not believe in global warming just because it is an agenda point of the left.
Why do you have to inject politics into everything. This has nothing to do with global warming. I could also say how liberals don't believe in science when it comes to racial differences, but it has no place here.
That's why there are tons of hairy bald men and tons of non hairy bald men, or very haired men with a bush on their heads also, nothing complicated about this, just the same old people from the internet with their infinite and never ending theories.
Well I see it all the time here, I'm in the uk.I have hairy arms and legs but none on my chest or back.I was nw3 with diffuse thinning at 24.I rarely see a non-hairy bald man. That's just decades of hair-clocking in the locker room; anecdotally, most high NWs more often than not have hairy backs. As for there being no correlation, why is one of finasteride's side effects body hair reduction?
I rarely see a non-hairy bald man. That's just decades of hair-clocking in the locker room; anecdotally, most high NWs more often than not have hairy backs. As for there being no correlation, why is one of finasteride's side effects body hair reduction?
His anecdotal report matters just as much as yours. Can you cite a paper showing there is no correlation? If not, then his hypothesis is just as valid as yours.
The only way to prove something like this is to take blood tests from everyone, and if the balding men are more hairy and have more SERUM DHT than the non hairy and non balding ones, than it's clear, if not, it means it's not correlated, it's that simple but i'm sure this 10 people poll won't mean nothing...
Did I claim otherwise? Did I say that this poll was going to represent data, and not anecdote? You seem like a really angry guy; it's just the internet - maybe cut back on the black pills?
There is some correlation with the area of scalp hair loss, and the area of beard growth.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00636601
Quote, " In 100 clean-shaven men direct measurement of the area of glabrous skin on the forehead and calvaria was found to be proportional to that of the hairy skin on the lips, cheeks, chin and neck".
I didn't say you did either, it's clear that you run out of arguments and decided to call me angry for whatever reason.
I didn't "run out of arguments," because I wasn't arguing with you; you're the one who wrote a dissertation on the poll, when I clearly stated that it was purely anecdotal ("I'd like to see some anecdote"). So why do I think you're an angry guy? Because every one of your replies has been a multi-paragraph screed. You're quarrelsome, and quarrelsome people tend to be angry, which is why they turn casual conversation into heated debates - they can't help but vent their repressed anger every chance they get.
Last reply I'm writing you - negative people feed off of confrontation, and I'm not falling for your thread-jacking anger. Carry on with your one-sided debated.