Alternative Reasons For Why Transplanted Hairs Last So Long

[Jesse Wilson]

Points

1. We know that increased blood flow can help counteract balding.

2. We know when blood flow is artificially increased and then the treatment is stopped that balding resumes to where it would have been.

3. This tells us that despite blood flow, there is a build up of something that impairs hair growth.

4. We know the effects of 5-a reductase are necessary for hair loss.

5. We know that catch up hair loss can occur if you stop inhibiting 5-a reductase.

6. This tells us that the build up which is the root cause of hair loss is not CAUSED by DHT, but when combined with DHT results in hair loss.

7. We know that transplanted hairs from the back to the front of the head last much much longer than native hairs.

8. Point 7 tells us that this build up is not in the scalp, but in the hair follicle.

9. Point 2 and 7 tell us that there is a difference in the horseshoe area that never goes bald which prevents this build up.

The Difference in the Horseshoe Pattern

Because transplanted hairs work just as well in the front as back, we have to rule out any mechanical issues. This leaves us with patterned genetic sensitivity which only coincidentally lines up with blood supply and cushion.

It seems unlikely that there is an evolutionary advantage for this pattern so I'm very reluctant to say it's just a genetic pattern and the only problem is the hair follicle's response. Is there another reason why transplanted hairs last so long?

 

[Jesse Wilson]

Point 6 is pretty interesting the more I think about it. This means that the pattern is pre-existing in the hair follicle or it means that the start of the build up in the follicle is triggered by the scalp at a point in time (unrelated to 5a-Reductase and puberty because of point 6) and that trigger permanently changes the follicles, but the trigger only happens once so as not to effect transplanted hairs.

Is there a way to determine which it is? If it's another trigger that changes the follicles, then maybe we can prevent young children from experiencing baldness by blocking the trigger. If it is pre-existing in the follicle, then how can we know? I read something by Stephen Foote that we know it's not pre-existing. Does anyone know about that?

 

[Jesse Wilson]

Point 6 could be wrong if point 5 is just caused by the burst of new DHT rather than a predisposed build up of something. If this is the case, then DHT can still be the cause of the build up and also be the trigger which changes the scalp which in turn changes the follicles. If there is no difference in the follicle before the DHT is introduced, then DHT can't change the follicles directly (that would mean there would have to be a pre-disposition in the follicle). Instead DHT would have to change the scalp which in turn effects all the hairs above it, changin them to balding folicles. This would have to be a one time, immediate trigger from the scalp to the follicles as soon as DHT is introduced to the scalp. This would mean that the root cause of baldness is something in the balding scalp area which changes the hair follicles in it when it is exposed to DHT.

DHT in this context could be any result of 5a-Reductase as far as I know.

 

[Jesse Wilson]

So in conclusion of point 6

Either the scalp or the follicle is predisposed to DHT sensitivity. If it's the scalp, then it has to change the follicles to be sensitive to some sort of build up from DHT. This has to be a one-time event because of point 7 which is the fact hair transplants work. The scalp can't keep changing hair follicles.