Article: male pattern baldness Triggered by Sebum Flow

[Armando Jose]

"Please explain what you mean by the "dynamic" pattern of hair loss. Are you referring to the fact that hairloss tends to follow a certain pattern on the scalp? Nobody knows the answer to that... "

I said, in my poor english: "In my opinion this theory don’t explain how is possible develop premature alopecia years after the puberty, and even don’t support the dynamic model observed. In premature alopecia or common baldness the bald area is increased when more hairs are affected and androgens are circulating in blood and affect to all “susceptibleâ€￾ hairs. Then, why one hair suffer hair loss before than other? "

Do you know I want to say? Bald areas are increased with time, but not all at the same time, why? silente genes? or better lazybones genes?.
Also don't explain the possibility of persons developing male pattern baldness in "susceptible individuals" years after the effect of circulating androgens after puberty.
What do you think?

On the other hand the testimony of Durk Pearson & Sandy Shaw is interesting, but in my opinion is better the use of topical meds than internals.


""I'm asking you for about the fourteenth time: how do you explain the fact that people with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) have luxuriant, flourishing scalp hair growth, despite the fact that they have little or no sebum production? "

This a very complex issue, but your reference is not very clear, Have you a photograh of these persons?

Armando

 

[Armando Jose]

Hi Bryan;

This study talk about the importance of Sebaceous Gland with Hair. And the second talks about the Epilation and Sebaceous Gland.

They are in my same line of thought.

Armando


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=1
J Invest Dermatol. 1979 May;72(5):224-31.
Histologic study of the regeneration of axillary hair after removal with subcutaneous tissue shaver.

Inaba M, Anthony J, McKinstry C.

It was observed that after subcutaneous tissue shaving for the radical therapy of hircismus and hyperhidrosis axillary hair often regrew. Histologic study of this phenomenon showed that hair bulb and most of the follicle up to a level near the sebaceous duct opening had been removed. Hair regrows from remnant outer root sheath, but only when sebaceous glands are preserved, that is when the upper portion of the follicular isthmus is intact. One or several solid epithelial pegs grow downward from the cut end of the trichilemma, and inner root sheath and new young hair are formed in its center. In hair peg stage, the lower tip of the hair follicle descends while new hair is growing in its center through the mitotic activity is growing in its center through the mitotic activity of hair germ cells and is prevented from pushing toward the skin surface by interlocking fusion between hair cuticula and sheath cuticula. Eventually, the epithelial cells wrap around a mass of mesenchymal cells and form a new bulb from which the terminal hair grows upward. The new matrix acquires a new complement of functioning melanocytes.

PMID: 458183 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1979 May;5(5):407-11.

Epilation by electrocoagulation: factors that result in regrowth of hair.

McKinstry CT, Inaba M, Anthony JN.

From our experience, the most important requirement for permanent epilation by electrocoagulation is not only to destroy hair bulbs, but also to destroy the isthmal regions of hair follicles and the sebaceous glands.

PMID: 458009 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

 

[Bryan]

Do you know I want to say? Bald areas are increased with time, but not all at the same time, why? silente genes? or better lazybones genes?.
Also don't explain the possibility of persons developing male pattern baldness in "susceptible individuals" years after the effect of circulating androgens after puberty.
What do you think?

That one particular stumptailed macaque study (the one Stephen Foote and I have been talking about) suggests that scalp hair follicles prior to puberty aren't sensitive to androgens. Something apparently happens DURING or AFTER puberty to transform them into follicles that are susceptible to male pattern baldness. But nobody knows yet exactly how that process occurs, or what causes it. But one thing seems certain: it happens over a period of time, and the amount of time varies from follicle to follicle.

"I'm asking you for about the fourteenth time: how do you explain the fact that people with CAIS (complete androgen insensitivity syndrome) have luxuriant, flourishing scalp hair growth, despite the fact that they have little or no sebum production? "

This a very complex issue, but your reference is not very clear, Have you a photograh of these persons?

No, I don't have any photographs; however, if you doubt what I said, you can do a Google search and find more information about those individuals, including their excellent scalp hair growth! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

There is not so much as a SHRED of evidence that sebum plays any role in the growth of hair.

Bryan

If DHT is present in sebum, surely sebum therefore has some kind of role in the growth of hair?
The hair is a complex organism I am just beginning to learn about.

Hair is not an organism.

 

[Bryan]

Hi Bryan;

This study talk about the importance of Sebaceous Gland with Hair. And the second talks about the Epilation and Sebaceous Gland.

"It was observed that after subcutaneous tissue shaving for the radical therapy of hircismus and hyperhidrosis axillary hair often regrew. Histologic study of this phenomenon showed that hair bulb and most of the follicle up to a level near the sebaceous duct opening had been removed. Hair regrows from remnant outer root sheath, but only when sebaceous glands are preserved, that is when the upper portion of the follicular isthmus is intact."

"From our experience, the most important requirement for permanent epilation by electrocoagulation is not only to destroy hair bulbs, but also to destroy the isthmal regions of hair follicles and the sebaceous glands."

Armando, I suggest to you that they were mis-interpreting those results! Keep in mind that at the time those studies were written (1979), they hadn't yet discovered that the so-called "bulge" region (very close to the opening of the sebaceous duct into the hair follicle) is apparently a source of stem cells, which are crucial to the proper cycling and growth of hair follicles. In other words, the removal or destruction of the sebaceous glands was probably also removing or destroying the "bulge" region, and they only ASSUMED that losing the sebaceous glands was what was permanently destroying the follicle! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Armando Jose]

We know that it is a important DHT amount in persons after puberty, but when began to produce DHT inside the pilosebaceous unit in scalp? Only after puberty o before?

Armando

 

[Bryan]

I've never seen any research done on that. However, I would bet that scalp hair follicles produce _some_ DHT even before puberty, just not as much (just like how non-balding follicles and follicles from women produce lower amounts than balding follicles).

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

Just an observation I think youve both noticed in life...........Kids hair seems about the same across the racial spectrum. Little blonde boys hair seems every bit as thick to me as Asian kids hair or Hispanic kids hair. Not only in general thickness, but the hairs themselves seem just as large etc.....
Come to think of it, there seems to be no difference between the little boys and girls hair. A 9 year old boys looks as thick as an 10 year old girl. We know about half these blonde boys will eventually lose some hair but many less hispanic and asian boys.

You guys have any reflections on these observations? And Byran......what is your ideas on baldness in a nutshell.....hows and whys and what countermeasures do you think an individual can take to help themselves slow it down?

 

[Old Baldy]

Bryan wrote:

Armando, I suggest to you that they were mis-interpreting those results! Keep in mind that at the time those studies were written (1979), they hadn't yet discovered that the so-called "bulge" region (very close to the opening of the sebaceous duct into the hair follicle) is apparently a source of stem cells, which are crucial to the proper cycling and growth of hair follicles. In other words, the removal or destruction of the sebaceous glands was probably also removing or destroying the "bulge" region, and they only ASSUMED that losing the sebaceous glands was what was permanently destroying the follicle!

Da** it Bryan, I read a "study" or some such informational type article that said exactly what you're saying above. That older study didn't take into account that the bulging area (i.e., assumed growth source) was probably removed also. (I've got to start saving or posting those "articles" because I just plain forget them in the main.)

Heck, it might have even been a study or article you posted in one of your old posts? Either way, that bulge area was probably removed and that could have played a BIG part in destroying the follicle from what I read (but can't remember where!).

 

[Old Baldy]

There is not so much as a SHRED of evidence that sebum plays any role in the growth of hair.

Bryan

If DHT is present in sebum, surely sebum therefore has some kind of role in the growth of hair?
The hair is a complex organism I am just beginning to learn about.

Hair is not an organism.

But is it fair to say the follicle is an organ?

 

[Armando Jose]

I am with you Bryan and OldBaldy, but interesting the investigators pointed out to stem cells outside of hair bulb, and in the 70's.

But the question is: We know that it is a important DHT amount in persons after puberty, but when began to produce DHT inside the pilosebaceous unit in scalp? Only after puberty o before?
Bryan say:However, I would bet that scalp hair follicles produce _some_ DHT even before puberty, just not as much (just like how non-balding follicles and follicles from women produce lower amounts than balding follicles).

Thank you for your condescending but, how many years before puberty?
I bet in the first year, during the consolidation of hair in childrens.

Armando

 

[Boru]

There is not so much as a SHRED of evidence that sebum plays any role in the growth of hair.

Bryan

If DHT is present in sebum, surely sebum therefore has some kind of role in the growth of hair?
The hair is a complex organism I am just beginning to learn about.

Hair is not an organism.

But is it fair to say the follicle is an organ?

From my fallible early learning. The skin is an organ. Hair follicles are evolved skin cells. They grow independently with their own independently evolved life cycles. To me they seem like quazi-beings in their own right. This is why I call them organisms. Perhaps their intrinsic intelligence is purely instinctive, they respond positively and negatively to various external stimulii, such as topical solutions and medical interventions by their owners. Without free will, their individuality is limited to physical traits. All organs in the body are interdependant, though some have been mistakenly thought to be entirely superflous, like the appendix. The many kinds of digestive flora in the gut are also independent organisms within the body. If you believe in evolution, this will make sense. If we think of the hair as a kind of organism which has evolved from the skin, as feathers evolved in birds, perhaps we will have a different emphasis.
I don't know what the problem is about this view, is it entirely blasphemy?
If hair has evolved, it may evolve further. Therefore, baldness is an evolutionary response which may have "blind alleys". If our need for a particular organ changes according to our evolving behaviour, that organ will change in priority in the pecking order. What are the environmental causes, and can we change these for our benefit? For instance, the world is getting warmer, which logically could imply that we will need less hair to keep us warm. But people in hot countries can still have good hair. What other evolutionary purpose does hair serve in the environment? Hairs stand up when we are startled, there is a muscular/emotional connection. Is the purpose of hair to a larger extent a sexual decorative one? If we display hair to attract a mate, why does evolution allow some men to have an advantage over the rest? Why are some, and supposedly increasingly more men prone to an imbalance of dht, and other as yet unverified causes?
This is my conclusion. There is a connection between male pattern baldness and heart disease. Evolution is trying to weed out heart disease, clumsily perhaps, but evolution itself is evolving. There are now so many competing humans, our environment is collapsing. Observable baldness amongst men is, apparently, increasing. Heart disease and other possibly connected male diseases are increasing in some countries.
By trying to save or regrow our hair we are trying to deny evolution its sting. By making me less attractive to women in general, evolution wants to stop me passing on my genetic potential for heart disease. The fact that there are women who are not worried about a bald head (perhaps this is a baby-protective instinct) shows that not all women are knowingly or unknowingly baldness prejudiced.
The irony is that because I swallow finasteride, I now cannot reproduce without the possibility of risk to the baby. Luckily, my lovely girlfriend does not want any more children. Men should tell their female partners about the possible implications of taking finasteride etc.
This is our work, to research, co-operate and redefine the boundaries.
My regrowing hair is saying something about my evolution. Thank you all.
Boru

 

[michael barry]

Boru,
Just an observation........People who evolved in the far North tend to be more bald. Caucasoids are the baldest race of people on earth. Therefore wouldnt you think that if evolution had anything to do with baldness that it was simply trying to get vitamin-D deficient Northern tribes more sunlight by removing the hair from their heads?

Im basing this on the fact that Asians, Hispanics, Africans, and Arabs all bald less than Caucasoids. Ive noticed Eskimo's, while not baldning much, have quite high hairlines as compared to Central American Asiatics.

 

[Footy]

Boru,
Just an observation........People who evolved in the far North tend to be more bald. Caucasoids are the baldest race of people on earth. Therefore wouldnt you think that if evolution had anything to do with baldness that it was simply trying to get vitamin-D deficient Northern tribes more sunlight by removing the hair from their heads?

Im basing this on the fact that Asians, Hispanics, Africans, and Arabs all bald less than Caucasoids. Ive noticed Eskimo's, while not baldning much, have quite high hairlines as compared to Central American Asiatics.

Just some thoughts on the evolutionary questions, that i think are interesting.

First i find it curious that humans evolved all this scalp hair in the first place? If you think about it, this long hair hanging in front of our eyes and ears, is a `bad' thing in survival terms. Unless of course by the time we had evolved this long hair, we had also evolved the `sense' to realise we had better tie it back or cut it!

I personally think the very complex `plumbing' system that evolved to support the human brain, is the reason we can growth this long scalp hair, (exellent fluid drainage under normal conditions}.

The other suggestion i would make is in respect of the evolved levels of DHT in humans.

In many primate species, the females by breeding with many males, determine the sexual evolution of the males. Males in primate species have `competitive' sexual features like higher levels of ejaculate, and immune components in sperm that attack the other males sperm. This is a good article on our nearest primate relatives the Bonobo's.

http://songweaver.com/info/bonobos.html

The factors that would improve your chances of fertilising the females egg, to pass your particular characteristics on, in the face of others mating with her are these.

A larger penis to get a distance advantage. Good potency, that is maintaining a good erection, and a larger quantity of sperm.

DHT enhances all these factors. Look at the side effects of taking Propecia/dutasteride.

So in such a sexually competitive early human society, high levels of DHT would be an evolutionary advantage, and so be maintained in the male population.

If the population were less dense, (you could keep an eye on and protect your female!!}, higher levels of DHT wouldn't matter so much.

This is why i think the races that demonstrate lower levels of DHT, little body hair and male pattern baldness, come from lower populations spread over a large area. Native Americans for example.

It's all the women's fault!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Peace,

S Foote.

 

[fnarr]

Hi Guys,

I think we all need to be careful about over-interpreting baldness in an evolutionary context. I'm an evolutionary biologist (final year PhD at a leading UK university), so I'm going to try and clarify a few things. I'm not trying to patronise or anything, just inform the discussion a little better.

First we need to establish the principal that unless something hampers or improves your ability to reproduce it will not be selected against or for in a population. A classic example is the inherited nueromuscular disease Huntington's. This is a tragic and always fatal degenerative condition that renders suffers tiotally unable to care for themselves. The worst thing about it however, is that symptoms do not present themselves unitl those with the mutation are in their forties and fifties - crucially AFTER most people have had children, so they often pass the mutation on. So despite the fact that this is a universally fatal condition, it is often not selected against.

Likewise heart disease. Typicaly it doesn't show up until our forties and fifties, after we've reproduced, so it is not being selected against and genetic predispostions will remain in the population.

The chance that increased baldness rates have something to do with global warming are literally zero. Natural selection does not work that quickly. If there is indeed an increased number of bald men around it MUST be environmental factors such as increased consumption of red meat, pollution, whatever. The frequency of 'baldness genes' in the population cannot have changed significantly.

The fact that baldness is present in all human populations suggests that it is also selectively neutral; it's never been selected against to disappear. That is to say that all esle being equal, bald people, or people who go on to become bald are just as likely to pass their genes on to the next generation as people with a full head of hair into their eighties. Baldness and heart disease may indeed be linked somehow, but that doesn't stop them being passed on.

This begs the question: why do different ethnic groups show different baldness rates? If we accept that baldness is effectively selectively neutral, then the fact that Europeans have high baldness rates is not of adaptive significance. So variation is likely down to random genetic drift and what is known as a 'founder effect'. Founder effects happen when a population goes through a 'bottleneck', for example the colonisation of Europe out of Africa, which from studies of mitochondrial and Y chromosome DNA has been shown to have probably been by a small group. Say this group had 10 males, five of whom were bald/balding, even thousands of years later we a feeling the effects of that. Likwise, a group that crossed the Bering straight to Canada may have had no bald men, so baldness in today's eskimo population is very rare.

Further to this, if baldness were an evolutionary response, then it does not make sense that

1. women do not develop it
2. children have full heads of hair

The second point is particularly telling - vitamin D's primary target is bones (deficiency causes rickets), growing children require a large amount, so if being bald is a response to needing more, it would have been selected to develop younger.

A couple of small points now, perhaps pedantic; firstly, to describe a hair follicle as an organism is not really useful or correct, particularly in an evolutionary context. The cells that go make up our hair follicles contain all the same genetic information as each other, and for that matter the same genetic information as the cells in our brain, liver, or any other cell (except our sperm, but that's another story). Secondly, human hair evolved from mammalian fur, not directly from human skin. This explain why it 'stands on end' in respose to stimuli. In furry mammals this response makes the animal look bigger (that's why cats do it when they fight) or conserves body heat by trapping more insulating air.

Also, going back to the original post suggesting that the pattern of male pattern baldness is due to our pillows absorbing the sebum from the back and sides: it's a cute idea, but doesn't really hold water and poses and obvious question. Why do stump-tailed macaques and other primates show the same pattern, yet do not sleep on pillows like we do.

The fact that hairloss goes way back in the primate lineage should give those losing their hair cause for celebration: it meants that baldness never stopped anyone getting laid!

Hope this wasn't too long winded and helps the discussion.

 

[fnarr]

Footy,

I like your ideas - baldness has to be a 'side-effect' of some underlying adaptation. From what I remember if you plot a graph of testicle size against body size humans fall somewhere in the mid range. Highly promiscuous species such as bonobos have to invest in massive balls for their size, whereas largely faithful ones like gorillas have a couple of raisins down there.

So our having slightly promiscuos societies may have required us to have bigger nuts, more DHT, more baldness. Bah!

 

[Bryan]

Bryan wrote:

Armando, I suggest to you that they were mis-interpreting those results! Keep in mind that at the time those studies were written (1979), they hadn't yet discovered that the so-called "bulge" region (very close to the opening of the sebaceous duct into the hair follicle) is apparently a source of stem cells, which are crucial to the proper cycling and growth of hair follicles. In other words, the removal or destruction of the sebaceous glands was probably also removing or destroying the "bulge" region, and they only ASSUMED that losing the sebaceous glands was what was permanently destroying the follicle!

Da** it Bryan, I read a "study" or some such informational type article that said exactly what you're saying above. That older study didn't take into account that the bulging area (i.e., assumed growth source) was probably removed also. (I've got to start saving or posting those "articles" because I just plain forget them in the main.)

Heck, it might have even been a study or article you posted in one of your old posts? Either way, that bulge area was probably removed and that could have played a BIG part in destroying the follicle from what I read (but can't remember where!).

I don't remember previously posting anything about it, but if you DO remember where it came from, I'd like to read it!

BTW, Kligman probably would agree with me that sebum doesn't have any necessary or even beneficial effect on hair follicles. In fact, he apparently sees NO PURPOSE AT ALL for either sebum or sebaceous glands! Read the following passage which I copy/pasted from something I posted a while back on an acne site:

"Sebum Secretion and Sebaceous Lipids", Stewart et al, Dermatologic Clinics -- Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1983 (BTW, the "Kligman" they are referring to is Dr. Albert M. Kligman, MD, PhD, one of the most famous names in the history of dermatology):

"Sebum is an oily substance that is secreted onto the skin surface from glands located in the dermis. Although a number of useful functions have been proposed for sebum, proof that sebum performs any of them is lacking. In furred mammals an essential function of sebum is to supply 7-dehydrocholesterol, which is converted to vitamin D by the action of sunlight and then ingested by the animal as it grooms itself. In man, however, the location of 7-dehydrocholesterol has been shown to be the epidermis rather than sebum. Sebum may act as a waterproofing agent for fur, but humans obviously have little need for this function. Kligman has specifically disproved the notions that sebum improves the barrier function of skin, that sebum helps to regulate the water content of the horny layer by forming emulsions with sweat, or that sebum on the skin surface is fungistatic or antibacterial.(21) Kligman regards the human sebaceous glands as 'living fossils' that lost their usefulness to our species as we lost our fur.(21)

(21) Kligman, A. M.: The uses of sebum? In Montagna, W., Ellis, R. A., and Silver, A. F. (eds.): Advances in the Biology of Skin. Volume 4. Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1963."

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

That was an interesting post fnarr.........learned a little from that.

 

[Armando Jose]

fnarr;
Very interesting your ideas.

Why do stump-tailed macaques and other primates show the same pattern, yet do not sleep on pillows like we do.

I think stump-tailed macaques also rest his head in a background of leaf, as example. Also macaques haven't the same hair scalp as us, it's asyncchronicity is not perfect. Hideo Uno is a good researcher in this theme.

regarding evolutionand hair is useful this reading;
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/node/6584
http://employees.csbsju.edu/lmealey/hot ... efault.htm

Good look with your studies

Armando

 

[Boru]

Boru,
Just an observation........People who evolved in the far North tend to be more bald. Caucasoids are the baldest race of people on earth. Therefore wouldnt you think that if evolution had anything to do with baldness that it was simply trying to get vitamin-D deficient Northern tribes more sunlight by removing the hair from their heads?

Im basing this on the fact that Asians, Hispanics, Africans, and Arabs all bald less than Caucasoids. Ive noticed Eskimo's, while not baldning much, have quite high hairlines as compared to Central American Asiatics.

Hi Michael
I read that vitamin D theory many years ago, and it seems logical, at first glance. However, our relatively recent ancestors spent enough time outdoors to get enough sunlight, even if it was a bit cloudy around the Mancunian swamps. Few lived long enough to go bald and fall prey to advanced cardiovascular disease. Even more recently, julius Caesar was famously bald and tried many lotions and potions, to no great avail. There was pleny of sunlight in BC Rome. Colder climates may have an effect on heart health which also gives rise to microvascular insufficiency, there is certainly more strain on the entire system in extremes of climate.
Apart from the T-DHT balancing act I have been concentrating on improving my peripheral microcapillary circulation. Having perfected my method and device, my hair is growing back. I am now trying to understand the T-DHT issue better, having asked a few silly questions, senior posters have put me right on some important points.
I believe that I kept some life in my minaturised follicles for over twenty years with regular scalp exercises.
I have been trying to get support to develop my idea into a patantable product, but every doctor (expect my own gp, who is astonished but not rich), hair loss research company etc. seems not to believe my claim to have successfully treated such long term follicle minaturisation. Never mind, I just need to go into a tv studio at some future date, when all this new terminal hair is stronger, and the rest of the vellus has changed. This might generate some interest in my unique methods.
Keep your head warm.
Boru