Bryan, or anyone, testosterone questions...

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
26
Could someone tell me the typical scalp and serum testosterone levels and DHT levels before and after various med doses? Any info would help. I'm trying to figure out how much of the testostosterone spike from Avodart is from the brain telling the testes to make more, and how much is from 5ar in the scalp not turing the testosterone into DHT.

This is important because it will tell us if we are mainly keeping testosterone from turning into DHT, or dumping 10 testosterones into the scalp for every DHT kept out.

Serum levels are helpful because they are a good measure of what the testes are cranking out. Is it possible for extra testosterone to get to the scalp without also rasing body levels as high? I read that avodart raises scalp testosterone levels 104%, and the 2.5mg/day 154%, and the proscar about 20%, though I could be wrong on the 20%. How accurate are those figures likely.

Bryan says increase teste's activity is the primary cause, but how is it possible for the scalp levels to climb so much when the serum levels do not?

Docj077 found that in some men, or some androgen receptors, testosterone may have the same affinity for the AR as DHT does, and would do the same thing DHT does. This could explain why men tend to reciend in the hair line before balding in the vertex, and why propecia tends to be more effective in back than in front. Maybe the front tends to not care as much what androgen lands on it, where as the back is only hurt by DHT. Maybe raising scalp levels are not such a good idea. If the brain telling the testes to make more testosterone is the main cause, then maybe a more moderate avodart dose that raises testosterone only 20% would be better, and a topical avodart or GTE would be good for locally preventing testosterone converstion one to one. Bryan's latest topical study showed topical finasteride regrowing hair in front. Perhaps this is because serum testosterone levels are not raised. This would also support that study I thought I saw. In a study Bryan posted recently, a chemical blocked DHT better than it did testosterone, which Bryan said was an unexpected result. I wonder if it was an experimental fluke, or a genetic difference. I'm not too worried about testosterone because I put Eucapil on my front.

I realize this is speculation, but if someone would find those androgen blood concentration levels so we can find out if there is more of a one to one exchange or a systemic rise from the testes or a sharp rise just in the scalp, that could really shed some light. I'd also like some guesses at how accurate the info is.
 

docj077

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
Not the same affinity for the receptor, but the same downstream effects, CCS.

Just correcting you there.
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
26
thanks. so not the same AR affinity, but maybe the same effect on hair loss, in some men.

Im just looking over all these coincidences.

As men age, they make less testosterone, and more DHT, right? So interesting that men who start balding at an older age respond to finasteride better, and younger men tend to "have more aggressive hair loss". I think men who bald younger may be susceptible to both testosterone and DHT. It will vary from man to man, and I'm sure DHT is worse since finasteride does help, but am i wrong that men who bald younger tend to respond more poorly to propecia?

also interesing that some studies say DHT is 30x as potent as testosterone, while others say it is 4x, or so i heard. Though if younger men who are balding actually have more androgen receptors or more 5ar, that would lend evidence against my idea here.

I just think that avodart might not be enough for us young guys to stop our hair loss. I think we need a plan that addresses scalp testosterone as well as follicle DHT. Androgen receptor blockers are our friends, as are chemicals that interfer with the downstream effects after androgens bond with the androgen receptor.

And as for that study i think I saw, i'll say again that the higher dutasteride doses all outpeformed placebo in front. They just were not as strong as the proscar. I think in some people at least, the scalp testosterone plays a role, and the genetics in the front may be different than the back, which again explains why propecia may be stronger in back. maybe hair loss that starts really early is mostly caused by testosterone? I'd need to see some age specific scalp DHT studies to know the answer to that one. These are just some ideas i hope others will think about and comment on.
 

docj077

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
I've actually read that the worse your hair loss initially, the better your treatment outcome will be on finasteride. or dutasteride. I got that from the same article that talked about the triplet repeats in the androgen receptor on the X chromosome.


My guess is that the worse it is initially, the more likely the culprit is strictly DHTs high affinity for the androgen receptor in those people with a corresponding high affinty for binding DNA later. So, propecia should work better as testosterone won't have the same affinity and the downstream effects will be less, which means those who bald early and have to go through hell should respond better later on when they finally get on propecia and find the right drug to stimulate the hair follicle again.
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
26
sounds good, for me anyway.

I also started thinking about how some body builders lose hair on steroids. I don't know if that is because the steroids contain DHT or testosterone, or if it is because other androgens can also cause hair loss.

I heard that while the average guy regrows 80 hairs per circular inch, 17% continue to loose, most just maintain, and a minority get a lot of regrowth. I think the guys in who don't respond well are the ones who pull the numbers down after two years. minoxidil is similar. Only a small percentage are responders, at least with the 2%. i think 59% respond to the 5%. So when average hair count improvements are very high, they are concentrated in those 59%.

But men who were castrated did not regrow hair. So maybe testosterone is not that big of an issue. Or mabye androgen damage is somewhat irreversible, at least with androgen meds?
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
collegechemistrystudent said:
I read that avodart raises scalp testosterone levels 104%, and the 2.5mg/day 154%, and the proscar about 20%, though I could be wrong on the 20%. How accurate are those figures likely.

Not very, in my opinion. I take numbers like that with a grain or two of salt. Studies have disagreed considerably over scalp levels of those androgens, so why even talk about them as if they really mean anything?

collegechemistrystudent said:
Bryan says increase teste's activity is the primary cause, but how is it possible for the scalp levels to climb so much when the serum levels do not?

IF they really do.

BTW, I have an interesting review article written by Rittmaster on the use of finasteride for BPH. He states in there that even though DHT in the prostate itself is sharply reduced (I believe the number he used was 90%), the significant INCREASE in prostate testosterone "blunts" (that's the exact word he used) the effect of the sharp DHT decrease. So if testosterone can have a similar (but weaker) effect as DHT on prostate cells, I certainly don't think it's out of the question that the same thing could be true in the scalp.

collegechemistrystudent said:
Docj077 found that in some men, or some androgen receptors, testosterone may have the same affinity for the AR as DHT does, and would do the same thing DHT does. This could explain why men tend to reciend in the hair line before balding in the vertex, and why propecia tends to be more effective in back than in front.

Dr. Proctor has been saying for years on alt.baldspot that there is an additional hairgrowth inhibitor of some sort in human skin in the frontal region that discourages the growth of the frontal scalp. He said it appears to have a negative effect in a gradient centered around the eyes, and that nobody knows yet what exactly it consists of. He says that evidently, men have the double-whammy of having their frontal scalps attacked by BOTH their androgens, AND this as-yet unknown inhibitor. I find it odd that nobody has mentioned this, even though it's been discussed several times on alt.baldspot by Dr. Proctor.

Bryan
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
26
then I'm glad that I put my grafts in the front and not elsewhere, though I still want to regrow hair up there. I just can't imagine having enough grafts to cover any real surface area. Guys who do the whole top have to do half density. that can look good with long hairs when there is no hairline, but moderately close inspection of a half density hair line reveals low density. Well that was off topic.

wow. an unknown agent. I wonder what the odds are that a mult-approach regimen will treat it. probably still have to be a lucky guess.
 
G

Guest

Guest
When we are talking about the front are we talking about strictly the hairline and temples or does that include the area directly behind the hairline as well?
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
collegechemistrystudent said:
And as for that study i think I saw, i'll say again that the higher dutasteride doses all outpeformed placebo in front. They just were not as strong as the proscar.

CCS, I want you to take what I'm about to say in the proper spirit: THERE IS NO SUCH STUDY as what you describe above. I'm sure you've gotten a good idea how much time I spend on these hairloss sites. If there were EVER such a study with a claim like what you described, it would be all over these sites, and it would be the talk of the hairloss community. But no other person has EVER mentioned seeing such a claim.

The only trial which has ever tested dutasteride for hairloss is the famous one by Glaxo, and they didn't say a word about Proscar working better than dutasteride in the front. With all due respect, I think you're simply mis-remembering something that somebody posted that was sheer speculation about finasteride and dutasteride.

Bryan
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
26
Bryan said:
collegechemistrystudent said:
And as for that study i think I saw, i'll say again that the higher dutasteride doses all outpeformed placebo in front. They just were not as strong as the proscar.

...
With all due respect, I think you're simply mis-remembering something that somebody posted that was sheer speculation about finasteride and dutasteride.

Bryan

If I made a mistake, it was in misreading the charts in the pdf. I guess it is possible. Maybe I saw the full size Glaxo report and just miss read it. I did not read about this on a site. The only thing I found on the site was a link and directions with what to do once I got to the link to get to the next link where the study was.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Do we have topicals that can turn testosterone into estrogen? Besides maybe spironolactone? Of course RU takes care of that stuff, expensively. Nice thing about EQOUL is it actually takes androgens out of the fight instead of converting them to other androgens.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
CCS, if you'd like, I'd be happy to send you a paper copy of all the material I have on the Glaxo trial. It's a 10-page report (well, actually, it's sort of TWO different 5-page reports that use slightly different language) that includes the familiar charts with the haircounts that most people have seen on the Internet, and some written pages describing the trial that most people probably haven't seen. Private Message me your snail-mail address, and I'll be happy to send a copy to you.

Bryan
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
26
OK. I will. One question though. Does it talk about or even mention the different Norwood levels of the men in the trials? The one I saw did, and had some tables with hair counts.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
Yes. On the second page under "Clinical Information", they say the following:

"Patients were included in this study if they had MPHL defined as type IIIv, IV, or V by the modified Norwood-Hamilton classification and had active hair loss or progression in the size of the balding area within the past 2 years."

Bryan
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
Here's one of those posts in which Dr. Proctor mentions that mysterious frontal hairgrowth inhibitor:


From: Peter H. Proctor
Date: Tues, Mar 10 1998 12:00 am
Email: pproc...@neosoft.com (Peter H. Proctor)
>> The skin of your forehead produces hair-growth-inhibitory factors
>> in a gradient centered about your eyes. BTW, this is why you get
>> bitemporal recession, aka "widows peak". It is difficult to overcome
>> both the balding process and this. So, the further back you go, the
>> better things work.
>
> Is a widows peak unrelated to male pattern baldness?

We do not really know. Most likely, it is a manifestation of the eye-centered production of hair-growth-inhibitory factors. BTW, one way we know about the "eye fields" is that occasionally newborns will exhibit almost circular patterns of hair-growth-inhibition centered around their eyes. There are pictures in many embryology texts. It shows particularly well on new-borns because of their flat faces.

Dr. P
 

CCS

Senior Member
Reaction score
26
I don't think it is possible for the scalp to get more testosterone from the testes without the body getting the same percent increase, and I think some of the testosterone spike from Avodart in the serum is from less testosterone being converted to DHT in the prostate and skin. So the testes might be upregulated, but the precentage is less than the serum spike. Since proscar has almost no spike on the serum (maybe 5-10%?), that means most is comming from the skin or the upregulation. I think if there is a lot of upregulation, I could go to the gym and build as much muscle as a guy on steroids. I think since most 5ar in the scalp is type 1, inhibiting type 1 is what causes the testosterone spike in the scalp. So even if testosterone is just as bad as DHT for some men, Avodart would just be a push, not worse than proscar. But we know it is better than proscar in back.

And as for the growth inhibition factor in the front, it does not seem to be thinning some guy's hair. So not everyone has it. And that baby hair observation seems like flimsy evidence for it's existance, unless those babies are NW4a or higher.

When I'm don't with my GTE vs RU experiment, I'm going to dissolve spironolactone in my ethanol and make my mixture have 1% spironolactone. That is 1/3 bottle of spironolactone per month, so 9 months for $30. With my DMSO and other stuff, it should be strong. That is $3.33 per month. If octyl salicylate drags 10x as much finasteride into the skin, it should take spironolactone in too, since spironolactone is also steroidal. I'm tempted to just sell my RU to a 5th person, and let them be the guinea pigs while I use the cheap stuff.
 

docj077

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
Bryan said:
Here's one of those posts in which Dr. Proctor mentions that mysterious frontal hairgrowth inhibitor:


From: Peter H. Proctor
Date: Tues, Mar 10 1998 12:00 am
Email: pproc...@neosoft.com (Peter H. Proctor)
>> The skin of your forehead produces hair-growth-inhibitory factors
>> in a gradient centered about your eyes. BTW, this is why you get
>> bitemporal recession, aka "widows peak". It is difficult to overcome
>> both the balding process and this. So, the further back you go, the
>> better things work.
>
> Is a widows peak unrelated to male pattern baldness?

We do not really know. Most likely, it is a manifestation of the eye-centered production of hair-growth-inhibitory factors. BTW, one way we know about the "eye fields" is that occasionally newborns will exhibit almost circular patterns of hair-growth-inhibition centered around their eyes. There are pictures in many embryology texts. It shows particularly well on new-borns because of their flat faces.

Dr. P

I saw that, Bryan. It seems kind of weird to me though. If what he's saying is true, then why do humans have eyebrows that are maintained throughout life. The only way this process would work like he says is if the androgen dependent hairloss and the inhibitor are working synergistically together at the temples. You loose one (like with propecia use) and it shouldn't matter if the inhibitor is still there.

Maybe that doesn't make sense. I don't know.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
collegechemistrystudent said:
I don't think it is possible for the scalp to get more testosterone from the testes without the body getting the same percent increase, and I think some of the testosterone spike from Avodart in the serum is from less testosterone being converted to DHT in the prostate and skin. So the testes might be upregulated, but the precentage is less than the serum spike.

First of all, I think it's misleading to call it a "spike" of testosterone that you get with finasteride and dutasteride. That implies a SUDDEN increase, that lasts only a certain amount of time. But it's not just a TEMPORARY increase, it's a STEADY increase (I went around and around on this with docj077 in another thread! :) ).

Furthermore, the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) seems to disagree with you. Here's what they say in the Proscar section under "Clinical Pharmacology":

"Increases of about 10% were observed in luteinizing hormone (LH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and testosterone levels in patients receiving PROSCAR, but levels remained within the normal range."

That seems to me to be a clear indication that the increase in testosterone with finasteride usage (and presumably dutasteride usage) is an actual upregulation, since the percentage increase in testosterone is apparently the same as the percentage increases in LH and FSH.

collegechemistrystudent said:
And as for the growth inhibition factor in the front, it does not seem to be thinning some guy's hair. So not everyone has it. And that baby hair observation seems like flimsy evidence for it's existance, unless those babies are NW4a or higher.

Nobody's saying that it's a powerful, IRRESISTABLE force for hairgrowth inhibition, just that it's a relatively mild one that's always there in the background. Some guys with good genetics can resist it, others can't.

Bryan
 

nomen

New Member
Reaction score
0
Hi my first post... :) I will get right on topic!

I must first of all say my english is not fluent especially not when talking in medic terms. Anyway I have seen u mentioned diffrent and unknown growth factors for the hair as possible cause for loss. Dont know if Iam offtopic here but perhaps this has something to do with it(might be the "unknown gh factors?): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_docsum
 

JWM

Senior Member
Reaction score
3
Geez Bryan, I thought I've read every post on alt.baldspot there was and that was the absolute FIRST time I saw Proctor mention that about frontal loss. Interesting.

Also, are you know telling me that you are beginning to believe in the scalp testosterone caused by finasteride/dutasteride use accounting for frontal thinning theory?

If this actually IS the case then I wondered why those with frontal loss even bothered with treatments like finasteride or dutasteride at all.
 
Top