Bryan, what do u think of this crazy theory??

[Bryan]

NO, thats exactly what I said, all androgen effect different hair follicles differently. I disagreed because you suggested that if spriro cream effected body hair (secondary sex) it could help with scalp hair

yes, i said it could, but you should not make a blanketing statement like that, sure it could reduce body hair, and do nothing with scalp hair, that was my point

i objected to this.. different possible androgens, different hair receptors, etc etc..

"Different possible androgens"...."different hair receptors".... HUH?? Is that a joke? Do you think that the effects of androgens on hair follicles (be they body or scalp) really differ in a QUALITATIVE way (as opposed to QUANTITATIVE), depending on what specific androgens they are? Are you serious?

Bryan

 

[bubka]

yeah i am serious, a hair in my armpit, will likely have different receptors than a hair on my scalp...

i mean, thats partially the reason why it's called male pattern baldness, there is a distinct pattern because of the receptors Bryan

 

[Bryan]

yeah i am serious, a hair in my armpit, will likely have different receptors than a hair on my scalp...

i mean, thats partially the reason why it's called male pattern baldness, there is a distinct pattern because of the receptors Bryan

The "pattern" has nothing to do with androgen receptors (BTW, all scalp hair follicles have androgen receptors, whether they're balding or not). It has to do with different SENSITIVITIES and RESPONSES to androgens in different hair follicles. I assumed you knew more about the basic physiology of balding than you apparently actually do. My bad.

Bryan

 

[htownballa]

yeah i am serious, a hair in my armpit, will likely have different receptors than a hair on my scalp...

i mean, thats partially the reason why it's called male pattern baldness, there is a distinct pattern because of the receptors Bryan

The "pattern" has nothing to do with androgen receptors (BTW, all scalp hair follicles have androgen receptors, whether they're balding or not). It has to do with different SENSITIVITIES and RESPONSES to androgens in different hair follicles. I assumed you knew more about the basic physiology of balding than you apparently actually do. My bad.

Bryan

The key question here Bryan, is what makes one follicle sensitive to DHT and not another?

 

[Bryan]

Nobody knows the answer to that question yet.

 

[bubka]

yeah i am serious, a hair in my armpit, will likely have different receptors than a hair on my scalp...

i mean, thats partially the reason why it's called male pattern baldness, there is a distinct pattern because of the receptors Bryan

The "pattern" has nothing to do with androgen receptors (BTW, all scalp hair follicles have androgen receptors, whether they're balding or not). It has to do with different SENSITIVITIES and RESPONSES to androgens in different hair follicles. I assumed you knew more about the basic physiology of balding than you apparently actually do. My bad.

Bryan

LOL, what the hell do you think i have been talking about then, different "responses" with different "different hair follicles" Bryan, you are really just trying to make some hypothetical point that is just made by spin of varying words in this discussion. Then to question "basic physiology of balding" that's getting really desperate there dude.

I said from the beginning that different hair types have different reactions to the same androgens. Which is why i did not agree with you when you said you should test out spironolactone on other body hair to see if it works for hair on the skalp... keep on trying :thumbs_up:

 

[Old Baldy]

No, Bryan's saying if spironolactone. inhibits the growth of body hair then it proves, indirectly, that spironolactone. has the potential to grow scalp hair.

The action of the drug doesn't change.

We know that body hair follicles respond differently to androgens than scalp hair follicles.

 

[Bryan]

LOL, what the hell do you think i have been talking about then, different "responses" with different "different hair follicles" Bryan, you are really just trying to make some hypothetical point that is just made by spin of varying words in this discussion. Then to question "basic physiology of balding" that's getting really desperate there dude.

Out of all the people I've attempted to converse with in recent years on these hairloss sites (including even Stephen Foote), YOU are the one who has been the most difficult for me to understand! I've tried until I'm blue in the face to drag out of you exactly what it is you're trying to say, and maybe I STILL don't understand your position!

I said from the beginning that different hair types have different reactions to the same androgens. Which is why i did not agree with you when you said you should test out spironolactone on other body hair to see if it works for hair on the skalp... keep on trying :thumbs_up:

I'm going to make a further attempt to explain to you some basic physiology of balding: it's generally accepted that human scalp hair and body hair have OPPOSITE reactions to androgens. Scalp hair is SUPPRESSED by them, while most (but not all) body hair is STIMULATED by them.

Spironolactone is known to have antiandrogenic properties. So the question that is of obvious and paramount importance for all of us here then becomes, does topical spironolactone enhance the growth of scalp hair? As Old Baldy pointed out above, the fact that topical spironolactone WAS shown by Rittmaster to suppress the growth of body hair is indirect evidence that topical spironolactone was able to penetrate into hair follicles and affect them in the expected way. So we have a variety of evidence supporting the use of spironolactone: the Italian study (and others) showing that spironolactone ENHANCES scalp hair, and the Rittmaster study (and others) show that spironolactone SUPPRESSES body hair. The key point is the CONSISTENCY of the evidence.

Capiche?

Bryan