Do you think this is true?

[tanaka]

"Hair loss due to pollution can coexist with or mimic androgenic alopecia."

http://www.omicsgroup.org/journals/...to-management-2167-0951-1000133.php?aid=47705


I dont know how reliable this source is. This Indian trichologist seems to be pretty much the only one claiming this, as far as I know.
I wondered about the reason for my hairloss recently (thats the thread if you are interested)

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interac...ir-pollution-accelerate-male pattern baldness

but everybody here says it cant be blamed on pollution because Androgenetic Alopecia is 100% genetic.
Who is wrong who is right?

 

[SayifDoit]

We are right.
Genetics.
Don't delude yourself.

 

[Agustin Araujo]

tanaka, genetic hair loss caused by pollution has never been proven. Androgenic Alopecia is 100% genetic, otherwise if it isn't then every single human being would be suffering from hair loss to a certain extent due to pollution.

 

[tanaka]

Ok, but what about this?

http://www.beIgraviacentre.com/blog/the-hair-up-there-pollution-linked-to-baldness015/

Do you think they just claim this to advertise their services?

Research conducted by scientists at the University of London, England, has linked male pattern hair loss to increased levels of environmental pollution and the damaging effect of smoking. Genetic factors play the largest role in male pattern hair loss, but men who live in heavily polluted areas may experience hair loss sooner or more dramatically than those in less polluted areas. - See more at: http://www.beIgraviacentre.com/blog...n-linked-to-baldness015/#sthash.1Pl7tLQZ.dpuf

 

[tanaka]

No need to get cynical. If you see this as an insult, it is your twisted understanding of things. I didnt do this study, someone else did. And by the way, there is no point in showing drug addicts here, who knows if these people had Androgenetic Alopecia at all? Sorry guys, you are just bitter.

 

[violetfluff]

That's why the vast majority of these drug addicts have full heads of hair

I don't see the "why" in your 'argument'. Since when has methamphetamine (picture from faces of Meth.) been recognized to have hair maintaining or regenerating properties? If it did it would be a candidate for research into a new class of anti-hairloss drugs I expect.
The picture shows mostly people who have used the drug for relatively short period of time where you wouldn't expect to significant change and they have their hair differently, ~38% of them are female and probably pre-menopausal. You can't make an assessment from that picture.

 

[kirk]

Tanaka, sorry that the people are rude here. They like to make themselves feel better by putting others down, especially people like you who don't really know too much about this. They go off on "naturalists" despite, in most cases, they at one point believed in it too until they were further educated.

When you go out lookin for knowledge, you might just get some if your lucky. Too bad if it hurts when it smacks you in the head.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't see the "why" in your 'argument'. Since when has methamphetamine (picture from faces of Meth.) been recognized to have hair maintaining or regenerating properties? If it did it would be a candidate for research into a new class of anti-hairloss drugs I expect.
The picture shows mostly people who have used the drug for relatively short period of time where you wouldn't expect to significant change and they have their hair differently, ~38% of them are female and probably pre-menopausal. You can't make an assessment from that picture.

I get what he's trying to say, and so do 99% of everyone else. Why don't you?

 

[violetfluff]

I get what he's trying to say, and so do 99% of everyone else. Why don't you?

What is he trying to say? Please explain, for it eludes me. What is the "why" here or how for that matter? I'm a bit thick like that.

Is he saying drug addicts keep their hair? By what mechanism?
Is he just frustrated because he sees people who have abused their bodies and still have hair and so perceives this as part of some trend? He'll need provide a better example than faces of meth to support his 'hypothesis'. Most likely explanation is confirmation bias on his part.
Did he not mean to say what he said and just misspoke, reflecting his insecurities?

 

[violetfluff]

Why didn't you say that then?

I wouldn't have bothered saying anything if you had made a clear argument.

 

[Agustin Araujo]

violetfluff,

Genetic hair loss is all, well, completely genetic. That's why there's "genetic" in Androgenetic Alopecia, hair loss caused by genetics with the hair follicles being sensitive to androgens, primarily Dihydrotestosterone. That's why there's also "androgen" in Androgenic Alopecia, still the exact same thing as Androgenetic Alopecia, it's just another medical term for the condition since it's an androgen dependent skin disorder the hair follicles suffer from. The word "alopecia" is basically the scientific term for hair loss.

The pictures of the drug addicts FredTheBelgian posted is an example that as harsh substance abuse is on the body, it does not cause any genetic baldness of any sort. Some of the men in the pictures are balding, some are not, despite having the exact same drug addictions. It's all genetic as previously stated, simple as that. I hope my post helped answered what you were looking for.

 

[violetfluff]

Yes I understand that fully. This is just a result of a communication error. I misunderstood what Fred meant from his use of the word "why", that's all. I suppose Tanaka misunderstood this too.

 

[C_Orion]

I doubt that is true

 

[Swoop]

No it isn't.

 

[abcdefg]

I agree air pollution can coexist with male pattern baldness but there is no cause/effect relationship yet established. If someone proves their is I would change my mind.

 

[tanaka]

"So what, if they had Androgenetic Alopecia, do you actually believe that if they traveled abroad to live on an island with no pollution, they would have remained NW1 for life?" (thats a quote)



FredTheBelgian you did not get the point. I was talking about the possibility of pollution being an aggravating factor for people who ALREADY HAVE genetic hairloss. On an island without pollution they still would get bald but not as fast. Hair that is already weakened under the influence of DHT could suffer more from the oxidative stress the polluted air is causing. Hence the accelerated rate of loss.
People who do not have Androgenetic Alopecia would keep their hair because the pollution on its own would not be a factor severe enough to affect growth cycles visibly.

Example:
A guy has Androgenetic Alopecia. He takes finasteride and minoxidil and manages to stop his hairloss. Everything is fine. Then he moves to a big city with badly polluted air. The additional stress through exposure to toxins, chemicals and carcinogens causes the hair in the vulnerable (temple) areas to fall out again. Thats the theory.

 

[abcdefg]

The evidence for androgens is just overwhelming at this point and we learning many other critical factors involved down/upstream from that. I guess I dont get why someone would just randomly say it might be air pollution.

 

[NinthWave]

A healthy environment, is well, a healthy environment.
The way I see it, and unhealthy environment does harm all round to a human body and I wouldn't see why not.