Does DHT really "CAUSE" male pattern baldness

[sc64]

Ok mister riddler here : 's one for you.

How far can you walk into the woods?

I would say half way the other half you would be walking out.

Good job, but did you google it?

No honesly I did'nt think about that,Was home for lunch reading the thread and took a stab at it.

 

[Bryan]

I'm sorry for asking and I know you are hating this topic right now but I respect your opinion so I have to ask.

I'm not "finfighter", but I'll give him a bit of a break by answering for him. He's worn-out from trying to talk with "freakout"!

If androgens (like DHT) cause body and facial hair to grow thick and dark and long then how can DHT "cause" hair shrinkage or male pattern baldness.

Androgens have opposite effects on scalp hair and body hair, because follicles can have opposite responses to androgens, depending on their location. Androgens cause scalp hair follicles to emit various harmful chemicals from the dermal papilla which suppress their growth; androgens cause body hair follicles to emit various beneficial chemicals from the dermal papilla which actually stimulate their growth.

Wouldn't the "cause" be not only the sensitivity of the receptors but the paradoxical reaction?

Yes. I think the real "cause" is the follicles' specific response to androgens, even though the intensity of the androgenic stimulation is also an obvious co-factor.

Let's say a hair on my back has really sensitive receptors (high reaction to the presence of androgens), would it shrink or grow?

Grow.

Now let's say a geneticly male pattern baldness hair is exposed to androgens. Opposit effect, right?

Right.

It is not the DHT or androgen or even the number of androgen receptors. It is that "thing" that causes scalp hair follicles to react differently in the presence of androgens. My question is...am I right?

Exactly right! (Although, of course, the level of androgens and androgen receptors and numerous steroidogenic enzymes may certainly affect the degree to which you experience your balding...)

 

[freakout]

It is that "mystery" that causes scalp hair follicles to react differently in the presence of androgens. My question is...am I right?

Yes, you are absolutely right. And here is the proof.

"Transplants from balding man and woman with androgenetic alopecia scalp regrow hair comparably well on male and female immunodeficient mice"

:bravo:

idontwanttobebalding, I think someone is reading from a script.

 

[armandein]

The question i was: "If androgens (like DHT) cause body and facial hair to grow thick and dark and long then how can DHT "cause" hair shrinkage or male pattern baldness."


But, Exist diferents scalp hairs regarding androgen issues?
sides and the top of the head.

You talk about body and scalp hairs, meaning the equality of all scalp hairs, when male pattern baldness, FPB or common hairloss show differences.

If genetics is the cause, :jackit: ,please what gen we must study? and which is the benefit to human's evolution?

 

[freakout]

The question i was: "If androgens (like DHT) cause body and facial hair to grow thick and dark and long then how can DHT "cause" hair shrinkage or male pattern baldness."

But, Exist diferents scalp hairs regarding androgen issues?
sides and the top of the head.

You talk about body and scalp hairs, meaning the equality of all scalp hairs, when male pattern baldness, FPB or common hairloss show differences.

If genetics is the cause, :jackit: ,please what gen we must study? and which is the benefit to human's evolution?

Are you Armando Jose? There are pundits here who will insist on anything and go in circles. The truth is they don't know how genetics plays a role. Remember, the transplanted follicles CARRY the genetic code when it was transplanted to the mice.

Careful, someone is reading a script he doesn't really understand.

 

[freakout]

Yahoo!! He speaks. And how would you know that you didnt even see the mice. Give me a break.

I don't claim to be smart but I know when someone is a pundit.

 

[Bryan]

Even if you ignore the oubvious fact that a mouse's genetic profile cannot be changed to accomodate a human genetic trait, you still have to consider the following-

The Testosterone (and consequently Dihydrotestosterone) levels found even in male mice, would pale in comparison to those found in humans, so this study has no bearing whatsoever at demonstrating that androgens are not the underlying cause of male pattern baldness.

Somebody recently stated in one of these threads (it may have been Stephen Foote) that he found out recently that male mice _do_ have levels of androgens that are similar to what occurs in humans. I'm still not sure if I believe that, but that's what he said he was told by some biologist-type.

Finally, and most importantly- it is your genetic profile which predetermines the effect Androgens will have on your hair follicles, these mice had a different genetic profile than the humans who's hair was used in the study. Andorgenetic alopecia, is not exhibited in mice, oubviously they would not exhibit androgenetic alopecia(a human condition) if they were implanted with hair follicles from a human that had androgenetic alopecia.

WHOA there, finfighter!! It's clearly the genetic profile (or structure) of a given hair follicle ITSELF, not someone's overall genetic profile which determines a hair follicle's response to androgens; after all, different hair follicles WITHIN THE SAME INDIVIDUAL have different responses to androgens, depending on body location (scalp hair follicles versus body hair follicles)! Furthermore, hair follicles have the same response to androgens in vitro that they do in vivo.

The cause of androgenetic alopecia does not lie in the hair follicles themselves ( so this study is not applicative) , these hair follicles are no different than a persons hair follicles that do not have male pattern baldness. The problem with androgenetic alopecia , is your body's preprogrammed genetic response to the androgens. IE; Adrogens themselves are not the sole cause of male pattern baldness, hair follices themselves are not the cause of male pattern baldness. It is your body's preprogrammed genetic reaction to androgens attaching to receptor sites, that is the cause of male pattern baldness. Hence the name androgenetic alopecia!

The fact that hair follicles display "donor dominance" when transplanted, along with what I pointed out above (hair follicles respond the same way to androgens both in vitro and in vivo) appear to prove conclusively that the cause of androgenetic alopecia _does_ lie in the individual hair follicle itself.

 

[Bryan]

If the aformentioned was true it would preclude that the mouse study disproved the current theory of androgenetic alopecia, do you believe this?

I'm not completely sure WHAT it is I believe about that mouse study. It's certainly needs to be duplicated and verified by other experimental groups, before I can really draw any firm conclusions about it!

One thing that it _may_ demonstrate is that the effect of the immune system in "attacking" balding hair follicles (a very common idea found frequently on hairloss sites) is indeed legitimate, since the mice that were used in that study were immune-deficient.

 

[Bryan]

You cannot just look, at a piece of DNA you have to take the entire genetic profile into consideration, when determining a complex characteristic such as Androgenetic Alopecia. I believe that the process goes deeper than the follicle itself. I think this is quite evident when you take into consideration the fact, that if the entire process of Androgenetic Alopecia was dependent on the structure of the hair follicle itself, studies such as the mouse transplant would disprove Androgenetic Alopecia alltogether. Which we both know would be a fallacy...

Not necessarily, since they used a very special kind of mouse in that study: immune-deficient mice. That complicates this subject tremendously, and may hold the key to explaining the odd results they got in that study.

 

[Bryan]

Yes, I also thought of that, but Androgenetic Alopecia has not been resolved in humans who take Immunosuppressents for organ transplants. I believe there is something else involved (A genetic cause). You really can't get around the fact, that the genetic connection must exceed the follicle, otherwise the study would disprove Androgenetic Alopecia.

You don't believe that androgenic stimulation is a prerequisite for balding? You don't believe in the donor dominance of transplanted hair follicles? You don't believe that scalp hair follicle biopsies can be suppressed by androgens in vitro, just like they are when they're on the scalp, or protected by antiandrogens in exactly the same way?

 

[Bryan]

Once again, humans who take Immunosuppressents continue to advance in Androgenetic Alopecia, this discredits that idea...

Well, in any event, we need to see more supporting studies which verify their results. I find it rather odd that it was done a few years ago, but has never been repeated by any other groups...

 

[freakout]

... if the entire process of Androgenetic Alopecia was dependent on the structure of the hair follicle itself, studies such as the mouse transplant would disprove Androgenetic Alopecia alltogether. ...

That study is an indication that scalp hair follicles are hormone-independent.

that scalp hair follicles do not have androgen receptors.

that the Androgenetic Alopecia is based on empirical evidence and is disputable.

that Androgenetic Alopecia is a THEORY at best and is missing a factor in its simplistic equation.

And I know what it is. Which is why I will never take finasteride.

 

[armandein]

The question i was: "If androgens (like DHT) cause body and facial hair to grow thick and dark and long then how can DHT "cause" hair shrinkage or male pattern baldness."

But, Exist diferents scalp hairs regarding androgen issues?
sides and the top of the head.

You talk about body and scalp hairs, meaning the equality of all scalp hairs, when male pattern baldness, FPB or common hairloss show differences.

If genetics is the cause, :jackit: ,please what gen we must study? and which is the benefit to human's evolution?

Are you Armando Jose? There are pundits here who will insist on anything and go in circles. The truth is they don't know how genetics plays a role. Remember, the transplanted follicles CARRY the genetic code when it was transplanted to the mice.

Careful, someone is reading a script he doesn't really understand.

Yes I am the "sleeping" guy

It is important note that a hair follicle needs a sebaceous gland to exist. The problem of male pattern baldness can be in the pilosebaceous unit , not only in the hair follicle.
Phylogeny of the Hair Follicle: The Sebogenic Hypothesis
Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2008) 128, 1576–1578; doi:10.1038/sj.jid.5701200; published online 13 December 2007
http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v128/ ... 1200a.html
In summary, the sebogenic hypothesis states that under the drying conditions of the new land environment, the earliest tetrapods required a lipid cover to enhance the poorly developed epidermal permeability barrier. The lipids making up that cover arose in part from a primitive sebaceous gland. The most efficient gland was large, deep, and had a wick that enhanced lipid spread over the epidermal surface. That wick, the original shaft, arose in the context of a sebaceous gland. Those animals with a strong and prominent sebaceous gland wick would more efficiently transfer lipids from a large, deep, oil gland to the surface and thus more efficiently prevent water loss from its surface. With time animals were selected for more adaptive advantages bestowed by the wick, now the hair shaft, which offered protection from trauma, heat loss, and radiation.

OTOH, pilosebaceous unit has androgen receptors.

 

[freakout]

Thank you, if that's a compliment.

Let me add to that:

Topical antiandrogens will never work. Not even topical anti-enzymes. They will work only when ingested.

Is that a paradox to you?

S Foote has recently been going in the right direction. That I can tell.

 

[freakout]

:firing: Androgenetic Alopecia THEORY :bigun2:

I mean, I've read S Foote's prior posts and have recently dropped other theories besides Androgenetic Alopecia.

 

[freakout]

Am I right, finasteride is an anti-enzyme? I'm sorry to ask because my regimen doesn't talk about medications.

 

[freakout]

That's why I keep laughing when I was reading this book.

Here's an analogy of mine of how male baldness duped medical researchers for 2400 years.

"Someone lost a pen. So he looked for it around his table and couldnt find it. Maybe someone took it. He asked around and no one did. So he looked at every nooks and crannies for the pen and still could not find the pen.

"2400 years passed when he accidentaly gazed on the mirror and saw the pen was in his pocket all the time."

The cause of baldness is in your pocket.

 

[freakout]

Im not native to english so I don't really know what "took a stab" or "peace out" means.

(Sebum is just one cause that has nothing to do with Androgenetic Alopecia. Topicals to treat them are different from anti what nots.)

Anyway, hormones are used by advanced lifeforms. They're powerful chemical messengers that make billions to trillions of cells behave as a single advanced lifeform.

It simply means that one of hormones' primary function is at the physiological level.

So the problem lies in the current approach to diagnosing male baldness. Biochemically analysing the condition will produce paradoxes unless the it is viewed from a physiological level.

peace out to you too! what ever that means.

 

[Bryan]

It is important note that a hair follicle needs a sebaceous gland to exist. The problem of male pattern baldness can be in the pilosebaceous unit , not only in the hair follicle.
Phylogeny of the Hair Follicle: The Sebogenic Hypothesis
Journal of Investigative Dermatology (2008) 128, 1576–1578; doi:10.1038/sj.jid.5701200; published online 13 December 2007
http://www.nature.com/jid/journal/v128/ ... 1200a.html
In summary, the sebogenic hypothesis states that under the drying conditions of the new land environment, the earliest tetrapods required a lipid cover to enhance the poorly developed epidermal permeability barrier. The lipids making up that cover arose in part from a primitive sebaceous gland. The most efficient gland was large, deep, and had a wick that enhanced lipid spread over the epidermal surface. That wick, the original shaft, arose in the context of a sebaceous gland. Those animals with a strong and prominent sebaceous gland wick would more efficiently transfer lipids from a large, deep, oil gland to the surface and thus more efficiently prevent water loss from its surface. With time animals were selected for more adaptive advantages bestowed by the wick, now the hair shaft, which offered protection from trauma, heat loss, and radiation.

As I've said in the past, the idea that "hair follicles need a sebaceous gland to exist" is one of the sillier theories I've heard. Young pre-pubertal children make almost no sebum at all, and neither do adults with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome); despite that, they _both_ still can have luxurious hair.

 

[freakout]

I see. Well good luck if you switch to that treatment. I just hope those 'many men' made legitimate claims.

My take is a topical version of the drug won't not be approved by the FDA because it will fail in a clinical trial.

Im saying that because that one x-factor, the mystery, is not being addressed.