Has Anyone Questioned Androgenetic Factors

[bobmer]

one study found androgen receptor content in female frontal hair follicles was approximately 40% lower than in male frontal hair follicles. Frontal hair follicles in women had 3 and 3.5 times less 5- reductase type I and II, respectively, than frontal hair follicles in men.

I see. Was the number the same for pre-pubertal male and adult men? I take it the androgens begin to shoot up during puberty and that hair loss should have begun by then? In Asian men, male pattern baldness can start as late as age 35. So I gather those supposed 'increased number' of receptors were not yet there? So the next question is: When did the number increase and why? As I said cells have this regulatory ability to increase their receptors so they can catalyze more nutrients. You starve them and they increase this number.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not contesting androgenetics. I'm merely trying to add possible factors into the equation. and i cannot answer the other question. I'm just contributing what I've read.

 

[Pondle]

Was the number the same for pre-pubertal male and adult men?

I haven't seen a study on this.

I take it the androgens begin to shoot up during puberty and that hair loss should have begun by then? In Asian men, male pattern baldness can start as late as age 35. So I gather those supposed 'increased number' of receptors were not yet there?

In some men, hair loss does begin almost immediately after puberty. In others, the onset is later. It is a progressive condition and the hair follicles appear to become increasingly sensitive to DHT with age. Hence hair loss (at a slower rate) is apparent even after year 2 of treatment with finasteride.

In a radio programme on hair loss on BBC Radio 4, a doctor was quoted as saying the prevalence of hair loss tends to be about 30% of men at age 30, about 40% at age 40, and so forth.

So the next question is: When did the number increase and why?

No idea. We are still uncertain about exactly how DHT operates to damage hair follicles. We simply know that it does.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not contesting androgenetics. I'm merely trying to add possible factors into the equation. and i cannot answer the other question. I'm just contributing what I've read.

You do need to careful about taking things you read at face value. In any field, there is an awful lot of pseudo-science, poorly-conducted science, myth, lies, and general CRAP out there. Generally only trust studies published in credible peer-reviewed journals. Look into the research methods used. Randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are the most robust form of scientific experiment. Lots of studies come nowhere near this "gold standard".

 

[bobmer]

My problem with studies even with credible ones is, often times they don't add up. I can say for sure that some 'credible' studies have lopsided medical opinion geared at selling a drug and there is enough proof of that in the legal circle but I don't want to mess up this forum.

 

[Pondle]

My problem with studies even with credible ones is, often times they don't add up. I can say for sure that some 'credible' studies have lopsided medical opinion geared at selling a drug and there is enough proof of that in the legal circle but I don't want to mess up this forum.

Bias will always influence the questions we ask, but if our research methodology is robust it shouldn't affect the answers we get. If the methodology employed by a study is robust (i.e. a proper controlled experiment) then the results should be reliable, no matter who commissioned it or why.

Nevertheless even with robust studies there's always a danger of making a "type I error" (a false positive) or a "type II error" (a false negative). It's just usually very, very small.

 

[bobmer]

I am wary of 'findings' that are out there particularly those that seem to be underscored by profits and funded by you know who. It doesn't matter if I appear biased.

But my motto is if a claim posts no danger of side-effects and seems to 'fit' in the equation, i'll take it. Most especially if a finding is conducted from the perspective that the human body is capable of healing itself in the right environment, i'll buy those findings.

One such example is the finding about diabetes - a hereditary disease, progressive, devastating, fatal and thought to involve defective genes. The finding (CNN/Health) showed that patients could forgo their medical treatments as long as they eat plenty of various types of vegetables and fruits. It 'fits' because the human set of teeth are designed to ground plants not to tear meat. The supposed defective genes do not fit in there except that the diseases is hereditary.

To me, hereditary, progressive and devastating correlates with hair loss That means, something in the environment is not right. Thus far my regimen is working but I can describe it as probably the most difficult regimen to follow.

Let me ask you a question. what do you think hair loss is: a disease or symptom or is it just a mere cosmetic disorder?

 

[Bryan]

one study found androgen receptor content in female frontal hair follicles was approximately 40% lower than in male frontal hair follicles. Frontal hair follicles in women had 3 and 3.5 times less 5- reductase type I and II, respectively, than frontal hair follicles in men.

I see. Was the number the same for pre-pubertal male and adult men? I take it the androgens begin to shoot up during puberty and that hair loss should have begun by then? In Asian men, male pattern baldness can start as late as age 35. So I gather those supposed 'increased number' of receptors were not yet there? So the next question is: When did the number increase and why? As I said cells have this regulatory ability to increase their receptors so they can catalyze more nutrients...Don't get me wrong. I'm not contesting androgenetics. I'm merely trying to add possible factors into the equation.

I think people tend to get too caught-up in these endless discussions of various things that can affect the simple DEGREE of a response to androgens (like the level of available androgens, or the number of androgen receptors, or the amount of 5a-reductase, etc.), without fully appreciating the fundamental paradox of hair growth, which is that androgens stimulate the growth of most body hair at the same time that they suppress the growth of most scalp hair. As long as people keep going on and on and on about numbers of androgen receptors and the like, instead of focusing on HOW and WHY androgens damage scalp hair follicles in the first place, we'll never make any real progress toward understanding and eliminating the fundamental cause of male pattern balding.

Bryan

 

[bobmer]

I think people tend to get too caught-up in these endless discussions of various things that can affect the simple DEGREE of a response to androgens (like the level of available androgens, or the number of androgen receptors, or the amount of 5a-reductase, etc.), without fully appreciating the fundamental paradox of hair growth, which is that androgens stimulate the growth of most body hair at the same time that they suppress the growth of most scalp hair. As long as people keep going on and on and on about numbers of androgen receptors and the like, instead of focusing on HOW and WHY androgens damage scalp hair follicles in the first place, we'll never make any real progress toward understanding and eliminating the fundamental cause of male pattern balding.

Was that meant for my quote or for my post? I ask the same question WHY. I'm not asking HOW because it's beyond my comprehension but does this fit: Cells have the ability to increase their number of receptors as part of their regulatory function. If you starve them, they increase the number so they can catalyze more nutrients.

 

[Bryan]

To me, hereditary, progressive and devastating correlates with hair loss That means, something in the environment is not right.

In the immortal words of James Hamilton, androgens are a prerequisite for hairloss (I'm referring specifically to common androgenetic alopecia). If we can figure out how to switch the response to androgens in scalp hair follicles from being negative to being positive, like it is in beard hair follicles, then the problem would be solved, without regard to anything in the "environment" (whatever the hell THAT is)!

Bryan

 

[bobmer]

I'm not going to 'appreciate' that paradox. male pattern baldness associates with numerous diseases particularly cardiovaculars. That makes it a symptom and that will be my perspective.

 

[Bryan]

Was that meant for my quote or for my post?

It was meant for your post.

I ask the same question WHY. I'm not asking HOW because it's beyond my comprehension...

I don't understand the distinction.

...but does this fit: Cells have the ability to increase their number of receptors as part of their regulatory function. If you starve them, they increase the number so they can catalyze more nutrients.

Once again I point out that you seem to be focusing on something I consider to be relatively trivial (the degree of the response to androgens), without focusing on something much more fundamental, which is WHY androgens damage scalp hair follicles, at the same time that they stimulate most body hair follicles.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

I'm not going to 'appreciate' that paradox. male pattern baldness associates with numerous diseases particularly cardiovaculars. That makes it a symptom and that will be my perspective.

Suit yourself. But until you understand that paradox, you'll never understand the fundamental cause of balding.

Bryan

 

[Pondle]

I'm not going to 'appreciate' that paradox. male pattern baldness associates with numerous diseases particularly cardiovaculars. That makes it a symptom and that will be my perspective.

Maybe bobmer, but healthy men can go bald, and men with full heads of hair can experience cardiovascular disease. That means it's not necessarily a specific symptom of anything in particular.

There must be an evolutionary explanation for male pattern baldness.

 

[bobmer]

Environment in research means: food, physical, social, work, clothes, air, water, including your chair You ought to know that by now!!

We don't know how 'healthy' a person is. There are findings that the food that your grandmother eats affects the health condition of the grandchild.

'Epigenetics' seem to 'fit' in there. There is also a finding that a mother who grew up eating chicken fed with growth hormones may end up with a child susceptible to asthma.

 

[Bryan]

There must be an evolutionary explanation for male pattern baldness.

I think the argument outlined in "Beards, Balding, and Sweat Secretion" makes as much sense as any other theory I've read about: balding evolved in certain primates to provide extra cooling for the brain.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Environment in research means: food, physical, social, work, clothes, air, water, including your chair

I think when it comes to androgenetic alopecia, those factors pale into insignificance (with perhaps the exception of food, which probably has a modest influence on androgens and other hormones related to male pattern baldness)!

Bryan

 

[bobmer]

I guess you right. But my regimen seems to be holding

I've posted this before:
Enlarged prostate glands have been associated with pattern hair loss(16). But male populations who consume high phytoestrogen diets have a reduced risk of prostate cancer development and progression(14).

Will phytoestrogen help prevent MBP? I'm just picking up findings and joining them. These findings do not seem to be motivated by profits.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that this is the treatment for hair loss. But it shows that something in the environment can influence male pattern baldness.

 

[Bryan]

Like I said before, diet probably does have a modest influence on many androgen-related medical conditions, thanks to dietary components like phytoestrogens, etc. That shouldn't be particularly surprising to anyone.

Bryan

 

[bobmer]

Yeap. You add this all up and your current regimen may begin working.

 

[bobmer]

I think when it comes to androgenetic alopecia, those factors pale into insignificance (with perhaps the exception of food, which probably has a modest influence on androgens and other hormones related to male pattern baldness)!

I've also posted this before:
As of this writing, no known studies directly link mental stress and pattern hair loss. There are, however, studies that link:
• mental stress with heart ischemia
• heart ischemia with pattern hair loss
By inductive reasoning there is an association
And:
• Long work hours are associated with hypertension
• hypertension associates with pattern hair loss
• mental stress is used synonymously with mental workload.

That falls under social or work environment.

The chair is a physical environment. The author of my book has done extensive studies on this. I;ve posted some of them but there is a lot more. Some of his studies are based on NASA studies which had nothing to do with hair loss but a keen researcher should be able to pick up some data not available elsewhere that can be related. NASA are among the few agencies that conduct extensive studies in physiology. Physiology is a study that pharmaceuticals will refrain from funding because they are considered losing ventures.

 

[Bryan]

Yeap. You add this all up and your current regimen may begin working.

Oh, I suppose if your current regimen isn't quite holding its own (you're still slowly losing hair), if you add the additional factor of a diet specifically designed to modify androgenic factors (like what that DamnItLetMeIn guy has been obsessing about in that other thread! ), then that _may_ cause it to teeter-totter over into a slightly positive result. But I certainly wouldn't expect anything dramatic just from that one additional factor.

Bryan