How often do you wash your hair?

[Bryan]

I amazed this thread went from "how many times do you wash your hair? to this!

Heheh. It's called evolution. It's survival of the fittest and most interesting topics of discussion! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

The author of this study concludes Quote:

"It follows from the results that the FAEEs are deposited mainly from sebum into hair"

Note `INTO' hair!

LOL!! So the use of that little English preposition (by German researchers, no less) strikes you as having profound implications, does it? I suggest to you that they were merely talking about a gentle DIFFUSION of those lipids into the hair shaft, not some kind of forceful "injection" like you seem to be implying (why DO you keep using that goofy and inappropriate word??).

For this deposition to produce the `banding' reported, it `has' to happen within the follicle.

Really? Why is that? Please explain!

And while you're at it, please explain to me that other phenomenon they reported: one of the subjects had abstained from alcohol for a long time, but had a single relapse of drinking that lasted for a couple of weeks, just prior to having the samples taken of his hair. Despite the fact that the drinking spree was of such short duration, ALL of his hair (not just the first centimeter or so) was infused with the FAEEs. How does THAT fit into your paradigm of "sebum injection" within the hair follicle?? :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

The author of this study concludes Quote:

"It follows from the results that the FAEEs are deposited mainly from sebum into hair"

Note `INTO' hair!

LOL!! So the use of that little English preposition (by German researchers, no less) strikes you as having profound implications, does it? I suggest to you that they were merely talking about a gentle DIFFUSION of those lipids into the hair shaft, not some kind of forceful "injection" like you seem to be implying (why DO you keep using that goofy and inappropriate word??).

[quote="S Foote.":9d664]For this deposition to produce the `banding' reported, it `has' to happen within the follicle.

Really? Why is that? Please explain!

And while you're at it, please explain to me that other phenomenon they reported: one of the subjects had abstained from alcohol for a long time, but had a single relapse of drinking that lasted for a couple of weeks, just prior to having the samples taken of his hair. Despite the fact that the drinking spree was of such short duration, ALL of his hair (not just the first centimeter or so) was infused with the FAEEs. How does THAT fit into your paradigm of "sebum injection" within the hair follicle?? :wink:

Bryan[/quote:9d664]

You should be dizzy Bryan from all the spin you are trying to place on the very clear points in that study. :wink:

`Injection into' seemed more descriptive, but if you object Bryan i have no problem with `Diffusion into' as you suggest. The main point being sebum is entering the hair shaft within the follicle, contrary to what you believe.

Your claim quoting Kligman is basicaly this:

1/ Sebum does not `wick' into or up the hair shaft.

2/ Sebum is purely external to the hair shaft.

3/ Sebum coats the hair shaft by purely mechanical `rubbing' contact.

First off, all the samples in the German study were washed prior to testing, to remove any `external' sebum and the FAEE's this carries.

The authors of the study quite rightly conclude for reasons i have already explained to you, the following, quote:

"Conclusions: FAEE's are deposited in hair mainly from sebum. Despite large individual differences, FAEE hair concentrations can be used as markers for excessive alcohol consumption with relatively high accuracy.

So very simply, the differing concentrations of FAEE's noted in the samples `MUST' be from internal sebum deposits! It really doesn't matter what the different concentrations or bands are, the very fact these bands exist `AND' vary in individuals means Kligmans conclusions were wrong!

Even if the hair shaft is being penetrated by sebum picked up by rubbing, the `whole' hair shaft would be effected. Whatever substances may be transfered into the hair by sebum `rubbing', would be averaged out along the whole length.

There is just no way you can explain these different concentrations along the hair shaft, `AND' the differences between individuals by your theory Bryan!

This detailed German study of sections of hair shaft, makes Kligman's `hair dipping' look silly, weather you like it or not Bryan.

Give it up, this is just getting boring. :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

You should be dizzy Bryan from all the spin you are trying to place on the very clear points in that study. :wink:

`Injection into' seemed more descriptive, but if you object Bryan i have no problem with `Diffusion into' as you suggest.

If you stick your hand into a bowl of water, which do you think is more appropriate to say: that the water is "injected" into your skin, or that the water is ABSORBED or DIFFUSES into your skin? Do I really have to explain this to you, Stephen?

The main point being sebum is entering the hair shaft within the follicle, contrary to what you believe.

Hey, how come you didn't explain the case of the guy who went on a 2-week binge of drinking during a long period of abstinence? Did you forget to address that little problem? :wink:

Your claim quoting Kligman is basicaly this:

1/ Sebum does not `wick' into or up the hair shaft.

2/ Sebum is purely external to the hair shaft.

3/ Sebum coats the hair shaft by purely mechanical `rubbing' contact.

First off, all the samples in the German study were washed prior to testing, to remove any `external' sebum and the FAEE's this carries.

LOL!!! That was part of the testing, Stephen! That was to determine the level of the external FAEEs (abbreviated as e-FAEE). They determined both e-FAEEs and i-FAEEs. I think you need to go back and carefully re-read the study.

The authors of the study quite rightly conclude for reasons i have already explained to you, the following, quote:

"Conclusions: FAEE's are deposited in hair mainly from sebum. Despite large individual differences, FAEE hair concentrations can be used as markers for excessive alcohol consumption with relatively high accuracy.

So very simply, the differing concentrations of FAEE's noted in the samples `MUST' be from internal sebum deposits!

How do you get THAT idea? And once again, how could that POSSIBLY explain the case of the "binge-drinker"?

It really doesn't matter what the different concentrations or bands are, the very fact these bands exist `AND' vary in individuals means Kligmans conclusions were wrong!

Once again, I'll direct you to what they said about shampooing.

Even if the hair shaft is being penetrated by sebum picked up by rubbing, the `whole' hair shaft would be effected. Whatever substances may be transfered into the hair by sebum `rubbing', would be averaged out along the whole length.

Nope, not necessarily. And the researchers explained why.

There is just no way you can explain these different concentrations along the hair shaft, `AND' the differences between individuals by your theory Bryan!

There's no way that YOU can explain the case of the "binge-drinker" with YOUR theory.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

My oh my :roll:

Just tell me how you can get the `DIFFERENT' concentration gradient's shown in the diagram, with sebum placed on the hair by `rubbing as `YOU' claim?

And just where `exactly' did the authors of the study say this was possible as you are now trying to claim?

http://www.clinchem.org/content/vol47/i ... 66004.jpeg


Why is it so hard for you to accept the simple fact here Bryan?

In order for there to be `ANY' difference in the profile of FAEE's depending upon their drinking history, the sebum has to penetrate the hair shaft within the follicle!

Rubbing of sebum onto the hair, just cannot be that selective in depositing different concentrations of `whatever' along the hair shaft :wink:

What possible point are you trying to make about the `binge drinker' that contradicts the basic point above??

People can see the study for themselves Bryan, so your not kidding anyone :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

My oh my :roll:

Just tell me how you can get the `DIFFERENT' concentration gradient's shown in the diagram, with sebum placed on the hair by `rubbing as `YOU' claim?

And just where `exactly' did the authors of the study say this was possible as you are now trying to claim?

Once again (and this is about the third or fourth time), I refer you back to what the authors said about shampooing being one possible explanation for varying concentrations of FAEEs along the length of the hairs.

In order for there to be `ANY' difference in the profile of FAEE's depending upon their drinking history, the sebum has to penetrate the hair shaft within the follicle!

Rubbing of sebum onto the hair, just cannot be that selective in depositing different concentrations of `whatever' along the hair shaft :wink:

What possible point are you trying to make about the `binge drinker' that contradicts the basic point above??

LOL!! So you're "playing dumb" now, Stephen? You're trying to make us all believe that you don't see a HUGE problem with your theory, in the case of the 'binge-drinker'? Ok, I'll play along with you and explain to you what the problem is, as if you really DON'T already know:

The guy had avoided all alcohol for a long period of time, and I mean something like on the order of 1 to 2 YEARS. Then he fell off the wagon, and went on a 2-week drinking spree. A few days after that was when his hair samples were taken for the test, and it was found that the FAEEs had migrated to the FULL LENGTH of his hair samples, not just the first 1-centimeter or so which would have been expected if your theory were correct. The only way that could have happened was from sebum tracking onto them externally (outside the hair follicle, in other words). Your claim that sebum diffuses into hairs ONLY within the confines of the follicle itself is therefore SOUNDLY, UTTERLY, AND IGNOMINIOUSLY DISPROVED.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Nevermind this study Bryan, this thread is driving me to drink!

Let's just go over our differences here for clarity, correct me if i'am wrong?

You are saying that the sebum `on' the hair shaft, get's there by mechanical rubbing of the hair between other hairs and the scalp. Any sebum bourne substances that may get `into' the hair shaft, get there by this route according to you and Kligman, right?

Contrary to what you said in your last post, i have always accepted that `some' sebum get's onto the hair by `rubbing'. (Check my posts).

But i have argued that `some' sebum is also going to get `into' the hair shaft given the `design' of the philosebaceous `unit'.

You dispute this, continuing to argue the `one' external `rubbing' route.

Before we go any further, is this your position or not?

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Let's just go over our differences here for clarity, correct me if i'am wrong?

You are saying that the sebum `on' the hair shaft, get's there by mechanical rubbing of the hair between other hairs and the scalp. Any sebum bourne substances that may get `into' the hair shaft, get there by this route according to you and Kligman, right?

Contrary to what you said in your last post, i have always accepted that `some' sebum get's onto the hair by `rubbing'. (Check my posts).

But i have argued that `some' sebum is also going to get `into' the hair shaft given the `design' of the philosebaceous `unit'.

You dispute this, continuing to argue the `one' external `rubbing' route.

Before we go any further, is this your position or not?

No, that's not my position. As I clearly indicated in a previous post, I think a _little_ of it gets into/onto the hair shaft from exposure to it within the hair follicle.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Let's just go over our differences here for clarity, correct me if i'am wrong?

You are saying that the sebum `on' the hair shaft, get's there by mechanical rubbing of the hair between other hairs and the scalp. Any sebum bourne substances that may get `into' the hair shaft, get there by this route according to you and Kligman, right?

Contrary to what you said in your last post, i have always accepted that `some' sebum get's onto the hair by `rubbing'. (Check my posts).

But i have argued that `some' sebum is also going to get `into' the hair shaft given the `design' of the philosebaceous `unit'.

You dispute this, continuing to argue the `one' external `rubbing' route.

Before we go any further, is this your position or not?

No, that's not my position. As I clearly indicated in a previous post, I think a _little_ of it gets into/onto the hair shaft from exposure to it within the hair follicle.

Bryan

But that's `not' what you said is it Bryan, here's what you `really' said, quote:

"If you want to insist on believing (for some odd reason that suits your eccentric purposes) that sebum gets "injected" into human hairs despite a lack of physical evidence for that, be my guest. All I know is that Kligman and his colleagues bent over backwards in an effort to get sebum to "track" or be absorbed or be "wicked-up" along the length of human hairs, and they were utterly incapable of forcing it to do that. That just ain't the function of sebum. "

So now you have changed your opinion and agree with me! :wink: So you should Bryan with the clear evidence of that German study.

By the way Bryan, have you solved the `mysterious case of the binge drinker' yet?

It's elementary my dear Bryan!

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

LOL!!! This is just getting worse and worse for you, isn't it, Stephen? :wink:

On Tuesday, October 11, I made the following VERY CLEAR statement in PLAIN ENGLISH:

"Old" hair? "Fully shrunken" hair? "Sebum injection"? You're going a little off the deep-end. I suppose it's possible that a molecule or two of lipid might find its way into a hair shaft as the hair passes through its sebum-laden duct, but the Big Picture I'm trying to get across to you is that any larger, more obvious, MACROSCOPIC amount of sebum that you see or feel on your hair got there by the kind of physical transfer that Kligman talked about (combing your hair, scratching or touching your head, sleeping on a pillow, etc.).

And now you're reduced to trying to put words in my mouth, along with ignoring what even the researchers themselves said about the effect of shampooing, and (most embarrassing of all for you) you're forced to ignore the overwhelming evidence of that 'binge-drinker'! I'm getting a TREMENDOUS kick out of all this! :wink:

Bryan

 

[oni]

lol! you two should really get a room, then get married and have reality tv show about your marriage but all you really have are theories!!!! get a grant buy some secondhand equipment then you can say something without having to quote other peoples papers all the time at each other.

 

[S Foote.]

LOL!!! This is just getting worse and worse for you, isn't it, Stephen? :wink:

On Tuesday, October 11, I made the following VERY CLEAR statement in PLAIN ENGLISH:

"Old" hair? "Fully shrunken" hair? "Sebum injection"? You're going a little off the deep-end. I suppose it's possible that a molecule or two of lipid might find its way into a hair shaft as the hair passes through its sebum-laden duct, but the Big Picture I'm trying to get across to you is that any larger, more obvious, MACROSCOPIC amount of sebum that you see or feel on your hair got there by the kind of physical transfer that Kligman talked about (combing your hair, scratching or touching your head, sleeping on a pillow, etc.).

And now you're reduced to trying to put words in my mouth, along with ignoring what even the researchers themselves said about the effect of shampooing, and (most embarrassing of all for you) you're forced to ignore the overwhelming evidence of that 'binge-drinker'! I'm getting a TREMENDOUS kick out of all this! :wink:

Bryan

Not half the kick i'am getting out of watching you demonstrate your stupidity on this forum Bryan. :wink:

Just so people don't think i am taking unfair advantage here, i will give you one more chance to answer a couple of points

First, you clearly claim above that only `a molecule or two' of sebum gets into the hair within the follicle, compared with a much larger surface amount by `rubbing'. Do you want to change this opinion now?

Secondly, we all know how you claim to be the `champion' of science on these forums, so please describe to us all the science behind your claim that the `binge drinker' refutes what i have said here?

Think `VERY' carefully Bryan! :wink:

S Foote.

 

[HairlossTalk]

Radio - can you create a graphical battle representation of Bryan Versus S. Foote on a medieval battleground for us? Swords, horses, and armor a plus.

HairLossTalk.com

 

[S Foote.]

Radio - can you create a graphical battle representation of Bryan Versus S. Foote on a medieval battleground for us? Swords, horses, and armor a plus.

HairLossTalk.com

Please make me a Viking, as i have Norman and so Viking ancestors :lol:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Not half the kick i'am getting out of watching you demonstrate your stupidity on this forum Bryan. :wink:

Oh, I see you believe in that old saying "The best defense is a good offense", even if you're completely UNARMED!!

Secondly, we all know how you claim to be the `champion' of science on these forums, so please describe to us all the science behind your claim that the `binge drinker' refutes what i have said here?

Stephen, come on, man... Are you now displaying your masochistic tendencies for all to see? Are you now getting some kind of an abnormal KICK out of being humiliated by that case of the binge-drinker? I thought you were STRAIGHT...

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Not half the kick i'am getting out of watching you demonstrate your stupidity on this forum Bryan. :wink:

Oh, I see you believe in that old saying "The best defense is a good offense", even if you're completely UNARMED!!

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/47/12/2114/F1[/url]

The actual science is clearly showing a significant amount of sebum is getting `INTO' the hair, not just a `couple of molecules'. :wink:

The very fact that the e-FAEE profile does `NOT' match the i-FAEE profile, shows that the internally sebum transported FAEE's are deposited within the follicle 8)

Go and learn how science really works Bryan :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Alcoholics are `LIAR'S' Bryan :wink:

Oh, so THAT'S your explanation for the 'binge-drinker', is it, Stephen? Yeah, I suppose that's the only thing you could have come up with! :wink:

The authors sum it up well Bryan! quote:

"Conclusions: FAEEs are deposited in hair mainly from sebum. Despite large individual differences, FAEE hair concentrations can be used as markers for excessive alcohol consumption with relatively high accuracy."

Of course. So what? What's your point?

Your `wild guess' that only quote "a molecule or two" of sebum may be getting `into' the hair, is completely destroyed by this `real' testing Bryan.

I figured that you'd get all huffy over my use of an obvious exaggeration! Ok, it's more than just a "molecule or two" of DHT that are absorbed within the confines of the hair follicle. It's probably actually... a FEW molecules! :wink:

The study measures both external FAEE's, and internal FAEE's, and these are reported in `comparable' amounts.

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/47/12/2114/F1

The actual science is clearly showing a significant amount of sebum is getting `INTO' the hair, not just a `couple of molecules'. :wink:

The obvious logical error you're making is that you're ASSUMING that the "internal FAEEs" were in fact absorbed into the hair within the confines of the hair follicle. But you can't make such an assumption, Stephen! I'll leave it to you as an exercise to re-read that study and think about it some more and figure out why not. Here's just a little hint for you, to get you started: the i-FAEEs tend to INCREASE the farther out on the hair you go. Think about that little factoid, and I'm sure you'll figure it all out! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Alcoholics are `LIAR'S' Bryan :wink:

Oh, so THAT'S your explanation for the 'binge-drinker', is it, Stephen? Yeah, I suppose that's the only thing you could have come up with! :wink:

Yeah right, just admit you have been caught out Bryan. You just didn't understand the study at all did you! So much for your scientific abilities. :wink:

The authors sum it up well Bryan! quote:

"Conclusions: FAEEs are deposited in hair mainly from sebum. Despite large individual differences, FAEE hair concentrations can be used as markers for excessive alcohol consumption with relatively high accuracy."

Of course. So what? What's your point?

The point is Bryan, that `YOU' tried to say that it wasn't accurate with your `binge drinker' interpretation.

Your `wild guess' that only quote "a molecule or two" of sebum may be getting `into' the hair, is completely destroyed by this `real' testing Bryan.

I figured that you'd get all huffy over my use of an obvious exaggeration! Ok, it's more than just a "molecule or two" of DHT that are absorbed within the confines of the hair follicle. It's probably actually... a FEW molecules! :wink:

Your argument in this thread has been clear Bryan. You can try to squirm out of this all you like, but your not kidding people.

The study measures both external FAEE's, and internal FAEE's, and these are reported in `comparable' amounts.

http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/content/full/47/12/2114/F1

The actual science is clearly showing a significant amount of sebum is getting `INTO' the hair, not just a `couple of molecules'. :wink:

The obvious logical error you're making is that you're ASSUMING that the "internal FAEEs" were in fact absorbed into the hair within the confines of the hair follicle. But you can't make such an assumption, Stephen! I'll leave it to you as an exercise to re-read that study and think about it some more and figure out why not. Here's just a little hint for you, to get you started: the i-FAEEs tend to INCREASE the farther out on the hair you go. Think about that little factoid, and I'm sure you'll figure it all out! :wink:

Bryan

Your `school teacher' act is really funny given the circumstances Bryan. :lol:

You are the one who claimed that sebum doesn't penetrate the hair shaft, quoting Kligman's work. Are you now going to say that the increased `internal' FAEE's at the end's of the shaft are there from the `penetration' of external sebum through rubbing?

I predict another of your u turns :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

[quote="S Foote.":38ff2]The authors sum it up well Bryan! quote:

"Conclusions: FAEEs are deposited in hair mainly from sebum. Despite large individual differences, FAEE hair concentrations can be used as markers for excessive alcohol consumption with relatively high accuracy."

Of course. So what? What's your point?

The point is Bryan, that `YOU' tried to say that it wasn't accurate with your `binge drinker' interpretation.[/quote:38ff2]

I have no clue what you're talking about. The only reason I mentioned the 'binge drinker' is because it utterly destroys your theory that FAEEs only get into hairs from sebum WITHIN THE FOLLICLE. The only way you have of wiggling out of that problem is to claim that the 'binge drinker' was LYING about his drinking habits.

I've been trying to explain to you that yes, FAEEs get into hairs from sebum, BUT NOT JUST WITHIN THE FOLLICLE. Suddenly I'm no longer quite so sure whether you really ARE just "playing dumb", or if you're genuinely obtuse.

The study measures both external FAEE's, and internal FAEE's, and these are reported in `comparable' amounts.

The actual science is clearly showing a significant amount of sebum is getting `INTO' the hair, not just a `couple of molecules'. :wink:

LOL!! The data indicate that something on the order of about 5 parts per million of FAEEs were being absorbed into the hairs. I'd probably call that a trace amount of fatty acid ethyl esters, and I think most other people would, too! :wink:

In contrast, the total amount of "greasy residue" (SEBUM, in other words) recovered from the EXTERIOR of the hair amounted to nearly 10% of the total weight of the hair!! Tell me, Stephen: do you think that 10% of the INTERIOR of the hair also consisted of sebum?? :lol:

You are the one who claimed that sebum doesn't penetrate the hair shaft, quoting Kligman's work.

I acknowledged to you that relative traces of sebum probably diffuse into the hair shaft.

Are you now going to say that the increased `internal' FAEE's at the end's of the shaft are there from the `penetration' of external sebum through rubbing?

Yes. That's the only explanation for their results, and it's the same one the researchers present.

Bryan

 

[Dave001]

Radio - can you create a graphical battle representation of Bryan Versus S. Foote on a medieval battleground for us? Swords, horses, and armor a plus.

It can't be a wheatfield though. Certain arguments would blend too well with the background.