How often do you wash your hair?

Radio

Experienced Member
Reaction score
0
Dave001 said:
HairlossTalk said:
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.


sh*t, that's some deep comedy, me like it!
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
Bryan said:
[quote="S Foote.":0ac14]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.

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.

S Foote. said:
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:

S Foote. said:
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.

S Foote. said:
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[/quote:0ac14]

I am pretty sure that everyone here is now as bored with this debate as i am, so this will be my last word on the issue.

I only entered this thread because you were `insisting' using Kligmans study, that the hair shaft does not absorb sebum.

So now you concede above that sebum `does' penetrate the hair shaft, quote:

Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
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

All i would say is, if you accept that sebum `can' penetrate the hair shaft, you must accept that this could easily happen in the follicle where the shaft is `soaked' in sebum.

This was the initial point i made.

But in signing off from this question, i say again that i don't think the sebum `pathway' whatever it is has any causal effect in male pattern baldness.

S Foote.
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Dave001 said:
HairlossTalk said:
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.

Whatever kind of field it is Dave, i expect you will be hiding in the hedge shouting insults. :roll:

But still too afraid to `engage' in battle. :wink:

S Foote.
 

Dave001

Experienced Member
Reaction score
0
S Foote. said:
Dave001 said:
HairlossTalk said:
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.

Whatever kind of field it is Dave, i expect you will be hiding in the hedge shouting insults. :roll:

But still too afraid to `engage' in battle. :wink:

It's self-flattery that you consider yourself a formidable adversary. Your imagination needs taming.

For the rules of engagement, I propose that we disallow the use of letters from scientists as weapons.
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Dave001 said:
S Foote. said:
Dave001 said:
HairlossTalk said:
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.

Whatever kind of field it is Dave, i expect you will be hiding in the hedge shouting insults. :roll:

But still too afraid to `engage' in battle. :wink:

It's self-flattery that you consider yourself a formidable adversary. Your imagination needs taming.

Then go ahead and tame me Dave!!

Instead of these easy `of the cuff' insults you like to throw out to me and others, why don't you start a thread where you explain to everyone why my theory is not based on scientific principles?

Go on, i dare you :wink:

But i know you won't do that, because you are just a sad mentally disturbed individual, who add's nothing positive to these debates :roll:

I think even Bryan is becoming embarassed by the way you follow him around in these threads 8)


S Foote.
 

Dave001

Experienced Member
Reaction score
0
S Foote. said:
Then go ahead and tame me Dave!!

Instead of these easy `of the cuff' insults you like to throw out to me and others, why don't you start a thread where you explain to everyone why my theory is not based on scientific principles?

Go on, i dare you :wink:

But i know you won't do that, because you are just a sad mentally disturbed individual, who add's nothing positive to these debates :roll:

I think even Bryan is becoming embarassed by the way you follow him around in these threads 8)

You'll have to explain how that works. :laugh:

I really don't insult you Steve. You do that to yourself by citing studies that you can't even comprehend, and of which you spend weeks fumbling over simple details.
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Dave001 said:
S Foote. said:
Then go ahead and tame me Dave!!

Instead of these easy `of the cuff' insults you like to throw out to me and others, why don't you start a thread where you explain to everyone why my theory is not based on scientific principles?

Go on, i dare you :wink:

But i know you won't do that, because you are just a sad mentally disturbed individual, who add's nothing positive to these debates :roll:

I think even Bryan is becoming embarassed by the way you follow him around in these threads 8)

You'll have to explain how that works. :laugh:

I really don't insult you Steve. You do that to yourself by citing studies that you can't even comprehend, and of which you spend weeks fumbling over simple details.

Just as you claimed that Ockhams razor refuted my theory `THEN' refused to say how, you now make another claim that you won't elaborate on.

I didn't see you entering my debate here with Bryan? If you had a problem with my argument, you should have said so in the debate!

Again, if you have anything that remotely amounts to a scientific argument against my theory, start a thread in the research forum.

If not, just shut up and stop wasting my time. I have a life outside of internet forums even if you don't.

S Foote.
 

Bryan

Senior Member
Staff member
Reaction score
42
S Foote. said:
I only entered this thread because you were `insisting' using Kligmans study, that the hair shaft does not absorb sebum.

Actually, those were words that you were mostly putting in my mouth. By far the main thing I'm interested in is what Kligman himself was talking about in plain English; namely, the question of how sebum gets tracked onto hair. To what extent that hairs absorb sebum is a separate issue, and your obsession with that is misplaced.

S Foote. said:
So now you concede above that sebum `does' penetrate the hair shaft, quote:

Bryan said:
[quote="S Foote.":a0015]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.

All i would say is, if you accept that sebum `can' penetrate the hair shaft, you must accept that this could easily happen in the follicle where the shaft is `soaked' in sebum.

This was the initial point i made.[/quote:a0015]

Yes, I acknowledge that small amounts of sebum diffuse into hairs, possibly even within the confines of the hair follicle, but I ask you again: SO WHAT? That's not particularly relevant to anything. What Kligman was discussing was HOW SEBUM GETS TRACKED ONTO HAIRS, and you attacked him by bringing up some entirely different issue. You appeared to be trying to find fault, just for the sake of finding fault.

Sebum clearly gets tracked onto hairs OUTSIDE of the hair follicle, because both Kligman and the authors of that study on FAEEs demonstrated that hair gets greasy again, even after being shampooed/de-fatted. You've been arguing for several days now about just some minor, fringe issue. You haven't laid a finger on Kligman.

Bryan
 

S Foote.

Experienced Member
Reaction score
66
Bryan said:
S Foote. said:
I only entered this thread because you were `insisting' using Kligmans study, that the hair shaft does not absorb sebum.

Actually, those were words that you were mostly putting in my mouth. By far the main thing I'm interested in is what Kligman himself was talking about in plain English; namely, the question of how sebum gets tracked onto hair. To what extent that hairs absorb sebum is a separate issue, and your obsession with that is misplaced.

[quote="S Foote.":2ca0f]So now you concede above that sebum `does' penetrate the hair shaft, quote:

Bryan said:
[quote="S Foote.":2ca0f]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.

All i would say is, if you accept that sebum `can' penetrate the hair shaft, you must accept that this could easily happen in the follicle where the shaft is `soaked' in sebum.

This was the initial point i made.[/quote:2ca0f]

Yes, I acknowledge that small amounts of sebum diffuse into hairs, possibly even within the confines of the hair follicle, but I ask you again: SO WHAT? That's not particularly relevant to anything. What Kligman was discussing was HOW SEBUM GETS TRACKED ONTO HAIRS, and you attacked him by bringing up some entirely different issue. You appeared to be trying to find fault, just for the sake of finding fault.

Sebum clearly gets tracked onto hairs OUTSIDE of the hair follicle, because both Kligman and the authors of that study on FAEEs demonstrated that hair gets greasy again, even after being shampooed/de-fatted. You've been arguing for several days now about just some minor, fringe issue. You haven't laid a finger on Kligman.

Bryan[/quote:2ca0f]

OK Bryan, my issue was really with your attempt to ridicule my suggestion that sebum was penetrating the hair shaft within the follicle.

You now accept this is possible, so let that be an end to the matter.

S Foote.
 

Dave001

Experienced Member
Reaction score
0
S Foote. said:
OK Bryan, my issue was really with your attempt to ridicule my suggestion that sebum was penetrating the hair shaft within the follicle.

You now accept this is possible, so let that be an end to the matter.

Congratulations. It only took two weeks of repetition for that to become clear to you. Each quote is from a separate post:

Bryan said:
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.).

Bryan said:
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 said:
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.).

Bryan said:
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.

[...]

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

Bryan said:
Yes, I acknowledge that small amounts of sebum diffuse into hairs, possibly even within the confines of the hair follicle, but I ask you again: SO WHAT?
 

SE-freak

Senior Member
Reaction score
2
ShedMaster said:
I believe you are thinking of a*** penetration. (not saying you are gay!)

You filthy bender...

In all seriousness, I was talking about DVDA penetration at IBH level.
________________________________________________________
Appendix:

DVDA: Double Vaginal Double a***
IBH: Ideal Blowdjob Height
 

hair_tomorrow

Senior Member
Reaction score
5
VeryUpset said:
I wash mine 2-3x a week and have switched over to an Aloe Vera shampoo and conditioner.

What about you guys?

Shampoo once Daily. Used to shampoo, rinse, and repeat - but hair got too dried out.

M & R: Dr. Lee's Regrowth Shampoo

T, W, F: Green Tea Shampoo w/ a dab of Nano (to which I recently added 2 crushed caffeine tabs)

S & S: Head & Shoulders w/ Aloe, to which I've also added 10 B6 tabs and 4 caffeine tabs.

Condition as needed w/ Revivogen
 

Radio

Experienced Member
Reaction score
0
When I have been out for the night and had a few too many beers, I get home throw my wig into the washing machine with a couple of headache tablets and stick it on 'economy'.
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
975
I honestly think that frequency in hair washing does not particularly affect the production of sebum. It is important to know the different processes which have an influence in the sebum excretion rate (S.E.R.), where the sebum produced by the sebaceous gland is only one factor in a number. Sebum storage in the gland itself and flowing to the surface should also be taken into account.
The production of sebum by the sebaceous gland is clearly an androgen dependent process. The storage and outwards flow of sebum are physical processes where the reological characteristics of sebum can be crucial. It is important to take into account that sebum oxidizes easily and, eventually changes physically, chemically and biologically, so we should talk not only about quantity but quality of sebum.
Studies about sebum are scare and in some way complex. There is an open investigation field here. It would be interesting to know which type of sebum Klingman used in his investigations and its degree of oxidation. It is clear that sebum lies on the hair surface and it is not easy to remove it from there with soaps and detergents. Hair may not have an affinity for sebum but sebacous gland inyect into hair follicle and, certainly, when sebum reaches the hair shaft it is difficult to remove.
In my opinion a new theory about common baldness should be developed.
Sebum and hair loss are linked from the early times. Raymond Saboreaud´s studies at the beginning of the last century pointed out this possibility. Later, in the 50's and 60's new studies talked about the same subject. A lot of comments from people suffering from premature baldness are related to sebum problems.
Tom Haguerty's theory talk about scalp exercises. Moving actively the muscles of the scalp could be positive for a healthy hair. His ideas are interesting and have a link with sebum, more precisely with moving the sebum in the scalp avoiding its blocking. This technique could have an influence in the process of storage and diffusion of sebum and in a lower degree in its production .Scalp massage cold partly fulfil this process, especially when the scalp is moved, and at the same time eliminates or removes sebum from the surface of the hair.
According to my theory the most negative effects appear when the inward flow of sebum to the hair follicle is altered or blocked .This fact is connected with the possibility of renewing or eliminating the outward flow of sebum. If the outward flow is not interrupted there will not be any problem. The renewal of sebum in the outside is linked to the specific characteristics of hair, mainly its density, thickness, length and style. By the way, it is observed two zones more prone to begin the baldspots, the hair line or front line (recedeing line) and the crown area where lies the worhl of the hair.
Stephen Foote's theory about hydraulic forces in the scalp is also interesting but it should consider sebum flow as an extra component of the hydraulic pressure on the hair follicle area. Apart from that this theory does not explain the different effects caused in both sexes. It could also be considered the possibility that the hydraulic pressure is different in the areas of the scalp which are in contact with the pillow during sleep.
On the other hand the inflammation of the hair follicle in cases of alopecia is normal but nobody considered the possibility that the inflammation itself could interfere the flowing of stem cells from the bulging area to the dermal papilla, something similar to the problem of hardened sebum. The fact that hydraulic pressure could alter the flowing of new stem cells could have been suggested in Foote's theory.
Noonebutme theory about mites causing baldness would explain the most common hair loss pattern only in case that those organisms works only in certains areas, maybe this organism could travel better during the night in the areas where the head does not reach the pillow, ino rder to avoid a higher external preassure.
I thank Michael Barry for his supportive comments on my theory, though I would like him to be more specific in his discrepancies. His idea of connecting feeding habits to alopecia, observing migrant movements of Japanese people to western countries, is interesting but diet is supposed to affect hair all over the scalp and would not explain the typical hair loss pattern .I have also observed that Gypsies in Spain, who share the same diet with the rest of the population, do not suffer so much from alopecia. A similar investigation by Japanese doctor Masumi Inaba mentions overstimulation of the sebaceous gland by hormones and diet.
The point is that any theory should explain, among other things, the different incidence between both sexes and the typical hair loss pattern. Also any theory must admit the equality of all scalp hairs, independent of gender. My theory could be wrong but, are thousands of people wrong when they claim to have grease, irritation, inflammation, or itch when they find that they are losing their hair.
My theory is focused on the sebaceous gland and claims the need of androgens from the first capillar cycles, on the contrary the present theory say that D.H.T. should not appear before puberty. This is a crucial conundrum to solve. I have looked for information about this and have not found any definite proof. Intracrinology is a new area of study and hair investigation is an example. Evolution has developed capillar asynchrony (only in human beings) according to which each hair has its own biological mechanisms to rule its own cycle.
Investigations on differences in sebum (quantity as well as quality) between the areas of the scalp in which there is hair loss would help to check my theory. It would also help to check if the same differences appear in people not suffering from alopecia. A method like this could diagnose premature alopecia or could help to validate a new cosmetic treatment. By the way, there is lipids in the hair even in the innerst part, and it’s easy to suposse that most of these lipids come from the sebum. There is another piece of the hair loss puzzle.
I wish I had introduced a thought provoking theory which would shed some light on this problem. I think that prevention is better than cure and that free treatments like scalp exercise or maintain a certain hair length should be supported.
Thank you very much for your comments and attention. I don’t forget the useful information and knowledge from respected Bryan.

Armando
 
Top