If You Want To Regrow Hair; Read This Article!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[blink]

if propecia/finasteride doesnt work, how do you explain people that regrow hair on just finasteride alone?

 

[OverMachoGrande]

if propecia/finasteride doesnt work, how do you explain people that regrow hair on just finasteride alone?

They might grow some hair due to a slight increase in S.H.B.G., due to an increase in estrogen, but I doubt they regrew a full head of hair.

 

[somone uk]

i think i have mentioned castration 3-4 times on this thread and i have had heard no reason to why people who are castrated before pubety don't go bald, nor i hear any reason to WHY a castrated man would then go bald after he is given testosterone

 

[OverMachoGrande]

i think i have mentioned castration 3-4 times on this thread and i have had heard no reason to why people who are castrated before pubety don't go bald, nor i hear any reason to WHY a castrated man would then go bald after he is given testosterone

No balls, means a lot less testosterone, which means a lot less estrogen. You still produce testosterone in other places like the adrenals, but just in much lower amounts, so low that they are in harmony with S.H.B.G. and unable to interact with the nasty aromatase enzyme.

 

[Bryan]

Here we go again. Nice try. You aren’t going to mislead me Bryan.

I haven't been misleading you, you've been misleading yourself. I put you in the same class as Ernie Primeau.

It doesn’t make sense to think androgens causes hair loss and prostate enlargement, if that was so, then every teenage boy would be bald and impotent.

I explained it all to you, but you _do_ have to have the wit to understand it. You apparently don't pass that test.

Come on folks, can’t y’all see Bryan’s motives, he’s misleading us into thinking that the hormones needed for proper sexual function, prostate health and hair growth are, in fact doing the opposite. If you take away androgens you are going to have less virility, muscles, and hair.

LOL!! You're an idiot.

 

[wesleyBelgium]

the receptors on the hairfollikels are the key in male pattern baldness
if you have a way to break them down on your scalp... (asc-j9)
its the future, will replace fina and duta over time...

i dont believe its just balanced with hormonelevels....

 

[beaner]

[[ Obviously balding doesn’t occur around puberty, it usually occurs around age 30.......

Most guys on this board are 18-25. I started balding over 20 years ago at 15-16 along with a number of other guys in my high school class. Everyone I know that is balding started quite young, long before age 30---my brother was a Norwood 6 by 25.

Just my observations, but I believe in many cases, balding does start at puberty.

 

[abcdv12]

Great debate.

This is my personal opinion, I think inflamation , ( dont know if it is caused by androgens or estrogens ) , is the cause of the hair loss. So if one can treat the inflamation , early , has a good chance against fighting hair loss.

MisterE , keep writing.


bye.

 

[abcdv12]

[[ Obviously balding doesn’t occur around puberty, it usually occurs around age 30.......

I started going bald around 17 and 18 , I was NW6 by age 35.
bye

 

[mykal_P]

the receptors on the hairfollikels are the key in male pattern baldness
if you have a way to break them down on your scalp... (asc-j9)
its the future, will replace fina and duta over time...

i dont believe its just balanced with hormonelevels....

I agree, i think genetics play into it a lot also. Hair on top is more sensitive to hormones I believe. MisterE does bring up some interesting points but proof is the ultimate silencer in this case. He needs to have some people follow his regiment and post some good results.

 

[Bryan]

MisterE does bring up some interesting points but proof is the ultimate silencer in this case.

He doesn't have any interesting points at all. Not a single one. In particular, his last few posts about how scalp hair requires androgens to grow are sheer idiocy. Please don't encourage him by giving him any support in the childish things he says.

 

[Quantum Cat]

MisterE you be our guinea pig. Keep to your low estrogen regime and come back here in 20 years time. If you still have a full thick head of hair, then we'll bow down to your superor knowledge.

 

[dpdr]

MisterE, if I increase my levels of testosterone and DHT would be good for my hair ?

 

[OverMachoGrande]

I would not try and raise testosterone, I would try to raise S.H.B.G. and lower IGF-1. The simplest way to do that is with a low-fat/high-fiber starch based vegan diet.

Read this article (below) by hero John McDougall, who advocates a diet centered on starch.

It has long been rumored that the levels of the muscle building hormone, testosterone, are raised with meat-eating. However, recent research comparing people following various diets has found vegans (no animal products) have 8% more testosterone than lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and 13% more than people on the standard Western diet (with meat and dairy).22 (Fortunately, this extra male hormone is kept safely bound with a protein to prevent over-stimulation of the tissues, including the prostate.) So, if not testosterone, then what in the meat-eater’s diet could possibly be growth-stimulating?22-23

There may be some truth that eating all that protein stimulates muscle growth.24,25 Protein raises insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) in the human body, stimulating the growth of muscle and all other tissues. Meat-eaters are found to have 9% higher levels of IGF-1 than vegans.22 People eating dairy and eggs (lacto-ovo-vegetarians) have 8% higher levels.22 Unfortunately, IGF-1 also stimulates the growth of cancer of the breast, prostate, lung, and colon by stimulating cell proliferation and inhibiting cell death – two activities you definitely don't want when cancer cells are involved.26,27 Eating all that meat and those dairy products could make bigger muscles – but, how often do athletes think about the effects on their health? Beauty is more than skin deep – for sure. And ugly goes clear to the bone.

22) Allen NE. Hormones and diet: low insulin-like growth factor-I but normal bioavailable androgens in vegan men. Br J Cancer. 2000 Jul;83(1):95-7.

23) Raben A. Serum sex hormones and endurance performance after a lacto-ovo vegetarian and a mixed diet. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1992 Nov;24(11):1290-7.

24) Holmes MD. Dietary correlates of plasma insulin-like growth factor I and insulin-like growth factor binding protein 3 concentrations. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2002 Sep;11(9):852-61.

25) Nilsen TI. Adult height and risk of breast cancer: a possible effect of early nutrition. Br J Cancer. 2001 Sep 28;85(7):959-61.

26) Yu H. Role of the insulin-like growth factor family in cancer development and progression. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000 Sep 20;92(18):1472-89.

27) LeRoith D. The insulin-like growth factor system and cancer. Cancer Lett. 2003 Jun 10;195(2):127-37.

 

[S Foote.]

But why do you think that androgens are the main cause of hair loss in men when androgens actually decrease as men age?

That question comes up occasionally on hairloss sites like this one (or related questions, like "Why do some people start balding relatively late in life, even though their androgen levels are highest in their late teenage years, or early 20's?"). I'm going to answer that question for all the other readers who may be wondering the same thing (you've demonstrated to me that you don't listen to what people tell you). There are at least TWO important reasons for why it can take a long time for a man to develop balding, even though his overall androgen levels may be slowly declining:

1) Damage to hair follicles from androgens is cumulative, and can sometimes take YEARS to develop. It doesn't just happen overnight.

2) Scalp hair follicles can become more and more sensitive to androgens over a period of time (years). They don't simply change from being relatively insensitive to androgens (like they are, prior to puberty) to being fully sensitive to androgen the day that puberty hits. It's a gradual process of becoming more and more sensitive to androgens. The very slowly declining average levels of androgens in aging men by itself isn't sufficient to stop the balding process.

This speculation of yours has a very big flaw Bryan, as i have pointed out to you before. There have been at least two times in past posts where i have explained this flaw to you, but you have refused to answer my point.


So here it is again.

What you try to claim here is impossible, given what we now know about the hair cycle and stem cells.

I would advise you to read this article by Elaine Fuchs and her team.


http://newswire.rockefeller.edu/index.p ... ine&id=881

In a nutshell, quote:


"For a new round of hair growth to begin, stem cells in the hair follicle must receive a signal to divide. In response to this signal, the hair follicle regenerates first by growing downward through the skin’s middle layer, the dermis, and then producing the specialized cells that form the hair. After a period during which the hair grows longer, stem cells stop dividing, and the hair follicle gradually retracts again. There is then a period of rest and the cycle repeats."

So stem cells create "NEW" hair producing cells every hair cycle.

You claim that these cells take "YEARS" to become androgen sensitive, longer in fact than the average human scalp hair cycle.

male pattern baldness follicles still cycle, so why dont we get normal hair again from these "new" follicles, at least for the years it takes them to become "sensitive" to androgens? (according to you).

A proper scientific response please Bryan.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

This speculation of yours has a very big flaw Bryan, as i have pointed out to you before. There have been at least two times in past posts where i have explained this flaw to you, but you have refused to answer my point.

We have discussed this before, and I have already answered your point (to the very limited degree that it can even be called a "point"): nobody can give you a specific answer to your question, for the simple reason that nobody knows the exact biochemical steps involved in making hair follicles either stimulated by androgens, or suppressed by them, and certainly not the reasons that they transform from one kind to the other. So your question is moot and unanswerable. For the time being, anyway.

 

[harist]

Very very interesting debate

In my opinion misterE might have a point there

 

[S Foote.]

This speculation of yours has a very big flaw Bryan, as i have pointed out to you before. There have been at least two times in past posts where i have explained this flaw to you, but you have refused to answer my point.

We have discussed this before, and I have already answered your point (to the very limited degree that it can even be called a "point"): nobody can give you a specific answer to your question, for the simple reason that nobody knows the exact biochemical steps involved in making hair follicles either stimulated by androgens, or suppressed by them, and certainly not the reasons that they transform from one kind to the other. So your question is moot and unanswerable. For the time being, anyway.

I dont think thats going to fool anyone here Bryan.

The particular point in question is clearly answered by the scientific evidence available.

You claim that it takes years for follicle cells to become sensitive to androgens, the follicle stem cell studies prove that your claim is not possible.

Your claim in this thread has been proven wrong.

This is a good example of what happens when assumptions are made about scientific evidence, because of a persons own beliefs.

The in-vitro tests clearly show that follicles known to be destined to become male pattern baldness follicles, are not directly changed into male pattern baldness follicles when "feed" androgens. So people who support the direct theory have to explain this.

The only way the direct theory can survive in the light of this evidence, and the evidence that every one can see for themselves (male pattern baldness can take years to develope after puberty), is the assumption that it takes years for follicles to become directly sensitive to androgens.

But as we can now see from the stem cell research, this attempt at justifing the failure of the in-vitro tests to support the direct action theory, is also finally refuted.

Some will argue that the in-vitro tests "do" show that androgens "directly" support the pre-existing growth characteristics of follicle samples, but so could a lot of other substances! This is a much different thing from finding out how androgens cause growth changes in the first place?

What the in-vitro studies "DO" prove is that androgens "DONT" create this change directly. Now the stem cell studies also support an "indirect" action of androgens.

I think you need to go back to the drawing board Bryan!

S Foote.

 

[somone uk]

ok this theory keeps needing PROOF.

the reason we belive minoxidil and propeca is because there are trials proving the effects and that they work

all i have seen from your "science" is a long list of arbitrary claims and "doctors" (the type that obviously get their medical licences fresh out of the photocopier) making claims, but science is about the experiment, i have not seen any proof that male pattern baldness is caused by eastrogen, proof btw consists of NUMERIC data

also article 2 is of cause bollocks "A diet high in vegetables and fruit with concentrated herb extracts, in combination with an intense exercise program, can help you manage bad estrogen"
my dad is the biggest health freak in the world and he is still as bald as a plucked chicken and yes he eats that kinda diet and excersises to death

seriously do you actually think eating your fruit and vegtibles like a good boy will cure baldnes
and i am an impartial person but i have seen all theory and bs without proof, proof > theory

we can't prove DHT causes baldness, but we do know inhibiting 5ar2 helps alot, as a matter of theoretical fact i have not seen any conclusive proof to support that it's DHT and not just 5ar itself that causes baldness

 

[Quantum Cat]

All the time people come here asking if alcohol /smoking / jerking off /eating healthy / excercising / vitamins /wearing hats / blow drying / listening to metal music etc... etc... will either cure baldness/make baldness worse.

And the answer is always the same: - male pattern baldness IS GENETIC !

can't you cranks get that into your skulls?!!

If estrogen is the cause then how does that explain the 19 year old guys who are already NW5/6. Or the 70 year old men who are still NW1/2?

And why would there be a conspiracy to repress the true cause of male pattern baldness, when whoever finds a 100% cure for hairloss will have fame and fortune beyond their wildest dreams?!!

:baaa: