Insulin resistance, PCOS, and male pattern baldness

[S Foote.]

Hi Stephen,
Glad to read you
Have you solved the problem of baldness between the sexes?

What problem do you refer too Armando?

S Foote.

 

[armandein]

Hi Stephen,
Glad to read you
Have you solved the problem of baldness between the sexes?

What problem do you refer too Armando?

S Foote.

I mean the difference in the incidence of baldness gender.
How do you explain with your theory?

 

[S Foote.]

As far as modern human hair patterns are concerned, these became irrelevant in thermo-regulation a long time ago. The study being refered to here "Beards, Baldness, and Sweat Secretion" made some important findings. However, the conjecture that these findings are linked to some evolved brain cooling system, does not explain the mechanism of the hair growth changes itself.

No, but I doubt that _anybody_ (besides you yourself) would seriously believe that the mechanism involves "contact inhibition", rather than the direct suppressive effect of androgens on scalp hair follicles.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1[/url]

Stephen, you need to post your statements using a LOT more clarity and precision. Are you claiming that the link above supports what you said just prior to that about what "the wider scientific community has debunked"? Please explain, without making us have to GUESS what you mean.[/quote:16gacs56]


Well Bryan, i think people here are more likely to believe the opinions of recognised experts on my theory than yours! Dr Marty Sawaya didn't refute my proposal of contact inhibition, she said quote:

"It is a very complex process, but your thoughts are very organized and on the right path, similar to what others have been proposing, and in some ways yours are more straightforward. I think you've done a good job in thinking this through......
Hope this helps...
regards
Marty Sawaya"

So people on hair loss forums should know that your opinions are not in line with genuine science.

The linked article about the radiator theory, and the thoughts of scientists in the field are very clear Bryan! I didn't think i would need to elaborate further?

If you need a simple sumary, scalp hair loss does not help to cool the brain, the "plumbing" is not right for such a function. So scalp hair loss cannot be an evolved compensation for beard growth. Therefore there is no thermo- regulatory purpose of male pattern baldness in modern humans.

I would add this.

My theory predicts the exact results upon sweating that the study proved. The direct theory does not predict this result, and it cannot explain it. In order "TO" explain this by the direct theory, sweat glands would also have to be "geneticaly" programed to react to androgens in opposite ways! Also there was no physical difference seen in the various sweat glands, so what is the "opposite" effect anyway?

Care to explain this to us Bryan?

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Hi Stephen,
Glad to read you
Have you solved the problem of baldness between the sexes?

What problem do you refer too Armando?

S Foote.

I mean the difference in the incidence of baldness gender.
How do you explain with your theory?

Levels of androgens Armando. My theory does not dispute that andogens are the primary cause of male pattern baldness, it just proposes an indirect action. Hair loss in general in both sexes, can also be linked in my opinion to increases in tissue fluid pressure for a number of reasons.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

The linked article about the radiator theory, and the thoughts of scientists in the field are very clear Bryan! I didn't think i would need to elaborate further?

If you need a simple sumary, scalp hair loss does not help to cool the brain, the "plumbing" is not right for such a function. So scalp hair loss cannot be an evolved compensation for beard growth. Therefore there is no thermo- regulatory purpose of male pattern baldness in modern humans.

Where in the link about the "radiator theory" do they even mention anything about any possible effect of scalp hair loss on thermo-regulation? :dunno:

I would add this.

My theory predicts the exact results upon sweating that the study proved. The direct theory does not predict this result, and it cannot explain it. In order "TO" explain this by the direct theory, sweat glands would also have to be "geneticaly" programed to react to androgens in opposite ways! Also there was no physical difference seen in the various sweat glands, so what is the "opposite" effect anyway?

Care to explain this to us Bryan?

Once again: which study are you referring to? Be careful what you say, and don't keep us all guessing what you mean!!

 

[S Foote.]

The linked article about the radiator theory, and the thoughts of scientists in the field are very clear Bryan! I didn't think i would need to elaborate further?

If you need a simple sumary, scalp hair loss does not help to cool the brain, the "plumbing" is not right for such a function. So scalp hair loss cannot be an evolved compensation for beard growth. Therefore there is no thermo- regulatory purpose of male pattern baldness in modern humans.

Where in the link about the "radiator theory" do they even mention anything about any possible effect of scalp hair loss on thermo-regulation? :dunno:

[quote="S Foote.":3ri36c7b]I would add this.

My theory predicts the exact results upon sweating that the study proved. The direct theory does not predict this result, and it cannot explain it. In order "TO" explain this by the direct theory, sweat glands would also have to be "geneticaly" programed to react to androgens in opposite ways! Also there was no physical difference seen in the various sweat glands, so what is the "opposite" effect anyway?

Care to explain this to us Bryan?

Once again: which study are you referring to? Be careful what you say, and don't keep us all guessing what you mean!![/quote:3ri36c7b]


Huh, are you being serious Bryan??

In this thread, you posted this Quote:

"Do we have to keep going over this "brain-cooling" theory over and over and over? Don't you ever pay into attention to the medical literature, squeegee? As I've mentioned several times already, this theory has already been proposed by serious scientists: "Beards, baldness, and sweat secretion", M. Cabanac and H. Brinnel. Eur J Appl Physiol (1988) 58:39-46.

Summary. The hypothesis according to which male common baldness has developed in the human species as a compensation for the growth of a beard in order to achieve heat loss has been tested. In 100 clean-shaven men direct measurement of the area of glabrous skin on the forehead and calvaria was found to be proportional to that of the hairy area skin on the lips, cheeks, chin and neck. During light hyperthermia the evaporation rate on the bald scalp was 2 to 3 times higher than on the hairy scalp. Conversely the evaporation rate was practically equal on the foreheads and chins of women and unbearded young men, while in adult clean-shaven bearded men it was 40% less on the chin than the forehead.

These results support the hypothesis that male baldness is a thermoregulatory compensation for the growth of a beard in adults."


Did you actually read this paper? Because the thermoregulatory hypothesis it refers to above, is Falks radiator theory. The link i posted is a professional critique of this. If you seriously have to ask me what i am talking about, there is no hope for you Bryan.

Personaly knowing you like i do, i think you are just playing dumb. You usually do this when you cant answer a question.

So now you know what i am refering to, give us the "direct" theories explaination for the significant changes in sweat secretion linked with androgen related hair growth/loss? Dont forget to explain the "opposite" mechanisms, and why there is no physical differences in the sweat glands?


S Foote.

 

[hairhoper]

This discussion has gone beyond pompous.

Signing off all your posts S. Foote? Really?

 

[S Foote.]

This discussion has gone beyond pompous.

Signing off all your posts S. Foote? Really?

Well sorry, but i come from a pre internet forum generation (i'am 58) Old man like Bryan. We grew up signing our letters! Sorry to be so pompous, just an old habit.

S Foote OH S**t Sorry.

 

[squeegee]

This discussion has gone beyond pompous.

Signing off all your posts S. Foote? Really?

Well sorry, but i come from a pre internet forum generation (i'am 58) Old man like Bryan. We grew up signing our letters! Sorry to be so pompous, just an old habit.

S Foote OH S**t Sorry.

Old school! LOL you 2 guys are characters! Fun to see you posting! I miss you guys fighting!!! Have any suggestions? What is the bike in your picture? An old Kawi?

What do you guys think about this following study?

Bald scalp in men with androgenetic alopecia retains hair follicle stem cells but lacks CD200-rich and CD34-positive hair follicle progenitor cells

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/44478#SEC3

 

[S Foote.]

This discussion has gone beyond pompous.

Signing off all your posts S. Foote? Really?

Well sorry, but i come from a pre internet forum generation (i'am 58) Old man like Bryan. We grew up signing our letters! Sorry to be so pompous, just an old habit.

S Foote OH S**t Sorry.

Old school! LOL you 2 guys are characters! Fun to see you posting! I miss you guys fighting!!! Have any suggestions? What is the bike in your picture? An old Kawi?

It's my 1978 Suzuki GS750, i restored it and ride regularly. (old school again i suppose)

My suggestions are to do every thing you can to reduce scalp tissue fluid pressures. There are helpfull cheap things as i have suggested before, but we really need the professional scientists to widen the scope of their experiments in male pattern baldness.

I had a thought after this "signing" comment. This explains why Bryan has stopped signing his posts! The internet forum "police" have decided this is a big no no, and Bryan has abandoned his principles and gone along with this just to score points on the forums

I was taught signing your name to your words was being respectfull to people, and showing your commitment to what you were saying. But it seems times move on.

Good luck.

This post has been written by S Foote

 

[S Foote.]

This discussion has gone beyond pompous.

Signing off all your posts S. Foote? Really?

Well sorry, but i come from a pre internet forum generation (i'am 58) Old man like Bryan. We grew up signing our letters! Sorry to be so pompous, just an old habit.

S Foote OH S**t Sorry.

Old school! LOL you 2 guys are characters! Fun to see you posting! I miss you guys fighting!!! Have any suggestions? What is the bike in your picture? An old Kawi?

What do you guys think about this following study?

Bald scalp in men with androgenetic alopecia retains hair follicle stem cells but lacks CD200-rich and CD34-positive hair follicle progenitor cells

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/44478#SEC3

Of to bed now, thanks for the study link i will take a look tommorow.

S Foote.

 

[squeegee]

[youtube:1x7kv5x7]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J7uElfRv-0&feature=related[/youtube:1x7kv5x7]

A lot of people restore them as cafe racer! Sorry for the threadjacking session.. just love motorcyles in any form! Surprise not seeing you on a Harley or Goldwing!

 

[Bryan]

Where in the link about the "radiator theory" do they even mention anything about any possible effect of scalp hair loss on thermo-regulation? :dunno:

I would add this.

My theory predicts the exact results upon sweating that the study proved. The direct theory does not predict this result, and it cannot explain it. In order "TO" explain this by the direct theory, sweat glands would also have to be "geneticaly" programed to react to androgens in opposite ways! Also there was no physical difference seen in the various sweat glands, so what is the "opposite" effect anyway?

Care to explain this to us Bryan?

Once again: which study are you referring to? Be careful what you say, and don't keep us all guessing what you mean!!

Huh, are you being serious Bryan??

In this thread, you posted this Quote:

"Do we have to keep going over this "brain-cooling" theory over and over and over? Don't you ever pay into attention to the medical literature, squeegee? As I've mentioned several times already, this theory has already been proposed by serious scientists: "Beards, baldness, and sweat secretion", M. Cabanac and H. Brinnel. Eur J Appl Physiol (1988) 58:39-46.

{snip Cabanac and Brinnel abstract}

Did you actually read this paper?

Yes.

Because the thermoregulatory hypothesis it refers to above, is Falks radiator theory. The link i posted is a professional critique of this.

In the General Discussion section, Cabanac and Brinnel make only a brief reference to a couple of Dean Falk's later articles which were published a few years (1983 and 1986) after the original presentation of her "radiator" theory in 1980. Without actually reading those two later articles of hers, it's impossible to know to what extent Cabanac and Brinnel were specifically referring to her "radiator" theory in their "Beards, Baldness, and Sweat Secretion" study.

If you seriously have to ask me what i am talking about, there is no hope for you Bryan.

Personaly knowing you like i do, i think you are just playing dumb. You usually do this when you cant answer a question.

So now you know what i am refering to, give us the "direct" theories explaination for the significant changes in sweat secretion linked with androgen related hair growth/loss? Dont forget to explain the "opposite" mechanisms, and why there is no physical differences in the sweat glands?

I don't have any better idea for the differences in sweat secretion than what Cabanac and Brinnel speculate about in their paper.

Now answer the first (and unanswered) question I had for you in the quoted material at the beginning. In your future posts, be sure and make it CLEAR which link (or study) you're referring to. Don't leave questions unanswered. Perhaps most important of all, LEARN HOW TO QUOTE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF SOMBODY ELSE'S POST AT A TIME, so that you can reply to one section at a time. I know, I know: it's a little bit of trouble to do all that, but you need to learn to be professional, when you post on discussion forums! :mrgreen:

 

[Jacob]

but you need to learn to be professional, when you post on discussion forums! :mrgreen:

Could you do the same, Bryan?

 

[S Foote.]

Where in the link about the "radiator theory" do they even mention anything about any possible effect of scalp hair loss on thermo-regulation? :dunno:

I would add this.

My theory predicts the exact results upon sweating that the study proved. The direct theory does not predict this result, and it cannot explain it. In order "TO" explain this by the direct theory, sweat glands would also have to be "geneticaly" programed to react to androgens in opposite ways! Also there was no physical difference seen in the various sweat glands, so what is the "opposite" effect anyway?

Care to explain this to us Bryan?

Once again: which study are you referring to? Be careful what you say, and don't keep us all guessing what you mean!!

Huh, are you being serious Bryan??

In this thread, you posted this Quote:

"Do we have to keep going over this "brain-cooling" theory over and over and over? Don't you ever pay into attention to the medical literature, squeegee? As I've mentioned several times already, this theory has already been proposed by serious scientists: "Beards, baldness, and sweat secretion", M. Cabanac and H. Brinnel. Eur J Appl Physiol (1988) 58:39-46.

{snip Cabanac and Brinnel abstract}

Did you actually read this paper?

Yes.

[quote="S Foote.":2eucu0cu]Because the thermoregulatory hypothesis it refers to above, is Falks radiator theory. The link i posted is a professional critique of this.

In the General Discussion section, Cabanac and Brinnel make only a brief reference to a couple of Dean Falk's later articles which were published a few years (1983 and 1986) after the original presentation of her "radiator" theory in 1980. Without actually reading those two later articles of hers, it's impossible to know to what extent Cabanac and Brinnel were specifically referring to her "radiator" theory in their "Beards, Baldness, and Sweat Secretion" study.

If you seriously have to ask me what i am talking about, there is no hope for you Bryan.

Personaly knowing you like i do, i think you are just playing dumb. You usually do this when you cant answer a question.

So now you know what i am refering to, give us the "direct" theories explaination for the significant changes in sweat secretion linked with androgen related hair growth/loss? Dont forget to explain the "opposite" mechanisms, and why there is no physical differences in the sweat glands?

I don't have any better idea for the differences in sweat secretion than what Cabanac and Brinnel speculate about in their paper.

Now answer the first (and unanswered) question I had for you in the quoted material at the beginning. In your future posts, be sure and make it CLEAR which link (or study) you're referring to. Don't leave questions unanswered. Perhaps most important of all, LEARN HOW TO QUOTE SPECIFIC SECTIONS OF SOMBODY ELSE'S POST AT A TIME, so that you can reply to one section at a time. I know, I know: it's a little bit of trouble to do all that, but you need to learn to be professional, when you post on discussion forums! :mrgreen:[/quote:2eucu0cu]


I don't think your headmaster telling a pupil off act is going to kid the readers here Bryan :whistle:

I do know how to breakdown posts to answer specific points, and when you have any real points, i will do that.

In this thread, there has been discussion about male pattern baldness as an evolved thermoregulatory compensation to cool the brain. You yourself quoted the Cabanac and Brinnel sweating study that raises this question. We have debated this study many times.

Then when i posted about how my theory predicts these changes in sweating linked with hair growth, you tell me you dont know which study i am refering too. When i link a critique about the brain cooling theory, refered to in Cabanacs study (is that enough or do you need the full citation?) you claim you dont see the connection because this doesn't mention male pattern baldness.

You are having a laugh Bryan as we say in England :whistle:

There was actually a TV documentary about Falks radiator theory and Prof Cabanac was featured on this, and his work discussed by Falk in support of her theory. I will try to find a link to this if there is one.

I had not heard of Cabanacs male pattern baldness sweating study untill he contacted me when he heard about my theory. He sent me a copy of "beards baldness and sweat secretion", because he could see the relevance of my theory to his findings.

The idea that male pattern baldness was necessary as a brain cooling aid in bearded men, does not hold up for reasons described in the link i provided about Falks theory.

For our interest in male pattern baldness, the important question is why the sweating changes? The simple logical answer to this is that these changes reflect changes in the local tissue fluid pressures. There was no physical changes in the glands, and sweat glands dont have a pumping mechanism. The logical conclusion has to be that secreation changes, are caused by changes in the tissue fluid pressure that feeds the sweat glands.

In my opinion, the fluid pressure around the follicles that dictates their anagen size, is being reflected by the changes in the local sweating.

OK i wont sign anymore, if some see it as wrong i dont want to offend.

 

[S Foote.]

[youtubecqxn6hw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J7uElfRv-0&feature=related[/youtubecqxn6hw]

A lot of people restore them as cafe racer! Sorry for the threadjacking session.. just love motorcyles in any form! Surprise not seeing you on a Harley or Goldwing!

There is a good site about the GS series Bikes http://www.thegsresources.com/

I also love motorcycles, and have an interest in all kinds. Not really a Harley man, or "two wheeled cars" like the Goldwing. I prefer something that handles and can be thrown around a bit!

I had a look at the link you provided, and i think it is worth carefull consideration. I will post about it later if i can.

 

[Bryan]

In this thread, there has been discussion about male pattern baldness as an evolved thermoregulatory compensation to cool the brain. You yourself quoted the Cabanac and Brinnel sweating study that raises this question. We have debated this study many times.

Then when i posted about how my theory predicts these changes in sweating linked with hair growth, you tell me you dont know which study i am refering too. When i link a critique about the brain cooling theory, refered to in Cabanacs study (is that enough or do you need the full citation?) you claim you dont see the connection because this doesn't mention male pattern baldness.

The Cabanac study made no clear reference to the "radiator" discussion in the other study, as I've already explained to you. AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY FIRST QUESTION!

The idea that male pattern baldness was necessary as a brain cooling aid in bearded men, does not hold up for reasons described in the link i provided about Falks theory.

ANSWER MY QUESTION, DAMNIT!! There was no mention of male pattern baldness in the link you provided about Falk's theory.

For our interest in male pattern baldness, the important question is why the sweating changes? The simple logical answer to this is that these changes reflect changes in the local tissue fluid pressures. There was no physical changes in the glands, and sweat glands dont have a pumping mechanism. The logical conclusion has to be that secreation changes, are caused by changes in the tissue fluid pressure that feeds the sweat glands.

Sounds reasonable enough to me. So what? :dunno:

In my opinion, the fluid pressure around the follicles that dictates their anagen size, is being reflected by the changes in the local sweating.

That's where you tear your pants: suggesting your own eccentric theory for a supposed mechanism behind the miniaturiaztion of hair follicles. That was shot-down in flames years ago, but you just can't admit it.

 

[S Foote.]

In this thread, there has been discussion about male pattern baldness as an evolved thermoregulatory compensation to cool the brain. You yourself quoted the Cabanac and Brinnel sweating study that raises this question. We have debated this study many times.

Then when i posted about how my theory predicts these changes in sweating linked with hair growth, you tell me you dont know which study i am refering too. When i link a critique about the brain cooling theory, refered to in Cabanacs study (is that enough or do you need the full citation?) you claim you dont see the connection because this doesn't mention male pattern baldness.

The Cabanac study made no clear reference to the "radiator" discussion in the other study, as I've already explained to you. AND YOU STILL HAVEN'T ANSWERED MY FIRST QUESTION!

You are on the record in this thread as supporting the idea that male pattern baldness evolved in humans as a brain cooling aid. How can you support something you dont understand Bryan? How do you think male pattern baldness would help cool the brain, if not by the radiator principle? Please tell us how this idea you support would work by any other heat disapation method? Be carefull because you are begining to make a fool of yourself now :woot:

The idea that male pattern baldness was necessary as a brain cooling aid in bearded men, does not hold up for reasons described in the link i provided about Falks theory.

ANSWER MY QUESTION, DAMNIT!! There was no mention of male pattern baldness in the link you provided about Falk's theory.

Why cant you understand the point here Bryan? You support the male pattern baldness brain cooling idea, and the Falk link clearly shows that brain cooling happens despite male pattern baldness! Thats probably why male pattern baldness is not mentioned :whistle:

In my opinion, the fluid pressure around the follicles that dictates their anagen size, is being reflected by the changes in the local sweating.

That's where you tear your pants: suggesting your own eccentric theory for a supposed mechanism behind the miniaturiaztion of hair follicles. That was shot-down in flames years ago, but you just can't admit it.

Shot down by who and with what scientific evidence? I have already refered to Sawayas comment that other scientists are thinking along the same lines, so go tell them you know better :whistle:

 

[Bryan]

You are on the record in this thread as supporting the idea that male pattern baldness evolved in humans as a brain cooling aid. How can you support something you dont understand Bryan? How do you think male pattern baldness would help cool the brain, if not by the radiator principle? Please tell us how this idea you support would work by any other heat disapation method? Be carefull because you are begining to make a fool of yourself now :woot:

What do you mean, I "don't understand it"?? Obviously it _does_ work by a kind of "radiator principle". Cabanac et al proved in their own experiments that it helps with cooling, although possibly for more than just one reason.

Why cant you understand the point here Bryan? You support the male pattern baldness brain cooling idea, and the Falk link clearly shows that brain cooling happens despite male pattern baldness! Thats probably why male pattern baldness is not mentioned :whistle:

Sweet Mother of Mercy! You FINALLY answered my question, after only about half a dozen requests from me!! Will wonders never cease??

Yes, from what I can tell, Falk apparently suggests that a number of evolved mechanisms help cool the brain. That certainly doesn't disprove the theory that balding is yet another evolutionary change to provide even MORE cooling.

That's where you tear your pants: suggesting your own eccentric theory for a supposed mechanism behind the miniaturiaztion of hair follicles. That was shot-down in flames years ago, but you just can't admit it.

Shot down by who and with what scientific evidence? I have already refered to Sawayas comment that other scientists are thinking along the same lines, so go tell them you know better :whistle:

LOL!! Shot down by me, and others over the years. More than one poster here (they will remain nameless) has Private Messaged me with support over the years, in my efforts to respond to you and make you see the light. One of them even told me a long time ago that my citation of Sawaya's own evidence in favor of the Standard Theory was a "slam dunk" in my favor (I'm not joking about this).

 

[S Foote.]

This discussion has gone beyond pompous.

Signing off all your posts S. Foote? Really?

Well sorry, but i come from a pre internet forum generation (i'am 58) Old man like Bryan. We grew up signing our letters! Sorry to be so pompous, just an old habit.

S Foote OH S**t Sorry.

Old school! LOL you 2 guys are characters! Fun to see you posting! I miss you guys fighting!!! Have any suggestions? What is the bike in your picture? An old Kawi?

What do you guys think about this following study?

Bald scalp in men with androgenetic alopecia retains hair follicle stem cells but lacks CD200-rich and CD34-positive hair follicle progenitor cells

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/44478#SEC3

My first thought on reading this study, is that the follicle cell multiplication and populations are effected very early on in the anagen growth process.

Quote:

"Here we analyzed KRT15, CD200, and CD34 expression with flow cytometry to assess the stem and progenitor cell compartments in bald and haired (i.e., non-bald) scalp from individuals with Androgenetic Alopecia. Surprisingly, we found that the stem cell population was maintained in bald scalp. However, CD200hiITGA6hi and CD34hi cells were greatly diminished. These lost cells likely represent early progeny of stem cells, based on their position in the follicle, stem cell marker expression levels, cell size, and cell cycle state. Functionally, an analogous murine CD200hiItga6hi population was capable of regenerating an entire hair follicle, consistent with a progenitor cell phenotype. These results suggest that loss of progenitor cells, but not stem cells, contributes to human male pattern baldness."

The question i ask is how could androgens be "directly" involved at such an early stage, when it is only DP cells that have androgen receptors? The in-vitro studies of balding DP cells show that androgens only create DP cell growth restriction when other follicle cells are in the "mix"

So do these other follicle cells exist at this early stage, and if they dont, how can androgens "directly" effect the progenitor cell deficiency found in this study and how? ( for Bryans benefit the study i refer to is the one i quoted above)

Is it not more likely that some other "gereral" cell growth restriction process is at work here?

I would be interested in comments from the "direct" androgen effect folks on their explaination for this studies findings. (that is the study i quoted above Bryan, the one i have been talking about in this post)