Insulin resistance, PCOS, and male pattern baldness

[Brains Expel Hair]

Spray DDT over residential areas for a safe way to curb mosquito populations, there's no negative health effects of artificial colors, butter will cause heart disease so we're replacing it all with these fantastic new trans fats, HFCS is perfectly ok for you to eat and sugar consumption doesn't contribute to diabetes.

I think the major issue with looking at any particular dangers of SLS is not in how your body reacts to the product alone, but in how your body reacts to SLS in addition to the other harmful-in-higher-doses compounds found in things like shampoos. SLS compromises your first line of defense against potentially harmful external agents by increasing the permeability of your skin which theoretically could lead to reactions from those additional compounds. That being said, I use SLS shampoo, mainly because I'm too lazy to go through another round of emailing manufacturers of hair care products to find out which ones have gluten or not so I don't have to wash my hands every time I touch my hair.

Going gluten-free ended up fixing my chronic low-level blood sugar issues within a months time. It ended up fixing neurological issues shortly after that along with GI issues. The GF diet along with swapping to a low carb/good fats diet pretty much stopped the shedding dead in it's tracks and alleviated almost all but the occasional itch as my hair went from always greasy to normal condition. This was working fine until I discovered a fantastic little gluten-free bakery in the new town I recently moved to and proceeded to gorge myself on their amazing GF marrion berry muffins. This somewhat shifted my carb/fat intake to put it lightly which in turn caused a return of some of the skin/mouth/scalp issues that I thought I had dealt with, leading me to find out more about candida (another current medically "imaginary" concern, coincidentally related to carb consumption). After treatment with topical and system fungicides my hair has gone from normal condition to ridiculously full of volume and condition, so much that I don't even need to use conditioning or styling products (all while still using the SLS shampoo :whistle: ). This is pretty much the best condition my hair has been in since I hit 13.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

But I noticed that when I ate whole wheat subs I would get a side stitch afterward.

Out of curiosity was it around the area of your spleen (left side of body, just by your diaphragm)?

How do you know if you have a gluten intolerance?

Depends on which country you're living in. A lot of the European countries currently use the best test for it involving a rectal suppository of gluten (looking for any reaction in your mucus membrane as a result). The US still doesn't have that test but in the past few months has been moving to the deamidated gliadin antibody tests which are a whole bunch better than what most doctors unfortunately still use (small intestine biopsy and/or tissue transglutaminase (tTG) antibodies.

Alternatively you could simply read up about all the hidden sources of gluten out there, go gluten free yourself while keeping a food journal and look to see if any health issues increase. It is possible for gluten consumption to cause other related health issues that end up causing the problems however as gluten consumption can possibly end up altering gene expression related to intestinal permeability in all humans. Because of that it may be possible that all humans are on some level gluten intolerant, the extent to which each is would simply come down to a matter of individual genetics.

Chances are if you've ever had "IBS" (made up condition) then you've either got a gluten intolerance or something like crohn's disease (partially related to a different component of wheat), if you have multiple oral ulcers (little short lived rawish white spots in your mouth) then you've got a gluten problem, if you have adult acne then you've got either gluten or another food intolerance.

 

[Broons85]

Also be weary of studies paid for by the cosmetic/industrial industries. They have a lot to lose if it comes out that SLS is bad, so if they spend money studying it you can be sure that it will be spent on studies showing that it's harmless.

I think the word you want here is wary, not weary!

Anyway, Dr. Proctor has talked about this issue at some length back on alt.baldspot, and can tell you exactly when this silly hoopla over SLS first began. I'm forgetting a lot of the details nowadays, but if I remember correctly, it began just as some effort on the part of a shampoo manufacturer (or something similar) to sell his product: "Buy our super-duper XYZ Shampoo! It doesn't contain that nasty 'SLS' detergent!" It was just about as silly as something like that. Be wary of marketing scams by shysters who are trying to put the fear of God into people about using something harmless, just so they'll buy some other product!

Thanks for pointing out the typo, Bryan. I also spelled reason "reaosn," but I guess you missed that one.

There's also a theory that people started saying marijuana is bad during the era of the Civil Rights movement because black people liked to smoke it , the reasoning being that saying it was bad made it seem like blacks were bringing down society. Obviously, nowadays, we know marijuana is bad, and the idea that it is certainly didn't originate to bring down black people. Likewise, I think SLS is bad, and the idea that it is certainly didn't stem from some random shampoo ad. I don't buy into these conspiracy theories because my common sense tells me otherwise.

By pointing out silly typos and talking about some random doctor and some random, obscure shampoo ad from god knows when I think you're missing the point. I think you're just trying to play devil's advocate here for some attention or something. But the fact is that SLS is a highly toxic agent, and, for me personally, I don't care if some random guy on a message board says that some random, obscure doctor once commented on some random, obscure theory about some random, obscure shampoo ad starting the "hoopla" about SLS being bad. Give me some actual proof that it's not toxic. Until then, I'll assume it is.

 

[Broons85]

But I noticed that when I ate whole wheat subs I would get a side stitch afterward.

Out of curiosity was it around the area of your spleen (left side of body, just by your diaphragm)?

That's exactly where it was. What does that mean?

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

But I noticed that when I ate whole wheat subs I would get a side stitch afterward.

Out of curiosity was it around the area of your spleen (left side of body, just by your diaphragm)?

That's exactly where it was. What does that mean?

Bingo! Yeah that's a very common place for people to get the "glutened" pain, it's the first pain symptom for me whenever I get glutened. I don't know if it's a result of actual pain from the spleen or from the nearby stomach as the spleen is yet another of the organs which can be affected by gluten issues. Since you're experiencing this pain similar to what the majority of other celiacs I've met experience from accidental gluten consumption you may wish to try out a completely gluten-free diet for a while.

 

[Bryan]

...Likewise, I think SLS is bad, and the idea that it is certainly didn't stem from some random shampoo ad. I don't buy into these conspiracy theories because my common sense tells me otherwise.

Then from where exactly do you think it stemmed? Why do you think the opinion of an expert that SLS is safe to use in shampoos is a "conspiracy theory", but not the hoopla that you read about it on the Internet, and from makers of SLS-free shampoos?

By pointing out silly typos and talking about some random doctor and some random, obscure shampoo ad from god knows when I think you're missing the point. I think you're just trying to play devil's advocate here for some attention or something. But the fact is that SLS is a highly toxic agent, and, for me personally, I don't care if some random guy on a message board says that some random, obscure doctor once commented on some random, obscure theory about some random, obscure shampoo ad starting the "hoopla" about SLS being bad. Give me some actual proof that it's not toxic. Until then, I'll assume it is.

The "random, obscure doctor" to whom you refer is the maker and designer of the Proxiphen line of hair loss products (prescription Proxiphen, over-the-counter Prox-N, NANO shampoo, and others), which are quite possibly the most effective available treatments against male pattern baldness. Dr. Proctor (who has done work in toxicology) has also testified as such an expert in courts of law. His opinion about this scare mongering against the use of SLS in shampoos carries a great deal of weight with me. He's been intimately involved with this hair loss business for more that a quarter of a century! You can assume anything you want about it, but I think Dr. Proctor has looked at this issue far more closely than you have.

 

[Broons85]

...Likewise, I think SLS is bad, and the idea that it is certainly didn't stem from some random shampoo ad. I don't buy into these conspiracy theories because my common sense tells me otherwise.

Then from where exactly do you think it stemmed? Why do you think the opinion of an expert that SLS is safe to use in shampoos is a "conspiracy theory", but not the hoopla that you read about it on the Internet, and from makers of SLS-free shampoos?

By pointing out silly typos and talking about some random doctor and some random, obscure shampoo ad from god knows when I think you're missing the point. I think you're just trying to play devil's advocate here for some attention or something. But the fact is that SLS is a highly toxic agent, and, for me personally, I don't care if some random guy on a message board says that some random, obscure doctor once commented on some random, obscure theory about some random, obscure shampoo ad starting the "hoopla" about SLS being bad. Give me some actual proof that it's not toxic. Until then, I'll assume it is.

The "random, obscure doctor" to whom you refer is the maker and designer of the Proxiphen line of hair loss products (prescription Proxiphen, over-the-counter Prox-N, NANO shampoo, and others), which are quite possibly the most effective available treatments against male pattern baldness. Dr. Proctor (who has done work in toxicology) has also testified as such an expert in courts of law. His opinion about this scare mongering against the use of SLS in shampoos carries a great deal of weight with me. He's been intimately involved with this hair loss business for more that a quarter of a century! You can assume anything you want about it, but I think Dr. Proctor has looked at this issue far more closely than you have.

I don't think his opinion is a conspiracy theory: I'm saying I don't buy the conspiracy theory itself. I don't think that one company's (or even one industry's) attempt to defame an obscure detergent in shampoo is responsible for SLS being considered toxic. I think it's considered toxic because it is toxic. There's no propaganda needed. Look into SLS on pubmed. It causes skin irritation.

The random, obscure doctor profits from a line of hair loss products/treatments. So, if fixing hair loss is as easy as switching to an SLS-free shampoo and eating right, then he's out of business. So he's got a lot to lose if it comes out that SLS is bad.

That being said, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. He probably just doesn't know any better. I won't, however, give SLS the benefit of the doubt. It's so easy to avoid, both financially and in terms or finding SLS-free shampoos, that I'll simply avoid it until someone proves to me that it does some good. If it MIGHT be bad, and there's no real benefit from using it, then I'm not going to risk it. You can tell me that a whole group of doctors says it's non-toxic in shampoos. I'm sure there are thousands of doctors who agree with him, and thousands who don't. It's great that you're bringing up alternate viewpoints, but you're not going to impress me with some random doctor's opinion. I could go online and find some other "expert" who would say the exact opposite thing. We could both find thousands. What's the point of talking about this one guy anymore? You made your point. He's an expert and he says it's harmless.

If my common sense tells me otherwise, and there's no risk in avoiding it, then that's what I'll do. The fact that you're basing all of this on ONE doctor's opinion who profits from baldness, is to the point of absurdity, in my opinion. It's relevant in the sense that it's good to consider all viewpoints, but I think you've carried this argument about as far as it could go.

Bottom line - Dr. Proctor may be right. But, you're MUCH better off guessing that he's wrong. You have nothing to lose by going SLS-free.

 

[Bryan]

...I don't think that one company's (or even one industry's) attempt to defame an obscure detergent in shampoo is responsible for SLS being considered toxic.

It was one of those things that probably came about from a combination of factors: the original effort of some company to plant the idea into people's minds that THEIR shampoo was better than others, followed by people slowly passing the idea around from one person to the next that SLS was a baaaaad chemical to use! After a while, it simply got to be one of those silly Urban Myths.

I think it's considered toxic because it is toxic. There's no propaganda needed. Look into SLS on pubmed. It causes skin irritation.

Not at the typical amounts used in shampoos, and for the typical lengths of time used in shampoos. I believe it was Paracelsus who said: "The dose makes the poison."

The random, obscure doctor profits from a line of hair loss products/treatments. So, if fixing hair loss is as easy as switching to an SLS-free shampoo and eating right, then he's out of business. So he's got a lot to lose if it comes out that SLS is bad.

By the way, if you're bound and determined to use SLS-free shampoos, you might as well start using Dr. Proctor's own NANO shampoo! He took the SLS out of it years ago, just so he could stop wasting his time by having to talk to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who insisted on calling him up to ask him about the SLS in it! :laugh:

 

[Broons85]

Bingo! Yeah that's a very common place for people to get the "glutened" pain, it's the first pain symptom for me whenever I get glutened. I don't know if it's a result of actual pain from the spleen or from the nearby stomach as the spleen is yet another of the organs which can be affected by gluten issues. Since you're experiencing this pain similar to what the majority of other celiacs I've met experience from accidental gluten consumption you may wish to try out a completely gluten-free diet for a while.

That's amazing! All these years I had no idea that that's what it was. Thanks for the update. I'm gonna do some gluten-free shopping at Trader Joe's. You got any other tips on where I should go for that?

 

[Broons85]

It was one of those things that probably came about from a combination of factors: the original effort of some company to plant the idea into people's minds that THEIR shampoo was better than others, followed by people slowly passing the idea around from one person to the next that SLS was a baaaaad chemical to use! After a while, it simply got to be one of those silly Urban Myths.

That may be true. But, I don't know enough to comment on the veracity of it. I won't even bother looking into it because I honestly don't care. My common sense tells me it may be bad. I have no reason not to avoid it. I'd rather assume it's toxic and be wrong than assume it's harmless and be wrong.

Not at the typical amounts used in shampoos, and for the typical lengths of time used in shampoos. I believe it was Paracelsus who said: "The dose makes the poison."

Same reasoning here. It causes skin irritation at some levels. Who knows what it does after years and years of consistent use.

By the way, if you're bound and determined to use SLS-free shampoos, you might as well start using Dr. Proctor's own NANO shampoo! He took the SLS out of it years ago, just so he could stop wasting his time by having to talk to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who insisted on calling him up to ask him about the SLS in it! :laugh:

I'll look into that so thanks. I'm always willing to try new things with this

Another thing that's relevant here is that it's important to realize that everyone's different. If you read that someone stopped hair loss (or any disease) by say cutting ice cream out of their diet, or by walking a mile everyday, or by saying the hail mary while doing jumping jacks..., then it may or may not work for you. But if it's something that's not dangerous and it's something you think may work, then why not try it?

When I went to my dermatologist, I asked about hair loss. He said it's all genetic. I could have went home and not thought about it. That's what you want me to do, Bryan (rather aggressively, I must say). But I didn't, and I'm so glad I didn't. I'm likely going to do my thesis on what I found while researching that (again, in cancer not hair loss). Doctors are frequently wrong. Even leaders in the fields of science are frequently wrong: Linus Pauling and X-ray diffraction. The inventors of cloning who said it couldn't be done in mammals (Dolly the sheep!!!). If we all listened to doctors and scientists and just took their word on everything, we might miss out on potential progress.

So, since I've read anecdotal evidence of SLS-free being beneficial, and since it makes sense in my mind why that would be, and since it's not expensive, and since it's not dangerous (like a hormonal drug), there's absolutely no reason not to try it. In fact, I don't think I'll ever use SLS again. I like the idea of an all-natural, chemical free shampoo better anyways. I'm also eating the Paleo diet. Maybe that's nonsense, too, but in my mind it makes sense (evolution etc.). But I've already noticed benefits (sleeping, complexion, build, and oh ya, my hair is thicker!). Maybe it's psychological, but whatever it is it's working.

Bryan, I'm going to guess that you're not in science (maybe you are). These things happen all the time: a new theory or suggestive study comes out and the field polarizes. Are they all supposed to go to one side because field-leader Dr. X is on that side, so no one should question it? That's not how scientists are trained, because it's important that EVERYTHING be tested and proven. Einstein, before he was Einstein and working as a patent-clerk, went against the field by saying such ridiculous things as mass being interchangeable with energy, and that the passage of time and the size of space aren't consistent, but are relative to speed. What a crazy A-hole! His ideas were very controversial and polarizing at first. Same thing with Galileo: How dare he question the leading "scientists" of the day by saying that the sun is the center of the solar system!

If someone says that they went from SLS-free to SLS shampoo and saw hair growth...GREAT!!! Do whatever works for you, that's the idea. But don't be afraid to try out something that's not dangerous (like switching shampoos, and eating healthy), because some people, maybe even famous doctors, say that the idea is nonsense. Figure out your own regimen that works for you, and then make sure you tell us about it!

 

[Maelstrom]

Doctors are always behind the game, and by no fault of their own. It's the nature of medicine. But here, I think we should use common sense again and figure that this stuff is highly toxic, and any amount of it on or in our bodies should be avoided if at all possible. Plus, the amount of SLS in one wash may not be detrimental to health, but perhaps years and years of consistent use may add up. With SLS-free shampoos not costing an arm and a leg more than SLS-laden shampoos (I think mine was actually cheaper), there's no reaosn in my mind not to use SLS-free.

Bottom line - even if the amounts of SLS in shampoos etc. are harmless, there's no good reason to assume at this point that they are. You might as well just use SLS-free. I will.

:agree:

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

Trader Joes has some useful yet slightly confusing labeling for gluten. Their system is set up for both the random fad dieter as well as the strict no-gluten people. On the front of their items they have a lower case g icon to stand for no gluten ingredients. That simply means that the recipe formula did not involve deliberately adding items containing gluten. If you see that label on the front of the package check the back to see the "made in facilities that also process:" label. It's totally possible and frequently the case where an item will be labeled as "no gluten ingredients" as well as "made in a facility that also processes: wheat". Everyone has their own degree of sensitivity, I know I react about half of the time to shared facility products, but during the beginning you should try to avoid those.

Otherwise you can't go wrong with unprocessed produce or meats, but you'll probably want to also avoid frequently eating "gluten-free" baked products such as specialty breads and pastas. There's normally a lot of different ingredients your stomach wont be used to and so they could cause some negative reactions at first.

 

[billythekid]

idontwanttobebalding, was the pain sharp?

could you pin-point the area or was it a general pain in the left side of the abdomen?

 

[squeegee]

Bump mofos!

Fat in the liver and insulin resistance.

Yki-Järvinen H.

Department of Medicine, Division of Diabetes, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. ykijarvi@cc.helsinki.fi
Abstract

Insulin resistance in humans is not always accompanied by obesity, since severe insulin resistance also characterizes patients lacking subcutaneous fat such as those with HAART- (highly-active antiretroviral therapy)-associated lipodystrophy. Both obese and lipodystrophic patients, however, have an increase in the amount of fat hidden in the liver. Liver fat content can be accurately quantified non-invasively by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. It is closely correlated with fasting insulin concentrations and direct measures of hepatic insulin sensitivity while the amount of subcutaneous adipose tissue is not. An increase in liver fat content has been shown to predict type 2 diabetes, independently of other cardiovascular risk factors. This is easily explained by the fact that the liver, once fatty, overproduces most of the known cardiovascular risk factors such as very low density lipoprotein (VLDL), glucose, C-reactive protein (CRP), plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1), fibrinogen and coagulation factors. The causes of inter-individual variation in liver fat content, independent of obesity, are largely unknown but could involve differences in signals from adipose tissue such as in the amount of adiponectin produced and differences in fat intake. Adiponectin deficiency characterizes both lipodystrophic and obese insulin-resistant individuals, and serum levels correlate with liver fat content. Liver fat content can be decreased by weight loss and by a low as compared to a high fat diet. In addition, treatment of both lipodystrophic and type 2 diabetic patients with peroxisome proliferators activator receptor-gamma (PPARgamma) agonists, but not metformin, decreases liver fat and markedly increases adiponectin levels. The fatty liver may help to explain why some but not all obese individuals are insulin resistant and why even lean individuals may be insulin resistant, and thereby at risk of developing type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

 

[squeegee]

This is the first time that a link between this protein and insulin resistance is found, even though the researchers had discovered earlier that genes encoding secretory proteins are highly expressed in the livers of people with type 2 diabetes.

This earlier discovery was actually what pushed Hirofumi Misu and colleagues to start thinking that, just like fat tissue, the liver could help the development of type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance through secretory proteins called 'hepatokines'.

After a thorough research, the results reveal that people with type 2 diabetes who are more insulin resistant than others, have higher levels of the gene encoding selenoprotein P (SeP) in their liver, as well as increased blood levels of SeP.

Once the team experimented in mice, they found out that normal mice who were given SeP, became insulin resistant, and their blood sugar levels rose.

This means that SeP is causing the insulin resistance, so a treatment that can block the activity of SeP in the livers of diabetic and obese mice, can also improve their sensitivity to insulin and lower their blood sugar levels.

Even though the researchers knew that SeP was mainly produced in the liver, so that it could transport selenium to other parts of the body, its role in glucose homeostasis was unidentified.

Hirofumi Misu said that “the current study sheds light on a previously underexplored function of the liver; the liver participates in the pathogenesis of insulin resistance through hormone secretion.â€￾

This opens the way to a new target for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance, even though the SeP is not acting alone.

The researchers say that fat tissue is a main contributor to the development of insulin resistance by the fat-derived hormones called adipokines it produces, and as the team say they have preliminary evidence of this connection, all it takes now is further investigation.

“Our study raises the possibility that the liver functions as an endocrine organ by producing a variety of hepatokines and that the dysregulation or impairment of hepatokine production might contribute to the development of various diseases,â€￾ Misu and his colleague Toshinari Takamura add.

 

[squeegee]

THE POLYCYSTIC OVARIAN SYNDROME (PCOS)

What is the main cause of PCOS? It is commonly due to a liver malfunction, easily caused by excessive carbohydrate consumption and dietary deficiencies. This triggers off inappropriate dihydrotestosterone (DHT) activity in females.

Is this also what causes male prostate enlargement? Yes, inappropriate DHT in males, due to bad diet. Can we both cure and prevent these problems with dietary corrections and supplements? Yes!

Blame it all on dihydrotestosterone (DHT). This is what happens: In the liver, the 5-alpha reductase enzyme converts testosterone into the more potent androgen known as DHT (dihydrotestosterone). It is 90% more active than ordinary testosterone and targets female receptors aggressively by causing male-type characteristics to develop. This includes the inhibition of ovulation. In men, DHT is usually only active during puberty, to initiate masculine characteristics such as the deep voice, beard and the maturation of sexual organs. Acne often develops in young men as part of this hormonal transformation. For the rest of his life DHT conversion is usually dormant and normal testosterone keeps him comfortable without causing any prostate enlargement, adult acne, insulin resistance or loss of scalp hair. Testosterone is a valuable hormone, in the right quantities. Testosterone activity in females is about 1% of her male counterpart, without any DHT being required or produced. However, if there is a liver malfunction, (especially when stimulated by excessive carbohydrates and a lack of zinc,) the more potent androgen known as DHT (dihydrotestosterone) is produced. Masculine characteristics begin to develop in females, both physically and emotionally. It may be gradual and is often not noticed. The first visible alarm signal is the acne that develops well after puberty. Extensive skin treatment is not the solution to the hormonal issues that begin to overwhelm a victim of the polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). Neither are slimming drugs, taken as a reaction to creeping weight issues once insulin resistance begins to develop. The Gynaecologist will be the first person to identify ovarian cysts. Ovulation stops as each subsequent ovary becomes surrounded by cysts. When many cysts cluster together because eggs are no longer being released, the condition is called: polycystic ovarian syndrome. These hardening cysts can be felt by hand, during a routine gynaecological examination and they show up on an ultrasound scan. The corpus luteum that catches the egg then no longer releases progesterone, causing a deficiency.

The formation of DHT occurs the same way in males and females who have these dietary errors: In adults, the 5-alpha reductase enzyme is usually dormant and seldom affects females, if the liver is normal and the diet is rich in lean protein and very, very low in carbohydrates. If congested or not healthy, the liver does not break down excess testosterone, so the levels accumulate. If no DHT blockers from dietary zinc and lean protein are present it begins to make DHT. A diet low in protein and with a high carbohydrate (sugar and starch) and fat intake stimulates this dangerous conversion of testosterone to DHT. When deficient in zinc, any excess testosterone not eliminated by the liver converts to oestrogen and overwhelms the thyroid gland – in males and females! And yes, the metabolism slows down, you get depressed, breasts enlarge, you gain weight through becoming insulin resistant and hair falls out for two reasons: low thyroid function and the receptors for DHT that occur at the top of the head and at the sides in the front become very active, causing male type baldness. (The hair follicles begin to shrink and stop producing hair.) The lack of zinc is also directly related to adult acne. Due to this increased DHT activity in the liver, testosterone receptors engage in the full spectrum of masculine characteristics. In addition, disrupted hormones like oestrogen and insulin join in the party. Men grow boobs, females grow beards and male prostate glands enlarge. Both become infertile, insulin resistant, fat and frustrated. But still, they eat whacks of bread, cereal, pies, chips and cookies washed down with copious amounts of sugary beverages, hoping that medical miracles packed into capsules are going to save them.

What is the difference between testosterone in males and females? Females also have testosterone activity and need about 1% of this hormone as compared to males. Ladies do not have testicles, so where is it coming from? The adrenal glands release testosterone and oestrogen in both males and females. It is the different quantities of these two hormones that determine male or female characteristics. Often a lady may have a lot of testosterone in her bloodstream but is remains bound up by specially adapted proteins to keep her out of trouble. Next is the testosterone receptor that receives the hormone if the protein bond is broken. Testosterone then latches onto the receptor and exerts its influence on her: as and when required. After that, the testosterone is broken down by the liver, ready for excretion or it converts to oestrogen by a process known as aromatisation. The 5-alpha reductase enzyme that augments the potency of testosterone is dormant in females to prevent DHT (dihydrotestosterone) from being produced. An extra safety margin is provided because the liver immediately starts to break down any excess testosterone. This is the normal way testosterone circulates around the female physique and as such, it is harmless yet energising and sexy! It is also beneficial in that testosterone can serve as a precursor to oestrogen if needed.

So what goes wrong with the liver? PCOS and prostate problems are directly connected to your zinc, protein and carbohydrate intake! However, if the liver malfunctions and more testosterone remains in it there is a chance it can be converted into DHT. The enzyme 5-alpha reductase converts testosterone into the more potent DHT needed by males at puberty. A diet of excessive carbohydrates and heavy fats and too little protein and deficient in zinc stimulates the formation of DHT. This is the food connection to unwanted DHT formation: a lazy liver and a lousy diet. The worse we eat, the more our society produces: prostate problems, balding males and ladies with PCOS. An adequate zinc intake is essential to prostate health and it helps with both male and female acne problems, insulin resistance, hair balding and fertility... To keep the testosterone in firm bondage, add a cupful of fresh pumpkin seeds to the juicer and drink this every day. This protocol has delivered excellent results for many ladies

 

[acvfan]

This is amazing information. Thanks!

 

[muhu]

as a person that used to be extremely health conscious and ate extremely healthy (my carbs would come from wheat based product and fruits) I'd say that the sebum theory is more believable. I've been battling hair loss since I was 20 (23 now) and was extremely health concious since about 19 or so.....I stopped only recently (at 22)

I made a thread about homeless people awhile back and it got deleted (I guess mods thought I was trolling?) seriously these people have the most beautiful manes of hair you'll ever see.

Could it be that heavy drug use, not eating, and staying outdoors all day decrease sebum in scalp, therefore shutting down mbp? One could also say "well they probably have extremely low dht" so again I don't know....

I'd love to have a miracle drug I'm a Norwood 2.5 right now and would look good if my hair were thick and healthy

 

[baller234]

Wheat is extremely unhealthy and will hasten male pattern baldness in those prone.


From http://immortalhair.forumandco.com/t440 ... =Leaky+GUt

I realized last week that I often call wheat the most toxic food, but I haven’t really explained why on the blog. The book has a detailed explanation, which focuses on toxicity effects and on autoimmune processes attacking the gut and thyroid. Here I would like to add to the book’s argument by showing how wheat causes other autoimmune diseases.

There are about 50 diseases which are thought to have an autoimmune basis. Autoimmune diseases are caused by three processes:

1. Leaky gut and inflammation. A leaky gut lets bacteria and food toxins enter the body. In the body, these precipitate an immune response which creates inflammation and a chance for antibodies to form.
2. “Molecular mimicry.†A bacterial protein or food toxin resembles a human protein sufficiently closely that an antibody to the foreign protein may also recognize human proteins, potentially precipitating attacks on self tissue.
3. Adjuvant activity. Vaccines are produced by bonding an antigen (the target of the hoped-for antibody) to an adjuvant (a molecule that greatly increases the likelihood antibodies will be made – a sort of catalyst). If a “molecular mimic†can bind to an adjuvant, then autoimmune disease becomes much more likely.

Wheat causes many autoimmune diseases because it promotes all three aspects. I’ll look at each aspect in a separate post this week.
Leaky Gut

In a recent comment – it’s nice to have smart readers! – Rich brought up the links between wheat and leaky gut.

Leaky gut is the first step toward autoimmune disease. As a recent review states:

Susceptibility to at least 50 diseases, including celiac disease (CD) and type 1 diabetes (T1D), has been associated with specific HLA class I or class II alleles. A common denominator of these diseases is the presence of several preexisting conditions that lead to an autoimmune process…. In all cases, increased permeability precedes disease and causes an abnormality in antigen delivery that triggers immune events, eventually leading to a multiorgan process and autoimmunity. [1]

Gluten is a complex of proteins found in wheat, rye, oats, barley, and other grains. One part of gluten is a type of protein called prolamins, which are chiefly responsible for gut damage:

It is the gliadin fraction of wheat gluten and similar alcohol-soluble proteins in other grains (collectively known as prolamins) that are associated with the development of intestinal damage. A common feature of the prolamins of wheat, rye, and barley is a high content of glutamine (>30%) and proline (>15%), whereas the nontoxic prolamins of rice and corn have lower glutamine and proline content. [1]

I’m quoting this because it speaks to the differences among grains. Rice and corn do not contain gluten. Corn contains other dangerous toxins, but is not a primary cause of autoimmune disease. Rice is the only grain we consider safe to eat.
From Cholera to the Cause of Leaky Gut

The mechanisms by which wheat causes leaky gut have been intensively studied by Dr. Alessio Fasano’s group. In 1995 Dr. Fasano and colleagues discovered that a toxin released by Vibrio cholerae, the bacterium that causes cholera http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholera, causes tight junctions to open for a time. [2] This makes the small intestine leaky.

Dr. Fasano and colleagues suspected that the bacterial protein’s action must mimic some natural human protein which controls intestinal permeability. In 2000, they discovered this human protein and named it “zonulin.†[3]
Wheat and Crohn’s Disease

They subsequently showed that gliadin stimulates zonulin release. Gliadin binds to a receptor called CXCR3, and activation of this receptor triggers zonulin release and increased intestinal permeability.

Interestingly, zonulin release was much higher and longer-lasting in Crohn’s disease patients than in healthy patients. [1] Restriction of gluten restores intestinal integrity in Crohn’s disease patients.

So Crohn’s disease patients should absolutely not eat wheat!
Leaky Gut and Type I Diabetes

A leaky small intestine is a feature of many autoimmune diseases, but Crohn’s disease and Type I diabetes are notable for highly permeable small intestines. Patients with both diseases have high serum levels of zonulin. [1]

In a rat model of Type I diabetes, the BioBreeding diabetes prone or “BBDP†line of rats often develops a leaky gut at age 50 to 75 days when eating a (toxic) diet of rat chow. Zonulin levels increase up to 35-fold at this time, but were reduced if the rats were fed a gluten-free diet. Rats with the highest zonulin levels developed Type I diabetes develops 15 to 25 days later. If a compound that blocks the action of zonulin is given to the rats, Type I diabetes incidence is reduced 70%. [1, 4]

This shows how crucial a leaky gut is to onset of autoimmune diseases like Type I diabetes, and also how quickly diseases can develop once the gut is compromised. The longer the gut is leaky, the greater the likelihood that some autoimmune disease will develop.

In humans, the relationships between these diseases are much the same as in rats. Crohn’s disease and Type I diabetes are co-morbid: the prevalence of Crohn’s among Type I diabetics is 6- to 9-fold higher than in the general population. Meanwhile, newborn children exposed to wheat at 3 months of age or earlier, when the gut is immature, are 4- to 5-fold more likely to develop Type I diabetes. [4]
Conclusion

Leaky gut is a prerequisite for development of autoimmune disease. Wheat seems to create a transient, mild leaky gut in nearly everyone, but in Crohn’s disease the gut becomes chronically and severely leaky in response to wheat consumption.

In rats, this leaky gut can lead to development of autoimmune diseases like Type I diabetes in as little as a few weeks.

If you eat wheat, it’s probably only a matter of time before you develop some disease or other. All of the autoimmune diseases, from rheumatoid arthritis to Hashimoto’s to lupus, are made more likely by wheat consumption. Why not switch to rice or other “safe starches†and save yourself some trouble?
References

[1] Visser J et al. Tight junctions, intestinal permeability, and autoimmunity: celiac disease and type 1 diabetes paradigms. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009 May;1165:195-205. http://pmid.us/19538307.

[2] Fasano A et al. Zonula occludens toxin modulates tight junctions through protein kinase C-dependent actin reorganization, in vitro. J Clin Invest. 1995 Aug;96(2):710-20. http://pmid.us/7635964.

[3] Wang W et al. Human zonulin, a potential modulator of intestinal tight junctions. J Cell Sci. 2000 Dec;113 Pt 24:4435-40. http://pmid.us/11082037.

[4] Watts T et al. Role of the intestinal tight junction modulator zonulin in the pathogenesis of type I diabetes in BB diabetic-prone rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Feb 22;1022916-21. http://pmid.us/15710870.

Tagged as: Autoimmune, Bowel Disease, Diabetes, Wheat & grains • Comments (0).

 

[Broons85]

This information is amazing. I'm glad this thread picked up again. I'm currently in my PhD program, and have talked with a researcher about studying insulin signaling in cancer. I certainly haven't studied the nutritional and hormonal aspect of this as much as some of you have, but I'm really glad that someone has. When I first saw the connection to disease, it was purely through studying the molecular basis of insulin signaling. I thought I was the first to ever see this. It's clear that I am not haha. Which is great. Before I heard about the Paleo diet, etc. I thought that I'd have to figure out how to eat on my own, from scratch. So, thank you to all of you who have already taken the time to figure out which foods to eat and which to avoid, and why.

It's really interesting to me that the science hasn't caught up with these common-sense observations yet. If you're in science, I suggest you hop on this bandwagon quickly. If I'm seeing these things at the molecular level, I promise you someone else is.

Also, here's an article that links Alzheimer's disease and insulin resistance through the aging-related FOXO genes. It's all connected.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20966918

Also, the cure for most of these diseases is on the periphery of your supermarket, or better yet, at the local farm. Science hasn't figured out that "food" (I use the term loosely) is causing these diseases, despite how obvious it is. So, don't expect a magic pill to cure them any time soon. Eat healthy, and that DOES NOT include wheat. Heart-healthy cheerios is like saying lung-healthy light cigarettes. Ya, maybe whole grain is better than regular, and light cigarettes are better than regular, but it's still providing the root cause.

Has anyone thought about the possibility that certain genetic diseases, like sickle cell or cystic fibrosis, may not be diseases at all in the context of truly healthy eating (I don't know anything about these diseases so forgive my ignorance if the answer is an obvious no)? It's more obvious in a disease like breast cancer, where the mutations predispose you to the disease. Perhaps the BRCA mutations are harmless, maybe even beneficial, in the context of a healthy diet. But maybe cystic fibrosis (just an example) wouldn't occur if not for an awful diet.

I do know of one particular mutation that I think is causing epilepsy, which is likely harmless in the context of a good diet, as evidenced by the beneficial effects of a ketogenic diet to epileptics. But, I may study that as well, so I don't want to give too much away. If you're that interested then send me a message and I'll tell you about it.

I'm just thinking out loud and rambling, so I'll stop.