Low Fat diet reduces Androgens

[DammitLetMeIn]

Prove it. I contend that insulin prevents cellular damage and improves the cellular response to high-GI foods. Again, it's the sugar and free fatty acids that are the problem. Not the insulin. Insulin just happens to promote the storage of fatty acids and promote the uptake of sugars by cells so as to prevent osmotic damage. How is it that insulin causes damage again?

Read this (you obviously didn't see my post earlier - its written by an experienced doctor) - http://www.drbass.com/rosedale2.html

I shall reply to your latest set of rants when I get time.

To Michael, I agree, the Atkins diet (high protein) is a bad idea.

 

[docj077]

High protein intake is associated with an increased risk of cancer.

How much protein is too much? I've been on workout plans before where I've taken in 200 grams of it a day. Is this too much?

Too much protein without carbohydrates or fat is the problem. Extra amino acids simply feed into the urea cycle and end up being removed in the urine. That's a harsh reality of high protein diets. You pay a lot for them, and yet, you just end up literally pissing away all that money.

Research has simply shown that high protein diets are associated with an increase in cancer risk. There is very little data other than that simple statement. If I remember protein supplements correctly from when I used to take them, there was never a shortage of at least some carbohydrates, cholesterol, and fat within the powder.

I'll look into this somemore and if I find something disturbing I'll let you know. For know, I wouldn't worry about it until one of us comes up with something worth mentioning.

 

[docj077]

Prove it. I contend that insulin prevents cellular damage and improves the cellular response to high-GI foods. Again, it's the sugar and free fatty acids that are the problem. Not the insulin. Insulin just happens to promote the storage of fatty acids and promote the uptake of sugars by cells so as to prevent osmotic damage. How is it that insulin causes damage again?

Read this (you obviously didn't see my post earlier - its written by an experienced doctor) - http://www.drbass.com/rosedale2.html

I shall reply to your latest set of rants when I get time.

To Michael, I agree, the Atkins diet (high protein) is a bad idea.

No, I read it. Then, I realized that when he gives his case presentations he fails to adequately portray not only the treatment of the patient, but at least a decent H&P. A person can not come to any opinion regarding the conclusions that he makes, because he jumps to conclusions himself. Especially, when it comes to the treatments that took place between a time when a man was on high doses of insulin to a time when he wasn't on insulin at all. You can't just jump to the conclusion that insulin is not required, because a man may have worked incredibly hard, dieted for months, and is now healthy enough to be off insulin injections. That's not only a suspicious website, but also a suspicious individual.


As both a teacher and a source of information, he is quite frankly not thath good at what he's doing.

Simplistic at best.

 

[Guest]

You know, DLMI, these no shampoo guys have actually made you look like a good poster in comparison.

I think this is why I don't hate you anymore.

 

[powersam]

wait a minute..

so you dont think that insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes can be treated with diet and exercise alone?

 

[Pondle]

What gets me about your theory, Dammit, is that it seems to violate the principle of Occam's razor - i.e. we should prefer a theory that is as simple as possible and makes the fewest possible assumptions.

I wouldn't be one for relying on a mere mortal's theory about theories, lol.
Thats like relying upon everything a doctor says. Its foolhardy to say the least.

But if you were looking for a simple explanation, then look no further than: 'you are what you eat'.

Well Occam's razor is an established principle in science, Dammit. Besides, isn't genetics alone a more simple and elegant solution than genetics + diet? Your theory has too much redundancy.

]
Besides, could we ever falsify your theory by making an observation or doing a physical experiment that would lead us to reject it?

Its hard to falsify a theory which is correct in fact. Thats not me trumpeting 'my' theory when it is not my theory but merely me repeating what others have said.

But if you can't falsify a theory through experiment or observation, it's not really science at all. I can't prove or disprove that God does or doesn't exist. That's why arguments about the existence of God are non-scientific.

]
And I've certainly seen many bald (or receding) skinny guys (including me, my dad, my half-brother, a friend from school, numerous athletes, footballers and actors).

They all can have high insulin even though they are skinny. Moreover, the genetic component is stronger in some individuals than in others.

Interestingly though, I would say the vast majority (i.e. more than society) of footballers aren't remotely balding.

That's because they tend to be in their 20s, and male pattern baldness becomes more common with age. David Beckham had a lustrous head of hair throughout his playing career, but now he's past 30 and ending his playing days with some dodgy US team, he's apparently showing signs of diffuse thinning.

 

[SkylineGTR]

http://www.baldiness.com/category/bald-athletes/

hell even read the first story Another Athlete in Trouble Over Finasteride.
The newest one was a soccer(football) athlete.

I'm sorry but your gunna go bald regardless of what you eat. There is no way to stop it other then medications or herbal treatments(in a sense are medications anyway).

The diet implied that would hold off balding would require us to starve ourselves and die of malnutrition because it would have to be an EXTREME diet to have significant effects.

Basically fasting on water then eating a meal once a week with no balanced nutritional value for the rest of your life. Hello anorexia!

 

[docj077]

wait a minute..

so you dont think that insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes can be treated with diet and exercise alone?

Who are you talking to?

If you're talking to me, then of course I believe that you can treat type II diabetics with diet and exercise alone. It won't completely eliminate their insulin resistance, but it will at least take some pressure off the beta cells of the pancreas to increase insulin levels so much. The progression of type II diabetes hangs on how far you can push your beta cells before they simply stop functioning and you require high dose insulin injections instead. .

I have no idea where you read that you can't treat it that way.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Medicine is the only thing that gives you the basis for all the studies and websites that you post.

There is more than one kind of medicine. I think you are referring to conventional Western medicine. However, there are many types of alternative medicines.

Are you an idiot or do you not realize this FACT?

I believe it is you who is displaying idiocy in attempting to twist a fact to suit your petty argument.

Pick one. Either you use medicine to prove your point or you ignore it all together.

Do you know how ridiculous you sound?

There is no middle ground and their is no room for such hypocrisy here. .

Grow up and stop trying to bring your silly ideas into the debate.

Your opinion requires medical evidence to support it.

In fact, it does not need anything to support it, I am entitled to air my opinion even if I believe breathing in oxygen causes hair loss. However, to give my opinion objective credence in the eyes of others I would be better to provide scientific evidence to support it. To date, the requisite scientific study has not been carried out but I have provided many studies which indicate that my opinion may have some validity.

So far you've provided none.

Not true.

I don't know about you, but I'm here to help people.

Of course, that is the very point of us being here. We're all here to help and share our ideas with each other.

Not take advantage of them by posting web addresses, editorials, and opinion pieces.

So now you have a problem with people posting websites, editorials, studies and opinions? lol, why don't you just ask for the entire forum to be shut down because that comprizes a big part of what these forums are about.

by doctors that might not even be practicing anymore.

So this is your latest way to ignore the words/opinions of those who are more qualified than you in your own chosen profession. You're claiming they're not practising without any knowledge of whether they are or not. How this is even relevant is beyond me. Its what they say which is important and their justification for it. These things are useful for people to know.

Do you have any idea how doctors retire after a short amount of time and just sit around and write books and make websites? There are a lot of them and most do not have an adequate research background to intepret the data before them or come to any sort of conclusion. .

Again you're making up your own conclusions about individuals you don't even know who are more qualified than you in your own profession and have more experience just because you don't agree with them. That simply isn't being fair to them

Everything that a human being does puts pressure on the body.

I am aware of this. But some things put more pressure on the body than others. You can't simply dismiss something by saying what you've said in the manner in which you've said it. Invoking a negative feedback mechanism is likely to be stressful to the body on a number of different levels.

It's not like changing diet will suddenly allow these mechanisms to cease, so the body can somehow recharge itself. It doesn't work that way. These processes start from birth and continue until death.

This is where we disagree. It is also where conventional medicine and alternative medicine depart in their ideologies.

No, any opinion that you form based upon the writings of a doctor should not be taken as fact or even truthful..

The opinion of the Doctors have formed by the studies which they have become privy to and in some cases carried out. My opinion is formed in part by their opinions.

I am not saying it should be taken automatically as fact or even as truthful. I am simply saying that the ideas should be considered.

Your interpretations are one of a newcomer to this field, this forum, and this disease.

Again, they are not my interpretations. The 'interpretations' as you put it are made by experienced medical professionals. I merely subscribe to their views.

I see no reason why anyone should trust you.

Trust me to do what? Discuss hair loss? Discuss the information provided by doctors/studies/experts linking diet and hair loss?

People are free to decide whether or not they want to discuss the issues - something you have chosen to do time and time again. As for agreeing or disagreeing with me thats very much down to the individuals own interpretation of the evidence and personal choice.

When it comes to giving people intructions that could potentially adversely affect their health.

What are you talking about? No one is giving any instructions. All my threads have ever done is discuss the theoretical link between diet and hair loss. Usually with you.

What gives you the right to tell people what is and what isn't good for them?

I don't tell anyone what is and isn't good for them. Where are you getting this from? I say what I think about an issue the same as everyone else. Just like you do in every one of my threads.

There is no such thing as a natural diet in American society.

There is a natural diet for every individual based on their body's unique individual biochemistry. Identifying this and thecorresponding foods is a great deal more difficult.

Everything has insecticides, perfumes, or other elements of processing within it. Even organic foods are not truly organic, and in fact, organic foods are rather unhealthy in terms of the diseases that they may potentially carry.

lol, as opposed to the insecticides, pesticides and numerous about of man-made chemicals that non-organic food contains? I have heard all these arguments many times before. I know which food I'd rather eat.

Also, you dare mock my intelligence?.

Based on your previous petty responses to my threads, yes. And lol at the use of the word 'dare', do you really consider yourself to be some sort of posting God immune to any possibility of being wrong?

I'm sorry, I don't remember you being the top of your class and in the top 5% in the nation in terms of academic achievement? In fact, I don't remember that at all.

Dude, you could be anyone and feed me any line. You did a biology degree well done. CCS is doing a chemistry degree. And as for me, don't assume or presume what you dont know.

If you're going to continue to insult forumites on this site..

Me insult?!? pot? kettle? black? you have done nothing BUT insult me over the past few weeks with insults from here there and everywhere calling all names under the sun. But I guess thats ok because you said it...

Afterall, you don't have hair loss anymore...

I actually still shed a little bit but the worst seems to be over as far as shedding is concerned. I'm still not out of the woods yet though...

Why are you here? ...

Because I am genuinely interested in what causes hairloss and I would like to ensure that I don't have any trouble in future. There is a lot of valuable info. from many different posters and in many different forms.

I believe there is a genetic element but I, like many others, believe that environment (diet being part of that) also has an important role to play. You don't, thats your prerogative. I'm not saying you have to believe what I believe.

Do you simply need to be recognized like some small child looking for adoration from its mother?...

I have no desire to be 'recognized'. I don't know where you're getting this from.

Because, I'm trying to demonstrate to you that the molecules that you think are bad are in fact REQUIRED for normal human functioning.

And you think I am not aware of this? This is just another example of you taking my argument to the extreme in an attempt to discredit it.

I don't think they are 'bad' lol, I think an excess is bad or a deficiency is bad.

Attempting to decrease them through diet will lead to far too many adverse effects if you truly desire to decrease them enough to make a difference.

What you and I (based on various sources) consider to be 'enough' seem to be two different things.

Do you have proof that insulin leads to inflammation?

http://www.cmeondiabetes.com/pub/insuli ... azones.php

http://www.cmeondiabetes.com/pub/diabet ... pecialists).php

http://www.qualitybooksonline.com/glycemic-index.htm

I definitely believe there is a link between inflammation and insulin resistance. There are many more studies discussing the link if you are interested and prepared to look online for them.

They are there to keep the body functioning correctly and to heal the body when damage occurs.

And, I counter everything that you say with adequate interpretations of the data that allows people to form their own opinions.

And I have no problem with that.

How can you be so naive to think that the opinion of another overrides your opinion at all times.

My problem is with your username. Once people see 'Doctor' they tend to accept that word as the word of a doctor and tend to agree with it without looking at both sides of the equation fully themselves.

Most of the time I'm simply posting the opinion of a person that represents the scientific community.

And all of my information has come from the exact same source(s). There are alternative viewpoints within science.

Nope, I'm merely pointing out that you shouldn't think that your opinion is gospel truth when in fact it's nothing more than the rantings of a person with a hobby.

I don't think my opinion is gospel truth. Nor do I believe anyones opinions are gospel truth. I believe that one does not know truly know anything until one admits that he knows nothing. I don't even think the gospels are truth, lol.

My opinions are the only basis I have for discussion. IF I or anyone else didn't have an opinion, we wouldn't be posting.

No, I've seen you post studies with your inadequate opinions and complete disregard for the conclusions of the authors.

I have seen you do the same. In fact you'll pick anything out to discredit some studies whether it be the date, the size of study...whatever.

Your view is completely rigid and you seem to have left no room to even consider its compromise even when faced with conflicting studies and opinions.

Also, I've seen you post information from websites that typically has the opinion of someone who may or may not be a medical professional.

I, unlike you, do not feel a person's writings are worthless simply because they are not a medical professional

As you've so elegantly pointed out, how do you know that someone with Dr. or Doctor at the front of their name is truly a doctor??

Again, you're saying they're not doctors now just because you disagree with them. I would be fairly sure they are all doctors. Theres only one person who puts Doctor in front of their name without being a doctor and we know who that is.

Do you know if what you base your opinions on is still the basis for their personal opinions on the subject?

So we're not allowed to look at studies anymore? or opinions anymore?

We all have to live in the docj077 world where nothings valid unless he says so??

Do you know if they are willing to defend what they believe in with regards to diet and hair loss?

Do you know that they're not?

How many people in their field believe the same thing? Afterall, you post very few websites by very few doctors and researchers. There are hundreds of thousands of professionals that deal with medical issues in the world? Why can you only find so few?

The link between diet and hair loss has not been well researched.

Again, what are your qualifications and what makes you think that your opinion should be listened to by people on this forum?

I believe everyone's opinon should be listened to from Michael Barry to Badasshairday to Jayman to CCS to Bryan to Gardener to Powersam and yors. I listen to all of their opinions and find them interesting, informative and entertaining to boot.

Try to keep these back and forths shorter cos they take up a huge amount of time.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

No, I read it. Then, I realized that when he gives his case presentations he fails to adequately portray not only the treatment of the patient, but at least a decent H&P. .

He was giving a lecture not writing an opinion/thesis. That lecture was provided in 1994 and is considered by many including Dr Mercola M.D. as being well ahead of its time.

And, you replied much too quickly to have read the content thoroughly.

A person can not come to any opinion regarding the conclusions that he makes, because he jumps to conclusions himself.Especially, when it comes to the treatments that took place between a time when a man was on high doses of insulin to a time when he wasn't on insulin at all. You can't just jump to the conclusion that insulin is not required, because a man may have worked incredibly hard, dieted for months, and is now healthy enough to be off insulin injections. That's not only a suspicious website, but also a suspicious individual..

LOL. Do you know who Dr. Ron Rosedale M.D. is? He is considered by many to be one of the foremost diabetes experts in the US.

Check this

Eric C. Westman, M.D., M.H. Sc., Associate Professor, Department of Medicine, Duke University

"I believe that [Dr. Rosedale’s] method will positively shape our ultimate understanding of what constitutes healthy nutrition."

And this:

Dr. Ron Rosedale, a nationally known and respected expert on nutrition and health especially in regards to diabetes.

And this:

Ron Rosedale, MDRon Rosedale, MD, is an internationally renowned expert in nutritional and metabolic medicine and a specialist in the biology of aging. Dr. Rosedale has helped thousands suffering from so-called incurable diseases regain their health. As a keynote speaker, he has appeared before such prestigious groups as the Eighth International Congressional Conference on Molecular Medicine in Río de Janeiro, the First European Conference on Longevity Medicine and Quality of Life inBrussels, Belgium, and many more. He is the author of the recent book, The Rosedale Diet, and Insulin andits Metabolic Effects. He is currently chief medical officer at Advanced Metabolic Laboratories incollaboration with the University of Colorado andlives in Denver.

As both a teacher and a source of information, he is quite frankly not thath good at what he's doing.

Simplistic at best.

lol, ok. you're entitled to your opinion. I and many others disagree. This is what Dr. Mercola states:

Dr. Ron Rosedale is extremely gifted in interpreting the complex basic science research into practical steps you can take to increase your longevity

 

[docj077]

Do you have proof that insulin leads to inflammation?

http://www.cmeondiabetes.com/pub/insuli ... azones.php

http://www.cmeondiabetes.com/pub/diabet ... pecialists).php

http://www.qualitybooksonline.com/glycemic-index.htm

I definitely believe there is a link between inflammation and insulin resistance. There are many more studies discussing the link if you are interested and prepared to look online for them.

I'm not even going to answer the other questions, because they just aren't even worth it. Leaving them be will save me time.

News for you:
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/20317A.htm

In acute care settings:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/109/7/849

Insulin decreases pro-inflammatory molecules:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... d=12398773

Take special note of the following from the abstract of all places. The least you can do is read this much.

"Stress hyperglycemia and diabetes mellitus with myocardial infarction are associated with increased risk for in-hospital mortality, congestive heart failure, or cardiogenic shock. Hyperglycemia triggers free radical generation and suppresses endothelial nitric oxide generation, and thus initiates and perpetuates inflammation. Conversely, insulin suppresses production of tumor necrosis factor-α and free radicals, enhances endothelial nitric oxide generation, and improves myocardial function."

I posted a news article, because I know that you at least have the reading comprehension to understand it. I can post numerous studies that demonstrate the exact same thing.

Also, the mechanism of the thiazolidinediones is the following:

Thiazolidinediones
PPARγ agonists
Peroxisome proliferation activated receptor gamma
“Orphan Receptorâ€￾ in the steroid receptor superfamily
Mediates DNA-directed, RNA-mediated protein synthesis
Endogenous ligand believed to be metabolic lipid
Increases Transcription of “insulin sensitiveâ€￾ genes
Stimulates glucose transport
Stimulates Glut 4 receptors
Inhibits Glucose production
Stimulates Regulation of FA metabolism
Increases sensitivity of target cells to insulin
Improve lipid profile

Take note of the underlined or bolded.

Like all the newer drugs thare are used for type II diabetes, this drug actually increased the sensitivity of cells to insulin. That totally blows whatever you have to say regarding insulin as pro-inflammatory out of the water. It's the lack of insulin or lack of insulin function that is pro-inflammatory and damaging to the body. With a lack of insulin function and insensitivity of the insulin receptor, the body will be forced to move glucose into tissues that do not require insulin for functioning. This will cause osmotic damage of cells, glycosylation of cellular components and cellular death. Insulin PREVENTS this process from occurring. A lack of insulin function will also prevent the storage of free fatty acids, which is one of its normal functions. In diabetes, the inflammatory component is caused by free fatty acids. Not insulin.

The function of insulin at the level of the cell includes uptake of glucose into cells, inhibition of an intracellular lipase in adipocytes to PREVENT the release of free fatty acids, glycogenesis in the liver with an eventual increase in fatty acid synthesis when the glycogen stores are full and the release of these fatty acids within apolipoprotein into the general circulation for storage in adipocytes.

You have a lot of research to do in this area if you wish to come on here and post utter bullcrap like you have been. Read a biochemistry book sometime and not the websites of the ignorant people that you adore or the medical associations that you fail to understand.

If you would merely read the articles that you post (sans the crappy one found here http://www.qualitybooksonline.com/glycemic-index.htm <-this article is disgraceful by the way and I expect more from you), then you'd know both the function of insulin and that it's the lack of insulin function and not the increase in insulin that causes the problems. You'd also realize that end-stage type II diabetes includes insulin deficiency and so does type I diabetes. And yet, this people still suffer from inflammation, atherosclerosis and the most common cause of death...myocardial infarction.



Lastly, before you continue on your idiotic insulin rampage, I highly suggest you look up the mechanism of action of sulfonylureas. But, I'll help you out a little bit:

1.Directly stimulates insulin secretion by beta cells
2.Bind to and block an ATP-sensitive K+ channel,decreasing conductance of channel resulting in insulin secretion
3.Decrease release of glucagon via insulin release
4.May also increase sensitivity of target cells to insulin


Notice how these drugs both increase the amount of insulin secretion and increase the sensitivity of cells to the action of insulin. Both of those mechanisms fly in the face of you and your theory. In fact, they pretty much destroy your theory as these drugs are first line treatment for type II diabetics and prolong the lifespan of these individuals considerably while INCREASING INSULIN PRODUCTION.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

First off, I appreciate your not wasting time with all the tit for tat stuff when we should just be focusing on the science of the matter.

I acknowledge the studies you have provided. But when I was researching they said that the action of insulin was highly controversial as to whether it is an inflammatory or anti-inflammatory.

I understand the information which you have provided. But it is insulin resistance which purportedly results in the inflammation. High insulin levels are merely a characteristic of insulin resistance.

Have you simply dismissed the links which I have provided or considered them?

When we get down to the nitty-gritty of what we're interested in. I see it like this:

Consistent consumption of simple carbs leads to insulin resistance which causes inflammation in the body.

See this source:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/102/1/42


lol, and I don't adore websites. I do appreciate Dr. Ron Rosedales lecture on insulin though.

 

[docj077]

I understand the information which you have provided. But it is insulin resistance which purportedly results in the inflammation. High insulin levels are merely a characteristic of insulin resistance.

Have you simply dismissed the links which I have provided or considered them?



Consistent consumption of simple carbs leads to insulin resistance which causes inflammation in the body.

See this source:

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/102/1/42

From what I can see, insulin is definitely anti-inflammatory. The mistake of thinking it's inflammatory probably comes from studies that have linked pro-inflammatory markers and molecules with insulin resistance and increased insulin secretion. That's not the cause of the problem. If anything, the increase in insulin production is trying to overcome the insensitivity and promote glucose transport, fatty acid storage, and decreased inflammatory cytokine production.

When I first started looking through what you posted regarding insulin it simply didn't make sense to me. Then, I realized that what you were posting was an example of researchers coming to conclusions before all the research was done. From the recent research that I posted and from what I've read elsewhere, it appears as though insulin is the molecule that prevents the entire process and insulin resistance through genetic predisposition, poor dietary choices, etc. simply negates the function of insulin. The body attempts to compensate by increasing insulin production to prevent all the processes that I've talked about a little earlier. However, without dietary restriction (like you've said) this process can not be stopped as more glucose and more fat will continue to enter the system, cause cellular damage, and the body will fail to increase insulin secretion enough to keep up to protect the body. Especially, when this process is combined with an insulin receptor that appears to be poorly functioning at best.



You're halfway right when you say that insulin resistance causes inflammation. Unfortunately, you're likely all the way wrong when you say that it's insulin that causes the inflammation. It's the lack of insulin functionality at the cellular level that causes the problem. Insulin really is cardioprotective, tissue protective, and it protects against atherosclerotic disease. It possesses all these properties, because it promotes glucose transport into insulin sensitive cells to prevent osmotic damage and glycosylation of cells lacking insulin receptors, it promotes glycogenesis and glycogen storage in the liver to remove excess sugar from the circulation, and it promotes fatty acid storage while preventing pro-inflammtory fatty acid release. Those are all properties that one can't argue against.


Remember to read the studies that you post very carefully. The study that you posted didin't even have a true conclusion. The researchers outlined a four different mechanisms and since 2000 (the year of that paper's publication), there have been many advances in the treatment of diabetes and a lot of material published regarding the function of insulin and the problems associated with insulin insensitivity and inflammation.

 

[abcdefg]

Diet is not major factor in male pattern baldness. No one will convince me otherwise. There are far to many counter examples in real life to even consider the argument. Minor factor? sure Ill give you that, but nothing more.

 

[powersam]

having too much or too little insulin has the same effect. overly high blood glucose. the insulin is simply the cause of the sugar spikes, it is not in itself the problem. when it is functioning normally, in a person who is not insulin resistant then insulin is great. when the body cant recognise how much insulin it has made, so makes more and more and more, then it becomes a problem. not because of the insulin itself, but because of the massively high blood glucose levels that will ensue.

 

[Pondle]

Diet is not major factor in male pattern baldness. No one will convince me otherwise. There are far to many counter examples in real life to even consider the argument. Minor factor? sure Ill give you that, but nothing more.

I've mentioned Occam's razor before. It's an established principle in science that when multiple competing theories purport to explain a phenomenon, we should prefer the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions. Dammit's theory violates that one.

I'm also not sure what's he's really saying. Is he saying that diet is a necessary or sufficient condition for male pattern baldness? Do you have to eat the "wrong" diet to experience male pattern baldness? Would you go bald anyway?

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

I'm also not sure what's he's really saying. Is he saying that diet is a necessary or sufficient condition for male pattern baldness? Do you have to eat the "wrong" diet to experience male pattern baldness? Would you go bald anyway?

Check out the 2007 study in the other thread.[/b]

 

[powersam]

Diet is not major factor in male pattern baldness. No one will convince me otherwise. There are far to many counter examples in real life to even consider the argument. Minor factor? sure Ill give you that, but nothing more.

I've mentioned Occam's razor before. It's an established principle in science that when multiple competing theories purport to explain a phenomenon, we should prefer the theory that introduces the fewest assumptions. Dammit's theory violates that one.

I'm also not sure what's he's really saying. Is he saying that diet is a necessary or sufficient condition for male pattern baldness? Do you have to eat the "wrong" diet to experience male pattern baldness? Would you go bald anyway?

no just that it makes it happen far earlier. i think thats one thing people arent specific enough sometimes. i have no problem with going bald, but i do have a problem with going bald at 20. and i do think that diet has a large part to play in premature balding.

 

[Pondle]

no just that it makes it happen far earlier. i think thats one thing people arent specific enough sometimes. i have no problem with going bald, but i do have a problem with going bald at 20. and i do think that diet has a large part to play in premature balding.

This is all very well in theory, but unless we could somehow test it, controlling for all extraneous variables, we're dealing in the realms of pure speculation.

 

[docj077]

no just that it makes it happen far earlier. i think thats one thing people arent specific enough sometimes. i have no problem with going bald, but i do have a problem with going bald at 20. and i do think that diet has a large part to play in premature balding.

This is all very well in theory, but unless we could somehow test it, controlling for all extraneous variables, we're dealing in the realms of pure speculation.

Exactly, male pattern baldness and obesity can be linked in ways other than diet. If one were to even attempt to link them, you'd be left with too many variables to come to an accurate conclusion.

I don't care what anyone says from now on. It's not increased insulin that is the problem. Insulin is there to help. High free testosterone can create insulin resistance. However, many men have no hormonal abnormalities or are even deficient in androgens.

If there is a problem in obesity, then the cause is likely dietary derived insulin resistance allowing for osmotic damage, atherosclerosis, and damage secondary to inflammatory fatty acid release. One must also consider that the entire population analyzed in the study is Scandinavian, so coming to a conclusion that benefits all of society is impossible.


It's quite likely that increased testosterone is the main cause of PCOS, which has a genetic component and is not initially due to dietary problems. PCOS is associated with increased testosterone secretion from the ovaries. This would explain the hirsutism, female pattern baldness in some women, masculinization, and eventual insulin insensitivity. Increased testosterone can cause all these events to occur.

Obesity and premature hair loss will always be linked, because obesity allows for inflammation to occur. Unfortunately, that still doesn't explain early onset male pattern baldness in men with a normal BMI that exercise regularly, do cardio every-other-day, and eat semi-vegan or vegan diets.


I have no doubt in my mind that poor diet can potentiate male pattern baldness. But, you'd have to not take of yourself for a while to work yourself up to being insulin insensitive. That's the pre-requisite. From there, I could definitely see the process working synergistically with the already in progress events of male pattern baldness.

Remember, diet is not the strict cause. It's a contributing factor in some cases, however.