male pattern baldness, DHT, Genetics, etc.

[bighurt]

what's up all?

i've got a quick question. as far as i can tell, i am losing hair for 2 possible reasons:

1. i'm losing hair b/c my body produces more DHT than people that don't lose hair, or

2. b/c my body is genetically disposed to lose hair.

i understand that if it's #2, i can still help prevent/postpone hairloss by taking finasteride/dutasteride, or any DHT inhibitors.

but my question remains, do we hair loss sufferers lose hair b/c we have more DHT than the average guy or just that our body takes that DHT (same level as thick-haired dudes) and causes hair loss due to some genetic presdisposition?

 

[Aplunk1]

The process of balding comes from something in our follicles called the 5-AR Enzyme... People who are dificient in this enzyme have full heads of hair... People who are balding have the 5-AR enzyme...

This enzyme basically converts our hormone, testosterone, to a stronger hormone called DHT. DHT is responsibile, primarily, for male pattern baldness.

You should do a little more research into the natural balding process, as there are a number of factors that affect it...

Finasteride/Dutasteride help both of the conditions you listed...

 

[The Gardener]

Well, it is a tad more complex than that. There are people with DHT levels through the roof, but they have no male pattern baldness because their follicles have not been programmed to be sensitive to it.

Throughout life, we may have the same level of DHT in the blood, but only certain follicles are lost, the ones in the typical male pattern baldness area. As we get older, this pattern progresses because the follicles, in turn, are sequentially made sensitive to DHT as a result of their genetics.

 

[triton2]

I don't think there's an easy answer to your question.
People that go bald are obviously much more sensitive (sensitivity in terms of scalp follicles tendency to fall out in the presence of androgens) to androgens due to their genetics; I think we can state that for sure. Many bodybuilders are taking over 3000mg of androgens weekly (over 50 times what a normal man produces) and yet they don't even show any sign of recession, they have heads full of thick hair. Why? Their scalp hair is not genetically predisposed to respond to androgens thinning.
Does this mean that everything is in genetics and androgen levels are irrelevant? No. Look at the pseudohermaphrodites lacking in 5AR-type2 enzyme for instance... almost all of them have full heads of hair, which SOME of them wouldn't probably be able to maintain if their DHT went up.
I think hairloss & DHT is kinda like smoking and lung cancer. There are individuals who just aren't predisposed to develop lung cancer and they might smoke 100 cigarettes a day and yet be healthy (in terms of cancer) and there are individuals with great predisposition for lung cancer, who might easily develop it; does this mean that smoking is pointless?No, because a predisposed individual who might have developed cancer if he smoked might completely avoid it by taking care of himself and getting away from tobacco. The problem with DHT... I think it's sort of SIMILAR (not equal of course) to this.

To answer your specific question more accurately I'd say it's difficult to quantify to what extent someone who is suffering male pattern baldness, besides having the 'baldness gene', has higher than normal levels of androgens. Measuring blood levels wouldn't be enough, for local produced DHT seems to be more important and a blood test isn't gonna give you those levels.
To quote from an interesting study:

BMJ. 1998 Sep 26;317(7162):865-9.
Male pattern androgenetic alopecia.
Sinclair R.

"The relative contributions of locally and systemically produced dihydrotestosterone to the balding process has not yet been established."

 

[Bryan]

I don't think there's an easy answer to your question.
People that go bald are obviously much more sensitive (sensitivity in terms of scalp follicles tendency to fall out in the presence of androgens) to androgens due to their genetics; I think we can state that for sure. Many bodybuilders are taking over 3000mg of androgens weekly (over 50 times what a normal man produces) and yet they don't even show any sign of recession, they have heads full of thick hair. Why? Their scalp hair is not genetically predisposed to respond to androgens thinning.
Does this mean that everything is in genetics and androgen levels are irrelevant? No. Look at the pseudohermaphrodites lacking in 5AR-type2 enzyme for instance... almost all of them have full heads of hair, which SOME of them wouldn't probably be able to maintain if their DHT went up.

Studies do seem to show that people who are balding have somewhat higher average levels of androgens than non-balding people (emphasis on the word AVERAGE), but I still think the more important factor is the greater sensitivity to androgens.

The simple fact that being a pseudohermaphrodite or getting yourself castrated is sufficient to stop the balding process should not be interpreted as proving that the problem is entirely one of having too much androgenic stimulation, because it's obviously not normal to completely lack your testicles, or 5a-reductase production. You can also prevent athlete's foot by amputating your feet, but does that mean that the cause of athlete's foot is having feet? :wink:

Bryan

 

[sublime]

Bryan,

What is causing this sensitivity?

 

[cook'n'milkies]

Bryan,

What is causing this sensitivity?

HAHA that's the million dollar question, buddy. We'll have a cure once that gets answered.

 

[Bryan]

It's genetics.

 

[Armando Jose]

No flammig, but,

"I don't beleve in magic" John Lennon.

Different genetics in certain people and certain hairs? I doubt it.


Armando

 

[powersam]

armando i'm not totally sure what you meant by that but it was either poorly phrased or you need to go back and do some highschool biology.

though on that note i also find it somewhat hard to understand why the hairs on the top of my head would be sensitive to something while the hairs on the side of my head are not. has anyone ever tried to graft a patch of skin with hair from the side of the head to the top of a bald head to see if those hairs would also be affected by the balding process once they were in a different location?

 

[triton2]

has anyone ever tried to graft a patch of skin with hair from the side of the head to the top of a bald head to see if those hairs would also be affected by the balding process once they were in a different location?

That's what they do when they do hair transplants, don't they?

 

[jeffsss]

has anyone ever tried to graft a patch of skin with hair from the side of the head to the top of a bald head to see if those hairs would also be affected by the balding process once they were in a different location?

That's what they do when they do hair transplants, don't they?

yep, last time i checked that's what goes on..

 

[Aplunk1]

I think he's talking specifically about a patch of hair on the SIDES, such as above the ears or near the temples...

I don't really know, however, and I'm assuming this is what he means...

I'm not sure, either, why this area is not subject to having donor hair removed.

 

[Armando Jose]

Process to make common baldness

It is not easy, but

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/1576/dib ... web8mg.jpg

Tonsure is one of the few system to produce common baldness.
But tonsure it is only usable in the top and crown of head.

Do you know another method?

Please, excuse my poor english

Armando

 

[powersam]

thats what i meant to an extent, but i was more thinking an actual patch, ie 2x2cm piece of skin with hair on it rather than individual follicles. would remove the effects of other things i dont know enough about to explain properly such as fibrosis? etc. i read somewhere about an experiment where a patch of mp bald scalp skin onto a different environment ( an arm i think it was) and the hair started to grow again on the skin. will try find the study..


oh an if i sounded rude before armando, twas not my aim. just wanted to know what you meant exactly.

 

[Aplunk1]

That's so interesting!
I wonder how that works, and how well the hair would grow back...

 

[jeffsss]

well the problem would be scarring..

and i'd think that the only place that hair would grow is where the "new" skin is.

 

[powersam]

jeffs : i mentioned the experiment because of what it might say about the mechanics of balding, not as a possible cure. also would suggest that a complete cure is not unattainable, as the follicles apparently dont die, just get too small to produce a proper hair.