Discussion in 'Men's General Hair Loss Discussions' started by freakout, Mar 20, 2011.
Good. Because until they prove it, androgenetics is a THEORY.
The should focus on developing treatments, not stating the obvious.
You know this is funny because a few men I have seen that are 30 or older and have teenage hair lines with 0 loss also have no facial hair at all. It almost always seems to be like that with very few exceptions. It really lends a lot of credibility to androgens being the root cause maybe even the whole cause. I really think a complete androgen inhibitor might completely stop male pattern baldness if we can figure out a good way to do it and get it FDA approved so we can go to walmart or wherever and buy it OTC like rogain and we have a way to prevent male pattern baldness with no risk which is what everyone really wants.
For the same reason that all hair follicles on the human body (beard follicles which are actually stimulated by androgens, and follicles from the back and side of the scalp which are relatively inert to androgens) have androgen receptors: they were DESIGNED that way long ago by Evolution.
DESIGNED by evolution...eh? :woot:
I use the word loosely!
By the way, I want to expand a bit on what I said a few minutes ago: I don't actually know for certain-sure that ALL hair follicles on the body contain androgen receptors, it just seems reasonable to me to assume that they all do. No less an authority than Dr. David A. Whiting did indeed state in his comprehensive review article "Male Pattern Hair Loss: Current Understanding" that all SCALP hair follicles contain them, and we know that BEARD hair follicles and many other body hair follicles have them; but there's a certain element of doubt in my mind as to whether or not even eyebrow follicles have them. Maybe to be more careful and precise, I should say that all or ALMOST all hair follicles on the body contain androgen receptors.
As I said in another post, boys castrated before puberty never go bald, nor do those with an alpha reductase deficiency.
Having said that, there are other mechanisms that may affect the degree of hair loss, but science has proven if 100% of DHT conversion is blocked, hair loss does not occur.
And men who are castrated after puberty when balding has already started, don't CONTINUE to go bald, according to Hamilton's 1960 study.
It is known since centuries ago that eunuchs never go bald. This is the proof that the source of all this "evil" is androgens and if we want to strike at the root of the problem we have to chop off our gonads. So, I suppose the new trial is intending to scientifically establish this well known fact without going drastic on the study subjects.
Of course there are environmental factors that can affect hair loss, but usually the effects are reversible in the time span of a human life. But what we are today has been shaped by constant exposure to certain environmental factors during thousands of years. Human bodies react and adapt to environment, eating habits and way of living generally, and any new physical characteristic that is the result of adaptation is inherited to serve the next generations. This shapes human (and not only) body types. I don't quite see which is the place of male pattern baldness in this context, but there must be some.
Castrates can still lose hair if their case is 'FPB'. Women are defacto castrates, yet they can still lose hair.
This type is more comon in men as it is in women. The reason it could not be diagnosed as FPB is because it often occurs with male pattern baldness. NOT all har loss men is 'androgenetic'.
It's called epigenetics.
Any genetically influenced condition that occurs AFTER birth is triggered by environmental factors. That's simply because genes are chemically INCAPABLE of switching by themselves.
How do you know?
Also related to it
What exactly is your point? My point is that what's described above in the British Journal of Dermatolgy obviously isn't really androgenetic alopecia, but something else. It's a little like saying, "Castrates can still lose their hair if they undergo cancer chemotherapy". I think most people would appropriately reply to that by saying, "Yeah? So what? :dunno: "
Things were DESIGNED so complicated I'll be surprised if we'll actually ever know all the answers.
I'm sure androgens are the answer but not in the way they think
I'm mostly discounting it as it relates to this thread.
How do you know? Have you read the full study, not just the abstract?
I believe FPB is pretty diffuse. Certainly more so than male pattern baldness. There may not even _be_ a "pattern" associated with it.
I wouldn't be that emphatic about it. I'd say it's probably Androgenetic Alopecia, although I've read medical journal articles in the past (even before seeing the study above) that female hair loss seems to also involve other factors. I've never paid much attention to it, though; male male pattern baldness is my main interest.
Uh...OF COURSE it will make anyone's hair fall out!! That's exactly the point I was making to you!! It's irrelevant even to mention that, just like it's irrelevant to mention the case history of that person with CAIS in the British Medical Journal. Neither one of them has anything to do with androgenetic alopecia!
From androgenetic alopecia, sure. It won't necessarily stop balding from some other condition, obviously.
When I discuss "hairloss", I'm almost always referring to androgenetic alopecia.
Re: I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness.
The above study suggests that female pattern baldness iitself s NOT androgenetic at all. The suggestion could not be interpreted in another way.
Any other interpretation would be a twisting of the suggestion.
To a high degree, it also supports Rozlyn A. Krajcik's conclusion: "Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens" in both men and women.
These ARE NEW studies versus androgenetics which is 20 years old.
A similar assertion by Mercado that androgenetics is a huge mistake.
No wonder Propecia scientists could only theorize and could not specifically state for a fact that DHT is directly responsible.
Androgenetics is falling apart. Did Merck engineer those 20 year old "studies" to throw off the discovery of true root causes?