New clinical trial intended to prove the Androgenetic Alopecia theory.

squeegee

Banned
Reaction score
129
Jacob said:
Don't pay too much attention to the posts of certain other people here who have their own unfortunate agendas to push

:shock:

LOL! :punk:
 

freakout

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
Bryan said:
Don't pay too much attention to the posts of certain other people here who have their own unfortunate agendas to push. Just react to their posts with the laughter that they deserve! :)
:woot: :woot: :woot:

I do believe no amount of effort from peep sqweaks like me can make a dent on stock market prices and bottom line figures.
 

freakout

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
Bryan said:
In all seriousness to the legitimate readers here: all guys have androgens, of course, but not everybody experiences balding. The ones who do have balding, have scalp hair follicles that are unusually sensitive to the effects of androgens. Their hair follicles release significant amounts of various substances in response to androgens which suppress their growth, and may have other harmful effects on the rest of the follicle.

The DIRECT 'sensitivity' theory can not explain this:
http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/viewtopic.php?p=611106#p611106

"... Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens..." So Rozlyn A. Krajcik,, PhD said.

GO READ PEOPLE. DHT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BALDNESS.
 

freakout

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
Bryan said:
Really?? So what exactly do YOU blame when some stupid guy drowns? The dust on his kitchen floor? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

YOU blame stupidity. That would have been obvious to a lay person. Before you go into the lake, you first learn how to swim. But scheming pharmaceutical companies would rather blame the water.
 

hairhoper

Experienced Member
Reaction score
20
Nobody's blaming androgens. Tackling androgens is simply an effective treatment.

Shut up with your stupid straw man argument.
 

freakout

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
Scalp hair follicles are hormone independent. Neither is it negatively sensitive to DHT. The fact that it grew to terminal in mice when transplanted to uncastrated male mice is proof of that.

If you 'tackle' your hormones or did you mean neutralize or delete it, you are going to TURN INTO AN OLD MAN.
:woot: :woot:
 

hairhoper

Experienced Member
Reaction score
20
Nothing you just posted makes any sense or has any basis in reality.

Eliminating androgens stops hair loss. Propecia stops loss in 90% of men.
 

armandein

Established Member
Reaction score
2
Music for my ears

“ a block of the growing hair tip caused by the reduced fluidity of the sebum or the sebum plugs in the hair canal that apparently block the hair tip.â€￾
“ the premature hair loss is caused by accumulation of sebum in the infundibulum, which becomes dilatedâ€￾
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21628453

What about it?
 

freakout

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
I totally agree Armandein. The non-"androgenic" baldness in men is explained by that study.

My guess is it could be affecting as much as 50% of balding men. And quite a number could be affected by it and androgenic 'causes' at the same time. Throw in stress at the same time, you got aggressive hair loss.
 

armandein

Established Member
Reaction score
2
yes, it is fur animal, but what are us? ;)
even more, they talk about the exit of the new hairs, process similar to us.
 

armandein

Established Member
Reaction score
2
There is different hairs, scalp, body, mouse hair, vibrissiae, etc., but the formation of a new hair is similar on all cases regarding hair cycle.
by the way we are rational animals

I can be wrong.
 

freakout

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
Armandeain, you can reference animal studies since Bryan thinks his relatives are macaque monkeys. :)
 

armandein

Established Member
Reaction score
2
freakout said:
Armandeain, you can reference animal studies since Bryan thinks his relatives are macaque monkeys. :)

Thank you my friend, I know.....

BTW I am interested in a simple way to probe that sebum could be implicated in common hair loss. Acording to my theory people with dense and thick hair are less prone to develop alopecia.
It is easy measure these parameters in the haisr on the sides of the head (totally genetic trait) and look for the result with the incidence of baldness in these people. I bet I am right.
:hump:
 

bigentries

Established Member
Reaction score
63
armandein said:
Acording to my theory people with dense and thick hair are less prone to develop alopecia.
Any anecdote?
I always hated my hair (oh the irony) because it was way too thick. I had to keep it very short in order to comb it.
My father had the same kind of hair. Both of us started balding anyway
 

armandein

Established Member
Reaction score
2
Yes bigentries,
This is your case, but statistics can be different
Exist a third element, you noticed it in your comment: the length of hair. Did use short hair your father also?
A very short hair predispose to common hair loss, think that women rarely loss her hair, why?
If you are interested in this theory you can visit the web www.againstalopeciaandbaldness.com
 

bigentries

Established Member
Reaction score
63
Haha that is a really weird theory. Women don't lose hair because of androgens dude. African tribes keep their hair short and their women don't lose it

Anyway, no, my father has never used short hair at all.
He always had big hair for a guy, in his 20's he used it very long (looked awful), when he married, he went back to his old hair style, still very long for a guy, looked bigger because his hair is very puffy.
He started to lose hair in his late 30's. He doesn't have a thick hair anymore, but still has a lot of hair. Frontal hair intact.

I had the same hair style as my father when I was a kid. Until my teens when I "rebelled" I had it trimmed down. Not buzzed hair, just very short.
Either way during college I spent three years with long hair, which I regret these days, looked like a clown most of the time.
 

the_dude

Member
Reaction score
0
freakout said:
Bryan said:
In all seriousness to the legitimate readers here: all guys have androgens, of course, but not everybody experiences balding. The ones who do have balding, have scalp hair follicles that are unusually sensitive to the effects of androgens. Their hair follicles release significant amounts of various substances in response to androgens which suppress their growth, and may have other harmful effects on the rest of the follicle.

The DIRECT 'sensitivity' theory can not explain this:
http://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/viewtopic.php?p=611106#p611106

"... Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens..." So Rozlyn A. Krajcik,, PhD said.

GO READ PEOPLE. DHT IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR BALDNESS.

I don't really see why this study proves that DHT is not the direct cause of baldness. They transplanted human hair in mice. It's very probable mice have much lower levels of DHT than humans since they are much smaller. So it would be the same as transplanting the hair on a castrate (or a pseudohermaphrodite type 2 like they say in the text) or something, of course it would grow back.
 

hairhoper

Experienced Member
Reaction score
20
Yes freakout took that study out of context a million times over, it doesn't mean what he thinks it does, which has been explained to him many times.
 

freakout

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
the_dude said:
I don't really see why this study proves that DHT is not the direct cause of baldness. They transplanted human hair in mice. It's very probable mice have much lower levels of DHT than humans since they are much smaller. So it would be the same as transplanting the hair on a castrate (or a pseudohermaphrodite type 2 like they say in the text) or something, of course it would grow back.

DHT is an androgen. The conclusion that "...the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens..."

was NOT mine. I never "brought it out of context".

The conclusion was made by a team of experts with PhDs. :)

If you knew exactly what 'androgenetics' (Propecia or Bryan's version) - the theory lies on the argument that Androgenetic Alopecia follicles CONVERT testesterone into DHT with the 5 alpha reductase "WITHIN the follicles".

Let me know if this is wrong.

Therefore, DHT levels in your blood stream or the mice's blood stream ARE INSIGNIFICANT.

In the mice experiment, all 28 men and 11 women were DIAGNOSED with androgenetics alopecia.

Furthermose, post pubertal castrates could not match those results which means that both testtosterone and DHT are NOT the miniaturizing agents.

A DHT 'direct' miniturizing effect on hair follicles was a massive marketing campaign of Propecia 20 years ago. That proposal suggests that you have no other option but to buy Propecia.
 

freakout

Experienced Member
Reaction score
2
bigentries said:
Haha that is a really weird theory. Women don't lose hair because of androgens dude. African tribes keep their hair short and their women don't lose it.

Armandein has cited several studies pointing to sebum as a contributing factor. I was so convinced by those that now massage my scalp every time before going to bed.

male pattern baldness is a multifactorial condition. Women can also lose hair albeit to a lesser extent. We an always point to androgens but remember ALL men have androgens and more of them don't lose hair.

As far as primitive tribes, we should disregard those which have began to be influenced by modern lifestyles and industrilization such as Africa. I've seen a NatGeo documentary of Sri Lankan hunter-gatherer tribe with long hair and none seem to be balding.

"Primitive" does not translate to "hunter-gatherer".

Wikipedia "Pattern baldness (androgenic alopecia) was either rare or non-existent among hunter-gatherer societies"
 
Top