New clinical trial intended to prove the Androgenetic Alopecia theory. | Page 13 | HairLossTalk Forums
Dismiss Notice
Forum Update: Aug 19. Feedback for the Admin? Upgrade coming: Click Here.

New clinical trial intended to prove the Androgenetic Alopecia theory.

Discussion in 'Men's General Hair Loss Discussions' started by freakout, Mar 20, 2011.

  1. the_dude

    the_dude Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dislikes Received:
    0
    That conclusion that you cited was with regard to females developing baldness. And yes, i do believe there are other factors that can contribute to baldness, especially in women. Btw, it's not because people have PhDs they can't be wrong.

    I don't know about testosterone being converted inside the follicles, but it could be true. But even then, i don't see how that leads to testosterone levels or DHT levels inside mice being insignificant. How do you explain then why castrates never develop baldness? They still make very small amounts of testosterone. If the level of testosterone is insignificant they should also develop baldness.
     
  2. freakout

    freakout Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dislikes Received:
    1
    I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

    Women? When the team came up with the conclusion 'the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens', they were refering to men because men have androgens.

    When they said 'particularly women', they NEVER discounted men. They meant to say more evident in women. IN FACT, they discussed in the "androgenetics" theory in detail.

    Did you read the entire discussion? I"m guessing you read Bryan's posts. He has a biased position. I never believed he's here to do research.

    If you think i'm biased, that's wrong. I'm open to all suggestions.

    That's the theory I've been told unless I read wrong.

    All men have androgens. The levels of androgens in their blood stream DO NOT explain male pattern baldness. Which simply means androgens can be dropped to a contributing role rather than causative role.

    Granted castrates don't lose hair even if, in reality, we have had a small sample of castrates. BUT they also don't regrow hair. If androgenetics is true, then castrates should regrow to terminal like the mice experiment which were not even castrates.

    So the question serious researchers should be asking is 'what makes bald men different from non-bald men' since they have similar levels of androgens.

    The manner by which we respond to life's events AFFECT the way our receptors respond to our hormones.
     
  3. the_dude

    the_dude Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dislikes Received:
    0
    Re: I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

    Ok it could be they don't discount men in that sentence. Woman also have androgens but in lower amounts. But because propecia often doesn't work on female hairloss, it is very well possible there are other mechanisms involved in female hairloss.

    However in males i think the results in favour of androgens causing male pattern baldness are overwhelming. In the study you quote in your sig they say themselves:'In human males, dihydrotestosterone (DHT) is required for Androgenetic Alopecia to occur in the genetically predisposed. Adults with pseudohermaphroditism type 2 have normal levels of T but significantly lower levels of DHT and do not show balding as do their healthy siblings.'

    And they also say:'The regeneration of vellus follicles occurs just as quickly on male as on female mice (data not shown); this suggests that a factor or factors other than androgen withdrawal may be involved but does not necessarily rule out that differences in androgen levels, availability, or both between human beings and mice account in part or entirely for the rapid vellus-to-terminal transformation of balding follicles. For instance, the activity of the 5-R enzyme(s) may be greatly reduced or absent in the transplanted follicles, thereby, limiting exposure of
    the follicles to DHT. The accelerated transformation of vellus follicles on immunodeficient mice might then correspond to responses seen in balding men
    treated with oral finasteride24 who are exceptionally good responders. '

    And no i didn't read the entire discussion, only that study in your signature.
    The levels of androgens do not explain male pattern baldness, but how their follicles react to these androgens does. For example a gene on chromosome X that is linked to the androgen receptor is strongly associated with developing male pattern baldness. This means men with a certain variant of this androgen receptor are more susceptible to androgens.

    Where in the study does it say they tried to regrow hair on castrates?

    The point is if you use common scense, you have to admit a lot of factors speak in favour of androgens explaining male pattern baldness, even if it doesn't explain everything it's a huuuge factor. I never saw any proof that confirms your theory.
     
  4. freakout

    freakout Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dislikes Received:
    1
    I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

    Propecia was never tested on human females. If they did, they never published it. The warning on the label suggests a dangerous reaction by women. Note that most researchers refer to women's hair loss as 'androgenetic'.
     
  5. freakout

    freakout Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dislikes Received:
    1
    By "overwhelming", do you mean: men develop male pattern baldness because only men have overwhelmingly significant levels androgens?

    The team was NOT 'saying it'. They were QUOTING the Androgenetic Alopecia theory. And later disputed it with an alternative mechanism without necessarily discounting androgens from the equation. NOTE that they quoted THE LEVEL of androgens as significant in the Androgenetic Alopecia theory.

    They stated this as a fact: 'The regeneration of vellus follicles occurs just as quickly on male as on female mice;

    They stated this as a theory: this suggests that a factor or factors other than androgen withdrawal may be involved but does not necessarily rule out that differences in androgen levels, availability, or both between human beings and mice account in part or entirely for the rapid vellus-to-terminal transformation of balding follicles. For instance, the activity of the 5-R enzyme(s) may be greatly reduced or absent in the transplanted follicles, thereby, limiting exposure of the follicles to DHT. The accelerated transformation of vellus follicles on immunodeficient mice might then correspond to responses seen in balding men treated with oral finasteride24 who are exceptionally good responders. '

    They concluded this: "the existence of an inhibiting factor OTHER THAN ANDROGENS"
     
  6. freakout

    freakout Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dislikes Received:
    1
    Since all men have androgens or DHT and since the levels DO NOT correspond with male pattern baldness, we can only implicate androgens as a contributor role NOT causative. Would you like to switch the discussion to genetics?
     
  7. freakout

    freakout Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dislikes Received:
    1
    Agreed. Common sense dictates to ask the question: what makes balding men different from non-balding men if the level of androgens is insignificant?

    I NEVER discounted androgens in my signiture. Being a huuuuuge factor does NOT make it THE cause. The discussion on this thread is whether DHT has a DIRECT action on hair follicles or whether DHT affects some other system that, in turn, affects hair follicles.

    Androgens is very much a part of us as our fingers. "Treating" DHT is like cutting our fingers off because we poked our eyes with it.
     
  8. freakout

    freakout Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dislikes Received:
    1
    (Hey dude :) before you read this, I posted a few responses on the previous page. Thanks.)

    It's not in the study. It's on the thread. Post pubertal castrates don't regrow vellus to terminal. Post pubertal castration merely stops male pattern baldness. If DHT is a growth inhibitor, castration should regrow hair.

    Even with the data on castrates, i'm not totally convinced it's viable since we have had a small sample of castrates which could be insignificant. Fact is, some men do stop male pattern baldness without any form of treatment which is evident in men who develop only Norwood type 1, 2 or 3 their entire lives.

    Combine this data on castrates with the mouse study, I, therefore conclude that DHT is not a growth inhibitor.
     
  9. hairhoper

    hairhoper Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2010
    Messages:
    671
    Likes Received:
    19
    Dislikes Received:
    3
    Removing DHT stops hairloss.

    You can misquote studies til you're blue in the face, you can't change that simple fact.
     
  10. the_dude

    the_dude Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2011
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dislikes Received:
    0
    Well, the levels do correspond with male pattern baldness to a certain height. If you give balding men a DHT-inhibitor, the large majority of men will stop/slowing down hairloss (i thought i read somewhere 90% of men?) and some will even regrow hair. However they still have a small amount of DHT in their bodies. The ones which are very sensitive to androgens will still loose their hair rapidly (and like i said, the sensitivity to androgens differs among men, that's why some men go bald and others don't. I don't know really know why you ignore that).

    And with common sense, results pointing in favour of DHT i mean: most men developing baldness, most women don't/dht-inhibitors slowing down balding/castrates not going bald....

    These simple facts just can't be explained by the theory you put up, namely: "The manner by which we respond to life's events AFFECT the way our receptors respond to our hormones." But they can be explained by androgens.

    About DHT directly or not directly affecting follicles. Who knows? I don't see any proof why it shouldn't directly affect them.

    And about them not being a growth inhibitor. Even with DHT the hairs still grow. The only problem is the hairs grow back very thin and weak. I think it's better to call DHT a shrinker. And when you remove DHT completely the hairs stop shrinking. (when you remove DHT partially, the shrinking of the hair slows down in most cases and sometimes the hair even thickens up).

    Some men stopping at NW3 could just mean: the hairs in the front are sensitive to DHT, while the hairs in the middle/crown are not or less sensitive (just like the hairs on the side and back are not).

    But ok, i think we both aren't going to talk the other around :). We both have our ideas on balding which we strongly believe in, so i think this discussion is useless.
     
  11. Bryan

    Bryan Senior Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Messages:
    8,624
    Likes Received:
    32
    Dislikes Received:
    9
    You guys are just wasting your time trying to explain this to "freakout". He doesn't listen.
     
  12. freakout

    freakout Experienced Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2011
    Messages:
    634
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dislikes Received:
    1
    Well, like I said I never removed androgens from the equation but I need my DHT because 'neutralizing' it will turn me into AN OLD MAN.

    The conclusion "the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens" was not mine and was written by experts with PhDs. How else can I make any other interpretation. :woot:

    So why should I listen to you, Bryan. Do you have a PhD? You don't work for Merck's interest ... :whistle:

    Common sense dictates balding men shouldn't be blaming their balls because something else out there are the real culprits.

    In any case, the_dude, thanks for the exchange. :punk:
     
  13. Bryan

    Bryan Senior Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Messages:
    8,624
    Likes Received:
    32
    Dislikes Received:
    9
    Over and over and over and over I tried to explain these basic biological facts to the poster "freakout", but he just wouldn't listen to me.
     
  14. Bryan

    Bryan Senior Member
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2002
    Messages:
    8,624
    Likes Received:
    32
    Dislikes Received:
    9
    I dunno...not much I can say about it, based only on such a minimal abstract.
     
  15. armandein

    armandein Established Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    316
    Likes Received:
    2
    Dislikes Received:
    0
    Policemen = Short hair

    ________________________________________
    Androgenetic alopecia in policemen: higher prevalence and different risk factors relative to the general population

    "Prevalence and risk factors of androgenetic alopecia (Androgenetic Alopecia) in policemen are not known. This study aimed to compare the prevalence and risk factors of Androgenetic Alopecia between policemen and the general population.

    A cross-sectional survey was conducted by recruiting a total of 758 (78%) of 972 policemen and 740 (80%) of 924 participants in a community-based integrated screening served as a comparison group.

    The Norwood classification system was used to assess the degree of hair loss. Information on age, family history of androgenetic alopecia, and other possible risk factors was collected with questionnaire interviews.

    The association analysis between policemen and the general population was limited to participants aged 40-59 years. After controlling for other significant factors, policemen aged 40-59 years had an increased risk of developing Androgenetic Alopecia compared with the general population (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.14, 4.36, p = 0.02).

    Obesity measured by waist circumference and body mass index made contribution to higher risk for Androgenetic Alopecia in younger policemen (20-39 years).

    A statistically significant association was noted between Androgenetic Alopecia and sunlight exposure in policemen aged 40-59 years.

    We concluded the prevalence of Androgenetic Alopecia in policemen was twofold higher than that in the general population. Obesity at young age and sunlight exposure may be responsible for higher risk of Androgenetic Alopecia in policemen. However, further studies are warranted to confirm the current findings."

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21927906
     
  16. Armando Jose

    Armando Jose Senior Member My Regimen

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    679
    Dislikes Received:
    49
    My Regimen:
    My Regimen
    My Regimen
    Here is the probe
    http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.5107/sccj.27.546
     
  17. massa

    massa Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2014
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    28
    Dislikes Received:
    1
    Does anyone know what happened to Bryan? He seemed like the go-to guy a few years ago.
     
  18. Armando Jose

    Armando Jose Senior Member My Regimen

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    2,806
    Likes Received:
    679
    Dislikes Received:
    49
    My Regimen:
    My Regimen
    My Regimen
    The friend Bryan died a few years ago
     

Share This Page