New clinical trial intended to prove the Androgenetic Alopecia theory.

[the_dude]

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.

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.

 

[freakout]

I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

That conclusion that you cited was with regard to females developing 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.

I don't know about testosterone being converted inside the follicles

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.

 

[the_dude]

Re: 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. 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.

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.

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 they should regrow to terminal just 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.

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.

 

[freakout]

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.

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'.

 

[freakout]

However in males i think the results in favour of androgens causing male pattern baldness are overwhelming.

By "overwhelming", do you mean: men develop male pattern baldness because only men have overwhelmingly significant levels androgens?

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.'

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"

 

[freakout]

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.

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?

 

[freakout]

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.

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.

 

[freakout]

(Hey dude before you read this, I posted a few responses on the previous page. Thanks.)

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

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.

 

[hairhoper]

Removing DHT stops hairloss.

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

 

[the_dude]

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?

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.

 

[Bryan]

You guys are just wasting your time trying to explain this to "freakout". He doesn't listen.

 

[freakout]

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. unk:

 

[Bryan]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21881585

Dihydrotestosterone-Inducible IL-6 Inhibits Elongation of Human Hair Shafts by Suppressing Matrix Cell Proliferation and Promotes Regression of Hair Follicles in Mice.

Abstract
Autocrine and paracrine factors are produced by balding dermal papilla (DP) cells following dihydrotestosterone (DHT)-driven alterations and are believed to be key factors involved in male pattern baldness. Taken together, our data strongly suggest that DHT-inducible IL-6 inhibits hair growth as a paracrine mediator from the DP. Journal of Investigative Dermatology advance online publication, 1 September 2011; doi:10.1038/jid.2011.274.

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.

 

[Bryan]

Please.......I would like your opinion on this based on the direct theory.

I dunno...not much I can say about it, based only on such a minimal abstract.

 

[armandein]

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

 

[Armando Jose]

Ahh, thank Bryan. I owe you some due admiration for sticking to scientific studies even in the face of contradicting studies despite your intimidating remarks The guys back there are doing a great job twisting the studies, you don't need to be there.

So can we then hypothesize that since to top of our heads never touch a pillow and that since men never brush their hair as often as women do, sebum accumulation can contribute to some form of non-androgenic hair loss?

Here is the probe
http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.5107/sccj.27.546

 

[massa]

Does anyone know what happened to Bryan? He seemed like the go-to guy a few years ago.

 

[Armando Jose]

Does anyone know what happened to Bryan? He seemed like the go-to guy a few years ago.

The friend Bryan died a few years ago