oily scalp

[jfrank]

in the past 3 month of propecia use, i found my scalp to be extremely oily. (shiny is the light) also, in this same time, i have lost a lot of hair.. first i blamed rogaine for the oily scalp, but after switching to dr. Lee's formula, my scalp is still oily.... is oil a bad thing?? should i use nizoral more often? please advise..

there is a lot of DHT in on the scalp?

 

[arjun17]

about oily scalp (long)....

It has been theorized that oily scalp, while it is'nt the main cause of male pattern baldness (that honour goes to dear old DHT and the sensitivity of the follicles to its action) can aggravate thinning hair when the latter has already manifested itself. This impact is a double edged sword : cosmetic (how the hair looks) as well as physiologic (how healthy the hair actually is)
The cosmetic impact is the result of the fact that your hair has to be pretty thick to not show ANY scalp under bright lights with loads of olive or almond oil massaged into it. My fine hair (even though I've not started thinning yet) shows some scalp in the bright bathroom fluorescent lighting when its oily. Oil pretty much rules when you want to make your hair look thin and flat. Water comes a humble second to oil in instantly "thinning" one's hair. Now of course , the scalp does not usually secrete as great an amount of oil as compared to the amount people apply on their hair, but the normal scalp oil is sufficient to make even slight thinning obvious in many people, especially those who started out with fine hair.
And now on to the physiologic impact. As we all know , people with oily scalps have (by definition) loads of sebum present on their scalp . And it has also been proven that sebum contains a fairly high amount of DHT. So just think ... if the person in question is genetically prone to balding (i.e. his hair follicles are sensitive to DHT and are fated to miniaturize in response to it), don't you think that more sebum = more DHT = more miniaturization = faster balding? Oily scalp is also very often one of the EFFECTS of male pattern baldness, although it's not the cause. The hair follicles shrink, but the sebaceous glands stay the same size and pour out the same amount of sebum as before. The oil wicks on to the finer, shorter hairs with considerably more ease than it did before. Its been stated that
"Most doctors agree that if you have an oily scalp WITH thinning hair, frequent shampooing is advised". What does this mean? It means that for a non-balding person, oily scalp (which is pretty rare in non-balding people anyway) does'nt really matter, because the follicles of non-balding people are by definition not sensitive to DHT. But for someone who is already thinning, oily scalp can and often does accelerate the thinning. I just wish my dad (51) would understand this, who is a bit thin on top and has a rather oily scalp.He still insists on massaging oil into his hair once every week, thinking that it will improve the quality of his hair. I tell him that far from improving the hair, it'll probably make it worse. But then again, granddad (paternal) was 78 when he passed away, and still had most of his hair. I have the exact same type of hair as my dad and granddad, but I am sure as hell not going to massage any kind of oil into my scalp (and I hope no one else with thinning hair will either).
So I advise you to keep the oil at bay with any good shampoo (preferably anti-dandruff as well, because dandruff often accompanies oily scalp). Don't use the shampoo so often that your hair becomes dry and unmanageable (dry scalp has its own problems), but just often enough so that your hair does'nt look or feel oily. Once a day or every alternate day should be OK, try and see which one works best for you.
Cheers and best of luck,
Arjun

 

[Old Baldy]

AR: I think the seb. glands increase in size when male pattern baldness sets in. Pretty insidious isn't it!? :evil:

 

[jfrank]

thats not cool.... i use every other day.. and rotate between t-gel, c-gel, am crew and nioxin the non nizoral days.....

i used to have really dry skin... now its oily....

 

[jfrank]

i also started conditioning my hair every hair... should i avoid the conditioning????? it does add a hell of a lot of moisture to the scalp....

 

[blaze]

If you have oily hair stay away from conditioner, you dont need it.

 

[hair_tomorrow]

My hair is naturally oily too. That stopped when I started on minoxidil - which dries my hair out somewhat.

Back in my oily hair hair days, I'd shampoo, rinse, and shampoo again.
This is actually a great way to combine your shampoo treatments, i.e., shampoo w. revivogen or some other quality shampoo, rinse, and then shampoo again w/ nizoral or nano.

Also, back in my oily hair days, I'd have to shampoo again if I was going out somewhere special in the evening.

One great trick - just before you get out of the shower - blast your head w/ cold water only. That will also help alleviate the oilness.

 

[jfrank]

well, i used to have very dry skin.. then i start conditioning my hair everyday.. and propecia... in three months i went from nw0 to nw3.. still getting worse... could it be the initial propecia shed??

 

[Bryan]

Re: about oily scalp (long)....

And now on to the physiologic impact. As we all know , people with oily scalps have (by definition) loads of sebum present on their scalp . And it has also been proven that sebum contains a fairly high amount of DHT. So just think ... if the person in question is genetically prone to balding (i.e. his hair follicles are sensitive to DHT and are fated to miniaturize in response to it), don't you think that more sebum = more DHT = more miniaturization = faster balding?

Not necessarily. For that to be true, the sebum (with its load of DHT) would have to be absorbed into the hair follicle itself, and the DHT would then have to be taken up by the dermal papilla. However, I've never seen any evidence that DHT produced in the sebaceous glands ever finds its way into the hair follicles. I strongly doubt that it happens that way.

Oily scalp is also very often one of the EFFECTS of male pattern baldness, although it's not the cause.

I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say that male pattern baldness and overactive sebaceous glands are both caused by excessive androgenic activity. They are both probably parallel EFFECTS of androgenic activity, but male pattern baldness doesn't cause oily scalp, and oily scalp doesn't cause male pattern baldness. That's my current opinion, at least.

The hair follicles shrink, but the sebaceous glands stay the same size and pour out the same amount of sebum as before. The oil wicks on to the finer, shorter hairs with considerably more ease than it did before.

Nope. Kligman et al clearly demonstrated that sebum doesn't "wick" its way onto hairs. It gets onto hair only by direct physical contact, like when you touch or play with your hair, scratch your head, sleep with your head on a pillow, etc.

Bryan

 

[arjun17]

Hi Bryan,
Nice to see that we are having an intelligent discussion here. I hope more people would join in with their own opinions.


Not necessarily. For that to be true, the sebum (with its load of DHT) would have to be absorbed into the hair follicle itself, and the DHT would then have to be taken up by the dermal papilla. However, I've never seen any evidence that DHT produced in the sebaceous glands ever finds its way into the hair follicles. I strongly doubt that it happens that way.

Agreed. But in any case, with so much extra scalp DHT in the sebum (in addition to the DHT present in the blood supplied to the follicles) it surely can't be helpful. I am reasonably sure that most balding people would lose hair at a significantly faster rate if they left their scalps oily instead of washing them regularly. The more sebum is produced, the greater chance of atleast some of it finding its way into the follicle and creating more havoc. This idea has not been investigated much by scientists. Heck, the scientists still don't know what the other factors which cause balding (besides circulating DHT and sensitivity of the follicles to it) are.
Even the mechanism of DHT action is not fully understood yet.

I wouldn't put it that way. I'd say that male pattern baldness and overactive sebaceous glands are both caused by excessive androgenic activity. They are both probably parallel EFFECTS of androgenic activity, but male pattern baldness doesn't cause oily scalp, and oily scalp doesn't cause male pattern baldness. That's my current opinion, at least.

OK, so I was wrong in saying that male pattern baldness causes oily scalp. Actually, oily scalp very often ACCOMPANIES male pattern baldness. The enlargement of the sebaceous glands accompanies the follicle miniaturization. But I still say that oily scalp, although it does'nt cause male pattern baldness, aggravates male pattern baldness once it has started.

Nope. Kligman et al clearly demonstrated that sebum doesn't "wick" its way onto hairs. It gets onto hair only by direct physical contact, like when you touch or play with your hair, scratch your head, sleep with your head on a pillow, etc.

OK, but surely combing one's hair even twice a day w/o washing it serves as sufficient physical contact to get the scalp oil onto the hair? I know this for a fact. And in any case, it does'nt really make a difference (other than cosmetic , as I've said in the earlier post) how oily the ends of the hair get - it's how much sebum gets through to the follicle.

Cheers,
Arjun


[/list]

 

[Bryan]

Agreed. But in any case, with so much extra scalp DHT in the sebum (in addition to the DHT present in the blood supplied to the follicles) it surely can't be helpful. I am reasonably sure that most balding people would lose hair at a significantly faster rate if they left their scalps oily instead of washing them regularly. The more sebum is produced, the greater chance of atleast some of it finding its way into the follicle and creating more havoc. This idea has not been investigated much by scientists. Heck, the scientists still don't know what the other factors which cause balding (besides circulating DHT and sensitivity of the follicles to it) are.

Well, the bottom-line here is that there isn't enough evidence to settle that question definitively. However, I'll mention some moderately strong evidence which argues against it, and that's the fact that specific 5a-reductase type 1 inhibitors have been shown NOT to be effective for hairloss, in both humans and stumptailed macaques. If your "sebum theory" were correct, one would expect such inhibitors to be effective for hairloss because the 5a-reductase in sebaceous glands is the type 1 variety, and their production of DHT would be greatly suppressed with the use of such drugs. But they don't help, unfortunately.

BTW, I couldn't help but notice that TWICE in your paragraph above, you referred to circulating DHT in the context of hairloss. For your information, I think the available evidence (spread over several different kinds of animal and human experiments) suggests that it's the local DHT produced WITHIN THE HAIR FOLLICLE ITSELF which is by far the more important cause of balding, not the DHT circulating in the bloodstream.

Even the mechanism of DHT action is not fully understood yet.

Well, we understand it in very general terms: androgens alter the production of various growth factors/inhibitors within hair follicle cells by stimulating (or suppressing) their expression of various androgen-sensitive genes, and the proteins that they then produce. The tricky part is identifying those exact chemicals/hormones, and figuring out the best way to intervene in that process.

Bryan

 

[d_umberly]

Since it has not been scientifically established that the process which causes oily hair and scalp is also causative to hair loss could it be said that;


1. Shampooing twice a day does not help nor hurt the hairloss situation?

Further, does "over shampooing" have any known deleterious effect?

Eucapil's website had the following statement:

snip:

"Therefore, it is important not to apply fluridil to the scalp when wet. Third, shampoos remove the skin and hair fat effectively and thus signal to the sebaceous glands to work harder: a vicious circle is thus established. We hear from Eucapil® users who have reduced their shampooing frequency, washed hair with warm water and some soap only, or used the so-called “dry shampoosâ€￾ that although it took many weeks before the scalp glands´ activity returned to normal, it eventually did."

From my reading of this they are not making a connection one way or the other about oily skin and hairloss, rather they are saying frequent shampooing only worsens the oily scalp/hair.

So if their statement is correct frequent shampooing would be counter productive from a grooming standpoint.

 

[Bryan]

Since it has not been scientifically established that the process which causes oily hair and scalp is also causative to hair loss could it be said that;

1. Shampooing twice a day does not help nor hurt the hairloss situation?

That's my current opinion. It seems to be supported by the evidence I cited above.

Further, does "over shampooing" have any known deleterious effect?

Some people are convinced that the detergents (like SLS) used in common shampoos are harmful to hair follicles, but I think that's a pretty silly theory. There's no real evidence to support it.

Eucapil's website had the following statement:

{snip bullshit from Eucapil's website}

From my reading of this they are not making a connection one way or the other about oily skin and hairloss, rather they are saying frequent shampooing only worsens the oily scalp/hair.

So if their statement is correct frequent shampooing would be counter productive from a grooming standpoint.

You've just reminded me of YET ANOTHER reason why I don't fully trust fluridil, and that's the fact that those people don't even know that the so-called "feedback theory" of sebum production was refuted many years ago. Sebaceous glands don't "work harder" to produce more sebum, in response to washing sebum from the skin.

If those people at Eucapil don't even know anything about THAT, do you really trust them when it comes to formulating a brand-new drug like fluridil?? :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Even the mechanism of DHT action is not fully understood yet.

Well, we understand it in very general terms: androgens alter the production of various growth factors/inhibitors within hair follicle cells by stimulating (or suppressing) their expression of various androgen-sensitive genes, and the proteins that they then produce. The tricky part is identifying those exact chemicals/hormones, and figuring out the best way to intervene in that process.

Bryan

Then how do you explain that Minoxidil significantly increases hair growth in male pattern baldness, when it dosen't effect `ANY' of the pathways you refer to Bryan??

According to what you are saying, androgens are changing the way follicle cells `inherently' respond growth wise. It isn't that the means of growth has been taken away, your claim is that the DHT pathway in male pattern baldness has changed the internal growth `programing'.

So anything that doesn't effect either androgens or their receptors in these cells, just cannot change this `internal' growth program!!!

Minoxidil proves you wrong Bryan, sorry

S Foote.

 

[arjun17]

To Bryan

Well, the bottom-line here is that there isn't enough evidence to settle that question definitively. However, I'll mention some moderately strong evidence which argues against it, and that's the fact that specific 5a-reductase type 1 inhibitors have been shown NOT to be effective for hairloss, in both humans and stumptailed macaques. If your "sebum theory" were correct, one would expect such inhibitors to be effective for hairloss because the 5a-reductase in sebaceous glands is the type 1 variety, and their production of DHT would be greatly suppressed with the use of such drugs. But they don't help, unfortunately.

Plz correct me if I'm wrong: 5-alpha reductase is the enzyme which converts circulating testosterone into DHT, is'nt it? And the sebaceous glands have the type 1 5a-reductase, while the follicles have type 2 5a-reductase. But anyway, DHT is DHT, and the more DHT produced by the sebaceous glands, the more likely it is for some of it to get into the follicles. Using the type 1 5a-reductase inhibitors is not attacking the root cause of balding. The DHT produced in the follicle will still do its dirty work. It has been proven that men with genetic deficiency of type 2 5a-reductase don't lose hair - not even the normal temporal recession which most non-balding men have.

BTW, I couldn't help but notice that TWICE in your paragraph above, you referred to circulating DHT in the context of hairloss. For your information, I think the available evidence (spread over several different kinds of animal and human experiments) suggests that it's the local DHT produced WITHIN THE HAIR FOLLICLE ITSELF which is by far the more important cause of balding, not the DHT circulating in the bloodstream

Agreed. That was a mistake on my part. It should actually be "circulating testosterone converted to DHT via type 2 5-alpha reductase".

Cheers,
Arjun

 

[Bryan]

Then how do you explain that Minoxidil significantly increases hair growth in male pattern baldness, when it dosen't effect `ANY' of the pathways you refer to Bryan??

OF COURSE it affects those pathways.

According to what you are saying, androgens are changing the way follicle cells `inherently' respond growth wise. It isn't that the means of growth has been taken away, your claim is that the DHT pathway in male pattern baldness has changed the internal growth `programing'.

I'll thank you not to try to twist my words around. I said in PLAIN ENGLISH that androgens alter the production of certain growth factors within hair follicle cells.

So anything that doesn't effect either androgens or their receptors in these cells, just cannot change this `internal' growth program!!!

If you supply those growth factors (or inhibitors, for that matter) externally, they SURE AS HELL can alter the growth of the follicle, just like the indigenously-produced factors.

Minoxidil proves you wrong Bryan, sorry

LOL!! Only in your most febrile dreams, Stephen...

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Then how do you explain that Minoxidil significantly increases hair growth in male pattern baldness, when it dosen't effect `ANY' of the pathways you refer to Bryan??

OF COURSE it affects those pathways.

Rubbish Bryan!

Show me research that has shown that androgens reduce a `certain' growth factor in male pattern baldness cells, that Minoxidil replaces?

According to what you are saying, androgens are changing the way follicle cells `inherently' respond growth wise. It isn't that the means of growth has been taken away, your claim is that the DHT pathway in male pattern baldness has changed the internal growth `programing'.

I'll thank you not to try to twist my words around. I said in PLAIN ENGLISH that androgens alter the production of certain growth factors within hair follicle cells.

But thats just `NOT' what the theory YOU support says is it! You should try researching your own theory Bryan!

If it was just a case of androgens reducing growth factors, we could cure male pattern baldness by simply replacing these `growth factors'.

So anything that doesn't effect either androgens or their receptors in these cells, just cannot change this `internal' growth program!!!

If you supply those growth factors (or inhibitors, for that matter) externally, they SURE AS HELL can alter the growth of the follicle, just like the indigenously-produced factors.

Again Bryan, which growth factor `WITHIN' male pattern baldness follicles is Minoxidil effecting, be `very' specific!

Minoxidil proves you wrong Bryan, sorry

LOL!! Only in your most febrile dreams, Stephen...

Bryan

I am not a dreamer i am a realist Bryan. The Minoxidil paradox is just one of the reasons why the more inteligent researchers are now doubting the current theory you take as `gospel'. 8)

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

OF COURSE it affects those pathways.

Rubbish Bryan!

Show me research that has shown that androgens reduce a `certain' growth factor in male pattern baldness cells, that Minoxidil replaces?

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Look it up yourself. You might try searching on "minoxidil VEGF".

I'll thank you not to try to twist my words around. I said in PLAIN ENGLISH that androgens alter the production of certain growth factors within hair follicle cells.

But thats just `NOT' what the theory YOU support says is it! You should try researching your own theory Bryan!

If it was just a case of androgens reducing growth factors, we could cure male pattern baldness by simply replacing these `growth factors'.

Yes. Theoretically, you COULD do that. It's much like a diabetic using insulin injections to control his disease: a critical substance required by cells (insulin) can work, whether it's produced internally the normal way, or given externally. See what I mean, Stephen? :wink:

If you supply those growth factors (or inhibitors, for that matter) externally, they SURE AS HELL can alter the growth of the follicle, just like the indigenously-produced factors.

Again Bryan, which growth factor `WITHIN' male pattern baldness follicles is Minoxidil effecting, be `very' specific!

VEGF is a specific example, Stephen. DO YOUR HOMEWORK, before I have to rap your knuckles with a ruler!

I am not a dreamer i am a realist Bryan. The Minoxidil paradox is just one of the reasons why the more inteligent researchers are now doubting the current theory you take as `gospel'. 8)

Oh my god...a clear, textbook case of psychological "Projection", if there ever ever was one! :wink:

Bryan

 

[sam-]

:dizzy:

 

[S Foote.]

OF COURSE it affects those pathways.

Rubbish Bryan!

Show me research that has shown that androgens reduce a `certain' growth factor in male pattern baldness cells, that Minoxidil replaces?

I'm not going to do your homework for you. Look it up yourself. You might try searching on "minoxidil VEGF".

[quote="S Foote.":5227c]

I'll thank you not to try to twist my words around. I said in PLAIN ENGLISH that androgens alter the production of certain growth factors within hair follicle cells.

But thats just `NOT' what the theory YOU support says is it! You should try researching your own theory Bryan!

If it was just a case of androgens reducing growth factors, we could cure male pattern baldness by simply replacing these `growth factors'.

Yes. Theoretically, you COULD do that. It's much like a diabetic using insulin injections to control his disease: a critical substance required by cells (insulin) can work, whether it's produced internally the normal way, or given externally. See what I mean, Stephen? :wink:

If you supply those growth factors (or inhibitors, for that matter) externally, they SURE AS HELL can alter the growth of the follicle, just like the indigenously-produced factors.

Again Bryan, which growth factor `WITHIN' male pattern baldness follicles is Minoxidil effecting, be `very' specific!

VEGF is a specific example, Stephen. DO YOUR HOMEWORK, before I have to rap your knuckles with a ruler! [/quote:5227c]

I am well aware of the effect on hair growth of VEGF, (vascular endothelial growth factor).

The key word you don't seem able to grasp here Bryan is `VASCULAR'!!

VEGF is a growth factor that significantly effects the vascular characteristics within tissues. In other words, VEGF effects the `HYDRAULIC' conditions in tissues, in line with my theory!

What `YOU' have to explain to everyone Bryan, is how could Minoxidil related changes in VEGF, possibly effect male pattern baldness follicle cells `DIRECTLY', as it `HAS' to according to your thinking!

So tell us all how VEGF does what `YOU' claim Bryan????

I am not a dreamer i am a realist Bryan. The Minoxidil paradox is just one of the reasons why the more inteligent researchers are now doubting the current theory you take as `gospel'. 8)

Oh my god...a clear, textbook case of psychological "Projection", if there ever ever was one! :wink:

Bryan

Psychological projection Bryan!

Yet another pseudo-scientific phrase of yours, designed to try to convince people you know what your talking about 8)

S Foote.