One man's opinion on DHT

[HairlossTalk]

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/reform8.htm

HairLossTalk.com

 

[Cassin]

:firing: DHT

 

[The Gardener]

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/reform8.htm

HairLossTalk.com

Boy, you're just nothin but love and sunshine today, HairLossTalk.com.

 

[HairlossTalk]

Anyone want to give an intelligent response to the article?

HairLossTalk.com

 

[Cassin]

Anyone want to give an intelligent response to the article?

HairLossTalk.com

Yeah ok I will.

It is all a matter of prospective

It depends on if you are balding or not

If you are a bodybuilder and are not balding then DHT is cool.

If you are anyone else and balding than DHT sucks.


My basic opinion.

 

[HairlossTalk]

Actually, way off. The article went pretty deep into the need for DHT in the overall tissues of the body, whether or not someone is balding. This is a theory that I have held to for many years, that most doctors do not hold to. They believe that DHT is no longer needed or used in the body after puberty.

Anyone want to actually read it?

HairLossTalk.com

 

[The Gardener]

Exactly, HairLossTalk.com. That is why I predict that the true, ultimate cure for male pattern baldness will come in the form of a pill that blocks DHT attachment to the receptors on hair follicles.

In this age of genetic engineering, I just can't see why a substance cannot be created that binds specifically to the androgen receptors on hair follicles, completely blocking out DHT from invading them. It would be like spironolactone, but it would be taken internally and somehow be targetted so that it ONLY competes with DHT reception on hair follicles and not other tissues that DHT affects, thus not playing with hormonal balances in the body nor causing the side effects that oral spironolactone and finasteride create in men.

What do you all think??

 

[HairlossTalk]

The answer to that seems simple. They can't do it because you can't differentiate between androgen receptors in follicles and those in the 9 million other tissues of the human body. Specificity. Some sort of error proof unique trait would have to be identified. And then they'd have to differentiate between follicles on the scalp versus follicles elsewhere on the body as well...

HairLossTalk.com

 

[NilesTilden]

Man, I don't know if I should be taking the finasteride. My sex drive used to be very consistant, feeling the need every day or two.

Now, I can go a week without having any urge for sex/yanking. Then, for one or two days per week I'll feel a need to relieve the urge as many as five times in a 24-48hr period.(usually the horniness will come the day or two after a night of drinking) So yeah, I think maybe DHT inhibition does play a bigger role in the body, at least for me. I don't have a steady goyl right now, but if I did, this could be a problem.

HairLossTalk.com, didn't you quit finasteride a while back due in part to irregular libido (way up, then way down)? I took 7 months off finasteride last feb-aug and I think I felt more sexually regular. Started shedding on the crown so I got back on finasteride (.5mg).

It's weird, like all my sexual energy gets saved up for one day of the week. Could be just that I'm getting further away from the male sexual peak age of 18 (30).

 

[The Gardener]

Sure, it would be complicated, but we are dealing with GM talent that can make anything from freshwater tropical fish to christmas trees glow in the dark?

Visually, it is quite easy to differentiate a hair follicle from a penis. I refuse to believe that such differentiation is impossible at a cellular level as well. Yes, it is close, same basic DNA in all cells with little variation between tissues, other excuses, and whatnot, blah blah blah, but it can be done.

As for distingushing amongst follicle types, would that really be a weakness? Would hampering the effect of DHT on follicles not only stop male pattern baldness, but also stop the growth of unwanted thicker body hair on those so affected? I must admit, I recently pulled a hair out of my nose that looks like it came off some monster rodent from Chernobyl. Doing without that would be fantastic too.

 

[NilesTilden]

The answer to that seems simple. They can't do it because you can't differentiate between androgen receptors in follicles and those in the 9 million other tissues of the human body. Specificity. Some sort of error proof unique trait would have to be identified. And then they'd have to differentiate between follicles on the scalp versus follicles elsewhere on the body as well...

HairLossTalk.com

Reckon they'd have to find a topical solution to spare just the follicles. Seems doubtful that it'd be able to protect them 24/7 though.

 

[Redbone]

HairLossTalk.com who the hell is Patrick Arnold is he a doctor? or another Dan Duchaine or Jeff Summer's???

 

[Lizzad]

Ok, i've read the article & i think it's an excellent article. It's discussion of dht as an anti-estrogen is accurate, amd there have been studies to suggest saw plametto helps with BPH due to its anti-estrohenic properties in the prostate.

Remember, this article discusses dht in general, not merely with respect to male pattern baldness. From a bodybuilding point of view, reducing dht may very well be a negative thing. At no point does he say dht isn't a major cause of hairloss.

I genuinely think it's a very informative article. Most gym rats i know seem happy to lose hair for the prospect of more muscle, i however, chose the opposite direction, literally!

 

[Bryan]

Exactly, HairLossTalk.com. That is why I predict that the true, ultimate cure for male pattern baldness will come in the form of a pill that blocks DHT attachment to the receptors on hair follicles.

In this age of genetic engineering, I just can't see why a substance cannot be created that binds specifically to the androgen receptors on hair follicles, completely blocking out DHT from invading them. It would be like spironolactone, but it would be taken internally and somehow be targetted so that it ONLY competes with DHT reception on hair follicles and not other tissues that DHT affects, thus not playing with hormonal balances in the body nor causing the side effects that oral spironolactone and finasteride create in men.

Geez Louise...you're not asking for very much, are you?? A simple little pill that you swallow every day, and it goes in and targets ONLY hair follicles and nothing else, and ONLY keeps DHT from binding with their androgen receptors.

Don't hold your breath while waiting for such a development. I suggest you go with the next closest thing, which is a topical antiandrogen...

Bryan

 

[Guest]

Exactly, HairLossTalk.com. That is why I predict that the true, ultimate cure for male pattern baldness will come in the form of a pill that blocks DHT attachment to the receptors on hair follicles.

In this age of genetic engineering, I just can't see why a substance cannot be created that binds specifically to the androgen receptors on hair follicles, completely blocking out DHT from invading them. It would be like spironolactone, but it would be taken internally and somehow be targetted so that it ONLY competes with DHT reception on hair follicles and not other tissues that DHT affects, thus not playing with hormonal balances in the body nor causing the side effects that oral spironolactone and finasteride create in men.

Geez Louise...you're not asking for very much, are you?? A simple little pill that you swallow every day, and it goes in and targets ONLY hair follicles and nothing else, and ONLY keeps DHT from binding with their androgen receptors.

Don't hold your breath while waiting for such a development. I suggest you go with the next closest thing, which is a topical antiandrogen...

Bryan

Bryan, based on your knowledge, which antiandrogen is the real deal? Also, are you still using propecia or are you off internal interventions?

 

[Bryan]

Well, I'm sure ALL the familiar antiandrogens work to some degree...it's just a matter of which is the safest, and which shows the greatest ratio of local/systemic activity. Until recently I figured that RU58841 would probably have the distinction of being the best, but now I'm not so sure. You may have seen that recent statement from Hideo Uno that I've posted on other hairloss sites; he said that even RU is not totally devoid of systemic effects. There have also been at least a couple of troubling anecdotes from RU users who complained of systemic side-effects.

There are other antiandrogens which need a lot more testing, too, like 11a-hydroxyprogesterone and 17a-propylmesterolone (that second one is especially interesting, and has been tested successfully in a topical preparation for acne in a German study).

I've never used finasteride. Never taken a single molecule of it! I've never used any other systemic medication for hairloss, either.

Bryan

 

[Guest]

Well, I'm sure ALL the familiar antiandrogens work to some degree...it's just a matter of which is the safest, and which shows the greatest ratio of local/systemic activity. Until recently I figured that RU58841 would probably have the distinction of being the best, but now I'm not so sure. You may have seen that recent statement from Hideo Uno that I've posted on other hairloss sites; he said that even RU is not totally devoid of systemic effects. There have also been at least a couple of troubling anecdotes from RU users who complained of systemic side-effects.

There are other antiandrogens which need a lot more testing, too, like 11a-hydroxyprogesterone and 17a-propylmesterolone (that second one is especially interesting, and has been tested successfully in a topical preparation for acne in a German study).

I've never used finasteride. Never taken a single molecule of it! I've never used any other systemic medication for hairlosss, either.

Bryan

Bryan,

Thanks. What topicals are you using these days??

 

[Hairybush1]

Ignorance truely is bliss. (Sigh)

I dont like it when articles are sprinkled with words like "may", "possibly", half examined "predictions". If your gonna suggest that DHT is going to cause some negative effects in males than dont "specualate" and just give the facts.

Although the article was informative some points are just common knowledge. We are all aware that screwing with hormones is going to have some type of negative effect at some point in time, but if doctors cant even agree on certain aspects of the issue, I wont allow the article to disway me from ingesting finasteride any time soon.

 

[Redbone]

The man who wrote this article cannot be perceived as valid as he owns a pro=hormone company and everything he says can be contrued into influencing people to buy his own Por hormones.

University of New Haven where is that? Is it a nationaly accredited Unversity?

In order for an article to be credible the auther has to educated to a high level, Patrick Arnold is not a medical doctor and therefore his opinions are not valid in my book.

As I said ealier I went through the same sh*t with Dan Duchaine the so called steroid guru of the nineties. He always claimed to have some great breakthrough news but it never happend. He did at 43 of steroid abuse and liver failure after serving two terms in jail. He used to write for Muscle Media 2000 and wrote the Anabolic guide to steroids.

 

[Hairybush1]

As I said ealier I went through the same sh*t with Dan Duchaine the so called steroid guru of the nineties. .

Care to elaborate on this? Just curious as to what you mean.