Saw Palmetto Proven To Work? No!

[Whoome?]

if you go to

http://www.hair2004.com/04_program_final.htm

in Abstracts II section of "P10.141" you'll see a whole section of research that proved saw palmetto to be effective. Any inputs guys?

 

[Bone Daddy]

*PAGING HairLossTalk.com* *HairLossTalk.com TO GHLD PLEASE*

Saw isn't proven to do anything but remove money from people's wallets. Personally, it helped make my shed worse, and last longer. Most users report the same.

 

[mvpsoft]

Saw palmetto has been proven to work in reducing DHT in the prostate. It has not been proven to reduce DHT in the scalp. Did that link you provided show any double-blind studies published in peer-reviewed journals that show saw palmetto to be effective against hair loss? I didn't see any.

 

[Whoome?]

actually it does, if you read the part i stated.

 

[Whoome?]

You guys can jump to conclusions all you want, all I'm doing is bringing to light some research I saw on the "4th Intercontinental Meeting of Hair Research Societies" website.. which took place on June 17-19, 2004, Berlin, Germany. So why dont you guys try reading the abstract II pdf file, it is loaded with many other helpful info regarding legitimate ongoing researches around the world in the field of hair growth/hairloss. Saw Palmetto was just one of the many researches I saw in that pdf file.

If you read the whole thing..

Conclusion: In accordance also with other authors , this study confirms the effectiveness of Serenoa Repens Extract( Saw Palmetto) on hair baldness such as androgenetic alopecia, especially when connected with 5a reductase activity.[/u]

 

[Whoome?]

here I'll even make it easy for you guys . Goto http://www.hair2004.com/download/HairAb ... eil_II.pdf

 

[HairlossTalk]

"34 men and 28 women... using the products for 3 months".

"The results showed a significant 35% hair increase both on number and mass"

First off, it is promising to me that they actually tested a topical Saw Palmetto preparation. Not just an orally ingested one, this time. There is more potential for a locally applied SP product to work.

However, unfortunately, in three months time you yourself will show a noticeable hair count change either for the better or no change, simply because of the hair cycles. 3 months is so sorely lacking as far as time span goes that I am quite surprised this study was even allowed into the document.

The minimum time period to truly assess hair counts is 1 year for the very reason that hair counts fluctuate so dramatically with the hair cycles.

The only other study done showing saw palmetto taken orally works for hair loss was done by Geno Marcovici and he got publicly humiliated on 20/20 in January 2003 as scientists literally labeled his study "bunk" because it included only a handful of people and lasted only *six* months. Insufficient number of people and insufficient duration. This one was only 3 months.

I do not feel this study establishes any efficacy for orally ingested saw palmetto, unfortunately. I wish they had done it for the proper length of time.

HairLossTalk.com

 

[HairlossTalk]

Spidy - regarding that PDF file, something is up with it. I wasn't able to search even though the test was selectable. Additionally I tried copying and pasting text out of the PDF file and it came out as jibberish instead of plain text. Big bummer. We need to extract those studies and get them discussed here on the forums!!! There is some amazing stuff in there, for both experimental and big 3 proponents.

I'll look into having it extracted. Are there any other PDF's on that site that contain abstracts?

HairLossTalk.com

 

[Armando Jose]

To HairLossTalk.com;

I concur with you that the studies contain a few people, but there are interesting.

In this website there is two PDF files containing the Abstracts.
The plenary sessions and the selected posters.
I have some of them photographed (all text). I can send you any of them if I have it and if You want.

Armando

 

[mvpsoft]

I do not feel this study establishes any efficacy for orally ingested saw palmetto, unfortunately. I wish they had done it for the proper length of time.

I'm going to hang this onto the end of your quote because what I have to say supports this conclusion.

Many people do not understand what a properly structured scientific study looks like. In addition to being long enough to eliminate outside factors, such as the hair growth cycle, and to having sufficient test subjects, any scientific study worth its salt is a double-blind study. That means that the study subjects are selected randomly, and some are given the test treatment, and others are given a placebo. None of the subjects are told who is getting what.

This "study" did not do that. So in addition to the other problems with it, it is not a valid scientific study because it has serious design flaws.

Furthermore, topical saw plametto is completely different from saw palmetto ingested orally. So even if a study shows that topical saw palmetto is effective -- and it may be -- that says nothing at all about the effectiveness of saw palmetto pills or capsules.

People really need to read studies with a critical eye, especially if the study is not being reported in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.

I'm glad to see that people are studying the effects of saw palmetto in different forms, because it does inhibit the formation of DHT, it is inexpensive, and it has no known side effects. I really hope that someone can find a formulation in which it works for those reasons. If a study like the one cited here, which is a by its structure a very preliminary study and not at all conclusive, promotes better-designed studies, that would be great.

 

[HairlossTalk]

Many people do not understand what a properly structured scientific study looks like.

This is really true, and very important to focus on. Bombscience made a comment in another thread that this section, even though it focuses on experimental treatments, can be a section of the site that is conducted intelligently and with good scientific thought in mind. I think that's what we would like the HairlossTalk experimental treatments section to become. An honest look at the new data out there on some new methods for treating hair loss. Part of that is knowing what qualifies as a legitimate study and what does not. Over time our users will be able to recognize and critically evaluate such things as you are able to, MVP. Im a little discouraged though as these abstracts needed to go through evaluation prior to acceptance into the publication and I have absolutely no idea how this one made it through. It is true, simply being present in the publication implies reliability... and this may be the problem. You can't blame the average joe for assuming this study demonstrates that SP works. How could they be expected to know that it wasn't conducted properly? That is the job of the team that evaluates it for inclusion in the publication and I don't know why they approved this one.

any scientific study worth its salt is a double-blind study. That means that the study subjects are selected randomly, and some are given the test treatment, and others are given a placebo. None of the subjects are told who is getting what. This "study" did not do that.

Admittedly there are full blown studies and then there are mini studies. Studies done on smaller sets of people. They aren't considered ground breaking studies and they usually don't center around new discoveries. They're typically used to add to our knowledge that the larger, more properly done studies have given us. Maybe add a new twist to it. Do something a little different, etc. So some corners are cut. I do think in this study that there was a "placebo" although they did it in a very WEIRD way. Even though they only had roughly 50 people they split the thing up into THREE groups. One taking a topical SP concoction & orally ingested. Another taking SP topical and placebo ingested. etc. I guess they were trying to determine if Oral+Topical = Results versus Oral alone or Topical alone. But for a study this elaborate you'd need WAY more than just 18 or so people in each group, and way more than 3 months! That 3 month thing just kills me!

HairLossTalk.com

 

[HairlossTalk]

By the way I wanted to actually type out this study, so I will do it by hand since you can't copy/paste from the PDF!

Effectiveness of Serenoa Repens (Saw Palmetto) on Androgenetic Alopecia

Background:
Androgenetic Alopecia is the most frequent hair disease affecting preeminently men but rapidly increasing in women. It can affect any body region, preferring, however, the scalp and beard area.

Aim:
The aim of this double blind study was to evaluate the activity performed by 3 different cosmetic formulations especially enriched with Serenoa Repens extract with a known quantity of total sterols on the hair growth and sebum secretion.

Methods:
Voluntary subjects, 34 men and 28 women, aged between 18 and 48 years were divided into 3 groups using the products for 3 months. The first group used all 3 products (placebo free of Serenoa Repens Extract); and the third group used shampoo and lotion enriched with Serenoa Repens Extract, but dietary supplement placebo. Trichogram, Phototrichogram and computerized analysis of the scalp (Sebumetry, Ph-metry, hydration) as well as macroscopic photos, have been practiced on each subject of the 3 groups before, during and after the 3 month treatment.

Results:
The results, evaluated clinically and by laboratory tests, showed a significant (p <0.05) 35% hair increase both on number and mass, and a contemporary 67% decrease of (p <0.05) superficial sebum in the 1st group. Group 3 reveled (they misspelled this) a hair increase of 20% (p<0.05) with a contemporary decrease of seborrhea (35% p<0.05). Group 2 had no results.

Conclusion:
In accordance also with other authors, this study confirms the effectivenss of Serenoa Repens extract on a hair baldness such as androgenetic alopecia, especially when connected with 5a reductase activity.

HairLossTalk.com

 

[Old Baldy]

HairLossTalk.com: Then why did the placebo group show zero benefit. They were all cycling at the same rate and time period?

 

[mvpsoft]

HairLossTalk.com: Then why did the placebo group show zero benefit. They were all cycling at the same rate and time period?

With a small sample, differences in cycles could account for the differences. Only with a large sample can you be sure that individual differences do not unacceptably skew the results.

 

[Old Baldy]

Yes, but why did the placebo group have no results? If what you guys are saying is true it would seem that the placebo group would have some improvements also. The placebo group couldn't all by cycling at the same rate could they? That would be a huge coincidence.

I mean the placebo group would have to all be naturally cycling at a maintenance rate while all the saw palmetto groups were naturally cycling at an increased anagen growth rate. That seems implausible to me?

 

[mvpsoft]

Yes, but why did the placebo group have no results? If what you guys are saying is true it would seem that the placebo group would have some improvements also. The placebo group couldn't all by cycling at the same rate could they? That would be a huge coincidence.

No, the point is that with a small sample size and a small time frame for the study, it's not a huge coincidence. It's like when taking a poll, if the sample is not random, or it's too small, or it's not representative of the population that one is studying, the chances that factors other than the ones for which you are studying unduly influence the results are too large for the poll results to be taken with any reasonable degree of certainty. In the case of this study, the chance that the variations in individual hair cycles could have influenced the results are too great for anyone to have a reasonable degree of confidence in the results of the study. Add more time, or add more participants, or both, and you reduce the odds of that happening, and you increase the confidence in the results of the study.

This is especially so since this study is one of the very, very few (maybe only one) to show that saw palmetto had any effect on combatting hair loss. Given that, one should have an even greater skepticism concerning its results.

 

[Old Baldy]

I see, you're saying the confidence level in these small, short duration studies is terrible? Too much chance for "chance".

Why are companies including saw palmetto in their products then? (Folligen, American Crew, Revivogen, etc.). There must be some evidence out there for these reputable companies putting saw palmetto, (and touting that's in their formulas) in their products.

I going to do some research. This one is bugging me.

Here's an article written by Dr. Proctor who admits no medical studies yet but he says it's "reasonable saw palmetto extract would be as effective as proscar".

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=d ... 1&.intl=us


Well, so far all the touting of saw palmetto as a hair loss remedy are based on inference. "It works for BPH, so we can infer it works for scalp DHT". Oh well, looks like "reasonable" inferences are all these people are going on?

 

[mvpsoft]

I see, you're saying the confidence level in these small, short duration studies is terrible? Too much chance for "chance".

Yes.

Why are companies including saw palmetto in their products then? (Folligen, American Crew, Revivogen, etc.). There must be some evidence out there for these reputable companies putting saw palmetto, (and touting that's in their formulas) in their products.

Because even if it doesn't help, it also doesn't hurt, and it's a good marketing move, since so many people believe it helps.

Here's an article written by Dr. Proctor who admits no medical studies yet but he says it's "reasonable saw palmetto extract would be as effective as proscar".

http://216.109.117.135/search/cache?p=d ... 1&.intl=us


Well, so far all the touting of saw palmetto as a hair loss remedy are based on inference. "It works for BPH, so we can infer it works for scalp DHT". Oh well, looks like "reasonable" inferences are all these people are going on?

I think it's a plausible suspicion, but many plausible suspicions turn out to be wrong. It needed to be tested, and so far the tests have not shown that it works to reduce scalp DHT when it is taken orally. Topical application may be a different matter.

 

[Old Baldy]

Ok mvp, I'll "throw" some in my homemade topical concoction and hope for the best? What the heck!

Btw, I don't think Everclear is sold in Michigan? I'll have to use 100 proof Vodka. In my old neighborhood I could have bought some moonshine but that was a long time ago. LOL

I assume if I add half distilled water to half 100 proof Vodka, the 25 percent alcohol will suffice?

 

[Red Rose]

Topical SP:

"After 50 weeks, subjects using the lotion with saw palmetto had an average 27% increase in hair density in comparison to their density at the beginning of the study. The subjects in the control group showed only a 13% increase in hair density. The researchers concluded that based on the results saw palmetto may be helpful in the treatment of age-related hair loss.
"
http://www.truestarhealth.com/members/a ... 7&code=AOL

BTW has anyone found a study yet on the effect of topical fatty acids (of the kind you find in Revivogen) on male pattern baldness in people? Or are there any studies at all on the effect Revivogen has on total hair counts, hair weight and diameter of people? If not it seems that to be consistent Revivogen should be moved to experimental new treatments the same as Avodart or am I missing something here?