So look ok, WHAT changes as we age to trigger hair loss?

[Hoppi]

Hm. I just wish we had a proper study. I guess that is interesting about topical estrogen (as long as it was estradiol) helping with male pattern baldness, as one would imagine that it would upregulate receptors which would then react to the testosterone in the man's body and hair loss would in time increase (although then again it could be being offset by the antiandrogen qualities of estradiol). I still would like to see a study or two regarding estradiol levels and prostate size / male pattern baldness severity. At the very least I think it would be great to finally put this to rest. Advocates of this theory (and there are a LOT of them) believe that male pattern baldness in older males (who are not taking steroids, etc) is caused by low testosterone causing elevated estrogen causing an increase in AR sensitivity meaning more DHT to the hair follicles.

I just wish we could prove or disprove this by examining the hormonal profiles of 24/25+ MPBers.


EDIT -- Hmm (apologies again for the ruse sounding link but it's just easier than copying and pasting lots of studies lol) - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=estrogen+prostate+enlarged - there seems to be a definite strong connection between estrogen levels and prostate size. The question of course then is if, as you say, all this applies only to the prostate, and not the hair follicles. The two do seem to walk very closely hand in hand though don't they?

-- I have also just finally made the obvious observation that if estrogen levels correlate with prostate size, and prostate size correlates with male pattern baldness severity, then estrogen must correlate in some way with male pattern baldness severity! lol

The question then is, as you say, whether it is causational or merely correlates.

 

[Bryan]

Hm. I just wish we had a proper study. I guess that is interesting about topical estrogen (as long as it was estradiol) helping with male pattern baldness, as one would imagine that it would upregulate receptors which would then react to the testosterone in the man's body and hair loss would in time increase (although then again it could be being offset by the antiandrogen qualities of estradiol).

Why do you keep repeating that? I've already pointed out to you (more than once) that YOU SIMPLY DON'T KNOW what effect estrogen has on the synthesis of androgen receptors in scalp hair follicle cells. Hell, for all we know, it might actually downregulate androgen receptors.

I still would like to see a study or two regarding estradiol levels and prostate size / male pattern baldness severity. At the very least I think it would be great to finally put this to rest. Advocates of this theory (and there are a LOT of them) believe that male pattern baldness in older males (who are not taking steroids, etc) is caused by low testosterone causing elevated estrogen causing an increase in AR sensitivity meaning more DHT to the hair follicles.

What the hell are you talking about?? Why would low testosterone cause elevated estrogen? I think you have it backwards: elevated estrogen causes low testosterone, not the other way around. And the very last part about "...elevated estrogen causing an increase in AR sensitivity meaning more DHT to the hair follicles", I have no idea at all what you're talking about. I don't think YOU do, either.

EDIT -- Hmm (apologies again for the ruse sounding link but it's just easier than copying and pasting lots of studies lol) - http://lmgtfy.com/?q=estrogen+prostate+enlarged - there seems to be a definite strong connection between estrogen levels and prostate size. The question of course then is if, as you say, all this applies only to the prostate, and not the hair follicles. The two do seem to walk very closely hand in hand though don't they?

How do you explain that very large study a few years ago which found no benefit at all to BPH in older men from the use of an aromatase inhibitor drug that lowered their estrogen levels?

I have also just finally made the obvious observation that if estrogen levels correlate with prostate size, and prostate size correlates with male pattern baldness severity, then estrogen must correlate in some way with male pattern baldness severity! lol

Rubbish.

 

[theShade]

Hehehe, nice going Bryan..

 

[Hoppi]

I really don't understand this pointless bashing, it really is very counter-productive of something that at the very least is merely untrue, and at most could shed light on underlying factors behind male pattern baldness (and factors that many people suspect).

There's certainly no need to start tearing things apart prematurely.

First of all I don't see how the correlation of one with the other is rubbish. If estrogen is commonly associated with prostate enlargement and prostate enlargement correlates with male pattern baldness, then there simply must be a connection between estrogen levels and male pattern baldness, right?

Anyway, I dunno, no point in arguing What we really need are studies!

So you said an aromatase inhibitor didn't help? That is odd. I mean you would imagine it would take quite a long time if it did work.

I think it would be such a shame if this wasn't true as it does fit fantastically, but I'm sure it can be proven or disproven with relative ease and may have been already somewhere on the net.

 

[theShade]

I really don't understand this pointless bashing, it really is very counter-productive of something that at the very least is merely untrue, and at most could shed light on underlying factors behind male pattern baldness (and factors that many people suspect).

There's certainly no need to start tearing things apart prematurely.

First of all I don't see how the correlation of one with the other is rubbish. If estrogen is commonly associated with prostate enlargement and prostate enlargement correlates with male pattern baldness, then there simply must be a connection between estrogen levels and male pattern baldness, right?

Well no, it could simply be a case of whatever is causing prostate enlargement and male pattern baldness to progress, is causing Estrogen to increase as well. In which case there is an indirect correllation, but this corellation means that Estrogen has no direct effect on male pattern baldness, that changing it would not accellerate or decellerate hair loss and in this case why the hell should we be discussing it at all on a hair loss forum?

Alternatively it could be the result of 2 seperate processess. For whatever reason the prostate is enlarging, and for whatever reason Estrogen is increasing. Over time, both increase, so it looks like there is a correlation, when in fact such a correlation is purely co-incidental and means absolutely nothing.

I agree with you that there is no need to throw out possibilities prematurely. Maybe Estrogen does have something to do with this - I don't believe that anyone knows enough about hairloss to reject this possibility out of hand. What I personally object to though, are these chains of wild assumptions that some people build, one built on top of the other, and then come up with their own little theories and then write about all the treatment options that they are going to try (which are again, based off wild assumptions and flimsy evidence that they are going to do anything at all to affect the factors that the poster for whatever reason thinks need to be modified in order to stop male pattern baldness). The chances that a person posting such things would be on to something is very small, due to the amazing complexity of the human body and the lack of any sort of evidence or even fullproof reasoning for the conclusions that they come to.

This in my mind is very irresponsible. People read these forums, they read posts by yourself, MisterE, etc... and then they become convinced that yes, decreasing Estriodol is the answer. Hell I was tempted to buy into these theories myself, before I read up more about hairloss. However, nowhere is it acknowledged in such posts - just how many other possibilities there are; and that out of the hundreds of explanations for why Prostate Enlargement and Estrogen levels are supposedly related, the extrapolation that Estroidol or whatever has some role to play in hair loss is only 1 out of multitudes, and that probability/statistically speaking alone - it's unlikely to be true, never mind the fact that there is a lack of evidence for it.

By all means we should discuss such things, but we should be very cautious while doing so. Scrutinise and analyse every assumption that there is to be analysed, digest every fact, from what relation production of different hormones have on each other, to what exact role DHT plays in hairloss, to where in the body Estrogen is even produced and how it travels around the body. After this is done, maybe you will have a reason to doubt some established medical information, or have some grounding for your own theory.

 

[Bryan]

I really don't understand this pointless bashing, it really is very counter-productive of something that at the very least is merely untrue, and at most could shed light on underlying factors behind male pattern baldness (and factors that many people suspect).

I haven't done any "pointless bashing" in this thread. I've done some very appropriate bashing, and it was directed at your repeated claims such as the bit about how estrogen "upregulates" androgen receptors. If you're going to keep making such claims, you better get used to the replies I make.

 

[Hoppi]

haha ok, I think this is something that it would be fantastic to either prove or put to rest once and for all, as it's been going a long time now!

I'll get hunting for studies when I have a chance

 

[Hoppi]

Hm, just discovered the Wikipedia articles on androgen receptors and nuclear receptors (and before anyone kicks off about Wikipedia, it's just a quick, easy, comprehensive and accessible source of info - no-one is taking it as Gospel):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_receptor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_receptor


So, Bryan (or anyone else ), what do you think is the most likely part of the ARs that gets changed? That's the q in my mind!

 

[Bryan]

haha ok, I think this is something that it would be fantastic to either prove or put to rest once and for all, as it's been going a long time now!

I haven't seen anybody mention it at all, until just recently by YOU.

 

[Bryan]

Hm, just discovered the Wikipedia articles on androgen receptors and nuclear receptors (and before anyone kicks off about Wikipedia, it's just a quick, easy, comprehensive and accessible source of info - no-one is taking it as Gospel):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_receptor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_receptor

Why are you citing those two articles? What's your point for doing that?

So, Bryan (or anyone else ), what do you think is the most likely part of the ARs that gets changed? That's the q in my mind!

What the hell are you talking about, Hoppi? Why have you cited those two articles? For what specific purpose?

 

[Hoppi]

I was only asking ._.

I put the articles simply to help people (like me, even) understand the biology of ARs in more detail.

Knowledge is power and all that ^_^

and before anyone kicks off about Wikipedia, it's just a quick, easy, comprehensive and accessible source of info

Off topic, but I have recently found Wikipedia to be a very accurate source of information concerning mathematics, molecular biology and genetics, and I was very impressed by the quality of some articles. Generally speaking, the deeper you go, the better, and most of the articles I have been reading were in total accordance with the content of the papers they were based on.

It is good to see that you are learning as much as you can, Hoppy. Unfortunately the Internet is not the best place to learn the very basics of biology, since you will miss the global vision that only university courses can give you. Wikipedia can be very misleading, in a sense that its articles contain many references and links to other articles, links that you might be tempted to click on in order to understand the content of the first article that you are reading. As a result you will cram into you head countless notions that you can barely understand and between which you will try to construct what you will believe to be highly elaborated and revolutionary connections and which will be nothing but approximative pseudo-science.

I'm not quite sure if this presents a reason not to try though. I mean, would you rather we were all just sitting here dumb, popping whatever pills are placed in our hands and putting whatever topicals given to us on our heads without doing any of our own learning and research about our own bodies?

Just because I want to study other subjects primarily doesn't mean I can't have a side interest in this (it's certainly not going to stop me, as I feel I am intelligent enough to understand it).

 

[Bryan]

I was only asking ._.

I put the articles simply to help people (like me, even) understand the biology of ARs in more detail.

Knowledge is power and all that ^_^

But I had chided you for making a specific claim about androgen receptors (that estrogen causes their upregulation) that you were unable to support with any serious medical references. Instead of merely citing just some very complex general articles about androgen receptors on Wikipedia, I suggest you address the specific issue at hand, by trying to find anything that supports your highly questionable claim about estrogen and androgen receptors.

 

[Hoppi]

I dunno, I was planning to come back to it later lol

I am not saying the estrogen thing is true, I am saying I am not RULING OUT it being true

 

[Bryan]

By the way, _I_ have never seen anything about that specific issue, either, and that's after years of reading studies having everything to do with hair loss, male pattern baldness, the effects of androgens and estrogens on hair, etc. Good luck to YOU on finding anything about it!

 

[Hoppi]

By the way, _I_ have never seen anything about that specific issue, either, and that's after years of reading studies having everything to do with hair loss, male pattern baldness, the effects of androgens and estrogens on hair, etc. Good luck to YOU on finding anything about it!

It's ok like, we really don't need to focus on it, I see it as only one of quite a few possibilities.

But I wanted to discuss the details of the androgen receptor and possible changes that take place within it (and why)

 

[theShade]

Maybe aliens cause baldness?? o0
Can't rule it out...

 

[balanceguardian]

Seaback, your condascending tone does not make you correct!

 

[Hoppi]

hehe thanks balance

I do wish it was known what changes inside the androgen receptor. That would be great

I think it's one of those things we haven't gotten to the bottom of yet!

I do believe it is possible to calm them down again though, I mean people have reported success with all kinds of weird and wonderful approaches lol

I dunno, I just keep an open mind really and try to keep learning!

 

[Bryan]

I do wish it was known what changes inside the androgen receptor. That would be great

What makes you think something changes inside the androgen receptor?

 

[Hoppi]

I do wish it was known what changes inside the androgen receptor. That would be great

What makes you think something changes inside the androgen receptor?

well, what's the alternative? Maybe I was too specific - I'm wondering what changes surrounding the follicle to result in killing it when it comes into contact with DHT.