Suicidal Hair Follicles??

[freakout]

If the androgen receptor is just a conduit, does it really matter how many there are? From my understanding, the sensitivity (the reaction to the presence of androdens) lies in the follicle itself not the receptor. Now, increased receptors, I would presume , would mean increased exposure and that may have some consequence, I really don't know.

Produced by cells, receptors are chemical compounds rather than actual conduits.

The number of these molecules (receptors) is critical in the level of sensitivity because hormones will have to attach to each of these receptors to cause a chemical reaction. Specific receptors only attach to specific molecules e.g. specific hormones.

For instance:
If you have 100 units of receptors, it will not matter if you reduce hormone levels to 200 or increase to 1000 units because all it takes is 100 units to be fully sensitive. So you need to reduce hormone units to below 100 to prevent binding.

 

[freakout]

Even with the above in mind, I don't subscribe to the idea of a deadly androgenic response that 'androgenetics' is implying: hair follicles committing suicide?? :alien:

The complexity of biology is such that many paradoxes remain. One cannot be beholden to the manner 'androgenetics' was interpreted to explain a complex process.

 

[freakout]

I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

If the hair grows independant of the presence of androgens, why would it show a "need" (for lack of a better term) for androgen exposure by increasing receptors?

You're spot on by asking the WHY.

The presence of receptors connotes a need or, the better term, dependence. But experts are saying that follicles are independent and dominant, hence, no need. So there is some level of contradiction already, right?

Newer findings saying they're not independent is another contradiction. But read up. (find out why the teacher and the student had a 'misunderstanding' but the blind student gave in )

 

[freakout]

I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

Almost every type of cell in our bodies have a life of their own in our very definition of life which means that individual cells have a primitive 'brain' and think on their own (independent). (Contrary to popular belief, a cell's membrane is its 'brain', NOT the nuclei)

BUT the presence of receptors, connote (you said it) the need for or to be dependent on instructions from a central command structure. Hormones are chemical messengers or 'postmen' that transmitt the command and form part of biophysiological structures that make up advance organisms. But not in a manner that will kill organs

 

[freakout]

I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

To Mercado (the guy Bryan calls wacky), the presence of hair follicle receptors connote the need for or to be dependent on remote instructions on how to behave (to grow, to miniaturize or to become wavy, etc)

BUT he also subscribes to follicle independence - that they also refer to their onboard genome (genetics) AND review their niche environmental conditions and then make a decision (adaptation).

It's called life of its own

My take on miniaturization as a survival strategy is the decision is made by the follicle.

Hair loss at the upper temporal area is not a part of male pattern baldness. Instructions to fall off was decided by a central command structure which could be genetic. Mercado's take on this hair loss is stress related.

 

[freakout]

In other words, hair follicles are not totally independent in terms of decision-making but quasi-independent.

Independent in as far as survival is concerned BUT
Dependent on how to behave.

Quasi-independence explains the contradicting studies on independence or dependence.
(teacher and student got it both right and but were both wrong??? )

 

[freakout]

So there is always a question of WHY. The WHY is almost always a response to a change particularly adversed changes. And change almost always involved the most dynamic which is almost always environmental in nature.

Stress? Blood supply? Nutritional deficiency?

But the really big question is why men? Genetics? really now...

------------------
TO BE CONTINUED

 

[armandein]

What about the asynchronicity of human scalp hairs?
what about the possibility of growth of human hair after death?
These answers can aid to decipher the controversy if hair is autonomous or not.

 

[freakout]

I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness

I must apologize on behalf of seaback's LOL. He's losing his battle against male pattern baldness because his meds aren't working. In just a year or two, his head will begin to shine. You will want to wear shades before talking to him. He's back to finasteride and doesn't care if it fries his balls. Yes, that's camel urine in the picture.
---------------
Hi Jose,

Still focused on the pilosebaceous unit, aeh.

By 'growth after death' of a someone with miniaturized hair? You mean it somehow thrives on fluids from the corpse until it dries out? That would somehow mimic a petri dish, right?

Do those really happen? If it does, it goes to show how resilient hair follicles are or because the dead balls don't produce androgens anymore.

In those situations, they become independent. By 'quasi' i mean they can be versatile.

 

[armandein]

George Milbry Gould, Walter Lytle Pyle. Both M.D.
Postmortem growth of Hair and nails.
The hair and beard may grow after death, and even change color. Bartholinus recalls a case of a man who had short, black hair and beard at the time of interment, but how, some time after death, was found to possess long and yellowish hair. Aristotle discusses postmortem growth of the hair, and Gramanus cites an instance in which beard and hair were cut several times from the cadaver. We occasionally see evidences of this in the dissecting-rooms. Cadwell mentions a body buried four years, the hair from which protruded at the points where the joints of the coffin had given away. The hair of the head measured 18 inches, that of the beard eight inches, and that on the breast from four to six inches. Rosse of Washington mentions an instance in which after burial the hair turned from dark brown to red, and also cites a case in a Washington cemetery of a girl, twelve or thirteen years old, who when exhumed was found to have a new growth of the hair all over turning gray after the death.

 

[freakout]

OK...sun exposure has changed ....some also went from a relatively constant enviroment (mostly warm and sheltered) to a drastically varied one (cold and exposed... but mostly exposed). Cloths were invented (underwear being one type of garment) so our testicles were unnaturally kept closure to our bodies leading to a less than optimal androgen producing temperature. Does any of the prior come into play with Mercado?

Hair follicles are impervious to adversed environments like extreme cold or heat and even physical stress. It has been their job for more than 100 million years.

As Armandein sited, hair follicles even thrive on dead corpse for years (petri dish effect). They are like army trucks which can be fed with any type of fuel.

There's not much discussion on men's underwear except that the tight garter maybe contributing to CVDs and heat buildup in the testicles. It's well documented that CVDs associate with male pattern baldness. There's a study stating that testicles are heat sensitive.

 

[freakout]

Looking to genetics and environmental/dietary factors is a classic approach by medical researchers. They can't find anything in the environment that can cause male baldness except that hunter-gatherers are much less likely to be affected. That's about the only existing clue they have on a switch from primitive to modern environments and not much on dietary factors.

 

[freakout]

Only two things can cause male pattern baldness:

1. the classic 'androgenetics' or genetic predetermination (which is disputable)

2. lack of blood supply which is supported by studies other than Mercado's. (This is disputed by the American Medical Association but promote Propecia and Rogaine)

 

[freakout]

Lack of blood supply can have multiple causes. In women, it;s low iron. In men, androgen activity in the large muscles. Sebum issue is one of the jokers in the complication. In some men, it became inherent which makes it more difficult for them. Blood supply is the main stay of Mercado.

Let me repeat: There's not much discussion on men's underwear except that the tight garter maybe contributing to CVDs and heat buildup in the testicles.

 

[freakout]

We drive, bike, or ride on something to almost everywhere we go. If hunter/gathers wanted to go anywhere..they walked..occasionaly ran...barefoot!

Keep guessing man Focus on the differences NOT the similarities. It's called DEDUCTIVE analysis, just in case you don't know.

If you hit any (there are more than one might think), I'll ask you to explain how it affects blood supply.

Check the abstract in the book. He compares 1. primitive versus modern men 2. bald versus non-bald men. 3. Cultural differences 4. adolescents versus adults

 

[freakout]

That's sarcasm for you? You're too polite