- Reaction score
- 95
First of all I would like to say hello to everyone and congratulations for contributing to this forum,it's a whole new level comparing to other forums and especially to local forums of each country.(If posted in the wrong section please transfer it to the proper one)
This has exactly led me here,as I want to share with you a rather radical(?) theory a member of a local forum in my country has.
This member is a Biochemical Engineer, with major in food technology. Truth is,his ways are a bit unorthodox yet there is no suspicion he is a scammer because he doesn't really sell something but rather provides his knowledge and links for products (random sites).
The interesting part is his theory about hairloss: He claims that not every pattern is caused by elevated DHT levels (or sensivity to DHT as some might say). He believes that this is just a PROPORTION of all hairloss cases.More specifically,he claims that there are 3 major categories,with sub-categories. According to him, the distinguable differences of hairloss patterns are actually showing the undergoing issue:
1)Hairloss caused by elevated DHT (with 2 I think sub-cases, regarding the 2 isoenzymes of 5a-reductase)
This is the classic hairloss,in which hairline recedes and the temples are challenged too. Notice though that in the beginning at least,the unaffected areas have good hair density.
He associates this case with dry hair/scalp.
2)Hairloss caused by elevated E1 hormone (estrone). This case has also 2 sub-cases,this time related with the 17-β isoenzymes. The pattern of this case is hairloss in temples,with the frontal-middle part almost intact, and diffused thinning behind this area.
He associates this case with oily hair/scalp
3)Hairloss caused by elevated E2 hormone (estradiol), which he claims is a rare case,less than 2%, which causes mainly hairloss in the back of the head.
(I would like to upload images but there seems to be an issue).
He claims that those are just initial patterns,and as years go by the hairloss extends and is way more difficult to categorize as all types start to resemble.
His points (some of which are pretty solid):
Finasteride is not working for anyone.This is somehow a unique case of a drug,with such diversity in side effects and effectives.This could be attributed to the fact that it works only for DHT-cases.
It can't be a coincidence that people suffer from hairloss with different patterns,but rather different reasons result to different patterns.
He claims to have studied individual cases of people,asking them to have blood tests of those 3 hormones and the results backup his studies.Also people in my forum confirmed his studies with their blood tests.
The main issue is that he advises people to use specific natural food or supplements. As those are not drugs,their effectiveness is not that impressive but there is scientific data behind it (eg, you can look up for peppermint oil capsules)
Finally,he tries to publish a solid scientific paper,with many cases in order to be statistically correct. He hasn't achieved this yet (he conducts studies with some professors in a local university and there is under-funding).
I would really like to hear your opinion about this. I have gone through this quite a long time now,searching a lot of stuff online and although there are scientific proofs indeed, I can't link the missing dots.
This has exactly led me here,as I want to share with you a rather radical(?) theory a member of a local forum in my country has.
This member is a Biochemical Engineer, with major in food technology. Truth is,his ways are a bit unorthodox yet there is no suspicion he is a scammer because he doesn't really sell something but rather provides his knowledge and links for products (random sites).
The interesting part is his theory about hairloss: He claims that not every pattern is caused by elevated DHT levels (or sensivity to DHT as some might say). He believes that this is just a PROPORTION of all hairloss cases.More specifically,he claims that there are 3 major categories,with sub-categories. According to him, the distinguable differences of hairloss patterns are actually showing the undergoing issue:
1)Hairloss caused by elevated DHT (with 2 I think sub-cases, regarding the 2 isoenzymes of 5a-reductase)
This is the classic hairloss,in which hairline recedes and the temples are challenged too. Notice though that in the beginning at least,the unaffected areas have good hair density.
He associates this case with dry hair/scalp.
2)Hairloss caused by elevated E1 hormone (estrone). This case has also 2 sub-cases,this time related with the 17-β isoenzymes. The pattern of this case is hairloss in temples,with the frontal-middle part almost intact, and diffused thinning behind this area.
He associates this case with oily hair/scalp
3)Hairloss caused by elevated E2 hormone (estradiol), which he claims is a rare case,less than 2%, which causes mainly hairloss in the back of the head.
(I would like to upload images but there seems to be an issue).
He claims that those are just initial patterns,and as years go by the hairloss extends and is way more difficult to categorize as all types start to resemble.
His points (some of which are pretty solid):
Finasteride is not working for anyone.This is somehow a unique case of a drug,with such diversity in side effects and effectives.This could be attributed to the fact that it works only for DHT-cases.
It can't be a coincidence that people suffer from hairloss with different patterns,but rather different reasons result to different patterns.
He claims to have studied individual cases of people,asking them to have blood tests of those 3 hormones and the results backup his studies.Also people in my forum confirmed his studies with their blood tests.
The main issue is that he advises people to use specific natural food or supplements. As those are not drugs,their effectiveness is not that impressive but there is scientific data behind it (eg, you can look up for peppermint oil capsules)
Finally,he tries to publish a solid scientific paper,with many cases in order to be statistically correct. He hasn't achieved this yet (he conducts studies with some professors in a local university and there is under-funding).
I would really like to hear your opinion about this. I have gone through this quite a long time now,searching a lot of stuff online and although there are scientific proofs indeed, I can't link the missing dots.
