Theory: Cooked Fat =DHT(Dihydrotestosterone) Baldness

[DammitLetMeIn]

Increased levels in plasma. Not the scalp. Big difference. Again, you fail to understand this simple concept.

As for your expert, you're not even reading what he's saying. He's saying that IGF-1 is pro-growth and anti-apoptotic. He then jumps to the conclusion that increased levels upregulate androgen receptor production and 5AR production.

He has to pick one, because his opinion switches from one to the other by the end of his article. He contradicts himself.

This is the whole point - IT CAN BE BOTH.

But overproduction leads to increased 5ar activity leading to increased DHT.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Yes, it is. Increased body fat is associated with a decrease in IGF-1 with aging.

But increased bodyfat is not a sign of aging per se. As one gets older, one does not have to necessarily become fatter.

It may be classed as a sign of aging but that is not necessarily so.

 

[docj077]

Increased levels in plasma. Not the scalp. Big difference. Again, you fail to understand this simple concept.

As for your expert, you're not even reading what he's saying. He's saying that IGF-1 is pro-growth and anti-apoptotic. He then jumps to the conclusion that increased levels upregulate androgen receptor production and 5AR production.

He has to pick one, because his opinion switches from one to the other by the end of his article. He contradicts himself.

This is the whole point - IT CAN BE BOTH.

But overproduction leads to increased 5ar activity leading to increased DHT.

Nope. Increased production of IGF-1 leads to it negatively impacting GH release.

Again, you keep saying that increased IGF-1 leads to increased 5AR activity in the human male scalp. You have no proof of this.

The study you keep citing as a reference uses one study that utilizes prostate cells and the other utilizes scrotal skin fibroblasts to demonstrate that IGF-1 increases 5AR activity. One can not conclude anything from studies that don't even involve the proper tissues.

 

[docj077]

Yes, it is. Increased body fat is associated with a decrease in IGF-1 with aging.

But increased bodyfat is not a sign of aging per se. As one gets older, one does not have to necessarily become fatter.

It may be classed as a sign of aging but that is not necessarily so.

Nope, the total percent body fat increases in pretty much everyone with age. That's common pharmacology knowledge, because one always has to assume that the volume of distribution in the elderly is higher due to increase tissue binding and that combined with kidney and liver disease leads to awkward dosing situations. The same holds true for very young children as they are growing rapidly.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

The study you keep citing as a reference uses one study that utilizes prostate cells and the other utilizes scrotal skin fibroblasts to demonstrate that IGF-1 increases 5AR activity. One can not conclude anything from studies that don't even involve the proper tissues.

They are DHT sensitive tissues.

And I have seen that particular study referenced by others discussing the issue of scalp/body hair

And on top of that I have provided direct evidence that increased IGF-1 levels cause baldness.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Nope, the total percent body fat increases in pretty much everyone with age. That's common pharmacology knowledge, because one always has to assume that the volume of distribution in the elderly is higher due to increase tissue binding and that combined with kidney and liver disease leads to awkward dosing situations. The same holds true for very young children as they are growing rapidly.

I have seen old people who aren't fat.And whilst their bodyfat may have increased (very slightly if at all) since they were young, this is not always the case.

Some people lose fat as they get older, and some have cells which are insulin resistant.

Generally, one can classify fat with aging but its not true in every case. anwyays thats a side issue.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

This study even links increased IGF-1 to prostate cancer:

'The association between circulating IGF-I level and risk of prostate cancer
is stronger than that of any previously reported risk factor'

http://www.ejnet.org/bgh/igf-1science.html

and we all know the role of DHT has to play in prostate cancer.

 

[docj077]

The study you keep citing as a reference uses one study that utilizes prostate cells and the other utilizes scrotal skin fibroblasts to demonstrate that IGF-1 increases 5AR activity. One can not conclude anything from studies that don't even involve the proper tissues.

They are DHT sensitive tissues.

And I have seen that particular study referenced by others discussing the issue of scalp/body hair

And on top of that I have provided direct evidence that increased IGF-1 levels cause baldness.

Being DHT sensitive does not mean that all downstream molecules are the same in each tissue. Gene regulation assures that. That's why your prostate is a prostate and your scalp is your scalp.

And, no, you still haven't provided direct evidence for anything. Increased plasma levels of IGF-1 are correlated with baldness. But, that doesn't mean that IGF-1 causes baldness. There is no direct evidence as IGF-1 is not involved in any direct action to fascilitate any direct physiological response.


Also, I'm getting tired of you switching your theory. You've done it damn near 10 ten times in this thread. Pick a theory and defend it. Stop pussying back.

 

[docj077]

This study even links increased IGF-1 to prostate cancer:

'The association between circulating IGF-I level and risk of prostate cancer
is stronger than that of any previously reported risk factor'

http://www.ejnet.org/bgh/igf-1science.html

and we all know the role of DHT has to play in prostate cancer.

1998? Are you freakin' kidding me? Just get off the internet now while you still have a chance.

Do you know how far science has come with regards to risk factors and prostate cancer treatment since then?

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

1998? Are you freakin' kidding me? Just get off the internet now while you still have a chance.

Do you know how far science has come with regards to risk factors and prostate cancer treatment since then?

My point was merely to show that IGF-1 is a risk factor. Incidentally, I have found several 2006 sources which point to the fact that IGF-1 is STILL regarded as a strong risk factor for prostate cancer.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Moreover,

There is a correlation supported by studies between between vertex baldness (androgenetic alopecia), IGF-1 and prostate cancer.

The association shown between testosterone, IGF-1 and Androgenetic Alopecia:

Signorello L. B., Wuu J., Hsieh C. C., Tzonou A., Trichopoulos D., Mantzor C. S. Hormones and hair patterning in men: a role for insulin-like growth factor 1?. J. Am. Acad. Dermatol., 40: 200-203, 1999.

Associations between IGF-1 and Prostate cancer:

Chan J. M., Stampfer M. J., Giovannucci E., Gann P. H., Ma J., Wilkinson P., Henneckens C. H., Pollack M. Plasma insulin-like growth factor 1 and prostate cancer risk: a prospective study. Science (Wash. DC), 279: 563-566, 1998.

Prostate Cancer associated with vertex balding:

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... f_ipsecsha

Association between male pattern baldness and Prostate cancer (4000 + particpants)

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... f_ipsecsha

Androgenetic alopecia and Prostate cancer link association/link:

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... /6/549#B13


***IGF-1 can lead to aberrant activation of the Androgen Receptor***

Blok G. J., de Boer H., Gooren L. J., van der Veen E. A. Growth hormone substitution in adult growth hormone-deficient men augments androgen effects on the skin. Clin. Endocrinol., 47: 29-36, 1997

IGF-1 & Prostate Cancer risk:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... f_ipsecsha


*** 'Aberrant activation of the Androgen Receptor has been demonstrated in vitro with IGF-1, keratinocyte growth factor, and epidermal growth factor. These agents can directly activate the Androgen Receptor in the absence of androgens and may contribute to the progression of prostate cancer and Androgenetic Alopecia'***

Yeh S., Miyamoto H., Shima H., Chang C. From estrogen to androgen receptor: a new pathway for sex hormones in prostate. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 95: 5527-5532, 1998.

Culig Z., Hobisch A., Cronauer M. V., Radmayr C., Trapman J., Hittmair A., Bartsch G., Klocker H. Androgen receptor activation in prostatic tumor cell lines by insulin-like growth factor I, keratinocyte growth factor, and epidermal growth factor. Cancer Res., 54: 5474-5478, 1994.

In Women:

CONCLUSIONS
Overdosage of IGF-I can lead to androgenization, a previously undescribed undesirable effect of IGF-I. Long-term IGF-I treatment necessitates progressive adjustment of the IGF-I dose to avoid overtreatment.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/ ... 98.00356.x




Bear in mind the Pre-War Japanese didn't eat dairy.

 

[docj077]

You need to re-read what you posted.



http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... f_ipsecsha

“Although statistical significance was not achieved in either one of these studies, the concordance between the data suggests a need for future studies to determine whether early onset vertex baldness serves as a novel biomarker for prostate cancer and whether androgen production, metabolism, or receptor status differs among these men when compared to those who exhibit other types of hair patterning.â€


No statistical significance found in this study.


http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... f_ipsecsha


“The age-standardized incidence of prostate cancer was greater among men with baldness at baseline (17.5 versus 12.5 per 10,000 person-years). The adjusted relative risk for prostate cancer among men with baldness was 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.12–2.00) and was similar regardless of the severity of baldness at baseline and was independent of other risk factors, including race and age. male pattern baldness seems to be a risk factor for clinical prostate cancer.â€


Risk of prostate cancer is raised by 1.5x in a person with male pattern baldness and their values are not adjusted based upon Norwood scale, which it should be no matter what the researchers found. Weak correlation at best and the study is written poorly.


http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... /6/549#B13

“No associations were found between prostate cancer and frontal baldness or when frontal baldness was present concurrently with vertex baldness. The ORs were 0.98 (0.79–1.23) and 1.14 (0.90–1.45), respectively. The highest ORs were for high-grade disease in men 60–69 years of age: 1.80 (1.02–3.16) for frontal baldness; 2.91 (1.59–5.32) for vertex baldness; and 1.95 (1.10–3.45) for frontal and vertex baldness. This association between the pattern of AA and prostate cancer points to shared androgen pathways that are worthy of additional investigation.â€

No association found here, either.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... f_ipsecsha

“Men in the highest quartile of IGF-I levels had a relative risk of 4.3 (95 percent confidence interval 1.8 to 10.6) compared with men in the lowest quartile.â€

Only men with the highest levels of IGF-1 had a higher risk of prostate cancer. Something that not every man with baldness or even your common man will have. Saying anything more is mere speculation.


Read your studies closer. They make your own point invalid.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

You need to re-read what you posted.

No, I don't think I do. Unless you think they're lying.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... f_ipsecsha

“Although statistical significance was not achieved in either one of these studies, the concordance between the data suggests a need for future studies to determine whether early onset vertex baldness serves as a novel biomarker for prostate cancer and whether androgen production, metabolism, or receptor status differs among these men when compared to those who exhibit other types of hair patterning.â€


No statistical significance found in this study..

Read:

'Separate analyses of the two studies are consistent and suggest an association between vertex baldness and prostate cancer {vertex bald early onset odds ratios, 2.44 [confidence interval (CI), 0.57–10.46)] and 2.11 (CI, 0.66–6.73), respectively; vertex bald later onset odds ratios, 2.10 (CI, 0.63–7.00) and 1.37 (CI, 0.47–4.06), respectively}.'

I think its quite clear. Besides this study is validated by others.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... f_ipsecsha


“The age-standardized incidence of prostate cancer was greater among men with baldness at baseline (17.5 versus 12.5 per 10,000 person-years). The adjusted relative risk for prostate cancer among men with baldness was 1.50 (95% confidence interval, 1.12–2.00) and was similar regardless of the severity of baldness at baseline and was independent of other risk factors, including race and age. male pattern baldness seems to be a risk factor for clinical prostate cancer.â€


Risk of prostate cancer is raised by 1.5x in a person with male pattern baldness and their values are not adjusted based upon Norwood scale, which it should be no matter what the researchers found. Weak correlation at best and the study is written poorly. .

Stop critiquing the research.

This is all you need to read:

The adjusted relative risk for prostate cancer among men with baldness was 1.50 [/b](95% confidence interval, 1.12–2.00) and was similar regardless of the severity of baldness at baseline and was independent of other risk factors, including race and age. male pattern baldness seems to be a risk factor for clinical prostate cancer.â€

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/cgi/conten ... /6/549#B13

“No associations were found between prostate cancer and frontal baldness or when frontal baldness was present concurrently with vertex baldness. The ORs were 0.98 (0.79–1.23) and 1.14 (0.90–1.45), respectively. The highest ORs were for high-grade disease in men 60–69 years of age: 1.80 (1.02–3.16) for frontal baldness; 2.91 (1.59–5.32) for vertex baldness; and 1.95 (1.10–3.45) for frontal and vertex baldness. This association between the pattern of AA and prostate cancer points to shared androgen pathways that are worthy of additional investigation.â€

No association found here, either. .

READ:

Our analysis suggests a positive association between prostate cancer and vertex baldness that appeared to be more evident for high-grade prostate cancer

^^
Theres no arguing with that.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/a ... f_ipsecsha

“Men in the highest quartile of IGF-I levels had a relative risk of 4.3 (95 percent confidence interval 1.8 to 10.6) compared with men in the lowest quartile.â€

There are many more studies to support this one.

Read your studies closer. They make your own point invalid.

They are not my studies. They are studies by qualified researchers who know a lot about their subject. Moreover, they have drawn the conclusions from their work which you have chosen to denigrate.

The facts are there. and they're supported by

High IGF-1 is a strong risk factor for Prostate Cancer
High IGF-1 is strongly involved in Androgenetic Alopecia.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Here are some excerpts from some other medical Articles cited by a PhD:

'Our findings suggest that high levels of IGF-1 may be associated with
increased risk of vertex baldness. Substantial clinical evidence
appears to support this finding.'

'It has also been recently reported that GH treatment of GH-deficient
men increases hair scores in androgen-dependent areas. These effects
can be explained either by IGF-1 directly stimulating the androgen
receptor, or by IGF-1 increasing local 5alpha-reductase activity and
thus stimulating the local conversion of testosterone to
dihydrotestosterone.'

'In conclusion, we have found evidence that high levels of testosterone
and IGF-1 increase the likelihood of vertex baldness, whereas neither
of these hormones appears significantly or suggestively associated
with chest hair growth. SHBG is inversely associated with vertex
baldness as well as with chest hair growth, although the association
is significant only with respect to the latter.'

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

And another:

“We observed that middle-aged and elderly men who reported modest to
substantial vertex balding at age 45 have lower circulating levels of
IGFBP-3 and higher levels of IGF-1 when controlling for IGFBP-3 level.
Growth factors are beginning to emerge as contributors to hair growth
and loss."

^^^
I told you that IGF-1 could do both.


Again:

In androgen-responsive tissue, IGF-1 may act locally to positively
mediate the induction of 5-reductase by dihydrotestosterone.12 This
action of IGF-1 may be consequential for the development of balding
because conversion of testosterone to dihydrotestosterone in the scalp
by 5-reductase type 2 is essential for androgenetic alopecia.


Our findings
are compatible with both the direct association of IGF-1 and the
modulating effect of IGFBP-3 on male pattern balding.â€￾

Some advice:

Based on the reading I did today, the best I can say is to discuss the
matter in depth with your physician and be certain that your IGF-1
levels are within the recommended target range. The literature I read
today suggests that hair loss doesn’t become a big problem until you
go outside of that range (usually by going way over). IGF-1 is
necessary for healthy skin and hair, but like everything else,
probably won’t help in large amounts.

 

[docj077]

Well, since you still can't figure out what a correlation or an association is in a study this thread is effectively finished. Once again you've quoted studies that show that the correlation between prostate cancer and male pattern baldness is very, very low and that male pattern baldness increases your risk of prostate cancer by 1.5X -2.5X. Hardly a significant increase and the studies themselves say that as I previously pointed out.

A good example of a signifcant relationship is the person living in a big city that has a 200x higher chance of developing schizophrenia. That's a true relationship.

Again, read your studies and post links to everything that post. For all I know your mother posted those last two little exerts.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Well, since you still can't figure out what a correlation or an association is in a study.

I'm going on what the researchers say. They say there's a 'correlation' and THEY say there's an 'association'

I don't know I guess they're all wrong and your right.

this thread is effectively finished.

Your involvement might be, but thats up to you. I on the other hand choose not to ignore evidence.

Once again you've quoted studies that show that the correlation between prostate cancer and male pattern baldness is very, very low and that male pattern baldness increases your risk of prostate cancer by 1.5X -2.5X. Hardly a significant increase and the studies themselves say that as I previously pointed out. .

One and a half times to two times is a fairly significant increase in my view. The studies themselves state this.

A good example of a signifcant relationship is the person living in a big city that has a 200x higher chance of developing schizophrenia. That's a true relationship. .

A mental condition is not the same.

Again, read your studies and post links to everything that post. For all I know your mother posted those last two little exerts.

Wow, that was a bit personal. I'm sorry you feel you had to express yourself like that.

Those excerpts were from two articles which a Phd lifted from the University of Micighan Library and were in a thread on Google.

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

So everyone, the research completed up to now suggests that the primary cause for male pattern baldness is elevated IGF-1 levels which stimulate the 5-alpha reductase activity, and cause the overproduction of DHT in the scalp.

 

[docj077]

So everyone, the research completed up to now suggests that the primary cause for male pattern baldness is elevated IGF-1 levels which stimulate the 5-alpha reductase activity, and cause the overproduction of DHT in the scalp.


Suggestion - reduce IGF-1 levels.

Correction. The research up to now demonstrates that there is an increase in 5AR activity in prostate and scrotal skin fibroblasts associated with elevated IGF-1 levels. Increased IFG-1 levels that are borderline physiologically abnormal are also associated with high grade prostate cancer.

No study that has been posted in this thread demonstrates a direct link between increased IGF-1 and male pattern baldness as no study links increased IGF-1 with upregulation of 5AR activity in the scalp.

Also, no study posted in this thread demonstrates an increase in DHT in the scalp associated with an increase in IGF-1. Men with male pattern baldness may have increased IGF-1 levels in serum, but no study was posted demonstrating an increase in IGF-1 in the scalp. IGF-1 may also be involved in hair loss patterning, but the study posted did not examine the variables appropriately and dismissed the most important finding, which would have been the correlation between IGF-1 levels and the individuals place on the Norwood scale.

However, one study in this thread does demonstrate that an increae in IGF-1 occurs in the hair follicle with prolonged administration of finasteride and is associated with a superior response to finasteride.

Lastly, there are several studies in this thread that clearly show that decreased SHBG does not correlate with increased serum testosterone levels. There are however some studies that show that increased insulin levels decreases SHBG levels. There is no subsequent increase in testosteone levels associated with the previously mentioned SHBG decrease. No study clearly demonstrates an increase in DHT production associated with hyperinsulinemia in a large population.


Up to now, no definitive evidence has been given either way. IGF-1 supplementation is known to cause increased hair shedding. IGF-1 supplementation is also known to cause hypertrichosis.

Take all information in this thread at face value. Nothing here is the answer to male pattern baldness.

 

[docj077]

Well, since you still can't figure out what a correlation or an association is in a study.

I'm going on what the researchers say. They say there's a 'correlation' and THEY say there's an 'association'

I don't know I guess they're all wrong and your right.

Have you failed to read again? Many of your studies say right in the abstract that there is no association or no significance with regards to the study at hand. I even pointed them out to you. You're the one ignoring the facts.

As far as I'm concerned, this is like debating with a 5 year old that wants his way no matter what and is simply afraid to admit when he's wrong.