Very Impressive Dermarolling And Minxodil Results - From Tressless

fashy

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
175
Why don't you just let it go Bro?What makes you think i wasn't calm?Its funny i thought the same thing about you ,that you were getting uncomfortable.You lectured me about DHT,etc and now you re gonna lecture me about discussion?A discussion you aiways try to dominate?Dont tell me, nobody told you that before. "I disagree with you?'Who can possibly disagree with you Bro?Who can possibly challenge you?You think very highly of yourself Bro.Who cares?Really.

 

Micky_007

Experienced Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
380
no, all hairs need DHT to grow. body hair is an example.
scalp hairs have DHT a lot of years before puberty, sebaceous gland need this hormone to make sebum.
Till scientists dont take the idea never we shall advance.....
Fully agree, DHT is important.
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,746
no, all hairs need DHT to grow. body hair is an example.
scalp hairs have DHT a lot of years before puberty, sebaceous gland need this hormone to make sebum.
Till scientists dont take the idea never we shall advance.....
Hairs don't need DHT to grow, body hairs need DHT to transition from vellus to terminal, but afterwards it is not needed, simply having testosterone is enough. This means nothing for scalp hair because it's site-specific. There is no DHT at 1 years old when your scalp hair starts growing. If there was then your body hair would start growing too. People who are born without the ability to produce 5-ar2 and DHT don't present with body hair, but they grow a normal head of hair and never go bald. It's pretty clear that whatever the reason, DHT is good for body hair, but bad for scalp hair, and it's not required for scalp hair to grow.
 
Last edited:

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
931
Hairs don't need DHT to grow, body hairs need DHT to transition from vellus to terminal, but afterwards it is not needed, simply having testosterone is enough. This means nothing for scalp hair because it's site-specific. There is no DHT at 1 years old when your scalp hair starts growing. If there was then your body hair would start growing too. People who are born without the ability to produce 5-ar2 and DHT don't present with body hair, but they grow a normal head of hair and never go bald. It's pretty clear that whatever the reason, DHT is good for body hair, but bad for scalp hair, and it's not required for scalp hair to grow.
Acording to you, there is not sebum in scalp hairs.

The reality is other, scalp hairs have sebum even in prepubertals
Sebaceous gland need DHT to make sebum and pilosebaceous unit can make itself DHT from cholesterol.
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,746
Acording to you, there is not sebum in scalp hairs.

The reality is other, scalp hairs have sebum even in prepubertals
Sebaceous gland need DHT to make sebum and pilosebaceous unit can make itself DHT from cholesterol.
"lowering DHT levels in adulthood had no effect on sebum production. If the gland is rich in the enzyme 5 alpha-reductase-2, it is proposed that the sebaceous gland is either exquisitely sensitive to DHT, requiring only small amounts for normal development and function, or that male levels of testosterone compensate for DHT and maintain normal sebaceous gland activity throughout life. It is also possible that 5 alpha-reductase-1 is the enzyme of the sebaceous gland and is unaffected in the inherited condition and by finasteride."

 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
931
"in androgen-insensitive subjects"
;)
there is nothing related to it

Imperato papers are not real

Androgens are vital to our survive, not only in the skin but brain

And the question is about DHT and sebum in persons years before puberty, .... they have sebum in scalp hairs.
 

300

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
373
"in androgen-insensitive subjects"
;)
there is nothing related to it

Imperato papers are not real

Androgens are vital to our survive, not only in the skin but brain

And the question is about DHT and sebum in persons years before puberty, .... they have sebum in scalp hairs.
You are waisting your time.You re not going anywhere with this guy.He so abnoxious its unreal plus he has his cronies following him everywhere downvoting everybody who argues with him.
 

300

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
373
Hairs don't need DHT to grow, body hairs need DHT to transition from vellus to terminal, but afterwards it is not needed, simply having testosterone is enough. This means nothing for scalp hair because it's site-specific. There is no DHT at 1 years old when your scalp hair starts growing. If there was then your body hair would start growing too. People who are born without the ability to produce 5-ar2 and DHT don't present with body hair, but they grow a normal head of hair and never go bald. It's pretty clear that whatever the reason, DHT is good for body hair, but bad for scalp hair, and it's not required for scalp hair to grow.
"I ts called back and forth discussion bro.Calm down".Even Cotcarelis doesnt claim to understand everything,but you do.You search the internet to find even a footnote to support you claims.
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,746
"in androgen-insensitive subjects"
;)
there is nothing related to it

Imperato papers are not real

Androgens are vital to our survive, not only in the skin but brain

And the question is about DHT and sebum in persons years before puberty, .... they have sebum in scalp hairs.
You said: "Sebaceous gland need DHT to make sebum"

The paper's conclusions: "male levels of testosterone [may] compensate for DHT and maintain normal sebaceous gland activity throughout life"

You: this is totally unrelated to my claim.

Ok, sure.

"adult male pseudohermaphrodites with 5 alpha-reductase deficiency and a selective decrease in DHT production had sebum production scores identical to normal age-matched males."
 
Last edited:

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,746
"I ts called back and forth discussion bro.Calm down".Even Cotcarelis doesnt claim to understand everything,but you do.You search the internet to find even a footnote to support you claims.
Sorry for hurting your feelings guy. Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion?
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,746

300

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
373
Sorry for hurting your feelings guy. Do you have anything productive to add to the discussion?
Not at all guy.I think yours are hurtEveryboby has something productive to offer,but clearly you dont see it like that
 

pegasus2

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
4,746
Not at all guy.I think yours are hurtEveryboby has something productive to offer,but clearly you dont see it like that
Some people have something productive to offer, including you, but you haven't offered anything productive in many posts now, you are just being bitter because I disagreed with you. Sorry boyo but I'm allowed to disagree.
 

300

Established Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
373
Some people have something productive to offer, including you, but you haven't offered anything productive in many posts now, you are just being bitter because I disagreed with you. Sorry boyo but I'm allowed to disagree.
Bitter about what?I even commented you about your knowledge on the subject of hair loss.I told you that my knowledge is inferior to yours
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
931
Sebum flow theory is worse than craniofacial theory, yet you persist with it for decades without convincing a single person of your ideas and ignoring every point that dispels your theory. Here's a link if anyone is interested in reading more about the problems with sebum theory. https://www.hairlosstalk.com/intera...ersons-are-more-vulnerable-to-hairloss.29109/
Good for the link, 15 years ago and it seem that we are not progressed yet
And a lot of interesting disscusions, ....
The important key pointed to Bryan





Bryan wrote:
Actually, do we even know for a FACT that there are significantly fewer androgen receptors in pre-pubertal hair follicle cells? It would seem like a fairly safe bet, but nevertheless I'd like to see some actual scientific evidence for it. The only study I've ever heard of having anything at all to do with the general level of androgenic stimulus in scalp hair follicles of pre-pubertal humans is the one Armando cited recently, in which a doctor measured levels of androgens in the hair roots of children. But as far as I know, there was no measurement of androgen receptors.
This is an important issue in order to clear all doubts, an study in healthy scalp hairs in prepubertal in both sexes and in two areas of head, including sebum, steroids and androgen receptors. Is it so difficult to make?

Armando
 

Intrigued77777777

Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
19
Sebum flow theory is worse than craniofacial theory, yet you persist with it for decades without convincing a single person of your ideas and ignoring every point that dispels your theory. Here's a link if anyone is interested in reading more about the problems with sebum theory. https://www.hairlosstalk.com/intera...ersons-are-more-vulnerable-to-hairloss.29109/

Whatever it is, it's something which progresses from follicle to follicle. I've grown a lot of hair on my temples, but new hair is always growing adjacent to existing hair. What i mean is it doesn't "jump" 1cm and new hair appears so far away.

I heard on (the Australian hair transplant clinic podcast on Youtube?) something about cells transmit signals to adjacent cells. I think baldness is most-likely related to this.
 
Top