What type of persons are more vulnerable to hairloss?

abcdefg

Senior Member
Reaction score
775
I think anyone that has a hair transplant is a moron. The pain and expense to only like your still old with a little more hair just seems stupid to me.
 

hair today gone tomorrow

Senior Member
Reaction score
1
Armando Jose said:
MIchael Barry;
Have you some theory about common baldness or are you a follower of the androgenetic current theory?

Por otra parte, sabes español? lo digo porque parece que no me explico bien en ingles o que mis ideas se confunden o se quieren malinterpretar. Si es asi me lo dices porque Telogen Effluvium lo puedo explicar mucho mejor en el idioma de Cervantes.

Armando

Yah, Mike and Bryan just OWNED you and you come back with this stupid question and some stupid ramble in Spanish. Whats the matter? cat got your tongue? No one is gonna buy that crap your selling.
 

michael barry

Senior Member
Reaction score
12
Armando,

I explored many of the other alternative theories when I first started to research hair. I had an open mind. I think they are all wrong. Stephen's idea has alot of coincidences that seem to back it up, but I can explain away all of them. For instance proanthocyandins invigorate hair, and they also aid lymph drainiage. However, in ex vivo tests (hairs in test tubes), proanthocyandins still invigorate hair by suppressing specific dermal papilla secreted growth inhibitors (barley proanthos for TGF beta), grape seed proanthos for PKC, etc. Silica probably inhibits IL-1 and hence why you see onion juice and cucumber juice in alot of old baldness remedies. In test tubes these things work and in vivo they help also.


My "theory" in baldness is the accepted one doctors the world over agree with who have professionally looked into baldness. Namely that over time and as five alpha reductase becomes more active, androgen levels rise to a point to where scalp hairs become sensitive to them and the dermal papillas of these hairs release more negative growth factors as opposed to positive ones over time, thus shortening hair phases with less hairs growing. Something (maybe TGF beta 1 or 2) gets the immune system interested in the hair and marker cells congregate (this has all been observed) around the follicle base in larger than usual numbers and killer immune cells and T cells show up and start a long slow attack. Superoxides and inflammatory cytokines are sent at the follicle, damaging the blood vessels that feed it. Collagen gets secreted underneath it and the collagen in the root sheath and connective tissue sheath gets thicker and crosslinked and larger, thus making it hard for capillaries to feed the follicle nutrition and physically blocking the widening of the papilla in a new anagen phase and blocking downward migration to where the hair can get the nutrient supply it really needs. The standard stuff Armando.


Im currently testing a cold pack on my right leg everyday while I type at the computer, so I guess Im putting Stephens theory to a kind of test right now. I dont expect better growth but will report in about four more months about what I see.

I think cloning from ICX is the closest thing on the horizon that will truly help with baldness.
 

michael barry

Senior Member
Reaction score
12
LOUD SILENCE from Armando.

I guess he finally looked at the finasteride (no effect at all on sebum) hair growth charts, http://www.propecia.com/finasteride/pro ... /index.jsp


All one has to do is to click PLAY and see that finasteride grows hair, and men still have a 277 hair count increase per square inch over placebo at YEAR FIVE. No sebum affected at all.


Here is yet another hair transplant repair photo of a man whose plugs grow just fine, but the hair behind them falling out. All hair is kept short, sebum drainiage should be the same, why?
http://www.forhair.com/hairtransplant/topic1023.html


Here is a great picture that utterly disproves Armando's zany theory, http://www.forhair.com/hairtransplant/topic1106.html
The man in the picture has old hair plug transplants. He has elected to have them completely surgically removed. The kept growing even after he went completely bald behind them.



Here is another pic of a guy who elected to do the same thing,'
http://www.forhair.com/hairtransplant/topic972.html

Hair around the plugs kept falling out, but plugs kept on growing. Sebum sure wasn't effecting them was it?
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
942
Dear Michael;

Please visit any of the propecia forums to know how really work propecia. This is only the speech of manufacturer.

And I don't know why you send me links with very bad results with hair trasplants. Excessive effort with very few cosmetically result, and I am convinced that passing the time the hair trasplanted are prone to be lost if the person continue with the hair excessive short.

But I can be wrong.

Armando
 

powersam

Senior Member
Reaction score
9
michael barry said:
Sebum backup, does not cause baldness. Period. If this were the reason, finasteride would not increase haircounts over baseline for so long. There would be not big spike in haircounts for the first two years. The same amount of sebum is being produced.

on that same note, wouldnt one of the thousands of scalp biopsies done before baldness studies have shown these sebum backups? such a physical event would be hard to miss.
 

Pondle

Senior Member
Reaction score
-1
Armando Jose said:
Dear Michael;

Please visit any of the propecia forums to know how really work propecia. This is only the speech of manufacturer.

Armando

Armando, are you seriously questioning the published results of the Propecia trials? :roll:
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
942
Pondle:

Why don't?

BTW,
Do you think they are serious about the incidence with side effects?

Do you think they are serious about the price of finasteride (proscar vs. propecia?

And, there is measurements by them of androgens in scalp hairs years before puberty in secret?


Armando
 

Pondle

Senior Member
Reaction score
-1
Armando Jose said:
Pondle:

Why don't?

Can you come up with a robust critique of the methodology used in the studies? I haven't heard one from you yet.

Do you think they are serious about the incidence with side effects?

No-one can prove otherwise unless they do a robust survey. Don't rely on self-selected paranoiacs who post on the internet.

Do you think they are serious about the price of finasteride (proscar vs. propecia?

A separate issue.

there is measurements by them of androgens in scalp hairs years before puberty in secret?

Armando, sex steroids greatly increase at puberty. That's why children don't go bald. :roll:
 

Pondle

Senior Member
Reaction score
-1
Armando, I quote from the abstract... "Although there are differences in the age at onset, the disease starts after puberty when enough testosterone is available to be transformed into dihydrotestosterone... The onset of Androgenetic Alopecia is not expected to be seen in prepubertal patients without abnormal androgen levels. A common feature observed in our series of children with Androgenetic Alopecia was a strong genetic predisposition to the disease."

Nothing contradicts what I have said.
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
942
the abstract seem confused.

In the full study, in discussion:

"The diagnosis of Androgenetic Alopecia in our children was supported by pattern
of alopecia, the presence of > 20% hair diameter diversity
by dermoscopy and by the pathological findings of a terminal
⁄vellus hair ratio < 3 : 1."

And more: "Our 20 children were therefore affected by Androgenetic Alopecia with prepubertal onset."

All cases were diagnosed with androgenetic alopecia.


Armando
 

Pondle

Senior Member
Reaction score
-1
Because of abnormal androgen levels - which is consistent with what I've said. And very, very few children will experience male pattern baldness, because testosterone production usually increases markedly at puberty not before it. Anyway, thought you didn't buy the theory that androgens cause male pattern baldness?
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
942
Pondle;

you are wrong. In the study:"Laboratory examinations were performed in all our patients, including routine blood cell count and biochemical studies,
sex hormone assays [follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinizing
hormone, oestradiol, progesterone, 17-hydroxyprogesterone,
prolactin, testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate
(DHEA-S), androstenedione], thyroid function, adrenocorticotrophic
hormone, cortisol and growth hormone-releasing hormone.
All results were within the normal range in relation to
age and sex."

Armando
 

Pondle

Senior Member
Reaction score
-1
Without a subscription I can't see the full text of the article. However, I would say that the abstract states that "the onset of Androgenetic Alopecia is not expected to be seen in prepubertal patients without abnormal androgen levels... the pathogenesis [in this instance] remains speculative" and "a common feature observed in our series of children with Androgenetic Alopecia was a strong genetic predisposition to the disease."

Nothing here in these very rare cases "disproves" the role of androgens in male pattern baldness. This is pretty well established.

I did a quick search of PubMed and found reference to one other study into balding children - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_docsum
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
942
Pondle;

If you want I can send you a file.

The work you mention is another from Italia, but they are not the same investigators. Thank you.

You have reason when say that scientist want to introduce these cases in the current theory, but....

Armando
 

Pondle

Senior Member
Reaction score
-1
I don't think these cases undermine the present theory, which looks pretty damn watertight to me. Reading the abstract of the initial study you linked to, we have a small group of children with a mysterious form of alopecia that looks like male pattern baldness. But we don't know really know the cause.

Nothing here invalidates the fact that 99.99% of children (or whatever) do not experience baldness, and neither do castrates or men with 5AR deficiency. Neither does it invalidate the fact that women undergoing sex changes and given large doses of testosterone can lose their hair in an male pattern baldness pattern. And it shouldn't obscure the fact that balding scalp has been found to have higher levels of DHT compared to hair-containing scalp.
 

Armando Jose

Senior Member
My Regimen
Reaction score
942
Yes Pondle,



I don't want defend the idea that hormones have not a role in hair biology and hair loss. I try to prove that hormones is not the initial cause of common baldness but problems with sebum flow.

My theory also explain most of your points, and it is not so complicated than actual, by example with the pattern or the different incidence between sexes.


Finally you say: "Neither does it invalidate the fact that women undergoing sex changes and given large doses of testosterone can lose their hair in an male pattern baldness pattern"
Regarding this aspect, there is different results, in a example provided by Michael Barry (*) a "new" man with alopecia and other case unaffected. Curiously the bald new man have a short hair cut and the other a long hair. My explanation is simpler than androgenetic supposition.

Armando

(*) http://www.oprah.com/tows/slide/200509/ ... _107.jhtml
 
G

Guest

Guest
armando,

u say without sebum there is no hair

i say with armando there is no sense.

i have a not oily scalp and lots of hair

i also have thin hair and more of it, not thick.
 
Top