What type of persons are more vulnerable to hairloss?

[Guest]

that all you will say, large?

i now see.

 

[IBM]

people that love too much are more vunerable.

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

that all you will say, large?

i now see.

dude...why are you making fun of him b/c he doesnt read and write english like you do? You obviously know he is from Spain and English is prob his 2nd or 3rd language. Lets see you write in Spanish as he does in English.

I can see if you attacked him b/c of his theory, but b/c of his writing is just plain childish. Grow up man.

That being said, I still think Armando's theory is wrong.

 

[Armando Jose]

thank you HTGT;

English is my 3rd language.

BTW, can I ask you why you deny my theory?

Armando

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

thank you HTGT;

English is my 3rd language.

BTW, can I ask you why you deny my theory?

Armando

B/c of all the evidence Mike and Bryan have posted.

like the psuedo hermaphrodites
the propecia results
the fact that females start to lose hair with test. injections
the fact that hair grows when it is transplanted
etc. etc.

 

[Armando Jose]

can you explain why the dinamic model of hair loss?

hair loss would be difusse in all "genetic" hairs at the same time, acording the curret theory but it is observed that hair loss begin in the front and crown.

My theory explain it easily, and a lot more things.

Armando

 

[michael barry]

Armando wrote:

"can you explain why the dinamic (SIC) model of hair loss?

hair loss would be difusse in all "genetic" hairs at the same time, acording the curret theory but it is observed that hair loss begin in the front and crown.

My theory explain it easily, and a lot more things.

Armando"


Lemme see.............................."it is observed that hairloss begin in the front and crown". -----YUP, SURE DOES. The hairs in the front and crown have more androgen receptors than the hairs on the sides, and also these areas have been tested and have shown that there is more DHT around.

Again, we can TRANSPLANT hairs from the sides and back to the front and they grow for the rest of a man's life, and never have problems with sebum.

 

[Armando Jose]

You say: The hairs in the front and crown have more androgen receptors than the hairs on the sides, and also these areas have been tested and have shown that there is more DHT around.

And which is the difference among hairs in the top of head? Exist a type of gradient with androgens receptors in scalp top hairs? Exist a qualitative difference in hairs of crown?

The hair loss is dinamic and the impact of androgens in "all" genetic hairs affect all at the same time, then there is not explanation with the facts observed. Do you understand? If current theory is correct, all hairs are affected at the same time, and hair loss would be diffuse, not dinamic.


Armando

 

[Bryan]

You say: The hairs in the front and crown have more androgen receptors than the hairs on the sides, and also these areas have been tested and have shown that there is more DHT around.

And which is the difference among hairs in the top of head? Exist a type of gradient with androgens receptors in scalp top hairs? Exist a qualitative difference in hairs of crown?

I know you addressed that response to Michael, and I'll let him answer for himself; however, I want to add my own comments on this, too, for whatever it's worth: I personally haven't been a very big fan of talking about different levels of things (a "gradient", as you said) having to do with androgenic stimulation, such as androgen receptors and 5a-reductase. I'm sure those gradients do exist, but I prefer to think of the sensitivity of individual hair follicles to androgens as being more important and more interesting. There is more to that sensitivity than just numbers of androgen receptors and levels of 5a-reductase.

The hair loss is dinamic and the impact of androgens in "all" genetic hairs affect all at the same time, then there is not explanation with the facts observed. Do you understand? If current theory is correct, all hairs are affected at the same time, and hair loss would be diffuse, not dinamic.

But androgens do NOT affect all the hairs in an individual the same, although we don't yet understand the reasons for that. Scientists are working on that problem, and hopefully they'll know the reasons eventually.

 

[Armando Jose]

Yes Bryan, It could be the possibe gradient as an explanation of the process, but my theory is simpler, problems in sebum flow trigger the different sensibililty to androgens.

By the way, the reason that androgens do NOT affect all the hairs in an individual the same, my theory stablished also this point. Sebum flow problems have a real time gradient, and explain easily the reasons for that.

You say: "Scientists are working on that problem",
Good news, are they looking for sebum?

Ockam razzor would be applied now.

Armando

 

[Bryan]

Yes Bryan, It could be the possibe gradient as an explanation of the process, but my theory is simpler, problems in sebum flow trigger the different sensibililty to androgens.

By the way, the reason that androgens do NOT affect all the hairs in an individual the same, my theory stablished also this point. Sebum flow problems have a real time gradient, and explain easily the reasons for that.

Then explain to me precisely how it is that something having to do with sebum causes androgens to stimulate the growth of most body hair, but suppress the growth of scalp hair! This should be VERY interesting!

You say: "Scientists are working on that problem",
Good news, are they looking for sebum?

Ockam razzor would be applied now.

Armando, you're sounding more and more like Stephen Foote with each passing day!

 

[powersam]

Yes Bryan, It could be the possibe gradient as an explanation of the process, but my theory is simpler, problems in sebum flow trigger the different sensibililty to androgens.

By the way, the reason that androgens do NOT affect all the hairs in an individual the same, my theory stablished also this point. Sebum flow problems have a real time gradient, and explain easily the reasons for that.

You say: "Scientists are working on that problem",
Good news, are they looking for sebum?

Ockam razzor would be applied now.

Armando

ockham's razor is so often misused.

 

[Armando Jose]

Bryan wrote:

Then explain to me precisely how it is that something having to do with sebum causes androgens to stimulate the growth of most body hair, but suppress the growth of scalp hair! This should be VERY interesting!

I have an idea but I don't want air in public till my theory will be well established.

Armando

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

Bryan wrote:

Then explain to me precisely how it is that something having to do with sebum causes androgens to stimulate the growth of most body hair, but suppress the growth of scalp hair! This should be VERY interesting!

I have an idea but I don't want air in public till my theory will be well established.

Armando

nice...lol

 

[S Foote.]

Yes Bryan, It could be the possibe gradient as an explanation of the process, but my theory is simpler, problems in sebum flow trigger the different sensibililty to androgens.

By the way, the reason that androgens do NOT affect all the hairs in an individual the same, my theory stablished also this point. Sebum flow problems have a real time gradient, and explain easily the reasons for that.

Then explain to me precisely how it is that something having to do with sebum causes androgens to stimulate the growth of most body hair, but suppress the growth of scalp hair! This should be VERY interesting!

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=27898[/url]

The thread is titled "Bryan -- what is your opinion of BHT". This was posted two days ago, and you have posted a number of times since so don't try to pretend you haven't seen it :wink:

Why has Bryan not responded in this thread? Because he is on the record as claiming the old donor dominance "assumption" was proven! According to Bryan, androgen response in hair follicles is "direct", and the old studies proved that because the pre-existing growth rate was maintained after transplantation.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571

Anyone with any true scientific integrity, would accept that "modern" BHT growth results, "CLEARLY" go against the old notion of donor dominance.

But Bryan would rather just avoid threads that post evidence against his own biased opinions, and hope they just fizzle out! :roll:

If you expect any credibility Bryan, go answer the posters question in that other thread?

I for one can't wait to hear your excuses 8)

For those interested, the scientific principle of Ockhams razor is described here.

http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... 0000000000

This requires that "ALL" the relevant observations be explained in the simplist "possible" way.

The current theory of androgen related hair growth/loss, cannot conform to this principle, and nor can yours Armando sorry.

S Foote.

 

[Armando Jose]

Hi Stephen;

Nice to see you.

You say about Ockhams razor:
"This requires that "ALL" the relevant observations be explained in the simplist "possible" way.

The current theory of androgen related hair growth/loss, cannot conform to this principle, and nor can yours Armando sorry"

Yes, my theory don't explain ALL things, there is a problem with follicular units, where exist more than one hair in the same "pore". Nowadays, scientist think that these hairs share the aerector muscle, but in my theory they can not share the same sebaceous gland. I need confirm this aspect.

Said that, sebum flow problem as the trigger cause of common baldness is a theory more simple that yours, and explain easily the different incidence between sexes by example.

Be happy.

Armando

 

[Guest]

that all you will say, large?

i now see.

dude...why are you making fun of him b/c he doesnt read and write english like you do? You obviously know he is from Spain and English is prob his 2nd or 3rd language. Lets see you write in Spanish as he does in English.

I can see if you attacked him b/c of his theory, but b/c of his writing is just plain childish. Grow up man.

That being said, I still think Armando's theory is wrong.

jesus christ i wasn't making fun of his language. i try to talk the way others do on here so that they can understand. i've seen many times bryan or michael ask him something and he(armando) will say that he doesn't understand what they are asking or saying, so i thought it would be easier that way. now i was in fact making fun of his theories(hence the without sebum there is no hair comment), but his grammar? no.

and the quote of mine you quoted in your post? there was nothing grammatically wrong with either of those sentences.

 

[S Foote.]

Hi Stephen;

Nice to see you.

You say about Ockhams razor:
"This requires that "ALL" the relevant observations be explained in the simplist "possible" way.

The current theory of androgen related hair growth/loss, cannot conform to this principle, and nor can yours Armando sorry"

Yes, my theory don't explain ALL things, there is a problem with follicular units, where exist more than one hair in the same "pore". Nowadays, scientist think that these hairs share the aerector muscle, but in my theory they can not share the same sebaceous gland. I need confirm this aspect.

Said that, sebum flow problem as the trigger cause of common baldness is a theory more simple that yours, and explain easily the different incidence between sexes by example.

Be happy.

Armando

Armando.

As i understand your theory, you are saying that sebum is preventing stem cells from migrating from the bulge area, so restricting the formation of new large follicles in the male pattern baldness area?

Could you confirm that before any further comments?

S Foote.

 

[Armando Jose]

As i understand your theory, you are saying that sebum is preventing stem cells from migrating from the bulge area, so restricting the formation of new large follicles in the male pattern baldness area?

Could you confirm that before any further comments?

S Foote.

Yes, the hardening and the oxidation of sebum interrupt the travel of stem cells from the bulge area to dermal papilla, so in common hair loss is observed thining hairs. More steem cells in dermal papilla, thicker hair.

This is the first problem in common hair loss, later will come another ones more irreversibles than it.

Armando

 

[S Foote.]

As i understand your theory, you are saying that sebum is preventing stem cells from migrating from the bulge area, so restricting the formation of new large follicles in the male pattern baldness area?

Could you confirm that before any further comments?

S Foote.

Yes, the hardening and the oxidation of sebum interrupt the travel of stem cells from the bulge area to dermal papilla, so in common hair loss is observed thining hairs. More steem cells in dermal papilla, thicker hair.

This is the first problem in common hair loss, later will come another ones more irreversibles than it.

Well then in that case, how can you explain the results of this study?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=187900

In this study (with diagrams), the migration of stem cells does not come into contact with sebum anyway?

The stem cell migration occours "outside" of the follicle. in the area of the outer root sheath, according to this study. So how can sebum possibly effect this?

Bryan posted a rellevant question (against his usual habits) :roll:

That is how does your theory explain the increased body hair, in particular the "area's" of increased body hair?

Your theory is just "not" in line with the principle of Ockhams razor Armando, because it cannot explain the "WHOLE" story step by step, as is required!

S Foote.