What type of persons are more vulnerable to hairloss?

[Armando Jose]

Stphen wrote:

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?

Exactly, this is the same route where sebum goes to dermal papilla, between inner and outer root sheat.

Bryan posted a rellevant question (against his usual habits)

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

I am talking only about scalp hairs. Body hairs acts different, they are not so complex.

Armando

 

[Bryan]

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.

I challenge you to explain how BHT growth results supposedly "go against" the accepted principle of donor dominance for androgen response. You can't do that, because there IS no such conflict.

In a nutshell, there are other factors besides just androgens that influence the growth of hair follicles, and some of them are indeed apparently influenced in turn, to some extent, by body location. But the response to androgens isn't one of them. THAT one appears to be purely donor dominant.

 

[Bryan]

Bryan posted a rellevant question (against his usual habits)

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

I am talking only about scalp hairs. Body hairs acts different, they are not so complex.

Sorry, Armando, but you can't just ignore questions put to you that you have difficulty answering. If you expect us to take your theory seriously, you have to explain why sebum (supposedly) causes androgens to STIMULATE the growth of most body hair, but SUPPRESS the growth of scalp hair.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen and Bryan.

Its useless arguing with Armando. Ive pilloried his theory many times. Finasteride alone disproves it. Hair tranpslants disprove it. MK386 disproves it. He just avoids the issue, retreats to children's studies, or my favorite: hides behind his (supposedly) poor English and acts as if he doesn't understand.


By the way, on the "there is no hair wihtout sebum"

What about underarm hair and eybrow hair? What about ankle and toe hair? What about hair on my fingers (got quite a bit of it) or the back of my fucckkinng hand?

 

[S Foote.]

Stphen wrote:

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?

Exactly, this is the same route where sebum goes to dermal papilla, between inner and outer root sheat.



[quote:2a3da]Bryan posted a rellevant question (against his usual habits)

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

I am talking only about scalp hairs. Body hairs acts different, they are not so complex.

Armando[/quote:2a3da]

But you cannot just pick and choose the factors that suit a particular theory in science Armando! Any true theory of DHT related hair growth/ loss has to explain the "whole" deal!

Otherwise you end up with multiple mechanisms, which goes against the principle of Ockhams razor that you claimed supports your theory.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

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.

I challenge you to explain how BHT growth results supposedly "go against" the accepted principle of donor dominance for androgen response. You can't do that, because there IS no such conflict.

In a nutshell, there are other factors besides just androgens that influence the growth of hair follicles, and some of them are indeed apparently influenced in turn, to some extent, by body location. But the response to androgens isn't one of them. THAT one appears to be purely donor dominant.

You dont seem to understand the meaning of the word "dominant" Bryan!

You have claimed many times that the androgen effect is directly "dominant", in controlling the growth rate of certain follicles. This is not a case of any outside influence, but the androgen influenced changes of gene expression in these follicles that controls their in-built ability to grow.

According to this, androgen related body hair growth should show "donor dominance", and retain it's growth rate "wherever" it is transplanted!

You said so yourself here:

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

Quote:

"All of these oddball theories were soundly refuted with the advent of modern hair transplantation, which proved that hair follicles continue to grow (or go bald, for that matter), even if they are moved to other locations around the body. In other words, they display "donor dominance",


The increased growth rate of androgen influenced body hair transplanted to the scalp, clearly cannot be reconciled with the old donor dominance notion!

Your attempted "spin" here to try to make this fit, just won't work Bryan :wink:

Scientists are now starting to recognise the problems with the old donor dominance notion, based on modern experiments. You have been made aware of this information before Bryan.

Your continued "head in the sand" denials are not getting you any scientific credibility here Bryan :wink:


S Foote.

 

[Armando Jose]

Probably all hairs needs androgens to be healthy, but the problem is how much androgens are present in pilosebaceous unit.

hair body use androgens to grow.
scalp "privileged" hairs are in contact with androgens.
scalp hairs prone to common hair loss are also in contact, years ago puberty, with androgens.

What could be the problem?

maybe the amount of it. Body hairs are, probably, more resistent to high androgen concentration than scalp hairs.

Do you know any work saying that it is possible the growth of healthy hairs without any androgens? I don't.

I remember a study pointing out that even "privileged" hairs are prone to lost if the concentration of steroids are very high.

Armando

 

[S Foote.]

Probably all hairs needs androgens to be healthy, but the problem is how much androgens are present in pilosebaceous unit.

hair body use androgens to grow.
scalp "privileged" hairs are in contact with androgens.
scalp hairs prone to common hair loss are also in contact, years ago puberty, with androgens.

What could be the problem?

maybe the amount of it. Body hairs are, probably, more resistent to high androgen concentration than scalp hairs.

Do you know any work saying that it is possible the growth of healthy hairs without any androgens? I don't.

I remember a study pointing out that even "privileged" hairs are prone to lost if the concentration of steroids are very high.

Armando

It has been said before, hair does not need androgens at all!

Androgen insensitivity syndrome proves this plain and simple Armando, sorry.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_i ... y_syndrome

S Foote.

 

[Armando Jose]

So, Stephen, nature is squanderer. Nature waste time and energy to develop system that are innecesary, ??

I don't think so.

Regarding CAIS, I don't think the existence of any person with COMPLETE androgen insensitivity to androgens. There is a lot of routes, have you seen the androgens tree?

By the way, I can be wrong.

Armando

 

[michael barry]

Aramando wrote:

"Regarding CAIS, I don't think the existence of any person with COMPLETE androgen insensitivity to androgens. There is a lot of routes, have you seen the androgens tree? "


OH GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now scientists not only dont understand Male Pattern Baldness, but have misdiagnosed Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, and all those people walking around with luxuriant heads of hair with AIS, and no chest, arm, leg, hand, finger, belly, or back hair actually do have some androgenic stimulation, but we have all just missed it.



I just love this too:

"So, Stephen, nature is squanderer. Nature waste time and energy to develop system that are innecesary, ?? "

Manatee's have remnants of feet, even though they spend their whole life in the water. They sure as hell dont need those feet.

Why are some people born with webbed feet or even webbed hands?


For that matter, why are some people born with a predisopostion to horrible acne or born blind? Nature sure as hell squandered a few opportunities with them didn't it?





Lets quote Armando and dissect everything that he purports:

"Probably all hairs needs androgens to be healthy, but the problem is how much androgens are present in pilosebaceous unit. +++++++++++GEE, I GUESS NOSE HAIR IN MEN AND WOMEN AND EAR HAIR IN MEN AND WOMEN NEED ANDROGENS HUH? EYE LASHES ANYONE? DO THEY NEED ANDROGENS TOO?

hair body use androgens to grow.
scalp "privileged" hairs are in contact with androgens.
scalp hairs prone to common hair loss are also in contact, years ago puberty, with androgens.

What could be the problem? +++++++++++++++++++++MALE PATTERN BALDNESS IS THE PROBLEM

maybe the amount of it. Body hairs are, probably, more resistent to high androgen concentration than scalp hairs. +++++++++++++++++++ BODY HAIRS ARE MORE THAN RESISTANT ARMANDO, THEY LIKE AND THRIVE WITH MORE ANDROGENS, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT GENETIC PROGRAMMING AND HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN EXPERIMENTS TO REACT POSITIVELY WITH ANDROGENIC STIMULI AS OPPOSED TO HAVING NO RESPONSE OR A NEGATIVE RESPONSE AS male pattern baldness HAIRS DO

Do you know any work saying that it is possible the growth of healthy hairs without any androgens? I don't. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++YES, BOTH ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY SYNDROME AND THE SUCCESS OF TREATMENTS LIKE spironolactone, RU58841, AND APPARENTLY BASED ON A WOMEN'S ALOPECIA STUDY AS OF LATE, FLURIDIL ALSO SHOW HAIR GROWS BETTER WHEN RECEPTOR SITES ARE BLOCKED>. A COUPLE OF WOMEN IN THE FLURIDIL STUDY HAD 20% INCREASES IN HAIR DIAMETER IN LESS THAN A YEAR, BLOCKING THE ANDROGEN RECEPTORS.

I remember a study pointing out that even "privileged" hairs are prone to lost if the concentration of steroids are very high. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++THIS STUDY EXISTS ON PUBMED. IVE READ IT. THE THING YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER IS THAT ALL HAIR HAS ANDROGEN RECEPTORS, BUT WREATH HAIRS HAVE LESS OF THEM. ALSO, WREATH HAIR EXISTS IN AREAS OF THE SCALP THAT MAY VERY WELL HAVE LESS DHT PRESENT FOR WHATEVER REASON (SOME EXPERIMENTS SEEM TO POINT THAT WAY, ANYHOW). IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OLDER BALD MEN IN THEIR SIXTIES, SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES, YOU WILL SEE SMALL THIN HIPPOCRATIC WREATS ALSO. YET, THEIR BODY HAIR IS AS THICK AS CAN BE (LIKE MY GRANDFATHERS, WHOSE CHEST HAIR ALONE COULD COVER THE TOP OF HIS SCALP WITH LARGE, THICK, GREY FOLLICLES).


Underarm hair is present in both sexes (doesn't need androgens), pubic hair is present in females (must not need much), nose hair, eyelashes, eyebrows.............................................women have that too.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

Ive read extensively into body hair transplants, and have noted the doctors comments about them at hairsite for the past year or so.


Body hair gets longer in many cases, however a few guys dont seem to have luck with this. Body hair in a few cases gets a thicker diameter, but in most cases the size of the shafts is pretty much the same and it doesn't get as thick as head hair does. Body hair also usually retains a "wave" or kinkiness if it was wavy or kinky on the body. Its primary use is that of "filler" hair to "thicken up" transplants where "donor hair" is so precious.


There is a better blood supply (a more fertile field is how Ive seen Dr. Cole describe it when discussing body hair transplants) on the top of the head than on most parts of the body.


However, there are a few important differences that Docs encounter up there. Number one, you cant transplant body hairs as densley as scalp hairs. They wont grow. 30 hairs per square centimeter is the amount that not only gives the best yield, but also the best results. Cole did a study on this. IF you put 60 hairs per square centimeter up there, hardly ANY WILL GROW. I suggested their may be some signalling between body hairs that do not permit one another to both be in anagen if they are "too close" to one another, and Cole mentioned something like that might actually be a possibility since if all your body hair grew in anagen at the same time, or even 85% of the time like head hair, you'd look like an ape.

Only 20% of arm or leg hair is in anagen at any given time on average.
Only 30-35% of chest hair is.

You are actually much "hairier" than you ever see.


Cole, Woods (the BHT pioneer), Poswal, and Umar have all noted that putting body hair in "with" head hair transplants seems to "supercharge" the body hair however, and make it yield better and grow more luxuriantly. Perhaps the signalling given off by the head hair isn't restrictive to other body hairs.

There is a hormone in the scalp, some 3 alphahydroxy--somethinglongand ridiculous-whose name I forget, that one of the Doctor's claimed was probably responsible for the body hair's growing "better" on the head than it does on the body. However, none of the docs will tell you that body hair consistently equals head hair. However, as a man ages..................especially if he does not use DHT inhibitors, some of the body hair may very well have larger diameteres individually than body hairs. Still though, there is a problem of the small body hair follicular units. Body hair comes in one, seldom two, and "once-in-a-blue-moon" three hair units.

Head hair comes in two and three hair units primarily, but there are many four-hair units also. Cole has shown pictures of a five hair follicular unit and one SIX HAIR follicular unit (we didn't think these existed before). THis is why head hair can be so much thicker. These units grow in thicker than individual single hairs can.


Ive pointed out to Armando (who just ignores everything that invalidates his painfully wrong idea) that there is a "line" you can see on many men (especially caucasoids) where the wreath begins and the size of the follicular units goes up dramatically. On top of the head, you see one and two hair units. On the wreath, you see many two to four hair units as the rule and not the exception.

 

[S Foote.]

So, Stephen, nature is squanderer. Nature waste time and energy to develop system that are innecesary, ??

I don't think so.

Regarding CAIS, I don't think the existence of any person with COMPLETE androgen insensitivity to androgens. There is a lot of routes, have you seen the androgens tree?

By the way, I can be wrong.

Armando

But there is no evolved "system", that "needs" any kind of "direct" influence of androgens upon hair growth, or any relationship between hair growth and sebum production Armando!

Sebum production evolved to help waterproof the skin, and it's stuctures, like feathers or hair. Ducks for example have a preening gland that the animal spreads sebum over its feathers from. Without this sebum feathers would become waterlogged and the duck sinks!

But the lack of, or excess amounts of sebum can have no effect on either feather or hair production, by any kind of "useful" evolved mechanism.

The only "useful" hair growth adjustment mechanism in evolution, would be one that links hair production with the environmental temperature changes (winter/summer coat).

Such a link is where my own theory develops from.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

You dont seem to understand the meaning of the word "dominant" Bryan!

You have claimed many times that the androgen effect is directly "dominant", in controlling the growth rate of certain follicles. This is not a case of any outside influence, but the androgen influenced changes of gene expression in these follicles that controls their in-built ability to grow.

According to this, androgen related body hair growth should show "donor dominance", and retain it's growth rate "wherever" it is transplanted!

Yes. The key phrase here being androgen related body hair growth. But remember, other things influence hair growth, too, as Michael outlined for you.

The increased growth rate of androgen influenced body hair transplanted to the scalp, clearly cannot be reconciled with the old donor dominance notion!

Yes it can.

Scientists are now starting to recognise the problems with the old donor dominance notion, based on modern experiments.

There are no "problems" with the accepted idea of donor dominance that I'm aware of. Your problem is that you fail to understand that many other substances and hormones can affect hair growth, too, besides androgens. But donor dominance as it pertains to purely androgenic stimulation (or suppression) does indeed exist.

 

[S Foote.]

Michael.

Thanks for the elaboration on the results of body hair transplants.

My point here is simple.

According to the donor dominance idea pushed by Bryan and others, there should be "NO" growth changes whatsoever!

It was the apparent "no growth changes" observed in the early transplantation studies, that lead to the donor dominance idea in the first place!

Body hair is said to be androgen "dependant" by those like Bryan. The "no change in growth characteristics" used for years to claim donor dominance and the validity of the current theory, is refuted by modern BHT's simple!

The whole current theory needs to be reviewed with proper up to date experiments.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

You dont seem to understand the meaning of the word "dominant" Bryan!

You have claimed many times that the androgen effect is directly "dominant", in controlling the growth rate of certain follicles. This is not a case of any outside influence, but the androgen influenced changes of gene expression in these follicles that controls their in-built ability to grow.

According to this, androgen related body hair growth should show "donor dominance", and retain it's growth rate "wherever" it is transplanted!

Yes. The key phrase here being androgen related body hair growth. But remember, other things influence hair growth, too, as Michael outlined for you.

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

YOU claim in the link above that there are "NO" growth changes in alledged androgen "dependant" hair follicles when transplanted to other areas. You clearly say that it is this "VERY" no growth change observation that proves donor dominance!!

But modern BHT's clearly show there "IS" a significant growth change in alledged androgen dependant growth when transplanted!

So the whole original basis for your argument in the link i posted, has been soundly refuted!

No amount of "add on's" will detract people from your clear claims in that link Bryan! :wink:

So are you now going to do the decent thing, and retract your on the record claims about donor dominance that have been proven wrong? :wink:

By the way, you say quote:

"There are no "problems" with the accepted idea of donor dominance that I'm aware of."

Even the die hard transplantation experts are now questioning the old donor dominance idea's. Dr Limmer has refered to this right here on this site!

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/newsletter/article181.htm

Quote:

"Dr. Limmer: There are a number of research programs that are funded each year by the ISHRS. The individuals running those projects will be commenting on where they stand with their research, and what their tentative findings are. I can't say that I am completely familiar with the entire presentation schedule, but there is some new information in regard to whether or not our theories were correct about donor dominance. We've always believed that the recipient area where you plant the hair has very little or nothing to do with how the hair grows. There is some new information out of the Oriental research group that indicates more of an influence by the recipient area than we'd first thought. "

You really ought to keep up with modern research Bryan :wink:



S Foote

 

[hair today gone tomorrow]

Aramando wrote:

"Regarding CAIS, I don't think the existence of any person with COMPLETE androgen insensitivity to androgens. There is a lot of routes, have you seen the androgens tree? "


OH GREAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Now scientists not only dont understand Male Pattern Baldness, but have misdiagnosed Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, and all those people walking around with luxuriant heads of hair with AIS, and no chest, arm, leg, hand, finger, belly, or back hair actually do have some androgenic stimulation, but we have all just missed it.



I just love this too:

"So, Stephen, nature is squanderer. Nature waste time and energy to develop system that are innecesary, ?? "

Manatee's have remnants of feet, even though they spend their whole life in the water. They sure as hell dont need those feet.

Why are some people born with webbed feet or even webbed hands?


For that matter, why are some people born with a predisopostion to horrible acne or born blind? Nature sure as hell squandered a few opportunities with them didn't it?





Lets quote Armando and dissect everything that he purports:

"Probably all hairs needs androgens to be healthy, but the problem is how much androgens are present in pilosebaceous unit. +++++++++++GEE, I GUESS NOSE HAIR IN MEN AND WOMEN AND EAR HAIR IN MEN AND WOMEN NEED ANDROGENS HUH? EYE LASHES ANYONE? DO THEY NEED ANDROGENS TOO?

hair body use androgens to grow.
scalp "privileged" hairs are in contact with androgens.
scalp hairs prone to common hair loss are also in contact, years ago puberty, with androgens.

What could be the problem? +++++++++++++++++++++MALE PATTERN BALDNESS IS THE PROBLEM

maybe the amount of it. Body hairs are, probably, more resistent to high androgen concentration than scalp hairs. +++++++++++++++++++ BODY HAIRS ARE MORE THAN RESISTANT ARMANDO, THEY LIKE AND THRIVE WITH MORE ANDROGENS, THEY HAVE DIFFERENT GENETIC PROGRAMMING AND HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN EXPERIMENTS TO REACT POSITIVELY WITH ANDROGENIC STIMULI AS OPPOSED TO HAVING NO RESPONSE OR A NEGATIVE RESPONSE AS male pattern baldness HAIRS DO

Do you know any work saying that it is possible the growth of healthy hairs without any androgens? I don't. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++YES, BOTH ANDROGEN INSENSITIVITY SYNDROME AND THE SUCCESS OF TREATMENTS LIKE spironolactone, RU58841, AND APPARENTLY BASED ON A WOMEN'S ALOPECIA STUDY AS OF LATE, FLURIDIL ALSO SHOW HAIR GROWS BETTER WHEN RECEPTOR SITES ARE BLOCKED>. A COUPLE OF WOMEN IN THE FLURIDIL STUDY HAD 20% INCREASES IN HAIR DIAMETER IN LESS THAN A YEAR, BLOCKING THE ANDROGEN RECEPTORS.

I remember a study pointing out that even "privileged" hairs are prone to lost if the concentration of steroids are very high. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++THIS STUDY EXISTS ON PUBMED. IVE READ IT. THE THING YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER IS THAT ALL HAIR HAS ANDROGEN RECEPTORS, BUT WREATH HAIRS HAVE LESS OF THEM. ALSO, WREATH HAIR EXISTS IN AREAS OF THE SCALP THAT MAY VERY WELL HAVE LESS DHT PRESENT FOR WHATEVER REASON (SOME EXPERIMENTS SEEM TO POINT THAT WAY, ANYHOW). IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OLDER BALD MEN IN THEIR SIXTIES, SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES, YOU WILL SEE SMALL THIN HIPPOCRATIC WREATS ALSO. YET, THEIR BODY HAIR IS AS THICK AS CAN BE (LIKE MY GRANDFATHERS, WHOSE CHEST HAIR ALONE COULD COVER THE TOP OF HIS SCALP WITH LARGE, THICK, GREY FOLLICLES).


Underarm hair is present in both sexes (doesn't need androgens), pubic hair is present in females (must not need much), nose hair, eyelashes, eyebrows.............................................women have that too.

haha...Ive never seen anyone get owned so bad....Armando should just delete his account here....

 

[Bryan]

NO Bryan, that's not what you are on the record as claiming before!

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

YOU claim in the link above that there are "NO" growth changes in alledged androgen "dependant" hair follicles when transplanted to other areas. You clearly say that it is this "VERY" no growth change observation that proves donor dominance!!

Correct. The follicles continued to go bald at what appeared to be the same rate, even when transplanted to the subject's arm. That demonstrates that the androgenic response of a hair follicle is donor dominant.

But modern BHT's clearly show there "IS" a significant growth change in alledged androgen dependant growth when transplanted!

Listen carefully and try to understand what I'm telling you: those specific changes aren't androgen dependent, they are due to other factors that influence hair growth.

By the way, you say quote:

"There are no "problems" with the accepted idea of donor dominance that I'm aware of."

Even the die hard transplantation experts are now questioning the old donor dominance idea's. Dr Limmer has refered to this right here on this site!

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/newsletter/article181.htm

Quote:

"Dr. Limmer: There are a number of research programs that are funded each year by the ISHRS. The individuals running those projects will be commenting on where they stand with their research, and what their tentative findings are. I can't say that I am completely familiar with the entire presentation schedule, but there is some new information in regard to whether or not our theories were correct about donor dominance. We've always believed that the recipient area where you plant the hair has very little or nothing to do with how the hair grows. There is some new information out of the Oriental research group that indicates more of an influence by the recipient area than we'd first thought. "

I think there's been some confusion about that even in the medical profession, too (doctor's aren't perfect). I think many have been assuming that "donor dominance" extends to ALL aspects of hair growth, when that apparently isn't the case. I've previously explained to you that even Orentreich in his original 1959 study of hair transplantation experiments clearly stated that not ALL hair problems show donor dominance, but common male pattern baldness _does_ demonstrate it. How many times do I have to explain this to you? :roll:

 

[michael barry]

This is Dr. John Cole on BHT's. He pretty much outlines everything in about a single page on the best usage of BHT (refill the donor area, thus saving head hair for the front):





"Dr. Umar,

I’ve been involved in hair restoration surgery for over 15 years. Time has taught me one thing. Physicians have different opinions and different solutions.

Body hair in general does take on characteristics of the scalp. It typically will grow twice as long on the scalp as it did on the body. It’s growth rate increases when moved to the scalp.

Shock loss can occur from slits and it is has nothing to do with damage to the follicles. It is most likely a reaction to inflammation. It is more likely with dense packing than with lower densities.

The primary cause for poor growth with body hair is density. You should not be doing sessions exceeding 30 grafts per sq cm. This means 4000 to 6000 grafts in a session is the largest procedure you should be doing.

Extraction holes work wonderfully with body hair in FIT farming. They actually work better than slits, though slits work fine too. For that matter needle sites work well too. FIT farming not only re-populates the donor with hair (granted it is not the same quality as head hair), it also repopulates the area with melanin. Removal of head hair reduces the need for blood flow to the hair. This decrease in blood flow eliminates skin color. FIT farming adds hair so it also creates a requirement for blood flow to the hair and this too helps to create skin color.

Extraction sites appear larger than really are the when the graft is immediately removed. The extraction sites contract the first night and provide a very snug fit around fit farm hair. I do not see patients loose the fit farm hair at night when they sleep.

There is still quite a bit we need to learn about body hair transplanted to the scalp and to the donor area. I’m quite certain that ideas and techniques will change over time.

The primary problem with FUE, FIT, FUSE, etc., is that when you remove an intact follicular unit, you leave a gap. It is much better to put something in its place. In my experience FIT farmed donor areas look better than those that were not FIT farmed. Only God is perfect however. If I were looking for he Rolls Royce of procedures today, I would not look for a strip. I would look for a proven, successful means of individual follicular group removal. If you want to take it a step further, and you do not mind performing a similar procedure on your body hair, Fit Farming is good idea. Patients should be left to ponder their options and make their own decisions. Of course body hair is not nearly as good as scalp hair, but the supply of scalp hair is unfortunately quite limited. Therefore, we either have to look for ways to squeeze a little more scalp hair out of the donor area, or we have to use hair that is not as good quality wise (body hair).

I’ve been monitoring the rate of hair growth of body hair moved to the scalp and comparing it to the rate of growth on the body.

We know that the length increases to about twice its length original length when moved to scalp, if the hair grows. The questions proposed from this are whether the rate of growth increases or whether the duration of growth increases. I cannot yet comment about the latter, but our studies to date show that leg hair on the leg has a rate of growth of 0.3 mm per day, while leg hair on the scalp increases to 0.35mm per day. According to olsen, body and beard grow at 0.27 mm per day, while scalp hair grows at 0.37 to 0 .44 mm per day."

 

[S Foote.]

NO Bryan, that's not what you are on the record as claiming before!

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

YOU claim in the link above that there are "NO" growth changes in alledged androgen "dependant" hair follicles when transplanted to other areas. You clearly say that it is this "VERY" no growth change observation that proves donor dominance!!

Correct. The follicles continued to go bald at what appeared to be the same rate, even when transplanted to the subject's arm. That demonstrates that the androgenic response of a hair follicle is donor dominant.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/newsletter/article181.htm[/url]

Quote:

"Dr. Limmer: There are a number of research programs that are funded each year by the ISHRS. The individuals running those projects will be commenting on where they stand with their research, and what their tentative findings are. I can't say that I am completely familiar with the entire presentation schedule, but there is some new information in regard to whether or not our theories were correct about donor dominance. We've always believed that the recipient area where you plant the hair has very little or nothing to do with how the hair grows. There is some new information out of the Oriental research group that indicates more of an influence by the recipient area than we'd first thought. "

I think there's been some confusion about that even in the medical profession, too (doctor's aren't perfect). I think many have been assuming that "donor dominance" extends to ALL aspects of hair growth, when that apparently isn't the case. I've previously explained to you that even Orentreich in his original 1959 study of hair transplantation experiments clearly stated that not ALL hair problems show donor dominance, but common male pattern baldness _does_ demonstrate it. How many times do I have to explain this to you? :roll:[/quote:07848]

You know, this kind of blatent dishonesty on the part of some self elected "experts" on these forums, is the reason why i don't post much anymore.

There is just no point in trying to further knowledge in male pattern baldness, if there is no basic honesty in the points debated. :roll: :roll: :roll:

Listen carefully and try to understand what I'm telling you: those specific changes aren't androgen dependent, they are due to other factors that influence hair growth.

Your "WHOLE" argument in your original post that i linked, was that the so called androgen "dependant" follicles, were in effect "IMMUNE" from any other external influence, so demonstrating so called "donor dominance"!!!! Why? because of the "no change in growth" they appeared to demonstrate :freaked2: :freaked2:

Now you try a complete U turn, and expect everyone to just go along with you :roll:

You insult the intelligence of the people on these forums with your self promoting arogant distortions of the scientific evidence.

Your on the record statements on this issue are a matter of record, end of story!

I suppose you will even try to dismiss this study that has been posted before, as another example of "scientists sometimes get it wrong"

http://www.dhiglobal.com/images/pdf/bht.pdf


In even trying to defend this issue in the light of your previous statements, you are just showing everyone here how dishonest you are :roll:

You will always try to twist the truth to suit your own ends Bryan. Thats why your kind of "scientific expertise" can only exist on internet forums. 8)

S Foote.

 

[Armando Jose]

Hair without sebum is brittle, dull, not shimmering and easly broken.

If persons with CAIS have a luxuriant scalp hair, probably they have sebum. It could be interesting make a experiment to demostrate it.

Armando