Why Is This Study Ignored In The Hair Loss Community?

[Timii]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/256511

I then had occasion to remove the brains of about 80 cadavers for separate use in the neurology classes and incidentally noted a seemingly obvious relation between the blood (vessel) supply to the scalp and the quantity of hair. Baldness occurred in persons in whom calcification of the skull bones apparently had not only firmly knitted the cranial sutures but also closed or narrowed various small foramens through which blood vessels pass

You can't really believe in the 'follicles are just genetically sensible to dht bro' theory after reading something like this. If it was true everybody would have a thick head of hair while on dutasteride, instead plenty of people continue losing hair. The question is what causes this calcification of the skull to occur. What is the exact mechanism behind balding?

 

[INT]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/256511



You can't really believe in the 'follicles are just genetically sensible to dht bro' theory after reading something like this. If it was true everybody would have a thick head of hair while on dutasteride, instead plenty of people continue losing hair. The question is what causes this calcification of the skull to occur. What is the exact mechanism behind balding?

Because it is way more likely that baldness leads to calcification instead of the other way around. Also, it a study from the bloody 40's.

 

[Timii]

Because it is way more likely that baldness leads to calcification instead of the other way around.

Yeah, but it's proven that 'larger' blood vessels help out with growing hair like minoxidil does. So, you would at least except that interfering with these blood vessels is going to worsen hair loss.

 

[INT]

Yeah, but it's proven that 'larger' blood vessels help out with growing hair like minoxidil does. So, you would at least except that interfering with these blood vessels is going to worsen hair loss.

Sure, but that is something that does not exclude the 'conventional' theory of male pattern baldness.

 

[Throwaway94]

DHT binding to androgen receptors in hair follicles is one of the first steps in a complicated cascade of reactions that happen in a balding scalp that is genetically programmed to do so.

The average dead person is pretty old and the bald ones will have been so for many years. The lack of blood vessels is far more likely to be the end result in scalp which no longer has active follicles rather than a cause.

Yeah, but it's proven that 'larger' blood vessels help out with growing hair like minoxidil does. So, you would at least except that interfering with these blood vessels is going to worsen hair loss.

First of all, the exact way minoxidil works still hasn't been established. Secondly, just because improving blood flow might help slow hair loss and reducing blood flow may worsen it doesn't mean that it's a root cause in genetic hair loss. Dutasteride does drastically slow hair loss in the majority of people who stay on it.

 

[itsjustsimon]

If it was true everybody would have a thick head of hair while on dutasteride, instead plenty of people continue losing hair.

Lol

Me still believes follicles are sensitive to DHT bro

 

[Timii]

DHT binding to androgen receptors in hair follicles is one of the first steps in a complicated cascade of reactions that happen in a balding scalp that is genetically programmed to do so.

The average dead person is pretty old and the bald ones will have been so for many years. The lack of blood vessels is far more likely to be the end result in scalp which no longer has active follicles rather than a cause.



First of all, the exact way minoxidil works still hasn't been established. Secondly, just because improving blood flow might help slow hair loss and reducing blood flow may worsen it doesn't mean that it's a root cause in genetic hair loss. Dutasteride does drastically slow hair loss in the majority of people who stay on it.

So you are telling me that blood circulation to the follicles has nothing to do with hair loss? That' s not even a valid argument. The way I see it is that even if blood circulation was not the root cause it would still have a great impact on hair health.

 

[BetaBoy]

So you are telling me that blood circulation to the follicles has nothing to do with hair loss? That' s not even a valid argument. The way I see it is that even if blood circulation was not the root cause it would still have a great impact on hair health.

Transplanting miniaturised hairs to a part of the body with higher blood circulation has no effect on the rate of miniaturisation

 

[Throwaway94]

So you are telling me that blood circulation to the follicles has nothing to do with hair loss? That' s not even a valid argument. The way I see it is that even if blood circulation was not the root cause it would still have a great impact on hair health.

What are you talking about, I never said it had nothing to do with hair loss. It's just that restricted blood flow comes later in the process than androgenic activity and is most likely a result. Benefits from increased blood flow would be peripheral.

 

[Timii]

Transplanting miniaturised hairs to a part of the body with higher blood circulation has no effect on the rate of miniaturisation

Other studies tell otherwise, though. I would like too see the source for this claim.

 

[Timii]

What are you talking about, I never said it had nothing to do with hair loss. It's just that restricted blood flow comes later in the process than androgenic activity and is most likely a result. Benefits from increased blood flow would be peripheral.

It might be a result but how is DHT then supposed to calcify the skull? Why would the body cut off a valid supply route for the follicles?

 

[INT]

It might be a result but how is DHT then supposed to calcify the skull? Why would the body cut off a valid supply route for the follicles?

Our body is not some rational being. Many things happen for no good reason. Still, if you are looking at reasons why the skull gets calcified, maybe the calcification is a reaction of the body to 'fill-up' the areas where once was hair in order to avoid external things to penetrate our skin. That is 100% guesswork however.

 

[Throwaway94]

It might be a result but how is DHT then supposed to calcify the skull? Why would the body cut off a valid supply route for the follicles?

DHT doesn't calcify the skull. It binds to androgen receptors. This changes gene expression from the dermal papilla cells and then God knows how many other signaling pathways are involved in miniaturising the follicle (WNT, TGF etc), and ultimately you end up with hairless, fibrotic scalp tissue with less vasculature. Plenty of gaps to be filled in regarding the crosstalk between these pathways and it's nowhere near as straightforward as you're hoping.

 

[Timii]

DHT doesn't calcify the skull. It binds to androgen receptors. This changes gene expression from the dermal papilla cells and then God knows how many other signaling pathways are involved in miniaturising the follicle (WNT, TGF etc), and ultimately you end up with hairless, fibrotic scalp tissue with less vasculature. Plenty of gaps to be filled in regarding the crosstalk between these
pathways and it's nowhere near as straightforward as you're hoping.

It might not be as straighforward and simple as I hope but the current established theory doesn't explain many things. For example, why does hair loss increase with age despite DHT decreasing?

 

[Timii]

Our body is not some rational being. Many things happen for no good reason. Still, if you are looking at reasons why the skull gets calcified, maybe the calcification is a reaction of the body to 'fill-up' the areas where once was hair in order to avoid external things to penetrate our skin. That is 100% guesswork however.

Actually, calcification is a byproduct of inflammation. The body is actually rational, it doesn't make random decisions. The body locally triggers inflammation if something is off. If hair loss was 100% genetically predisposed the body wouldn't be alerted about it.

 

[Throwaway94]

It might not be as straighforward and simple as I hope but the current established theory doesn't explain many things. For example, why does hair loss increase with age despite DHT decreasing?

Because hair loss is progressive and testosterone and DHT are always there even if at lower levels in old age.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/256511



You can't really believe in the 'follicles are just genetically sensible to dht bro' theory after reading something like this. If it was true everybody would have a thick head of hair while on dutasteride, instead plenty of people continue losing hair. The question is what causes this calcification of the skull to occur. What is the exact mechanism behind balding?

Did he actually quantify this claim, because from what I reading it sounds like anecdotal evidence instead of a proper study.

 

[Timii]

Because hair loss is progressive and testosterone and DHT are always there even if at lower levels in old age.

I mean why is the incidence of baldness higher the older you are? Something all of the sudden decides that at 40 years of age the time has come for DHT to destroy the follicles. Why not earlier when there was even higher DHT?

 

[Throwaway94]

Actually, calcification is a byproduct of inflammation. The body is actually rational, it doesn't make random decisions. The body locally triggers inflammation if something is off. If hair loss was 100% genetically predisposed the body wouldn't be alerted about it.

The body has evolved responses to damage yes. But they're by no means perfect, just enough for the species to survive in its situation. If there's fibrosis and calcification, it's due to the relevant pathways being triggered somehow and nothing more.

Why would the body not be alerted about a genetic predisposition? That's a ridiculous line of thought. If someone has cystic fibrosis - which is 100% genetically determined by a single gene - by your logic the body wouldn't cough up the extra mucous that's produced.

 

[Throwaway94]

I mean why is the incidence of baldness higher the older you are? Something all of the sudden decides that at 40 years of age the time has come for DHT to destroy the follicles. Why not earlier when there was even higher DHT?

Again, incidence increases with age because it's progressive. You're asking two separate questions.

What you're asking about the age where some people start to notice it and the aggressiveness are genetically determined by hundreds of genes and we'll never have a clear picture of how they all work together. People with baldness don't have any more or less DHT than people who don't.