Would raising T levels in older guys cure their hair loss?

[Hoppi]

I just read that, like in my sig, male pattern baldness in older guys is caused by too little T and too much E, so the body makes loooaaads of DHT to compensate. This makes pretty good sense. Plus, insulin resistance steadily increases apparently, so that can't be good. And oxidation reactions apparently increase.

So.

If you stimulated more testosterone somehow or just increased it, took lipoic acid to calm your insulin resistance and act as a good antioxidant......... would you be cured? I mean maybe shoving lignans in there too wouldn't hurt as that would level your T and E.

What do you think?

Peace!

Hoppiiii!


oh, sorry edit, this is of course still probably best used in conjunction with a good diet, I believe that can help WHATEVER your age

 

[Hoppi]

Some more looking into this I feel is essential because this could be the REASON why older guys bald. The same reason (roughly) why many guys with metabolic syndrome bald. I'll research it more sometime but the degree of logic is just astounding


This kinda stuff - http://www.totalityofbeing.com/Frameles ... e_hair.htm


Ready for a possible life without Propecia? !!!


Peace

 

[JDS 17]

The study Dr Wong refers to states that the increase in testorsterone did not result in an increase in estrogen. We know this to be untrue as bodybuilders who supplement with testosterone raise their estrogen levels and have to use AI/SERMS to avoid estrogenic effects. I would therefore have to conclude that everything else he says is nonsense.

It would be great if this were the case though.

 

[Bryan]

I just read that, like in my sig, male pattern baldness in older guys is caused by too little T and too much E, so the body makes loooaaads of DHT to compensate. This makes pretty good sense.

Your mind has been poisoned by reading too many of misterE's posts!

Consider carefully the following question: why does castration (which reduces testosterone by around 90% to 95%) stop balding in its tracks?

 

[Hoppi]

I just read that, like in my sig, male pattern baldness in older guys is caused by too little T and too much E, so the body makes loooaaads of DHT to compensate. This makes pretty good sense.

Your mind has been poisoned by reading too many of misterE's posts!

Consider carefully the following question: why does castration (which reduces testosterone by around 90% to 95%) stop balding in its tracks?

lol I didn't get ANY of this from misterE

People need to stop thinking that just because I believe it's hormones that I got it from misterE - I believe this stuff because it's what the science seems to SUGGEST.

And that's an interesting point about castration, but I'm sure it introduces other factors. The only real test would be a few unbiased studies regarding the DHT, T and E levels in older men.

You will almost definitely find their T drops and their E lifts, but as for DHT I can only go with logic in saying it lifts. Otherwise they should be gaining hair at an alarming pace lol

The only other explanation is a gene "activating", but why does this feel like such an amazing cop out?

 

[Bryan]

This kinda stuff - http://www.totalityofbeing.com/Frameles ... e_hair.htm

The guy who wrote that is a total QUACK. Look at this bullshit he writes in the very first paragraph (it only gets worse after that):

"And, sorry to tell you guys, DHT is not really testosterone despite its name and being classified as an androgen (male hormone)! In vivo (in live people not in a test tube or on paper), DHT is mostly made from estrogen."

You should get your medical information from doctors and scientists, not quacks like that who post garbage on the Internet.

 

[Hoppi]

Is it the prostate? Is that why older men have prostate problems? And is that why finasteride works on both the prostate AND hair loss? Is it because their prostate gets bigger to make more DHT to compensate for low T / high E, and this causes hair loss? O.O


http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/prosta ... auses.html


I'm right aren't I?

 

[Bryan]

lol I didn't get ANY of this from misterE

It sure SOUNDS misterE-esque!

People need to stop thinking that just because I believe it's hormones that I got it from misterE - I believe this stuff because it's what the science seems to SUGGEST.

Science doesn't suggest that the body makes "loooaaads of DHT" because of too little T and too much E. That has "misterE" written all over it, and it's WRONG.

And that's an interesting point about castration, but I'm sure it introduces other factors. The only real test would be a few unbiased studies regarding the DHT, T and E levels in older men.

Huh?? Why would THAT be a "real test"? What exactly do you think it would be testing?

You will almost definitely find their T drops and their E lifts, but as for DHT I can only go with logic in saying it lifts. Otherwise they should be gaining hair at an alarming pace lol

MisterE and others have already asked many times why balding gets worse as we get older, and I've always answered it simply and truthfully: scalp hair follicles probably get more and more sensitive to androgens with age, not to mention the fact that such damage is probably cumulative.

You can't just point to older men, to make the ridiculous claim that estrogen and a lack of androgens causes balding. That's simply preposterous. That's something that only QUACKS on the Internet, and ill-informed posters on hairloss forums (like misterE) say.

The only other explanation is a gene "activating", but why does this feel like such an amazing cop out?

I don't think it's a "cop out" at all. Not the least little bit.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

One of the most primary rules of science is that correlation does not equal causation. For instance, I have also noticed that the more candles a person has on their birthday cake, the more balding they are likely to be showing. Does this mean that if we start putting less candles on people's cakes that they're balding will subside? Changes in hormone levels during aging can be caused by a number of different processes and as such can't really be defined as the actual culprit unless you somehow managed to make sure that NO other change in a person's physiology occurred while they were aging.

From what I can tell the general consensus on testosterone therapy in men with "naturally" lowered testosterone from aging is that it has yet to show a beneficial outcome. Since apparently about 30% of elderly men have their testosterone drop off faster than others that population could probably see some slight benefit with testosterone therapy.

 

[Hoppi]

Well, there may be a bit of chicken and egg here. Apparently, it could be increasing estrogen that enlarges the prostate. Estrogen apparently also decreases T, and is formed as part of what makes T in a male. I think casting this theory aside is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard! lol

Larger prostate = more DHT?


And for the record this has 0 to do with misterE. I came to these conclusions ON MY OWN based on research, with a little bit of help from Brian Simonis

You know what the scary thing is? It's probably all completely correct

 

[Bryan]

From what I can tell the general consensus on testosterone therapy in men with "naturally" lowered testosterone from aging is that it has yet to show a beneficial outcome. Since apparently about 30% of elderly men have their testosterone drop off faster than others that population could probably see some slight benefit with testosterone therapy.

Do I assume correctly that you mean a slight benefit to overall health, and NOT a slight benefit to hair?

 

[Bryan]

Well, there may be a bit of chicken and egg here. Apparently, it could be increasing estrogen that enlarges the prostate. Estrogen apparently also decreases T, and is formed as part of what makes T in a male. I think casting this theory aside is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard! lol

I'm not sure what you mean. Casting WHAT theory aside is the most ludicrous thing you've ever heard? That increasing estrogen enlarges the prostate?

Larger prostate = more DHT?

Did you mean to put it the other way around?

More DHT = larger prostate

 

[Hoppi]

Larger prostate = more DHT?

Did you mean to put it the other way around?

More DHT = larger prostate

No. More estrogen enlarges the prostate. misterE was therefore CORRECT about estrogen being bad for hair but I don't believe he was right for the reasons he thought he was right (it attaching to SHBG and damaging follicles, I don't believe it works like that - SHBG I believe aids in removal of sex hormones from the body, just like mainstream science says, but I'm sure you're going to find a reason to deny that too)! Estrogen ENLARGES the prostate, and therefore causes hair loss in MEN!

"Cells taken from the prostates of men that have BPH have been shown to grow in response to high estradiol levels with low androgens present. Estrogens may render cells more susceptible to the action of DHT."

That's off Wikipedia again but I'll keep searching!

The only other possibility is the prostate is somehow reacting to LOW testosterone, but either way the outcome is the same. It gets bigger, and makes more DHT.


Therefore if this is true, the cure for hair loss in older men (or at least the intelligent cure) is not Propecia. It is once again in hormonal balance. Improving insulin sensitivity, better diet, and possibly improving testes health or simply lowering levels of estrogen. This will probably increase levels of testosterone, shrink the prostate to normal size again, and stop hair loss and everything else! lol

 

[dpdr]

Larger prostate = more DHT?

Did you mean to put it the other way around?

More DHT = larger prostate

No. More estrogen enlarges the prostate. misterE was therefore CORRECT about estrogen being bad for hair but I don't believe he was right for the reasons he thought he was right (it attaching to SHBG and damaging follicles, I don't believe it works like that - SHBG I believe aids in removal of sex hormones from the body, just like mainstream science says, but I'm sure you're going to find a reason to deny that too)! Estrogen ENLARGES the prostate, and therefore causes hair loss in MEN!

"Cells taken from the prostates of men that have BPH have been shown to grow in response to high estradiol levels with low androgens present. Estrogens may render cells more susceptible to the action of DHT."

That's off Wikipedia again but I'll keep searching!

The only other possibility is the prostate is somehow reacting to LOW testosterone, but either way the outcome is the same. It gets bigger, and makes more DHT.


Therefore if this is true, the cure for hair loss in older men (or at least the intelligent cure) is not Propecia. It is once again in hormonal balance. Improving insulin sensitivity, better diet, and possibly improving testes health or simply lowering levels of estrogen. This will probably increase levels of testosterone, shrink the prostate to normal size again, and stop hair loss and everything else! lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_Cancer

 

[Bryan]

Did you mean to put it the other way around?

More DHT = larger prostate

No. More estrogen enlarges the prostate.

You don't think DHT enlarges the prostate?

Estrogen ENLARGES the prostate, and therefore causes hair loss in MEN!

You think serum DHT damages hair follicles?

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

From what I can tell the general consensus on testosterone therapy in men with "naturally" lowered testosterone from aging is that it has yet to show a beneficial outcome. Since apparently about 30% of elderly men have their testosterone drop off faster than others that population could probably see some slight benefit with testosterone therapy.

Do I assume correctly that you mean a slight benefit to overall health, and NOT a slight benefit to hair?

Ah, yes. Awkward wording on my part. Most of the slight benefits are mainly for things like bone density/muscle mass/stabilized metabolism and cognitive functioning. Even then there are additional risks with even doctor prescribed testosterone therapy.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_Cancer

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/2/147

Article showing that those diagnosed with diabetes had a reduced risk of prostate cancer but only after they had been diagnosed for about 4 years. In the 3 years immediately following diagnosis the men's risk of prostate cancer was actually increased. One way of looking at it (in a not-completely scientific way) was that until the men got their insulin swings under control they were at a greater risk than the general population but after they (theoretically, since they do not mention which men actually kept with a proper diabetes diet treatment) got their insulin issues under control and their body adapted then they had a lower risk than the general population.

 

[Hoppi]

You don't think DHT enlarges the prostate?

Probably not, coz it makes it. That's not the point anyway though...

You think serum DHT damages hair follicles?

Yes.

 

[Bryan]

You don't think DHT enlarges the prostate?

Probably not, coz it makes it.

I don't understand what you mean.

That's not the point anyway though...

What IS your point, then?

By the way, are you familiar with that study I've cited for misterE several times that found that giving older men an aromatase inhibitor (to reduce their estrogen) had no effect at all on their BPH? The most likely reason that experiment failed is that even though it did reduce their estrogen, as a consequence it also raised the men's androgen production, including DHT.

You think serum DHT damages hair follicles?

Yes.

Not me. I think it's a pretty silly way to argue in support of the idea that estrogen is bad for hair.

 

[Hoppi]

You don't think DHT enlarges the prostate?

Probably not, coz it makes it.

I don't understand what you mean.

That's not the point anyway though...

What IS your point, then?

By the way, are you familiar with that study I've cited for misterE several times that found that giving older men an aromatase inhibitor (to reduce their estrogen) had no effect at all on their BPH? The most likely reason that experiment failed is that even though it did reduce their estrogen, as a consequence it also raised the men's androgen production, including DHT.

You think serum DHT damages hair follicles?

Yes.

Not me. I think it's a pretty silly way to argue in support of the idea that estrogen is bad for hair.

I didn't say that. I said estrogen-triggered prostate production of DHT is bad for hair.

That's my point.

Now that really is interesting about inhibiting estrogen not helping... it's quite confusing as apparently estrogen inhibits T production. This suggests that if you LOWER estrogen, you will lift testosterone a little (although you're probably still not getting to the root of the problem, which is most likely a decreased efficiency of T production in the testes). It is also known that the prostate grows as men get older. It would therefore probably be releasing more DHT into the blood.

There are simply so many factors here. SOMETHING is triggering the prostate to enlarge and produce more DHT. That is the part that matters. We can dance around the specifics all night but the point is that when that happens, it causes hair loss.

It just makes logical sense to assume it's estrogen. My point is that maybe there are far more canny ways to solve this problem then just inhibiting 5ar AGAIN. Why keep attacking the very edge of the problem when there is a chance of solving it at source?

Male pattern hair loss is usually NOT an isolated incident. Unless your hormones make you particularly susceptible, it usually goes hand in hand with other hormone-triggered phenomena in the body, and only by isolating the root cause are we ever going to treat it in a healthy way, or stand a chance of actually curing someone