A reverse DHT question for Bryan (or anyone with konwledge).

[Guest]

If hair on body grows well on DHT and you block DHT - are you risking a reverse monk hairstyle by blocking it?

 

[Bryan]

Fortunately, hair on the sides and the back seems to be neutral to DHT. It is neither harmed nor helped by androgens, so you don't need to worry about a "reverse monk" effect!

Bryan

 

[Guest]

Thanks o mighty one!

 

[outgrowth]

Really? Is there any study proving that they're stronger in the back? I always thought that there was simply no DHT in those areas, that's why we still have hair there. With time, DHT would 'migrate' to those areas, and you start losing hair there.

 

[Matgallis]

You have DHT in your blood. Where there is blood there is DHT floating around. The missing link is hairloss is why only loss on top. Too many guesses and no answers

 

[Guest]

It´s all about observation. Since I started on finasteride I have no backhair and my cheast hair is growing extremely slow - DHT out of system and so is hair.

This along with what a dr told me at the world famous new hair clinic in sweden made me think about a reverse monk hairstyle - freaky sh*t!

 

[not me!]

The unknown about DHT is how it specifically binds with the receptors of the hair follicle cells at the hairline, top, and crown. This is how Finasteride works ( in a nutshell). It "inhibits" DHT by actually stopping the binding to the receptor sites.

Why the hair on the back and sides is relatively unaffected is still a virtual unknown. Why DHT seems to make body hair more exhuberent is also unknown.

 

[Deaner]

Is it just me, or does this thread reak of misinformation?

 

[drinkrum]

What the hell is a "reverse monk" hairstyle? Are you talking about back hair as in the hair on your back or are you referring the hair on the back of your head? Am I the only one that can't make any sense out of this thread?

D.

 

[jimmystanley]

think of krusty the clown with out the two cones sticking out of the sides of his head.

 

[Bryan]

Really? Is there any study proving that they're stronger in the back?

What do you mean, "stronger in the back"?

I always thought that there was simply no DHT in those areas, that's why we still have hair there.

ALL hair follicles contain androgen receptors, and I'm fairly sure that all hair follicles contain 5a-reductase (that's the enzyme that converts testosterone to DHT).

I hope you're aware that there's a paradoxical effect of androgens on scalp hair versus body hair: androgens STIMULATE the growth of most body hair, but INHIBIT the growth of most scalp hair. The actual biochemical reasons for that are not yet clear, but it's one of the puzzles that doctors and scientists are working on.

But doesn't it seem unlikely to you that there would be a sharp line of demarcation between "body hair" and "scalp hair"? In other words, can you draw a sharp line along the side of your scalp where every hair follicle north of that line is susceptible to balding, and every hair follicle south of that line can never go bald? Nope, it's not that simple, not that black-and-white. There are indeterminate hair follicles between those two extremes that are fairly NEUTRAL to androgens. They are neither stimulated nor damaged by androgens. Hair follicles on the sides of the head tend to fit into that category; that's why that's the usual source of hair for transplantation to the balding top part of the scalp.

Bryan