Article: male pattern baldness Triggered by Sebum Flow

[furtbr]

@Armando Jose
I find your sebum theory interesting.

I do have a potential addition to it:

Have you noticed that hairloss happens 90% of the times on the follicles that are on "pointing up" position? Follicles that are pointing upwards, so it has a particular relation to gravity.

My take on it is that the sebum, due to heat, does liquify often (turns into oil). In the "side pointing" follicles and the "down pointing" follicles the liquified sebum has place to drain, while on the "pointing up" follicles the liquified sebum (oil) is more prone to clogging the follicle, leaving them malnourished.

 

[d3nt3dsh0v3l]

@Armando Jose
I find your sebum theory interesting.

I do have a potential addition to it:

Have you noticed that hairloss happens 90% of the times on the follicles that are on "pointing up" position? Follicles that are pointing upwards, so it has a particular relation to gravity.

My take on it is that the sebum, due to heat, does liquify often (turns into oil). In the "side pointing" follicles and the "down pointing" follicles the liquified sebum has place to drain, while on the "pointing up" follicles the liquified sebum (oil) is more prone to clogging the follicle, leaving them malnourished.

My friend, viscous (the fluid's viscosity) and capillary forces (surface tension) are much more important than the gravitational force at the micron scale; gravity is negligible. How can a drop of water hang by the tip of a leaf, yet a gallon of water cannot do the same?

The relevant physics at play changes by length and time scales. Your intuition betrays you because you are used to interacting with the world on the "middle" scale - lengths of meters, time scales of seconds, and so on. Our initial experience-based intuition of the world may say that a water strider should not be able to glide on the water's surface, but sink. As another example, one can note that a model remote control airplane does not behave the way that a real airplane does; the physical properties of the medium - air - would be similar, but the velocity, length, and time scales of the toy craft are not.

There is a way however to model a real airplane's behavior with a miniature one. So long as one is mindful as to how the performance of the model will scale with that of the real plane. This is the concept of similitude.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similitude_(model)

At the micron scale, fluid will wick into every orifice without much of a care as to the orifice's orientation; gravity is not as important as viscosity or surface tension. A thin enough coat of paint will not slide down the wall despite the wall being vertical.

 

[furtbr]

Ok, @d3nt3dsh0v3l, I do understand you, but I don't think that it disproves the theory I stated.

The thing is that the scale is not THAT micro. Also, time adds up with these things.

If you put oil onto, let's say, a spoon, and put it in a vertical position so to let the oil drop. I'm not arguing that at the end of the day ALL the oil will drop out of the spoon. There will be some oil left at the end of the day, but much lesser than if the spoon was in a horizontal position. The same thing can happen on our scalp.

 

[Armando Jose]

@Armando Jose
I find your sebum theory interesting.

I do have a potential addition to it:

Have you noticed that hairloss happens 90% of the times on the follicles that are on "pointing up" position? Follicles that are pointing upwards, so it has a particular relation to gravity.

My take on it is that the sebum, due to heat, does liquify often (turns into oil). In the "side pointing" follicles and the "down pointing" follicles the liquified sebum has place to drain, while on the "pointing up" follicles the liquified sebum (oil) is more prone to clogging the follicle, leaving them malnourished.

Exactly, I welcome that you are interested in my theory.
Your point of view in relation to the direction of the hair is very good. The fact that they are oriented upwards implies an additional detail, they are more "alone". In the case of alopecia in women it is observed that the perms cause that the hair is isolated, by what is more complicated the one that the sebum is eliminated of natural form. the same reason occurs in the crown area, the hairs are more isolated because it changes the direction and orientation of the hair.

 

[Armando Jose]

My friend, viscous (the fluid's viscosity) and capillary forces (surface tension) are much more important than the gravitational force at the micron scale; gravity is negligible. How can a drop of water hang by the tip of a leaf, yet a gallon of water cannot do the same?

The relevant physics at play changes by length and time scales. Your intuition betrays you because you are used to interacting with the world on the "middle" scale - lengths of meters, time scales of seconds, and so on. Our initial experience-based intuition of the world may say that a water strider should not be able to glide on the water's surface, but sink. As another example, one can note that a model remote control airplane does not behave the way that a real airplane does; the physical properties of the medium - air - would be similar, but the velocity, length, and time scales of the toy craft are not.

There is a way however to model a real airplane's behavior with a miniature one. So long as one is mindful as to how the performance of the model will scale with that of the real plane. This is the concept of similitude.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Similitude_(model)

At the micron scale, fluid will wick into every orifice without much of a care as to the orifice's orientation; gravity is not as important as viscosity or surface tension. A thin enough coat of paint will not slide down the wall despite the wall being vertical.

Your input is also interesting, but the main problem is not the orientation but the "loniless" of the hair. The hair in the front line are more susceptible to common hair loss due they are the front line and only have neighbourgs hair behind them.

othe interesting factor is the lenght of scalp hair, do you wonder why the differebce incidence of common hair loss betwenn sexes? IMHO the lenght is the key.

Here a no recent reference
Alopecia is rare in females aud appallingly common in men.
The only difference between the way in whicl. men and
women treat their hair is that tlle one wears it short and tlle
otlher long. The liair was meant to be long, and I take it that
the normal stimulus to the growtth of the lhair is the long
hair lhangling down the bacli and biowinig in the wind. Tlhere
is a gentle pull on thle hair bulb bv the weiglht of the hair
whiclh reflexly tlhrougll the nervous system keeps the hair in
tone and stimulates the circulation in the bulb. If one keeps
the hair slhort, one remloves tho stimulus to the healtlhy
growth of the hair, and the seborlhoea of the scalp attacks
tlle hair bulb and soon destroys it. Women may lhave
seborrlhoea capitis for years, and it practically never leads
to the degree of alopecia seen in men. It is a well-recognized
fact that all organs wlhiclh are not used as thev were meant to
be become weak and liable to the attack of infectingy agents.
Men also go muclh more frequently to the lhairdresser than do
women, and I think it is there that they are probably infected
witlh seborrhoea. The revolving brtishes which somne hair

 

[Armando Jose]

In this paper there is information about rheology of sebum,
The regulatory mechanism can be visualized as follows. The sebaceous gland
delivers the sebum into the duct. Since the duct widens towards its opening, the
surface tension increases with the filling of the duct. As soon as the surface tension
reaches a critical level, the gland stops further excretion. This leads to the so
called "casual level", which in fact is an uncasual level, as is demonstrated by its
remarkable constancy.

But the author don't talk that in our case, exist the hair fiber and can act as a wick.

 

[Armando Jose]

One more dates about sebum

 

[d3nt3dsh0v3l]

Ok, @d3nt3dsh0v3l, I do understand you, but I don't think that it disproves the theory I stated.

The thing is that the scale is not THAT micro. Also, time adds up with these things.

If you put oil onto, let's say, a spoon, and put it in a vertical position so to let the oil drop. I'm not arguing that at the end of the day ALL the oil will drop out of the spoon. There will be some oil left at the end of the day, but much lesser than if the spoon was in a horizontal position. The same thing can happen on our scalp.

I'm sorry but this is wrong. Your oil analogy is the same as my paint on the wall analogy. How thick do you think the residual layer of oil is? Millimeters at most. How thick are hair shafts? 50-100 micron. Where is the sebum coming out? Through the gap between the hair and the pore from which it emerges. So let's call it 10 micron to be generous. Firstly, 10/1000 of a millimeter really is that micro. In fact, it is micro in the literal sense in that it is on the length scale of micrometers.

Secondly, we can even be more rigorous about this analysis. Simply computing the Bond number, the ratio between capillary forces and gravitational forces, will tell us which one dominates on that scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_number):

The density of air is negligible as it is several orders of magnitude lower than that of a liquid. So assume that the difference is the same as the density as that of sebum. Seeing as densities of liquids vary ever so slightly over a range between 0.8 g/ml to 1.2 g/ml, let us assume 1 g/ml or 1000 kg/m3 for convenience. The acceleration due to gravity is g = 9.8 m/s. The characteristic length scale, as we decided before was 10*10^(-6) m or 0.000010 m. The surface tension of sebum is, I will assume as a conservative estimate, the lowest value measured by the following study (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0846.1996.tb00066.x): ~20 Dynes/cm or 0.02 N/m.

Computing Bo, we find Bo = 4.9*10^(-5) = 0.000049. Why? Because the characteristic length is small, and the length squared is even smaller. The denominator - representing surface tension - is five orders of magnitude more important. We are nowhere close to the body forces mattering.

I do respectfully apologize, but there is no debate here. Gravity is *not* important at that length scale. There is a correct answer here, Sir.

The spoon and oil example are exactly what I meant by your intuition betraying you. You work on the scale of meters and that governs your experience. The sebum is flowing on the micron scale - 1/(1,000,000) m = 1 micron. Fluid does in fact behave quite differently at that scale of a millionth of a meter.

Here is an interesting example! As you can see, capillary forces dominate with a decreasing length scale! The thinner the glass capillary tubes, the stronger the surface tension effects!

Source: several years of fluid mechanics courses.

 

[furtbr]

I'm sorry but this is wrong. Your oil analogy is the same as my paint on the wall analogy. How thick do you think the residual layer of oil is? Millimeters at most. How thick are hair shafts? 50-100 micron. Where is the sebum coming out? Through the gap between the hair and the pore from which it emerges. So let's call it 10 micron to be generous. Firstly, 10/1000 of a millimeter really is that micro. In fact, it is micro in the literal sense in that it is on the length scale of micrometers.
View attachment 86058

Secondly, we can even be more rigorous about this analysis. Simply computing the Bond number, the ratio between capillary forces and gravitational forces, will tell us which one dominates on that scale (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bond_number):

View attachment 86059

The density of air is negligible as it is several orders of magnitude lower than that of a liquid. So assume that the difference is the same as the density as that of sebum. Seeing as densities of liquids vary ever so slightly over a range between 0.8 g/ml to 1.2 g/ml, let us assume 1 g/ml or 1000 kg/m3 for convenience. The acceleration due to gravity is g = 9.8 m/s. The characteristic length scale, as we decided before was 10*10^(-6) m or 0.000010 m. The surface tension of sebum is, I will assume as a conservative estimate, the lowest value measured by the following study (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0846.1996.tb00066.x): ~20 Dynes/cm or 0.02 N/m.

Computing Bo, we find Bo = 4.9*10^(-5) = 0.000049. Why? Because the characteristic length is small, and the length squared is even smaller. The denominator - representing surface tension - is five orders of magnitude more important. We are nowhere close to the body forces mattering.

I do respectfully apologize, but there is no debate here. Gravity is *not* important at that length scale. There is a correct answer here, Sir.

The spoon and oil example are exactly what I meant by your intuition betraying you. You work on the scale of meters and that governs your experience. The sebum is flowing on the micron scale - 1/(1,000,000) m = 1 micron. Fluid does in fact behave quite differently at that scale of a millionth of a meter.

Here is an interesting example! As you can see, capillary forces dominate with a decreasing length scale! The thinner the glass capillary tubes, the stronger the surface tension effects!

Source: several years of fluid mechanics courses.

I'm not really able to discuss fluid mechanics with you since I'm an economist and I've never studied this matter before. But an overview shows that maybe you didn't consider the rate of the sebum flowing (10micron/second? 10micron/minute?) Also micron is an unidimensional measure, I believe it would have to be measured in square milimeters? Also its volume could increase because of the fluid build up, since there are thousands of follicles, it is not an unique flow.

But anyway, that's just a layman's view. I do believe in these because there are anedoctal evidence (mine also) of having a more oily face when having more hair. Also, mainly, (off-topic) there's an evolutionary theory that hair (in caucasians) is made for cold protection. Being exposed to excessive heat would turn the hair purposeless, even working against the body cooling. Sebum could be the carrier of that message. Makes me think if there is a relation with sebaceous glands hyperplasia.

Edit: (maybe off-topic) A sebaceous glands hyperplasia study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26147300
CONCLUSIONS:
The overgrowth (multilobulation) of the sebaceous gland and relative preservation of the follicular stem cells suggest that the changes in the sebaceous gland could be an important factor in the pathology of Androgenetic Alopecia.

 

[d3nt3dsh0v3l]

I'm not really able to discuss fluid mechanics with you since I'm an economist and I've never studied this matter before. But an overview shows that maybe you didn't consider the rate of the sebum flowing (10micron/second? 10micron/minute?) Also micron is an unidimensional measure, I believe it would have to be measured in square milimeters? Also its volume could increase because of the fluid build up, since there are thousands of follicles, it is not an unique flow.

But anyway, that's just a layman's view. I do believe in these because there are anedoctal evidence (mine also) of having a more oily face when having more hair. Also, mainly, (off-topic) there's an evolutionary theory that hair (in caucasians) is made for cold protection. Being exposed to excessive heat would turn the hair purposeless, even working against the body cooling. Sebum could be the carrier of that message. Makes me think if there is a relation with sebaceous glands hyperplasia.

Edit: (maybe off-topic) A sebaceous glands hyperplasia study:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26147300
CONCLUSIONS:
The overgrowth (multilobulation) of the sebaceous gland and relative preservation of the follicular stem cells suggest that the changes in the sebaceous gland could be an important factor in the pathology of Androgenetic Alopecia.

There is a disconnect between what I am saying and what you are suggesting:

But an overview shows that maybe you didn't consider the rate of the sebum flowing (10micron/second? 10micron/minute?)

The rate is irrelevant in this matter. What causes a fluid to flow? The forces acting on it. What kind of forces can act on it? Viscous forces - pertaining to viscosity and fluid shearing, capillary forces - forces due to surface tension, intertial forces - forces due to a push or pull from an external object, or body forces - field forces such as an electromagnetic field or gravitational field.

How do we know which forces are causing the fluid to flow in a given scenario? On large scales such as in an ocean or on the sun, capillary forces are unimportant and body forces dominate. What this means is that the contribution to the dynamics of the fluid due to capillary forces are small. You can neglect capillary forces when you look at solar flares, but you cannot neglect electromagnetic forces.

What I am suggesting, and what I have shown through the computation of the Bond number, is a comparison of which forces dominate fluid motion at that scale. Capillary and viscous forces overwhelmingly contribution to any fluid flow that occurs, and the fluid essentially does not "feel" a gravitational force because the contribution of gravity is negligible. I cannot stress this further. This is the correct answer.

If a grain of sand is thrown down a well, it is unscathed. If a pebble is tossed down a well, it may scuff. If a boulder is thrown down a well, it will be obliterated. Assume all test materials mentioned above are composed of the same material. The material properties - hardness, elastic modulus, toughness, etc. are the same. But the length and time scales are not. In the case of the pebble, inertial force is not important. In the case of the boulder, it is. All relative of course, to the material properties of the object - which remain constant.

Also micron is an unidimensional measure, I believe it would have to be measured in square milimeters? Also its volume could increase because of the fluid build up, since there are thousands of follicles, it is not an unique flow.

Yes this particular nuance is a bit harder to explain without familiarity of non-dimensional equations. The Bond number we computed earlier is not itself a universal law or governing equation but rather a scaling parameter. Basically, I'm not saying that gravity doesn't exist, but if it only contributes 0.0001% of the force acting on the fluid, then we can solve the equation by setting any contribution by gravity to 0 - this would be a safe assumption. Of course if one wanted to be rigorous, one would input all of the effects, all of the time, but this will make the problem more computationally rigorous all the while changing the end result by a negligible amount. The best example I can in relation to your field (I do apologize because I am not an economist) is that if you are computing the cash flows in relation to a particular company or organization, neglecting the smallest 0.001% of the cash flows for a quick estimate of the financials would be safe to do. In other words, you do not need to count every nickel and dime on every receipt in order to get an accurate idea of where the money is. The same is true with my calculation.

Now, given that the Bond number is a simple scaling parameter, L in this case represents the "characteristic" length scale. It doesn't have to be an exact number, but rather the order of magnitude. The width of the channel through which the sebum is flowing is the relevant length scale in this problem, as is the diameter of a pipe in a pipe flow problem. This is why 10 micron was chosen instead of an area. I apologize if this is still mildly confusing but it is somewhat difficult to justify without the ground work. But the simple explanation is that you give the Bond number calculation the approximate sizes and strengths of the various physical parameters of the problem and we can find out which terms contribute and which terms can be neglected. In this case, gravity's contributed force to the fluid will be around 1/10000th ish what surface tension forces will contribute. That's why we can assume that gravity is unimportant.

You are free to continue to believe it if you want. But it is false, and I don't mean that in an arrogant way; physically speaking, gravity does not contribute on that scale. This however bears no insight into the role of sebum in hair loss by virtue of its overproduction or chemical composition. It is just incorrect to suggest that the flow of sebum is significantly impacted by gravity.

Here is a final sanity check if you remain suspicious of the argument outlined about. A great portion of the population, including myself, spend ~8 hours per day, a non-negligible portion of time, sleeping on their side or back. Yet there is no noticeable effect of uneven sebum distribution before versus after sleeping, or in the case of sleeping on one's side, we do not observe greatly asymmetric rates of balding on one side versus another. We also do not normally see the sides and back thin, despite your suggestion that sebum pool in a particular way depending on its orientation. Sleeping, according to your suggestion, should also enable the sebum on the hair on top of the head to "drain" overnight. However, this is not the case because gravity is unimportant to determining the dynamics of fluid flow at that scale.

 

[Armando Jose]

More food for thought

https://www.researchgate.net/public...hemical_and_Surface_Properties_of_Hair_Fibers

https://books.google.es/books?id=9-...TAF#v=onepage&q=wick hair sebum fiber&f=false

https://books.google.es/books?id=Xq...TAG#v=onepage&q=wick hair sebum fiber&f=false

 

[Armando Jose]

What causes a fluid to flow? The forces acting on it. What kind of forces can act on it? Viscous forces - pertaining to viscosity and fluid shearing, capillary forces - forces due to surface tension, intertial forces - forces due to a push or pull from an external object, or body forces - field forces such as an electromagnetic field or gravitational field.

Can hair massage make the sebum flow? and the contact with the pillow, can it have a role?

the fluid essentially does not "feel" a gravitational force because the contribution of gravity is negligible

+1

It is just incorrect to suggest that the flow of sebum is significantly impacted by gravity.

+1

Here is a final sanity check if you remain suspicious of the argument outlined about. A great portion of the population, including myself, spend ~8 hours per day, a non-negligible portion of time, sleeping on their side or back. Yet there is no noticeable effect of uneven sebum distribution before versus after sleeping, or in the case of sleeping on one's side, we do not observe greatly asymmetric rates of balding on one side versus another. We also do not normally see the sides and back thin, despite your suggestion that sebum pool in a particular way depending on its orientation. Sleeping, according to your suggestion, should also enable the sebum on the hair on top of the head to "drain" overnight. However, this is not the case because gravity is unimportant to determining the dynamics of fluid flow at that scale.

Interesting thoughts, but
When we sleep we are not always with the same position, it is normal that we turn our position several times at night.

But, right now it is to find out which areas are not in direct contact with this absorbing surface, which can undoubtedly collect the hair sebum. This pattern is known for us

 

[d3nt3dsh0v3l]

Can hair massage make the sebum flow? and the contact with the pillow, can it have a role?




+1




+1




Interesting thoughts, but
When we sleep we are not always with the same position, it is normal that we turn our position several times at night.

But, right now it is to find out which areas are not in direct contact with this absorbing surface, which can undoubtedly collect the hair sebum. This pattern is known for us

I presume that massage can at least move sebum around.

I still contend your notion of the effect of the pillow. In order to get a symmetric balding pattern, even if people toss and turn at night, they would either have to 1) somehow average the same amount of pillow contact on their left and right sides to get equal "pillow exposure" or 2) the effect of the pillow "acts fast" on the scalp, so it doesn't matter how much contact there is so long as there is some contact.

In both of this cases, people like me, who overwhelmingly prefer to sleep on one side, should see an asymmetric balding pattern, and those who exclusively sleep on their backs should have an incomplete retrograde pattern. But neither of these things is observed. For that matter, people have even tried to wash their hair excessively to slow oil buildup and hair loss. But unfortunately, simple sebum management wasn't the cure.

There is of course a potential correlation between increased sebum and hair loss in that androgens are capable of causing both. So in my opinion, what we are observing is likely just another symptom of androgenetic alopecia. That is, excessive sebum production happens in tandem with hair loss, rather than causing the loss.

 

[DanielDüsentrieb]

Ok, @d3nt3dsh0v3l, I do understand you, but I don't think that it disproves the theory I stated.

The thing is that the scale is not THAT micro. Also, time adds up with these things.

If you put oil onto, let's say, a spoon, and put it in a vertical position so to let the oil drop. I'm not arguing that at the end of the day ALL the oil will drop out of the spoon. There will be some oil left at the end of the day, but much lesser than if the spoon was in a horizontal position. The same thing can happen on our scalp.

The capilar forces in trees get the water 120 meters high. (this is the optimum... with thinner capilars the capilar forces do not increase) So it is impossible that capilar forces are effected by like 3 mm of vertical gravity force And we are talking about equilibriums so time is not of interest.

 

[furtbr]

The capilar forces in trees get the water 120 meters high. (this is the optimum... with thinner capilars the capilar forces do not increase) So it is impossible that capilar forces are effected by like 3 mm of vertical gravity force And we are talking about equilibriums so time is not of interest.

Yes, @d3nt3dsh0v3l pretty much convinced me on that matter. Hairloss and sebum relationship seems very interesting IMO though.

 

[INT]

Lets not forget the messaging effect of rolling over on your pillow night after night. Also lets not forget the fact that the TOP of your head is furthest part of your body in which blood has to travel and overcome gravity in the process.Minute overall but you have to figure that this occurs every day while your awake and upright .Eventually the hairs with LESS flow (top of head) will not be able to remove sebum as efficiently due to circulation colapse.Chemicals and oils unhealthy to hair start to build up (including the notorious dht)in scalp.Just a hunch but I suspect the overall population of men over six feet tall are impacted in the early 20's with hairloss issues because of the impact thier height has on quality of circulation.Women having less height and less dht and more hair friendly hormones are less prone.
Note:Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise for example are not over 5' 10" tall

Broscience at its finest.

 

[Armando Jose]

Hi Bryan;

This study talk about the importance of Sebaceous Gland with Hair. And the second talks about the Epilation and Sebaceous Gland.

They are in my same line of thought.

Armando


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=1
J Invest Dermatol. 1979 May;72(5):224-31.
Histologic study of the regeneration of axillary hair after removal with subcutaneous tissue shaver.

Inaba M, Anthony J, McKinstry C.

It was observed that after subcutaneous tissue shaving for the radical therapy of hircismus and hyperhidrosis axillary hair often regrew. Histologic study of this phenomenon showed that hair bulb and most of the follicle up to a level near the sebaceous duct opening had been removed. Hair regrows from remnant outer root sheath, but only when sebaceous glands are preserved, that is when the upper portion of the follicular isthmus is intact. One or several solid epithelial pegs grow downward from the cut end of the trichilemma, and inner root sheath and new young hair are formed in its center. In hair peg stage, the lower tip of the hair follicle descends while new hair is growing in its center through the mitotic activity is growing in its center through the mitotic activity of hair germ cells and is prevented from pushing toward the skin surface by interlocking fusion between hair cuticula and sheath cuticula. Eventually, the epithelial cells wrap around a mass of mesenchymal cells and form a new bulb from which the terminal hair grows upward. The new matrix acquires a new complement of functioning melanocytes.

PMID: 458183 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


J Dermatol Surg Oncol. 1979 May;5(5):407-11.

Epilation by electrocoagulation: factors that result in regrowth of hair.

McKinstry CT, Inaba M, Anthony JN.

From our experience, the most important requirement for permanent epilation by electrocoagulation is not only to destroy hair bulbs, but also to destroy the isthmal regions of hair follicles and the sebaceous glands.

PMID: 458009 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Excuse bump this post but I read again this Inaba paper
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... query_hl=1
J Invest Dermatol. 1979 May;72(5):224-31.
Histologic study of the regeneration of axillary hair after removal with subcutaneous tissue shaver.


I'm wondering what would happen if Tsuji had used sebum on the three-dimensional germ of the cloned hairand I saw a new interesting point, not only the new hair need sebaceous gland but they start growing in the duct of SG
"Examination of specimens obtained 6 mo after surgery showed
that new young hairs are formed from trichilemma (outer hair
root sheath) of the isthmus near the level of the sebaceous duct
opening. "
"Our histologic studies demonstrated that human axillary hair
regenerates even when the transient portion and a considerable
part of the permanent portion of the hair root is removed.
Clinically, the absence or presence of sebaceous gland predicts
the state of hair regeneration [3] and histologically, regenera- '
tion depends on the presence of at least part of the isthmus. A
new young hair forms when the new follicular bud is in hair peg
stage and keratinizes while the peg grows downward until the
formation of hair bulb and matrix are completed."

These probes indicate, according to my ideas, that the hair needs a operative sebum gland and that the sebum is possibly part of the hair shaft.
I'm wondering what would happen if Tsuji had used sebum on the three-dimensional germ of the cloned hair, or maybe Stemson. It could be the grial we are looking?

 

[Hope111]

fat lump
I have two lumps of fat on my head. The first one I flawed about 15 years ago and it was like a lentil. Now it's like a marble and I want to take it off. In this type of lump, the hair that is on them falls and leaves a bald spot. About the smallest and which I can see I already have it. The other is further back and I can't see it. The interesting thing is that I touched the lock of hair on it and I noticed very thick hair. I cut it off and it was hair the same as armpit or pubic hair. That hair is dying I think and I suppose but the way to do it catches my attention. Maybe I can contribute something.

 

[Armando Jose]

fat lump
I have two lumps of fat on my head. The first one I flawed about 15 years ago and it was like a lentil. Now it's like a marble and I want to take it off. In this type of lump, the hair that is on them falls and leaves a bald spot. About the smallest and which I can see I already have it. The other is further back and I can't see it. The interesting thing is that I touched the lock of hair on it and I noticed very thick hair. I cut it off and it was hair the same as armpit or pubic hair. That hair is dying I think and I suppose but the way to do it catches my attention. Maybe I can contribute something.

very intersting hope,
Remember prevention better than cure.
the red flag must be triggering factors, easy and effective

 

[Oknow]

if height is such an issue how come you dont see nba basketball players losing their hair?

lebron James?