beards , baldness ,and sweat secretion study

[S Foote.]

Yes i do think cold water rinses would help, as would gentle massage and Tom's exersises http://www.hairloss-reversible.com/ These things are also free!
S Foote.

Wouldn't cold water make the skin constrict around the follicles. Wouldn't a series of cold and warm rinses be better to kind of make the scalp more malleable.

All else fails I can use a meat tenderizer on my scalp.

It's the same principle as ice packs to reduce swelling. Cold causes the blood supply to reduce, allowing fluid drainage to increase. I don't think hot/cold treatment would work as well.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

It was Professor Cabanac who first contacted `ME' about the relevance of this study to my theory! The section you quote above is the normal `HYPOTHESIS' scientists include in research papers as a `possible' explaination for the results.

Yeah, right...and what he believes is the REAL explanation is YOUR theory. Right, Stephen??

My god, you're in DEEP DENIAL over all this. It's really sad.

Bryan

Only `you' would take a scientists normal hypothesis of possible mechanisms as `gospil', only if it suits you of course!!

If the same hypothesis of mechanism in another study didn't suit you, then it would be a case of a `bad data point' or some such bulls**t wouldn't it Bryan! :roll:

Then you wonder why professional scientists like Marty Sawaya just dismiss you! 8)

It's a pretty sad world you live in Bryan :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Guest]

I think you two should stop flirting with each other and just meet up and have sex.

 

[oni]

Make sure you video it. I could do with a few £'s :lol:

 

[Dave001]

Really this is the process described by `Ockham's razor'
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... node5.html

The easiest way to explain the results of this sweating relationship in androgen related hair growth/loss, is as i describe in the `Hydraulic dermal model' section of my paper.
http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm

You wrote (from above URL):

In an attempt to "put my money where my mouth is ", i decided to run this personal experiment.

How did you manage to do that, with your Foote still in it?

The topical Crinagen is claimed to reduce local levels of DHT by up to 98%? For the last 7 weeks i have been applying 5 `Squirts' of Crinagen to my face and neck, like an aftershave, twice a day. . . .

So in other words, as an Internet retailer of herbal hair growth products, their claims are automatically as good as gold. There is not any point at all in even exploring the remote possibility that they might be false or slightly exaggerated.

However, i can say that my 7 week response to my Crinagen `facial' experiment is already showing better results than my 6 month use of 5% Minoxidil on the scalp. The first thing I noticed was my scalp felt warmer!

By any chance do you have a relative that suffers from trichotillomania, with whom you also share an affinity for contriving harebrained theories of male pattern baldness?

Do your parents know that you've managed to uninstall CyberSitter from the computer?

 

[S Foote.]

Really this is the process described by `Ockham's razor'
http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/N ... node5.html

The easiest way to explain the results of this sweating relationship in androgen related hair growth/loss, is as i describe in the `Hydraulic dermal model' section of my paper.
http://www.hairsite2.com/library/abst-167.htm

You wrote (from above URL):

In an attempt to "put my money where my mouth is ", i decided to run this personal experiment.

How did you manage to do that, with your Foote still in it?

Instead of just trying to take a very cheap and easy shot, by refering to a personal experiment i did, why don't you answer the first point of mine you quoted? Talking about the scientific methods beyond you is it?

The topical Crinagen is claimed to reduce local levels of DHT by up to 98%? For the last 7 weeks i have been applying 5 `Squirts' of Crinagen to my face and neck, like an aftershave, twice a day. . . .

So in other words, as an Internet retailer of herbal hair growth products, their claims are automatically as good as gold. There is not any point at all in even exploring the remote possibility that they might be false or slightly exaggerated.

Well of course the claims for any product can be exaggerated or false. You should had bothered to read that `facial experiment' thread properly, before you opened your big mouth :roll:

However, i can say that my 7 week response to my Crinagen `facial' experiment is already showing better results than my 6 month use of 5% Minoxidil on the scalp. The first thing I noticed was my scalp felt warmer!

By any chance do you have a relative that suffers from trichotillomania, with whom you also share an affinity for contriving harebrained theories of male pattern baldness?

Do your parents know that you've managed to uninstall CyberSitter from the computer?

I see you have been attending the Bryan Shelton school of diversionary sarcasm!

If you have anything to say based on the science of my theory, just go right ahead. If not just crawl back to Farrels censored site where you came from Frizz, oh sorry i mean Dave!! 8)

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

If folks disagree with Stephen's theory, I wish they could do so in a respectful manner, quoting studies and data that contradict it in an earnest conversational way to help parse away layers of info so the posters can postulate and theorize further together as we move forward to understanding male pattern baldness. It certainly doesnt help when the smartest guys around get sidetracked being authentically pissed at each other.

Interesting info I read: Saturated fats in post WW2 diets in Japan lead to higher cholesterol and higher sebum production from bigger sebaceous glands. Sebum, which is full of DHT, can easily be reabsorbed into caucasoid scalps that see hair grow straight up (especially in males). Now there is more sebum on Japanese scalps and its full of DHT that was overproduced by eating gooey saturated animal fats that were from animals shot up with hormones and steroids before they were burgers from McDonalds. The info also stated that blood flow in bald scalps was about 2.6 times less that the control group. This stuff was at diagnose-me.com. All this excess sebum can also be reabsorbed back down the side of the hair shaft, getting in front of the arrector pilli where the stem cells migrate from and even back down below the papilla WHERE IT MIGHT INTEREFERE WITH CAPILLARIES....... am now wiping head with absorbent towel a couple of times a day if I feel "wet" up there.

 

[Dave001]

I see you have been attending the Bryan Shelton school of diversionary sarcasm!

Nope. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard someone say "diversionary sarcasm". You seem to have a very convoluted way of expressing your intent. You're mistaken if think that your verbosity adds an artistic flare to your writing.

If you have anything to say based on the science of my theory, just go right ahead. If not just crawl back to Farrels censored site where you came from Frizz, oh sorry i mean Dave!! 8)

Frizz? I post with the same handle at both sites, so I don't understand the confusion over my identity.

Concerning your theory: how can you even have a theory to explain a disease that already has a well defined basis?

 

[Bryan]

If folks disagree with Stephen's theory, I wish they could do so in a respectful manner, quoting studies and data that contradict it in an earnest conversational way to help parse away layers of info so the posters can postulate and theorize further together as we move forward to understanding male pattern baldness.

That's what we did for the first couple of years or so! But what do you do when you're trying to discuss something with someone who just won't listen to reason? Things almost inevitably turn harsh in that case...

Sebum, which is full of DHT, can easily be reabsorbed into caucasoid scalps...All this excess sebum can also be reabsorbed back down the side of the hair shaft...

I find that rather difficult to believe, and I'd like to see some actual experimental evidence for it before I do believe it. But there's the rub: it seems to me that proving it (or DISproving it, for that matter) might be quite tricky and difficult. Not sure how you'd go about doing it...

I guess we do have _some_ experimental evidence against it, though, which is the failure of specific 5a-reductase type 1 inhibitors to have a noticeable effect against hairloss. That suggests that DHT within sebum is not really much of a concern.

Bryan

 

[Guest]

FIGHT FIGHT

 

[S Foote.]

I see you have been attending the Bryan Shelton school of diversionary sarcasm!

Nope. In fact, this is the first time I've ever heard someone say "diversionary sarcasm". You seem to have a very convoluted way of expressing your intent. You're mistaken if think that your verbosity adds an artistic flare to your writing.

If you have anything to say based on the science of my theory, just go right ahead. If not just crawl back to Farrels censored site where you came from Frizz, oh sorry i mean Dave!! 8)

Frizz? I post with the same handle at both sites, so I don't understand the confusion over my identity.

Concerning your theory: how can you even have a theory to explain a disease that already has a well defined basis?

OK.

Please explain to us all just what this existing `well defined' basis is exactly?

If you are going to quote `donor dominance' at me, please read my post on this in this forum.

If you are going to quote the in-vitro studies, you will have to explain why follicle cells known to be `future' male pattern baldness, are not effected by direct exposure to androgens?

In other words, just be sure of your `facts' if you want to get into this debate.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

If folks disagree with Stephen's theory, I wish they could do so in a respectful manner, quoting studies and data that contradict it in an earnest conversational way to help parse away layers of info so the posters can postulate and theorize further together as we move forward to understanding male pattern baldness.

That's what we did for the first couple of years or so! But what do you do when you're trying to discuss something with someone who just won't listen to reason? Things almost inevitably turn harsh in that case...

Your statement Bryan pre-supposes that `YOU' are the reasonable one in these debates

Whenever you ask me to support my arguments, i cite you evidence. When i asked you to provide `any' evidence, or just some kind of precedent for the `genetic clock' your argument needs, you can't do it!

So who is being the most `reasonable' Bryan? 8)

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

Please explain to us all just what this existing `well defined' basis is exactly?

Hint: there is a clue in the name of the disease: androgenetic alopecia.

 

[Dave001]

If folks disagree with Stephen's theory, I wish they could do so in a respectful manner . . .

If people are going to treat friends of mine disrespectfully, they can expect the same consideration in return.

 

[S Foote.]

Please explain to us all just what this existing `well defined' basis is exactly?

Hint: there is a clue in the name of the disease: androgenetic alopecia.

I'am sorry Dave, but you are not going to get away with such vague statements!

Of course we know that androgens trigger the process of male pattern baldness, and it doesn't happen without androgens.

In my theory, the androgen trigger is in-direct as opposed to the current theory of a direct action. Have you `actually' read my paper?

I am still waiting for you to commit to a `specific' argument here!


S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Any of you guys want to venture a guess as to why baldness in pre-WWII Japan was rare and is now fairly common?

I mean, there would not be such a signifigant increase because all of a sudden an astounding amount of Japanese men were suddenly born with androgenically sensitive hair follicles or born with follicles with extra androgen receptors? Correct?

Diet? Stress? Higher blood pressure from the first two guesses? Different hair styles like Armando the microbiologist thinks?


This is the one population that is profoundly interesting as a study because we KNOW they are now balding at MUCH higher rates that they were merely 60 years ago. Its gotta be "sumthin'".............

 

[Armando Jose]

Michael Barry wrote:

Any of you guys want to venture a guess as to why baldness in pre-WWII Japan was rare and is now fairly common?
I mean, there would not be such a signifigant increase because all of a sudden an astounding amount of Japanese men were suddenly born with androgenically sensitive hair follicles or born with follicles with extra androgen receptors? Correct?

Contundent.

BTW I am only a chemist.
Armando

 

[Balding curse]

S Foote this guy really was way ahead of his time.