Circulation - Blood flow - water retention

[venden]

If bloodflow or poor circulation were related to diffuse thinning or hairloss then why does transplanted hair(donor back of scalp)placed in a bald area not die? Because lack of bloodflow is NOT the cause. I have transplants placed in a bald area 20 yrs ago and they're still growing.

 

[The Gardener]

Hell yeah. This is one of the first times I've been locked in an male pattern baldness theory challenge match and Bryan is actually on my side!

It's Bryan and Gardener, playing old school 2 on 2 against all comers.

You better bring your A-game, b**ch, 'cause we're knocking you stanky *** sh*t out of our house. Word.

 

[Old Baldy]

:lol: :lol: :shock:

Well Gardener, since you and Bryan are talking ONLY about blood flow, and nothing else relative to scalp health, I'll surrender. But, boy are both of you walking a VERY fine line on this one.

 

[thin=depressed]

:lol: :lol: :shock:

Well Gardener, since you and Bryan are talking ONLY about blood flow, and nothing else relative to scalp health, I'll surrender. But, boy are both of you walking a VERY fine line on this one.

I agree with Old baldy. You guys are not budging. Geneticly our top of head is geared for hair loss but besides that our scalp tissue is geneticly geared toward worsening our already hindered follicles problem. The transplanted hairs being hardier and not geneticly programmed for loss easily tolerate the genetic tissue problems such as blood flow and hydration as well as inflammation. Please read the posted research on the research forum.
Note the clinical studies were done by scientists under lab conditions and are creditable and hardly something to scoff at. Its appearant you guys are not willing to except clinical literature in this debate at all. Also its surprising that you scoff at the diuretic spironolactone as having anything to do with its abilities.

 

[S Foote.]

The thing people should understand here, is just how complex the bodies fluid balance can be level by level. I am suggesting, and the posted study supports, that Minoxidil creates a `shift' in the fluid volume towards the deeper tissues, `away' from the hair follicles.

What "posted study" is it that suggests that?

http://www.amjdermatopathology.com/pt/r ... 31!9001!-1[/url]

And as for the Minoxidil effect on fluid `shifting', you `know' the study i mean Bryan 8)

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 051&page=2

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

My opinion:

I sincerely believe that poor circulation is directly related to MANY ailments. Probably including male pattern baldness.

Here's a scan of a study from the 1970's in which a doctor actually claimed to IMPROVE balding by tying-off arteries to the scalp! :freaked2:

http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/artery_ligature.htm

It's hard to fit that in with the general idea that male pattern baldness is caused by poor blood-flow, isn't it?

Bryan

No Bryan, because just using the term `blood flow' isn't right here, and isn't explaining things properly!

The procedure above reduces the blood `FEED' to the scalp. Which is one of the things you need to do according to the Hydraulic theory. This `reduces' the scalp fluid retention.

A good blood flow `THROUGH' the scalp (good circulation), would also help by reducing the stagnant fluid retention in male pattern baldness. Again this `reduces' the scalp fluid retention.

But i am suggesting that the `fluid' problem in male pattern baldness is caused on the fluid `DRAINAGE' side of the equation by poor lymphatic drainage.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

And as for the Minoxidil effect on fluid `shifting', you `know' the study i mean Bryan 8)

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 051&page=2

Oh, for the love of god...do I have to spell out EVERYTHING??

I don't just want something that says minoxidil shifts fluid toward "a central volume", I want something that says minoxidil shifts fluid away from hair follicles, but NOT SO FAR AWAY THAT IT CAN'T CAUSE FACIAL PUFFINESS. That second little stipulation is the key to my request! :wink:

Good luck on your scavenger hunt for that specific piece of evidence.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

And as for the Minoxidil effect on fluid `shifting', you `know' the study i mean Bryan 8)

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 051&page=2

Oh, for the love of god...do I have to spell out EVERYTHING??

I don't just want something that says minoxidil shifts fluid toward "a central volume", I want something that says minoxidil shifts fluid away from hair follicles, but NOT SO FAR AWAY THAT IT CAN'T CAUSE FACIAL PUFFINESS. That second little stipulation is the key to my request! :wink:

Good luck on your scavenger hunt for that specific piece of evidence.

Bryan

Oh no you don't Bryan! I really don't give a damm about your `demands' here! Your not a scientist, i don't have to explain myself to you!

Enough of your usual diverting from the point tactics! I have explained my theory and provided evidence to support this from the relevant studies. You don't agree, thats fine!

The evidence is there for all to see, and judge for themselves. I grow tired of your misrepresentation of science in these debates, just to try to push a personal agenda!

You always `demand' that `I' prove everything i say in these debates. But when i ask you to provide even the slightest supporting evidence for your `genetic clock' rubbish, you desperately try to avoid the point!

I notice that you managed to avoid Old Baldies question about `future' treatments based on our different theories Bryan, I wonder why?

I think that you would be too embarrassed to continue to push your `topical' retoric, considering the failure of this reported every day on these forums!

S Foote.

 

[Def]

My 2 cents:

My understanding of one of the theories about male pattern hairloss is that dihydrotestosterone (one of our worst enemies) is a metabolite of testosterone that has a number of actions within the hair follicles. One of these actions is to slowly atrophy, and over time, cause vaso-constriction of the tiny capillaries which both supply nutrients and remove toxins from the hair follicles. Histological sections of the dermis and hair follicles show that a relatively dense network of capillaries wrap around each follicle. Hence, one of the purported actions of minoxidil (being a vaso-dilator) was to enhance the blood flow through these capillaries and help to prevent some loss (that said, the true action of minoxidil is not yet conclusively known).

Bryan, you're right when you say that the head is awash with blood. However, if we're talking about areas above the blood-brain barrier and confining ourselves to the dermis, then I'd say the only reason there is more capillary flow in the scalp is because of the hair up there. If these capillaries aren't functioning properly, then of course that will reduce supply to the follicles - thereby causing the follicles to atrophy over time also.

Now. Whether this is a MAJOR cause of male pattern baldness I cannot attest to. However, I would think that it is certainly one of the contributors in this God-forsaken condition we all suffer. Turning then, to the benefits of scalp massage and/or increasing blood flow. If the capillaries are not in a condition to transport blood to and from the follicles, then I would presume that scalp massage would be of very limited benefit. However, after consistent minoxidil use, the capillaries may be dilated and in a better condition to transport blood, the massage therefore being of more benefit.

These are just my little theories (based upon some science, of course) but I don't know how much credence one should lend to them. As a broad statement, however, I think to argue that blood supply is not a factor in male pattern baldness is incorrect.

Def

 

[MidnightFlyer]

S. Foote and Bryan should combine their powers for "good". Together, if they so chose, they could cure cancer. male pattern baldness...? Not so sure.

 

[Greg1]

No offense S. Foote, but you as well as Bryan both have the right to be right and both have the right to be wrong. It's a sign of strength to stand by your particular position and NOT attack or slam anyone who does not agree with you. I think that politics has taught us that one. So, if you want others to truely respect your position on this or anything else, ease up and allow others to disagree with ya.

 

[20sometingtoo]

This topic should be renamed "circulation and its relation to male pattern baldness" because "blood-flow" is a misnomer. It has nothing to do with circulation, which is probably why everyone seems a little confused.
Good circulation does MANY things, including the removal of waste substances from the blood stream. Last time I checked, DHT was a waste byproduct of Testosterone. I understand the logic of increased circulation means more DHT is being delivered, but also consider that increased circulation means that more DHT is being removed.

 

[20sometingtoo]

To add:
Static blood is NEVER good. NEVER. Ask any doctor. So, I cant see how cutting off the flow of nutrients and the removal of waste from the vascular system in the scalp area is a good thing.

 

[The Gardener]

Not to completely disagree with your posting, 20s2, but DHT is hardly a 'waste product'. It is an intentionally formed substance necessary for the development of the human body.

 

[Petchsky]

Once Bryan and S. Foote start duelling with each other it never stops... in fact they have been trying to piss on each others shoes for a while now. It can be amusing though.

 

[S Foote.]

No offense S. Foote, but you as well as Bryan both have the right to be right and both have the right to be wrong. It's a sign of strength to stand by your particular position and NOT attack or slam anyone who does not agree with you. I think that politics has taught us that one. So, if you want others to truely respect your position on this or anything else, ease up and allow others to disagree with ya.

No offense taken Greg.

I just get tired of the double standards of `evidence' that Bryan always demands.

It seems `I' have to `prove' every last detail of my proposals, whilst we are all expected to just take Bryans interpretations as `gospel'!

OK, i will answer his latest `demand', but these repetitive questions just get boring, as i'am sure others feel as well.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

And as for the Minoxidil effect on fluid `shifting', you `know' the study i mean Bryan 8)

http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 051&page=2

Oh, for the love of god...do I have to spell out EVERYTHING??

I don't just want something that says minoxidil shifts fluid toward "a central volume", I want something that says minoxidil shifts fluid away from hair follicles, but NOT SO FAR AWAY THAT IT CAN'T CAUSE FACIAL PUFFINESS. That second little stipulation is the key to my request! :wink:

I have already provided you with links that show that even severe fluid retention can exist in lower levels of the dermis, but not in the surface layers where the hair follicles are. The study about the effect of Minoxidil on shifting fluid, demonstrates that Minoxidil can create a similar `layering' of fluid levels. When you put the two together, it makes such an effect of Minoxidil in the dermal layers `possible' given this known physiology.

But that isn't good enough for you is it Bryan! You are now demanding that `I prove' this action of Minoxidil!

Well i can't do that Bryan, all i can do is outline the possibility based on accepted knowledge.

But at least i `CAN' quote recognised physiology in support of my arguments Bryan! You can't!

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Your not a scientist...

And you're obviously not an English teacher!

I have already provided you with links that show that even severe fluid retention can exist in lower levels of the dermis, but not in the surface layers where the hair follicles are.

Hmmm...I looked at all the links you provided before, but I didn't notice anything about that specific claim. Can you provide a link again? BE SPECIFIC as to the content.

But that isn't good enough for you is it Bryan! You are now demanding that `I prove' this action of Minoxidil!

Uh, yeah. It would be kinda nice, if you could prove your claims.

Well i can't do that Bryan, all i can do is outline the possibility based on accepted knowledge.

Now you're saying it's just a "possibility"? Okaaaaaaay......

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Your not a scientist...

And you're obviously not an English teacher!

The last thing i ever wanted to be was an English teacher Bryan! I am an engineer of some 35 years experience. We engineers get to know the principles of how parts fit together, and how `systems' work! We are also more concerned with the validity of content, rather than the correct spelling of nonsense! 8)

I have already provided you with links that show that even severe fluid retention can exist in lower levels of the dermis, but not in the surface layers where the hair follicles are.

Hmmm...I looked at all the links you provided before, but I didn't notice anything about that specific claim. Can you provide a link again? BE SPECIFIC as to the content.

How could you `possibly' not notice this Bryan??
OK, let's go through it again.

I am refering to the studies involving lipedematous scalp. and lipedematous alopecia.

This one is about lipedematous scalp where there is a major accumilation of fluid in the lower dermal levels, with no intrusion of this into the surface layers, and no hair loss.
http://www.ehrs.org/conferenceabstracts ... ukhari.htm

This and the other links i have posted here, clearly show that fluid retention can effect one layer of the dermis whilst leaving other layers unaffected.

This is the `precedent' for my argument based on this known physiology Bryan!

But that isn't good enough for you is it Bryan! You are now demanding that `I prove' this action of Minoxidil!

Uh, yeah. It would be kinda nice, if you could prove your claims.

[quote="S Foote.":2e6ba]Well i can't do that Bryan, all i can do is outline the possibility based on accepted knowledge.

Now you're saying it's just a "possibility"? Okaaaaaaay......[/quote:2e6ba]

Yes Bryan, it is a `possibility' based on the normal scientific referencing of known physiology.

Tell us all again about the `possibility' of your `genetic clock' mechanism, based on references to recognised physiology????????????????????????? :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Greg1]

"Ding!" Ah, guys that was the time out bell Can we call a truce between S Foote and Bryan? What do you think guys? Should these two agree to disagree?