Couple of questions for Stephen Foote

[michael barry]

Stephen,

Here are a couple of my concerns for your idea.

Sweat study, change in scalp appearance.



I'll start with the sweat study. The increased sweating capacity of bald scalp vs. hairy scalp.

We know that hairy scalp has lots of big, keratinized, hair shafts and bulbs in it. It looks like this:

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Intermediate scalp probably looks more like this:

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii i i i

Bald scalp, with only vellus hairs, would resemble this:

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' '


Do you see the difference. No longer are there big bits of keratin, thicky distributed in the dermis. Instead you have regular skin cells made up primarily of (drum roll please),,,,,water.
Water that will evaporate upwards from the top layer of the skin.

Also, the sebocytes of the skin (sweat glands) as well as the sebaceous glands are both androgenically stimulated. Since the dermal papillas of balding scalp are incredibly small (vellus hair status), all the extra testosterone that WOULD have been uptaken at the follicle, and changed into DHT at the type two sites in the outer root sheath, is often obviously going to find its way to the sweat glands to bind instead (as well as the sebaceous glands). This would explain why bald scalp has a tendency to be oily and sweat more also.


Please explain why you think this isn't so....




Problem number two. Your own comments about "shiny" scalp. You have mentioned in your arguments with Bryan that "shiny" scalp is the result of tissue fluid pressure levels reaching a high state and pushing up on the skin, giving it that pressed shiny appearance.

Yet you have also claimed that tissue fluid pressure levels never get high enough to be "clinically obvious" (your term quoted directly).

If fluid pressure in scalp skin at the papilla level gets high enough to change the scalp into a shiny, super smooth surface that is visually different to the human eye from several yards away vs. hairy scalp shaved on the same person, there is NO WAY it would not be "clinically obvious" under microscopic medical inspection. Some doctor somewhere would have seen this, and submitted a paper for the medical literature based on his observation. Its difficult to fathom that this would not have happened by now.



On your theory and getting it tested. If youre waiting on the laser results of treating veinous insufficiency in horses with edema in their legs...................that will not convince people, even if the animal's legs get hairier. Horses do not have Male Pattern Baldness, and lymphedemic skin is sickly skin. A lotta things go wrong with it.


I stand by my earlier observation that you need to PAY someone, like someone on the "no-shampoo" forum to rinse every day with cold water in the shower and to apply a blue-ice pack every night for half an hour for one year. Take pictures before treatment, and pictures after one year.

This would be the simpleist, most direct way for you to test your theory. It would only take one person with a back bald spot to test also. Put the ice pack over the entire male pattern baldness area. If he got increased growth and you posted the photos....................people like your detractors would have to admit your idea would need further testing (and would also start rinsing their heads in cold water at the least).

Stephen,
Ive written a little lately about the topical green tea/curcumin and hamster flank organ
tests. Both of these substances see a great reduction in flank organ size like that of topical spironolactone and Gamma linolenic acid. Both are very cheap.

Science has done NOTHING to promote them. The medical establishment has done NOTHING to promote or test them in human subjects. I think we both know the medical establishment and the pharmacuetical establishment is going to do NOTHING to make the public aware of any cheap-home based treatment that does not get them paid.

Stephen, I strongly suspect topical beer, topical bourbon, topical green tea, topical aloe vera juice, topical lavendar, topical saw palmetto oil, topical pine oil (I know it works as an anti-androgen, I put it on the back of my hand and it decreased hair quite a bit at 3 months), topical curcumin creams all would work as anti-androgens. I do not know how many hours that they would be effective after application however or how many times per day that they would need to be used. But I know they are are anti-androgenic and any one of the above should be stonger than zix. By the way topical vitamin E also reduces androgen receptor expression as well as genistien (in soy and BEER!) and B6.


In another tidbit of interest. Ive long since finshed the pine oil (beta sis) experiment, but my right hand still has shorter, and less hair on it than my left. But there is something else that proves the androgens were blocked at application sites. Between the thumb and the wrist, there is extra LONG hair growth, and thicker hair growth than on the control hand. This is where NOTHING was placed. Its as if all the male hormone blocked at the receptor sites where the pine oil was place binded with the nearest hairs to the application sites where receptors were not blocked. The difference is plainly obvious, although it will be retreating to normal as its been a few months now since Ive put pine oil on it.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,

Here are a couple of my concerns for your idea.

Sweat study, change in scalp appearance.



I'll start with the sweat study. The increased sweating capacity of bald scalp vs. hairy scalp.

We know that hairy scalp has lots of big, keratinized, hair shafts and bulbs in it. It looks like this:

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Intermediate scalp probably looks more like this:

i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i ii i i i

Bald scalp, with only vellus hairs, would resemble this:

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '' '


Do you see the difference. No longer are there big bits of keratin, thicky distributed in the dermis. Instead you have regular skin cells made up primarily of (drum roll please),,,,,water.
Water that will evaporate upwards from the top layer of the skin.

Also, the sebocytes of the skin (sweat glands) as well as the sebaceous glands are both androgenically stimulated. Since the dermal papillas of balding scalp are incredibly small (vellus hair status), all the extra testosterone that WOULD have been uptaken at the follicle, and changed into DHT at the type two sites in the outer root sheath, is often obviously going to find its way to the sweat glands to bind instead (as well as the sebaceous glands). This would explain why bald scalp has a tendency to be oily and sweat more also.


Please explain why you think this isn't so....

With respect Michael, i think you are way off the reality here.

Firstly, skin is enough of a barrier to "fluids" to remove any significant differences in local "seepage" through the skin as you suggest. Certainly such a factor would not explain the major changes in sweating reported in Cabanac's very well constructed study.

As i said before, Prof Cabanac sent me the full study after he read my first published paper. If the tested area had hair, this was shaven before testing to rule out the presense or absense of hair itself as a factor.

There were major "opposite" sweating differences, depending if DHT was growing hair or loosing hair in the area.

If you are going to argue that androgens are"directly" effecting sweat glands in "opposite" ways, you have to explain how? Because in that study the sweat gland histology was also studied, and unlike in the case of the hair follicles the sweat glands showed no physical differences "AT ALL"!

You see Michael the current theory has to try to invent some abstract reason for these sweating changes, when the most simple mechanism possible (Ockhams razor) is quite obvious.

We already know that sweating capacity depends on the amount of fluid available, simply because in cases of dehydration sweating reduces simple!

Problem number two. Your own comments about "shiny" scalp. You have mentioned in your arguments with Bryan that "shiny" scalp is the result of tissue fluid pressure levels reaching a high state and pushing up on the skin, giving it that pressed shiny appearance.

Yet you have also claimed that tissue fluid pressure levels never get high enough to be "clinically obvious" (your term quoted directly).

If fluid pressure in scalp skin at the papilla level gets high enough to change the scalp into a shiny, super smooth surface that is visually different to the human eye from several yards away vs. hairy scalp shaved on the same person, there is NO WAY it would not be "clinically obvious" under microscopic medical inspection. Some doctor somewhere would have seen this, and submitted a paper for the medical literature based on his observation. Its difficult to fathom that this would not have happened by now.

You say quote;

"Yet you have also claimed that tissue fluid pressure levels never get high enough to be "clinically obvious" (your term quoted directly)."

I seem to remember that i said the fluid pressure gets high enough, but the actual tissue expansion this typicaly causes in other areas, is restricted in the scalp area because of the physiology. Here we have a reletively thin section of soft tissue that curves around the skull. It would take a really high pressure to make scalp edema "obvious".

You talk about testing below Michael, and i think the smaller increase in scalp tissue thickness in male pattern baldness would be seen in MRI scans. If i am right, the tissue would be slightly thicker in the male pattern baldness area, and the same all over in those with no male pattern baldness.

For now we have other evidence that supports increased tissue fluid levels and fluid stagnation in male pattern baldness.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... ds=8628793

Such hypoxia is the norm in edemous tissue.

On your theory and getting it tested. If youre waiting on the laser results of treating veinous insufficiency in horses with edema in their legs...................that will not convince people, even if the animal's legs get hairier. Horses do not have Male Pattern Baldness, and lymphedemic skin is sickly skin. A lotta things go wrong with it.

Where have you got the idea from that i am interested in laser treatment in horses as being relevant to my theory?

I have told you before Michael that i cannot fully disclose the details of who is researching what in relation to my theory. Not all "real" scientists like their names being linked in debates on the internet. I have posted "some" opinions on my theory from professional scientists as you know. There are other responses i have not posted because the people involved do not want to be linked with internet debates.

I will say this however.

If my theory is correct as it relates to male pattern baldness, first i have to prove that DHT is causing a significant difference in gender lymphatic efficiency. This is the most important part of my theory as it relates to some serious medical conditions, and it is this that i am concentrating on for now.

I stand by my earlier observation that you need to PAY someone, like someone on the "no-shampoo" forum to rinse every day with cold water in the shower and to apply a blue-ice pack every night for half an hour for one year. Take pictures before treatment, and pictures after one year.

This would be the simpleist, most direct way for you to test your theory. It would only take one person with a back bald spot to test also. Put the ice pack over the entire male pattern baldness area. If he got increased growth and you posted the photos....................people like your detractors would have to admit your idea would need further testing (and would also start rinsing their heads in cold water at the least).

There are many possible ways to test my theory as it relates to male pattern baldness, but to do this on the scale required to prove it scientificaly is beyond my personal finances.

The idea of concentrating on other areas for now, is to also increase interest in proper testing of the male pattern baldness side in the future if the "basics" pan out.

Stephen,
Ive written a little lately about the topical green tea/curcumin and hamster flank organ
tests. Both of these substances see a great reduction in flank organ size like that of topical spironolactone and Gamma linolenic acid. Both are very cheap.

But then why if the current theory is right, doesn't spironolactone re-grow hair in male pattern baldness?

(I await all the usual excuses)

In another tidbit of interest. Ive long since finshed the pine oil (beta sis) experiment, but my right hand still has shorter, and less hair on it than my left. But there is something else that proves the androgens were blocked at application sites. Between the thumb and the wrist, there is extra LONG hair growth, and thicker hair growth than on the control hand. This is where NOTHING was placed. Its as if all the male hormone blocked at the receptor sites where the pine oil was place binded with the nearest hairs to the application sites where receptors were not blocked. The difference is plainly obvious, although it will be retreating to normal as its been a few months now since Ive put pine oil on it.

Hmmmm?

It seems to me Michael that your experiment casts even more doubt on the current theory!

How according to the current theory is it possible for an 5ARI/anti-androgen to "INCREASE" body hair??? Particularly when this has not been applied "directly"?

According to the current theory, body hair is "increased" by androgens, and "should" be reduced by anti-androgens full stop!

In this vain Michael, you know a bit about body hair to scalp transplants, so could you answer a point for me?

I have heard that many people who have BHT's also take 5ARI's like Propecia or dutasteride. But there is no reported difference in the way these BHT's grow longer on the scalp. Is that so?

Because if it is, here is "real life" in-vivo proof that the current theory is wrong!

The current theory claims body hair is "directly increased by androgens, so 5ARI's should prevent these grafts from growing more hair right?

No more excuses from people please.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

But then why if the current theory is right, doesn't spironolactone re-grow hair in male pattern baldness?

It does.

(This is probably my shortest-ever reply to you. Thank God for small favors! )

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

Im glad you could answer so quickly. For whatever reason, I can not post on HLR. Probably a tech glitch as I dont think Ive pissed Hagerty off.



I'll start at the end and work my way up.

On body hair to the scalp and 5ARI. The hair you have on your body while you take finasteride will still grow on the scalp, DESPITE the finasteride. Stephen, I have seen three really good BHT's where the hair looks alot like head hair. One Cole result with a hairline is incredible at 20 months. However, most results look like BODY HAIR simply moved to the head. The hair remains kinky, smalller, and does not want to attain as much length.

Look at these BHT pictures http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... &mode=full

You can see the difference in the head hair and the body hair. Thats only five months out, so he's got more hair to come in over the next year or so. However, the caliber of the hair is different despite all the tissue scaffolds that are underneath the plants. The patient has had over two thousand grafts and wants to eventually get 20,000. I imagine if he keeps his hair buzzed short, he will look alright someday. However, he is "missing" about 70,000 hairs that he once had, and its going to take alot of BHT's even at the three-dollar-and-fifty cent-Arvind in India price to get his head looking like he has a normal diffuse-thinning look. Very pricey.

Here is a picture of the best BHT Ive ever seen. It was 3128 transplants to the hairline area. He is on finasteride and minoxidil post-transplant. However, he still has thinning on top and the back thus will need more over time AND Ive never seen anyones body hair look nearly that good upstairs on anyone else. I follow hairsite's forum on this very close and have seen virtually all the results too.


I feel that this http://www.hairsite4.com/dc/dcboard.php ... &mode=full is a more typical result. It proves body hair does indeed grow on the head, and it can sometimes grow longer, but it does not look like head hair on its own. Dr. Arvind told me in the forum that he still tells his patients to assume that the body hair will retain its growth characteristics and whenever possible use it back in the back while moving the head donor up front for the best results.

There is one other problem with BHT's I dont think you know about (or haven't mentioned it) that docs have mentioned. When docs go for "density" as far as grafts per square centimeter with BHT's, they find their yield is low. They cannot "pack" em, despite their smaller size on most men. Cole, the best hair surgeon alive in my opinion, blames this on the signalling between body hairs being not conductive to the dense growth that scalp hair is. A difference in the hair in other words.

Quickly before I move on.......................I try not to promote BHT's. The best manual transplants can do in my opinion is the "donor exchange" or "FIT-farming" methods whereby hair is FUE'd out of the back of the head and moved up front, while "some" body hair grafts are placed in the FUE-holes in the back of the head. It adds some hair to the head in the aggregate without depleting the donor area so severely. Pre-HM, its the best we can do. Its also very expensive.



Now.............on my pine oil (beta sitosterol) experiment.

It worked out exactly like I thought it would. Pine oil decreased body hair growth noticebably where it was applied. Right OUTSIDE THE APPLICATION AREA however, growth was increased. I would think that this was because all the testosterone and DHT and andro and DHEA that didn't bind on the back of the hand could indeed bind with the hair between the wrist and the thumb where it was not applied. It grew longer (still is a bit longer). By the way, my right wrist STILL even after one YEAR is not as hairy as my left due to the revivogen. I conclude that even resting hairs get some stimulation from androgens and this has suppressed them also somewhat.




Stephen wrote "But then why if the current theory is right, doesn't spironolactone re-grow hair in male pattern baldness?

(I await all the usual excuses) "


spironolactone gets turned into carneroic (sp?) acid in 3.97 hours in the body. The weaker acid only lasts for about four more hours. So spironolactone, applied twice a day, is only "strong" for four hours, and weaker for four hours.
CASTRATES only regrow a little hair. We both know this. I wouldn't expect sprio to regrow a ton of hair unless one used it three times a day (thus some anti-androgen activity for all twenty four hours) and someone would have to use a stimulant with it. It just does not last long enough. Also, Im sure many use sprio-alchohol based solutions. The FITTEST, who knows more about hair than about anyone you will run into, will tell you these arent nearly as effective as the creams. The FITTEST hides his identity online, but most of us have figured out that he is a doctor that works for Cole. If you go to forhair.com, you can pretty much figure out who he is. He is extremely knowledgeable concerning everything about hair.
Ive not seen any anti-androgen alone regrow frontal hair, just the back bald spot where there was plenty o'peach fuzz. It always has to be used in conjunction with something else to get regrowth based on what Ive seen.



Youre link to the MRI's showing less oxygen in the scalp is fascinating. That is yet another piece of evidence that keeps people like me from completely being able to discard your theory. With the temprature being the same despite less oxygen.............it would seem that their should be "something" keeping that tissue so warm. Its very interesting and I can think of no excuse for it.


However, as far as the sweating study. I think we dont understand each other completely. I'll use the illustration of beard hair follicles vs. vellus hiars on the tricep. The vellus hairs on your tricep (look up into the light with your arm outstretched and you will see them) are small. The papillas are small and not very deep in your skin.

Youre beard hair follicles are enormous, biggest on the body. The papillas are fat, many times bigger than the papillas of the baby hair on the arm.
Stephen, have you ever seen a strip of donor hair flesh before the follicular units are carved out of it in a surgical photo. Big fat hairs, big fat papillas, now imagine a strip cut out of the arm....................tiny hairs, tiny papillas. Like comparing pencil-sticks to BROOMSTICKS. Whats between all those hairs.......................skin cells. Skin cells comprised of primarily of what? water.

More water equals more evaporation. There is more water where the big-hair used to be before one started balding. That doesnt mean that this explanation is correct, but it IS INDEED a possible one.




By the way, you had mentioned the laser comb being calibrated to help with the horse's veinous leg insufficiency in another post. I thought that maybe you were watching that research. However, Im glad youre working with some doctor or another on your theory.

As you can tell Stephen, Im thourough. Pain-in-the-***-thoughrough. But baldness (I have pretty nice hair) is something to be thourough about as no one has seemingly been able to regrow lost hair thats technically still there (like the vellus follicles on my temples) yet. I think ICX is our best bet in this long term. However, just on the outside chance you are right, I sitll rinse my head in cold water and do the scalp excercises for a few minutes each day.


I still wished you could talk some newbie into to using an ice pack every day for one year and a cold water rinse.............that seemingly would have provided some real-world regrowth and seriously upped interest in the theory.

One more thing on spironolactone, ..............green tea and curcumin outperform it on hamster flank organs as does gamma linolenic acid in its free form. Green tea with curcumin outdid GLA which outdid sprio. Thats what I was really complaining about. You'd think science would be hailing these things, but since no one is going to make any money off of a couple of substances that cant be sold as pharmacueticals............they have kept their mouths shut and no dermatologist that you will talk to will even know about them. Its a shame. Im currently testing caffeine on one side of my neck in the shaving area to see if it inhibits beard hair growth. Im going to test beer topically somewhere when I finish. I can only verify pine oil (beta sis) and revivogen as being effective anti-androgenic topicals thusfar personally.

 

[michael barry]

Well PHUCK..............the good BHT result didnt get linked.

Here is the picture of the extremely good BHT.

http://www.forhair.com/hairtransplant/about982.html


hope that links

 

[S Foote.]

But then why if the current theory is right, doesn't spironolactone re-grow hair in male pattern baldness?

It does.

(This is probably my shortest-ever reply to you. Thank God for small favors! )

Bryan

Yeah Bryan, these forums are full of people who re-grew their hair with topical spironolactone :roll:

The mild effect of topical spironolactone is because the androgen effect on hair growth is in the wider local tissues. If the effect "was" in the follicles as you head in the sand folks still think, spironolactone would be a lot more effective in male pattern baldness.

This is why oral spironolactone that effects the whole "system", has more effect on hair growth, simple.

People are not stupid Bryan, and they can see the facts for themselves. :wink:

Michael, i haven't got much time now, i will reply to your post when i can.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Michael.

I will get back to you as soon as i can on the points you raised.

Meanwhile my searching for studies relating to MRI scans of the head have turned up a study i think is very interesting.

I have referenced the rare cases of lipedematous scalp and lipedematous alopecia, and how these show lymphatic involvement is linked to hair loss. These also show how there can be significant differences in developement of edema in different layers of the scalp.

This particular study is the first i have found that shows that the areas of the scalp that can develope lipedematous scalp, are the "same" areas that can develope male pattern baldness!

The authors say quote:

"The association of lipedematous scalp and androgenetic alopecia in our two patients is, in our opinion, coincidental and resulting from the high frequency of androgenetic alopecia in men. The fact that the lipedematous scalp coincided with the areas affected by androgenetic alopecia is possibly related to the fact that both conditions tend to be localized in the vertex. The casual correlation of lipedematous scalp and androgenetic alopecia in our patients is furthermore suggested by results of treatment with finasteride 1 mg. One year of finasteride treatment in fact induced improvement of androgenetic alopecia in one patient and stabilization in the other, but it did not affect the lipedematous scalp, which remained unchanged in both cases."

I do not agree with the conclusions of the authors about this link. I think the important thing here is the demonstration of the male pattern baldness area as vunerable to edema "for whatever underlying cause"! I think the level in the layers of the scalp that develope edema is the critical factor in hair loss.

This is the first study i have seen that makes the connection i have proposed in male pattern baldness.

I think if more specific studies were done on the local lymphatic efficiency in male pattern baldness, and not just the lymphangiectasia reported in these rare cases, they would find the connection.

Here is the study.

http://dermatology.cdlib.org/122/case_r ... tosti.html

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Very interesting.

I read the study and their conclusions. They concluded that since one man improved somewhat on finasteride at one year and that the other man saw his hairloss stop (but no regrowth) that AA and lipedemateous scalp are coincedental and not related because the thickened scalp conditoned remained while on finasteride. However, if you (Stephen) were right and they were related, the finasteride might be enough to relax the lymphedema just enough to let the hair grow, but not enough to relax the edema or improve the lymph conditions enough for it to no longer be clinical.

It would be interesting if you could get in touch with these guys and explain your idea at length.


I wonder if using topical spironolactone in conjunction with finasteride (3 spironolactone applications a day) could relieve lipedemateous scalp in women who exibit it, or at least stop it from worsening. If it could, that would be quite an arrow in your quiver. Since that condition is less rare, would that stand a better chance of being tried?



That "line" of inflammation is something Ive seen on my own hairline in the past. Small line of reddishness accros right on the receeding hairline area. Peptides have been a big blessing here. Its not there now. Havent regrown hairline hair, but haven't lost it either since using them.