For bryan and Foote.

[Armando Jose]

The heaviest tombstone in the respected theory of Stpehen Foote is that do not explain the different incidence between sexes.
Everyone can hold a theory about common baldness, it is easy ought the extrem complexity of hair biology. But any theory must explain, among other things, the special pattern and the the diferences between sexes.

Best regards and Happy New Year at all.

Armando

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,
I can see how increased sweating from a bald area versus sweating from a hairy area might be interpreted to mean that there is more water in the bald area.

However in adult bearded men who were clean shaven, 40% less sweating on the hairy beard area versus the foreheads just shows me that the difference in sweating on the bald versus not bald scalp is the hair follicles themselves acting like shade trees with puddles of water underneath them versus puddles of water out in a open field on the same sunny day.

Get it? Pre puberty when a boy has no hair on his chin, his chin and forehead SWEAT THE SAME. POST puberty, when he has a beard and keeps it shaven......the big new beard follicles allow for 40% less evaporation (than the forehead evap. rate it used to be equal to) because much of the skin's water content is underneath the big follicles, shielded from the light like a puddle of water under a big ol' shade tree.

From that may we not all infer that the increased sweating on a bald scalp is much more from not having the hair "shade it" from the light also?

I do this realising that sweating 2 to 3 times more sweating in balding vs. non balding scalp is MORE than 40% however. I must state that there is alot of water bearing baby fat under the chin and more in the scalp than the tightly stretched skin of the forehead and this could (I think we'd all admit) skew things a little.

Thats another way to interpret those results than the study author's I know, but male pattern baldness has stumped so many that Id rather overanalyse then under. Also, if baldness is JUST A THERMOREGULATORY compensation......then folks who evolved in hot areas should be the ones going bald, correct? I mean why should their be baldness in Northern Europe, where you need your hair to stay warm, happen if thats all it was?

No Michael.

The full paper on this sweating study is not available on line. Professor Cabanac sent me a copy of the full paper after i published my first paper about my theory.

In his study "ALL" the test areas in "ALL" the test subjects was shaved. This was done to rule out any effects like those you mention.

This study proved very well that the sweating changes are because of the basic capacity of the tissue "TO" sweat!

The authors interpreted these sweating differences as some kind of evolutionary thermo-regulatory adaptation, but that was just their "evolutionary" take on the results, and does not explain any "mechanism".

The important thing is the relationship between these sweating changes and DHT related hair growth/loss. The only "mechanism" that explains these results, is DHT induced changes in tissue fluid levels!

The only recognised factor in changes in a tissues ability to sweat, is the fluid level in that tissue. For example, in extreme heat dehydration, a person will lose the ability to sweat as the tissues lose fluid.

In my opinion, the sweating changes are the simple result of changes in the local fluid levels.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

The heaviest tombstone in the respected theory of Stpehen Foote is that do not explain the different incidence between sexes.
Everyone can hold a theory about common baldness, it is easy ought the extrem complexity of hair biology. But any theory must explain, among other things, the special pattern and the the diferences between sexes.

Best regards and Happy New Year at all.

Armando

Hi Armando.

I don't understand your point?

We are talking about androgen related hair growth/loss, so the different levels of androgens in the sexes mean different patterns and degrees of loss!

I think everyone Agrees on this point at least.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Hi Michael.

I think the link you posted about L'Oreal's research is very telling, and "some" people around here should take a good look at what "real" scientists think!

This research is in line you will note with Dr Sawaya's comments in her response to my theory as i have posted. That is the movement away from old ideas that have not panned out scientificaly, to the consideration of more significant "external" effects in male pattern baldness.

Quote from the L'Oreal article:

"Research, which involved more than 8,000 people over eight years in France, has found that ageing skin cells on the scalp constrict hair follicles as they lose their flexibility, pushing their roots nearer to the surface and eventually destroying their ability to sustain thick, healthy hair."

In effect the "constriction" and "pushing" refered to is preventing follicle enlargement through the normal contact inhibition of follicle cell growth!


The observations of an "ageing" like effect on cells, are fully consistant with the known adverse conditions in tissues with reduced fluid turnover, particularly in lymphedema.

The reduction in tissue fluid turnover in lymphedema, means a general cell distress because of reduced nutrient supply and waste removal.

Perhaps anti-oxidant's may help scalp conditions to some degree, but this is not really addressing the basic cause of these conditions im my opinion.

I have found a contact address for Dr Olivier de Lacharrière, who headed this study, and i will try to get a response from him on my proposed mechanism for what they are seeing.

I would also say here Michael, that instead of responding anymore in this thread to Bryan and Dave's unqualified pretentious "sniping" at me, i will just point out one clear "fact" to people following this thread.

The L'Oreal research clearly confirms what i have been saying in this thread about a significant effect of normal contact inhibition in restricting growth of follicles in the male pattern baldness area.

End of story!

Unless Bryan and Dave want to contact L'Oreal and tell "them" their wrong!!!

S Foote.

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,
My interpretations of the sweat study were this:

Pre pubescent male (no hair on forehead, or chin)
Chin sweat=(lets say 1.0)
Forehead sweat=(lets say 1.0)


Shaven post pubescent male (forehead, shaven chin)
Chin sweat=(.6) -----due to the 40% decrease in sweating exp. result
Forehead sweat=(1.0)

The shaven post pubescent chin sweated less. THe post pubescent chin contains big thick (biggest in the body) follilces. They are there even if they are shaven. You dont think the big-thick dermal papillas, larger arrector pilli muscles, dermal sheaths, adult sized sebaceous glands wouldnt "shield" the water under them at least "some"?


That was my point about the scalp skin. Even if shaven, there are still big philosebacous units on the non-balding scalp, and vellus-sized philosebaceous units on the bald scalp. Perhaps I oversimplify be "reading this" into that study, but it would seem the same shading of the follicles could apply there?


Do you have a different take on it? Bryan or Dave have a take on it?



Further note on L'Oreal.......I dont take everything as gospel that "a huge and clever marketing company"--Dr. Loren Pickart on L'Oreal on his chat forum in a response to me----comes up with, but I could'nt help thinking about your ideas when I seen that part of the study. Stephen, have you ever considered its the hormones that shrink the follicle initially, and the contact inhibition (be it from collagen thickening, hardening of the skin, fluid pressue) that restricts it from re-enlarging even after one is using anti-androgens, etc. I mean If DHT causes pressure to rise one way or another......then if youre castrated, all your hair should re-enlarge theoretically, but that doesnt happen. Do you have a take on that?


Further note: I hope the antimosity between Stephen, Bryan, and Dave dont get them to stop posting on threads with/against one another. That would be a shame.......everybody has the same goal (I hope) which is the most successful treatment of male pattern baldness currently possible....

 

[Armando Jose]

"Hi Armando.

I don't understand your point?

We are talking about androgen related hair growth/loss, so the different levels of androgens in the sexes mean different patterns and degrees of loss!

I think everyone Agrees on this point at least.

S Foote."

Hi Stephen.

I think that healthy scalp in all persons without problems with common baldness is the same. In other words, there is not significant different leves of androgens in the vacinity of healthy hair follicle between sexes. So the explanation of common baldness would be universal.
But I can be wrong.

Armando

 

[michael barry]

Armando,
Many women carry baldness genes, but are protected from baldness by female hormones. I believe I read that in a Dr. Ivy Greenwell article a while back. This is why post-menapausal women often have hair-loss problems, but can just take estrogen or a little progesterone and help it, unless its thyroid related.

Although men and women BOTH have estrogens and androgens......men would have MUCH more androgens. If they didn't, they'd have tits, get fat at the hips, and all the other female traits. Androgenic women that sometimes have "male" pattern loss often have facial and body hair problems, because they have TOO much male hormones vs the amount of female hormones. It would be a real stretch to say the hormonal differences didnt reach into the skin also. Even if a woman had quite a bit of alpha five reductase enzyme, she'd have so much less testosterone to be converted. She also converts alot of the T she does have to estriadol anyway--Greenwell. She has progesterone competing for androgen receptors with DHT in her skin. She has much less androstenidione, and proboably cortisol also. Dont know about DHEAS levels in females though.

That ol' Dr. Greenwell article pointed out that skid row drunks in many cases have really good hair proboably because staying drunk about halves the amount of Testosterone one makes, so they proboably only make about half their normal level of DHT, and their peripheral blood vessels stay dialated, and their blood is thinned by the alchohol. If its cheap red wine they drink, they also get reservatrol (NO releaser).

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,
My interpretations of the sweat study were this:

Pre pubescent male (no hair on forehead, or chin)
Chin sweat=(lets say 1.0)
Forehead sweat=(lets say 1.0)


Shaven post pubescent male (forehead, shaven chin)
Chin sweat=(.6) -----due to the 40% decrease in sweating exp. result
Forehead sweat=(1.0)

The shaven post pubescent chin sweated less. THe post pubescent chin contains big thick (biggest in the body) follilces. They are there even if they are shaven. You dont think the big-thick dermal papillas, larger arrector pilli muscles, dermal sheaths, adult sized sebaceous glands wouldnt "shield" the water under them at least "some"?


That was my point about the scalp skin. Even if shaven, there are still big philosebacous units on the non-balding scalp, and vellus-sized philosebaceous units on the bald scalp. Perhaps I oversimplify be "reading this" into that study, but it would seem the same shading of the follicles could apply there?


Do you have a different take on it? Bryan or Dave have a take on it?

Hi Michael.

The sweat glands are independent structures, not shielded or directly influenced by other dermal structures.

I would add that the subjects were required to ride exercise bikes to start the sweating through "internal" heat generation. The external temperature and so any shielding from this, was not rellevant.

The methodology in this study was very precise, even the physiology of the sweat glands themselves was examined. This showed that androgens were not "directly" effecting the glands. There was no changes in the size of the glands, like there are changes in the size of hair follicles.

Really the only explaination for this major change in the capacity of sweating in these areas, is DHT induced changes in the local tissue fluid pressures. Sweat is after all tissue fluid!

Further note on L'Oreal.......I dont take everything as gospel that "a huge and clever marketing company"--Dr. Loren Pickart on L'Oreal on his chat forum in a response to me----comes up with, but I could'nt help thinking about your ideas when I seen that part of the study. Stephen, have you ever considered its the hormones that shrink the follicle initially, and the contact inhibition (be it from collagen thickening, hardening of the skin, fluid pressue) that restricts it from re-enlarging even after one is using anti-androgens, etc. I mean If DHT causes pressure to rise one way or another......then if youre castrated, all your hair should re-enlarge theoretically, but that doesnt happen. Do you have a take on that?

I think the only logical train of events is a DHT induced change in the local fluid pressure, via increasing lymphatic pumping. This one action combined with the layout of the lymphatics and the human vascular system, explains "all" subsequent events in DHT related hair growth/loss.

The changes in the local fluid pressure explains the increased body and beard growth by reducing the pressure around these follicles. The "opposite" effect of increasing fluid pressure in the male pattern baldness area, because of the local fluid dynamics, shrinks the follicles through early contact inhibition.

These same fluid pressure changes explain the sweating changes in these same areas. The increased fluid levels in the male pattern baldness scalp over time, also explain the immune infiltrate, cell damage noted in the L'Oreal article, and the fibrosis that developes in male pattern baldness tissue. As i have referenced before, all these tissue effects noted in male pattern baldness are already recognised in lymphedema.

In my opinion just removing the hormone trigger does not reverse male pattern baldness because of the secondary formation of fibrose tissue around the "already" miniaturised follicles in male pattern baldness. This is why the longer an individual has been balding, the harder it is to reverse as you state above.

This is the only logical sequense of events given the observations in my opinion.

Any other explaination for the sequense of events, needs to use more "mechanisms", and is not therefore "Ockham's razor friendly"

For example, If DHT is directly effecting follicle growth, how is it also effecting sweating production? Unlike the follicles, cell multiplication is not changed in sweat glands, so straight away another mechanism has to be added. Likewise in answering the immunology question the "direct" theory needs another mechanism.

An initial "Hydraulic" change caused by DHT, explains it all through one basic "mechanism"

The "Hydraulics" also make sense in terms of the evolution of hair as an insulator, and the performance effects of androgens.

Further note: I hope the antimosity between Stephen, Bryan, and Dave dont get them to stop posting on threads with/against one another. That would be a shame.......everybody has the same goal (I hope) which is the most successful treatment of male pattern baldness currently possible....

I hope that my record speaks for itself here, in that i respond in kind to people. I have no problem with any critism of my personal ideas, as long as they are presented with basic common courtesy as your points are.

Points scoring word "games" and pure attention seeking on these forums dosen't move us forward, and i will point it out when i think i see it .

Going away for a couple of days now, good luck to all.

S Foote.

 

[Dave001]

Hi Michael.

I think the link you posted about L'Oreal's research is very telling, and "some" people around here should take a good look at what "real" scientists think!

Really? Specifically what research by L'Oreal do you think is very telling? The article to which you refer is just a short blurb from a popular magazine, printed a few years ago. It was not published by L'Oreal. I've seen L'Oreal's recent patents and patent applications, and none of them relate to contact inhibition.

This research is in line you will note with Dr Sawaya's comments in her response to my theory as i have posted.

I'm skeptical that even you're stupid enough to believe that. You've already been told that you've misinterpreted Dr. Sawaya (probably deliberately), but if you're going to continue pursuing that line of reasoning, why don't you confirm your interpretation with Dr. Sawaya?

Better yet, let's make a bet. For money. And HairLossTalk.com can act as the neutral party. He'll ask Sawaya in a yes or no form of question whether she feels that the new paradigm of understanding in androgenetic alopecia research has "contact inhibition" as a key mediator, or even a minor one. So whaddya say? Ready to put your money where your mouth is? Perhaps Bryan would like to "risk" some of his money as well. I see no reason he shouldn't profit from your ignorance too.

 

[Britannia]

Dave001 stop sucking up to Bryan. Youre making me sick.

 

[michael barry]

Dave,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFrien ... 10,00.html
The LODON TIMES is a newspaper, and is considered along with Le Monde, Europe's "newspaper of recoord" just like the "New York Times" and "Washington Post" are considered newspapers of record here stateside. I noticed the June 24, 2003 date myself when first linking it, and wondered that "something should have became of this in the market if this is so", etc. I dont think L'Oreal is above trying to mislead a science correspondent in an interview with a huge publication like the London Times to help market a baldness remedy. The product that they went for was an internal application that had Omega 3 acids from many different sources (like Walnut oil, flax lignans etc.), grape seed extract, grapefriuit extract (I think), host of other things men have dabbled with in the forums, plus an amino acid called taurine (which is found in meats and dairy). In other words, other than the taurine, the product seemed to mimic the things that many of us have discussed as anti-inflammatory, anti-alpha five, pro-circulation, anti-oxidant, etc. Paint me uncommited on them? Im so cynical about hairloss-remedies at this point though, who knows?

Stephen has commented (and posted) the letters from Dr. Bazan and Dr. Sawaya that are enthusiastic about him further researching his idea. Id take Marty Sawaya seriously.

However, on Dr. Bazan.......that guy was promising Hair Multiplication over at hairsite for the past few years. For those following this thread who dont know (I know Dave, Bryan, Stephen, Old Baldy, 2tone, and others would know this), HM involves hairs being either plucked (Bernstein's site) or surgically removed from the back of your head. The lower two thirds of the dermal papilla is cut off and re-implanted in your scalp in the donor area, the upper two thirds of the papilla is implanted in the donor area. Both were theorized to grow, thus making one hair into two. Coupla' years later, you could do it again, thus re-multiplying the SAME donor follicle a second time. In this way, one could theoretically double, triple, quadruple the size of their donor area, making hair transplantation........a rather expensive route to a full head of hair.

Here's the problem, either Coen Gho or Dr. Bazan NEVER were able to show one proof pic of the donor hair regrowing in the donor area despite MANY requests over at hairsite to do so. Still havent, both still claim to be "perfecting" the dissection process. Science now extracts groups of cells, we have lasers, precise surgical instruments, etc. to cut things in two.........I think they (along with many) were just trying to get patients into their clinics for VERY overpriced FUE transplants. The results looked like average FUE jobs to me (from the pics posted by the docs). Their is also the fear that the smaller stem cell masses in the halfed dermal papillas would produce smaller hairs in diameter and result in circumferentially hairline-quality hairs all over the head, and not big-thick donor area follicles. They never were able to put these doubts to rest.

Lots of guys got mad at Bazan, and felt 'ripped off' by him, etc. over at hairsite. Dr. Sawaya's letter to Stephen is worthy of consideration.....but I personally dont yet trust Dr. Carl Bazan until he shows me some very good proof. He's been called a liar by too many that regularily post at hairsite.

 

[Dave001]

Dave001 stop sucking up to Bryan. Youre making me sick.

If you're going to pop in at the tail end of a lengthy thread just to fire off a one-line insult, could you at least have the decency to make it a clever one? Or even just one that makes sense? People are probably scratching their heads, wondering what in the hell you're referring to. It doesn't make any sense. I even felt a little bit embarrassed for you when reading your message

 

[Dave001]

Dave,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFrien ... 10,00.html
The LODON TIMES is a newspaper, and is considered along with Le Monde, Europe's "newspaper of recoord" just like the "New York Times" and "Washington Post" are considered newspapers of record here stateside. I noticed the June 24, 2003 date myself when first linking it, and wondered that "something should have became of this in the market if this is so", etc. I dont think L'Oreal is above trying to mislead a science correspondent in an interview with a huge publication like the London Times to help market a baldness remedy?

Like I've said previously, it is a popular (i.e., mainstream), not scientific, publication. The article was probably just trying to describe miniaturization.

Stephen has commented (and posted) the letters from Dr. Bazan and Dr. Sawaya that are enthusiastic about him further researching his idea. Id take Marty Sawaya seriously.

First of all, the response sounded pretty canned, and said nothing even remotely similar to Stephen's claim. Secondly, science is not a matter of who said what. One has to support his claim with evidence, not mangled hearsay. It's frightening that the fallacy of Stephen's argument isn't immediately transparent to everyone.

 

[Britannia]

Dave001 stop sucking up to Bryan. Youre making me sick.

If you're going to pop in at the tail end of a lengthy thread just to fire off a one-line insult, could you at least have the decency to make it a clever one? Or even just one that makes sense? People are probably scratching their heads, wondering what in the hell you're referring to. It doesn't make any sense. I even felt a little bit embarrassed for you when reading your message

Anyone with a brain stem can see your just lamely trying to follow in Bryans slip stream by using your own basic (intermediate at best) scientific "knowledge" in an attempt to add your own futile opinions seemingly approving what Bryan has said. Still at least if your busy here your not scaring newbies on the other forums with your pseudo-scientist persona.

 

[michael barry]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFrien ... 10,00.html

This is what is stated in that London Times article "the discovery that two thirds of men lose their hair because their scalps age prematurely while the rest of their skin does not."---sounds alot like the Alpecin research of Jena University and the Univ. of Hamburg in Germany.

"Reasearch, which involved more than 8,000 people over 8 YEARS in France (thats got to be the biggest baldness study ever conducted), has found that ageing skin cells on the scalp constrict hair follicles as they lose their flexibility, pushing their roots nearer to the surface and eventually destroying thier ability to sustain thick, healthy hair."

"The findings suggest that antioxidants--chemicals that combat ageing in many tyes of tissue---are likely to protect against baldness."...........

"Olivier de Lacharri're, the LEAD RESEARCHER, has already been able to chart a CLEAR PROCESS OF DETERIORATION in the scalps of balding men---and women---that begins long before hair loss is obvious."

"First, two tpes of mark start to appear around the root of an apparently healthy follicle, Cupulae, small bulges in the scalp, grow around the follicle as ageing skin cells squeeze it and force its roots toward the surface. Later, coloured blotches or "halos" can be seen around follicles as they become distressed or inflammed."

"In the next stage, certain hair follicles become so compressed that they start to produce finder hairs with thinner diameters. A high-level "hair diameter diversity"---with some thick and some thin hairs on the scalp----is a good indicator of incipient alopecia."


Dave, here is a google search of Mark Anderson science correspondent here http://www.google.com/search?hair loss=en&q=ma ... nt&spell=1

Dave, as you will see he has been the science correspondent since 2000 and is mega-respected as a science writer. A paper like the NYTimes does not get scientific-idiots to write science colums or a technological idiot to write its computer/information-systems columns. I would imagine the guy has had a first class education at Cambridge or Oxford, probaobly in physics or biology.

That article has information that is to be taken seriously, no matter if it contains new information on the balding process that adds to current thought on the phenomena or even if invalidates some of what is currently thought. I dont care about any ideological agenda as 99 percent of readers of HairLossTalk.com do, I just want a solution for my own self. Couldnt care less who is "right". Mark Henderson isn't an idiot journalist, or he wouldnt be working as a science writer at one of the world's leading newspapers.

 

[Jacob]

I see I'm not the only who's noticed.

Carry on.

 

[hairwegoagain]

Dear Sirs:


I spent the last hour on the can after a bad piece of ham.


Regards

 

[michael barry]

A little more on L'Oreal.....who has more than 2,000 researchers here http://www.businessweek.com/1999/99_26/b3635020.htm

You'll note that they have cloned skin cells to test their products on them. Interesting.

 

[Dave001]

Anyone with a brain stem can see your just lamely trying to follow in Bryans slip stream by using your own basic (intermediate at best) scientific "knowledge" in an attempt to add your own futile opinions seemingly approving what Bryan has said.

Wow, did you say that all in one breath? And with a straight face at the same time? Is there a particular "futile opinion" of mine that "seemingly approves" of something Bryan has said, of which you disaprove?

Still at least if your busy here your not scaring newbies on the other forums with your pseudo-scientist persona.

Oh. Obviously I damaged your fragile ego sometime in the past. Foo-bucking-hoo.

 

[Dave001]

[snip]

Yeah, I saw it the first time.

Dave, here is a google search of Mark Anderson science correspondent here http://www.google.com/search?hair loss=en&q=ma ... nt&spell=1

Dave, as you will see he has been the science correspondent since 2000 and is mega-respected as a science writer. A paper like the NYTimes does not get scientific-idiots to write science colums or a technological idiot to write its computer/information-systems columns. I would imagine the guy has had a first class education at Cambridge or Oxford, probaobly in physics or biology.

That article has information that is to be taken seriously, no matter if it contains new information on the balding process that adds to current thought on the phenomena or even if invalidates some of what is currently thought. I dont care about any ideological agenda as 99 percent of readers of HairLossTalk.com do, I just want a solution for my own self. Couldnt care less who is "right". Mark Henderson isn't an idiot journalist, or he wouldnt be working as a science writer at one of the world's leading newspapers.

No, that's simply not how things work. That article was not an original research article from scientists at O'Lreal. It was written for the mainstream/lay/braindead public.