For bryan and Foote.

[S Foote.]

S. Foote write:
With respect Armando i have a question?

If i understand your theory correctly, you claim that sebum flow into the follicle is "plugging" the follicle preventing hair growth right?

If this is true, the sebum pressure would inflate the follicles, they would enlarge.

But we see just the opposite in male pattern baldness, the follicles are miniaturised!

How can your theory explain this?

S Foote.

Dear friend;

When sebum plug the follicle, its volumen decrease and its hardness increase.

Armando

But that wouldn't explain how the follicle itself would shrink Armando?

We know through the example of in growing hairs, that provided the mechanism of hair production exists, the hair can force through skin!

The other problem i see is how can the much weaker vellous hairs still produced in male pattern baldness follicles, manage to get past a sebum plug?

Regards.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

When sebum is being oxidized, its viscosity increase and its volumen decrease.

Why would its volume decrease?

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Bryan,

I have read Armando's website a good while ago. What he purports is that wearing your hair short (a buzz cut) sees sebum not ride the hair far enough away from the follicle, and slide back down the hair until the duct where it emerges on the skin gets blocked.

Then his theory is based on a false premise, because we know now that sebum doesn't "ride" the hair outwards, and certain doesn't "slide back down" it! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Well no Bryan!

The korean study aside for a moment, (i for one would like to read the full study), you have a more "direct" problem :wink:

The body hair to scalp transplants in commercial use, are using what you claim to be androgen dependent hair!

This is chest hair or hair from other areas that grew in response to androgens. The donor dominance idea you support, clearly claims that this should retain its androgen driven growth characteristic when transplanted to other areas.

But it doesn't does it as Michael has linked :wink:

Yes it does. What link are you talking about that allegedly shows otherwise?

Bryan

 

[michael barry]

Stephen,

This article http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... 2.110606.x at Blackwell-Synergy describes Proanthocyanidins from barley extract (B3) as able to "Procyanidin B-3, isolated from barley and identified as a hair-growth stimulant, has the potential to counteract inhibitory regulation by TGF-β1"

TGF-Beta 1 is the pathway that you suggests converts scalp hair to being sesitive to androgens directly by when contact inhibiton via heightened fluid levels sqeezes the papilla's cells enough.

Do you have an observation on this? Think the ol' beer and eggs shampoo might have been even better than we knew perhaps? I noticed that Loren Pickart puts barley and hops in his shampoo. Interesting that.

I think the TGF beta-1/ androgen thing, is only an in-vitro consideration. I seriously don't think this is the mechanism of androgen miniaturisation of follicles in-vivo. I also don't think this pathway "keeps" male pattern baldness follicles miniaturised.

Simply because if it was, the human male pattern baldness follicles transplanted to those immuno mice would have remained miniaturised.

Someone really should do a lot more experimentation with that type of mice and human follicles. We could move forward alot in understanding human hair growth then in my opinion.

As an avid "real ale" person (i used to brew my own beer from the grain), i am all for any such treatment Michael :lol: :lol:

S Foote.

Stephen,
I would think the proanthocyanidin B3 would indeed work in vivo. You may only believe that it directly effects hair follicle's epilitheal cells in a test tube and not in the body, but they have been included in the essential oils, Dr. Pickart's shampoo, Emu Oil shampoo's for a reason over the years. I imagine green apple peel derived proanthocyanidins, grape seed extract proanthocyandins (in revivogen), blueberry proanthocyandins (which are properly called anthocyanidins and help protect against prostate disorders in vivo, therefore may also be something of an anti-androgen) and barley and hops proanthocyandins REALLY are hair growth stimulants. From what Ive been able to cobble together, they are reputed to work by stimulating epilitheal and/or root sheath cell activity. I know they also all contract the skin (which would be another way for them to work according to your theory), apple juice almost painfully so <my hands swelled so bad from them the first couple of nights, I was literally in a little pain>. I do think they probably do work.


I mentioned in an earlier post that I found a link that showed skin care products that contained lavendar and tea tree oil are now associated with gynochomostia in young boys. Lavendar, and old essential oil used since before the middle ages, has alot of estrogen-like compounds in it. There is only one way it could do this, and that is to occupy androgen receptors. I wonder if they do it in such a way as to not get the androgen receptors to uptake their expression (i.e. make more receptor sites) by occupying them like estrogen does in women who may have baldness genes, but are protected from baldness by their female hormones. I should buy some lavendar and put it on some body hair and see what happens. If I weren't so damned busy, Id get around to it. Life gets in the way of everything does it not. With all thats happening in the middle east right now, my mind has honestly been on other things a bit lately.

 

[S Foote.]

Well no Bryan!

The korean study aside for a moment, (i for one would like to read the full study), you have a more "direct" problem :wink:

The body hair to scalp transplants in commercial use, are using what you claim to be androgen dependent hair!

This is chest hair or hair from other areas that grew in response to androgens. The donor dominance idea you support, clearly claims that this should retain its androgen driven growth characteristic when transplanted to other areas.

But it doesn't does it as Michael has linked :wink:

Yes it does. What link are you talking about that allegedly shows otherwise?

Bryan

I am refering to the body hair to male pattern baldness area transplants Michael has referenced here Bryan.

If your statement above "yes it does" refers to the donor dominance idea you claim below, androgen "dependent" body hair transplants, and the doughnutting issue, clearly refute your claim.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/ab ... 2.110606.x[/url] at Blackwell-Synergy describes Proanthocyanidins from barley extract (B3) as able to "Procyanidin B-3, isolated from barley and identified as a hair-growth stimulant, has the potential to counteract inhibitory regulation by TGF-β1"

TGF-Beta 1 is the pathway that you suggests converts scalp hair to being sesitive to androgens directly by when contact inhibiton via heightened fluid levels sqeezes the papilla's cells enough.

Do you have an observation on this? Think the ol' beer and eggs shampoo might have been even better than we knew perhaps? I noticed that Loren Pickart puts barley and hops in his shampoo. Interesting that.

I think the TGF beta-1/ androgen thing, is only an in-vitro consideration. I seriously don't think this is the mechanism of androgen miniaturisation of follicles in-vivo. I also don't think this pathway "keeps" male pattern baldness follicles miniaturised.

Simply because if it was, the human male pattern baldness follicles transplanted to those immuno mice would have remained miniaturised.

Someone really should do a lot more experimentation with that type of mice and human follicles. We could move forward alot in understanding human hair growth then in my opinion.

As an avid "real ale" person (i used to brew my own beer from the grain), i am all for any such treatment Michael :lol: :lol:

S Foote.[/quote:c3a14]

Stephen,
I would think the proanthocyanidin B3 would indeed work in vivo. You may only believe that it directly effects hair follicle's epilitheal cells in a test tube and not in the body, but they have been included in the essential oils, Dr. Pickart's shampoo, Emu Oil shampoo's for a reason over the years. I imagine green apple peel derived proanthocyanidins, grape seed extract proanthocyandins (in revivogen), blueberry proanthocyandins (which are properly called anthocyanidins and help protect against prostate disorders in vivo, therefore may also be something of an anti-androgen) and barley and hops proanthocyandins REALLY are hair growth stimulants. From what Ive been able to cobble together, they are reputed to work by stimulating epilitheal and/or root sheath cell activity. I know they also all contract the skin (which would be another way for them to work according to your theory), apple juice almost painfully so <my>. I do think they probably do work.


I mentioned in an earlier post that I found a link that showed skin care products that contained lavendar and tea tree oil are now associated with gynochomostia in young boys. Lavendar, and old essential oil used since before the middle ages, has alot of estrogen-like compounds in it. There is only one way it could do this, and that is to occupy androgen receptors. I wonder if they do it in such a way as to not get the androgen receptors to uptake their expression (i.e. make more receptor sites) by occupying them like estrogen does in women who may have baldness genes, but are protected from baldness by their female hormones. I should buy some lavendar and put it on some body hair and see what happens. If I weren't so damned busy, Id get around to it. Life gets in the way of everything does it not. With all thats happening in the middle east right now, my mind has honestly been on other things a bit lately.

[/quote:c3a14]

TGF beta-1 is implicated in the normal entry of follicles into the catagen phase, so targeting it in-vivo may extend the anagen phase.

But this is different from trying to claim TGF beta-1 is the primary cause of male pattern baldness in-vivo.

You have some good ideas about personal experiments Michael, and i know myself how life often gets in the way!

I have had something come up today myself, so i might not be able to respond again for a while.

Good luck.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

I am refering to the body hair to male pattern baldness area transplants Michael has referenced here Bryan.

If your statement above "yes it does" refers to the donor dominance idea you claim below, androgen "dependent" body hair transplants, and the doughnutting issue, clearly refute your claim.

How does it refute my claim?

Bryan

 

[Administrator]

Moving this thread to the GENERAL HAIR LOSS DISCUSSIONS.

Admin

 

[S Foote.]

I am refering to the body hair to male pattern baldness area transplants Michael has referenced here Bryan.

If your statement above "yes it does" refers to the donor dominance idea you claim below, androgen "dependent" body hair transplants, and the doughnutting issue, clearly refute your claim.

How does it refute my claim?

Bryan

I see, playing dumb yet again :wink:

Well Bryan, you clearly claim that androgens are directly dictating the way follicles grow, by a genetic interaction within the heart of the follicle cells. Here is just one of your statements.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571

Quote:

"Nowadays we have overwhelming evidence for what causes male pattern balding: the direct, suppressive influence of androgens on human scalp follicles is a prime factor in this condition."

You have clearly argued that transplantation proves this internal "direct" action of androgens, because there are no changes in the growth characteristics of follicles when transplanted.


But all the modern evidence in body to scalp hair transplantation, refutes your "no change" claims Bryan, including the continued hair loss in the very graft type you quoted in the link above, that we now know happens.

By the way Bryan people can clearly see from reading this thread, that you continue to try to claim it is androgen induced TGF beta-1 that is miniaturising follicles in male pattern baldness.

So why is it you didn't object when Dr Proctor gave a different explaination?

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/forums/mess ... adid=59822

Quote:


"Dr. Proctor would say that copper-peptides work by their ability to destroy the superoxide radical, which he says signals the hair follicle to stop growing. I have no particular reason to doubt what he says.

Bryan"

Then you wonder why you have lost all credibility on these forums :roll:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Well Bryan, you clearly claim that androgens are directly dictating the way follicles grow, by a genetic interaction within the heart of the follicle cells.

You have clearly argued that transplantation proves this internal "direct" action of androgens, because there are no changes in the growth characteristics of follicles when transplanted.

In the context of balding, yes.

But all the modern evidence in body to scalp hair transplantation, refutes your "no change" claims Bryan...

That's what I asked you to explain. Are you referring to that Korean study? I've already responded to that several times.

...including the continued hair loss in the very graft type you quoted in the link above, that we now know happens.

Are you referring to the alleged "doughnutting" effect?

By the way Bryan people can clearly see from reading this thread, that you continue to try to claim it is androgen induced TGF beta-1 that is miniaturising follicles in male pattern baldness.

Actually, I've never claimed that it is only TGF beta-1 that is involved in miniaturizing follicles in male pattern baldness. That's YOU putting words in my mouth. I've always maintained that several factors are probably involved in male pattern baldness.

So why is it you didn't object when Dr Proctor gave a different explaination?

Because I believe that Dr. Proctor was correct in what he said.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Well Bryan, you clearly claim that androgens are directly dictating the way follicles grow, by a genetic interaction within the heart of the follicle cells.

You have clearly argued that transplantation proves this internal "direct" action of androgens, because there are no changes in the growth characteristics of follicles when transplanted.

In the context of balding, yes.

[quote="S Foote.":71242]But all the modern evidence in body to scalp hair transplantation, refutes your "no change" claims Bryan...

That's what I asked you to explain. Are you referring to that Korean study? I've already responded to that several times.

...including the continued hair loss in the very graft type you quoted in the link above, that we now know happens.

Are you referring to the alleged "doughnutting" effect?

By the way Bryan people can clearly see from reading this thread, that you continue to try to claim it is androgen induced TGF beta-1 that is miniaturising follicles in male pattern baldness.

Actually, I've never claimed that it is only TGF beta-1 that is involved in miniaturizing follicles in male pattern baldness. That's YOU putting words in my mouth. I've always maintained that several factors are probably involved in male pattern baldness.

So why is it you didn't object when Dr Proctor gave a different explaination?

Because I believe that Dr. Proctor was correct in what he said.

Bryan[/quote:71242]

The developing facts that are refuting the old idea's Bryan, are very clear to the scientists.

If you want to go on with your if, what, and may be's like this, there is really no point going on with this discussion.

If you can find any hard evidence in the modern body of evidence that you think supports the old idea's. i would like to hear about it? :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Let the record show that you wouldn't answer my questions.

Bryan

 

[HARM1]

Q:
I like the sebum on my hair, and tend not to wash it, if the theory that claims that sebum plugs the shaft is correct then I am hurting myself?

 

[S Foote.]

Let the record show that you wouldn't answer my questions.

Bryan

What questions for God's sake?

I asked "YOU" the question of how can you justify your past claims about the old studies, within the context of the modern body of evidence?????

I can see no "questions" to me in your last post!

This articulate babble of yours, is a recognised tactic of psuedo scientists, who cannot back up their claims with hard facts Bryan. :roll:

You just insult the inteligence of the people here, with this bulls**t

The "record" is very clear Bryan!

I will ask you again.

How can you possibly justify your rant about old transplantation studies in this link, with the modern body of evidence????????????????????????

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571

Remember "YOU" claimed this old study proved beyond question that any other theory about male pattern baldness was just plain wrong!

So tell us all how your "on the record" claim, fits with what we now know about continued hair loss in these grafts in the male pattern baldness area?

Never mind the modern body hair transplants that blow your claims away, just answer the "doughnutting" question?

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Let the record show that you wouldn't answer my questions.

Bryan

What questions for God's sake?

I asked "YOU" the question of how can you justify your past claims about the old studies, within the context of the modern body of evidence?????

I can see no "questions" to me in your last post!

OH REALLY?? I guess there's something wrong with your browser, then, because everybody else saw those questions which you (supposedly) didn't. Maybe you need to format your hard-drive and re-install Internet Explorer!

Here they are again, from just a few posts previous to this one:

But all the modern evidence in body to scalp hair transplantation, refutes your "no change" claims Bryan...

That's what I asked you to explain. Are you referring to that Korean study? I've already responded to that several times.

...including the continued hair loss in the very graft type you quoted in the link above, that we now know happens.

Are you referring to the alleged "doughnutting" effect?

How can you possibly justify your rant about old transplantation studies in this link, with the modern body of evidence????????

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571

Wow, that thread on the Nordstrom study that I started has been a real thorn in your side, hasn't it, Stephen? :wink:

Remember "YOU" claimed this old study proved beyond question that any other theory about male pattern baldness was just plain wrong!

So tell us all how your "on the record" claim, fits with what we now know about continued hair loss in these grafts in the male pattern baldness area?

There IS no information that I've ever seen about "continued hair loss" in those grafts. That's apparently a figment of your highly overactive imagination.

Never mind the modern body hair transplants that blow your claims away, just answer the "doughnutting" question?

It's funny how there's precious-little information about the "doughnutting" effect. I haven't seen any information at all about it in published medical journal studies. You've cited a few simple statements here and there on hair transplant Web sites, but that's about the extent of it. In the absence of any more detailed information than just what those simple statements say, I have no reason to doubt the explanation given on those sites. It SURE AS HELL has no bearing on the wild claims that YOU make about the (alleged) ultimate failure of hair transplants that have been done around the world in the last quarter-century, and it sure as hell has no bearing whatsoever on the overwhelmingly conclusive results of Nordstom's ingenious study.

Keep ranting and raving about the "doughnutting" effect, Stephen. I'm getting a big kick out of it! :wink:

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Let the record show that you wouldn't answer my questions.

Bryan

What questions for God's sake?

I asked "YOU" the question of how can you justify your past claims about the old studies, within the context of the modern body of evidence?????

I can see no "questions" to me in your last post!

OH REALLY?? I guess there's something wrong with your browser, then, because everybody else saw those questions which you (supposedly) didn't. Maybe you need to format your hard-drive and re-install Internet Explorer!

Here they are again, from just a few posts previous to this one:

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571[/url]

Wow, that thread on the Nordstrom study that I started has been a real thorn in your side, hasn't it, Stephen? :wink:

Remember "YOU" claimed this old study proved beyond question that any other theory about male pattern baldness was just plain wrong!

So tell us all how your "on the record" claim, fits with what we now know about continued hair loss in these grafts in the male pattern baldness area?

There IS no information that I've ever seen about "continued hair loss" in those grafts. That's apparently a figment of your highly overactive imagination.

Never mind the modern body hair transplants that blow your claims away, just answer the "doughnutting" question?

It's funny how there's precious-little information about the "doughnutting" effect. I haven't seen any information at all about it in published medical journal studies. You've cited a few simple statements here and there on hair transplant Web sites, but that's about the extent of it. In the absence of any more detailed information than just what those simple statements say, I have no reason to doubt the explanation given on those sites. It SURE AS HELL has no bearing on the wild claims that YOU make about the (alleged) ultimate failure of hair transplants that have been done around the world in the last quarter-century, and it sure as hell has no bearing whatsoever on the overwhelmingly conclusive results of Nordstom's ingenious study.

Keep ranting and raving about the "doughnutting" effect, Stephen. I'm getting a big kick out of it! :wink:

Bryan[/quote:c5fd5]


OK then Bryan, let's see if you get a kick out of this?

Let's concentrate on this one point of the so called "doughnutting" pattern of loss in grafts transplanted to the male pattern baldness area. That way you can no longer claim to be confused as to my question.

Anyway, just this one issue completely disproves your claims made in the thread you started linked above, here it is again.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=17571

The long term continuation of hair loss in alledged "resistent" grafts to the male pattern baldness area, is a recognised consistent fact Bryan! It means nothing that no one has yet dared to raise the implications of this in a medical journal! This is just another example of the politics suppressing the science in male pattern baldness research!

The clear experience is however that in the same graft size "you" quoted as proving donor dominance, most of the hair in this size graft to the male pattern baldness area will be lost over time!

Just try doing some basic research on transplant repairs involving this "old" size of graft.

Yet again Bryan, read this!

http://www.hairtransplantadviser.org/re ... argegrafts

Quote:
"This was a common phenomenon in 4- and 5-mm plugs, but can also be noted in grafts 3-mm in size

Your efforts to try to play the significance of this down Bryan, just go to show people your lack of interest in genuine science.

The term "doughnutting" describes a hair loss pattern of slow recession from the centre of grafts, to the perifery. This leaves terminal hair only growing around the outsides.

Just like a "mini" male pattern baldness event in each graft, and similar to the progression of male pattern baldness in time scale.

We know about the time scale of this "mini" male pattern baldness, because in the early studies this did "NOT" happen within the around two years of the studies.

So this very obviously rules out the lame excuse of hypoxia given by the transplant industry for this hair loss. Simply because the maximum hypoxia conditions just after transplantation, did "NOT" stop the first crop of hair growing throughout these grafts.

Now "YOU" Bryan, made the claim that the old studies that used these larger grafts, "proved" that the hair in these grafts transplanted to the male pattern baldness area, were male pattern baldness "resistent".

So if you are not going to retract that claim, you had better explain this recognised continued hair loss in a proper scientific way?

Just for once Bryan back up your claims about the old studies, in the light of the modern body of evidence. If you can't do this in a proper scientific manner, stop making such claims OK

S Foote.

 

[CCS]

i've been scanning part of this overly long argument, and I don't believe endema causes hair loss because transplanting baling hair follicls without their sebum glands to an arm does not affect hair loss speed compared to its former neighbors, and follicles without sebum glands trasplanted to the front of the head from the donor sides do not die even though surrounded by "sick sebum glands".

I wish Bryan would spend less time here and more time helping us design the ideal vehicle for RU.

 

[HARM1]

Q:
I like the sebum on my hair, and tend not to wash it, if the theory that claims that sebum plugs the shaft is correct then I am hurting myself?

PLZ?

 

[CCS]

i read that donutting occurs because follicles in the center don't get as much blood as those on the outside. The same would occur if you took identical punches from balding hairs and switched them. This would show that the cutting of blood vessels, not the health of sebum glands, causes the donutting.