Original research theory: How Androgenetic Alopecia is a manifestation of insulin resistance and its connections with CVD & PCOS

[balda]

Fibrosis:
as an example, iodine has pretty solid anti-fibrotic effect. why it doesn't work for hairs?

...from notes:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...dine_A_case_report_An_interim_35_year_summary
Successful human scar regeneration by topical iodine A case report: An interim (3.5 year) summary

Control of regeneration and wound healing are scientific and clinical objectives. In 1997, topical Lugol's iodine solution applied daily for 3 days to a 50 year old facial scar lead to hyperemic scar tissue. As a working hypothesis, the author proposed topical iodine could initiate, control and complete human scar regeneration. In 2005, after collecting three more surgical scars, topical iodine applications began. Within 3 days all four scars started regenerating. Stopping topical iodine halted the process.
! Topical iodine induces hair growth in and around scars

dont think that iodin is toxic, it's "officially" used as an AA hairloss treatment:
youtube/gvuc9J-klgI

and for fun
https://patents.google.com/patent/WO2009125447A2/en

and some comments
"Just wanted to post some research I've been doing about all this. New hair growth continues with each passing day. Lots of Darker then peach fuzz growth. Peach fuzz growth at my peak(center of hairline) which didn't show any signs of life after 2 PRP treatments or over a year of Rogaine use."

"I never had luck with topical lugol's on the scalp and it actually led to an increase in calcification and hair loss when I used it."

"Actually it was also neglected on the conclusion and discussion of the study but as I talked to professor Sukesh he told me that betadine played a big role on the outcome and that he was thinking of making an editorial note on that subject. This was 3 years ago, and I don't believe he ever wrote an editor's note on that subject. "

 

[balda]

@randomuser1
near identical base protocol, just fyi:
https://www.hairlosstalk.com/intera...nce-and-its-connections-with-cvd-pcos.138444/
d3+k2+cod+mag+... and even nattokinase

 

[balda]

Would be nice to research what is behind the "estradiol" efficiency. How it works. It really works, by "really works" a mean something close to the picture below. It actually "revives" the skin functions.

https://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/threads/exploring-the-hormonal-route-hair-life.109288

One of the principal assumption is that:
estradiol -> adiponectin UP -> dwat extension/anti-fibsosis DOWN -> happy hairs

NB.
in general, im interested in "morphology" and how to revive it.
lets assume that pathological process(s) killing hairs is about "metabolism" and "morphology". as hairs pathology is CUMULATIVE (beyond one hair cycle activity and so on!), it should have MORPHOLOGICAL changes (as a kind of "saved" state of it's bad semi-finished deeds). so to really revive hairs it's needed to revert patho changes in MORPHOLOGY. And why not to try to teach how to do it from something that can definitely do it - ESTRADIOL.

 

[healthyjoe]

It is hard to list them in isolation because pro-fibrotic and pro-calcification processes are partially overlapping (namely the ones related to insulin resistance). Only some are "exclusive", like scalp tension which is "only" pro-fibrotic.
If I still had to list them, it would be as follows:

Calcification (damaging):
- Primary insulin resistance
-- High carb/sugar intake
-- Insufficient physical exercise
-- insufficient magnesium (because of its effects on ATP generation)
- Secondary insulin resistance: Cortisol
-- Lack of sleep or inconsistent sleep
-- Stress
-- Overexercise (especially if below average BMI)
-- Crash diets, prolonged caloric deficit
- Secondary insulin resistance: Inflammation
-- Smoking
-- Omega-6 PUFAs
-- oxidized fatty acids
-- partially hydrogenated fatty acids
- impaired calcium metabolism
-- insufficient magnesium
-- insufficient vitamin D3
-- insufficient vitamin K2

Fibrosis (damaging):
- all of the ones listed under "Calcification (damaging)"
- scalp tension
- insufficient magnesium (because of its effects on muscle stiffness)

Calcification (healing):
- elimination of insulin resistance risk factors (primary and secondary)
-- exercise
-- diet
-- sleep
-- stress
-- stopping to smoke
- magnesium, vitamin D3, K2
- omega-3

Fibrosis (healing):
- Wounding plus massages plus magnesium (need all three together)
- Retinoids plus massages plus magnesium (need all three together)


There are several problems that make regrowth very difficult or impossible: The body's repair mechanisms usually do not reverse to "pristine" tissue. De-calcification show that it takes years to achieve even small improvements in blood supply calcification. I have listed a few studies in the PDF in the section "Vascular calcification reversal" on page 64 of version 0.4 of the PDF. But the calcification in our scalps does not only affect the blood supply but also the dermis through overspill. Additionally, central blood supply calcification "only" narrows blood vessels. The blood vessels in our scalp are capillaries. They can be fully destroyed by calcification, not only be narrowed. So central blood supply decalcification is already slow. On the scalp, it will be even slower or maybe even impossible.

Same for fibrosis. It's similar to trying to reverse scar tissue. It takes some pretty strong treatments (like topical retinoids) and takes a long time. But these are surface scars. In Androgenetic Alopecia, we are basically dealing with below-surface scar tissue. How do we resolve this? If we can resolve it at all it would need an elimination of scalp tension (massages plus magnesium) and, additionally, we also need to trigger tissue recreation (e.g. through wounding or retinoids).
By the way, my theory why some people had success with microneedling and some didn't is because some had higher and some had lower scalp tension. With tension, new tissue (after wounding) becomes fibrotic. Without tension, new tissue becomes non-fibrotic. Same with retinoids. But retinoids probably have trouble getting deep into the skin as well, so there are two issues with retinoids.

All in all, recovery/repair/regrowth is much, much more difficult than prevention.


No idea to be honest.

not true. Lookup spironolactone guy who regrew hairs on top of head after 6 years of taking that med. Mind you, he was in his mid 70s with a Norwood 7 classification and 45 years of balding. Princessrambo, who was a legend on this forum, with 12 years of balding, went from Norwood 7 to Norwood 2 in 7 months from a natural regimen. He took a boatload of supplements to make that happen.

 

[randomuser1]

Would be nice to research what is behind the "estradiol" efficiency. How it works. It really works, by "really works" a mean something close to the picture below. It actually "revives" the skin functions.

https://www.hairlosstalk.com/interact/threads/exploring-the-hormonal-route-hair-life.109288

One of the principal assumption is that:
estradiol -> adiponectin UP -> dwat extension/anti-fibsosis DOWN -> happy hairs

NB.
in general, im interested in "morphology" and how to revive it.
lets assume that pathological process(s) killing hairs is about "metabolism" and "morphology". as hairs pathology is CUMULATIVE (beyond one hair cycle activity and so on!), it should have MORPHOLOGICAL changes (as a kind of "saved" state of it's bad semi-finished deeds). so to really revive hairs it's needed to revert patho changes in MORPHOLOGY. And why not to try to teach how to do it from something that can definitely do it - ESTRADIOL.

I think there are different mechanisms at play with estradiol:
- Scavenging T and thus preventing conversion of T to DHT. Though this is likely not because of E2 itself but aromatase. Aromatase and 5ar compete for T.
- Influencing subcutaneous fat storage. Fat cell injection seems to boost hair growth a tiny bit, maybe this effect also comes into play when more subcutaenous fat is stored? Subcutaneous fat storage (vs. visceral) is also protective against insulin resistance or against quick fuel burn (which harms mitochondriae and produces ROS).
- Reducing tension by increasing cushioning.
- Estradiol is an anti-fibrotic factor in dermal tissue remodeling.

Might be any of these reasons or several. Just some ideas.

not true. Lookup spironolactone guy who regrew hairs on top of head after 6 years of taking that med. Mind you, he was in his mid 70s with a Norwood 7 classification and 45 years of balding. Princessrambo, who was a legend on this forum, with 12 years of balding, went from Norwood 7 to Norwood 2 in 7 months from a natural regimen. He took a boatload of supplements to make that happen.

Could you provide links?

@randomuser1
near identical base protocol, just fyi:
https://www.hairlosstalk.com/intera...nce-and-its-connections-with-cvd-pcos.138444/
d3+k2+cod+mag+... and even nattokinase

Hm, you linked to this thread, which link did you mean?

 

[curlwaves]

Only read most of the article. Very interesting.
I've been thinking about this too. I wouldn't even bother with the genetics crowd. It's so idiotic how people can hold on so strong to things and not even consider a potential of environmental factors.

It's more than likely a multifaceted pathology for a good amount of men.
Considering how many things can be effective Vs causative. We'll never fully know if that one person might be doing something that protects them even if their overall life is poor.

If you're not willing to think out of the box you'll never get any alternative cure that's for sure.

About fructose you say it may be as bad as glucose. I believe I remember a few studies on fructose Vs glucose drinks. Showing that fructose was worse especially for the liver.

I also think a big part is we've been eating less fresh and more preserved food. From a survival standpoint I get it. But health wise it's a no in my opinion. The way my skin cleared up reducing those foods and adding alot of fresh veggies and fruits with potent health effects like blueberries. You just don't get that from blueberry jam and it's something some people just don't or will not understand. Alot of things in these foods are important as well for metabolism. Adding extra fat and sugar in a way dilutes that beneficials Vs calories ratio. So I'm wondering if that also plays a roll.

 

[Db10]

How about fruit, is that bad or not

 

[balda]

@randomuser1

A.
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...ids-think-again-very-interesting-topic.28623/
i meant this link referring to a near identical protocol: d3+k2+cod+mag+... and even nattokinase

B.
how about Inositol?
you pointed to PCOS. many women take inositol to block it. personally, not dived into it more.

 

[coolio]

I wouldn't even bother with the genetics crowd. It's so idiotic how people can hold on so strong to things and not even consider a potential of environmental factors.

A lifetime of poor diet will absolutely shorten a man's height, too.

But we don't mock the "genetics crowd" for blaming shortness on genetics. And we don't tell short guys that they can diet themselves into growing taller.

 

[Armando Jose]

This guy have a bad lifestyle, genetics is a key in common baldness, when you have a thick hair, high hair density and curly hair you have three ases to dont develope aommon hair loss, genetics dicte it, it is a lottery,...., but the lenght of the hair is another important issue, women know it perfectly. Diets, lifestyle have a weak effect....

 

[randomuser1]

A.
https://www.evolutionary.org/forums...ids-think-again-very-interesting-topic.28623/
i meant this link referring to a near identical protocol: d3+k2+cod+mag+... and even nattokinase

Ah, not surprising! What I also found surprising was this post in the thread you linked:

Hey guy,just wanted to share that this theory is 100% correct.I have been using magnesium oil and vitamin k2 over the past 7 months and my hair has stopped shedding and is now growing back!!!I have been balding since when i was 15 ,now i am 24 and i finally see where is the problem.Calcification IS reversable.On month 5 all hair loss stopped and now 7 months in my hairline is moving forward.I see new hairs every week and a few bald patches are filled in with hair.THe hair on the back of my head is getting thicker and thicker , i see new hairs where there werent for years!There is a lot more to go tho.If anyone else got results please share!

I haven't really dug into topical application of magnesium oil - maybe it could achieve what diet and supplements cannot?

B.
how about Inositol?
you pointed to PCOS. many women take inositol to block it. personally, not dived into it more.

Inositol should totally help in slowing hair loss down. In fact there is a subreddit for PCOS where women have reported inositol helping them grow their hair back. But it usually needs to be together with lifestyle changes and takes a long, long time (many months) to see any regrowth, usually longer than the typical 9 months for regrowth from other drugs. This may be because you first need to reverse the insulin resistance - which already takes months - and only then the hair-beneficial effects start kicking in. Also, women have an easier time regrowing hair compared to men, so it might take even longer for men.

About fructose you say it may be as bad as glucose. I believe I remember a few studies on fructose Vs glucose drinks. Showing that fructose was worse especially for the liver.

If you go just by amount then fructose should be worse than glucose, you are right. But there are a few factors eliminating the difference:
- The polyol pathway kicks in when the body takes in very high loads of glucose and converts them to fructose. This is especially true with processed foods.
- Fructose and glucose often appear together as a pack in modern nutrition, namely as sucrose

How about fruit, is that bad or not

Not remotely as bad as any food with added sugar. The reason is twofold: Firstly the concentrations of fructose in fruit are much lower than, let's say, in a sugary beverage or soda. Secondly the body needs to work to extract fructose from a fruit's fiber. I would not worry about fruit if otherwise you are eating a healthy diet with no added sugars (fructose, sucrose or glucose as additives).

This guy have a bad lifestyle, genetics is a key in common baldness, when you have a thick hair, high hair density and curly hair you have three ases to dont develope aommon hair loss, genetics dicte it, it is a lottery,...., but the lenght of the hair is another important issue, women know it perfectly. Diets, lifestyle have a weak effect....

You didn't really read the paper, did you? It is not about any sort of diet. It is about insulin resistance. And the effects are definitely there as shown by many studies which I cite in the PDF.

 

[Armando Jose]

You didn't really read the paper, did you? It is not about any sort of diet. It is about insulin resistance. And the effects are definitely there as shown by many studies which I cite in the PDF.

I did read the paper, insuline resistance is linked to diet, but How you explain the pattern of hair loos with insulin resistance issue? In this case, it would be with a diffuse pattern.

 

[Joxy]

Better living conditions and better diet can play role about your skin/hair/teeth and height, but genetics play the most important part.

How people get older they loose height and became smaller and it became difficult to loose weight.

Just look at the junkies/drug addicts. Most of them have perfect hair.

 

[coolio]

Just look at the junkies/drug addicts. Most of them have perfect hair.

That phenomenon gets debated a lot.

I think it comes from homeless & junkies being younger than they appear. They have prematurely aged skin, teeth, body mannerisms, etc. But their hair color & thickness lags behind and it reflects their real age.

Eventually their hair will age badly too but it seems to take longer. And it seems to show up in graying more than thinning. They might be looking gray-haired at 43yo while their healthy brother didn't look gray until 50.


Some people suggest alcoholism is knocking down their androgen levels and helping their hair. But I don't buy the idea of that making a big obvious difference on grown adults. (Heck, we ALL have raised estrogen levels from microplastics. Yet men seem to be balding worse than ever if anything.) If it was that easy to improve hair with hormone manipulation then I think the 5ar drugs would work A LOT better.


I'm open to the possibility that there is some biological reason why homeless/junkies have good hair, though. IMO it is striking how hairy they look conpared to men in the regular population.

 

[Armando Jose]

genetics play the most important part.

100% sure, but genetics dont drive us to common hair loos, bad said androgenetic alopecia,..., women with long hair know it surely. IMHO is a cultural practice.
When genetics give a dense and thick hair is better to avoid the problem but exist a third option with its lenght.

 

[randomuser1]

I did read the paper, insuline resistance is linked to diet, but How you explain the pattern of hair loos with insulin resistance issue? In this case, it would be with a diffuse pattern.

It is a good question. The answer is: scalp tension.

The perhaps most important thing to understand about scalp tension (and in fact any tension on the dermis) is that it is the strongest factor (among three or four) in determining whether the body will recreate tissue in a fibrotic or non-fibrotic way.

This is not a fringe opinion but tension causing fibrosis (after injury - not on its own! in Androgenetic Alopecia the injury comes from inflammation) is a well-known fact in dermatology. Some sources:
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10855152/
- https://ajp.amjpathol.org/article/S0002-9440(23)00040-8/fulltext
- https://www.researchgate.net/public...peutic_intervention_target_to_reduce_scarring

When your body needs to recreate tissue there is a scale between, let's say, 0 and 100, where 0 is "not fibrotic, super soft, like baby skin" and 100 is "perceivably harder whiter scar tissue". There are several factors which determine where the newly recreated tissue will fall on that scale. The biggest contributing factor is local tension force, the second biggest one is hormone balance. Third is likely how well these processes work (due to local ROS concentration, aging, etc.).

Under which circumstances would your body need to recreate tissue? The most obvious case are visible wounds and cuts. In places with high dermis tension the wound will close with a visible scar. In cases with low tension the wound will close in a way that looks like new and you won't later be able to see traces of the original injury.

There's another case where the body needs to recreate tissue: In the later stages of inflammatory processes. Inflammatory processes destroy tissue too so the body needs to rebuild it.

In the case of Androgenetic Alopecia there's constant low grade inflammation. So over long spans of time our soft scalp dermis gets remodeled from softer non fibrotic tissue to harder fibrotic tissue. On top of fibrosis there is also calcium infiltration which might increase hardness (and hence local tension) even further.

Now the interesting thing is that the remodeling wouldn't happen if there wasn't the inflammation in the first place. And if the remodeling didn't happen the scalp tension wouldn't really matter remotely as much. So I believe it's best to interrupt the whole process before the body starts remodeling scalp dermis, which means preventing scalp inflammation. The best way to do that is by targeting insulin resistance and carb/sugar metabolism. There are direct targets here (diet and exercise) as well as indirect targets (stress and sleep).

Another interesting thing to note is that if you have very little or zero scalp tension then the inflammation won't matter as much: The inflammation will cause tissue destruction and remodeling in your scalp skin but because of low/zero tension the newly recreated tissue will be soft and "as new" rather than fibrotic.

Where does scalp tension come from? I believe there are different factors at play:
- lack of magnesium
- bad posture (modern lifestyle: hunched over a smartphone or in front of screen)
- back and neck muscle atrophy due to lack of exercise
- malocclusion / orthodontic issues

To summarize:
1. Inflammation is caused by insulin resistance (both directly and downstream because of spillover from vasculature/capillary damage)
2. Inflammation triggers tissue destruction and remodeling
3. Tension in the scalp causes the remodeling to happen in a fibrotic, aka scarring, way

The last point explains why von Mises models predict hair loss patterns (see the paper "Involvement of Mechanical Stress in Androgenetic Alopecia" by Rafael Tellez-Segura):

 

[Armando Jose]

In the case of Androgenetic Alopecia there's constant low grade inflammation

Ok, I am with you but,..., oxidized sebum in scalp make this constant low grade inflammation, and this type of sebum is only located in the top of the head, my theory fits all issues regarding common baldness even the difference incidence between sexes.

 

[curlwaves]

A lifetime of poor diet will absolutely shorten a man's height, too.

But we don't mock the "genetics crowd" for blaming shortness on genetics. And we don't tell short guys that they can diet themselves into growing taller.

Shortness is not a defect it's a reaction. Hair loss is a defect. You're comparing apples to oranges. Height is also mostly set in stone post puberty due to different hormones and the finalising of the bones.

Like I said hairloss is an actual defect a condition. One that has shown reversal potential with medicine like finasteride and min. Something height hasn't.

Another difference is that most people talking about height aren't that well read. People talking about the androgenic alopecia are typically more well read on the topic. And have come with an wide diversity of potential treatments.

 

[curlwaves]

That phenomenon gets debated a lot.

I think it comes from homeless & junkies being younger than they appear. They have prematurely aged skin, teeth, body mannerisms, etc. But their hair color & thickness lags behind and it reflects their real age.

Eventually their hair will age badly too but it seems to take longer. And it seems to show up in graying more than thinning. They might be looking gray-haired at 43yo while their healthy brother didn't look gray until 50.


Some people suggest alcoholism is knocking down their androgen levels and helping their hair. But I don't buy the idea of that making a big obvious difference on grown adults. (Heck, we ALL have raised estrogen levels from microplastics. Yet men seem to be balding worse than ever if anything.) If it was that easy to improve hair with hormone manipulation then I think the 5ar drugs would work A LOT better.


I'm open to the possibility that there is some biological reason why homeless/junkies have good hair, though. IMO it is striking how hairy they look conpared to men in the regular population.

After some quick googling I found a study showing starvation leads to markedly reduced androgen levels and some more differences. While overfed diet increases it.
Half these homeless people thus will likely not have consistently high androgen levels to cause hair loss. Atleast some. The problem is we don't have a true good study on homeless or addicts and hair loss to properly conclude they fair better than the average person.

High fat, high sugar tends to lead to increased levels combined with insulin resistance will cause different effects. Than low androgen levels. Studies do showing higher androgen levels associated with all these things.

If androgens especially dht is important in hair loss. Overfed diets will likely cause more issues. But it's all quick speculation.

They likely suffer more from diffuse balding if they haven't onset Androgenetic Alopecia yet.

 

[coolio]

Shortness is not a defect it's a reaction. Hair loss is a defect. You're comparing apples to oranges. Height is also mostly set in stone post puberty due to different hormones and the finalising of the bones.

Like I said hairloss is an actual defect a condition. One that has shown reversal potential with medicine like finasteride and min. Something height hasn't.

Call it whatever you want. Androgenic loss is a natural part of the aging process.

There are instances of hair graying being reversed by drugs too. But we don't start arguing that gray hair is an unnatural product of modern lifestyles. People normally went gray thousands of years ago. Men normally went bald thousands of years ago.

For some reason these hair forums produce a lot of arguing about how baldness is framed. Condition, disease, natural, unnatural, etc. People get very wound up about it. Umm, it's not that important, guys. Women aren't going to like it better just because the media starts using different language around it. The amount of research into it won't change for any reason other than money. We are stuck with it no matter what we call it.

Another difference is that most people talking about height aren't that well read. People talking about the androgenic alopecia are typically more well read on the topic. And have come with an wide diversity of potential treatments.

Hair loss guys are well-read on certain pet theories. They aren't well-read on medicine in general.