Why the horseshoe pattern?

[Solo]

Sorry, i don't dig your line at all

Yeah, for sure.



Maybe it´s my english, sorry.


I was talking about non sensitive hairs in the "donour area". The hair above ears and neck.

Will this hairs fall if DHT level rises sky high?? Do they just stay because they "resist" a higher DHT level than hairs on top??


If your hairs are not sensitive to androgens, there´ll be no response to DHT, and they´ll stay thick forever.

You can have ten perfectly valid keys to open a door, but you need a lock to open it.

I understand it´s a reciprocal system (DHT+AR=miniaturization) as you´ll probably argue. And you´ll be right.

But we were talking about "Why the horseshoe pattern?".

As I think, there are no different DHT levels in every zone of the scalp that could cause the abrupt difference in hair thickness between the donour area and the hairs on top.

So what could cause the horseshoe pattern??.

Just one answer available: AR. This theory is also compatible with the phenomenom of "donour dominance" that has been mentioned above.


AR are different in the "donour area". Or act differently over the follicle.


So the answer you gave, "the horny monkey", does not give any light to the original question, because DHT level is equal for both areas.

It would be valid to explain why monkeys are always smiling, but not for the subject we are discussing.


I hope I made myself clear.

 

[michael barry]

Solo,
Hairs on top of the head have more androgen receptors than the hairs on the sides from what Ive read.

Bryan has posted experiments on other threads that indicated that when androgens are added to hair cells from "donor-area" hairs in experiments, nothing happens............but when added to hairs in areas like the front and top that are thinning, they slow cellular multiplication. This, to Bryan and the scientists who conducted the experiments, indicate a different response to androgens of these hairs.

Although I point it out over and over again to let men know the truth about transplantation.........................that the sides DO INDEED thin a little with age. Some men have very thin hippocratic wreaths that dont contain near the hair in them that they had when they were young. http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/uploads/mediu ... 154230.jpg Look at that pic of former president Dwight Eisenhower.

 

[Solo]

Yes, I´ve noticed that as well. The hairs inmediately above neck and ears also thin with time.


I myself have thinner hair in that zones, which is bad news as they say it indicates advanced progression of male pattern baldness.


What you´ve commented is exactly what I was saying the nature of the pattern relies in the different response to DHT level from AR in both safe and top areas, not in DHT level itself.


So let´s re-formulate the question: Why are DHT sensitive hairs exclusively on top??


The most solid answer I´ve ever heard (I heard it from Farrel in HLH, and he swears he believed it) is the one I told before, the clearance of the scalp to have more exposed to sunlight, in order to be able to synthetize vitamin D properly. It was a biological response to wearing clothes that obscure the majority of the skin.

And I don´t believe it´s correct. Many flaws you can guess by yourself just thinking a little.

I bet someone has a theory of his own to share. (Rap music not involved, please). The weirder the better.

 

[The Gardener]

Because the bald head is like a reflective object, and the shine from it helps prevent things from running into us, improving our chances of living longer and procreating.

 

[michael barry]

Solo,
I believe that in embryological development the skin of the scalp forms "upward" via the forehead skin, moving up and over the top of the head, pretty much right along with the bald part of the horseshoe.

Thats what the docs say anyway. Obviously whatever happens is overwhelmingly genetic, and all we can do is keep androgens away from the hair, treat the inflammation, and try to repair the damage to the microcapillaries and close surrounding skin to the follicle at this point.


I think the real "key" to stopping baldness, and perhaps regrowing a signifigant amount of hair is to chemically counteract the DNA instructions inside the dermal papilla that are activated when the papilla's AR's recieve enough androgens to express the instructions therein, releasing antigens (growth inhibitors) to the rest of the follicle. If I had to wager, I would bet that THIS is what attracts the immuno response. Immune cells circulate around the body looking for anything that looks "foreign". A struggling mini-organ like a DHT-sensitive hair for example, perhaps this is why the immune system attacks the hair. The mitogens therein (growth inhibitors released by the papilla to the rest of the follicle parts) are detected as "foreign". Just thinking out loud.

 

[michael barry]

Gardener,
Really bald men should claim that there chrome domes are solar panels to fully power their super-turbo-charged sex drives. That'll show the ladies. Hey "I have so much testosterone, my hair LEPT off my head, because there was just too much manhood happenin' down there baby".---------Pretty good line for Austin Powers.

 

[Bryan]

I understand it´s a reciprocal system (DHT+AR=miniaturization) as you´ll probably argue. And you´ll be right.

But we were talking about "Why the horseshoe pattern?".

As I think, there are no different DHT levels in every zone of the scalp that could cause the abrupt difference in hair thickness between the donour area and the hairs on top.

So what could cause the horseshoe pattern??.

Just one answer available: AR. This theory is also compatible with the phenomenom of "donour dominance" that has been mentioned above.

AR are different in the "donour area". Or act differently over the follicle.

Solo, in my opinion it's a waste of time to keep focusing on QUANTITATIVE differences in androgens between different locations of hairs, like saying "Well, donor hair follicles have fewer androgen receptors and less DHT". We need to focus more on QUALITATIVE differences, like differences in how they RESPOND to androgens. For example, scalp hair follicles and beard hair follicles both have androgen receptors and DHT, but beard is stimulated by them, and scalp is suppressed by them. That clearly doesn't have a frigging thing to do with different QUANTITIES of androgens or androgen receptors! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Solo]

Bryan please, take a second look to what I´ve wrote.


I haven´t mentioned quantites of AR.


Thanks.

 

[Armando Jose]

Solo write:
Hola, colega, a ver si me explicas lo siguiente...



How do you explain that there are long haired men that thin/receed in the classic male pattern baldness pattern??


There are good examples between rock stars, first that came to my mind is the singer of The Darkness.

Hola solo;
Muy buena pregunta, y mi contestación es que la perdida de cabello en la alopecia comun es un proceso muy lento. Estas personas que ya estan afectadas por la calvicie, empiezan a cuidar su pelo mucho mejor (respecto a problemas de sebum) que lo hacian anteriormente, lo que hace que no comiencen este proceso determinados cabellos y que los cabellos que se no ahn sido afectados gravamente continuen siendo sanos, grandes y terminales. Pero hay que tener en cuenta de que el cuidado normal no hace que se recuperen los cabellos que ya estaban afectados, por lo que no se recuperan, en todo caso solo se mantienen; mientras que los totalmente sanos si crecen fuertes y normales. Esta es en mi opinion del porque pueden aparecer estos dos tipos de cabellos.

Excuse my bad english, I am a spainsh guy. My reply is complicated to translate in plain english.

Bryan write:

LOL!! Armando, you're a funny guy!

Ever heard of "donor dominance"??

Bryan

Yeah, I read a lot of studies about donor dominance, but this theory is nowadays in doubt. Body hair trasplant is a clear example.


Fight4hairs write:
My hat is made out of good absorbing cotton.. I use it all the time, doesent help me much.. STRANGE AHH!!!

It is possible, because absorbing well the sebum is not a regeneration form of hair lost years before. It is only a preventive method. You say the same: “Doesn’t help me muchâ€￾, Are you indicating that the use of a good absorbing cooton hat help you a little?



Foote write:
Everyone has a level of androgens including DHT pre-puberty, so the sensitivity you claim requires a higher level to cause male pattern baldness doesn't it!!!

Have you any scientific evidence. My bet is that androgens in pre-puberty is only in scalp hairs, but in the “sameâ€￾ concentration that in post-puberty.


Barry escribe:


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl= ... D%26sa%3DN



Armando, if you look at that hair transplant repair pic....................where the hair has been kept short, you will see why your theory cannot be true. That man had thos plugs put in while he still had hair in the area, but it was thinnish hair. He wanted to thicken the area up. Over the years only the hairs "plugged" in didnt fall out. The ones that naturally occured there fell out as well as what was behind them.

Hair transplants would eventually fall out if you were right, but they dont......even though they can thin a little bit over time as not even all of one's hippocratic wreath hairs stay for life.

Hi Michael,

You are a very good guy and your finds are intersting. My idea is that this person have a trasplant hair and they are not affected by problems in sebum flow, BUT he possibly don’t use any remedy to bring back the affected hairs, regarding problems in sebum flow. And then it is possible the dual existence of hairs. My answer in spanish language try to denote this issue.

Armando

 

[Bryan]

Bryan please, take a second look to what I´ve wrote.

I haven´t mentioned quantites of AR.

So what did you mean when you wrote the following sentences??

So what could cause the horseshoe pattern??.

Just one answer available: AR. This theory is also compatible with the phenomenom of "donour dominance" that has been mentioned above.

AR are different in the "donour area". Or act differently over the follicle.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Yeah, I read a lot of studies about donor dominance, but this theory is nowadays in doubt. Body hair trasplant is a clear example.

You need to stop hanging out with Stephen Foote. People will judge you by the friends you keep!

I suppose it's possible that the specific location to which hair follicles are transplanted can have a modest influence on their later growth, but nevertheless the MAJOR point remains intact, which is that balding follicles moved to non-balding sites continue to bald, and non-balding follicles moved to balding sites continue to thrive.

Bryan

 

[Solo]

So what did you mean when you wrote the following sentences??

Quote:
So what could cause the horseshoe pattern??.

Just one answer available: AR. This theory is also compatible with the phenomenom of "donour dominance" that has been mentioned above.

AR are different in the "donour area". Or act differently over the follicle.


Bryan

That the AR in top scalp are different, or act differently over the follicle, not that there are in different quantity per follicular unit, or as a whole.


So we basically agree in this, I think. I haven´t mentioned "quantity" in any word I wrote.

 

[Solo]

And Bryan, let me ask you a question:


When the AR binds with DHT, is it a "biochemical key-lock" mechanism??

 

[Bet24]

haven´t

solo, no uses acentos, usa el signo que está abajo del signo de interrogación

''''''''''' haven't, don't.... o simplemente havent dont

saludos

 

[Bryan]

That the AR in top scalp are different, or act differently over the follicle, not that there are in different quantity per follicular unit, or as a whole.

Can you be more specific? Different in what way??

So we basically agree in this, I think. I haven´t mentioned "quantity" in any word I wrote.

But I would have the same objection if you were to imply that the androgen receptors in top scalp are different in some other way (having to do with their chemistry) which makes them more potent to the available androgens (or more precisely, the androgen/androgen-receptor complex is stronger or more potent at altering nuclear transcription).

It does appear to me that that's what you're implying.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Sorry, i don't dig your line at all

Yeah, for sure.



Maybe it´s my english, sorry.


I was talking about non sensitive hairs in the "donour area". The hair above ears and neck.

Will this hairs fall if DHT level rises sky high?? Do they just stay because they "resist" a higher DHT level than hairs on top??


If your hairs are not sensitive to androgens, there´ll be no response to DHT, and they´ll stay thick forever.

You can have ten perfectly valid keys to open a door, but you need a lock to open it.

I understand it´s a reciprocal system (DHT+AR=miniaturization) as you´ll probably argue. And you´ll be right.

But we were talking about "Why the horseshoe pattern?".

As I think, there are no different DHT levels in every zone of the scalp that could cause the abrupt difference in hair thickness between the donour area and the hairs on top.

So what could cause the horseshoe pattern??.

Just one answer available: AR. This theory is also compatible with the phenomenom of "donour dominance" that has been mentioned above.


AR are different in the "donour area". Or act differently over the follicle.


So the answer you gave, "the horny monkey", does not give any light to the original question, because DHT level is equal for both areas.

It would be valid to explain why monkeys are always smiling, but not for the subject we are discussing.


I hope I made myself clear.

My opinions on this, and Bryan's blatent hypocrisy on the subject of donor dominance, can be seen in the last few pages of this thread.

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... hp?t=19054

S Foote.

 

[Armando Jose]

Bryan wrote:
"I suppose it's possible that the specific location to which hair follicles are transplanted can have a modest influence on their later growth, but nevertheless the MAJOR point remains intact, which is that balding follicles moved to non-balding sites continue to bald, and non-balding follicles moved to balding sites continue to thrive. "

Well, you admit something, although it be a "modest influence". No problem.

Your last phrase it interesting that it could be a probe of my theory because if the sebum inward flow is stopped in balding hair follicles, and you trasplant hair by FUE all the pilosebaceous unit, then you trasplant also the damage because it is inside. In the other hand if you trasplant non-balding follicles at another site (even to not privileged areas), the hair is healthy and don't move the posible damage.

"You need to stop hanging out with Stephen Foote. People will judge you by the friends you keep!"

Mr Foote is a real guy and I have no problem with him but. sadly, his theory don't explain the difference incidence of common baldness between sexes. Thank you for your interest in my friends. The same for you.


Armando

 

[S Foote.]

Bryan wrote:
"I suppose it's possible that the specific location to which hair follicles are transplanted can have a modest influence on their later growth, but nevertheless the MAJOR point remains intact, which is that balding follicles moved to non-balding sites continue to bald, and non-balding follicles moved to balding sites continue to thrive. "

Well, you admit something, although it be a "modest influence". No problem.

Your last phrase it interesting that it could be a probe of my theory because if the sebum inward flow is stopped in balding hair follicles, and you trasplant hair by FUE all the pilosebaceous unit, then you trasplant also the damage because it is inside. In the other hand if you trasplant non-balding follicles at another site (even to not privileged areas), the hair is healthy and don't move the posible damage.

"You need to stop hanging out with Stephen Foote. People will judge you by the friends you keep!"

Mr Foote is a real guy and I have no problem with him but. sadly, his theory don't explain the difference incidence of common baldness between sexes. Thank you for your interest in my friends. The same for you.


Armando

"Mr Foote is a real guy and I have no problem with him but. sadly, his theory don't explain the difference incidence of common baldness between sexes. Thank you for your interest in my friends. The same for you."

Armando, the difference is due to different levels of androgens in the sexes. Please tell me how my theory can't explain the sex difference in balding???

S Foote.

 

[The Gardener]

Is there any chance that perhaps the horseshoe location of male pattern baldness-affected follicles is not due to any sort of natural selection, but is instead a completely random mutation?

 

[westcovinajoe]

"Why the horsehoe pattern?"

Because the lawn dart pattern was already taken.



Sorry, couldn't resist,
Joe.