Why you go bald...............the two genes that do it.....

[JLL]

Low insulin appears to be very beneficial for increasing life expectancy.

http://www.longevityconsortium.org/projects/

Insulin Signaling Gene Expression in Long-lived Mice

We hypothesize that the remarkable longevity of Ames dwarf (Prop1df) mice and growth hormone receptor knockout (GHR-KO) mice is due to reduced insulin levels and enhanced sensitivity to insulin. We believe that these physiological changes are reflected in altered gene expression in the pancreas and in different insulin/IGF-1 target organs (e.g. muscle, liver, heart), and result in a slowing of the aging process and increases in the efficiency of mechanisms important to long term survival, e.g. stress resistance.

Green tea, black and oolong tea all significantly increase insulin activity.

They might also reduce insulin levels. A quote from the blog post:

"The authors mention that other studies have shown that when humans are given tea catechins prior to eating starch, the elevation of insulin is suppressed. So how can tea both increase insulin activity and suppress insulin levels? According to the authors, a possible explanation is that because tea increases the activity of insulin, less insulin is needed to get the same results as before. That is, when tea is present, the pancreas makes less insulin but the insulin does its job better."

 

[michael barry]

Wook wrote:

I wonder if high stress and cortisol makes any difference in the rate of male pattern balding?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5405686.stm


Black tea 'soothes away stress'

The easy way to relax
Scientists have evidence behind what many tea drinkers already know - a regular cuppa can help you recover more quickly from everyday life stresses.
The study of black tea - instead of green or herbal varieties - found it helps cut levels of the stress hormone cortisol circulating in the blood.
They found people who drank tea were able to de-stress more quickly than those who drank a tea substitute.

The University College London study is in the journal Psychopharmacology.

Slow recovery following acute stress has been associated with a greater risk of chronic illnesses such as coronary heart disease

Professor Andrew Steptoe

In the study, 75 young male regular tea drinkers were split into two groups and monitored for six weeks.

They all gave up their normal tea, coffee and caffeinated beverages, and then one group was given a fruit-flavoured caffeinated tea mixture made up of the constituents of an average cup of black tea.

The other group was given a caffeinated placebo identical in taste, but devoid of the active tea ingredients.

Stressful tasks

All drinks were tea-coloured, but were designed to mask some of the normal sensory cues associated with tea drinking (such as smell, taste and familiarity of the brew).

This was designed to eliminate confounding factors such as the 'comforting' effect of drinking a cup of tea.

Both groups were subjected to challenging tasks, while their cortisol, blood pressure, blood platelet and self-rated levels of stress were measured.

In one task, volunteers were exposed to one of three stressful situations (threat of unemployment, a shop-lifting accusation or an incident in a nursing home), where they had to prepare a verbal response and argue their case in front of a camera.

The tasks triggered substantial increases in blood pressure, heart rate and subjective stress ratings in both of the groups.

However, 50 minutes after the task, cortisol levels had dropped by an average of 47% in the tea-drinking group compared with 27% in the fake tea group.

Blood platelet activation - linked to blood clotting and the risk of heart attacks - was also lower in the tea drinkers.

In addition, this group reported a greater degree of relaxation in the recovery period after the task.

Complex drink

Researcher Professor Andrew Steptoe said: "Drinking tea has traditionally been associated with stress relief, and many people believe that drinking tea helps them relax after facing the stresses of everyday life.

"However, scientific evidence for the relaxing properties of tea is quite limited."

Professor Steptoe said it was unclear what ingredients in tea were responsible.

He said it was very complex, and ingredients such as catechins, polyphenols, flavonoids and amino acids had all been found to affect neurotransmitters in the brain.

Nevertheless, the study suggests that drinking black tea may speed up our recovery from the daily stresses in life.

"Although it does not appear to reduce the actual levels of stress we experience, tea does seem to have a greater effect in bringing stress hormone levels back to normal.

"This has important health implications because slow recovery following acute stress has been associated with a greater risk of chronic illnesses such as coronary heart disease."

 

[CCS]

Dont tell me good nutrition does not effect height. However, despite great nutrition, some people never get tall, altho they'd be shorter with worse nutrition.

The range in means from genetics is much wider than the range of heights withing a gene's range. As for environmental factors, I heard that you penis size is largely determined by how much testosterone you are exposed to when you are in the womb. If you mom takes propecia even for a few weeks while she is pregnant with you during the first trimester, you will get micropenis, and it does not matter how good your genes were.

I think environmental factors matter a lot in the womb, and very little later in life. I think the reason North Koreans are 3 inches shorter than South Koreans is because of the food their mom's eat while pregnant, not so much because of the food they eat as teanagers. Most of the differences you make as a teanager are reverseable later in life, whereas the effects in the womb are not reversible.

Did you know that premature babies are not fully developed? The womb has a hormone environment that tells the fetus's cells to specialize. If they are taken out early, their develpment stops there, and they have birth defects.

 

[CCS]

But if two genes have a 700% increase in the chances of going bald, I don't think that pre-natal stuff causes baldness. It might be straight genotype. But stuff light height is different and definitely pre-natal.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

This thread deserves to be necro'd specifically due to the current theme of discussions.

 

[guitar66]

This thread deserves to be necro'd specifically due to the current theme of discussions.

it is a very good read. Although I don't think it does much in terms of arguing against the diet/lifestyle stances.

for the most part, people that are advocating diet and lifestyle changes fully recognize that hair loss is still genetic at its core. The overall consensus however, is that diet/lifestyle may a) trigger, upset, speed up (etc) the existing genetic traits and b) altering diet and lifestyle can be beneficial to halting, slowing down, and thickening current hair loss. some people take it a bit further and claim that diet and lifestyle changes will actually regrow hair.

either way, no one has denied that there are balding genes.
some people would rather take drugs that shrink your dick because merck says its OK and that they have studies and FDA approvals. others would rather eat healthier and avoid things that aggravate hairloss. to each their own man. :dunno:

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

Oh, that was totally not my intent in resurrecting this thread. It was actually in support of the diet/lifestyle arguments. The secondary "gene" which they reference in these papers isn't necessary a gene, it's just a marker. HOWEVER, it is mysteriously close (to the point where papers state that it could easily effect) to a single gene that is responsible for liver/pancreas development and it also implicated in a number of dietary issues.

The "gene" they're talking about here, 20p11.22 is simply a marker that they believe can influence your risk of being bald, they're not stating that any proteins are being made specifically from that little stretch of the chromosome. What seems more likely is that that specific area's effect on the nearby 20p11.21 which encodes the forkhead box A2 protein is much more the culprit.

Guess what one of the early warning signs of diabetes is? Hair loss. Guess what systems need to be properly working in order to avoid diabetes? The liver and pancreas. Guess what protein is implicated in diabetes? The forkhead box A2 protein.

Hormones aren't the cause of anything, they're a simple symptom of other systems. They don't manufacture themselves for no reason.

That being said I believe there are at least 2 different types of baldness (20p11.22 and AR). Those claiming that it's all just genetic and there's nothing you can do besides screwing up messenger chemicals in your body are most likely right in the cases of the presence of the AR gene but are dead wrong (as in they're propagating outdated info that could increase the risk of morbidity) when it comes to the 20p11.22 region.

A not too well thought out guess is that the diet mediated form of baldness is much, much more common than the AR/only-can-get-from-your-mom gene form.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

----------ANECDOTAL CRAP INCOMING-----------
This could also partially account for the large differences we see in severity of peoples hair loss. Example: my father's father was a Norwood 4 with little vertex thinning by the time he died at 50, my father was a Norwood 4 by the time he was 29 and a Norwood 6 by the time he was 39, I am currently at a Norwood 2 with no vertex thinning with my heavy shedding occurring during the period where I was continuously putting to the very brink of diabetic commas. Not a single person on my mother's side has balding. My mother's brothers are all at NW1s in their late 50s and my grandfather is still at a Norwood 1 in his 80s!

Obviously I didn't get the AR gene from my father, and his aggressive hair loss was not similar to the form shown by his father. Additionally considering the ridiculous heads of hair shown on my mother's side I most likely didn't receive an AR gene from my mother either. My father's father however was hypoglycemic, as is my father, as are 2 of my father's sisters (1 of which has thinning hair, the other one has only semi-thinning hair but has diligently watched her insulin levels for most of her life) as am I...

Saying that the crap overpriced topical of the big 3 is one of my only chances, or for me to take a pill that will screw up many different hormones is ludicrous recommendation at best, life threatening at worst. Oh, and I've found 5 shed hairs since I dropped gluten from my diet amongst other numerous improvements...

 

[abcdefg]

I am hoping stem cell research will allow scientists to actually grow hair follicles from start to finish and completely unravel how the whole process works. Being able to do that would speed up research hopefully. The amount of evidence at this point in the current androgen theory is pretty solid. It must be a combination of genes that could be slightly affected by the environment such as diet, air, and whatever other factors you want to throw in there. Who knows if science will ever be able to figure the tens or hundreds of genes all working in combination to cause male pattern baldness.
If a man had zero androgens of any form than diet would make no difference at all. I mean look at most women some of them eat total junk and never lose their hair its obvious hormones are a major difference between us which is what science says causes hair loss. No one can really argue the role of androgens anymore its about 99 percent for sure.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

I am hoping stem cell research will allow scientists to actually grow hair follicles from start to finish and completely unravel how the whole process works. Being able to do that would speed up research hopefully. The amount of evidence at this point in the current androgen theory is pretty solid. It must be a combination of genes that could be slightly affected by the environment such as diet, air, and whatever other factors you want to throw in there. Who knows if science will ever be able to figure the tens or hundreds of genes all working in combination to cause male pattern baldness.
If a man had zero androgens of any form than diet would make no difference at all. I mean look at most women some of them eat total junk and never lose their hair its obvious hormones are a major difference between us which is what science says causes hair loss. No one can really argue the role of androgens anymore its about 99 percent for sure.

You are not even close to being correct in any part of this post.

 

[Fender89]

I've quit dairy.

it's the only food thing i can really stop.

i LOVE chicken and fish (meat)<< and meat is apparently bad for male pattern baldness
Wheat.. it would be very hard to quit wheat. i love rice

What's a good substitute for wheat?

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

I've quit dairy.

it's the only food thing i can really stop.

i LOVE chicken and fish (meat)<< and meat is apparently bad for male pattern baldness
Wheat.. it would be very hard to quit wheat. i love rice

What's a good substitute for wheat?

Check out one of the many celiac support or gluten free websites for a severe wealth of information on going without wheat as well as helpful information on symptoms and health implications. http://www.celiac.com and http://www.celiac.org are both good places to start looking. Both places will also help you in figuring out if you should talk to a doctor about this, although if it is in fact gluten most people (myself included) notice severe changes in the body in a week-a months worth of time of being gluten free.

The hidden gluten is where it becomes difficult as things like soy sauce, food starch, natural flavorings, caramel coloring and spices can all contain gluten so you really gotta learn how to read food labels (a lost art unfortunately).

 

[purecontrol]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/83676/page/1

However, that view is far from accurate too. Within the staggeringly long sequences of DNA, it turns out that only a tiny percentage of letters actually form the words that constitute genes and serve as code for proteins. More than 95 percent of DNA, instead, is "non-coding." Much of DNA simply constitutes on and off switches for regulating the activity of genes. It's like you have a 100-page book, and 95 of the pages are instructions and advice for reading the other five pages. Thus, genes don't independently determine when proteins are synthesized. They follow instructions originating somewhere else.

What regulates those switches? In some instances, chemical messengers from other parts of the cell. In other cases, messengers from other cells in the body (this is the way many hormones work). And, critically, in still other cases, genes are turned on or off by environmental factors. As a crude example, some carcinogens work by getting into cells, binding to one of those DNA switches and turning on genes that cause the uncontrolled growth that constitutes cancer. Or a mother rat licking and grooming her infant will initiate a cascade of events that eventually turns on genes related to growth in that child. Or the smell of a female in heat will activate genes in certain male primates related to reproduction. Or a miserably stressful day of final exams will activate genes in a typical college student that will suppress the immune system, often leading to a cold or worse.

You can't dissociate genes from the environment that turns genes on and off. And you can't dissociate the effects of genes from the environment in which proteins exert their effects. The study of genetics will never be so all encompassing as to gobble up every subject from medicine to sociology. Instead, the more science learns about genes, the more we will learn about the importance of the environment. That goes for real life, too: genes are essential but not the whole story.

I agree with you.

It's called epigenetics, and for some reason a lot of people on these forums are too stupid to understand it.

enviroment is everything that includes your daily habbits/exposures and especially diet!

 

[abcdefg]

Here is why diet is not a major factor in male pattern baldness which some people argue. I know men that eat total junk and have never lost a hair on there head when they are 40 years old. Men with every hair on their head at 40 do exist and some of them have eat exactly like the normal western man does. Can you say all of them are not affected by environment at all and are just totally immune to any androgens? Im not aware of a single shred of evidence where a man with no genetics for male pattern baldness at all went bald after the natural course was altered by a diet change. A man injected with testosterone however, does start losing hair. It just stands to reason based on existing evidence that diet plays a very tiny if any long term role in the outcome of male pattern baldness. The diet guys need some major evidence like real studies in real journals like finasteride has. Every man I know eating a variety diets with strong genetic predispositions towards male pattern baldness are losing hair rapidly and they all eat different things some healthy and some not. Its just hard to see diet changing anything in any reasonable way. Its like saying diet can stop cancer even though physicians claim it can. I would like to see exactly from everything science knows how this happens. How does a food stop a cell from not dying and causing cancer? I doubt anyone can you that or even if that is true

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

Here is why diet is not a major factor in male pattern baldness which some people argue. I know men that eat total junk and have never lost a hair on there head when they are 40 years old. Men with every hair on their head at 40 do exist and some of them have eat exactly like the normal western man does. Can you say all of them are not affected by environment at all and are just totally immune to any androgens? Im not aware of a single shred of evidence where a man with no genetics for male pattern baldness at all went bald after the natural course was altered by a diet change. A man injected with testosterone however, does start losing hair. It just stands to reason based on existing evidence that diet plays a very tiny if any long term role in the outcome of male pattern baldness. The diet guys need some major evidence like real studies in real journals like finasteride has. Every man I know eating a variety diets with strong genetic predispositions towards male pattern baldness are losing hair rapidly and they all eat different things some healthy and some not. Its just hard to see diet changing anything in any reasonable way. Its like saying diet can stop cancer even though physicians claim it can. I would like to see exactly from everything science knows how this happens. How does a food stop a cell from not dying and causing cancer? I doubt anyone can you that or even if that is true

There are many different genes associated with male pattern baldness. You for some reason think they all do the same thing. The truth however is that some of them to influence liver/pancreatic functioning and there for the overall systemic effects of those genes are largely mediated by the diet. That it not to say that diet would do a damn thing for all forms of male pattern baldness, but it certainly will effect a few types.

If you want to make the laughable claim that diet has no effect on cancer then you are definitely in need of reading up on pretty much anything and everything before trying to correct others. There is no special part of your body that tells it: ok this molecule came from a kraft, this one came from pfizer. Likewise there is no special mechanism of a cancer cell that tells it, ok this molecule attaching to us is from a farm so we can ignore it, but oh look this one over here came from a lab watch out!

 

[abcdefg]

Im curious how exactly what you eat can stop cells from growing uncontrollably and changing the normal course of cell apoptosis. I mean scientists claim it can but there really is no conclusive evidence of that. I think diet is pretty overrated in terms of what it can do it for you. I would say most things are 80 percent genetic and maybe 20 percent envirnment in my opinion. I mean eating a perfect diet will never prevent cancer or most other illnesses if your genetically susceptible.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

I mean scientists claim it can but there really is no conclusive evidence of that.

There are a number of different diets and food items that are clearly related to cancer formation and proliferation. These are things that have been thoroughly researched and documented. If you don't think there's any evidence of it then you are about 15 years behind on your journal reading. For a quick refresher on just one of the many food items that can have an effect on cancer search for "brassica oleracea and cancer" aka the broccoli family. Or simply search about polyphenols/polyphenolics/phenolics/plant phenols/flavanoids.

Or you can also search about how food products can help bring about or worsen cancer with "advanced glycation end products".

Just because you don't know about something doesn't mean it never existed.

 

[purecontrol]

I mean eating a perfect diet will never prevent cancer or most other illnesses if your genetically susceptible.

Wrong!!! Way way wrong. Take a look at epigentics, what you eat, and how you live dictate how your DNA is expressed.

What you are saying is A)what comanies want you to believe and/or B)what fat unehalty people tell themselves so they can feel better about their bad choices.

Here is another FACT: Being fat makes you stupid, enjoy.

 

[Brains Expel Hair]

Here is another FACT: Being fat makes you stupid, enjoy.

That's not necessarily true. Being fat often times gets more of a negative stigma than it truly deserves. Fat can actually have a protective effect on the body in some cases and as such doesn't always indicate a cause as much as it indicates an adaptation to a health problem.

Obesity may simply be linked to these problems like alcoholism is to schizophrenia (correlational not causational).

 

[purecontrol]

Im curious how exactly what you eat can stop cells from growing uncontrollably and changing the normal course of cell apoptosis. I mean scientists claim it can but there really is no conclusive evidence of that. I think diet is pretty overrated in terms of what it can do it for you. I would say most things are 80 percent genetic and maybe 20 percent envirnment in my opinion. I mean eating a perfect diet will never prevent cancer or most other illnesses if your genetically susceptible.

What don't you get, diet controls Epigenetics, Epigenetics controls DNA expression, Epigenetics is controlled by enviroment. Got it!

Your enviroment controls your genetics, end of story.

And yes a good enviroment will indeed prevent cancer, who the hell feeds people bull crap that it does not. Cancer is so insanely abundant now and increasing and everythinks that normal.

You do understand that the latest cancer treatments are based on methylation right? They are curing some people who are about to die with things like methylfolate, thats what vitamins do, otherwise what would be the point.

Any time an animal eats it is supposed to consume antioxidants, the result of an improper diet is disease.