Zinc

[ganyuehan]

I was told by a pharmacist that zinc supplements helps men with hairloss. I also noticed that some companies now sell a zinc shampoo. Has anyone used zinc mineral supplements or shampoo with any success?

 

[DHTHater]

Topical Pyrithione Zinc is alleged to help combat DHT at androgen receptor sites. I know my own Dermatologist (local hair restoration Doctor) recommended "Zinc Shampoos" to combat hair loss along with the Propecia she prescribed. There seems to be some data that substantiates its use topically in the treatment against hair loss, though I believe in a study matching it head to head vs Ketoconazole, the Ketoconazole group did better vs hair loss. The two main shampoos you hear dermatologists talk about to combat hairloss are Zinc Pyrithione and Ketoconazole shampoos.

I wouldn't recommend going overboard with oral supplements of Zinc however, as anything over 30 mg tablets for over a month could lead to a copper deficiency in the blood, and that could lead to shed. I read that in a physician's report somewhere discussing hair loss supplements.

I personally mix Nioxin (which has Zinc Ferment) and Nizoral, or Nioxin and Revita when I shampoo, so I'm mixing Zinc and Ketoconazole, so I can't be certain which one is more effective. My hair shafts are definitely stronger than they were, and shed has stopped (although I'm on finasteride too). I do plan on going strictly to Nizoral soon though. If I had to choose I'd probably rather have Ketoconazole working for me over Zinc. If there is a product that has both, that is affordable I'd love to know about it.

 

[ganyuehan]

I appreciate your reply. I might try doing what you do-mixing the two shampoos together. When people use nizoral, they often do it 3 or 4 times a week. Does the same rule apply when treating thinning hair, or do you do use it everyday?

 

[DHTHater]

I appreciate your reply. I might try doing what you do-mixing the two shampoos together. When people use nizoral, they often do it 3 or 4 times a week. Does the same rule apply when treating thinning hair, or do you do use it everyday?

If you're going to mix topical Zinc and topical Ketoconazole, your most cost effective way of doing that would be Nizoral + Head and Shoulders.

If you're willing to spend the money, you might try Revita, which pound for pound has the most bang for its buck in terms of ingredients IMO. It includes topical caffeine (known hair growth stimulant and is supposed to protect hair follicles form DHT damage), Ketoconazole (DHT killer/anti-fungal), Zinc PC (DHT killer/anti-fungal), MSM (contains sulfur which is essential for hair new growth), Emu Oil (alleged DHT inhibitor provides essential oils needed to stimulate sleeping hair follicles and reported regrowth by balding men), and Biotin (which strengthens roots/follicles protecting them from damage) to name a few of its ingredients. It has many of the most known anti-hair loss ingredients on the market today all in one bottle. The average bottle runs about $30 bucks which while pricey is economical if you're smart - using a quarter sized dollop the 3 days a week I shampoo, I get a full lather and the bottle can last 2 months which is good.

I don't recommend shampooing more than 3 times a week for several reasons, the first being the more you dry out your scalp, the more it responds by producing sebum, which clogs hair follicles and can act synergistically with DHT to destroy hair roots, the second being you will inevitably shed hairs while shampooing, and for obvious reasons you will probably want to keep as much of those around as possible, and while it's true that hair you shed will likely grow back, if it's on its last legs, then the shed has effectively shortened its already minimal life span. So yeah about 3 times a week is my recommendation.

 

[ganyuehan]

I appreciate your reply. I might try doing what you do-mixing the two shampoos together. When people use nizoral, they often do it 3 or 4 times a week. Does the same rule apply when treating thinning hair, or do you do use it everyday?

I don't recommend shampooing more than 3 times a week for several reasons, the first being the more you dry out your scalp, the more it responds by producing sebum, which clogs hair follicles and can act synergistically with DHT to destroy hair roots, the second being you will inevitably shed hairs while shampooing, and for obvious reasons you will probably want to keep as much of those around as possible, and while it's true that hair you shed will likely grow back, if it's on its last legs, then the shed has effectively shortened its already minimal life span. So yeah about 3 times a week is my recommendation.

All that info is really useful, thanks.

Do you mean any shampooing, so that on other days you would just use water, or not wash your hair at all?

 

[DHTHater]

I appreciate your reply. I might try doing what you do-mixing the two shampoos together. When people use nizoral, they often do it 3 or 4 times a week. Does the same rule apply when treating thinning hair, or do you do use it everyday?

I don't recommend shampooing more than 3 times a week for several reasons, the first being the more you dry out your scalp, the more it responds by producing sebum, which clogs hair follicles and can act synergistically with DHT to destroy hair roots, the second being you will inevitably shed hairs while shampooing, and for obvious reasons you will probably want to keep as much of those around as possible, and while it's true that hair you shed will likely grow back, if it's on its last legs, then the shed has effectively shortened its already minimal life span. So yeah about 3 times a week is my recommendation.

All that info is really useful, thanks.

Do you mean any shampooing, so that on other days you would just use water, or not wash your hair at all?

Right. You're not actually supposed to wash your hair every day, anyway, regardless of hair loss. It damages the hair shaft. Daily washing is a common bad habit shared by many who haven't bothered to talk to a trained hair specialist. Any professionally trained hair salon stylist will tell you wash your hair every other day, skipping at least one day, or wait two if you can get away with it.

Your hair needs to replenish itself and "recover" from being stripped of its natural oils. That's how hair health is maintained. But if you wait for longer than 3 days, you risk sebum accumulation clogging your follicles and pores. So try to wash every other day or even 2 days if you personally can get away with it (ie: if your hair isn't completely saturated in natural oil).

 

[techprof]

Bryan has quoted studies that show that washing every hour or washing once in a week or so has no effect on sebum production.

 

[DHTHater]

Bryan has quoted studies that show that washing every hour or washing once in a week or so has no effect on sebum production.

You're either confusing what I'm saying with the direct effect of shampoo on sebum, or quoting someone who got his information from spurious data. I'm referring to over shampooing stripping the scalp/drying the scalp and it overcompensates by producing more oil.

According to licensed cosmetologists, beauticians, and dermatologists that is exactly what happens. This appears to be well corroborated/universally accepted:

1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102062969
2. http://www.reve21.co.jp/eng/tips/26.html
3. http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/scalp-care/tips/how-often-wash-hair.htm/printable
4. http://skincare.about.com/od/insiderinterviews/a/ShannonANSR_2.htm
5. http://www.greendaily.com/2007/10/08/do-you-no-poo/
6. http://www.surviving-hairloss.com/Greasy_Hair.html

Hope that helps clear things up.

 

[Bryan]

You're either confusing what I'm saying with the direct effect of shampoo on sebum, or quoting someone who got his information from spurious data. I'm referring to over shampooing stripping the scalp/drying the scalp and it overcompensates by producing more oil.

According to licensed cosmetologists, beauticians, and dermatologists that is exactly what happens.

No it isn't. The idea that sebaceous glands "overcompensate" by producing more oil is one of the most persistent Urban Myths ever. Even some doctors have fallen for that idea. But sebaceous glands just keep producing sebum at about the same rate, regardless of how much is on the surface. They don't know, and (more importantly) they don't care about how much is on the surface.

 

[DHTHater]

You're either confusing what I'm saying with the direct effect of shampoo on sebum, or quoting someone who got his information from spurious data. I'm referring to over shampooing stripping the scalp/drying the scalp and it overcompensates by producing more oil.

According to licensed cosmetologists, beauticians, and dermatologists that is exactly what happens.

No it isn't. The idea that sebaceous glands "overcompensate" by producing more oil is one of the most persistent Urban Myths ever. Even some doctors have fallen for that idea. But sebaceous glands just keep producing sebum at about the same rate, regardless of how much is on the surface. They don't know, and (more importantly) they don't care about how much is on the surface.

No offense, but I'll take the word of the pros, not the self appointed armchair specialist.

 

[Bryan]

No offense, but I'll take the word of the pros, not the self appointed armchair specialist.

No offense, but I suggest you take the word of the biggest pro of all, Dr. Albert M. Kligman MD PhD, probably the most famous name in the history of dermatology. He and Shelley debunked the "feedback theory" (the notion that sebaceous glands "overcompensate" in response to washing by making more sebum) more than 50 years ago. See: "An Investigation of the Biology of the Human Sebaceous Gland", J Inv Derm 30:99-124, 1958.

 

[Bryan]

"Sebum secretion and sebaceous lipids." - published in Dermatologic Clinics, Vol. 1, No. 3, July 1983.

"... These observations gave rise to a long-lived fallacy (1927-1957) that was posthumously christened the 'feedback theory' by Kligman and Shelley (23). The idea was that sebaceous glands secrete only when necessary to replenish lipid that has been wiped or washed away. Nothing known about the physiology of sebaceous glands gives any theoretical support to this concept, and it has been thoroughly disproved experimentally (23). Sebum is secreted continuously. The reason that lipid levels eventually cease to increase apparently is that the skin can hold only a certain amount of lipid in its crevices, and the rest tends to flow away from sites of high sebum production (23)."

23) Kligman, A. M., and Shelley, W. B.: "An Investigation of the Biology of the Human Sebaceous Gland". Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 30:99-124, 1958.

 

[DHTHater]

No offense, but I'll take the word of the pros, not the self appointed armchair specialist.

No offense, but I suggest you take the word of the biggest pro of all, Dr. Albert M. Kligman MD PhD, probably the most famous name in the history of dermatology. He and Shelley debunked the "feedback theory" (the notion that sebaceous glands "overcompensate" in response to washing by making more sebum) more than 50 years ago. See: "An Investigation of the Biology of the Human Sebaceous Gland", J Inv Derm 30:99-124, 1958.

Unfortunately quote searches linked your magical excerpt to nowhere that I could find, save a few forums. One of which appears to be another forum you've been peddling this at. Which means for all we know you wrote this yourself.

Lets assume, hypothetically for a moment, and for the sake of argument this was even written by said dermatologist. We don't know if the study he conducted to write that included more than one person, a small group, or a large group. People respond differently to different chemicals. That's a fact. It obviously hasn't been empirically established to sway the opinion of every other dermatologist globally, or else those links I provided wouldn't exist. It conflicts with what is widely understood about how the scalp responds to being over treated.

Not to mention, from all outward appearances, the guy you're talking about is a dinosaur. That can't help his case in the world of bleeding edge scientific breakthroughs, and advances in the understanding of human skin.

I can say anecdotally, that washing my hair with harsh, caustic soaps too often does exactly what my initial links warn against, and my scalp produces more oil versus using natural ingredients or less stringent cleansers. The difference is profound. I'd be curious to hear other people's experience with this as well.

It's interesting enough for me to send it off to a few Dermatopathology, and Cutaneous Biology Labs to get their take on this. I'll post what they have to say here as I receive it.

 

[Bryan]

Unfortunately quote searches linked your magical excerpt to nowhere that I could find, save a few forums. One of which appears to be another forum you've been peddling this at. Which means for all we know you wrote this yourself.

ROTFLMAO!! So you think I made that up myself, do you?

Get your *** to a medical library and look it up yourself, dude. Then you'll find out if I "wrote it myself".

Lets assume, hypothetically for a moment, and for the sake of argument this was even written by said dermatologist. We don't know if the study he conducted to write that included more than one person, a small group, or a large group.

It was a long and involved study, and the authors did a bunch of different experiments that tested the theory in a variety of ways. They used a bunch of different test subjects. I strongly suggest that you read it.

People respond differently to different chemicals. That's a fact. It obviously hasn't been empirically established to sway the opinion of every other dermatologist globally, or else those links I provided wouldn't exist.

It's true that not every dermatologist seems to know about this early work by Kligman, which is interesting in itself. WHY don't they know about it? Did they skip class that day in med school?

I should point out here that of all those other links you provided, I believe only one of them included that statement by the other dermatologist who was obviously unaware of Kligman's work. For all I know, the other links were all (or mostly) written by non-scientist, non-doctor lay people who were simply expressing their ill-informed opinions about how the skin and sebaceous glands work.

It conflicts with what is widely understood about how the scalp responds to being over treated.

LOL!! I caution you NOT to jump to any hasty conclusions about what you think is "widely understood" about how the scalp responds. I have other findings on that very issue by Kligman and his colleagues which will probably surprise you!

Not to mention, from all outward appearances, the guy you're talking about is a dinosaur. That can't help his case in the world of bleeding edge scientific breakthroughs, and advances in the understanding of human skin.

Kligman is very highly respected in the field of dermatology. He's authored a BUNCH of studies. He's a true pioneer.

I can say anecdotally, that washing my hair with harsh, caustic soaps too often does exactly what my initial links warn against, and my scalp produces more oil versus using natural ingredients or less stringent cleansers. The difference is profound.

BALONEY. I can show you additional evidence against the "feedback theory" (different from the study cited above), and it actually had to do with careful lipid measurements from scalp that was shampooed intensively, versus scalp that wasn't shampooed at all for long periods of time. Again, shampooing made no difference in the amount of sebum that was being produced.

It's interesting enough for me to send it off to a few Dermatopathology, and Cutaneous Biology Labs to get their take on this. I'll post what they have to say here as I receive it.

Yeah, you do that. By the way, I have even MORE evidence against the "feedback theory" than just what I posted above. Wanna hear about it?

 

[DHTHater]

It's true that not every dermatologist seems to know about this early work by Kligman, which is interesting in itself. WHY don't they know about it? Did they skip class that day in med school?

So you're suggesting all of the medical world is wrong but your old dinosaur is right? You're actually suggesting Dermatologists and cosmeticians the world over, who all take a different stand on this than your old dinosaur, all skipped class? If you actually believe that, you're every bit as mentally unstable as your incessant use of emoticons suggests.

Kligman is very highly respected in the field of dermatology. He's authored a BUNCH of studies. He's a true pioneer.

So authoring a bunch of studies makes him infallible, and whatever he says is incontrovertibly true? Especially given that it flies in the face of conventional mainstream thinking, what is being openly adhered to now? If it's so air tight, why isn't the test where anyone but you seems able to find it? And why aren't more doctors ascribing to it? Maybe because they know better?

BALONEY. I can show you additional evidence against the "feedback theory" (different from the study cited above), and it actually had to do with careful lipid measurements from scalp that was shampooed intensively, versus scalp that wasn't shampooed at all for long periods of time. Again, shampooing made no difference in the amount of sebum that was being produced.

You're denying someone else's personal account that you cannot see or experience. Obviously no one can reason with that kind of childlike obtuseness and paranoia.

Yeah, you do that. By the way, I have even MORE evidence against the "feedback theory" than just what I posted above. Wanna hear about it?

Does it come from the same place that you pulled the previous study form that no one but yourself seems to have access to? If so, then no thanks.

 

[Bryan]

So you're suggesting all of the medical world is wrong but your old dinosaur is right?

Uh, NO. I'm suggesting that most of the medical world probably _does_ know about the falsity of the feedback theory. I think the ones that don't are the exception, rather than the rule. How does that old saying go.... "There's always a 10% that doesn't get the word."

Back a few years ago when my sister was here visiting me, she took this opportunity to go have something on her skin checked with a local dermatologist (I live close to the giant Houston Medical Center). I was curious myself if her Doctor happened to know about this stuff, so I gave her a piece of paper with a question on it to ask him while she was there. Basically, it asked him (without even mentioning Kligman at all) whether or not there was any truth to the idea that washing your skin makes the sebaceous glands produce more sebum. I had told my sister to make a careful note of his reply, and she said that he said that based on his own experience, he didn't think there was any truth to it. He made no mention at all of any prior work done by Kligman, or anybody else. So he got it right, even though it's uncertain exactly HOW he came to that conclusion. Had he been told about it during his early training but didn't know or remember the details of Kligman's early study, or had he really deduced it from his own experience? I don't know...

You're actually suggesting Dermatologists and cosmeticians the world over, who all take a different stand on this than your old dinosaur, all skipped class? If you actually believe that, you're every bit as mentally unstable as your incessant use of emoticons suggests.

Better get used to those emoticons, pal.

So authoring a bunch of studies makes him infallible, and whatever he says is incontrovertibly true?

No, he's actually been wrong on occasion. You'd know that, if you bothered to READ his studies. But this is not one of those occasions.

Especially given that it flies in the face of conventional mainstream thinking, what is being openly adhered to now?

{SIGH} As I said before, I don't think it flies in the face of conventional mainstream MEDICAL thinking (at least among dermatologists). It _is_ a common myth among lay people, though.

If it's so water tight, why isn't the test where anyone but you seems able to find it?

I'm not sure what you mean. You (or anyone else) can find it in any medical library.

BALONEY. I can show you additional evidence against the "feedback theory" (different from the study cited above), and it actually had to do with careful lipid measurements from scalp that was shampooed intensively, versus scalp that wasn't shampooed at all for long periods of time. Again, shampooing made no difference in the amount of sebum that was being produced.

You're denying someone else's personal account that you cannot see or experience.

No, I'm doubting your own personal competence at making such a judgement. You need to test something like that scientifically, with something like Sebutape test-strips or a Sebumeter.

 

[DHTHater]

Uh, NO. I'm suggesting that most of the medical world probably _does_ know about the falsity of the feedback theory. I think the ones that don't are the exception, rather than the rule. How does that old saying go.... "There's always a 10% that doesn't get the word."

And yet every single link available online about it says otherwise, all to mostly credible medical sites. Where did you pull "most" from? The same place you get obscure quotes from that conveniently can't be linked to anywhere online?

Better get used to those emoticons, pal.

You're asking people to get used to your childlike compulsion to overuse emoticons? What's next? Are you going to ask us all to suck it up and deal with booger flinging and spitwads too?

No, he's actually been wrong on occasion. You'd know that, if you bothered to READ his studies. But this is not one of those occasions.

That's your favorite line "READ the STUDIES". When so far , you can't provide said studies. I "read the studies" in the other debate we had and it turned out you were totally wrong. I pointed that out and you disappeared.

How do you propose anyone can do that, when you conveniently can't provide any links? Obviously no rationally sane person is going to be inconvenienced enough to double check your story by first tracking down a medical library of all places, then driving to wherever that is to track down an obscure quote that supposedly exists.

{SIGH} As I said before, I don't think it flies in the face of conventional mainstream MEDICAL thinking (at least among dermatologists). It _is_ a common myth among lay people, though.

You mean the mainstream medical thinking in the links I already provided? It isn't "lay people" that are pointing this out. These are licensed medical, and cosmetics businesses, and dermatology departments online that are reporting the same thing about sebum production compensation reacting to being dried out.

No, I'm doubting your own personal competence at making such a judgement. You need to test something like that scientifically, with something like Sebutape test-strips or a Sebumeter.

Normally I would agree here, but not when it's so transparently obvious. Not when the effects I'm talking about are so profound. You can actually see one of my first posts was about this very subject. One shampoo in particular dramatically changed the oil production on my scalp.

 

[techprof]

dht hater,
don't go by online links. there is so much sh*t on the internet these days.
only peer reviewed work counts in science.

if you were to go by online sites, you shouldn't use propecia. there are more sites saying it is bad with side effects than otherwise.

 

[Bryan]

And yet every single link available online about it says otherwise, all to mostly credible medical sites.

"Mostly credible medical sites"?? LOL!!

Here's another suggestion for you: start getting your medical information from doctors, medical journals, and medical textbooks, not from online Web sites that are often written by people who are just trying to sell you something (like acne treatments, for example).

Where did you pull "most" from? The same place you get obscure quotes from that conveniently can't be linked to anywhere online?

Do you expect everything to be available to you online? Go to a MEDICAL LIBRARY, jackass.

That's your favorite line "READ the STUDIES". When so far , you can't provide said studies. I "read the studies" in the other debate we had and it turned out you were totally wrong. I pointed that out and you disappeared.

I was totally RIGHT. I ended that discussion because you were just trolling.

How do you propose anyone can do that, when you conveniently can't provide any links?

No, unfortunately there are no links to that 52-year-old study. You'll have to go to a MEDICAL LIBRARY to get it, stupid.

Obviously no rationally sane person is going to be inconvenienced enough to double check your story by first tracking down a medical library of all places, then driving to wherever that is to track down an obscure quote that supposedly exists.

Oh well. I told you where to get it. Sorry if you don't have the wherewithal to do that.

 

[DHTHater]

Here's another suggestion for you: start getting your medical information from doctors, medical journals, and medical textbooks, not from online Web sites that are often written by people who are just trying to sell you something (like acne treatments, for example).

And yet none of those sites I linked on the first page are selling products in relation to said articles/reports. Weird. You must be lying again.

Do you expect everything to be available to you online? Go to a MEDICAL LIBRARY, jackass.

I see you've been reduced to gradeschool name calling/personal attacks. Your anger and desperation are showing.

I expect commonly referred to reports and studies to be available online like every other lab abstract or clinical trial is when published by medical sites. If you have to go find something as obsolete as an offline library to find what you're looking for, chances are it isn't well corroborated. As it turns out, with regard to this, it isn't corroborated at all.

I was totally RIGHT. I ended that discussion because you were just trolling.

Actually you weren't and I pointed that out, and that's why you fled.

No, unfortunately there are no links to that 52-year-old study. You'll have to go to a MEDICAL LIBRARY to get it, stupid.

Again with the personal attacks, I'd like to point out to readers that poor Bryan here was the first to go here, showing nothing is beneath him when he gets defensive, and is obviously so insecure in his position, that in place of actual arguments, all that is left is hurling gradeschool barbs.

A bit of advice, Bryan, maybe you shouldn't cling so obstinately to outdated medical studies that no one else seems to be referring to. That way you won't be forced into a corner.