For bryan and Foote.

[S Foote.]

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

Just consider the actual reported facts of the matter concerning "doughnutting"?

If reduced circulation in the grafts is going to effect hair growth, this is going to happen right after the transplantation.

It could well be that this lack of circulation after transplantation is responsible for the shedding known as shock loss, right after the procedure.

But after that, the grafts produce healthy terminal hair all over.

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

So there can be no circulation problem in these grafts after the initial healing, simple.

The long term balding in these grafts has nothing to do with hypoxia, the early studies clearly rule this out!

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

The long term continuation of hair loss in alledged "resistent" grafts to the male pattern baldness area, is a recognised consistent fact Bryan!

Really? Then provide a reference or citation to the medical literature supporting that claim. That should come as quite a surprise to all the men who got hair transplants years and years ago, and are continuing to enjoy their new hair!

BTW, a reference just to the "doughnutting" effect isn't good enough. Show me evidence that hair transplants wither away YEARS after the operation.

It means nothing that no one has yet dared to raise the implications of this in a medical journal! This is just another example of the politics suppressing the science in male pattern baldness research!

And yet miraculously, untold tens (or hundreds?) of thousands of men all over the world continue to get hair transplants. I guess nobody has slipped the word to them that hair transplants don't work! :wink:

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

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

And YOU are making a laughable attempt to UP-play it. You're not fooling anybody.

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

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

Actually, it's "similar" for only a very short period of time, and then it's no longer even a factor. It's only useful for kooks who try to push their alternate theories of balding! :wink:

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

LOL!! I think if it _did_ happen at all, it happened very early on. After that, it was over and done with. Prove me wrong, Stephen! :wink:

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

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

There ISN'T any "continued hair loss". Prove me wrong.

Bryan

 

[CCS]

so foote, when you disagreed with my donut argument, are you saying that after hairs go into telligen and grow back out in 6 months after a transplant, the hairs in the center of the erasor sized punch graft grow out to terminal length, and then donut LATER? I just want to double check that is what you are saying.

Second, if endema causes hair loss, then why do the hairs on the edges of the graph, that make up the donut and are closer to the unhealthy sebacious glands, live on, while the hiars in the center, which contain sebacious glands from the back of the head, die? Is it because the outer ones can drain there endema into the nearby outside skin? If that can save the outside follicles, then why not the rest of the follicles in the balding scalp, and not any balding hairs transplanted to an arm?

 

[michael barry]

Bryan,

The big 4mm plugs in which donutting was common have not been performed for some time now. By the early nineties, I think these old electric-drill punch graft plugs gave way to strip scar surgery which was mini-and micro grafts that moved 1-8 or so hairs per graft. Now, follicular units are performed in the majority of cases. This is why we dont hear much about donutting anymore, because in the new surgeries it does not happen.



As far as what Bryan said about men "enjoying their new hair"........the problem with transplants is that they dont stop further balding. A man winds up "chasing his baldness" until he runs out of donor hair. Then he is screwed. Surgical forums are full of men who had a surgery at 25, and another at 30, and another at 35, and then the back started to bald.......................and they wind up in a wig at 45 with "hair islands" with hair in front and on top in front of a massive bald spot. There just isnt enough hair in the hippocratic wreath to spread all over the head. Alot of men gamble that propecia will stop further baldness only to find out that it merely slows the inevitable for a couple of decades, so their "crisis" is delayed.





Collegechemistrystudent,
Stephens theory has nothing to do with the sebaceous gland at all. Its clear to me by your responses that your mixing up Armando's idea with Stephen's. Two very different animals.

Stephen,
Collegechemistrystudents response is why YOU should either make a web page or start a thread that COMPLETELY explains your theory and every aspect of that theory in ONE LONG POST. You should also CLEARLY explain why donutting of grafts and failures of scalp reductions and successes of edema-fighting indications like NO-mimickers, peptides, proanthocyanidins, latanaporost, alpha-five inhibitors WORK in your opinion. One LONG post where ALL your evidence is clearly presented for any reader that you can link to when anyone has a question. Would probably take you about half an hour or so to write out.

 

[S Foote.]

The long term continuation of hair loss in alledged "resistent" grafts to the male pattern baldness area, is a recognised consistent fact Bryan!

Really? Then provide a reference or citation to the medical literature supporting that claim. That should come as quite a surprise to all the men who got hair transplants years and years ago, and are continuing to enjoy their new hair!

BTW, a reference just to the "doughnutting" effect isn't good enough. Show me evidence that hair transplants wither away YEARS after the operation.

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

There is no reference what so ever to the "doughnutting" patern of loss in that two year study. In fact it is clear that the hair throughout those conventional grafts to the male pattern baldness area, produced "normal" terminal hair for the period of the study!!!

But we "NOW" know that this pattern of loss is common in larger grafts, and regarded as inevitable in the graft size used in the old study you posted.

Now for "sensible" people Bryan, the simple conclusion we must reach when comparing that old study with modern accepted knowledge, is that the hair loss patern called doughnutting is a long term development.

I know you have problems putting two and two together Bryan, but as it stands you are only succeding in looking stupid here, so do try. :wink:

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

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

There ISN'T any "continued hair loss". Prove me wrong.

Bryan

Anyone who cares to Google "hair transplant doughnutting" can see for themselves that there is certainly continued hair loss in the size of graft we are talking about in the male pattern baldness area.

So you are quite clearly proven wrong Bryan :roll:

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

so foote, when you disagreed with my donut argument, are you saying that after hairs go into telligen and grow back out in 6 months after a transplant, the hairs in the center of the erasor sized punch graft grow out to terminal length, and then donut LATER? I just want to double check that is what you are saying.

Second, if endema causes hair loss, then why do the hairs on the edges of the graph, that make up the donut and are closer to the unhealthy sebacious glands, live on, while the hiars in the center, which contain sebacious glands from the back of the head, die? Is it because the outer ones can drain there endema into the nearby outside skin? If that can save the outside follicles, then why not the rest of the follicles in the balding scalp, and not any balding hairs transplanted to an arm?

Yes, as i refer to in my last post to Bryan, the doughnutting pattern of loss in larger grafts is a longer term thing.

There are many references to this and if you Google "hair transplant doughnutting" you can read up on this.

The reason for this given by the transplantation industry is just not valid in my opinion. The early studies compared with modern knowledge rule out the hypoxia excuse.

My theory concerns the resistence of the surrounding dermal tissue to follicle enlargement. I am saying that increased tissue fluid pressure in the scalp tends to force dermal cells into the hollow space of the growing follicle. This increases the resistence to follicle enlargement stopping this through normal contact inhibition of cell growth.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/99/6/3609

In this same link you can see the effect of the matrix effect in allowing cell multiplication.

In my opinion, the common factor in survival of terminal follicles transplanted to the male pattern baldness area, is the formation of scar tissue.

This forms a natural matrix or scaffold around the follicles, that allows the follicles to enlarge fully in future cycles.

This same principle is becoming accepted in modern hair multiplication (HM) research.

http://www.hairlosshelp.com/hair_clonin ... henik3.cfm

What the dougjnutting patern of loss in large grafts shows, is the only follicles that survive long term after transplantation to the male pattern baldness area, are those right next to the transplantation scar.

In my opinion, the much better results of the modern mini or micro grafts (call them what you will). is the fibrose matrix of scar tissue that forms around the follicles. This protects them from the external scalp conditions that cause male pattern baldness in my opinion.

S Foote.

 

[S Foote.]

Stephen,
Collegechemistrystudents response is why YOU should either make a web page or start a thread that COMPLETELY explains your theory and every aspect of that theory in ONE LONG POST. You should also CLEARLY explain why donutting of grafts and failures of scalp reductions and successes of edema-fighting indications like NO-mimickers, peptides, proanthocyanidins, latanaporost, alpha-five inhibitors WORK in your opinion. One LONG post where ALL your evidence is clearly presented for any reader that you can link to when anyone has a question. Would probably take you about half an hour or so to write out.

It would take a lot longer Michael, but i will try to get around to doing this.

I find myself with a lot less time at the moment to persue my theory because of personal reasons.

It is also important that i continue to concentrate on professional input. Talk is cheap on these forums as you know, the way forward is professional testing.

Regards.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

Your problem Bryan is that you are so used to just cherry picking individual studies to support your argument of the day, that you cannot comprehend "real" science!

Take your statement above quote:

"LOL!! I think if it _did_ happen at all, it happened very early on. After that, it was over and done with. Prove me wrong, Stephen!"

Can you now not even understand the information "YOU" post???

You now claim that the hair loss in these larger grafts called doughnutting, happens early on for a short period, then "goes away"!! :freaked:

Uhhh....in case you didn't understand what I meant the first time, I'll draw you a picture: I'm saying that "doughnutting" starts occurring (probably early on, although nobody can be really sure about that, since there is no published information on it), reaches a certain point, then stops advancing. I'm not claiming that IT ALL GROWS BACK, dumbbell, I'm saying that it reaches a maximum at some point and then stabilizes, with no further loss afterwards.

So where is the reference to hair recession in these grafts in your rant here?

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

There is no reference what so ever to the "doughnutting" patern of loss in that two year study. In fact it is clear that the hair throughout those conventional grafts to the male pattern baldness area, produced "normal" terminal hair for the period of the study!!!

I've already explained to you how I feel about that. It could well be that the doughnutting occurred PRIOR to the first haircount. It could also be that doughnutting doesn't occur with 100% consistency, and so maybe it didn't happen at all in the Nordstrom study. We don't really know which is the correct answer.

But we "NOW" know that this pattern of loss is common in larger grafts, and regarded as inevitable in the graft size used in the old study you posted.

Not necessarily. That's your own personal "spin" that you like to put on it.

Now for "sensible" people Bryan, the simple conclusion we must reach when comparing that old study with modern accepted knowledge, is that the hair loss patern called doughnutting is a long term development.

More "spin" from you!

There ISN'T any "continued hair loss". Prove me wrong.

Anyone who cares to Google "hair transplant doughnutting" can see for themselves that there is certainly continued hair loss in the size of graft we are talking about in the male pattern baldness area.

So you are quite clearly proven wrong Bryan :roll:

Stop using "doughnutting" in some pathetic attempt to support your kooky theory. I'm not denying that doughnutting exists at all, what I'm challenging you to do is find any evidence at all that hair transplants wither away completely in the long-term. You can't do that, because you know it doesn't happen.

Bryan

 

[S Foote.]

Your problem Bryan is that you are so used to just cherry picking individual studies to support your argument of the day, that you cannot comprehend "real" science!

Take your statement above quote:

"LOL!! I think if it _did_ happen at all, it happened very early on. After that, it was over and done with. Prove me wrong, Stephen!"

Can you now not even understand the information "YOU" post???

You now claim that the hair loss in these larger grafts called doughnutting, happens early on for a short period, then "goes away"!! :freaked:

Uhhh....in case you didn't understand what I meant the first time, I'll draw you a picture: I'm saying that "doughnutting" starts occurring (probably early on, although nobody can be really sure about that, since there is no published information on it), reaches a certain point, then stops advancing. I'm not claiming that IT ALL GROWS BACK, dumbbell, I'm saying that it reaches a maximum at some point and then stabilizes, with no further loss afterwards.

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

There is no reference what so ever to the "doughnutting" patern of loss in that two year study. In fact it is clear that the hair throughout those conventional grafts to the male pattern baldness area, produced "normal" terminal hair for the period of the study!!!

I've already explained to you how I feel about that. It could well be that the doughnutting occurred PRIOR to the first haircount. It could also be that doughnutting doesn't occur with 100% consistency, and so maybe it didn't happen at all in the Nordstrom study. We don't really know which is the correct answer.

But we "NOW" know that this pattern of loss is common in larger grafts, and regarded as inevitable in the graft size used in the old study you posted.

Not necessarily. That's your own personal "spin" that you like to put on it.

Now for "sensible" people Bryan, the simple conclusion we must reach when comparing that old study with modern accepted knowledge, is that the hair loss patern called doughnutting is a long term development.

More "spin" from you!

There ISN'T any "continued hair loss". Prove me wrong.

Anyone who cares to Google "hair transplant doughnutting" can see for themselves that there is certainly continued hair loss in the size of graft we are talking about in the male pattern baldness area.

So you are quite clearly proven wrong Bryan :roll:

Stop using "doughnutting" in some pathetic attempt to support your kooky theory. I'm not denying that doughnutting exists at all, what I'm challenging you to do is find any evidence at all that hair transplants wither away completely in the long-term. You can't do that, because you know it doesn't happen.

Bryan[/quote:25672]

This argument of yours is quite pathetic Bryan, have you "actually" read any of the accepted information about this??? :roll:

The hair loss refered to as doughnutting in the larger grafts is permanent Bryan!!!

You are desperately trying to claim that this happens "very" early on after transplantation, but there is no references to such a thing in the old transplantation studies you are so fond of posting?

Apart from this obvious fact, just as happens today, the old procedures involved a number of sessions over many months even years!!!

Are you trying to tell us that nobody "noticed" this major loss in their new grafts between sessions, and complained about it!!

This whole fantasy of yours is ridiculous Bryan, and makes no sense at all :roll:

If this now recognised hair loss in the large grafts happened early on as you claim, the whole idea of using this size of graft in the first place would have been rejected!

On top of that, your original ill informed idea that "doughnutting" will correct itself ought to be passed on to the repair industry that tries to address these now recognised cosmetic problems with the old large grafts!

Because according to you Bryan, they are just imagining this! :freaked:

Your grasp of the rellevant facts in these debates, has hit an all time low Bryan. :wink:

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

This argument of yours is quite pathetic Bryan, have you "actually" read any of the accepted information about this??? :roll:

The hair loss refered to as doughnutting in the larger grafts is permanent Bryan!!!

Can you f*****g READ??? I never said it WASN'T permanent, goddamnit!!

You are desperately trying to claim that this happens "very" early on after transplantation, but there is no references to such a thing in the old transplantation studies you are so fond of posting?

There are no references to when it occurs in ANY transplantation studies, not even the new ones. So we don't really know for sure.

Apart from this obvious fact, just as happens today, the old procedures involved a number of sessions over many months even years!!!

Are you trying to tell us that nobody "noticed" this major loss in their new grafts between sessions, and complained about it!!

Yawn. OF COURSE they did. Why do you ask such an odd question?

If this now recognised hair loss in the large grafts happened early on as you claim, the whole idea of using this size of graft in the first place would have been rejected!

Yes. And it WAS eventually rejected, probably for that very reason. So what's your point?

On top of that, your original ill informed idea that "doughnutting" will correct itself ought to be passed on to the repair industry that tries to address these now recognised cosmetic problems with the old large grafts!

Jesus Christ, WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION??? For the last time, I didn't SAY that doughnutting will correct itself!!!!!! Can you even READ???????? Here is what I told you before in PLAIN f*****g ENGLISH:

"Uhhh....in case you didn't understand what I meant the first time, I'll draw you a picture: I'm saying that 'doughnutting' starts occurring (probably early on, although nobody can be really sure about that, since there is no published information on it), reaches a certain point, then stops advancing. I'm not claiming that IT ALL GROWS BACK, dumbbell, I'm saying that it reaches a maximum at some point and then stabilizes, with no further loss afterwards."

If you can't understand any of that, go get a family member to read it and explain it to you. Christ...

 

[S Foote.]

This argument of yours is quite pathetic Bryan, have you "actually" read any of the accepted information about this??? :roll:

The hair loss refered to as doughnutting in the larger grafts is permanent Bryan!!!

Can you f****ing READ??? I never said it WASN'T permanent, goddamnit!!

If this now recognised hair loss in the large grafts happened early on as you claim, the whole idea of using this size of graft in the first place would have been rejected!

Yes. And it WAS eventually rejected, probably for that very reason. So what's your point?

The large graft procedures began in the fifties, and continued even in the mainsteam reputable clinics until the late eighties.

I had some of these large 4mm plugs in the early eighties.

Certainly these were eventually rejected because of the common effect of doughnutting, but the fact that there were used for over thirty years clearly shows the problem was not apparent "early on" as "you" claim Bryan! :roll:

No amount of your detractions from this point, are going to convince anyone with basic common sense that the facts are not very clear on this point.

The time frame of the inevitable continued hair loss in these grafts to the male pattern baldness area, shoots yet another big hole in the current theory simple. :wink:

I wont be posting again for a while as i have other priorities, and i have to concentrate on these. If i have any news in the future, i will post again.

Good luck to all.

S Foote.

 

[Bryan]

There are no references to it in any of the transplantation studies, because they didn't run the early studies with these large grafts for long enough.

Another nice "spin" on your part. How come you haven't been able to find anything at all in the medical literature about the ACTUAL true timeline involved in doughnutting? You're having to rely just on conjecture like the above.

The "doughnutting" pattern of loss is a long term effect. This simple fact is what i have been trying to get into your thick skull Bryan. :roll:

Even if it is (again, I'm saying even IF it is), so what? It has nothing to do with androgenetic alopecia, anyway. The GIGANTIC fact from the Nordstrom study that is so embarrassing for you and that you keep ignoring is the fact that balding hair follicles continued balding right on schedule, even when transplanted to the arm. No matter how much you try to throw up a smokescreen to that basic fact by talking about "doughnutting", I'll be there to point out the truth! :wink: :lol:

Bryan

 

[wookster]

:shock: :freaked2: :shock:

Foote's theory could be correct?

Here is an edema associated hairloss:

http://dermatology.cdlib.org/114/NYU/NY ... 15059.html

There was complete loss of eyebrow hair. The frontal-parietal hair line was recessed with perifollicular edema and mild follicular hyperkeratosis.

[...]

Histopathology reveals a reduced number of hair follicles with a lichenoid, perifollicular, lymphocytic infiltrate and peri-infundibular fibroplasia.

 

[docj077]

:shock: :freaked2: :shock:

Foote's theory could be correct?

Here is an edema associated hairloss:

http://dermatology.cdlib.org/114/NYU/NY ... 15059.html

There was complete loss of eyebrow hair. The frontal-parietal hair line was recessed with perifollicular edema and mild follicular hyperkeratosis.

[...]

Histopathology reveals a reduced number of hair follicles with a lichenoid, perifollicular, lymphocytic infiltrate and peri-infundibular fibroplasia.

The edema is caused by the lymphocytic infiltrate. Not the other way around. Edema is the last step if it even is a step.

I posted a study the other day that demonstrated that narrowing of the upper follicle area is due to fibrosis and lymphocytic infiltrates. There was little to no edema present in androgenic alopecia.

The study you're looking at is frontal fibrosing alopecia. There is no known cause and no known cure for this disease.

 

[wookster]

The edema is caused by the lymphocytic infiltrate. Not the other way around. Edema is the last step if it even is a step.

You are saying that follicular miniaturization via genetically programmed response to androgens precedes end stage edema, and, Mr. Foote appears to be proposing that edema, due to inadequate lymphatic efficiency, causing contact inhibition via indirect actions of DHT, is an initial step before miniaturization can even occur.

A healthy scalp with thicker diameter hairs looks much different than the scalp with dying miniaturized hairs.

[A] Miniaturization precedes unhealthy scalp

Unhealthy scalp precedes miniaturization

Many people often notice itchy scalp before they notice balding. That would seem to imply that is true. :freaked:

 

[docj077]

The edema is caused by the lymphocytic infiltrate. Not the other way around. Edema is the last step if it even is a step.

You are saying that follicular miniaturization via genetically programmed response to androgens precedes end stage edema, and, Mr. Foote appears to be proposing that edema, due to inadequate lymphatic efficiency, causing contact inhibition via indirect actions of DHT, is an initial step before miniaturization can even occur.

A healthy scalp with thicker diameter hairs looks much different than the scalp with dying miniaturized hairs.

[A] Miniaturization precedes unhealthy scalp

Unhealthy scalp precedes miniaturization

Many people often notice itchy scalp before they notice balding. That would seem to imply that is true. :freaked:

You really like those emoticons. However, in both cases, you're wrong. They happen at the same time. Fibrosis and collagen deposition with possible lymphocytic infiltrates happens at the same time follicular miniaturization is occurring.

An "unhealthy scalp" is a relative phrase and unless you have microscope with a biopsy from your own head, you have no idea if your scalp is healthy or not.

 

[michael barry]

I think, at 64 pages, everyone associated with this thread deserves a bronze star or something. Its got to be the longest hairloss thread ever. Very impressive.


I wish Steve Foote could get his hands on a stuptailed macaque, perform a scalp liturgical surgery sututring a few blood vessles responsible for blood feed to the scalp, and see if the little creature lost its hair later.


I think I read somewhere that if you put rogaine on a prepubescent macaque through puberty, the little fella wont bald. That struck me as odd as minoxidil isnt an anti-androgen. Very interesting. Wonder what Stephen would think about that?

 

[Bryan]

I wish Steve Foote could get his hands on a stuptailed macaque, perform a scalp liturgical surgery sututring a few blood vessles responsible for blood feed to the scalp, and see if the little creature lost its hair later.

A scalp LITURGICAL surgery?? Is that where the doctors gather around the hapless patient and pray over him, hoping for a miracle??

Bryan

 

[wookster]

Fibrosis and collagen deposition with possible lymphocytic infiltrates happens at the same time follicular miniaturization is occurring.

:? :? :?

The edema is caused by the lymphocytic infiltrate. Not the other way around. Edema is the last step if it even is a step.

:freaked: :freaked: :freaked:

You are saying that follicular miniaturization via genetically programmed response to androgens precedes end stage edema... yes or no...

 

[docj077]

Fibrosis and collagen deposition with possible lymphocytic infiltrates happens at the same time follicular miniaturization is occurring.

:? :? :?

The edema is caused by the lymphocytic infiltrate. Not the other way around. Edema is the last step if it even is a step.

:freaked: :freaked: :freaked:

You are saying that follicular miniaturization via genetically programmed response to androgens precedes end stage edema... yes or no...

Seeing as how end stage edema has never been seen in a study involving a male with androgenic alopecia, I don't really need to answer that. Follicular miniaturization takes place at the exact same time that fibrosis and collagen deposition is occurring.