Has Anyone Questioned Androgenetic Factors

[Pondle]

In Russia, the life expectancy actually fell after the Soviet Union collapse. This is the time that commercial and industrial activities went into high gear.

It was the time that the command economy collapsed and employment in state-run industries declined dramatically.

 

[Pondle]

Yes life expentancy increased in the past decades. But increase in life expentancy does not translate to good quality of life. The population of industrialized countries is either falling or beginning to fall. They are increasingly becoming dependent on foreign nurses for health care and on immigrants to maintain their population. Can I say that about 40% of their population are on some kind of medication? A sure success for drug companies.

I cannot argue as much as some can because I'm reading a single piece of book.

Declining birth rates appear to be a near universal sociological phenomenon in developed societies - Catholic Italy, Orthodox Greece, Lutheran Sweden, Buddhist Japan, Confucian China... now even Shia Iran.

As a society becomes richer and more urbanised, the economic value of children falls and people gain access to reliable contraception. In fact, children become a pure cost rather than an advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_Replac ... ility_Rate

 

[DammitLetMeIn]

Declining birth rates appear to be a near universal sociological phenomenon in developed societies - Catholic Italy, Orthodox Greece, Lutheran Sweden, Buddhist Japan, Confucian China... now even Shia Iran.

As a society becomes richer and more urbanised, the economic value of children falls and people gain access to reliable contraception. In fact, children become a pure cost rather than an advantage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_Replac ... ility_Rate

I'm thinkin they also become a pain in the ***. Think of all the free time and money you have if you have just one less child. Then again, if women stayed at home instead of working you'd still have that free time.

 

[Pondle]

Think of all the free time and money you have if you have just one less child. Then again, if women stayed at home instead of working you'd still have that free time.

But then a couple would have a reduced income.

Most surveys of women in developed countries show that they intend or would like to have around 2 children, but realised fertility undershoots that by various margins.

There was a recent news story that women overestimate their number of fertile years and leave childbearing too late (prioritising education, career etc first). When they finally settle with a partner to have children, 1 child is all that is possible.

Interestingly France seems to be bucking the trend and fertility has gone up from 1.7 children per woman in the 90s to 2.01 now. That's nearly replacement rate, unheard of in the developed world since the 70s.

 

[bobmer]

In Russia, the life expectancy actually fell after the Soviet Union collapse. This is the time that commercial and industrial activities went into high gear.

It was the time that the command economy collapsed and employment in state-run industries declined dramatically.

I have to check the article again. It's a few months old article from Reader's Digest talking about recent developments.

 

[bobmer]

But then a couple would have a reduced income. Most surveys of women in developed countries show that they intend or would like to have around 2 children, but realised fertility undershoots that by various margins.

In capitalist countries, we know that enterprises have the propensity to maximize profits. In developed countries, there are more jobs and there are as many women as men in the workforce. A family with 1 working parent will be at a disadvantage since enterprises tend to maximize profits according to consumer capacity to pay. The second parent will then be FORCED to work leaving the child with less care who becomes a pain rather than a joy. With two working parents and 70% of infedilities happening in the workplace, divorce comes next. The conclusion iseople of developed countries are exploited by commercial & industrial entreprises because there is lack of protection to families as basic units of society - the very reason France averted the crisis is government support to families. And with men now competing with women stress come next and hair loss is next

There was a recent news story that women overestimate their number of fertile years and leave childbearing too late (prioritising education, career etc first). When they finally settle with a partner to have children, 1 child is all that is possible.

Same answer. exploitation.

 

[bobmer]

Since prehistoric times up until the last few centuries or decades, the primal role of men and women in communities were gender specific and wide apart but very highly complementary.

The following can be seen as the classic model for all races since prehistoric times up UNTIL man’s concept of security and development allowed industrial enterprises to grow into the giants that turned the common man and woman into modern day slaves where men and women now take similar roles; their children left with strangers in schools:

The PRIMAL ROLE of women.
Adult women stayed within their territories or dwellings; worked almost constantly by keeping the house and stocks in order in repetitive patterns and very light physical activity usually under the behest and guidance of the ‘man of the house’ and multitask even while they chat with fellow women. Unlike men, women can eat in the face of stress.
Attributes like these are already apparent in female bearing sperm – slow but constant stamina. Estrogen is thought to be the medium that women use in these conditions.

Pre-pubertal children play imaginary roles according to their role models; to be imprinted in their hearts and minds – a time when they are getting ready for puberty and a time when they are getting ready to adopt or leave behind certain traits to prepare themselves in the adult environment.

The PRIMAL ROLE of men
Adult men, on the other hand, were duty bound for the more difficult and dangerous work of hunting and gathering stocks for food, necessities and of protecting the community from the elements which often involves new tactics, strategies and new thought processes often focused on a single objective the often combine with physical activities.

Attributes like these are already apparent in male bearing sperm – fast, powerful but short lived stamina. Testosterone is thought to work for men in these conditions.

Will testosterone work against men in certain conditions?

Today's working conditions are nowhere near the primal role of men. In fact, it is similar to women's tasks in the home. That causes hair loss.

 

[Pondle]

The conclusion iseople of developed countries are exploited by commercial & industrial entreprises because there is lack of protection to families as basic units of society - the very reason France averted the crisis is government support to families. And with men now competing with women stress come next and hair loss is next

But in the last 125 years, real living standards in Britain improved by 600%. In 1900, only 18% of the British population were middle class professionals, and 62% were industrial workers. In the 21st century those proportions are on their way to being reversed!

It's a similar story in all developed societies - in fact many have done better than Britain. People in modern developed societies are richer, healthier, longer lived, better educated and even taller than any human beings who have ever lived.

Hardly capitalist exploitation.

Besides, stress-related hair loss is not the same as male pattern baldness.

There was a recent news story that women overestimate their number of fertile years and leave childbearing too late (prioritising education, career etc first). When they finally settle with a partner to have children, 1 child is all that is possible.

Same answer. exploitation.

Not exploitation, free choice.

Most women are no longer be prepared to be condemned to the "domestic sphere" of home, children and economic subservience to men. Attitudes to gender roles have changed dramatically.

And in a post-industrial economy based on services, women have skills and physical capacities in high demand in many sectors. Girls outperform boys in UK schools. Even in conservative Iran, a majority of university students are now women. Although women tend to be "occupationally segregated" in lower paid jobs, many professions are becoming (or have already become) feminised - teaching, law, accountancy, medicine.

 

[Pondle]

Since prehistoric times up until the last few centuries or decades, the primal role of men and women in communities were gender specific and wide apart but very highly complementary.

The following can be seen as the classic model for all races since prehistoric times up UNTIL man’s concept of security and development allowed industrial enterprises to grow into the giants that turned the common man and woman into modern day slaves where men and women now take similar roles; their children left with strangers in schools:

The PRIMAL ROLE of women.
Adult women stayed within their territories or dwellings; worked almost constantly by keeping the house and stocks in order in repetitive patterns and very light physical activity usually under the behest and guidance of the ‘man of the house’ and multitask even while they chat with fellow women. Unlike men, women can eat in the face of stress.
Attributes like these are already apparent in female bearing sperm – slow but constant stamina. Estrogen is thought to be the medium that women use in these conditions.

Pre-pubertal children play imaginary roles according to their role models; to be imprinted in their hearts and minds – a time when they are getting ready for puberty and a time when they are getting ready to adopt or leave behind certain traits to prepare themselves in the adult environment.

The PRIMAL ROLE of men
Adult men, on the other hand, were duty bound for the more difficult and dangerous work of hunting and gathering stocks for food, necessities and of protecting the community from the elements which often involves new tactics, strategies and new thought processes often focused on a single objective the often combine with physical activities.

Attributes like these are already apparent in male bearing sperm – fast, powerful but short lived stamina. Testosterone is thought to work for men in these conditions.

Will testosterone work against men in certain conditions?

Today's working conditions are nowhere near the primal role of men. In fact, it is similar to women's tasks in the home. That causes hair loss.

A very conservative view Bobmer. We are no longer live in hunter-gatherer societies, and thank God for that. Gender roles are different in different types of societies at different points in time.

In pre-industrial Europe, for example, the practice of medicine was generally seen as a male prerogative. However, in Russia, health care was more often seen as a feminine role. West European medicine is most often practiced by men (though that is changing), while the majority of Russian doctors are women.

And male pattern baldness is simply genetic. Too much 5AR, too many androgen receptors. :cry:

 

[abcdefg]

Im sure where this thread is going about why baldness exists. I just want to say propecia was a large step forward in understanding of male pattern baldness. It gave science direction atleast.

 

[bobmer]

And male pattern baldness is simply genetic. Too much 5AR, too many androgen receptors

Geneticist have found defective genes on other hair disorders inspite of their rare occurances. They purport to have 'found' a group of genes that can be identified with pattern hair loss.

Do you honestly believe that genes, a mere 25,000 on and off switches, can account for the complexities of life? I bought that before but not anymore. Let me quote a respected cellular biologist

We scientists believed that our strengths, such as artistic or intellectual abilities, and our weaknesses, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer or depression, represented traits that were preprogrammed into our genes. Hence I perceived life’s attributes and deficits, as well as our health and our frailties as merely a reflection of our heredity expression.
“Until recently, it was thought that genes were self-actualizing - that genes could ‘turn themselves on and off.’ Such behavior is required in order for genes to control biology. Though the power of genes is still emphasized in current biology courses and textbooks, a radically new understanding has emerged at the leading edge of cell science. It is now recognized that the environment, and more specifically, our perception (interpretation) of the environment, directly controls the activity of our genes. The environment controls gene activity through a process known as epigenetic control (epigenetics).â€￾ – Bruce Lipton, Ph.D., Book: Biology of Belief –

Look up Epigenetics. It has the potential to answer the paradoxes that traditional beliefs in DNA cannot answer.

Here's one: A recent finding published by CNN/Health about diabetis (believed to be 'caused by' genes): Patients can forego their medical treatments so long as they eat sufficient amount of vegetables and fruits. It follows that had they maintained diets that included these in sufficient amounts regularly, the suppose 'defective' genes would not have mattered granted that they are truly defective. Epigenetics seems to fit in there. So then perhaps, we should just focus on the biochemistry and environment?

 

[docj077]

Do you honestly believe that genes, a mere 25,000 on and off switches, can account for the complexities of life?

*raises hand*

I abso-freakin-lutely believe that the complexities of life can be explained by 25,000 genes. Gene regulation allows for those 25,000 genes to look more like a few million. Transcription and translation can be on, off, or along a particular activation spectrum leads to genetic diversity that is unfathomable to the common lay person.

There is no question in my mind that the upregulation and downregulation of genes through the action of silencers and enhancers upstream and downstream of promoter sequences directly leads to the outcome that we know as humanity. For this very reason, we have humanity and not chimpanzees even though they are pretty much genetically identical to us. Also, for that very reason we are bipedal, upright walking mammals instead of a banana, which we happen to share a great deal of genetic material with, as well.

 

[bobmer]

I abso-freakin-lutely believe that the complexities of life can be explained by 25,000 genes. Gene regulation allows for those 25,000 genes to look more like a few million.

It's your choice to surrender you balding head to genes I take it you believe the environment has NOTHING to do with 'bald genes'? I take it that these enhancers or silencers merely upregulated or down without outside intervention?

If so, then you should stop taking any regimen because it won't matter. Taking any kind of drug is a form of outside intervention that you're HOPING will change the activity of your bald genes.

 

[bobmer]

"Pondle
A very conservative view Bobmer. We are no longer live in hunter-gatherer societies, and thank God for that. Gender roles are different in different types of societies at different points in time.

Yes, I'm very well informed that we no longer hunt of gather food. What i'm merely saying the physiologal development of men are based on these conditions. And that the switch to industrial era is too abrupt - the reason why male hormone seem to be the adversary.

And male pattern baldness is simply genetic. Too much 5AR, too many androgen receptors. :cry:

I read once that when cells are starved, they tend to produce more receptors. Part of their regulatory abilities.

 

[docj077]

I abso-freakin-lutely believe that the complexities of life can be explained by 25,000 genes. Gene regulation allows for those 25,000 genes to look more like a few million.

It's your choice to surrender you balding head to genes I take it you believe the environment has NOTHING to do with 'bald genes'? I take it that these enhancers or silencers merely upregulated or down without outside intervention?

If so, then you should stop taking any regimen because it won't matter. Taking any kind of drug is a form of outside intervention that you're HOPING will change the activity of your bald genes.

Wow, you read absolutely nothing that I said.

 

[Bryan]

It's your choice to surrender you balding head to genes I take it you believe the environment has NOTHING to do with 'bald genes'? I take it that these enhancers or silencers merely upregulated or down without outside intervention?

If so, then you should stop taking any regimen because it won't matter. Taking any kind of drug is a form of outside intervention that you're HOPING will change the activity of your bald genes.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Can you elaborate on that? Why wouldn't that "outside intervention" work, according to you?

Bryan

 

[bobmer]

Bryan
[quote:1b5c6]bobmer
I take it you believe the environment has NOTHING to do with 'bald genes'? I take it that these enhancers or silencers merely upregulated or down without outside intervention?

If so, then you should stop taking any regimen because it won't matter. Taking any kind of drug is a form of outside intervention that you're HOPING will change the activity of your bald genes.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Can you elaborate on that? Why wouldn't that "outside intervention" work, according to you?[/quote:1b5c6]Not me. I firmly believe that the environment has everything to do with hair loss. And that we can intervene. It's this geneticists who believes that 25,000 light switches can control your entire life who does yet he's taking medications lolz

 

[Pondle]

Not me. I firmly believe that the environment has everything to do with hair loss. And that we can intervene. It's this geneticists who believes that 25,000 light switches can control your entire life who does yet he's taking medications lolz

How could the environment affect male pattern baldness? You either inherit more 5AR/more androgen receptors, or you don't. Conceivably, male pattern baldness could become more widespread over generations if it is subject to positive natural selection, but I don't know if there's any evidence for that.

 

[bobmer]

How could the environment affect male pattern baldness? You either inherit more 5AR/more androgen receptors, or you don't. Conceivably, male pattern baldness could become more widespread over generations if it is subject to positive natural selection, but I don't know if there's any evidence for that.

First you must know that meaning of 'environment' in research. I think it means: physical:food, air, clothes. Social: work school, people around you. The most important thing is: How you react or respond to these environments. The 'placebe effect' are case examples where in you respond positively mentally and physically by mere suggestion of people around you.

You must take sides. Do you believe MBP is a disease or a symptom?
Or do you believe its merely the expression of you genes as though it;s some kind of second puberty written in the so-called 'code of life'?

Inherit yes that is incontestible. But inherit follicles with too much receptors is a theory. Cell have the ability to increase the number of receptors depending on their environment or certain conditions like lack of nutrients. You can inherit a weak cardiovascular system which can affect the follicles - it could be the reason why MBP is associated with at least five cardiovascular conditions.

 

[Pondle]

How could the environment affect male pattern baldness? You either inherit more 5AR/more androgen receptors, or you don't. Conceivably, male pattern baldness could become more widespread over generations if it is subject to positive natural selection, but I don't know if there's any evidence for that.

First you must know that meaning of 'environment' in research. I think it means: physical:food, air, clothes. Social: work school, people around you. The most important thing is: How you react or respond to these environments. The 'placebe effect' are case examples where in you respond positively mentally and physically by mere suggestion of people around you.

You must take sides. Do you believe MBP is a disease or a symptom?
Or do you believe its merely the expression of you genes as though it;s some kind of second puberty written in the so-called 'code of life'?

Well I know that one study found androgen receptor content in female frontal hair follicles was approximately 40% lower than in male frontal hair follicles. Frontal hair follicles in women had 3 and 3.5 times less 5- reductase type I and II, respectively, than frontal hair follicles in men.

I assume variation between men, which is surely determined by genetics, accounts for the different clinical presentations of androgenetic alopecia.

inherit yes that is incontestible. But inherit follicles with too much receptors is a theory. Cell have the ability to increase the number of receptors depending on their environment or certain conditions like lack of nutrients

Maybe, but if this was a viable option, why has there been no research into treatments (apart from perhaps Nizoral?) that try to down-regulate the androgen receptors? Besides, what would be the other health consequences of doing this? I know there is a condition called androgen insensitivity syndrome, and over on another thread someone posted a study into the health risks of castration...