New clinical trial intended to prove the Androgenetic Alopecia theory.

[freakout]

... A variety of genetic and environmental factors are likely to play a role in androgenetic alopecia.

Source- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/ ... cia&rank=1

Good. Because until they prove it, androgenetics is a THEORY.

 

[LooseItAll]

The should focus on developing treatments, not stating the obvious.

 

[abcdefg]

You know this is funny because a few men I have seen that are 30 or older and have teenage hair lines with 0 loss also have no facial hair at all. It almost always seems to be like that with very few exceptions. It really lends a lot of credibility to androgens being the root cause maybe even the whole cause. I really think a complete androgen inhibitor might completely stop male pattern baldness if we can figure out a good way to do it and get it FDA approved so we can go to walmart or wherever and buy it OTC like rogain and we have a way to prevent male pattern baldness with no risk which is what everyone really wants.

 

[Bryan]

Why do you think scalp hair follicles in the galea region have androgen receptors?

For the same reason that all hair follicles on the human body (beard follicles which are actually stimulated by androgens, and follicles from the back and side of the scalp which are relatively inert to androgens) have androgen receptors: they were DESIGNED that way long ago by Evolution.

 

[Jacob]

DESIGNED by evolution...eh? :woot:

 

[Bryan]

DESIGNED by evolution...eh? :woot:

I use the word loosely!

 

[Bryan]

By the way, I want to expand a bit on what I said a few minutes ago: I don't actually know for certain-sure that ALL hair follicles on the body contain androgen receptors, it just seems reasonable to me to assume that they all do. No less an authority than Dr. David A. Whiting did indeed state in his comprehensive review article "Male Pattern Hair Loss: Current Understanding" that all SCALP hair follicles contain them, and we know that BEARD hair follicles and many other body hair follicles have them; but there's a certain element of doubt in my mind as to whether or not even eyebrow follicles have them. Maybe to be more careful and precise, I should say that all or ALMOST all hair follicles on the body contain androgen receptors.

 

[John979]

As I said in another post, boys castrated before puberty never go bald, nor do those with an alpha reductase deficiency.

Having said that, there are other mechanisms that may affect the degree of hair loss, but science has proven if 100% of DHT conversion is blocked, hair loss does not occur.

 

[Bryan]

As I said in another post, boys castrated before puberty never go bald, nor do those with an alpha reductase deficiency.

And men who are castrated after puberty when balding has already started, don't CONTINUE to go bald, according to Hamilton's 1960 study.

 

[Vox]

As I said in another post, boys castrated before puberty never go bald, nor do those with an alpha reductase deficiency.

And men who are castrated after puberty when balding has already started, don't CONTINUE to go bald, according to Hamilton's 1960 study.

It is known since centuries ago that eunuchs never go bald. This is the proof that the source of all this "evil" is androgens and if we want to strike at the root of the problem we have to chop off our gonads. So, I suppose the new trial is intending to scientifically establish this well known fact without going drastic on the study subjects.

Of course there are environmental factors that can affect hair loss, but usually the effects are reversible in the time span of a human life. But what we are today has been shaped by constant exposure to certain environmental factors during thousands of years. Human bodies react and adapt to environment, eating habits and way of living generally, and any new physical characteristic that is the result of adaptation is inherited to serve the next generations. This shapes human (and not only) body types. I don't quite see which is the place of male pattern baldness in this context, but there must be some.

 

[freakout]

Castrates can still lose hair if their case is 'FPB'. Women are defacto castrates, yet they can still lose hair.

This type is more comon in men as it is in women. The reason it could not be diagnosed as FPB is because it often occurs with male pattern baldness. NOT all har loss men is 'androgenetic'.

Of course there are environmental ... Human bodies react and adapt to environment ... any new physical characteristic that is the result of adaptation is inherited to serve the next generations.

It's called epigenetics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_principle

Any genetically influenced condition that occurs AFTER birth is triggered by environmental factors. That's simply because genes are chemically INCAPABLE of switching by themselves.

 

[Bryan]

Castrates can still lose hair if their case is FMB.

How do you know?

 

[armandein]

Also related to it
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20977444

 

[Bryan]

Castrates can still lose hair if their case is FMB.

How do you know?

It can happen in women.

Br J Dermatol. 2010 Nov;163(5):1140-1; author reply 1141-2.

Abstract
Female pattern hair loss, also known as female androgenetic alopecia, is generally regarded as an androgen-dependent disorder representing the female counterpart of male balding. We describe female pattern hair loss occurring in a patient with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome suggesting that mechanisms other than direct androgen action contribute to this common form of hair loss in women.

What exactly is your point? My point is that what's described above in the British Journal of Dermatolgy obviously isn't really androgenetic alopecia, but something else. It's a little like saying, "Castrates can still lose their hair if they undergo cancer chemotherapy". I think most people would appropriately reply to that by saying, "Yeah? So what? :dunno: "

 

[Jacob]

Things were DESIGNED so complicated I'll be surprised if we'll actually ever know all the answers.

 

[elliotramsey]

I'm sure androgens are the answer but not in the way they think

 

[Bryan]

Are you discounting the abstract as it relates to this thread or for it's merit?

I'm mostly discounting it as it relates to this thread.

freakout compared the castrate to females......that seems logical to me. Testosterone is not just a male hormone....we just have more. Just like males have estrogen. Castration in males almost eliminates T (not completely). A women who is androgen insensitive is pretty darn close to a castrated male to me. You are correct that it is obviously not "androgenetic alopecia" since even if there are androgens present this female is insensitive to them....yet she is losing her hair. Not only is she losing her hair, but she is losing it in a pattern.

How do you know? Have you read the full study, not just the abstract?

A pattern associated with FPB.

I believe FPB is pretty diffuse. Certainly more so than male pattern baldness. There may not even _be_ a "pattern" associated with it.

How many times have I seen on this forum that if you are losing hair in the pattern that it is Androgenetic Alopecia? Let's just say, lots. What if you had no idea about her androgen insensitivity? What if this was just a poster....showing her pics. asking what was happening and what she can do? What would your reply be? My guess would be out of hand you would say "well that's Androgenetic Alopecia"...."no doubt about it"

I wouldn't be that emphatic about it. I'd say it's probably Androgenetic Alopecia, although I've read medical journal articles in the past (even before seeing the study above) that female hair loss seems to also involve other factors. I've never paid much attention to it, though; male male pattern baldness is my main interest.

And your example is false because you are introducing a variable that does not relate to the situation. Chemo. will make anyones hair fall out...

Uh...OF COURSE it will make anyone's hair fall out!! That's exactly the point I was making to you!! It's irrelevant even to mention that, just like it's irrelevant to mention the case history of that person with CAIS in the British Medical Journal. Neither one of them has anything to do with androgenetic alopecia!

...but androgen insenstivity.....well that is supposed to be the holy grail......that is a ticket to NW1. Right?

From androgenetic alopecia, sure. It won't necessarily stop balding from some other condition, obviously.

I think there is Androgenetic Alopecia. But I don't think it explains all of hairloss in the so called male pattern baldness region like you apparently do.

When I discuss "hairloss", I'm almost always referring to androgenetic alopecia.

 

[freakout]

Re: I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness.

Br J Dermatol. 2010 Nov;163(5):1140-1; author reply 1141-2.
Abstract
Female pattern hair loss, also known as female androgenetic alopecia, is generally regarded as an androgen-dependent disorder representing the female counterpart of male balding. We describe female pattern hair loss occurring in a patient with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome suggesting that mechanisms other than direct androgen action contribute to this common form of hair loss in women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20128792

The above study suggests that female pattern baldness iitself s NOT androgenetic at all. The suggestion could not be interpreted in another way.
Any other interpretation would be a twisting of the suggestion.

 

[freakout]

To a high degree, it also supports Rozlyn A. Krajcik's conclusion: "Therefore, the existence of an inhibitor factor other than androgens" in both men and women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12734505

These ARE NEW studies versus androgenetics which is 20 years old.

 

[freakout]

A similar assertion by Mercado that androgenetics is a huge mistake.

No wonder Propecia scientists could only theorize and could not specifically state for a fact that DHT is directly responsible.

Androgenetics is falling apart. Did Merck engineer those 20 year old "studies" to throw off the discovery of true root causes?