Thoughts on this
@randomuser1?
I believe this to be a very lazy and superficial video.
I would need to repeat a lot of what I wrote in the long PDF I linked in the OP, but some of the key points that that guy misses:
- lipid build-up on the skin: Why does he not question where it comes from? It is known that the skin produces lipids as a response to - drum roll - blood sugar.
- he has a screenshot showing that consumption of sugary beverages has a more than 57% chance increase of more aggressive hair loss (timestamp in the video at 00:26). That is more than 50% - just for one diet component.
- a lot of the video's statements are subjective without proper reasoning ("this seems somewhat backward in my opinion [...] it appears more plausible", at about 1 and a half minutes) - without him giving any sources, just stating his personal beliefs. Just "seems" and "I believe"
- PPAR-gamma - as both the video author and the author of the paper referred to in the video admit - trigger synthesis of lipids in overdrive with people in Androgenetic Alopecia. You know, whenever something is synthesized, you need the ingredients for synthesis. You know what the ingredient for lipid synthesis is? Surprise - it is mostly glucose or packaged glucose, otherwise known as triglycerides.
These are just the most obvious flaws but then there is also all the stuff the video's author does not mention,
like the fact that a genetic mutation in some Amish people makes them immune to negative effects of dietary carbs and sugars, such as diabetes and CVD. The same people are also immune to hair loss. This finding alone - immunity against diabetes, CVD and hair loss
at the same time through the same mutation! - is such a strong indicator that the main factor for Androgenetic Alopecia is diet and lifestyle.
Why else would immunity against the negative effects of a modern diet also lead to immunity against hair loss?
I also want to add a few words on SHBG, because it has been mentioned before:
Let us take a look at SHBG from an evolutionary point of view. SHBG is like a "throttle" or "brake" on our sex hormones. High SHBG = lots of inactivated sex hormones. Low SHBG = little deactivation of sex hormones.
But why would an organism need a throttle on their sex hormones?
Because sexual reproduction was - until very recently in evolutionary terms - something that needed to be timed (because it is energy intensive and risky). You could not just have kids whenever. You needed to make sure that your body (and especially that of the female) had enough energy to sustain both itself and the baby, while growing in the womb, for 9 months. What was a good predictor for the "season of plenty"? Availability of sugar because, especially far away from the equator, you could only get significant amounts of sugar from fruits, which depended on several months of sun for ripening. It may be unfathomable to us today, but until industrial sugar extraction and refinement, and to an even bigger degree before systematic fruit agriculture, sugar was a scarce good.
What does SHBG react to the most? In hair loss forums there are so many remedies touted for increasing SHBG, like green tea. But these increases are small. You know what increases SHBG a lot? Lowering your carb and sugar intake. Because your body interprets high carb and sugar loads as "we are in a time of plenty, we have enough energy for reproduction, let us activate those sex hormones". DHT is a sex hormone.