Topical dutastride worse temples or speeds up?

[Maxypooo123]

Like I said, you come on here acting like you have a bunch of evidence to refute my theories. Go ahead and prove that what I’ve said is impossible.

Considering castration doesn’t cause up regulation of AR… (which there is a bunch of studies on)

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

Considering castration doesn’t cause up regulation of AR… (which there is a bunch of studies on)

How is castration relevant?? Lol

 

[Maxypooo123]

How is castration relevant?? Lol

If the complete inhibition of androgens doesn’t cause upregulation of AR, why would AR5 inhibitors.

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

If the complete inhibition of androgens doesn’t cause upregulation of AR, why would AR5 inhibitors.

You are seriously basing your argument on the belief that castration is comparable to inhibition of 5ARE?? Lol. Not even close.

 

[Maxypooo123]

You are seriously basing your argument on the belief that castration is comparable to inhibition of 5ARE?? Lol. Not even close.

And why isn’t it ? There was a study done that checked the number of AR on prostate tissue before and after finasteride use (long term) and there was actually a decrease in the number of receptors. Tell me what the mechanism of AR up regulation is then bud

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

And why isn’t it ? There was a study done that checked the number of AR on prostate tissue before and after finasteride use (long term) and there was actually a decrease in the number of receptors. Tell me what the mechanism of AR up regulation is then bud

The number of receptors reducing actually SUPPORTS the idea that the receptors become MORE sensitive! The affinity for a particular receptor to bind to androgens is most important in determining if the genes for miniaturization will even be transcribed. The more sensitive each receptor is, the less are needed to reach the same threshold and net effect. The whole point of receptors is to attract androgens to transcribe particular genes. The fact that the quantity is reduced only means you need less to get the same job done, meaning that they are MORE likely to have a stronger bind. The enhanced quality of reception reduces the need to waste proteins to create receptors that aren’t necessary.

 

[Maxypooo123]

The number of receptors reducing actually SUPPORTS the idea that the receptors become MORE sensitive! The affinity for a particular receptor to bind to androgens is most important in determining if the genes for miniaturization will even be transcribed. The more sensitive each receptor is, the less are needed to reach the same threshold and net effect. The whole point of receptors is to attract androgens to transcribe particular genes. The fact that the quantity is reduced only means you need less to get the same job done, meaning that they are MORE likely to have a stronger bind. The quality of reception reduces the need to waste proteins to create receptors that aren’t necessary.

And this is based on what exactly ? Is there any proof that the receptors themselves up regulate , rather than the number ? All existing proof of upregulation of receptors involve the actual increase in the number of them, not whether the individual one actually somehow start “working harder”. “Quality of reception” lol wtf is this .

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

And this is based on what exactly ? Is there any proof that the receptors themselves up regulate , rather than the number ? All existing proof of upregulation of receptors involve the actual increase in the number of them, not whether the individual one actually somehow start “working harder”. “Quality of reception” lol wtf is this .

As you obviously do not know, there is virtually no way for us to test androgen receptor sensitivity in quantifiable ways. That being said, we know that receptors and their coregulators can be phosphorylated which would impact their biochemical interactions with ligands. You really don’t know basic biology do you? Lol

 

[Maxypooo123]

As you obviously do not know, there is virtually no way for us to test androgen receptor sensitivity in quantifiable ways. That being said, we know that receptors and their coregulators can be phosphorylated which would impact their biochemical interactions with ligands. You really don’t know basic biology do you? Lol

Mostly because every single case of up regulation in receptors involve the actual number of receptors increaseing in number. So dht inhibition is so unique , that unlike every verifiable proof of upregulation that occurs in the human body, doesn’t cause the actual number of AR to increase. You using a bunch of buzzwords that you have no clue what it means doesn’t mean anything.

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

Mostly because every single case of up regulation in receptors involve the actual number of receptors increaseing in number. So dht inhibition is so unique , that unlike every verifiable proof of upregulation that occurs in the human body, doesn’t cause the actual number of AR to increase. You using a bunch of buzzwords that you have no clue what it means doesn’t mean anything.

I have real world results in that dutasteride made my hair worse, and that ceasing it made it improve. I am not the only one on these forums either with that kind of result. It is apparent that you do not have a scientific background and should do more research in basic biology.

 

[Maxypooo123]

I have real world results in that dutasteride made my hair worse, and that ceasing it made it improve. I am not the only one on these forums either with that kind of result. It is apparent that you do not have a scientific background and should do more research in basic biology.

Basic biology such that up regulation of receptors ALWAYS, in every piece of literature, involves the number of receptors increasing in number. Anecdotal notes is fine and all then dude.

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

Basic biology such that up regulation of receptors ALWAYS, in every piece of literature, involves the number of receptors increasing in number. Anecdotal notes is fine and all then dude.

Again, you have no grounds to disprove my theory or results.

 

[Maxypooo123]

Again, you have no grounds to disprove my theory or results.

correct. Your theory that dht inhibition is so incredibly unique that up regulation of AR doesn’t involve the receptors increasing in number. Nobel prize winning there

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

correct. Your theory that dht inhibition is so incredibly unique that up regulation of AR doesn’t involve the receptors increasing in number. Nobel prize winning there

I never said that upregulation cannot be due to an increase in the number of receptors. Obviously there is data to support that. My contention has always been that losing hair on these drugs is entirely possible (although very rare in finasteride, and anecdotally less rare in the case of dutasteride) and that the human body is so complex ESPECIALLY in regards to endocrine interactions, and homeostasis can often work in ways that seem counter-intuitive. Now, on the other hand, your theory that 5ARIs are a valid comparison to castration is a special kind of retarded.

 

[Maxypooo123]

I never said that upregulation cannot be due to an increase in the number of receptors. Obviously there is data to support that. My contention has always been that losing hair on these drugs is entirely possible (although very rare in finasteride, and anecdotally less rare in the case of dutasteride) and that the human body is so complex ESPECIALLY in regards to endocrine interactions, and homeostasis can often work in ways that seem counter-intuitive. Now, on the other hand, your theory that 5ARIs are a valid comparison to castration is a special kind of retarded.

Considering the theory of up regulation involves the lack of androgens to the receptors, I don’t see how comparing it to castration would have a similar effect as it completely numes androgens. Unless you think it’s the lack of enzyme that can causes up regulation of receptors, which is huh, quite a take.

 

[Maxypooo123]

I never said that upregulation cannot be due to an increase in the number of receptors. Obviously there is data to support that. My contention has always been that losing hair on these drugs is entirely possible (although very rare in finasteride, and anecdotally less rare in the case of dutasteride) and that the human body is so complex ESPECIALLY in regards to endocrine interactions, and homeostasis can often work in ways that seem counter-intuitive. Now, on the other hand, your theory that 5ARIs are a valid comparison to castration is a special kind of retarded.

And it’s not just “data”, it’s ALL data. Upregulation is described as the increasing in number of receptors. There is no other definition in the scientific community

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

Considering the theory of up regulation involves the lack of androgens to the receptors, I don’t see how comparing it to castration would have a similar effect as it completely numes androgens. Unless you think it’s the lack of enzyme that can causes up regulation of receptors, which is huh, quite a take.

What? Your grammar is egregious dude. But yeah your comparison of 5ARI to castration makes no sense as there are way too many differences such as an increase in serum T, tissue T, E, and the many various feedback loops in the endocrine system. That comparison you are trying to make is an atrocious oversimplification.

And it’s not just “data”, it’s ALL data. Upregulation is described as the increasing in number of receptors. There is no other definition in the scientific community

Already addressed this. We do not even have the ability to test the many intricacies of the endocrine system, another example being the measurement of androgenic activity in the intrafollicular unit, which most likely differs from scalp values.

 

[Maxypooo123]

What? Your grammar is egregious dude. But yeah your comparison of 5ARI to castration makes no sense as there are way too many differences such as an increase in serum T, tissue T, E, and the many various feedback loops in the endocrine system. That comparison you are trying to make is an atrocious oversimplification.


Already addressed this. We do not even have the ability to test the many intricacies of the endocrine system, another example being the measurement of androgenic activity in the intrafollicular unit, which most likely differs from scalp values.

Sorry I think my “dysphoria” is getting to me. So it’s an oversimplification that the more extreme inhibitions of androgens can somehow not cause androgen receptor upregulation , because “the body is complex”. And you addressed it by ratting off some theory that androgen activity in the follicles “increase”, through the power of imagination of whatever.

 

[Mr. Slap Head]

Sorry I think my “dysphoria” is getting to me. So it’s an oversimplification that the more extreme inhibitions of androgens can somehow not cause androgen receptor upregulation , because “the body is complex”. And you addressed it by ratting off some theory that androgen activity in the follicles “increase”, through the power of imagination of whatever.

Yeah I think so too, no wonder you have castration on your mind! LOL. The incel idea that fina or duta is similar to castration is what is oversimplified and an inept concept. The only rat is you and the wispy nest of pubes on your scalp. The example provided is to ascertain to readers that we really are not capable right now of researching the microbiology of hair loss. If we did, we'd have a cure by now LOL.

 

[Maxypooo123]

Yeah I think so too, no wonder you have castration on your mind! LOL. The incel idea that fina or duta is similar to castration is what is oversimplified and an inept concept. The only rat is you and the wispy nest of pubes on your scalp. The example provided is to ascertain to readers that we really are not capable right now of researching the microbiology of hair loss. If we did, we'd have a cure by now LOL.

LOL