Why is the thinning area in male pattern baldness exactly the galea area ?

[Bryan]

I really dont believe Bryan, that you dont "get" the point here!

If Orentreich was correct about donor dominance in male pattern baldness as you try to claim here, the male pattern baldness grafts to those mice would "NOT" have regrown as they did, end of story.

Whole human male pattern baldness follicles clearly did "NOT" show the donor dominance you claim Bryan, it doesnt get any more straight forward!!

I think you are trying yet again to skirt around a major flaw in your arguments by avoiding the basic obvious points i made.

ROTFLMAO!! So your whole argument against donor dominance is really just that one mouse experiment?! As long as you admit that, I don't really have a problem with your claim, no matter how silly it is. By all means, keep citing that one mouse experiment as something that disproves the viewpoint of the entire medical establishment!

 

[armandein]

entire
?adjective

* 1 with no part left out; whole.

? without qualification; absolute.

 

[freakout]

entire
?adjective
* 1 with no part left out; whole.
? without qualification; absolute.

:agree:
I think? :dunno:

Don't agree. 'Entire' means 'within Bryan's mind'. But its just those who are under the payroll of the pharmaceuticals and the medical professionals who NEVER conducted their own research.

I call those doctors 'pharma drones'. One nearly killed my sister because he listened to a medical representative.

Androgenetics is JUNK SCIENCE because it does not account for associations with CVDs.

That mouse study is the Achilles' heel of androgenetics.

 

[balder]

It is interesting that a person goes bald with male pattern baldness in a pattern that is exactly over the galea area of scalp.

Another interesting fact is that no grows hair on the forehead.

There are two muscle groups situated on opposite sides of the galea, the frontalis muscles in the forehead, which pull the galea forwards when the eyebrows are raised, are also flexed with with various other facial expressions.

The occipital muscles are in back of the head behind the ears and they pull the scalp backwards. The occipitals don't get much exercise and they continue to get weaker and atrophied with age.

My theory/hypothesis is that as the occipital muscles continue to get weaker, the frontalis muscles of the forehead remain strong and too tight and this creates an imbalance condition causing the scalp to become thin and shiny... as DHT becomes backed up due to inadequate lymphatic drainage.

Hair does not grow on the forehead possibly due to enzymes in that region that inhibit hair growth. These enzymes can migrate into the galea region, due to weakened lymphatic vessels - causing temporal recession and hair thinning. Sometimes these enzymes can even affect the eyebrows, causing eyebrow balding too. Usually DHT causes massive HAIR GROWTH but the opposite seems to occur in the scalp. Scalp hair eventually becomes allergic? to DHT causing even more miniaturization. Transplanting such an allergic follicle to the forearm would not halt its balding progression but it would regrow if the immune system becomes weakened like in the immune deficient mouse hair regrowth experiments.

When the occipital muscles in the back of the head become too weak it is similar to when the abdominal muscles become weaker and people begin to have pot-guts and bad backs due to the tight back muscles and weak abdominals.

By strengthening the occipital muscles in the back of the head, it becomes possible to restore the galea and other scalp tissues to a more youthful condition, allowing for hair REGROWTH.


Mr. Hagerty's scalp exercise instructions advises people to get the maximum movement of their galea by alternatively flexing the occipital muscles and then the frontalis forehead muscles. Flexing the frontalis forehead muscles is not necessary since they are already tight from constant flexing throughout a lifetime.

Some people do report increased balding from doing the scalp exercise in such a way. It seems that the galea would be pulled tightly over the skull during the entire workout, like a blanket pulled tightly over a globe. The result could be increased thinning and accelerated balding if not a stall in progress.

By concentrating the focus mainly on the occipital muscles, the tightened forehead muscles become more relaxed and stretched, thus allowing for restoration of the scalp tissues from years of atrophy.

People with advanced balding have very thin scalp skin over the galea area of scalp

 

[anxious1]

hmmm, i wonder who balder is. i know ive seen that exact theory written b4, but by who.

a very suspicious first post, by someone too pussy to use his original account.

 

[elliotramsey]

If you are referring to me, have an admin check the IP address. I'm pretty sure thats not me

 

[balder]

hmmm, i wonder who balder is. i know ive seen that exact theory written b4, but by who.

a very suspicious first post, by someone too pussy to use his original account.

If you ever figure out who wrote a similar theory please provide a link, I would like to compare notes :woot:

 

[elliotramsey]

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=63464

You can pretty much ignore the "maliniak" method stuff as i think it doesn't have much effect either way. In this thread i try to relate to different theories (tom hagerty's included) and how they both could apply to the same underlying cause.

BTW, on these boards if you come right out in support of alternative theories, especially on the first posts, the dudes that lurk here will attempt to eat you up :whistle:

 

[balder]

http://www.gourmetstylewellness.com/interact/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=63464

You can pretty much ignore the "maliniak" method stuff as i think it doesn't have much effect either way. In this thread i try to relate to different theories (tom hagerty's included) and how they both could apply to the same underlying cause.

BTW, on these boards if you come right out in support of alternative theories, especially on the first posts, the dudes that lurk here will attempt to eat you up :whistle:

Thanks for the link. I don't mind being attacked by the lurkers as some ideas after being put through the mill can be refined and new things can be discovered. :woot:

 

[freakout]

I can't dispute balder's posts which may explain why finasteride is not effective in receding hair lines. It gets one thinkking actually.

But the question is: why not women?

For me, its' game for anything. balder, you should see how I was attacked by Androgenetic Alopecia proponents. viewtopic.php?f=11&t=64583&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=40
If you do read, don't limit it on the first few pages. :woot:

I'll throw in stress factors for frontal hair loss without any supporting links. Take it or leave it

 

[hairhoper]

BTW, on these boards if you come right out in support of alternative theories, especially on the first posts, the dudes that lurk here will attempt to eat you up :whistle:

That's not true, it's only if you make ridiculous statements like 'Androgenetics is JUNK SCIENCE' that you risk getting shouted down with facts.

If you can put together a sensible theory which factors in existing knowledge then you'll be just fine. Some have attempted to do so and, for example connected these galea theories with androgen action. I don't have a problem with that. But there's no reason to dismiss the things we know and the treatments that we know to work.

 

[Bryan]

BTW, on these boards if you come right out in support of alternative theories, especially on the first posts, the dudes that lurk here will attempt to eat you up :whistle:

That's not true, it's only if you make ridiculous statements like 'Androgenetics is JUNK SCIENCE' that you risk getting shouted down with facts.

When one of the screwball posters here recently made the preposterous claim that "hair follicles don't respond to androgens" (or something very much to that effect), THAT is when I collapsed to the floor and laughed hysterically and uncontrollably! :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[elliotramsey]

I don't think that was me.. (not saying you are pointing at me)

I have no doubt that androgens are responsible for hairloss, but I think their involvement is different than currently excepted theory.

Unfortunately, i don't have all the biological knowledge or understanding to factually back up my beliefs... I have basic knowledge/ideas that TO ME make sense based off of my experience fighting hairloss so far. Obviously such ideas are unproven and would be dismissed without concrete evidence, since it goes against current theories and understanding.

 

[Bryan]

I don't think that was me.. (not saying you are pointing at me)

No, I was referring to the poster "freakout" in my previous post.

I have no doubt that androgens are responsible for hairloss, but I think their involvement is different than currently excepted theory.

What's your current idea for the involvement of androgens?

 

[elliotramsey]

I think i mentioned it much earlier in this thread, or it may have been the "maliniak method" thread. In a nutshell, I think the galea plays a major part in male pattern baldness. Tom Hagerty mentions an observation on his website about people with male pattern baldness having a tight scalp. So what makes the scalp tight?
I've done some research and have read paul taylors skull expansion book. Even though the term skull "expansion" sounds kind of hokey, after reading he provides a lot of evidence supporting his claim. There was a study done that shows the bones in the skull move as people age. Also, dht is used for bone growth.

I don't think everything the theory says is 100% accurate, but thats why its a theory. i know he is trying to get it tested, but so far that hasn't happened.

His theory says the growth under the scalp chokes the blood vessels (something he says is up for debate), but i think it stretches the galea, which acts on the underlying tissue to some extent, thus the tight scalp, thus the pattern of balding. Thats why I think both methods work to some extent against hair loss/maintenance (I use both methods).

I know the idea is surrounded by TONS of skepticism. I'm just going off what makes sense TO ME and what ive found to effective in stopping my hairloss.

 

[Bryan]

I think i mentioned it much earlier in this thread, or it may have been the "maliniak method" thread. In a nutshell, I think the galea plays a major part in male pattern baldness. [...] I don't think everything the theory says is 100% accurate, but thats why its a theory. i know he is trying to get it tested, but so far that hasn't happened.

What about Nordström's study? Don't you think that's a good "test" of the galea theory? What about Ponten's failure to see any objective improvement in his 56 patients after galeotomy, along with several seen by Nordström himself? Don't all those count as "tests" of the galea theory? :dunno: Why do you think the medical establishment has completely lost interest in the galea theory over the last few decades?

 

[balder]

Does the recipient site influence the hair growth characteristics in hair transplantation?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12269871

CONCLUSION: These results strongly suggest that the recipient site affects some characteristics of transplanted hairs, such as their growth and survival rates.

 

[Bryan]

There's no doubt that the recipient site affects _some_ characteristics of transplanted hairs, but it has no effect on the course of androgenetic alopecia.

 

[elliotramsey]

Like I said, I'm less than knowledgeable about these studies or the technicalities involved here. Although I don't think Taylor is trying to get studies done on the galea, he's trying to establish that parts of the skull can "grow" after the bones have fused.

 

[elliotramsey]

Also, Tom Hagerty doesn't say anything about the galea, just the tight scalp observation. He gives a few possibilities about why his scalp exercise may work, but nothing concrete.