| Author | Message | ||
     Paradox |
I've just been looking at hairloss from a common sense standpoint. I do have a question. Okay, I'm lead to believe that THE main component of balding is inflammation. As I've read, it seems that the body sort of 'rejects" the hairs. That is the inflammation. That leads me to this- Why does the body reject the hairs? What changes in or around the hair that makes it diffrent? I've stated myself that I feel the loss of subcutaneous fat up there is huge. Is it maybe that DHT is attached to the root of the follicle and can't get off? So maybe the DHT 'goes stale'? It would certainly be feasible given the loss of tissue up there and consequently, diminished blood flow. Another thing that I think about- I've never seen people that are lean and gaunt (for lack of a better word) with body hair. Meaning, somehow, more tissue may mean more hair. Look at very lean people as opposed to fat or even 'fat skinny' guys. I have a hard time believing body hair and head hair ar all that diffrent. Any hair serves the same purpose. Pubic (type) hair seems to only be differnt becaus it is located near the highest concentrations of lymphatic drainage (arm pits/groin). The only diffrence is the length body hair grows. What makes it stop? Maybe it's the very fact of lymphatic drainage. How about that link of body hair and inflammation posted by JPJ? How would inflammation alter body hair into growing longer? Maybe the growth represents increased toxicity in one or more organs? What organs play a part in sweating? What organs play a part in removing toxins? Odds are your skin is inflammed, but maybe the hair grows longer to carry your sweat further from the body? What I am saying is that balding is a systematic process. If it can be traced back, it can most likely be eliminated. I'd really like people to throw ideas around so we can try and gain some ground. | ||
| Armando |
Toxins and venoms are present in hair itself, then it is possible that hair play a part in removing toxins. BTW I think that sebum also play a role in this issue. Armando | ||
| Paradox |
The thing with that is that if the hair played a part in removing toxins, it wouldn't fall out. | ||
| Gabriel |
Maybe bald people have the ability to store toxins and fat easier then non balding? but that woulden't explain why a fat person can still be fat and have their hair! | ||
| Paradox |
LOL, I like that thinking, but I wouldn't consider storing toxins as an "ability". A fat person can be fat and have hair, because hairloss is a by-product of inflammation, not obesity. So they don't necessarily go hand-in hand. As far as storing toxins though- This has to do with the liver and kidneys I believe. Maybe something we are doing is leading to increased stress on these organs. Thus, they are too devoted to relieving stress caused by other factors. That points us towards food, IMO. It could be us getting too much of some bad food, or too little good food. Maybe, it's really just a manifestation of some food allergy? I would really like some more ideas. I also hope that this thread may intrigue and spark others to do research. | ||
| Gabe |
Hehe yeah you got to question yourself or ells you won’t get anywhere  But seriously, I think inflammation has to do allot with it, I know one thing I’ve experienced myself! When I fasted for like 24 h without food or water, my face and hair looked better, the couple of pimples I hade at the time suddenly demised in colour compared too when I started to eat after the fasts was done, it's almost like when you wake up from bed fresh look... | ||
| Downunder |
Cool. I love posts where they use some logic rather than taking the latest "conclusion" as gospel. The title did not indicate so many questions, so I shall say something on the first Q. You are thinking logically, and have asked for ideas, some constructive input. Inflammation: What you are lead to believe about inflammation is probably the latest trend, which should be questioned. Inflammation is not always present in MPB, but it is quite common. Remember it does provide a good opportunity for products to be marketed for the anti-inflammatory qualities. Don't get me wrong, if it is there, reducing inflammation shall assist in improving the overall environment. Inflammation is not the root cause, it is a symptom. As jpj questioned in a different case irritation/inflammation makes the hair grow longer. By this example a MPB sufferer should be growing hair like weeds. It depends on how much inflammation, the cause and the follicle condition. | ||
| Paradox |
Actually downunder, I think in all MPB inflammation is present. The diffrence happens to be the location/environment of the hairs. Remember that the scalp loses density, so does all skin over the rest of the body. One just happens much faster than the other. Old people never have much body hair. Inflammation is not the latest "trend" but rather almost an admittance that we have been puting too many eggs in the wrong basket. Thats the the way I see it, and it's rather refreshing. It almost seems as if people are getting off their respective butts and doing some research. Anything can provide marketing opportunity, so that point is moot. Religion, food, even the air we breathe. How do you know that inflammation is not the cause? How do you know that it is just a symptom? There are no sufficient ways to alleviate inflammation on the smallest levels. Yet somehow it's ruled out? Books and books have been written on how inflammation is at the root of disease and sickness. Acne, arthosclerosis, dermatitis, diabetes, edema, eczema, heart disease, high blood pressure, psoriasis are all linked to inflammation. Those are just the ones that pertain to hairloss, there are plenty more. Yet it's somehow unfathomable that inflammation may be what's making your hair fall out? If it were a symptom of hairloss (which I assure you it isn't) that would mean that hairloss causes inflammation. That would also mean that everything I just listed caused inflammation. You're thinking backwards. | ||
| Downunder |
Paradox I did not say inflammation was "a symptom of hairloss" I said "Inflammation is not the root cause, it is a symptom." This is by definition of the term inflammation, it is a local protective response to injury, irritation.. Take your comments in your original post "As I've read, it seems that the body sort of 'rejects" the hairs. That is the inflammation.". Let us assume that this inflammation caused hair loss. In this example you used, the inflammation is a response to the body rejecting the hair. Fix the root cause (body rejecting the hair) and no inflammation would develop. No further damage. No hair loss. You asked for ideas, I would not have commented if I knew inflammation was a foregone conclusion. | ||
| Paradox |
Easy there killer. Okay, what I did was try to showcase that inflammation is much, much more important than you think.I understand that it's a response to irritation, or foreign bodies. That can be looked at in 2 ways though Downunder- Either my hair is being made "more foreign" by some cause, - or - my body has a more powerful inflmmatory response. The thing is, IMO, the inflammatory response is what is sealing the deal. Thats what is shrinking your hair via the production of Superoxides. Anyhow, I have some questions for you (feel free to ask me any also): 1. Inflammation is not as important a factor because what? 2. Inflammation is a symptom of what? | ||
| Downunder |
This is a quick visit, busy days. I did feel I swallowed the bait when you asked 10 Q's in your first post, asked for ideas. Anyway water under the bridge. Respect to Q1 Inflammation is not as important a factor because what? I regard this as a question, but just ot note, I'm not saying it is not important, because if it is there all the time, you could be completely right. If someone has inflammation it is an issue to be addressed. And yes inflammation can make your hair fall out, this is a natural reaction to excessive inflammation. It could also make it grow, as previous comment. But when is inflammation not as an important a factor? Two options I can immediately think of: 1) Not as important; If the inflammation is sometimes a response to part of process, say the immune system attacking the follicle (keeping with example previous) then addressing the inflammation may reduce the rate at which the follicle declines. Treating it, you may have no swelling/inflammation, but still the immune attack is going on damaging the follicle. Inflammation can assist the tissue repair so stopping it can sometimes make the problem worse, but in the case of hair, reducing inflammation generally seems to assist hair growth. In this case the best you are going to do is slow the process. And Yes, this is very important especially if you have no other alternatives for actions. Anything to slow the process. 2) It is important If the inflammation is caused by an unrelated issue (for example you are standing on your head) and this is impacting on the follicle to cause hair loss, then it is critically important. In this case employing anti-gravity or simply standing upright could stop hairloss all together. This is in total agreement with what you are saying. Frankly I believe the term inflammation is used too loosely, noone I have found even defines it when they comment on it as a measure. It is assumed it is a local increase in pressure, but often there are a lot of assumptions involved. In all the reports I have read inflammation is implicated or suspected to be involved in the process but not all the time. If you have any reports on inflammation being present all the time in MPB, I would appreciate you providing details. There are some common sense checks like your previous thought process by just considering the logic if it is always involved. You could probably think of some. Anyway have to go, hope it makes some sense. | ||
| Paradox |
Yes, I get what your saying. As far as I know, inflammation generally is happening at a cellular level. Then that inflammation is adding up to cause larger problems. Everybody has inflammtion to an extent. It's that some have more, some have less. Some respond better or worse to stressors, both physical and emotional. Okay now I can't say 100% that inflammation is always involved. But I do know that if your scalp ever itched, hurted, was tight, shiny or a few others that don't come to mind, it is due to inflammation. Those are all symptoms of inflammation. If you look at the ailments I describe, you may be able to tell it's inflammation. Acne for instance is inflammtion of the hair follicles. Others may be due to inflammaton of a particular organ. | ||
| Gabe |
Yes my scalp did becamome more "shiny" the more hair loss i got and thighter then before, with the SE and shampoos like nioral i have been able to reversh that process a little bit... | ||
| Downunder |
Paradox, Hi, been out for days just had a browse. Remmember I just believe the source of the problem needs to be addressed. But inflammation is an interesting topic. I am curious about your comments. Inflammation is normally a good process, it isolates, removes toxins, expands and returns the tissue back to a good condition. 1) When you have these symptoms, as you mentioned where is the expansion of the tissue associated with the inflammation? If you look at most areas of hair loss they are normally thinner, add inflammation and they should be larger and hopefully after inflammation plays its repairing role, returns to normal. Even if hair is shed with major inflammation responses to injury the hair returns. 2) Where is the redness? Like the pimple you mention getting bigger, red'er in colour with the nice blood flow. I am not saying it is not there, just curious to your belief. | ||
| Paradox |
I believe that the problem is chronic inflammation. It's your body being in that state 24/7. I've read 2 studies that indicate that inflammation is responsible for the release of superoxides. The superoxides pretty much act as growth inhibitors. That leads me to believe that the location and thus blood supply to the hairs is what leads to the inverse relationship between body and scalp hair. I feel that the loss of the fat layer plays a part too. Maybe inflammation is good, but not without proper bloodflow/capillaries. In that case it can lead to premature aging. Or maybe it's just that too much inflammation is bad. I know that cancer patients are advised not to take SOD products as SO apparently keeps the growth of cancerous cells in check. Granted, everybody does not have cancer, but this leads me to believe that if not enough can be a problem, than too much can also be. I know a few things I've noticed in my case: As my hair get's worse, the scalp becomes thinner and thinner. As my hair get's worse, I get more pimple like bumps on my scalp. I don't have acne on my scalp or anything, but I don't remember ever seeing bumps before I started having problems. Right now I have about 4 bumps on my scalp. They are red, but much smaller than an actual pimple. As far as you're questions, can you please re-word them? I do not understand what you are asking. | ||
| Paradox |
"Inflammation is normally a good process, it isolates, removes toxins, expands and returns the tissue back to a good condition." I believe that this is given the right conditions. As with DHT, I think it's bad when all of the stars are in alignment. | ||
| Downunder |
I follow your thought process, enough to almost anticipate your answer. If inflammation is inflating/swelling the scalp, then under normal conditions you would expect the scalp to become swollen, therefore expand becoming thicker. As you say, your scalp becomes thinner and thinner. Even thin + inflammation should = thicker. I notice you sometimes use observations to qualify a theory, so I was trying to get those observations, that you feel confirm the chronic inflammation. For example: -if a persons scalp is inflammed you might expect you could compress it reasonably(because of the fluid inflammation), instead it is normally hard. -The inflammed area around a pimple becomes red and raised but balding scalp is rarely red. If it is inflammation all over you might expect it to be red all over. -You and Gabe mentioned the common tightness, but do you observe a swelling to make it tight (remember the tightness from inflammation normally comes from the increase in volume). -You may expect to notice the inflammation in the transition from good areas (sides) into the areas experiencing hair loss. I have more checks using basic logic, just wondering if you have any. I was trying not to lead you too much, but interested in what real life observations you have made to confirm in your mind this as chronic inflammation. (I have not ignored the common evidence of irritation, tightness, burning you mentioned, so if it is just these then that is OK.) I was realy hoping for physical observations that you believe provide a check that it is chronic inflammation, if you have any. From your prior comments you highlight blood flow (I agree), but if you say it is inflammation but poor blood flow restricts it, then would it not be blood flow being dominant in preventing inflammation doing its healing? | ||
| Paradox |
I think that scalp tightness is a by product of losing scalp density. The inflammation is at a layer of the skin more outward. You are losing skin under the layer which is inflammed. I don't think that inflammation is swelling the scalp, rather the most ouward layers only. Underneath, inflammation is actually causing the opposite, a reduction in tissues. With my hairloss, the skin on the scalp seems more pronounced. It has to do with an almost malfunction of the layers underneath, which provide some form of nourishment to the outmost layer. You must understand, I'm somewhat at a disadvantage explaining my thoughts. Inflammation is not nearly as well researched as DHT and the likes. I believe this will change, but time is needed. I don't have the scientiffic backing to explain things, that's where observations come in. Not to say I'm wrong, I feel this is more correct than DHT. Maybe DHT leads to inflammation. But by my reasoning, all it would take is too much DHT to attach to a follicle one time. The rest would take care of itself. It's almost one big circle. I feel like you are trying to back me into a corner because I don't have science (or as much) on my side. Let us remember that DHT based studies/medications have not produced very good results. As far as the diffrence between body hair and scalp, I definately feel it's location. Now wether that relates to lack of bloodflow or loss of scalp density is hard to say. The thing is that both kind of go hand in hand. | ||
| Paradox |
If inflammation is inflating/swelling the scalp, then under normal conditions you would expect the scalp to become swollen, therefore expand becoming thicker. As you say, your scalp becomes thinner and thinner. Even thin + inflammation should = thicker. I've talked about this. Inflammation causes a release of growth inhibitors. They inhibit growth of hair, as well as faormation of new blood vessels. I notice you sometimes use observations to qualify a theory, so I was trying to get those observations, that you feel confirm the chronic inflammation. For example: Because a lot of times, it's all I have. That does not mean I'm wrong. -if a persons scalp is inflammed you might expect you could compress it reasonably(because of the fluid inflammation), instead it is normally hard. It ishard because of the loss in density. So you arefeeling more skull than skin. -The inflammed area around a pimple becomes red and raised but balding scalp is rarely red. If it is inflammation all over you might expect it to be red all over. Acne is a result of inflammation. Tha means thatyou are succeptible to inflammation. Just because you hve acne does not meanyour face is all pimples. It does have the potential to be though. -You and Gabe mentioned the common tightness, but do you observe a swelling to make it tight (remember the tightness from inflammation normally comes from the increase in volume). It's not really tightness. It's hardness. -You may expect to notice the inflammation in the transition from good areas (sides) into the areas experiencing hair loss. I have more checks using basic logic, just wondering if you have any. No. What I notice is thinner skin in the bad areas. I can't actually feel the inflammation except for a bump here or there. I was trying not to lead you too much, but interested in what real life observations you have made to confirm in your mind this as chronic inflammation. (I have not ignored the common evidence of irritation, tightness, burning you mentioned, so if it is just these then that is OK.) I was realy hoping for physical observations that you believe provide a check that it is chronic inflammation, if you have any. From your prior comments you highlight blood flow (I agree), but if you say it is inflammation but poor blood flow restricts it, then would it not be blood flow being dominant in preventing inflammation doing its healing? I just know that bloodfloow and skin density often go hand in hand. | ||
| Tom Hagerty |
Just a quick note on inflammation: Several hair loss researchers think inflammation plays an important role in MPB - Hideo Uno, Ralf Paus, and Kligman. Kligman wrote: The first indications of inflammatory involvement were focal perivascular degeneration in the lower one-third of the connective tissue sheath and perifolicular lymphocytic infiltration at the sebaceous gland level. Lymphocytic infiltration means inflammation but in this case at a subclinical level. It would not be as visible as the inflammation around a pimple. Valerie Anne Randal, a hair loss researcher in the UK wrote: Although the damage to the connective tissue sheath caused by chronic inflammation may prevent the reformation of terminal hair follicles in long-term alopecia, this is currently the subject of much debate. | ||
| S Foote. |
There are two rare closely associated conditions lipedematous scalp, and lipedematous alopecia. This is edema of the scalp for unknown reasons. So we can at least from these studies see the "actual" effect of the edema itself in the scalp. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1 0660132&dopt=Abstract http://alopecia.researchtoday.net/archive/1/2/66.htm It is interesting how these cases show that even severe edema can exist at particular levels in the scalp, with no real effect on other levels. But the important points relating to my theory,is the relationship refered to in the second link, that any effect on hair loss is associated with reduced lymphatic efficiency. Also that the follicles are "miniaturised" as we know happens in MPB! S Foote. | ||
| S Foote. |
A few more interesting links! http://dermatology.cdlib.org/122/case_reports/lipedematous/tosti.html http://www.amjdermatopathology.com/pt/re/ajderm/abstract.00000372-200306000-0001 0.htm;jsessionid=EkaykMLnVoNpJmR1IP9lzrtFA9to7IyXROK4x2AmME4U67aAol97!-839643570!-949 856144!9001!-1 http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16021169?queryText=alopecia http://app.kfshrc.edu.sa/annals/articles/24_6/03-151FINAL.pdf The last article (PDF) is particularly interesting, and indicates that if the edema is not "around" the follicles there is no hair loss! S Foote. | ||
| Downunder |
I made the comment above "Frankly I believe the term inflammation is used too loosely, noone I have found even defines it when they comment on it as a measure. It is assumed it is a local increase in pressure, but often there are a lot of assumptions involved." previously. Steve rightfully uses the term edema which is very different from inflammation, but in some cases people may consider edema as a form of inflammation. There are many actions that may be considered in inflammation and it would be much better for them to be explained more clearly. There is pressure, volume, density, expansion, contraction, then there is how the tissue expands/contracts, especially in reference to fluid and cell ratios etc. In the reports Steve sited there are the comments that in the man with androgentic alopecia the skin of the scalp "did not have signs of inflammation". Also another case "No inflammatory changes were detected". So they have not detected obvious inflammatory conditions. Inflammation must be caused by something. Steve I think Lipedematous scalp/alopecia can provide some insight to MPB, I had not seen one of your links, interesting. I did not understand your comment "the relationship refered to in the second link, that any effect on hair loss is associated with reduced lymphatic efficiency." The way I read their comments such as "the presence of ectatic lymphatic vessels in the two cases with hair loss" was that they were dilated/stretched and this would most probably increase lymphatic efficiency rather than reduce. Sort of, a bigger drain for fluid to pass through. I agree reduced efficiency is bad, but may have missed something, or miss-interpreted the findings. Could you explain in some more detail? | ||
| S Foote. |
"Steve I think Lipedematous scalp/alopecia can provide some insight to MPB, I had not seen one of your links, interesting. I did not understand your comment "the relationship refered to in the second link, that any effect on hair loss is associated with reduced lymphatic efficiency." The way I read their comments such as "the presence of ectatic lymphatic vessels in the two cases with hair loss" was that they were dilated/stretched and this would most probably increase lymphatic efficiency rather than reduce. Sort of, a bigger drain for fluid to pass through. I agree reduced efficiency is bad, but may have missed something, or miss-interpreted the findings. Could you explain in some more detail?" __________________________________________ The problem with these ectatic lymph vessels (stretched/enlarged), is they cannot then contract properly. It is the regular contractions of lymph vessels combined with the one way valves that actualy "move" fluid through the system. http://www.healthy.net/scr/article.asp?ID=993 Quote: "Even as late as 1941 several important aspects of the lymph heart concept in humans remained obscure.(44) By 1949 spontaneous intrinsic pulsatory contraction of the peripheral lymphatic vessels was demonstrated in humans with a rythem unassociated with either the heart or the breath.(45,46) This intrinsic contractility mechanism of the peripheral lymphatics was seen by many as the long sought after lymph heart.(40)" So i think that whilst these larger ectatic vessels "could" pass more fluid, the lack of effective "pumping" stops this. I suggest that when lymph vessels are ectatic in lipedematous scalp, the edema is more likely to spread to the outer tissues (around follicles). In my opinion, this could be how the alopecia can then follow as noted in that study. I think the inflammatory processes are really secondary to the miniaturisation of follicles in MPB. It is interesting that such processes are known to be secondary in lymphedema as a cause of tissue edema? http://www.lymphoedema.org.au/index.htm If it is a form of lymphedema in the scalp that causes MPB, there are going to be other reactions as the fluid stagnation builds up. A large part of lymphatic drainage is the removal of toxins and "nasties" through local lymph nodes where the immune system can deal with these. If the lymphatics are not removing these substances effeciently from the MPB area, there is increased risk of local secondary immune reactions to these. This is what i think is happening in MPB tissue. I certainly don't agree with the idea that DHT somehow "marks" certain follicles for a direct immune "attack". Such auto-immune responses destroy the target tissue. This doesn't happen in MPB, the follicles still exist and function, there are just smaller. S Foote. | ||
| jpj |
Stephen Eventually the auto immune response does indeed destroy the target tissue when fibrosis is achieved and the follicle cant even break the surface of the skin. Then we see slick baldness and without the regenerating messages that follicles send downward into the skin (Pickart), a REALLY fast ageing of the tissue therafter (liver spots, white scars) that you see on old bald men's heads. What might get the immune attack started in my opinion are the detection of the presence of mitogens being made and released inside the dermal papilla to the rest of the follicle. They make the rest of the hair "struggle" as they inhibit growth. Why Ive come to think this is because the German researchers who discovered the variant of the androgen receptor gene that 98.6% of all bald men have is shared by 76.-something% of non-bald men also. So its not the "pattern" in which DHT binds to receptor sites if that is true, its what happens after androgen transcription. Alpecin, a German cosmetics giant, emailed me back when I asked if caffeine was interefereing with androgen receptors and this is why they use it (more on that in a sec), they said caffeine in the papilla stopped the downward expression of cAMP, an energy messenger within the follicle (from the papilla to the rest of the follicle, keratinocytes especially). Perhaps the growth inhibitors that make the rest of the follicle struggle get the body to see it as a dying appendage (like a gangreen finger or something) and wants to remove it. Ive seen researchers state in one article (I cant remember which one) that baldness looks more like a auto-immune disorder to them than an androgenic one. I'll explain why I agree with them. Men with their hair transcript androgens too. And the androgens dont do their hair any good either. Men who keep their hairlines (Richard Gere for instance) still grey faster than women. Their hair loses its luster quicker too. Androgens do nothing good for head hair at all. But those guys dermal papilla cells dont take the androgens and release whatever chemical-killers that ours do to the rest of the hair. Alpecin, whether its junk or not, is the first big attempt to work on whats happening inside the papilla. Dr. Wolfe, thats who emailed me, said that their findings will be published in the "coming months" in the International Journal of Dermatology. We'll see. But we do have PDF files of their research with the University of Jena and U. of Bonn available at their site. They took 600 follicles from balding men and cultured them with testosterone, nothing, caffeine and testosterone in varrying doses for a period of 6 to 10 days. The group with just testosterone grew weakly, the group without it grew fine, the group with caffeine and testosterone grew as well (and even better) than the group with NO testosterone. I, of course, have problems that they merely used testosterone and not DHT, which has 3-4 times the affinity for an androgen receptor than T alone does. But I want to stress..............these WERE WHOLE FOLLICLES, no phuckin' around with the receptors to get them to express themselves. They were from balding men, and T alone inhibited their growth vs. the follicles that saw no T. That indicates a differing response to androgens to me, and to them also. | ||
| Downunder |
Thanks Steve, Just out of interest. I was a little unsure whether the loss of lymph "pumping" would be the significant, with the head being the highest part of the body, it would be assisted greatest by gravity (least back pressure). So a little research, if the performance of the lymph system does change. The pumping rhythm is most significant in the lower sections of the body eg legs. In the case of your legs the lymph system is pumping against gravity. Valves also play a lesser role in the upper body. The change seems to be that the vessels become more ectatic/stretched but as they do they are filled internally with erythocytes and the pathway section diminishes. It seems the nasty protiens that build-up in the scalp (interstitial spaces) also get deposited on the internal wals of the lymph vessels. So the potential is there for a change in performance of the lymph system. The following is a good technical overview on the numbers associated with the microcapillaries and lymph system (also edema Steve). http://www.lib.mcg.edu/edu/eshuphysio/program/section3/3ch9/3ch9obj.htm Also came across an old but interesting article may post as new thread later. | ||
| S Foote. |
Hi Downunder, thanks for the interesting link. I largely agree with your comments here. I think in the case of lipedematous scalp and alopecia, the lymphatic influence is secondary and effects the layers of tissue to which the edema spreads. I agree that under normal conditions gravity is helping lymph drainage from the scalp. But in MPB i suggest the lymph vessel valves lower down become the factor in scalp back pressure. With reference to this diagram. http://137.222.110.150/calnet/DeepNeck/page3.htm#section6 Most of the DHT that is produced in the dermal tissue of the head, is feeding into the lower lymphatics. The MPB area lies at the very end of the lymph drainage system, and fluid draining from the MPB area has to pass through these lower vessels. According to my theory, increasing levels of DHT increasingly "slam" the valves shut against flow from the end of the system (MPB area). As this increased "pumping" lower down reduces fluid pressure lower down, beard growth increases. These larger follicles produce even more DHT, and the pumping increases over time. This increase in the closing rate of lymphatic valves lower down, is the restriction to drainage in the MPB area i propose. According to my theory, this reduced drainage in the scalp will only trigger MPB in individuals with a higher blood "feed" to the scalp. This accounts for the individual differences to a certain level of DHT, and the develpment of MPB. There is an accepted link in people with MPB and suceptability to heart problems in later life. I think a higher core blood pressure is the link here. http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/health/HealthRepublish_95041.htm I think the evolution of the human brain and the complex blood supply this needs is a big factor in MPB. According to my theory there is just "too much" blood supply to the scalp. It is notable that when this is reduced, hair follicles improve considerably. http://www.geocities.com/bryan50001/artery_ligature.htm S Foote. | ||
| jpj |
Stephen, I would think that a "palm massage", using ones ENTIRE hand pressing down hard enough to move the whole scalp back and forth would pull those pumps open and force lymph fluid back down them wouldn't you? It sounds like the Edgar Cayce crude oil & massage idea I know, but wouldn't it do the same thing??? I have found pictures of compression bandages that contract like this http://www.nwfootankle.com/Product/descripts/elastoplast2.jpg and even one specifically made for the head like this http://www.spiggle-theis.de/data-live-spiggletheis/images/Produkte/Verbandstoffe /druckverband.jpg also. I read the links (except one that I had to sign up for) in the previous post and do find it quite interesting that youve found some alopecia cases where lipedamenteous scalp is present also. Those were interesting links. I wonder if some of the ailments we see in the body all over now that phsyicians increasingly link with internal inflammation could be poor lymphatic drainiage happening for various reasons where toxins arent getting pumped to where they need to be, leaving waste products for the immune system to deal with all over the bod as a "clean up" measure, perhaps inflamming peripheral tissues. We have discussed Ice packs before on the contraction issue, but would that force the pumps open? Dicey isnt it. I hope you can find someone new to hairloss to try your ideas without attempting any growth stimulant or anti-androgen for a couple of years and to take pictures as a way to test it. I'd love for you to get to test your theory to see yea or nea whether its right or not in some scientific way. I know it must be frustrating. Have a good evening. | ||
| jpj |
Stephen, One other thing I thought of and forgot to mention.........Ive seen a few outdoor-working blonde men in my life who had curiously good hair to be very blonde (so many of whom go bald). They had weathered outdoor faces to go along with those pretty nice heads of hair. If you were right about edema of the scalp causing baldness........Im pretty sure that hair thats left a couple of inches in legth at least (to shield the papilla's DNA from ultra violet rays directly) might allow for enough EVAPORATION to remove moisture from the scalp and take out fluid from the top. Have you ever noticed this? I know your in England, so outdoor work may not be in too much sun (like it is here), but surely some garderners/etc. get quite a bit...... | ||
| Paradox |
Seems like folks with skinnier faces, esp. in the forehead area seem to have better hair. I know it's not the rule, but I can guarantee you it's a significant number. When I had read up on edema forums, one of the the most common recomendations was to excercise and lose weight. Apparently fat has some sort of negative effect on the lymphatic system. Maybe somehow fat on the forehead and sides somehow effects hair at the top? Either way, it sounds like a few more levels of confusion. | ||
| jpj |
you mean puffy-faced people tend to bald?....................You know there is something of an incidence of bald men with smooth faces that I notice. Patrick Stewart of Star Trek, Kelsey Grammar of Frasier, President Dwight Eisenhower, Astronaut John Glenn, Chuck Yeager, Yul Brenner all had youthful faces that were not wrinkled but with smoothly pressed skin despite the chrome dome's up top. I thought about this when I first contemplated Stephens theory but never commented on it. If you look at some actors who had good hair naturally like Charles Bronson, Walter Matthau, Jim Davis (Jock Ewing on Dallas), Andy Griffith...........they got quite a few wrinkles as they aged, but pretty much kept their hair............... always noted this, but never considered there to be any kind of connection. Here is a pic of charles Bronson http://daily.greencine.com/archives/charles-bronson.jpg And here is a pic of John Glenn at an age that is much older than Bronson's pic. http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ncs/photos/glenn.jpg His face looks younger even though Glenn was about 70 in that pic compared to the fiftiesh-Bronson. Contrast Patrick Stewart http://www.trekkies.cz/storage/obrazky/47/200512051025_patrickstewart.jpg with Walter Matthau http://www.bjsmusic.com/matthau0200.jpg Clark Gable in his early fifties http://tedstrong.com/graphics2003/avery-gable.jpg and especially Dean Martin at about the same age http://www.suprmchaos.com/dean-martin_060802.jpg contrasted with fifty-something Kelsey Grammar http://www.goldenstateautographs.com/photographs/images/grammarkelsey_000.jpg 45 year old (born in 61) Woody Harrelson in a recent movie http://www.unreel.co.uk/reviews/a/After_the_Sunset/co7.jpg vs. George Clooney when about the same age (few years back)http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://cdn-channels.netscape.com/gallery/ i/c/clooney/Clooney_JPC77945.jpg&imgrefurl=http://channels.isp.netscape.com/cele brity/gallery.jsp%3Fgname%3Dclooney%26floc%3DNI-to11&h=538&w=375&sz=49&tbnid=qcg vE87nkbfaiM:&tbnh=130&tbnw=90&hl=en&start=29&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgeorge%2Bclooney %26start%3D20%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN Unfortunately for Woody though.......look at him when he had hair, and you'll see that though still a nice looknig man, that he was modelesque back in the day http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://interaktiv.vg.no/filmextra/bilder/ personer/woody_harrelson.jpg&imgrefurl=http://interaktiv.vg.no/filmextra/person. php%3Fperson%3DWoody%2520Harrelson&h=197&w=150&sz=15&tbnid=Hf4PiCY-uoyNxM:&tbnh= 98&tbnw=74&hl=en&start=34&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwoody%2Bharrelson%26start%3D20%26sv num%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN | ||
| Downunder |
I remember that last article on artery ligature as I had problems pinting it when I first looked at it. My first read on that article was that the guy made conclusions quite quickly towards his preferred solution rather than examining all possibilities. He tried the idea of creating hypoxia and it all just fitted for him from there. Certainly I feel the pressure differential is a key factor, which is also a part of what you have expressed. But is it too much blood or not enough removal of blood? When this fellow performed ligature he effected many things because he is restricting the in-flow of blood to alter the environment. Some things he effected are: - Changed the pressure differential across the scalp. This effects both blood and lymph flows. The blood flow is altered from in-flow dominance to outflow. - Increased suction out. The lymph system remaining the same there is now an increased capacity of lymph removal of toxins. The same thing applies to the blood capillaries out creating more ability to remove fluid and toxins. - Pressure differential change. Changing the pressure differential, changes osmosis, allowing cells to remove toxins easier. - Contact inhibition. Decreasing pressure decreases contact inhibition, therefore a better environment. - Lower flows out would now have increased concentrations of DHT and other toxins. Possibly further improving the lymph system flows. So there are some quite dramatic changes in the environment going on, as a consequence. Not just simple blood flow alone. Steve, In relation to the DHT and the average decrease in lymph flow from the scalp part of your theory. If say there is a decreased flow in the section from vertex to beard, i.e. average time valves are shut is longer. Would not the increased DHT and vasodilator metabolites (toxins) in this section effect the lymph vessels expanding them to increase flow, effectively restoring balance to the system a form of local self-regulation? jpj, Start the massage up and you will get your hair back. The bandages would effect more than just simply blood flow, like in the above comments. Better or worse.. that is the question. | ||
| S Foote. |
"Stephen, I would think that a "palm massage", using ones ENTIRE hand pressing down hard enough to move the whole scalp back and forth would pull those pumps open and force lymph fluid back down them wouldn't you?" Yes i do this sometimes myself, moving the palms downwards from the top of the scalp to the sideburn area. This is like the manual lymph drainage exercises used in lymphedema. "We have discussed Ice packs before on the contraction issue, but would that force the pumps open? Dicey isnt it." Ice packs reduce swelling by reducing the blood supply to the surface tissue. I dont think it effects the lymphatics directly, just helps by reducing the feed side of the equation. S Foote. | ||
| S Foote. |
"Steve, In relation to the DHT and the average decrease in lymph flow from the scalp part of your theory. If say there is a decreased flow in the section from vertex to beard, i.e. average time valves are shut is longer. Would not the increased DHT and vasodilator metabolites (toxins) in this section effect the lymph vessels expanding them to increase flow, effectively restoring balance to the system a form of local self-regulation?" Yes i agree, and such self-regulation does happen in the vascular system. I think this is one reason why MPB can take years to develope. The thing with even a small restriction in lymphatic drainage in particular, is the local increase in tissue levels of proteins. These then effect the osmotics of the circulation in general, creating more edema and so on. So lymphedema in particular tends to be "self maintaining". I think this is reflected in the experience with 5ARI's like propecia and Dut. These work better if the balding is "early". Someone with established MPB doesn't respond as well to these drugs. S Foote. | ||
| Downunder |
Steve, I think I mentioned some time back that I had questions on the hydraulic theory, you must have missed my first and I think Tom erased it. Maybe will try again sometime. Anyway, following on this subject. I am still a little cloudy as to what you believe is the origin of MPB developing. I follow the theory, but there seems to be many possibilities as to how it might go, such as: - Body hormones increase, beard growth, lower lympth efficiency, head hair effected. - Hormones increase, head hair encourages beard and body hair growth, lower lymph efficiency, hence hair loss. - Hormones increase, head hair increases DHT, lymph flow increases, but pathway blocked by proteins, hair loss. - No effect of hormones. Beard and body hair growth just unbalances the system, less head lymph drainage, hence hair loss. There are also other possibilities. Could you just provide a brief of the steps you believe triggers the events and what those events are? (I am not trying to have you cast-it-in-stone, just how you see the series of events flows, or the most likely senario) I will post another question as a new thread on lymph system, your comments appreciated. | ||
| S Foote. |
Hi Downunder. As far as the influence of DHT goes in my theory, this is what i think. When androgen levels increase at puberty, 5AR in certain cells converts circulating androgens into DHT. Merck's comments on DHT production from the PDR sheets, on Propecia. Quote: "Type I 5 alpha reductase is predominant in the sebaceous glands of most regions of skin, including scalp, and liver. Type I 5 alpha reductase is responsible for approximately one third of circulating DHT.The type II 5 alpha reductase isozyme is primarily found in prostate, seminal vesicles, epididymides, and hair follicles as well as liver, and is responsible for two thirds of circulating DHT." So most of the DHT is produced in the surface tissue in hair follicles and sebaceous glands. I suggest that the primary significant action of DHT as a male hormone, is to increase lymphatic efficiency. This has many advantages in men. The production of any substance that increases lymphatic pumping, would "have" to evolve largely in the surface tissue to avoid the back pressure effects we talked about. This increased lymphatic efficiency reduces tissue fluid pressures, paticularly where there are concentrations of lymph vessels. There are just such concentrations in the same areas where DHT significantly increases body hair growth, beard, armpits, pubic. I think the large terminal scalp follicles we have, are producing a lot of DHT. To much for the health of the MPB area. I think the fact that beard growth represents the greatest growth induced by DHT, supports this large local production. Then the growing beard follicles add even more local DHT feeding the lower lymphatics. This "over pumping" lower down is what causes the back pressure effect in the MPB area in my opinion. S Foote. | ||
| jpj |
Stephen, A few posts up I made the observation (with some links to pictures) that bald men often have nice, smooth faces that age well, while men who keep their hair often age in the face much faster. Do you have an opinion on that as it relates to your ideas. Also, Ive been doing a tid bit of research on proanthocyanidins. I remember you said that they were used to improve lymphatic drainage. Man, Ive found articles all over the web about the benefits of this wonderful substance. One article suggests that blueberry proanthocyanidins seem to help prostate cancer (unrecognized anti-androgen?), they improve VEGF, possibly affect potassium channels, contribute to collagen formation, act as a sort of internal sun screen, promote oxygen in the cells, are the most powerful anti-oxident thats been found, and stay in the body for about seventy hours. They also are used in fighting edema. They are supposedly also a very potent anti-inflammatory. If someone were just going to use one topical and had confidence in your idea......I think they'd be the one to use. Apparently combining the ones from apples, grapes, and blueberries have a synergistic effect on their performance. Ive also noted in the anti-androgen arena that avocado's are supposedly the substance with a suprisingly large lead over any other in the presence of beta-sitosterol. In Garnier Fructis shampoo (made by L'Oreal), ribofavon (b2) and Avocado Oil are used. I think L'Oreal knows something here. Ive thought about buying some avocado oil and running an little self experiment and seeing if it reduced body hair on my arm a Beta-Sis is supposed to be a receptor blocker. Combined with B2, an alpha five inhibitor.......one could make a very effective anti-androgen topical at home very cheaply if they work in vivo as well as they do in vitro. Whether it be directly on the papilla, or slowing down the pumps (or both). | ||
| Tom Hagerty |
Let's start a new page. This one is getting too long. Post new messages on this topic here Some Epiphany, page 2. |
