forest environments reduce stress hormones & blood pressure

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431424

...forest environments reduced stress hormones such as adrenaline and noradrenaline and showed the relaxing effect both in male and female subjects ...

habitual walking in forest environments may lower blood pressure

Just breathing forest air fixes them??

Those "reduced" levels WERE the norm when we evolved. Which means levels in the cities are chronically high, right? High blood pressure is associated with MPB.

http://thepaleodiet.blogspot.com/2009/12/paleo-diet-q-31-december-2009.html

A scientific paper our group has written (Hyperinsulinemic Diseases of Civilization: More than Syndrome X) in part addresses male pattern baldness and how a number of studies indicate that high glycemic load diets may set off a hormonal cascade that is characteristic of men with male pattern baldness. To date, no randomized controlled interventions of low glycemic load diets (basically Paleo Diets) have yet been conducted, so we have no human on whether or not a Paleo Diet may be effective in combating male pattern baldness. However, having said this, numerous historical photographs of hunter gatherers rarely if ever depict young or middle age men with male pattern baldness. I have read anecdotal accounts of hunter gatherers who were described in 19th century writings suggesting that premature graying also rarely occurred. I had not heard about the equol story -- thanks for bringing it to my attention.

Best wishes,
Loren Cordain, Ph.D., Professor

I'm guessing the increase in O2 can't hurt. There's much more CO2 in the cities.

I recently watched a documentary, one of the first movies every recorded in Japan (pre-WWII) and I sure noticed several balding men.

Well oxigenated blood supply certainly helps. I was also thinking city air could be containing toxic fumes. About 80,000 chemical are used in industrialized areas that were never tested for long term effects. Or perhaps, forest air contains beneficail chemicals that flush out toxic chemicals.

Misirlou wrote:I recently watched a documentary, one of the first movies every recorded in Japan (pre-WWII) and I sure noticed several balding men.

I don't think that goes back nearly far enough to get a good enough example to what was referenced by Mr. Clean.

On another note I would seem to think that this effect is closely similar to that of what "grounding" achieves. Similar results are seen in grounding experiments. If so then it has to do with neutralizing free radicals.

The documentary showed Japanese were already affected before WWII. But there was a vast increase after WWII when the Americans introduced their lifestyle to another culture in a level unprecedented in history.

Wikipedia wrote:... lifestyle also plays a minor role as demonstrated by the vast increase in male and female pattern baldness in Japan after World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_alopecia

barefoot wrote:The documentary showed Japanese were already affected before WWII. But there was a vast increase after WWII when the Americans introduced their lifestyle to another culture in a level unprecedented in history.

Wikipedia wrote:... lifestyle also plays a minor role as demonstrated by the vast increase in male and female pattern baldness in Japan after World War II.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgenic_alopecia

Was it the lifestyle or the atomic bombs you think?

Funny. I don't think so. If so, there won't be a pattern. They should be losing their pubic hairs.

Yeah but if you read through this board, you'll find that not much separation (if any) is made between different patterns or forms of hair loss. It is basically approached here as one disorder. I'm not sure if I agree, but that would make pattern irrelevant. Some of the studies posted by CS address MPB spcifically, but many are more general regarding follicular growth in general. The approach for all alopecia is pretty much the same here.

I guess. But if radiation from the atom bomb, shouldn't it affect women and children as well?

barefoot wrote:I guess. But if radiation from the atom bomb, shouldn't it affect women and children as well?

I was mostly kidding about the bombs. Although who knows? I just don't buy the food theory. I just watched that show "Heavy" and this guy was 600+ pounds. He sat in bed all day and literally at buckets of fast food loaded with MSG. He probably has diabetes, and he couldn't walk more than a few feet. Hairline was solid. There is a genetic component that predisposes us to bald. If epigenetics past down through parents is the cause- fine. But genes have been altered and people who aren't predisposed DON'T go bald. They can inject mass amounts of androgens (bodybuilders) and not loose their hair. They can inject insulin and HGH among others. They can eat 8,000 calories a day. I want to get to the root of the problem, and not go through a complete health "makeover". I know its' possible because sick, unhealthy people don't lose hair. Taking finsateride or dutasteride stops further loss. Health is important and may slow it down, but not at the heart of the issue. Otherwise all unhealthy people would be balding.

Anyone can point to something but disputed by another. There seems to be a paradox anyway one puts it. Getting passed those paradoxes is the way to get to the answers.

What surprised me with the study on forest environments is we don't even have to eat anything from the forest. Just doing the workouts there and breathing forest air made the difference in blood pressure and stress hormones.

You think it would help city dwellers if we sold them bottled forest air?

Not to mention new findings on permanent side effects of finateride (i don't know about dutasteride), most were lead into the false notions on its efficacy. The study "results":

90% "positive effect". The term 'positive effect' is suspect because the conclusion of the "independent" panel of experts said the placebo group had a 60% 'positive effect'.

I don't suppose 60% positive effect on the placebo group were able to maintain or delay theirs would it? So if I take out 60% from the equation, that leaves only 30% real positive effect.

Plus, in about two years, most begin to develop some resistance to the drug. That's because finasteride is a poison.

Interesting thing I found which might explain why Ketoconazole works:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x155158xq2305888/

Repeated oral doses of ketoconazole (200 mg every 5 h over a period of 48 h)

abc123 wrote:Repeated oral doses of ketoconazole (200 mg every 5 h over a period of 48 h)

True, but the question I would like answered if the topical Keto isn't having some systematic effect or at least localized one. The oral dosage you use if you are going to treat severe cases of cortisol increase where it is caused by bodily malfunction(tumor that makes your body create cortisol without stop, like one article stated).

barefoot wrote:Not to mention new findings on permanent side effects of finateride (i don't know about dutasteride), most were lead into the false notions on its efficacy. The study "results":

90% "positive effect". The term 'positive effect' is suspect because the conclusion of the "independent" panel of experts said the placebo group had a 60% 'positive effect'.

I don't suppose 60% positive effect on the placebo group were able to maintain or delay theirs would it? So if I take out 60% from the equation, that leaves only 30% real positive effect.

Plus, in about two years, most begin to develop some resistance to the drug. That's because finasteride is a poison.

finasteride never did much for me. Dutasteride OTOH did/does. Yes there is a "resistance", but it doesn't block 100% of dht, so I would call that progression. I'm not saying dht is the final answer....far from it. And I know the drugs are poisons (all drugs are by default), but that's not my point. If anything the fact that poisons can halt loss speaks to the health issue again. I'm just saying that whether it is progenitor cells or whatever... When they do finally knock this thing out, it will be ONE treatment/procedure. It will be at the root, like you pull a weed. The method on this board (which is fine) is the approach of pulling a weed out one leaf at a time with a bunch of different tools. To me this is akin to a constant battle to keep the weed from getting larger... not killing it. Will the future treatment be "healthy"? I don't know.

I don't care how you interpret finasteride studies or any other, because at least they exist and are possible (one agent). Try a controlled study on a cocktail of things, get the results (if it was possible) and have the researchers conclude that the lack of results were due to the patient's unique conditions in the study. What would you think? Now eliminate the study and substitute it with anecdotal evidence from less than a handful of individuals, who aren't all taking the same "cocktail". All I can speak to is my experience, and be honest with myself. No matter how much I wish something worked, I need to remain objective (as much as possible). People in forums of any kind tend to "pile on" or form a group mentality. This is fine, but I respect dissenting opinions, and questioning things that may make us uncomfortable. That said...if I found out that cotton candy stopped regrew hair for me I wouldn't hesitate to share it, after an appropriate amount of time to make sure. (hair cycle or 2).

CausticSymmetry wrote:"Modern medicine" has most of their reference numbers based on sick people. Actually, in these 'modern times' most physicians probably do not even know what healthy looks like.

Anyway, we skewed out of the thread topic. This CS quote fits this Japanese study on forest environments.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431424

I'm not aware of any other study that would, in my own opinion, indicate how trace chemicals in the air, which were deemed 'safe', could adversely affect city dwellers. Just posted it so everyone would know. This study is unlikely to hit the news and there's little most people can do about.

Paradox wrote:I was mostly kidding about the bombs. Although who knows? I just don't buy the food theory. I just watched that show "Heavy" and this guy was 600+ pounds. He sat in bed all day and literally at buckets of fast food loaded with MSG. He probably has diabetes, and he couldn't walk more than a few feet. Hairline was solid. There is a genetic component that predisposes us to bald. If epigenetics past down through parents is the cause- fine. But genes have been altered and people who aren't predisposed DON'T go bald. They can inject mass amounts of androgens (bodybuilders) and not loose their hair. They can inject insulin and HGH among others. They can eat 8,000 calories a day. I want to get to the root of the problem, and not go through a complete health "makeover". I know its' possible because sick, unhealthy people don't lose hair. Taking finsateride or dutasteride stops further loss. Health is important and may slow it down, but not at the heart of the issue. Otherwise all unhealthy people would be balding.

Nature of autoimmune disorders. Free glutamate acid makes autoimmune disorders worse.

barefoot wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21431424

...forest environments reduced stress hormones such as adrenaline and noradrenaline and showed the relaxing effect both in male and female subjects ...

habitual walking in forest environments may lower blood pressure

Just breathing forest air fixes them??

Those "reduced" levels WERE the norm when we evolved. Which means levels in the cities are chronically high, right? High blood pressure is associated with MPB.

I wonder how much the 2 hours of walking had to do with the observed results.

I was just thinking. Remember when women used to and still do cook the food? Maybe before cooking those health foods, you should smell them before cooking - those escaping nutrients when slicing the veggies goes direct to the blood stream via the lungs.

I'm not kidding. I used to think that smell therapies were a scam before this forest study which focused on stress hormones and blood pressure only. The gravity of what else effects us in the cities are not known.

There are very strong theories that smell receptors use quantum tunneling to distinguish compounds which have identical chemical structures. By quantum tunneling we are traversing to the subject of biophysics down to subatomic physics.