Why does only the hair on the top of our heads succumb to bad diet/ DHT/ MPB?assfrus

Law. I'm not talking about diet! I'm talking about cutting off 60% of the blood flow to the scalp! Do you think that cutting off 60% of the blood flow to ANY body part will not cause problems?!!!

Do you think it's plausible that cutting off 60% of the scalps blood flow could cause an environment that would allow miniaturization of the hair follicles to commence?
I mean I realize it's not just overall circulation, but microcirculation as well- so anti inflammatories seem to be important too; the goal being efficient oxygen delivery to the cells and waste removal from them. I mean, the scalp has the most robust capillary network of anywhere on the body. Why would that be needed if it could run fine at 40% efficiency. Just doesn't make sense to me.

I mean I'm jus trying to use common sense. You are basing your knowledge upon studies funded by big pharmacy designed to back up their agenda, and word of mouth from hair transplant doctors who are getting rich off of these surgeries.

SlowMoe, where did you get the 60% figure from? Sounds like quite alot.

It's because I is a lot! There was a study posted here where a scalp hypoxia to around 250% found in balding scalps. I think cs posted it. Search his topics, it is near the top.

https://immortalhair.forumotion.com/t7628-microvascular-hypoxia-in-mpb-study?highlight=Hypoxia

Transcutaneous PO2 of the scalp in male pattern baldness: a new piece to the puzzle.
Goldman BE, Fisher DM, Ringler SL.
Source

Department of Plastic Surgery, Butterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Mich., USA.
Abstract

Our study was designed to measure the transcutaneous PO2 of the scalp to determine if there was a relative microvascular insufficiency and associated tissue hypoxia in areas of hair loss in male pattern baldness. A controlled prospective study was performed at Butterworth Hospital, Grand Rapids, Michigan. Eighteen nonsmoking male volunteers aged 18 years and older were studied. Nine men had male pattern baldness (Juri degree II or III), and nine were controls (no male pattern baldness). Scalp temperature and transcutaneous PO2 were obtained at frontal and temporal sites in each subject. Peripheral circulation was assessed from postocclusive transcutaneous PO2 recovery time by means of maximum initial slope measurements. Statistical significance was assessed at p < 0.05. There was no significant difference in scalp temperature between male pattern baldness subjects and controls. Temporal scalp blood flow was significantly higher than frontal scalp blood flow in male pattern baldness subjects; however, there was no significant difference in controls. Transcutaneous PO2 was significantly lower in bald frontal scalp (32.2 +/- 2.0 mmHg) than in hair-bearing temporal scalp (51.8 +/- 4.4 mmHg) in men with male pattern baldness. In controls, there was no significant difference in transcutaneous PO2 of frontal scalp (53.9 +/- 3.5 mmHg) and temporal scalp (61.4 +/- 2.7 mmHg). Transcutaneous PO2 also was significantly lower in the frontal scalp of male pattern baldness subjects (32.2 +/- 2.0 mmHg) than in either frontal or temporal scalp of controls (53.9 +/- 3.5 mmHg and 61.4 +/- 2.7 mmHg, respectively). There is a relative microvascular insufficiency to regions of the scalp that lose hair in male pattern baldness. We have identified a previously unreported tissue hypoxia in bald scalp compared with hair-bearing scalps


What I find interesting is that even in the temporal regions, where no hair loss is reported, the non MPB subjects had 20% more PO2 (oxygen partial pressure) and, I assume 20% more blood flow than MPB volunteers. So maybe that is evidence that total circulation is inadequate in those with MPB.

Edit

Lets clear something up, the genes associated with mpb aren't faulty, if anything they have evolutionarypurpouses suited to certain environmental factors and pathogenic forces that have been integral parts of certain regions longterm defense. Inflammation is a vital process, when ones genes aren't set up to deal with certain insults, we see other diseases begin to proliferate, gene mutations occur, bizarre cancers, etc.

Agreed, A < R you and I have discussed that before. I was trying to think of a sexual reason for the selection, but there likely isn't one, especially given the typical timeline that MPB has set in historically, there isn't enough evolutionary pressure for this to be sexually selected I wouldn't think. It all goes back to the immune system.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:Agreed, A < R you and I have discussed that before. I was trying to think of a sexual reason for the selection, but there likely isn't one, especially given the typical timeline that MPB has set in historically, there isn't enough evolutionary pressure for this to be sexually selected I wouldn't think. It all goes back to the immune system.

So are there or are there not differences between the hairs atop our heads and on the sides? If not, what role does genetics play.

I wasn't trying to use the term faulty as in mechanically dysfunctional. You're right, all genes have a set of functions they carry out very precisely in conjunction with transcription factors, etc, so yeah didn't mean to give off that impression of "faulty." My intention was to simply generalize the meaning of faulty to encompass "undesirable phenotypes" in the population.. i.e. mpb.

Slowmoe,

I have absolutely no idea why MPB has the pattern it does. Absolutely no idea. But I'd expect to find a higher distribution of DHT receptors and 5AR enzyme in the cells in that region, but for what reason I can't comment.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:Slowmoe,

I have absolutely no idea why MPB has the pattern it does. Absolutely no idea. But I'd expect to find a higher distribution of DHT receptors and 5AR enzyme in the cells in that region, but for what reason I can't comment.

Ar wrote that he believes it is the inflammation that causes the papilla cells to develop bigger, badder androgen receptor sites, which makes sense. I doubtthey are programmer that way from birth.

And based on the observations made on my shaved scalp, I wholeheartedly believe that the MPB region of the scalp contains more DHT/ toxins BECAUSE of the tightness, and thin skin that is in the EXACT shape as my hairloss. That's just too big of a coincidence, and it makes perfect sense when looking at the big picture. Tight skin= poor blood flow. Poor blood flow= inflammation/ excess DHT/ toxins. Inflammation= over expressed DHT receptors. Over expressed DHT receptors= more inflammation.

I think

I just can't believe that anything other than poor scalp circulation is the root cause. The study I just posted pretty much proves that even gross bulf flow to te head is compromised by 20% in those with MPB. Hell just about everyone doing manual methods has completely halted their hair loss, at the very least...

I definitely won't argue its a possibility. Lack of circulation could exacerbate clearance of excess hormonal products. Maybe more importantly it would exacerbate any pathogen related conditions due to the low oxygen environment. Considering that my hair loss accelerated rapidly after I began smoking in college, it does suggest some inflammatory/circulatory component. My circulation is absolutely awful and my hairloss has been rapid. I think you're right in that respect...not a coincidence. I just don't think it is the be all end all, just a piece of the puzzle. We still have to address the cause of the inflammation. Something is inciting an immune reaction there, whether it be pathogenic or otherwise. I think this is where heavy metals, thyroid, and the gut all come into play because these can all, either direclty or indirectly, lead to an immune imbalance.

So are you essentially conceding that yes blood flow needs to be promoted in balding scalps Anthony?

The root is perhaps the inflammation, but this inflammation must be present in an awful lot of people who do not have balding.

So perhaps by increasing the blood flow, the inflammation can be reduced to a level at which it no longer affects hair.

I know there are people on this forum who love their studies and science and try really hard to come up with very educated answers to problems, but sometimes you have to be logical and strip things back to a basic level rather than diving in at them deepend.

anthonyspencer54 wrote:I definitely won't argue its a possibility. Lack of circulation could exacerbate clearance of excess hormonal products. Maybe more importantly it would exacerbate any pathogen related conditions due to the low oxygen environment. Considering that my hair loss accelerated rapidly after I began smoking in college, it does suggest some inflammatory/circulatory component. My circulation is absolutely awful and my hairloss has been rapid. I think you're right in that respect...not a coincidence. I just don't think it is the be all end all, just a piece of the puzzle. We still have to address the cause of the inflammation. Something is inciting an immune reaction there, whether it be pathogenic or otherwise. I think this is where heavy metals, thyroid, and the gut all come into play because these can all, either direclty or indirectly, lead to an immune imbalance.

My question is, why do the heavy metal, thyroid, gut problems ONLY manifest where the circulation is worst? Surely if those issues were the root cause they would manifest on the back of the head, or elsewhere.. IMO if the condition of the top of the scalp were the same as the sides, those issues would not manifest as hair loss, not saying we should ignore them, because having hair and being sickly will not make you happy either
I mean, even the sickest, most bald guy out there, has good hair in the back of his head. Inflammation doesn't touch there.... Why?

SlowMoe,

Again, I think you are on to something there. There must be some explanation for this and as far as I can tell, circulation may be the most likely. I just don't KNOW for sure, do you know what I mean? I'm just not familiar enough with the actual anatomy of the scalp. People tend to talk about the fatty tissue beneath the scalp, could this play a part? Sure. But as far as I can tell, and as long as its not a placebo effect, people on this forum seem to be having quite a bit of luck with the manual methods so circulation might play a way bigger role than I had thought. But thinking the way I do, I'm always going to keep it as a possibility, not on the back burner, but crowded on the front burner with other things until I see proof. But then again, you can't always wait for proof.

Schpiloch,
I will concede I think it is a big factor. And I agree with you 100% on your stance with the studies. You see similar things occuring in the fitness world, pertaining to "bro science". I would say manual methods are the "bro science" of the hair loss world. But before anyone gets angry at that, I don't mean that in a bad way, because if you go into any gym, the guys who are actually trying things and getting results are being accused of spewing "bro science" by some scrawny guy touting a laundry list of studies. Now I don't discredit either side. The scientific method is by far the best way of "knowing" anything, there is no better way of testing a hypothesis. But given the nature of science and its trying to establish causality, we have to isolate two variables in order to do this. So for highly multi-variate processes like hair loss or muscle building, we kind of have to act on what we know works because science is simply a long way from giving us a complete model. We need to rely on good, well-researched science while being pragmatic at the same time. If everybody in the gym was waiting until the scientific community was absolutely 100% clear on the best way to build and maintain muscle, the gym would be empty. But it isn't, because that bro science has its place right. Same thing with hair loss I would guess. I also agree that often times, simpler answers tend to be more correct than extremely complicated ones.

Good points about the 'bro science' thing haha, never heard of that before, maybe its a wake up call that i need to spend more time in the gym...

Yeh i really think the whole DHT thing came about because scientists wanted to pin the cause down to something that makes a man different from a woman, and therefore make the whole balding situation seem like fate, or natural etc.

Its not normal that any man should lose his hair, nor any animal to lose its fur, we haven't evolved to that stage yet. It is definitely not natural for teenagers to begin thinning.

I'll go back to a point i made a while back about indigenous populations that are unfamiliar with pattern baldness: they don't brush their hair i'm sure, but they are active as hell, and don't eat shit.

Unfortunately we as westerners are tied down, not able to be active, and engorged like fat ducks with shit food. So what can we do in our situation?

We can manually force the blood up to our scalp, excercise as much as possible, or at least not sit on our asses all day, and make the effort to eat good, natural food. I think if you can master those things, the rest is not an issue. Of course this is all my own opinion.

Really agree with that last point you made. Although it isn't easy, mainly the food issue as our food supply has just become so deranged. I think its a matter of trying to find the cleanest sources of food possible, and there are just some nutrients that used to be in food that aren't any more and we have almost no choice to supplement with, like iodine unless you eat a ton of seaweed (I'll pass). Another important thing to note is getting enough sunlight and sleep. So many people are trying to find the secret code to health but they don't even have the most blatant priorities down. Many people aren't sleeping enough and they're going to bed at 1 am after sitting in front of a television for two hours and wondering why they can't fall asleep. And the media has made us so scared of the sun that most people avoid it like the plague and when they are in it, they glob a bunch of cancer causing, endocrine disrupting chemicals on themselves to shield it. And that is another point, we need to try and avoid exposure to chemicals and metals as much as possible, and they're everywhere. This is why supplementation with chelators and other detoxifiers of the liver and gut are essential today.

I think one thing to add, is that even though a persons overall health is perfect, they still MAY experience hair loss if scalp circulation is bad enough to cause pathogenic and toxin build up, and subsequent inflammation, based on those factors alone. Does that sound correct? I guess what I'm trying to say is the same as some others on here are saying, that everyone is different, and forthe best results, you have yo attack from multiple angles.

I may be in a cynical mood so forgive me but I see these endless threads of speculation and theory all the time and honestly it never gets anywhere. It seems insanely circular: w+x+y=z, or z+y=x or x+?+w-z=y, and on and on. There's nothing wrong with speculation and debate but where does it ever actually get anyone practically? There never is a conclusion because there can't be without hard evidence and a unified simple explanation. In math we break things down to the lowest common denominator but it seems that as time goes on here we are adding factors not reducing them. I just don't understand why people keep doing this.

Instead of the simplest and most logical solution being considered, people add all these things together which are never consistent with each individual. We need to look for the common denominator which is almost always unanimously agreed upon: predisposition or genetics. If you're not predisposed then x and y and z are not even relevant- they don't matter. Instead though we have continuous instances of people complicating the equation. So if genetics is the lowest common denominator we need to reduce down the genetics which I see people attempting to do, but when they do so they are always going higher up and not lower down- meaning they keep adding back r to x, y and z; they keep mentioning factors that can and do exist in situations that mpb does not. These factors are not exclusive to mpb. Genetics have already been isolated from these others factors. I hope I'm explaining myself well here:

SO if genetics= R ... and say inflammation, circulation, calcification, (just for sake of discussion) = x,y,z...

and genetics is always a factor in mpb...

according to the way you guys are explaining it
we have something that looks like this: r=x+y+z+r

and R is factored out you are left with x+y+z alone

So we can't look to x,y, and z anymore because they are not factors of R. We need to look at factors of r that are NOT x, y, or z. Yet we don't have any because without the genetics, without the predisposition (R).... x,y, and z don't matter.

In order to break down or simplify the genetics we have to look at it genetically it would seem right? Is that not the obvious conclusion? That would suggest gene therapy of some kind or something that would turn off that little light switch that is the gene or genes. In order to do that we would have to know what gene or genes to turn off.

We cannot just turn off x,y, and z and expect R to turn off as a result.

Not to beat a dead horse, but what I'm saying is that I keep seeing:

r+x+y=MPB for someone, and r+x=mpb for another, and r+xy= MPB for someone else, and r+a+f=mpb for yet someone else.... ad infinitum.

What do we do with that? How are we supposed to come up with a dis-unified explanation/solution to a Unified problem? If those equations are all true then we no longer have a unified problem. If those equations are all true then that suggests multiple problems...multiple etiologies for the same condition does not make sense at all unless there are multiple conditions.... So we have find out what ALL men with MPB have in common; a common denominator...and this is the key part here: ONLY men with mpb... not men without it. It needs to be exclusive to mpb in other words and that brings us right back to genetics again, or pre-disposition- whatever you want to call that.

I think its more like a+b+c+d+e+f= z

Z being severity of MPB

A-total circulatory health
B-genetic pre disposition
C-nutrient value of blood
D-hormonal balance
E-fat layer beneath scalp
F-inflammatory State of scalp

Or something like that.
Are you saying that the hairs in the typical MPB area are somehow pre disposed to die and are different than other scalp hairs?

SlowMoe wrote:I think its more like a+b+c+d+e+f= z

Z being severity of MPB

Sure that can be possible but if that is true then all of those factors must always be present in every case of z. What I am suggesting is that all of those factors are not present in every case of Z.

Are you saying that the hairs in the typical MPB area are somehow pre disposed to die and are different than other scalp hairs?

Is that not what happens? What do you see? Do you see men with dead hair (bald) on top with healthy hair on the sides?

I'm not trying to be a smart ass either... It's just sometimes thinking too much gets in the way seeing what is right in front of us.

Paradox if you look at GBP2000's posts he puts forth a very scientific reasoning behind his theory which i'm sure you would like.

If you are still convinced that we have hairs that are prone to DHT and hairs that are not, then for hair purposes perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

Likewise, not trying to be a smartass

Paradox wrote: It needs to be exclusive to mpb in other words and that brings us right back to genetics again, or pre-disposition- whatever you want to call that.

This might help

"The following wheel shows how truly related chronic diseases are. Each “spoke” on the wheel represents a published study that's shown a significant statistical relationship between patients suffering from one disease and the next. And that is a lot of comorbidity and a lot of symptom overlap"
Amy Proal http://mpkb.org/home/publications/proal_autoimmunity_2010

schpiloch123 wrote:Paradox if you look at GBP2000's posts he puts forth a very scientific reasoning behind his theory which i'm sure you would like.

If you are still convinced that we have hairs that are prone to DHT and hairs that are not, then for hair purposes perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

Likewise, not trying to be a smartass

No I see where you are coming from with the forum thing. Let me explain first that I get unimaginable health value from this forum- mpb aside. Secondly, I'm not saying that any or all of the methods or ideas on this board have no merit, or that they don't help slow hairloss down.

I'm simply talking about the way in which theories are presented or accepted that are A) evolutionary or always changing, and B) inconsistent with personal and non-personal experience..i.e inconsistent.

Lastly C) I don't even care how something works if it works you know? I really don't even need to know. If brushing and hanging upside down works (which I do), then that's all I care about- Real tangible results! In fact I don't even take part in the speculation because there is a never a conclusion... It will never end.... It will never end until we find out what it is specifically that we all have in common that is unique to us with MPB and that can be reversed period. Until that time comes....again I have no problem with dialogue, but I'm just pointing out that people are spinning their wheels like mad trying to fit square pegs into round holes and we need to found the round pegs- meaning if something doesn't apply to all of us with this condition it is no longer relevant and we should look outside the box and move on instead of picking up the same pegs again and again.

Bottom line is that we want to grow our hair back. Theories are great and look very nice on paper but we NEED results ON THE GROUND. When the solution comes it will come for all of us and that's a great thing.