what are your best theories on baldness?

What do you think are the true causes of baldness? I know this has been discussed but what is your personal best belief of how baldness happens?

Genetic traits in regards to our immune internal sensory (such as apoe 4 genotypes, which offer evolutionary benefits from acute infection), like our toll like receptors, that are misaligned with the bacterial presence in our gut colon or mouths, causing low level inflammation and translocation, and general immune chaos and insulin resistance. Everybody is unique of course but everything I've seen comes back to these factors. I've been meaning to post new research on the topic but this is all I have time for these days. Androgen receptors and hormonal dysfunction also are very tied into this very closely as in metabolic stress men use androgens to upkeep the vascular system (which is very destructive) and women use estrogens (which are protective), inflammation naturally has a secondary support system where they naturally upregulate sex hormone receptors.

And I think its the immune component that has everyone puzzled. You are talking about an un-consciously controlled fully autonomous inflammatory system. Its difficult to control, and sometimes hypersensitive. Genetic factors contribute but so does the envrionment, and you could look at the immune system as a highly unique culmination of the two counterbalancing forces, making the immune aspect of hairloss highly variable between individuals. But we can be sure and put it simply that something is causing it to promote inflammation where do not want it, and the amount of physiological variables that can alter the immune response is pretty vast. Hormonal imbalances are hugely important, receptor activity, bacteria, fungi, fat metabolism, mast cells, etc. The list is big and many organs can play a part: thyroid, gut, liver. Its very easy to see how big of a mess it all is. So even if we can say its the immune system at work, we have to go on a case by case basis to establish exactly what is promoting the immune response. Is there one ubiquitous target of the immune system in MPB? A bacteria, a yeast? Maybe.

Great observations Anthony, to add to it, if there's anything I've learned about bacteria, it's that it's never just one strain at work, they work in synergy and biofilm is the next big frontier of medicine. Studies done on insulin resistant metabolic syndrome rats and humans where there gut was "sterilized" then inoculated with donor bacteria from healthy hosts showed very significant improvement in their conditions. The problem is that the bacteria switch back slowly to their prior states and symptoms return due to the fact that there's still a major colony of the original flora, protected in their biofilm that keep spouting planktonic waves of themselves. Like you said about each individual being unique, it's true, host immune genetics might be very neutral to certain resident gut bacteria resulting in little inflammation, whereas the same bacteria in another person might end up with an inflammatory syndrome.

This is where things get very tricky, indeed. How do we actually identify these certain immune system triggers in different individuals without extensive (and expensive) self-experimentation and professional diagnostics, which can be misleading anyways. The individuality of response to foods, drugs, supplements, pathogens etc. is extremely frustrating. The only thing that really made sense to me, at least diet-wise, was the blood type diet pioneered by Dr. D'adamo. It seemed to make the most sense, in terms of individual responses to different material in the organisms environment. He broke down beneficial diets, supplements, and exercises/lifestyles for blood types O, A, B and AB. This was as a result of years of examining reactions in the different types of actual blood after eating certain foods etc..

I've never heard anybody talk about it here and was wondering if any of you guys are familiar. I brought it up once a while ago but CS said the blood type theory was lacking in plenty of areas.

Glad to see you back A>R, and I totally agree. They are certainly evolving at a faster pace than us, but its understandable as well. Consider the environment a bacterium exists in. Consider living as a wanted "man" inside the environment of our cells. There are a billion things in that cell that aim to kill you, just absolutely obliterate you. Our immune system is one hell of an assassin. Now, we know evolutionary pressure is what drives on adaptation. I can't think of an environment where competition and evolutionary pressure collide in a more focused way to drive on the evolution of these bacterial species. Now consider the environment human beings live in. We live in a world with an over-abundance of food, available shelter, public water supply. For the price of a work-week, we are essentially given the means to support ourselves (spoon-fed survival). Comparing our two different environments, its easy to see how bacteria have a much bigger impetus to adapt and evolve. Whereas we seem to be devolving, they are advancing and finding new ways to avoid our immune system. The fact that we've become so good at killing so many kinds of bacteria will actually put us in a predicament.

Consider a swim meet (just hold on), its almost like a micro-chosm of Darwinism (Doug McGuff is credited with this example). Its the reason we love competition. We are essentially watching survival of the fittest happen in a matter of seconds. Its in our nature to compete on an evolutionary scale over thousands of years, so we recreate this nature in the midst of a game.

Well modern antibiotics can be thought of as the same kind of game, just this time we're putting a gun to head of all of the swimmers. Although it isn't our goal, we are essentially saying, "bacteria, you'd better evolve hyper-fast and 'make it to the other side of the pool' or you are going to be killed". With that kind of pressure, we are inviting the onset of new strains of bacteria, the fittest, that our modern medicine cannot even prepare for. Its a natural cycle. We become comfortable while evolutionary forces are exerted on bacteria, an incredibly viral form of bacteria manifests that wipes out a large part of the population, now we are faced with evolutionary pressure, and the cycle goes on and on. I think we are on the verge of realizing that bacteria are currently winning the race.

TrueGround,

I think there are aspects of the blood type diet that are very interesting, but I think it fails in the same place the metabolic typing diet fails, which is trying to fit the entire population into a series of 3, 5, or 7 types. It just doesn't work that way. I think as a starting ground they are great, and then each individual needs to be disciplined to tweak the diet according to their own needs. Its been pointed out by several: CS, A>R, Rdkml, others, but in this mix of diet/immunology it is perhaps most important to avoid allergens. Despite what type of immunological predisposition you are born with, you are asking for autoimmune activity when you are continually exposed to an allergen (this is one of the big reasons why mold, chronic bacteria/yeast infections are so dire). You are basically hyper-immune 24/7. I think hairloss exists somewhere along this spectrum where the immune system is on alert where we don't want it to be. For me, the most important practical (not expensive) steps we can take that will have the greatest impact are avoiding ALL food sensitivities or allergenic foods, promoting a living environment as free of allergens as possible (mold, etc.), avoiding foods that disrupt gut barrier function (this is just asking for autoimmune issues), eat only foods that are well-digested (hence you are adapted to actually utilize), and populate the gut with beneficial bacteria and oppose the formation of biofilm and other communities of adverse bacteria. If I really had to pinpoint what I think the ultimate goal of hollistic health should be, or perhaps the best starting point maybe, would be those things. We could think of our digestive tract as a big open tube moving through the center of the body. If the immune system is troubling us, its highly likely (but not always) there is something occurring with the barrier of this "tube".

Just had an interesting, if not super nerdy, thought about the immune system. Again, its rather incredible that we seem to have this totally autonomous subsystem of our physiology specifically meant to defend us from foreign invaders. And the fact that it all happens on a sub-conscious level is what is really interesting. I mean, imagine if you had to consciously intervene and make the decision about every foreign, microscopic piece of life you encountered. We literally are met with them millions of times in a day. Granted, most are probably killed by the acid mantle of the skin, and many are killed by the acidity of our stomach if they go by that route. But in general, if we had to make our immune choices consciously, well we just wouldn't have the mental capacity to do so. Not by a long shot, we'd literally have no free attention to devote to anything else. Really then, our immune system is one of those key factors that's helped us advance this far. Consider that microscopic forms of life has no such system. Their time is spent constantly trying to escape death. It seems the development of an autonomic immune system is one of the keys to higher levels of life. We couldn't possibly have evolved to this point without it becoming an automatic function.

So on that side of the coin, its absolutely amazing. But again, its a double edged sword. Because we don't consciously make our immune choices, that means the system can turn on cells/tissues we don't want it to. It isn't a "perfect" system. Think of it like Skynet. We developed this system for defense, but it can turn on us and attack us as well because it has the authority to do so.

For those who got the reference, I'm giving you a mental high five . So let's think about the pathways where foreign bodies have the greatest opportunity to thrive in the host and possibly upset the immune balance. Sure there is the skin, but for most of us (unless we are upsetting the pH of the skin with daily product use) this probably isn't the greatest threat. The skin is a pretty incredible barrier. Sure fungal infections can and do occur there, however, for most of us with even decent hygeine, it isn't the biggest threat.

So what is? Again, its the entire digestive tract. You have a continuous "hole" that goes from your mouth to your backside and the most crucial parts of your internal anatomy are separated from it by a membrane, a membrane that is so vital to your overall health that its scary. So after years of eating allergenic foods or taking antibiotics that disrupts your normal flora, and eating anti-nutrient filled foods, this barrier is degraded. Now we're in the territory of autoimmunity. We are bombarding the immune system unintentionally with millions of cells it does not recognize, and so in an effort to maintain stability it simply fills its gun with buckshot. So for me, the number one key to overall health, has really become maintaining the integrity of the barrier. And part of that is also insuring that foreign life that populates the inner parts of the digestive tract are beneficial and not harmful as well. We have to keep the environment of that long, continuous "hole" one that supports the barrier. If we keep the fence up and strong, both bacteria and man benefit mutually from the exchange. We allow the barrier to fail, both suffer as a result. It's like two neighbors who both get along much more comfortably when there's a fence between their homes.

you know, I think back and realize my hair loss started at age 13-14 after starting antibiotics in the forms of pills/creams for acne... Im not sure how related this is to where this conversation is headed because I still have to read the fine details of anthony and a>r's conversation. Just posting something to mull on while I read through..

As formulated the question in the OP is too general.

Alopecia Totalis has a different story than Androgenetic Alopecia.

I care primarily about androgenetic alopecia, so I will address that one.

Honestly, I still think the name of the disorder aptly explains the necessary and sufficient conditions for this disorder to occur. The effect of androgens to miniaturize the hair are all genomic effects. The big unknowns are thus genetic. That is how are the specific products of gene transcripts actually exerting their action to miniaturize the hair follicle. There are still some endocrinologic unknowns, for example with the effects of estrogen on hair.

Genetics, and the cellular biology of the hair follicle are the way forward. This approach was well elucidated in the paper in Science Translational Medicine on PGD2. More targeted antiandrogens would be nice, but antiandrogens only go so far. Great for prevention, but not long lasting in their effect, and avoiding their side effects are difficult even on topical applications. Antiandrogens could never to an appreciable degree an area that has been slick bald. Synergizing with treatments that remodel tissue and rebalance the biological response to androgens back to non pathological could still be a promising mode of treatment.

More remains to be discovered, such as what other genes are involved; what are their actual biological product; and what are their interactions that shorten growth phase, and shrink the hair; how does estrogen exert effects on the hair?

Estrogen can be very protective of hair, under the right circumstances. Systemic estrogen in a man will just take up more shbg causing what testosterone is left to aromatize to its other metabolites, like dht or other estrogens. Put directly on the scalp I believe there would be a beneficial effect, but based on the available data it would not be long lasted for us males. A good option for a woman with pcos though.

It's funny, as some users are really pushing this forum in a direction it's never been in before and really being clever, there like a whole subset of posts now that give me this nostalgic 2009 era IH feeling, the good ol' days haha, anybody remember misterE?

Yeah, I actually enjoyed reading his posts, but mostly just because of the line of total shit I knew was going to follow his original post. He got a lot of resistance, but it made for entertaining reads. And to be honest I think he had good intentions, he was just very firm in his beliefs, despite that some of his basic tennets were based on pretty flawed concepts. He would often recommend that we needed to lower SHBG in order to increase the level of excretion of the androgens. Unfortunately that's not exactly how it works, i.e. its not just a matter of knock it off SHBG and its no longer a problem. But I did appreciate a stance that was backed by something, even if I did think it was the wrong interpretation. And that avatar, haha.

LoT, a less than r and Anthony Spencer,

I always enjoy your posts. They are intelligent and very well thought out..
That being said, would each of you mind posting your top 3-5 actions/methods to at least halt and possibly reverse AA to whatever degree the individual has potential to. I'm sure I could go back through all of your guys' posts and get a good idea of what you all primarily target, but you guys have a lot of posts with a lot of info in almost every single one of them.

Just want to try and build a comprehensive consensus, for myself and the sake of this thread.

Thanks for the awesome posts thus far..

Baldness is caused by a genetic predisposition that makes the follicules on the top of your head sensitive to DHT, then they fall out.

Lol, thanks Fred.

That's very astute of you Fred.

I'm currently working on a thread that will give my current understanding of hair loss and it's related comorbidities, it's just very large and taking me a long time to do so. I hope that it will help everybody see how unified all of our theories are when looked at from one certain perspective as I will touch on sex hormones, genetics, bacteria, manual methods, women's loss, everything I can think of works under this "theory".

Upon saying that I will repeat what cs and rdkml have said numerous times.

All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridicule, followed by violent opposition, until finally it is accepted as being self evident.

Meanwhile people using all those methods and trusting those fancy theories still go bald.

Funny ... I have hardly lost any hair at all since 2009 ... must be a coincidence hey Fred?

How do you know you had AGA in the first place?

The same way you all did, the mirror and what's on your shoulders and comments from family.

I'm not as educated on the subject as most of you. I do believe DHT plays a role but I think DHT is like a calcium magnet and if theres excess calcium it goes to the androgen receptors ( in the scalp ) The buildup which piles up into the skin. Then there is no fatty tissue left which protects and nourishes the hair. The reason i come up with this because after observing some bald people they usually have bony rigid calcium deposits on their skin. I think it all goes back to calcification in the skull.

Thats my basic theory on why the androgenic alopecia occurs.

aFunny ... I have hardly lost any hair at all since 2009 ... must be a coincidence hey Fred?

A picture from 2009 and a picture right now, then I'll believe you.

For those who are unfamiliar with my experiences and personal experiments on myself, this is why I make multiple accounts, so people who want to learn from then have them there as every 800 posts old one start getting deleted.

And sure, gimme a bit to post them though, as I'm on my smartphone and really have only a vague ability to use it properly.

Pics will have to wait until tonight as my laptop is home and i have no idea how to take photos from facebook and put them on here with my phone, I'm on my way to a cousin's birthday then seeing life of pi and both have higher priority to me than proving anything to skeptics.

aFor those who are unfamiliar with my experiences and personal experiments on myself, this is why I make multiple accounts, so people who want to learn from then have them there as every 800 posts old one start getting deleted.

And sure, gimme a bit to post them though, as I'm on my smartphone and really have only a vague ability to use it properly.

You are aware that intrinsic to the concept of the smartphone - is maximum userfriendlyness? Regardless l also feel the same way with my smartphone, LOL ....

cpio wrote:

aFor those who are unfamiliar with my experiences and personal experiments on myself, this is why I make multiple accounts, so people who want to learn from then have them there as every 800 posts old one start getting deleted.

And sure, gimme a bit to post them though, as I'm on my smartphone and really have only a vague ability to use it properly.

You are aware that intrinsic to the concept of the smartphone - is maximum userfriendlyness? Regardless l also feel the same way with my smartphone, LOL ....

Hahaha, I was an HTC guy all the way and I could use that fairly well, but my raider got ran over a couple months ago when I fell out of a moving vehicle on the highway, which is something I was going to bring up, I tore the skin off of my arm and back and leg in big patches on one side of my body, when it healed little black terminal hairs sprouted out from the scarring and new skin, those hairs used to be like the body hair all over the rest of my body, just thin and tiny and invisible unless you had a magnifying glass. I noticed this around the Same time a girlfriend had surgery and the scar site sprouted very prominent hairs. Always was interested in the feedback loop that caused regenerative processes from basic biology and beckers work, but that's one of the things that made me interested in these new manual methods. I really underestimated how subtly you can instigate the process. I don't think they'll work for everybody on their own but I do think with the right combination of other things they'll only become more prominent. Off topic but wanted to mention those observations.