Frontal hair loss due to Testosterone, not DHT?

[MikeT]

Is hair loss on the temple region and forehead not caused by DHT but rather by Testosterone?

 

I ask this question due to many reasons. First, the DHT blockers we take are not "supposed" to regrow hair in these areas. If DHT were the cause of this hair loss in the frontal region, why wouldn't a DHT blocker work to stop/reduce hair loss the same way in the front as it stops/reduces in the crown area? Secondly, men who do not go bald on the top even through their 90s lose hair on the forehead and temples by their late teens or early 20s. Third, several people on DHT blockers observe hair loss in the forehead and temple regions although they grow hair on the top of their scalp, perhaps because the DHT blockers raise testosterone levels.

 

Finally, I have personally observed something similar. I was at Norwood category VI about 2 years ago, despite using saw palmetto for 7 years and minoxidil for 5 years. So starting early last year, I desperately tried a lot of medications. Finasteride helped restore a few hair in about 9 months, but the new hair were too few. While my scalp looked better than it did before finasteride, it was probably down from Norwood VI to V. Next, I began taking Spironolactone (while continuing Finasteride). I took it for 4 months, which grew hair in my forehead and temple region. I had more hair after 4 months on spironolactone than I had 12 years ago. I was quickly at Norwood category 2 or even at 1, although all of my new hair were thin and small. I had hundreds of thousands of hair, even in areas where I had a shiny bald scalp before taking sprionolactone! My baby hair hairline was the same as my hair line at age 14 or 15. I was very happy with my hair regrowth. However, spironolactone results in chemical castration. I was not ready for that. I was also having serious side-effects from spironolactone. I gradually reduced and then stopped spironolactone. All of my hundreds of thousands of baby hairs fell away, including those in my forehead and temple region. I started using minoxidil hoping it would hold on to the hair, but it was of no use. Note that I was still on finasteride, and it was of no use either. All the baby hair fell away while I waited for my sperm count to return to normal so I could bank sperm before trying my next medication - dutasteride. I finally stopped finasteride, banked sperm, then started taking dutasteride. When I started dutasteride, I was at Norwood V. In 4 months on dutasteride, I am at Norwood III Vertex. However, no baby hairs in my forehead or temple region. Dutasteride increases testosterone. If forehead and temple hair are sensitive to only DHT, they would have shown at least some improvement, the way I saw with spironolactone. I have begun to believe that it is testosterone, not DHT, that is responsible for frontal hair loss. Spironolactone had restored (sort of) my frontal hair that were gone for 12 years! Finasteride and dutasteride are unable to do the same.

 

Anyone have similar experiences or results? How about the opposite? Or do you have an explanation that invalidates my observations by thinking about the evidence from a different perspective? Maybe I am missing a logic somewhere.

[Bill - Seemiller]

MikeT,

 

Do you have a scientific basis to suggest testosterone in itself causes genetic hair loss? Ultimately, DHT is produced by the conjunction of Testosterone with 5-alpha-reductase enzymes.

 

Ultimately, no non-surgical hair loss treatment is proven to regrow hair in completely bald areas. However, sometimes miniaturizing hairs can be reversed with medical treatment all over the scalp, even in the temple regions.

 

Maybe one day us baldies will be blessed by the release of a cure. Until then, all we can do is hope the available non-surgical treatments can help us save as much hair as possible and consider surgical hair restoration when appropriate.

 

All the Best,

 

Bill

[swim]

Originally posted by MikeT:

Or do you have an explanation that invalidates my observations by thinking about the evidence from a different perspective? Maybe I am missing a logic somewhere.

 

You have proposed explanation for a phenomenon. Provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated. If and when that happens, and you prove, make plain or clear (by how, by what mechanism),then you have something you can call evidence.

It is not about thinking about the evidence from a different perspective. It is about that you don't have evidence. That is what is missing. You can arrive at wrong conclusion, even if it is logical, if the premise is wrong.

You need evidence that the premise is true.

 

But ,did you know that Spironolactone should be used only in those conditions described under INDICATIONS AND USAGE. It is a prescription drug with severe adverse reactions. It is not and never was intended for use to combat baldness. Unnecessary use of this drug should be avoided.

[MikeT]

Originally posted by Bill - Associate Publisher:

 

Do you have a scientific basis to suggest testosterone in itself causes genetic hair loss?

 

 

 

Funny. I presented some observations I made. I was not expecting someone to get so upset as to post challenges. If you do not have something nice to say, it is usually better not to say anything.

 

You and I are not medical professionals, but we all make observations. I am only one lay person who made the observations. You can follow scientific methods of experimentation on a sufficiently large sample and then come up with scientific evidence. You are challenging a single human being, in the same boat as you are, trying to get some hair.

 

So, my question still stands. Is frontal hair loss due to testosterone alone or due to the DHT that is formed from the conversion of testosterone?

 

I am proposing the hypothesis that it could be the former - due to testosterone alone. I do not have the resources to test this hypothesis on the general population, but it appears to be true in my individual case. Hence I posted to a community in which some people may have the resources to test it out. And if someone has already proven using scientific methods that this hypothesis is incorrect, please point me to the peer reviewed research paper. I hope you understand the context of my question now.

 

Thanks so much!

 

 

 

Originally posted by Bill - Associate Publisher:

 

Ultimately, no non-surgical hair loss treatment is proven to regrow hair in completely bald areas. However, sometimes miniaturizing hairs can be reversed with medical treatment all over the scalp, even in the temple regions.

 

 

 

All absolutes are dangerous, including this one.

 

The non-surgical methods tried so far have neither blocked testosterone completely at the hair follicles, nor have they prevented completely the conversion of testosterone to DHT. I agree that we have not been able to find a non-surgical method yet. And yes, it is adventurous to try new methods and it is easier to just accept whatever works so far and stick with it. However, I believe we, as human beings, have the innate ability to explore and that makes us who we are today, instead of remaining as hairy apes sitting on trees in some forest in Africa munching on fruits. So try to be kind to people who propose new hypotheses. Some new hypotheses will be wrong, but dismissing new ideas based on your own limited knowledge about the world is not healthy for us as a species. Best wishes to you!

 

 

Originally posted by swim:

 

But ,did you know that Spironolactone should be used only in those conditions described under INDICATIONS AND USAGE. It is a prescription drug with severe adverse reactions. It is not and never was intended for use to combat baldness. Unnecessary use of this drug should be avoided.

 

Yes, please do not try to be my doctor. I am well aware of the consequences of using spironolactone. I was under medical supervision when I took the medication for a specific purpose. I do not need you to become my doctor.

 

Also, the medicine I am taking now, dutasteride, has helped me grow hair even more since my last posting. What was once a bald crown is now full of hair and I am at Norwood II now. All the hair I had shed initially on dutasteride are growing back, now that I am in my 5th month on it. I am very happy with its effects. Dutasteride is not "intended" to combat baldness, but it works, without any side effects in my particular case. Similarly, spironolactone works too, in my particular case. The primary issue I had with spironolactone was due to its diuretic effects and my busy schedule. I was unable to drink enough fluids due to my excessively busy work schedule. The risk of dehydration, along with the reproductive concern, made me stop it.

 

Every medication must be taken with proper supervision. Just because a medicine is "intended" for a particular purpose, it does not make the medication safe, for you. The latest HPV vaccine recently caused the sudden death of a girl in my neighborhood due to vaccine complications. The vaccine was both intended to cure HPV and supposedly safe. And just because a medicine is not intended for a particular purpose, it does not make it unsafe for you. If you believe in that logic, stop using Minoxidil and Propecia/finasteride. Those drugs were not intended to stop hair loss. Every medication is suspect, and must be taken only after considering your genetics, lifestyle, health, etc and your situation must be monitored. So, yes, I understand the point. That was a digression from the topic here.

 

Please stay on topic.

 

If you have found research that definitively proves or disproves that testosterone alone can or cannot cause frontal hair loss, please point that out to me. I am looking for answers, not arguments or debates or personal attacks here. Please, decent responses only.

 

Thank you!

[Bill - Seemiller]

Funny. I presented some observations I made. I was not expecting someone to get so upset as to post challenges. If you do not have something nice to say, it is usually better not to say anything.

 

Excuse me Mike, but I just asked a simple question. Since there was nothing in my words that could possibly indicate a negative or condescending tone, I can only assume you are highly oversensitive. God forbid anyone actually criticize your hypothesis let along ask you a simple quesion like I did.

 

Frankly, I'm dumbfounded how you can say asking if you have scientific evidence was deragoatry and then ask others to site clinical evidence they've found. What's up with that?

 

That said, your hypothesis is interesting, but I disagree. When genetics gives DHT the green light, it binds to hair follicles genetically susceptible and begins to kill it. This typically happens to hair in the crown, top, front, and temples.

 

All absolutes are dangerous, including this one.

 

If you disagree with my statement that "no non-surgical hair loss treatment is proven (key word) to regrow hair in completel bald areas", then prove me wrong instead of saying it's a dangerous statement. Your next statement that "I agree that we have not been able to find a non-surgical method yet" deceives you.

 

I suggest reading my statements correctly before telling me they're dangerous

 

Mike, I can see by your response to me and swim that you are highly argumentative. Demanding that swim who's tried to give you helpful information not try to be your doctor and telling me not to say something if I don't have something nice to say is inappropriate.

 

Now, since you've attempted to play the moderator by posing rules and making commands, not to mention signs of condescension, here's one for you:

 

Change your tone quickly, or find another forum to post on.

 

Sincerely,

 

The Actual Moderator

[swim]

I do not have the resources to test this hypothesis on the general population, but it appears to be true in my individual case. Hence I posted to a community in which some people may have the resources to test it out. And if someone has already proven using scientific methods that this hypothesis is incorrect, please point me to the peer reviewed research paper. I hope you understand the context of my question now.

 

I do.

 

 

Decent response

 

My only sorrow Mike T

Is that I am able to see

When spider spins a web to catch a fly

 

For why?

 

All your wants were well supplied

When we replied.

 

But if you are still hungry, for fame

Come back when you can explain the same

Bring the evidence in the game

And I will feed your burning flame

 

I am really happy, I swear

For you grew new hair.

But in a decent response, that you sought

I say, you need to bring more than you brought.

[spin266]

we donnt need guys on this site like mike t. all of us have suffered to some degree some more than others. Bill always has our best interests when he posts and replies. that was an unproveked attack.

[Mop]

When someone posts like this after 2 posts you think either they dont know how the forum runs or they are a disgruntled former poster with a new alias out to settle a few scores !

[Severn]

Dutasteride increases testosterone. If forehead and temple hair are sensitive to only DHT, they would have shown at least some improvement, the way I saw with spironolactone. I have begun to believe that it is testosterone, not DHT, that is responsible for frontal hair loss.

 

Actually, this very subject was touched upon years ago on a different forum pertaining to the early results of Dutasteride. Many people had noted that even though their crown hairs were being restored by the dutasteride, their hairlines were being wrecked. I believe B Spot mentioned patients saying duta is hell on the hairline for some of them.

 

I think it was around 2003 or so, a lot were speculating that the frontal hair might be more suceptible to scalp testosterone instead of DHT because of the results of duta.

 

And yes, I did try duta, but it was knocking ALL my hair out over my entire body, not just my head. It scared me enough were I didn't stick with it. It had a very long life and took a long time to get out of my system. I continued a massive shed for another two months after I stopped before my hair slowly started to return. I wouldn't touch duta again.

[Old Baldy]

Mike: This is nothing new.

 

For many, many years testosterone has been suspected of contributing a little bit to MPB.