Why Have Men Been Losing More Hair for Decades?

[wprevil]

When enjoying looking at old photos and movies of people from the 20s and 30s I noticed the men during that period had full thick heads of hair. From an article published years ago upon the subject of hair loss, it compares the histories of men losing hair for decades as the newer generations of men possess less hair density than prior generations. This article was written years ago and I couldn't remember the reasons for this phenomenon given our scientific breakthroughs regarding our greater understanding of hair loss, not to mention the meds developed to combat against it.

I wish I lived back then with a full of head of hair when times were less chaotic than they are now. Would someone explain why men have been losing more and more hair for decades with each passing generation? It's getting worse. Is it stress? Economics? Medications/drugs? Do let me know.

Edited December 31, 2023 by wprevil

[hairman22]

Populations have grown so more expression of the baldness gene

[HappyMan2021]

I don't believe this to true

14 hours ago, wprevil said:

when times were less chaotic than they are now

???

[wprevil]

10 hours ago, HappyMan2021 said:

I don't believe this to true

???

 

18th century and much of the 20th except for after the 1950s

[wprevil]

22 hours ago, hairman22 said:

Populations have grown so more expression of the baldness gene

That doesnt cut it. NYC for example has hardly had unchanged population since the 1930s.

Edited January 1 by wprevil

[hairman4321]

On 12/31/2023 at 1:41 PM, wprevil said:

When enjoying looking at old photos and movies of people from the 20s and 30s I noticed the men during that period had full thick heads of hair. From an article published years ago upon the subject of hair loss, it compares the histories of men losing hair for decades as the newer generations of men possess less hair density than prior generations. This article was written years ago and I couldn't remember the reasons for this phenomenon given our scientific breakthroughs regarding our greater understanding of hair loss, not to mention the meds developed to combat against it.

I wish I lived back then with a full of head of hair when times were less chaotic than they are now. Would someone explain why men have been losing more and more hair for decades with each passing generation? It's getting worse. Is it stress? Economics? Medications/drugs? Do let me know.

honestly i think back then times were a lot tougher. maybe it was survival of the fittest, the stronger genes were passed on. for a long time we've been weak and the weakness has been allowed to thrive and pass imperfect genes on. it seems in general we've got a lot more disease and illness too. possibly from more toxins and pollution etc - or you could argue that we're just better at diagnosing now. but then you could argue we're over medicated because of that.

another argument is that we're having babies way too late in life - having babies in our 30's is known to be worse for their health, waaay more health problems and likelyhood of developmental issues, autism, etc. Back then they were pumping out kids in their teenage years or early 20s at most, when people were in peak health. Not sure about everyone else but now its an affordability issue to be able to have kids at all, let alone when you're 35. If you have them at 20 without rich parents you've basically signed a contract that you might be struggling for money most if not all of your life.

when it comes down to it this is such a complex topic and no one knows why, its all conjecture

Edited January 1 by hairman4321

[Gatsby]

I’m the 20’s and 30’s more people wore short hair and hats. I think it would be difficult to spot pick hair/hair loss just by looking at old photos and movies. 

[Joseph James]

4 hours ago, hairman4321 said:

honestly i think back then times were a lot tougher. maybe it was survival of the fittest, the stronger genes were passed on. for a long time we've been weak and the weakness has been allowed to thrive and pass imperfect genes on. it seems in general we've got a lot more disease and illness too. possibly from more toxins and pollution etc - or you could argue that we're just better at diagnosing now. but then you could argue we're over medicated because of that.

another argument is that we're having babies way too late in life - having babies in our 30's is known to be worse for their health, waaay more health problems and likelyhood of developmental issues, autism, etc. Back then they were pumping out kids in their teenage years or early 20s at most, when people were in peak health. Not sure about everyone else but now its an affordability issue to be able to have kids at all, let alone when you're 35. If you have them at 20 without rich parents you've basically signed a contract that you might be struggling for money most if not all of your life.

when it comes down to it this is such a complex topic and no one knows why, its all conjecture

My parents were both 19 when I was born. I still have MPB.

[hairman4321]

58 minutes ago, Joseph James said:

My parents were both 19 when I was born. I still have MPB.

it would be more complex than a one-off situation for one person. we're talking general population with generational damage, have you heard of Pottenger's cats?
but also combined with genetic susceptibility.

[Joseph James]

17 minutes ago, hairman4321 said:

it would be more complex than a one-off situation for one person. we're talking general population with generational damage, have you heard of Pottenger's cats?
but also combined with genetic susceptibility.

Yeah, I don't know if the parent's age is a contributing factor or not for other people, but it wasn't for me. 

[wprevil]

18 hours ago, hairman4321 said:

honestly i think back then times were a lot tougher. maybe it was survival of the fittest, the stronger genes were passed on. for a long time we've been weak and the weakness has been allowed to thrive and pass imperfect genes on. it seems in general we've got a lot more disease and illness too. possibly from more toxins and pollution etc - or you could argue that we're just better at diagnosing now. but then you could argue we're over medicated because of that.

Actually the opposite is true. People experienced less tough environment decades ago than today as life was easier and less stressful.

Edited January 2 by wprevil

[wprevil]

12 hours ago, hairman4321 said:

it would be more complex than a one-off situation for one person. we're talking general population with generational damage, have you heard of Pottenger's cats?
but also combined with genetic susceptibility.

It would be a perfect world to consume raw meats and raw milk a la Pottenger's cats but that presents a double edge sword few would be willing to accept for the risk. The obvious problem with raw food is germs and bacteria that heating food and food preservatives were introduced to combat against to prevent disease. Unfortunately, introducing these tools into our food supply gives unhealthy side effects which gets us back to where we started from which is unhealthiness and death. Its a pernicious revolving door of natural vs preventative. You just can't win.

[hairman4321]

4 hours ago, wprevil said:

Actually the opposite is true. People experienced less tough environment decades ago than today as life was easier and less stressful.

thats interesting, but i think you could make an argument either way. maybe back then there were more acute stressors: wars, famine, diseases, less medical knowledge (also depending how far back you go). but maybe today there are more chronic stressors - toxins, radiation, pollution, less nutrient dense food

Edited January 2 by hairman4321

[hairman4321]

4 hours ago, wprevil said:

It would be a perfect world to consume raw meats and raw milk a la Pottenger's cats but that presents a double edge sword few would be willing to accept for the risk. The obvious problem with raw food is germs and bacteria that heating food and food preservatives were introduced to combat against to prevent disease. Unfortunately, introducing these tools into our food supply gives unhealthy side effects which gets us back to where we started from which is unhealthiness and death. Its a pernicious revolving door of natural vs preventative. You just can't win.

well, i don't mean directly eating what Pottengers cats did (if thats what you mean by raw meat and raw milk), but a more natural human diet i.e. no artificial sugar, no fast food, no processed food, only nutrient rich food suitable for humans. but our culture isn't wired in a way we can do this 100% of the time and requiring willpower for it is a resource depleted by other things. and mostly we're just born into a world with already degraded health because our parents and their parents were subject to stress and imperfect diets (and late pregnancies and whatever else can give us more health problems).

i think this is one of these holes you can just keep peering into and theres no real answer. its a bit of a whatever. all we can do is try to enjoy our lives and try to make it better / not damage if further for future generations

[Vann]

There are different variations to how people adapt to MPB. Some are aggressive some have it light.

Sorta how obesity can work...If you look at different ways people adjust to being overweight by different groups across the globe you see how it changes. Either lifestyle or genetics, play a major part in how you adapt. EX: obesity in the US there are multiple people/groups that are affected differently even though they are the same size/weight/etc. as opposed to someone in EU. 

After 8+ Billion people there's going to be a majority that have similar loss and some that do not. It just feels worse because there are that many more people as opposed to 60% less in the past.

I did hear that there are hormonal imbalances that are happening in different parts of the US from the last 30+ years from thing like birth control and other otc meds that are leeched into the water system. Not sure if it plays anything significant but it wouldn't surprise me if our food affected by something similar as well. 

[Al - Moderator]

Some US presidents before 1900. It looks like there was a lot of hairloss to me. Is it really much different now?

[Al - Moderator]

Attempting to cure hair loss goes all the way back to at least 1550 BC. This is from https://www.history.com/news/9-bizarre-baldness-cures

 

1. Ancient Egyptian Remedies

The Ebers Papyrus, a medical text that dates back to 1550 B.C., offers a number of recommended cures for ancient Egyptians suffering from hair loss. Suggestions include a mixture of fats from a hippopotamus, crocodile, tomcat, snake and ibex; porcupine hair boiled in water and applied to the scalp for four days; and the leg of a female greyhound sautéed in oil with the hoof of a donkey. Apparently concerned with maintaining adequate hirsuteness, both male and female royals in ancient Egypt were known to wear wigs and fake beards.

 

2. Hippocratic Growth

The ancient Greek physician Hippocrates, who was born around 460 B.C. and is often referred to as the father of Western medicine, personally grappled with male pattern baldness. He prescribed himself and fellow chrome domes a topical concoction of opium, horseradish, pigeon droppings, beetroot and spices. It didn’t stop anyone’s hairline from receding. Hippocrates also conceived of a radical treatment for hair loss after noticing that eunuchs never went thin on top. Though it is unlikely that men began opting for castration over a bald spot, in 1995 researchers at Duke University confirmed that the procedure could indeed prevent hair loss.

 

3. Combovers and Laurel Wreaths

When Julius Caesar began losing his hair, he tried everything to reverse the curse and hide his shiny pate. First, he grew his thinning mane long in the back and brushed it over his scalp in an early version of the combover. When that didn’t work (hairspray had yet to be invented, after all), his lover Cleopatra recommended a home remedy consisting of ground-up mice, horse teeth and bear grease. This too had little effect, so the Roman dictator took to covering his scalp with a laurel wreath.

 

4. Toupees

Popular in ancient times, hairpieces were revived in the 17th century by royals such as King Louis XIII of France, who donned a toupee to mask his balding scalp. Massive wigs, often featuring elaborate curls and peppered with white powder, became all the rage among French and English nobles. Wealthy American colonists adopted the accessory as a status symbol until the American Revolution, which put a damper on monarchy-inspired fashions.

 

5. Snake Oil

In the United States, the 19th century witnessed the emergence of so-called “snake oil” salesmen—essentially, swindlers masquerading as doctors and peddling phony potions that promised to treat all that ails you. Some of these tonics were supposedly formulated to reverse hair loss, including an ointment called Seven Sutherland Sisters’ Hair Grower, inspired and marketed by a family of sideshow performers with cascading tresses.

 

6. Tea

Who wouldn’t want a baldness cure that can double as a refreshing beverage? In 19th-century England, people stricken with thinning hair would rub “cold India tea” and hunks of lemon into their scalps. Not surprisingly, the results were underwhelming.

 

7. Hot Heads

In the 20th century, manufacturers scrambled to develop high-tech solutions for one of the most prevalent cosmetic issues on the planet. One notable example is the Thermocap device, unveiled by the Allied Merke Institute in the 1920s. Men and women with thinning locks and busy schedules simply had to spend 15 minutes a day under the bonnet-like gadget’s heat and blue light, which supposedly stimulated dormant hair bulbs. “Has a Remedy for Baldness Been Discovered at Last?” screamed the headline of a 1923 Popular Mechanics advertorial. The answer, sadly, was probably not.

 

8. Vacuum Power

The Crosley Corporation, a radio and automobile manufacturer, ventured into the personal care market with its 1936 introduction of the Xervac, a machine that purportedly used suction to spur hair growth. Advertisements for the system, which could be rented for home use or found in barbershops, encouraged businessmen to kick back and relax with a cigarette and newspaper as the helmet-encased vacuum pump worked its magic on their follicles.

 

9. Hair Transplants

In 1939, a Japanese dermatologist pioneered a procedure for grafting hair from the scalp, eyebrows, face and other parts of the body onto bald spots. Two decades later, the New York doctor Norman Orentreich popularized hair transplants, which for many years resulted in scalps reminiscent of doll’s heads. This treatment for male pattern baldness is alive and well to this day, but with more natural results.