Game Changer Or Hype?

[Spurs]

I recently read Danny Roddy's 'Hair Like A Fox'.

The book promises to be a game-changer for hair-loss sufferers. In the video below he challenges basic presuppositions about hair-loss and outlines and his own 'bioenergetic' solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVq9XD0Ydzo

Fact or fallacy, hype or game changer I'm undecided. FYI, I have no affiliation to Roddy and ample criticisms (I may outline these later) ...

... However I do believe he's made a valuable contribution to the cause.

[Jazz1]

Hype, interesting video but us Men have genetic hairloss regardless of environment, my brother uses steroids for bodybuilding eats what he likes and lives in the same environment as me. I do not use steroids, I eat more healthy yet I suffer MPB from my mums side, where as my brother has my dads gene and is an NW0 thick bush head!

So my conclusion, yes Genetic make up is the main cause, I also believe environment, food and other factors can play a role in AGA but is not the main cause!

[Delphi]

Complete hype, bordering on propoganda. MPB is genetic and throwing in the Propecia propaganda, while compelling to people who don’t understand the facts is just used to try to strengthen his bro-science argument.

[mlamber5]

Definitely hype. It is certainly genetic. My dad was NW 7 at 21, my grandpa was NW 7 by 40, and I am NW 4 at 26. My dads brother and all his 1st cousins on my dads side all have no worse than NW 1 and are all in their mid 50's.

[Spurs]

Complete hype, bordering on propoganda. MPB is genetic and throwing in the Propecia propaganda, while compelling to people who don’t understand the facts is just used to try to strengthen his bro-science argument.

Agreed ^.

I think he overstates the side-effects of Propecia as leverage to promote his own solution. Bro-Science though? The jury's out.

[mlamber5]

I also think the importance of propecia is overstated. Only 5% of testosterone undergoes 5a-reductase conversion to dihydrotestosterone. DHT is 2/3 times more powerful at the androgen receptor than testosterone. So inhibiting 5a-reductase activity only stops the smaller amount of the more potent DHT from acting on the AGA predisposed androgen receptors. And propecia only stops like 70% of conversion to DHT. They will still bind with testosterone, and the remaining smaller amount of DHT. I was on propecia from 17-20 and i did notice it slow down my hair loss but, it only slowed the rate of loss down, not stopped it completely. I was still losing.

[mlamber5]

Also, i really didn't have any bad side effects on it. But some people may.

[Spurs]

My opening criticism of Roddy may have been unfair. According to reports more than 700 Propecia Lawsuits are awaiting pre-trial hearings:

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com...l#.VRGFW_mUeSo

Central to Roddy's 'Male Pattern Baldness Myth' is the Androgen Paradox. For those who haven't watched the full video, I'll summarize here:

> Baldness is believed to be 'androgen dependent'. Why do men with falling androgens still observe hair-loss?

> Androgens stimulate beard-growth after puberty. Why then do these same androgens stimulate hair-loss?

> This brings us to the androgen-receptor. It's theorized that men with genetically susceptible androgen receptors experience hair-loss.

If the genetic theory is true, why did 1 study find Vitamin A reduced androgen receptors by 30-40%?
Why did a 2010 study comparing 18-30 year old men with AGA find a decrease in receptors among older participants?

You can find Roddy's review of the Androgen Paradox here -- https://youtu.be/mVq9XD0Ydzo?t=18m16s

It may be that Roddy has carefully cherry-picked studies to support his own view. This is Bro-Science 101.

It may also be that Roddy has provoked a debate that needs to be had in the community.

[Artista]

I feel that CNN's Don Lemon probably uses something like DermMatch on his scalp--LOL.

I wonder if Don Lemon is the one who WANTED to start that hairloss/treatment discussion on CNN.

Don? Are you here? hehe

[Spurs]

^ I wouldn't be surprised

When I began this thread I was hoping a sage would crush Roddy's audacious hypothesis. I've yet to see that.

The criticisms that have arisen state hair-loss is primarily genetic. Roddy believes hair-loss is 'epigenetic'. In other words the expression of genes based on environmental factors.

While I have a handful of concerns about Roddy's program -- inc. his stance on saturated fats -- I may test-drive it. If successful, I'll update this thread.