The rockstar/hobo diet

[Vox]

I believe the key is in the eating pattern.

When they have studied Okinawans (the most long lived population on earth) they found that their calorie intake was about 80 percent of an average person. Asian people in general tend to eat less than westerners and they have very little baldness there.

I find it very difficult to accept that eating patterns can make such a difference in the time span of a human's life. What we are today is very closely related to the eating habits of our ancestors for thousands of years, and at such time scales it is quite possible that diet plays an important role in the development of certain genetic traits. But over some years only? I don't think so.

In fact, I am the living counter-example of your theory. As a rule I eat less than a man of my age (46+). I remember being like that since the time of my puberty, 30 years ago more or less. I don't know why, I guess I am built like that. The consequence (I suppose of this diet pattern?) is to keep even at this age the body form and structure that I had as a young adult, around 18-20. Nothing changed since that time, shirts and trousers still fit me (I found some, forgotten in my parents' house, and I tried them). Nothing, but one: I went bald early in my life ; hair loss starting at teen age and NW7 pattern around or before 30. Still, when I wear today a hat, many people are confused and think that I am a young man around 25 because of my slender physique (also no wrinkles or saggy face either). This is what I was told at least. I wish I could keep my hair but the diet did not help to the least. Of course it did other good which I cannot ignore.

On the other hand, many overweight, even obese, people that I know around my age or older, have most of their hair. So, according to my personal anecdotal observation, it goes the other way around: fat seems to help keeping healthy hair. Of course I do not support this position, it is simply the feeling from what I see around me without keeping any precise statistics. I believe that AGA is mostly a genetic trait, perhaps related to diet but through an obscure chain of ancestors over many generations.

[burtandernie]

If MPB were remotely related to diet though what about all the men in prisons for life eating garbage everyday for their whole lives? Prisons have been around for a long time and the MPB patterns are the same as general population. Also diets have evolved and changed for thousand of years and MPB has been right there through it all. MPB is just as prevalent today as it was hundreds of years ago nothing has really changed. All the athletes, nutritionists, and the like are all bald like anyone else. Really hard for me to buy into diet as any kind of factor with the huge amount of real world evidence that seems to contradict that.
Androgens and genetics for lack of better understanding although future treatments are already bringing many new factors into the picture like wnt pathway, pgd2, and so on.

[Velvetmonkey]

If MPB were remotely related to diet though what about all the men in prisons for life eating garbage everyday for their whole lives? Prisons have been around for a long time and the MPB patterns are the same as general population.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not talking about WHAT people eat (even though what you eat most certainly affects your health too), I'm talking about the FREQUENCY of meals. I'm not sure what the baldness situation is like for the inmate population but I can't think of any group of people that eat more regularly than prisoners. Intermitten fasting means you DON'T eat regularly. So your point is invalid.

Also diets have evolved and changed for thousand of years and MPB has been right there through it all. MPB is just as prevalent today as it was hundreds of years ago nothing has really changed.

This is not true.

“The statistics indicate that the average age that a man starts to experience hair loss is declining and the number of those affected are growing,” Leonora said.

From looking at 10 000 men.

http://www.belgraviacentre.com/blog/hair-loss-more-common-in-young-men-than-ever-079/#sthash.irpjTBHI.dpuf

Secondly, you have no id

Really hard for me to buy into diet as any kind of factor with the huge amount of real world evidence that seems to contradict that.

How many people nowadays follow an intermitten fasting protocol? Not many. All the people you see around you are eating on regular basis I assume. So I don't see how you can dismiss this idea from lack of "real world evidence" when practically no one that you observe is following this eating pattern.

There are how ever two groups of people that "real world evidence" indicate have a better protection against hair loss. Hobos and rockstars. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this. There are many threads about this online, several people in this thread have observed the same thing, and as some one mentioned; the notion that hobos have great hair has even found it's way into popular culture now.

The one thing these two groups have in common with each other, the one thing they have in common with our hunter gatherer forefathers too, is meal skipping.

[Velvetmonkey]

If MPB were remotely related to diet though what about all the men in prisons for life eating garbage everyday for their whole lives? Prisons have been around for a long time and the MPB patterns are the same as general population.

I think you misunderstood. I'm not talking about WHAT people eat (even though what you eat most certainly affects your health too), I'm talking about the FREQUENCY of meals. I'm not sure what the baldness situation is like for the inmate population but I can't think of any group of people that eat more regularly than prisoners. Intermitten fasting means you DON'T eat regularly. So your point is invalid.

Also diets have evolved and changed for thousand of years and MPB has been right there through it all. MPB is just as prevalent today as it was hundreds of years ago nothing has really changed.

This is not true.

“The statistics indicate that the average age that a man starts to experience hair loss is declining and the number of those affected are growing,” Leonora said.

From looking at 10 000 men.

I can't link to the survey but google the quote if you want to read it.

Really hard for me to buy into diet as any kind of factor with the huge amount of real world evidence that seems to contradict that.

How many people nowadays follow an intermitten fasting protocol? Not many. All the people you see around you are eating on regular basis I assume. So I don't see how you can dismiss this idea from lack of "real world evidence" when practically no one that you observe is following this eating pattern.

There are how ever two groups of people that "real world evidence" indicate have a better protection against hair loss. Hobos and rockstars. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence for this. There are many threads about this online, several people in this thread have observed the same thing, and as some one mentioned; the notion that hobos have great hair has even found it's way into popular culture now.

The one thing these two groups have in common with each other, the one thing they have in common with our hunter gatherer forefathers too, is meal skipping.

[enigma23]

Prostaglandins have been tied to nutrition in thousands of studies. Although, most that I know about deal with nutritional composition and volume, instead of nutritional frequency. It would not surprise me in the least that nutrition plays -one- part in this very complex, and long-lived, chain of events, as there have been numerous studies looking at intermittent fasting which has a beneficial effect on a whole host of biological markers in humans (the longevity results haven't been tested in humans though, so the life-extending effects should be taken with a grain of salt until then).

Remember everyone, genes are not a predestined outcome, or (for all those wailing and gnashing their teeth) a death sentence; genes merely are the genetic programming that happens in -response- to the environment (internal and external). Recently there have been studies conducted on long-term smokers that have not gotten lung cancer to try to determine what differences exist in their genes, because the carcinogenic input is still the same. Now yes, you share 50% of your genetic code with each parent, (and smaller fractions on up the tree). However, if your environment (external and internal, which includes the nutrients you consume) is different, then your genes -could- be expressed differently. In the case of MPB it could mean progressing faster or slower.

[enigma23]

Additionally, I've been lurking on here and other related sites for a while, and the diet angle has been brought up numerous times. Sadly, there is always a vocal minority that is quick to say "I ate well, or so and so ate well" without ever defining "well". Before you dismiss this idea, ask yourself this, have you, or the person you're referencing, actually controlled their diet for the 6mo to 1yr time frame that many say it will take to see noticeable results? No? Then shut up.

I know of no nutritional studies that included X number of groups (with sufficient sample size) on X number of diets (with a control group as well), looking for hair loss/quality effects, especially those predisposed to MPB. None. So I think it is naive to dismiss this.

[doinmyheadin]

5 pages really! Common this isnt even cutting edge.

[Trouse5858]

Additionally, I've been lurking on here and other related sites for a while, and the diet angle has been brought up numerous times. Sadly, there is always a vocal minority that is quick to say "I ate well, or so and so ate well" without ever defining "well". Before you dismiss this idea, ask yourself this, have you, or the person you're referencing, actually controlled their diet for the 6mo to 1yr time frame that many say it will take to see noticeable results? No? Then shut up.

I know of no nutritional studies that included X number of groups (with sufficient sample size) on X number of diets (with a control group as well), looking for hair loss/quality effects, especially those predisposed to MPB. None. So I think it is naive to dismiss this.

No, naïve would be thinking that it's even within an average persons means to consume higher quality foods over longer periods of time than multi-millionaire athletes who've spent the better part of their adult lives working on customized meal plans with trained chefs and nutritionists. Not only do these people have far more time and virtually limitless funds to aid this endeavor, it's literally part of their professional livelihoods to be in the best shape possible, and even amateur weight lifters know the importance of proper long term diet and nutrition.

Go look around the NBA or the NFL. Watch the summer Olympic Games, or male ballerinas, or professional strength and fitness coaches. Check out some of the very most accomplished people in these fields and what do you find? Bald heads throughout. I'm not saying that food consumption plays 'no role' in MPB, but theres no evidence that stricter dieting has any correlation to healthier hair or can provide preventative measures. I'm not overly concerned with the lack of an official study telling me as much..

[bigentries]

Even athletes have unhealthy lives. Usain Bolt is known for disregarding specific diets, most elite footballers in Europe party like crazy on the weekends

And you know what? Most of their greatness comes from their genetics. There are guys out there that follow strict diets, train with the most "effective" routines, take PEDs, and still can't ever reach the elite level because they lacked the genetics to do so

Same with baldness, if you were destined to lose your hair, it's going to happen unless you take a drastic "unnatural" approach, like using fin

[burtandernie]

Prostaglandins have been tied to nutrition in thousands of studies. Although, most that I know about deal with nutritional composition and volume, instead of nutritional frequency. It would not surprise me in the least that nutrition plays -one- part in this very complex, and long-lived, chain of events, as there have been numerous studies looking at intermittent fasting which has a beneficial effect on a whole host of biological markers in humans (the longevity results haven't been tested in humans though, so the life-extending effects should be taken with a grain of salt until then).

Remember everyone, genes are not a predestined outcome, or (for all those wailing and gnashing their teeth) a death sentence; genes merely are the genetic programming that happens in -response- to the environment (internal and external). Recently there have been studies conducted on long-term smokers that have not gotten lung cancer to try to determine what differences exist in their genes, because the carcinogenic input is still the same. Now yes, you share 50% of your genetic code with each parent, (and smaller fractions on up the tree). However, if your environment (external and internal, which includes the nutrients you consume) is different, then your genes -could- be expressed differently. In the case of MPB it could mean progressing faster or slower.

You dont really know this for sure though. Yes we know environment plays some role in say lung cancer, but you cant automatically carry that result over to MPB. If it does apply at all you have no idea what percent genetics contributes to MPB verses say lung cancer it might be significantly more. Its all guessing really.
Yes I agree plenty of real world examples like NBA or whatever with same MPB as everywhere else. Also prisons have regulated diets for many decades and some men never bald much which seems odd if diet controlled it and their hair was genetically susceptible.
Yeah this isnt cutting edge. This debate has been done to death really and no one ever changes their minds. I would still use the big 3 verses eating more spinach each day if I was rapidly balding.

[enigma23]

Yes we know environment plays some role in say lung cancer, but you cant automatically carry that result over to MPB.

No, genes, by definition, are programmed responses to environmental cues. These cues can be intracellular, or extracellular, or due to influences outside the body entirely, but they are in response to something. Your entire body is just a computer of sorts, it doesn't do anything that it wasn't "programmed" to do, and isn't responding to (accurately, such as the pancreas secreting insulin in response to the detection of carbohydrates in preparation to store the excess glucose, or inaccurately, such as a whole host of systems that go fubar in response to all of the xenoestrogens in the environment today).

The problem with diets though is there is (not yet) one "true" diet. Mainly because no organization has enough money to hold a statistically large group of humans up in a hospital with controlled eating for 40 years. Most food/nutrition science/papers are based on food surveys that rely on memory (which is shit) and look backwards for the current health conditions. This is mostly useless, as it can't separate cause and effect. It might be that spinach, although otherwise considered "healthy", could be a net loss for hair. We don't know, because no one's tried to separate that variable.

[enigma23]

Go look around the NBA or the NFL. Watch the summer Olympic Games, or male ballerinas, or professional strength and fitness coaches. Check out some of the very most accomplished people in these fields and what do you find? Bald heads throughout.

I'm sure we've all see the spreads that some of these athletes have to eat in order to meet the calorie requirements. I'm sorry, but the food is -not- always (or even regularly) healthy. The one common thread is that they are mostly young, when the body is quicker at repairing itself from abuse (such as a piss diet). And yes, their particular genetics may enable them to get away with this for longer in order to fuel their professional career, but it will give up from abuse eventually.

The mistake you make is assuming that the same diet required to perform at the top of their game is the same diet that would be hair-sparing. I'm highly doubtful of this. I'll give an example. Weight lifters that want to build muscle the quickest will always use weight gainers (carbs) because the glucose will refuel the glycogen stores quicker. However, that also means they will put on fat that they will have to take off before a competition. Their aim was muscle building, but the best diet for that made them (temporarily) fat. There is nothing at all in nutrition science that indicates the best diet for low inflammation, or longevity, is the same (or even similar to the) diet that would help one perform as an olympian or elite boxer, or marathoner, or whatever.

[enigma23]

I would still use the big 3 verses eating more spinach each day if I was rapidly balding.

One other point on this. This is the same fallacy that stems from modern medicine's obsession with treating symptoms, instead of causes. Everyone thinks that "well, there's a pill for X, or a treatment for Y, so I don't have to live/eat healthy." That's idiotic. Yes, for instance, you can prolong your life with dialysis, but it was a lifetime of shitty shitty eating that led to you having ruined kidneys and having to use a machine to filter your blood.

Same here, it could well be that some of the better responders to one or all of the big 3 do so because of the diet they consume, which promotes (or at least is neutral) to the health of their scalp and blood chemistry in general. However, if one eats a highly inflammatory diet, don't be too surprised if the big 3 aren't able to help as much when you're constantly expressing a host of inflammatory markers which the evidence is mounting plays a substantial part in the chain of events of AGA.

Life is about balance, most certainly. But don't go thinking that the weekly binge drink or junk food outing isn't having a harmful effect. It is, you just don't see the effects because they build up too slowly (and start in places you can't see) for you to consciously realize.

[Trouse5858]

I'm sure we've all see the spreads that some of these athletes have to eat in order to meet the calorie requirements. I'm sorry, but the food is -not- always (or even regularly) healthy. The one common thread is that they are mostly young, when the body is quicker at repairing itself from abuse (such as a piss diet). And yes, their particular genetics may enable them to get away with this for longer in order to fuel their professional career, but it will give up from abuse eventually.

The mistake you make is assuming that the same diet required to perform at the top of their game is the same diet that would be hair-sparing. I'm highly doubtful of this. I'll give an example. Weight lifters that want to build muscle the quickest will always use weight gainers (carbs) because the glucose will refuel the glycogen stores quicker. However, that also means they will put on fat that they will have to take off before a competition. Their aim was muscle building, but the best diet for that made them (temporarily) fat. There is nothing at all in nutrition science that indicates the best diet for low inflammation, or longevity, is the same (or even similar to the) diet that would help one perform as an olympian or elite boxer, or marathoner, or whatever.

I would disagree that professional athletes who have sub 8 percent body fat in many instances achieved those results without strict nutrition, but that's fine. You have a hypothesis that there would be a highly specialized diet or rare food that would constitute a "hair-sparing" treatment. But there's really no evidence to support this idea. You could just as easily theorize that certain extreme high or low temperatures of water or sunlight or carbon dioxide being exposed to the scalp have a positive or negative effect.

I don't think I ever implied that all athletes have the exact same diets. Using your example, it's well documented that bodybuilders consume irregularly high quantities of protein and cycle carbohydrates based on their workouts. This would be different from the diet of a swimmer or cyclist to be sure. The thing that they would all have in common is that they consist of precise amounts of healthy fats and lots of vegetables and water. Which is why I categorized them under the broad slate of "stricter" diets when compared to the average American. Clearly nutrition science wouldn't advocate that people performing very different, specialized tasks would all be eating the exact same foods in the same ratios, but the point is there's no observed demographic of people performing anything, anywhere that can link specific foods to fewer instances of hair loss. And no, I'm not counting a few dozen people claiming to see this alleged correlation between homeless people.

[unbalding]

There's not a single human disease for which there are no contributing environmental factors. Why do baldies get so angry when you point that out?