Causes of MPB

[Davey Jones]

I was wondering everyone's opinion on this thing that I've been wondering about lately. When people are first struggling with hairloss, you hear a lot of them say, "Well, I don' t have MPB, I just so and so..." And I've heard some wacky things. Everything from some guy who thought a sunburn he got at 17 did him in to another who said he'd used too much hair dye as a kid. There are a few people here who believe it was because of medicine, particularly Accutane.

As far as all information I've read, there are many things that can cause temporary, diffuse hairloss; but only one thing can cause lifelong, patterned hairloss: MPB. If you have patterned baldness that does not eventually go away after you remove the suspect cause, then chances are 100% that you have MPB. As far as I can tell, at least. Saying "I don't actually have MPB..." is not only just a sad cushion for your ego, but also, it isn't going to bring back a single hair. What's the deal?

Does anyone have any information that would suggest otherwise?

[jman91]

I was wondering everyone's opinion on this thing that I've been wondering about lately. When people are first struggling with hairloss, you hear a lot of them say, "Well, I don' t have MPB, I just so and so..." And I've heard some wacky things. Everything from some guy who thought a sunburn he got at 17 did him in to another who said he'd used too much hair dye as a kid. There are a few people here who believe it was because of medicine, particularly Accutane.

As far as all information I've read, there are many things that can cause temporary, diffuse hairloss; but only one thing can cause lifelong, patterned hairloss: MPB. If you have patterned baldness that does not eventually go away after you remove the suspect cause, then chances are 100% that you have MPB. As far as I can tell, at least. Saying "I don't actually have MPB..." is not only just a sad cushion for your ego, but also, it isn't going to bring back a single hair. What's the deal?

Does anyone have any information that would suggest otherwise?

Like most other genetic diseases someone will be born predisposed to experience mpb later on in life. It is perfectly reasonable to say that aggravating environmental factors like hair dye or medicine can trigger it into action, causing you to experience mpb earlier than you otherwise might.

[Davey Jones]

Like most other genetic diseases someone will be born predisposed to experience mpb later on in life. It is perfectly reasonable to say that aggravating environmental factors like hair dye or medicine can trigger it into action, causing you to experience mpb earlier than you otherwise might.

Yeah, I could see that. Expression is every bit as important as coding. But I can't imagine it would affect it by decades, and it certainly wouldn't affect it if the coding for MPB wasn't there at all.

I think there is a certain desire to blame anything but genetics. For one, it has more of a sense of being curable. For two, you can have less of a sense of inferiority (IF balding makes you feel inferior).

[dda]

yeah certain meds can play a factor, or too much hair dye, but it all comes down to your luck in the gene pool. It's pretty crazy when you think about. My grandfather had a full head of hair in his 50's and 60's, and his three sons(my dad and my 2 uncles) were close to NW7 by the time they were 40 lol. It's so shitty cause I got the shit end of the stick and starting losing when i was like 18-19. All my life when i was growing up my barber used to say I had really thick hair, hell i pretty much came out the womb wiht a full head of hair(should have known that was like a bad omen or something). And then my mom would tell me, "well you get your hair gene from the mothers side" Her dad, my grandpop had thick hair into his 50s, so I figured I had nothing to worry bout... until like 4 years ago when people would tell me I was balding, and what a huge shock. i remember the first time I did the double mirrow to see the back of my head, WOW was I depressed after that.


But like I said its all chance, look at dj Pauly D, they showed his dad several times in episodes and he is completely bald, and this dude has a full thick head of hair in his early thirties. Doesn't mean he won't go bald later, but at least he made it that far

[Aston]

Yeah, I could see that. Expression is every bit as important as coding. But I can't imagine it would affect it by decades, and it certainly wouldn't affect it if the coding for MPB wasn't there at all.

I think there is a certain desire to blame anything but genetics. For one, it has more of a sense of being curable. For two, you can have less of a sense of inferiority (IF balding makes you feel inferior).

There is no problem or issue with acknowledging genetics as the first determinant of hair loss. The first problem is, however, that said genes don't activate until after puberty. This means the MPB inducing genes are usually turned off before puberty. For some people they are turned off until they hit their thirties or fourties, or even sixties.
Thinking there are different genetic outlooks for each different case of MPB onset or thinking there must be another underlying cause which stimulates the genetic expression change is then up to scientific intuition and speculation.

The second problem is that MPB is a quite common sight. I can go out on the street any day and see bald men of various ages in practically any city of the northern hemisphere. Yet we have no real idea about its function, and speculations haven't held to scrutiny so far.
Some people are born with genetic sensitivity to certain diseases which almost assures their onset. Such is the case of Thalassemia, a genetic disease typical of mediterranean countries. In evolution, the Thalassemia-inducing genes appeared as a deterrent against Malaria. Such disease was therefore a necessary (lesser) evil in evolution. But all such genetic diseases affect localized population groups or rare unlucky individuals. There is no obvious evolutionary advantage from hair loss. In fact, women will find hair loss unattractive almost universally, which would seriously and undoubtedly inhibit reproduction potential of men balding at a young age. Yet there is no advantage from it, and what gigantic advantage it should be to justify such a heavy and unnecessary blow to reproduction potential!

In conclusion, the pure genetic theory of hair loss doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. This, in my understanding, bends the balance between predetermined genetic onset and an external cause to the latter significantly. I can accept there being a function for it in old age, or its being just a consequence of metabolic damage due to aging, but for it to be rampant in a young population group, right in the beginning of their reproductive age, isn't scientifically plausible as "normality". It is a disease, and as any disease the genetic determinant is just the background to the real cause.
We're seeing how obesity and diabetes are increasing in frequency in our modern society, then couldn't the same be occurring to premature baldness? Unfortunately the data about balding rates in youths is much less available than data regarding obesity and diabetes, which are clear negative diseases.

As a personal suspicion, i speculate hair loss could be an index of health and reproductive viability for women. If that was true, then hair loss would signal to women when a partner, appearing otherwise healthy, actually possesses a weak metabolic fitness, such as during old age.
The evolutionary advantage would be enormous in this case, with women instinctively knowing which males are the strongest and most fertile (MPB is correlated to low testosterone and perhaps associated to muscular wastage and weakness), while confirming that premature baldness is a disease with an external cause.

[dda]

There is no problem or issue with acknowledging genetics as the first determinant of hair loss. The first problem is, however, that said genes don't activate until after puberty. This means the MPB inducing genes are usually turned off before puberty. For some people they are turned off until they hit their thirties or fourties, or even sixties.
Thinking there are different genetic outlooks for each different case of MPB onset or thinking there must be another underlying cause which stimulates the genetic expression change is then up to scientific intuition and speculation.

The second problem is that MPB is a quite common sight. I can go out on the street any day and see bald men of various ages in practically any city of the northern hemisphere. Yet we have no real idea about its function, and speculations haven't held to scrutiny so far.
Some people are born with genetic sensitivity to certain diseases which almost assures their onset. Such is the case of Thalassemia, a genetic disease typical of mediterranean countries. In evolution, the Thalassemia-inducing genes appeared as a deterrent against Malaria. Such disease was therefore a necessary (lesser) evil in evolution. But all such genetic diseases affect localized population groups or rare unlucky individuals. There is no obvious evolutionary advantage from hair loss. In fact, women will find hair loss unattractive almost universally, which would seriously and undoubtedly inhibit reproduction potential of men balding at a young age. Yet there is no advantage from it, and what gigantic advantage it should be to justify such a heavy and unnecessary blow to reproduction potential!

In conclusion, the pure genetic theory of hair loss doesn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. This, in my understanding, bends the balance between predetermined genetic onset and an external cause to the latter significantly. I can accept there being a function for it in old age, or its being just a consequence of metabolic damage due to aging, but for it to be rampant in a young population group, right in the beginning of their reproductive age, isn't scientifically plausible as "normality". It is a disease, and as any disease the genetic determinant is just the background to the real cause.
We're seeing how obesity and diabetes are increasing in frequency in our modern society, then couldn't the same be occurring to premature baldness? Unfortunately the data about balding rates in youths is much less available than data regarding obesity and diabetes, which are clear negative diseases.

As a personal suspicion, i speculate hair loss could be an index of health and reproductive viability for women. If that was true, then hair loss would signal to women when a partner, appearing otherwise healthy, actually possesses a weak metabolic fitness, such as during old age.
The evolutionary advantage would be enormous in this case, with women instinctively knowing which males are the strongest and most fertile (MPB is correlated to low testosterone and perhaps associated to muscular wastage and weakness), while confirming that premature baldness is a disease with an external cause.

I'm confused, i've read on here and other places online that MPB is consistent with elevated levels of testosterone??

[Aston]

I'm confused, i've read on here and other places online that MPB is consistent with elevated levels of testosterone??

Elevated levels of testosterone activity, perhaps, but that is also wrong. DHT is a much more potent version of testosterone and is made from it. The 5a-reductase-II enzyme is being hyperactive in balding men, stealing too much free testosterone from serum, therefore making too much DHT. Because of this the actual levels of testosterone are low and some of the biochemistry mediated by testosterone often performs poorly as well. This latter point has some variance, however. Many balding men have low appetites and difficulty developing muscle, for instance, as well as relatively increased body hair. Increased DHT metabolism is a common element of male aging, as well as its symptoms.

[dda]

Elevated levels of testosterone activity, perhaps, but that is also wrong. DHT is a much more potent version of testosterone and is made from it. The 5a-reductase-II enzyme is being hyperactive in balding men, stealing too much free testosterone from serum, therefore making too much DHT. Because of this the actual levels of testosterone are low and some of the biochemistry mediated by testosterone often performs poorly as well. This latter point has some variance, however. Many balding men have low appetites and difficulty developing muscle, for instance, as well as relatively increased body hair. Increased DHT metabolism is a common element of male aging, as well as its symptoms.

Wow thanks for that info man. You hit the nail on the head there, cause pretty much everything you described, I experienced. I have always been on the below average side of being able to gain weight and muscle (especially during puberty and the years following; I'm 23 now). I have definately always had a low appetite. And I have alot of body hair, always have had the hairiest arms and alot of hair on the back of my hands its f'n ridiculous

[dex89]

Same here bro and I'm also 23 but I'm only receding with minor diffuse on the right temple. What can I use to reverse or prevent further recession, any good product that is recommended? lol

[BigThinker]

similar to someone else's situation above, the unpredictability of it always got me. that, and the old wife's tale "you get it from your mom's side". My hair has currently receded a bit and it is where my maternal grandfather's is NOW @ age 70. My dad and his brother are super bald, but were really bald in their mid 20s. I'm 24 and noticed it only months ago. Keto shampoo is all I'm on for now. Will move to fin if I need to.

Also, all my hair's traits are that of my maternal side: thick (diamater), somewhat glossy/greasy, black, thick (density).. basically the opposite of my dad's thin, sparse, blonde hair. Yet, I'm showing recession @ 24. I still have a tiny bit of hope it's just a maturing hairline that will chill out until 70.. not likely though

[Buy The Ticket]

As a personal suspicion, i speculate hair loss could be an index of health and reproductive viability for women. If that was true, then hair loss would signal to women when a partner, appearing otherwise healthy, actually possesses a weak metabolic fitness, such as during old age.
The evolutionary advantage would be enormous in this case, with women instinctively knowing which males are the strongest and most fertile (MPB is correlated to low testosterone and perhaps associated to muscular wastage and weakness), while confirming that premature baldness is a disease with an external cause.

I think this is a bit ridiculous to be honest.

[Davey Jones]

I think this is a bit ridiculous to be honest.

And it likely is. To specifically evolve to show that you are NOT fit doesn't mesh in with natural selection at all. Aston always has been a bit of an oddball though, and science needs off the wall theories, 'cause a few of them inevitably end up true. This one, however, seems caused more by an all to common problem: for some reason, people just don't get how evolution works.

[Aston]

And it likely is. To specifically evolve to show that you are NOT fit doesn't mesh in with natural selection at all. Aston always has been a bit of an oddball though, and science needs off the wall theories, 'cause a few of them inevitably end up true. This one, however, seems caused more by an all to common problem: for some reason, people just don't get how evolution works.

I don't particularly like my own speculation, however it trumps, in my eyes, any other theory of the cause of male pattern baldness i have studied, and i would be happy if it could be proven wrong on a logical basis alone.
"It is ridiculous" doesn't mean it is wrong, for instance, and thus such a claim doesn't represent a challenge.

"To specifically evolve to show that you are NOT fit doesn't mesh in with natural selection at all."

A male born with a gene to manifest baldness in case of nutritional/developmental deficiency, yet NOT manifesting it, will be actually manifesting fitness proportionally to the strength of the gene.
If this is how it actually works, then between two males, both having the same MPB genes, the most nutritionally fit one will have the most hair. If this makes him also more attractive to females, then doesn't it mean that the most fit male (thus probably with better genes/resources overall) will have better reproduction chances? Isn't that perfectly compliant to the natural world?

Most species of mammals, including many primates, reproduce through the dominance of a single alhpha male (or a restricted group of alphas) based almost entirely on physical fitness. Strength and size are the primary indicators of such fitness for females.
You may notice that human males do not usually physically fight each other to assert dominance over a female. While our size and physical fitness still matters in conquering a mate, we live in societies where food is abundant and achieving maximum physical size is expected. What if nutrient rate of a diet, rather than energy density, determines the physical fitness/health of a mammal? Wouldn't that mean women have lost their ancestral way of choosing the fittest mate with the advent of modern societies?
If we assume nutrient fitness affects DHT metabolism and therefore MPB, then MPB becomes an indicator of metabolic fitness much more precise than physical size and strength or any other visual clue a woman could have. This would also explain why MPB would increase with the increase of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods worldwide.

About the diffusion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-blame.html

Is it a far-fetched, ridiculous theory? Probably. Is it worse than saying MPB exists to give us more surface skin to metabolize vitamin D or is just a "casual" mutation that seems to affect the vast majority of men in the developed world? I wonder. It's just speculation, after all.

[Davey Jones]

I don't particularly like my own speculation, however it trumps, in my eyes, any other theory of the cause of male pattern baldness i have studied, and i would be happy if it could be proven wrong on a logical basis alone.
"It is ridiculous" doesn't mean it is wrong, for instance, and thus such a claim doesn't represent a challenge.

"To specifically evolve to show that you are NOT fit doesn't mesh in with natural selection at all."

A male born with a gene to manifest baldness in case of nutritional/developmental deficiency, yet NOT manifesting it, will be actually manifesting fitness proportionally to the strength of the gene.
If this is how it actually works, then between two males, both having the same MPB genes, the most nutritionally fit one will have the most hair. If this makes him also more attractive to females, then doesn't it mean that the most fit male (thus probably with better genes/resources overall) will have better reproduction chances? Isn't that perfectly compliant to the natural world?

Most species of mammals, including many primates, reproduce through the dominance of a single alhpha male (or a restricted group of alphas) based almost entirely on physical fitness. Strength and size are the primary indicators of such fitness for females.
You may notice that human males do not usually physically fight each other to assert dominance over a female. While our size and physical fitness still matters in conquering a mate, we live in societies where food is abundant and achieving maximum physical size is expected. What if nutrient rate of a diet, rather than energy density, determines the physical fitness/health of a mammal? Wouldn't that mean women have lost their ancestral way of choosing the fittest mate with the advent of modern societies?
If we assume nutrient fitness affects DHT metabolism and therefore MPB, then MPB becomes an indicator of metabolic fitness much more precise than physical size and strength or any other visual clue a woman could have. This would also explain why MPB would increase with the increase of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods worldwide.

About the diffusion of energy-dense, nutrient-poor foods: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...ing-blame.html

Is it a far-fetched, ridiculous theory? Probably. Is it worse than saying MPB exists to give us more surface skin to metabolize vitamin D or is just a "casual" mutation that seems to affect the vast majority of men in the developed world? I wonder. It's just speculation, after all.

I think you are making a very subtle mistake. Yes, genes that show a more fit mate certainly exist, but it isn't as a matter of the showing inferiority developing, but the showing of superiority. What I mean to say is that a way to show you're worse doesn't evolve naturally. Based on the inheritability of MPB, we can say with relative certainty that there is a genetic component found exclusively in some individuals. If it's cause was to JUST single out individuals who were not getting the nutrition to develop hair despite the genes, it wouldn't have developed, because natural selection does not care about the fitness of groups as a whole. It only cares about the individual.

Take pea****s as an example. There was a time when pea****'s feathers (on males) indicated good health. The bigger the feathers, the more the pea**** was eating. Basically, at least. Which meant that the ones with smaller or no feathers would not be selected (much like baldness). But! Evolution came into play and started allowing for the development of feathers despite poor nutrition. The environment essentially started to favor pouring any resources into feathers instead of into anything else, because that's what got a bird laid. Now the feathers have nothing to do with the actual fitness of the male, but because they still help acquire mates, they have everything to do with the genetic fitness.

See, what you're suggesting is that the inability to grow feathers would have been stressed (instead of the ability to) so that females could identify poor mates, but those genes would never survive, as the ones with them would not have mated and would have died off.

I hope this is clear. It's pretty complex idea, and it might be simplified too hard. But yeah, the way you're suggesting genes are selected seems to assume that evolution takes into account populations in ways that it does not.

The presence of MPB in the gene pool implies that it was either beneficial to mating at some point, associated with other factors that were more beneficial to mating than balding was negative to mating, or that MPB had no effect on mating at all and stayed as a non-affective mutation.

Each is possible.

1. Beneficial to mating: In gorilla groups, males that have larger foreheads have more promenence and access to mates. Thus, any hair that can recede increases the appearance of the forehead, and thus status. This could have been true at some point for humans too, since we fairly likely had primate ancestors.

2. Associated with other factors: If whatever causes balding exactly makes you a MORE fit mate otherwise, balding would remain in the gene pool. For instance, if whatever causes MPB also makes you smarter, it would remain. I think we know so little about MPB that this is at least possible.

3. Since balding happens after mating would typically take place (at least in the early days of man), it likely had no effect on mating at all, and still doesn't. Think of how many bald men you know with children. And how many daughters of bald men you know that have children.

I'm not really that good of a science writer, so this may not be clear. And I wouldn't expect you to just take my word for it, but I promise: the way you think evolution works is a little off. And I'd be happy to try to explain why more if you have specific questions I could answer a little at a time.

[Aston]

See, what you're suggesting is that the inability to grow feathers would have been stressed (instead of the ability to) so that females could identify poor mates, but those genes would never survive, as the ones with them would not have mated and would have died off.

No, according to my speculation the ability to grow feathers would have been stressed, but poor fitness would have caused pea****s to still have no tails or grow smaller tails.
This is what actually occurs to pea****s.
They don't grow tails of the same size across the board. You are assuming that pure sexual selection alone justifies the presence of sexual dimorphisms, but that theory isn't the most popular, in my view.

The Handicap Principle, for instance, supports my speculation, with a famous study proving that pea****s born from males with bigger tails have better survival rates. Thus, tail size correlates to fitness. Females also choose males with bigger tails preferentially. In fact, the pea****'s case is often quoted by the proponents of the Handicap Principle as exemplar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

The genetic structure that allows some pea****s to have smaller tails than others is consequently a positive trait, because females can choose the males with the biggest tails and be sure that such males are more fit than the ones with smaller tails. The difference in tail size is influenced by the capacity of the male pea****s to adapt to their environment, which is what we call "fitness". This is even more evident in deer antlers, which serve as ritualistic weapons in male-to-male combat, yet are proportional in size to deer nutrition.

Therefore, if pea**** tail size (only the male birds have such tails) represents fitness, then human males' hair could represent fitness in the same way.

Furthermore, if we consider DHT metabolism, an excess of DHT causes excess body hair and hair loss on the head. Women across the globe have an overwhelming preference for men with a head full of hair and low body hair. (Apparently, only 20% of women preferred men with chest hair, in a cross-country study.)
Increased DHT metabolism thus correlates negatively with reproductive chances, and is typical in old age, which corroborates my speculation further about hair loss being correlated to fitness, or rather, that the presence of hair is a sign of fitness, thus also playing a negative role in its absence, like the smaller tails of male pea****s.

There are always fitter individuals who manifest better traits than less fit individuals and if males evolve ways to "look" fit regardless of actual fitness, females evolve new ways to distinguish fitness in males independently. I believe you may be mistakenly assuming evolution always achieves the ideal case scenario, while it never does so and is in fact a very imprecise, tentative mechanism, which has unarguably doomed countless species to extinction for every currently living one.

As i said before, the recent evolutionary disappearance of energy intake as a fitness indicator (thanks to agriculture) could very well have masked a widespread micronutrient fitness deficit to females, causing them to use a previously positive or minor trait like the absence of hair loss as a major fitness determinant. How? Simply, those with hair loss genes yet no hair loss would indicate fitness and produce statistically better offspring of those without baldness genes. The daughters of the women who preferred men with hair would therefore tend to inherit better genes, survive better and diffuse such trait.

I won't say this theory "must" be correct, but i believe it currently can't be denied with our knowledge of evolutionary biology.