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