Talk:Baldness

why was all the supplement info deleted

This article used to have supplments which had scientific evidence for effectiveness against baldness such as saw palmetto (which inhibits both types of 5alpha reductase, unlike finesteride which only inhibits the predominant one.) Why was this info removed? This information has also been purged from 'management of baldness.' And if we're moving management of baldness to an external page, finesteride should go with it.

Not mainstream research. --Ericg33 (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

oh? better ask Stephen!

However, a sedentary lifestyle is less likely to correlate with intelligence in the modern world.... Really? The vast majority of college professors lead a sedentary lifestyle, as do nearly all scientists. Rocket scientists, not nearly as physically fit as you might think. Writers, thought their intelligence may be questioned, don't tend toward the athletic. Doctors.. okay, I'll admit most medical doctors tend to make some effort but they are the exception to the rule of intellectuals in western culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.32.4.51 (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

And what is this?

Check this out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7wCWWamE5U Look up brands like Toppik and Haircubed. I dont see it mentioned anywhere? Is it a taboo? Secret? Its been around since 80s as it seems just under different names. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8f_Q_lofk It is some kind of proteine (creatine?) organic mico-fibers that stick to the hair and make it look a lot thicker. Seems it doesnt work with full baldness but helps a lot with thinning hair. Cant find any study or research done on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.78.156 (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Some smart person should put this in layman's terms

"Total testosterone exhibits a positive relation to tactual-spatial abilities and to the degree of lateralization. Total testosterone is negatively correlated with verbal fluency. Testosterone in the saliva is also significantly positively correlated to tactual-spatial test scores and, in addition, to field independence. DHT and the ratio DHT/total testosterone are positively related to verbal fluency and negatively to the degree of lateralization of tactual-spatial performance." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.106.40 (talk) 07:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Which society?

"Female baldness is less socially accepted."

...oh, really? care to add a cite or remove the statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.99.120 (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is terrible!

What is needed.

1. A diagram of the hair follicle and the hair growth cycle. Maybe some stem cell photos included.

2. Some latest research on the cause.

These 3 links are the same subject."The LIPH gene makes LIPH, a protein that isn't thoroughly understood but seems to play a role in normal hair formation and growth"

http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/536000.html http://www.webmd.com/news/20061109/inherited-hair-loss-may-be-upped-by-gene-glitch http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/11/09/hscout536000.html

"The so-called hairless gene works by repressing the production of a protein called wise, which can hinder the process of hair growth if it is left to accumulate." http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4283302.stm

ADD SOME OF THE LATEST DAMN RESEARCH.

Another NPoV thing

Some of them are proud to be bald, sharing the charisma of famous film actors, such as Yul Brynner, Telly Savalas and Patrick Stewart, who have been considered handsomely distinctive, virile and epitomizing masculinity, in part, because of their baldness.

Should be changed from non-NPOV to some kind of mild positive slant...but how? Dreamyshade 10:53, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Reference?

"Factors such as a regular lack of sufficient sleep can trigger the onset of hair loss in individuals who are genetically prone to the condition."

interesting, but i'd like a reference... - Omegatron 18:30, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Feminine

• "Bald men are more "virile" or sexually active than others."

Like in the above cases, further counterexamples can be found, such as bald men with feminine behavior etc.

so females are not sexually active? not really a good counterexample. it should mention that the myth stems from the fact that baldness is caused by androgens.

Well...the intention wasn't to say that females are not sexually active, but rather that the myth wants bald men to behave in a more "virile" manner than non-bald men, while this is not scientifically proven. The phrase "Sexually active" in this case means almost exclusively "virile" or "active" sexuality (not including passive gay sexuality etc.) EpiVictor 09:07, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In fact balt men display more feminine characteristics. For example bald men develop gynocomastia (an enlargement of the breast and nipples). Also bald men are considered as unnatractive by the oposite sex. In ancient times monks used to shave their heads to appear unnatractive to the oposite sex.

Well, that statement goes to the exactly opposite end, by reversing the myth. In either case, there's little or no evidence for either claim (especially bald men -> gynecomastia ? Any references? ). We cannot back up either of them in the article, just state that such myths exist. EpiVictor 21:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

One reason given for Monks shaving their heads and leaving a rim was supposedly to imitate Jesus's 'crown of thorns'--66.87.184.227 03:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Heredity

apparently it is a myth that baldness is inherited from the mother's side of the family. this should be added by someone who knows the facts.

http://nj.essortment.com/malepatternbal_rcad.htm - "Male Pattern Baldness is hereditary, you get it from your mother! The explaination is genetic and linked to your mother's X-Chromosome. There is also an explaination of how your mother got the gene!"

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/newsletter/article243.htm - "It’s an enduring and common misconception among patients that MPB is ‘inherited from the mother’s side’. Well, that statement is neither right nor wrong. Pattern baldness can be inherited from the mother’s side. But it can also be inherited from the father’s side."

http://www.shands.org/health/information/article/003246.htm - "A man can ingerit baldness from either hes father or hes mother."  :-)

http://www.shands.org/health/information/article/003246.htm - "Baldness is determined by multiple genetic factors. It is not always true that baldness follows the mother's line or anyone else's, or that it skips generations."

can anyone find anything authoritative? - Omegatron 19:34, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a pubmed citation laying out how baldness in the patrilineal line is correlated with baldness in an individual ( baldness in the matrilineal bloodline is also still an indicator ) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15237265&query_hl=7 --Wiserd 10:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Extreme/unfounded statements

The accusation of stereotpying for the racial/ethnic differences in hair-growth/maintenance patterns is almost definitely disprovable with scientific research. Can someone add some counter-arguments please? 70.57.137.163 05:47, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) [Dpr]

Copy vio

Did anyone get permission to use this on wikipedia. bakuzjw (aka 578) 13:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a Wikipedia mirror, see bottom of page. -83.129.31.42 15:22, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Treatment products

I think we should move the treatment products section to it's own page, leaving only a summary on this page of the treatment scene. It's a specialized subtopic not relevant to many readers of this article.--Nectarflowed ^(talk) 03:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This also needs more on the medical explanation(s) for baldness; currently there's only one short paragraph in the lead. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Interesting

• very interresting article. congratulations. I've heard about a women and a bald gorilla. The women treated the gorilla with some plants (that I dont know what), and the gorilla became very hairy and the scientists started investigations about that. I think it was in the UK. Do you know something about this? --Pedro 09:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL. Probably Saw Palmetto. That just strikes me as funny. --Madglee 11/22/2007 11:10

Merge

I support the merge, and would favour "baldness" as the title, with alopecia as the medical synonym. A systematic rewrite of both pages would be immensely helpful. JFW | T@lk 09:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The merge is a good idea because this really is the same topic with the common name and the scientific name. I would like to see much time spent to explaining the natural ways to prevent hairloss - I could help with that. Whoever is in charge of this merge/redo, let me know if you need help Staypuftman 21:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have now merged alopecia into this article. The old one is availble at Alopecia/History1, and is a candidate for speedy deletion. Brisvegas 02:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

When I was in high school a friend of mine lost all of his hair--including eyelashes, eyebrows, armpit hair, etc.-- over a very short period of time. It's been ten years and the hair has not regrown. He commonly refers to his condition as "alopecia," and hence, our circle of friends has been saying "(John Doe) has alopecia" for years now. I've also heard sports reporters utter the term "alopecia" when referring to Charlie Villanueva's condition (in fact, even Villanueva's wikipedia page refers to his condition as such). I was surprised wikipedia redirected me to generic "baldness" when I tried to research "alopecia." Evidentally, we've all been misinformed about the name of my friend's and Villanueva's condition. Since such misconception seems fairly common, I wonder if it might make sense to offer a link from "alopecia" to this specific condition, in addition to linking it to baldness, so those interested in learning about this rare condition (whatever its actually called) can do so without having to sift through such topics as "Bald is Beautiful," "Embracing Baldness," etc. After all, Villanueva's baldness is quite different from typical male pattern baldness which takes place gradually over a period of years. M. Frederick 10:56, 12 December 2006

"alopecia" is the general class of baldness. Within that category, there's androgenic alopecia (male pattern baldness) alopecia universalis (you lose all your hair) and autoimmune alopecia or alopecia areata (you lose and sometimes regrow patches of hair) —The preceding. There are links to each of these in the paragraph head --66.87.184.227 03:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

There is also significant overlap with the Androgenic Alopecia page. FoeMEGA13 (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Links

I don't think the link to "End Baldness Now" (or something about some natural hair remedy) should be removed from the article, as it is pushing a product

You are free to do so. The whole page needs a big clearout. JFW | T@lk 16:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

http://health.yahoo.com/news/175229

Psychological impact

This article is about the psychological impact of alopecia. It is not specific as to which type of alopecia. JFW | T@lk 18:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Percentages

It is characterized by hair receding from the lateral sides of the forehead, known as "receding hairline" or "receding brow." An additional bald patch may develop on top (vertex).

Is there any known percentages of how much, or to what degree, male pattern lateral hair loss additionally includes hair loss at the vertex? Percentages of which comes first, or how far back lateral hair loss goes on average without hair loss on the vertex of the head? 67.5.213.93 05:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Mechanisms for MPB

I've just added some text on the mechanisms which underlie baldness. I'm rather new to wikipedia. I think that some of the links that I added as 'news' might be better as references instead. I wanted to demonstrate how baldness was linked to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, diabetes, coronary artery disease and similar health problems. I also wanted to help clarify the strong connection between androgenic alopecia and lifestyle, which is often overlooked. The exact developmental period where MPB can be avoided or delayed if lifestyle is altered is still unclear. The incidence of MPB in Japan since WWII is the perfect example of lifestyle influencing MPB. The genetics of that nation didn't change, but the incidence of MPB increased radically along with their increased consumption of fatty foods and a general increase in the number of calories in their diet. --Wiserd 11:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, firstly don't forget WP:CITE. Women with PCOS often have balding male relatives. So there is something there. It's probably more than just androgen levels. JFW | T@lk 13:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry. My citations were sloppy. I should clean things up. As for women with PCOS often having balding male relatives, that's certainly interesting. I didn't know that. I tend to come at medicine from the chemistry end of things. Is there a chance that women who have PCOS and higher androgen levels are more likely to be diagnosed with PCOS, creating a bias in diagnosed cases? Are you're saying that the stuff I put up regarding androgen levels in women with PCOS is misleading and I should remove it? As I said earlier, I'm a newbie here so just let me know what I need to work for and I'll work towards that. I just want to see this article discuss mechanisms and lifestyle related to MPB more than it did previously. As with many traits, environment plays almost as much of a role as genetics does.

I'd like to establish that insulin is related to SHBG is related to free testosterone is related to DHT levels in the scalp, and help give some background for why premature balding might be an indicator for various metabolic problems. If you have any suggestions for how I can tighten up this point, or how many citations I need to back it up, and what type of citations would be most solid please let me know.

--Ryan Wise 21:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Trivia: vultures & natural selection

The note on vultures refers to natural selection as the reason for vulture head baldness, and I can agree in principle. The accompanying rationalization appears not to relate directly to natural selection, or at least not clearly. It says that feathers on the head would contribute to retention of blood and fluids, as well as making the head difficult to keep clean. Let's keep in mind that natural selection has to do with traits that aid in enhanced breeding opportunities for the individual and successive progeny. The statement about fluids and head cleanliness doesn't show a clear connection to reproductive opportunity. I'd like to see a more substantive discussion. -- Richard Gay (willbonds [at] yahoo [dot] com)

They're probably referring to general survival advantage, not specific reproductive advantage.--Nectar 00:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

glad you "can" agree. someone forgot to flash the memo about your opinion mattering.

Whilst I do not know about the co-evolution of the species (a citation would be nice) the reasoning is sound. This isn't a place to discuss what is and isn't natural selection, and with all due respect, I think it is your understanding of evolution that is lacking. The health of a bird is crucial to it's ability to reproduce. A bird rendered ill by rotten meat staining it's feathers will not be less likely to survive long enough to breed as one that is clean. For example the large quantities of blubber surrounding a seal can not be seen to improve it's chances at breading in the sense that the blubber inhibits the physical mechanics of it. However, a fat seal can survive the cold, and periods with out food - and thus is more likely to breed. This is without even considering sexual selection. I recommend one of many books on the subject, like Dawkin's selfish gene. Either way I've gone on to long - and this isn't the place to discuss this. 158.109.58.94

Message to Richard Gay and Nectar: A survival advantage means nothing in evolutionary terms if it doesn't yield a reproductive advantage, and so isn't selected for. As the above user has stated, the connection between between a vulture maintaining a clean head and increasing it's breeding opportunities is obvious. I'm sure you realise that it reduces the birds chance of dying of infection or suffering an inability to obtain food as a result of infection-induced poor fitness. What you failed to grasp is that the majority of animals can't mate once they're dead. So anyway, here you two are talking like you're a pair biologists, spreading your ignorance. If you'd like to disagree with me, feel free to do so. I have a Neuroscience degree (which is a biology degree), so I welcome the opportunity to embarass you further. Holymolytree2 19:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Purposeful evolution

According to the caption of the gorilla image, evolution proceeded according to a plan. The purpose of developing a protruding, bald forehead was to gain a foreseen advantage. This total forehead development, I assume, occurred in microscopic changes over an extremely long period of time. The intermediate stages of the development were of no benefit. Only the final stages, in which the goal was approached, were helpful. Does evelution, then, occur as a result of some mind's purpose? This mind would be able to look ahead and see the advantage of a protruding, bald forehead in gorillas of the distant future. It would also choose to gradually attain its goal in very small intermediate increments of change.Lestrade 15:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

Evolution doesn't proceed according to a plan. If a mutation creates a survival advantage, it will be selected for. If it makes no difference, it won't be selected for or against. However, you can't go through a disadvantageous stage to get to an advantageous stage. Holymolytree2 19:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If so why don't women get bald. Also why most scientist and the most intelligent people like Einstein, Avogadro, etc. had a full head of hair. And the average fat and dumb guy (like Homer Simpson) is bald?

Once again this isn't the place to discuss this. But the flaw in your argument is that you state "The intermediate stages of development were of no benefit." and the idea that the evolution had a "plan" and destination. These are common fallacies. This is the "half an eye is as good as no eye at all" argument and has been debunked numerous times. My poorly designed eyes have terrible vision but even in the days before glasses would have been of a huge benifit. Again Dawkin's climbing mount improbable (amongst others) breaks this myth down. In the case of evoled baldness in the case of a vulture - half a bald head is cleaner than a fully feathered head and so on. There is incremental improvement. The Ape is an excellent example of sexual selection. The ape with the most extended forehead is sexually selected by the female - leading to a gradual largening of the populations foreheads. This would not be confined to the final stages. 158.109.58.94

Incorrect revisions

Re the efficacy of Serenoa Repens (Saw Palmetto) someone added the following.

This claim however is inaccurate. In studies, Saw Palmetto was shown not to reduce serum DHT levels to any significant extent. Unlike Propecia (finasteride), which reduces serum DHT levels noticeably, Saw Palmetto is not considered an effective treatment for hair loss. It is also not natural as it can and does modify some hormonal processes in the body just as potently as synthetic medications can.

Extracts have been proven to be successful against both isoenzymes of alpha-5-reductase. I've removed this text and cited sources. --Ryan Wise 14:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I corrected the above information and provided ample sourcing. Monkeyman deleted my edits and reverted to the previous unsourced conjecture. There is solid scientific evidence that saw palmetto extract can inhibit both isoenzymes of 5-alpha-reductase and do so with fewer side effects (inhibition of PSA secretion) than finesteride. --Ryan Wise 17:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the assertion that baldness comes from the mother's side has also been restored to the page. Didn't we already have a discussion on this? Can we get some statements on this that are backed up by references or remove them? --Ryan Wise 17:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Male pattern baldness is mostly the result of a genetic event that causes dihydrotestosterone (DHT), a male hormone, to cause the hair follicles to shrivel. The hair produced is progressively smaller, until it is practically invisible (or may disappear completely). It has been speculated that this is an evolutionary event that signifies maturity and conveys greater authority on affected men. Psychosomatic factors have also been speculated at in Frazers Golden Bough http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4bT3ACjkRasC&pg=PA134&lpg=PA134&dq=golden+bough+crown&source=bl&ots=eLJDjy-FQC&sig=4ZqNU822zPnBGynKiphwBM5Rf98&hl=en&ei=OlRMTdPLJ5O6hAelgpnTDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=golden%20bough%20crown&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjdite (talk • contribs) 19:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

John Rockefeller

As per the trivia comment "John D. Rockefeller had an extreme case of alopecia that caused him to lose all of the hair on his face, including his eyebrows and eyelashes." The picture on the wiki page cited shows him having a (nearly) full head of hair, even as an older man. Is the trivia comment supposed to refer to John D. Rockefeller Jr.? Or some other John Rockefeller? Or could it be that John Sr. lost the hair on his face, but not on his head? In any case, it should be addressed (by someone who knows what they're talking about. :) --ScottAlanHill 03:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe he had a toupee. --66.87.184.227 02:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe he had the same condition as Charlie Villanueva, which seems to be quite different from the baldness most people are referring to.

Don't worry guys, I removed the trivia. Who cares about random celebrities being bald, and even if someone cares, why should it be in wikipedia? Pipatron (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

our wiki hero saved us all! because he is the wiki because no one else could battle through the lines to make that edit.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.224.104 (talk) 09:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC) 

Hair loss and genetics

Early baldness of the ordinary type(alopecia)

Alopecia refers to all types of baldness. The phrase 'the ordinary type' is non-specific.

Androgenic alopecia is not dependant on a single gene. Rather, variabilities in the androgen receptor gene, levels of 5-alpha-reductase in the scalp, stress, pathogenic stressors, levels of testosterone, levels of SHBG, excercise and diet all play a role in the progression of the condition. The gene for the androgen receptor is located on the X chromasome. Not all the genes involved in the balding process are known, however paternal balding is also an indicator that one's children will be bald.

If this myth were the case, the condition would have to x-linked dominant. Genes that are X-linked, and dominant are the only type of gene in which fathers are guaranteed to pass the gene to daughters. Looking at the condition of a mother's father would only help in determining who will be affected if the gene for alopecia was x-linked and dominant, which it is not.

A recessive gene (i.e. a defective gene which is effectivly masked by a functioning gene) could certainly be present on the X chromasome and thus be dominant in males, but recessive in females. If a gene is X linked, a father with that gene WILL inevitably pass it to their daughters regardless of whether the gene is dominant or recessive. The daughters may not inherit the trait however.

Furthermore, females may get 'androgenic alopecia' but they do not get male pattern baldness. Their hair loss is diffuse, and does not include a receeding hairline.

We demonstrate that genetic variability in the androgen receptor gene (AR) is the cardinal prerequisite for the development of early-onset AGA...The X-chromosomal location of AR stresses the importance of the maternal line in the inheritance of AGA.[1]

Adjusting for age, men whose fathers had hair loss were 2.5 times as likely to have had some level of hair loss compared to men whose fathers had no hair loss (95% CI: 1.3-4.9). Likewise, men whose fathers had hair loss were twice as likely to have hair loss than men whose fathers had no hair loss even after adjusting for age (OR = 2.1, 95% CI: 1.2-3.7 and OR = 2.5, 95% CI: 1.4-4.7 for Norwood/Hamilton and global description of hair loss assessments, respectively). CONCLUSION: Results suggest that the probability of male pattern hair loss is dependent on family history and age. Hair loss in a man's father also appears to play an important role in increasing a man's risk of hair loss, either in conjunction with a history of hair loss in the mother or hair loss in the maternal grandfather. Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel

[2]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but as I understood it male pattern baldness is an autosomal trait the expression of which is affected by an individual's sex. A male can be heterozygous or homozygous for baldness and express the phenotype, whereas a female MUST be homozyhous for baldness in order to express it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.146.122 (talk) 02:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Separation into types of baldness

Does anyone think that the various alopecias should be handled separately from one another? Their similarities are, literaly, superficial. --Ryan Wise 01:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the various forms alopecias should be handled separately. A middle schooler with no eyebrows or eyelashes is in a very different predicament than a middle-aged man with a receding hairline. Each should be able to find info on his or her condition in a more efficient, accessible manner than the current alopecia page allows. M. Frederick 04:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this should go somewhere around here

I didn't spot a really appropriate place. Maybe a plain old link to a "Baldy comb" article? FYI, it rests against the palm of a hand with the loop going around the middle finger.

A comb for people with hair loss.

24.110.60.225 07:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Date

A date is needed for the study conducted by Muscarella and Cunnhingham if it is to be considered psychological fact

Trivia

• Baldman, arch-nemesis of the evil Scotsman, is not actually bald, but perhaps is in a balding state.

Who? What? Where? (Can this be any more vague?) Could someone who actually knows what this line is about perhaps expand it so it makes sense to someone who comes across is? Wikipedia currently has no entry for Baldman and Scotsman is less than enlightening on this matter. g026r 02:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Facial hair contradiction

"Males with facial hair ... were rated as being older [and more mature] than those who were clean-shaven ... Beards ... were seen as being more aggressive and less socially mature""

Which is it? — Omegatron 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, this made sense. Men with facial hair seemed older than those without, but those with facial hair and head hair were seen as less mature and more aggressive than the baldies.

The wording is really bad in those two sentences, and I cant derive the exact meaning of them, either. If I use letters/numbers to represent the groups, I can show the problem. Lets say men with facial hair = A, clean shaven = B, bald = 1, receding = 2, and full head of hair = 3. These can be in the combinations: A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, & B3.

First sentence: "A and 1 or 2 were rated as being older than those who were B or 3" (Considering this sentence would make no sense at all if it meant "A1/A2/A3 and A1/B1 or A2/B2 were rated older than those who were B1/B2/B3 or A3/B3" I can only assume it means "A1 or A2 were rated as being older than those who were B1/B2/B3 or A3" as that would cover all six possible combinations. But whos to say, when it doesnt even try to acknowledge that the groups occur in combination?)

Second sentence: "A and 3 were seen as being more aggressive and less socially mature (than what?), and B was associated with more social maturity (than what?)" (Even considering the two "than whats" MIGHT be each other, can one replace "A and 3" with "A3" or does it mean to separate them into two groups? If the latter, then does the "B" refer only to B1 and B2 since B3 would be included in the "3" in the first part of the sentence? Or if the former, then why is it comparing only A3 to the whole lot of B (B1, B2, and B3?)

The biggest question of all: How do the two sentences work together? Rainfrog (talk) 02:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Disorder?

Is the term "disorder" really applicable to baldness? On a subjective level, I find it a bit severe to describe something so common and benign.

Baldness is a debilitating disease that has reached epidemic levels in modern times in direct correlation with extended lifespans. I've seen guys get denied entry into clubs because they were bald, and what percentage of porn stars are bald? Hardly any. The sad truth is that many men in modern times are afflicted with pathological baldness and need to seek psychological assistance/corrective surgery. I consider baldness to an abberration of the human form. Also, I was reading the bible once, and it had a picture of Satan, who was bald. Holymolytree2 19:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sufferers has been used repeatedly in the article. In what way do we suffer? If we had been sick we would be more likely to have more hair on our heads and less else where. As far as sexual attraction questionnaires go I remember going out with a group one of the girls said she 'only likes androgynous men' after a few drinks she was all over me.
It's the views the media propagate that are mad; children try to grow up as soon as possible, women try to revert to girls body fat levels by dieting, mothers try to pretend their not with plastic surgery.
I walked down the street and saw an ethnically indian and white girl. The white girl had been tanning herself so that her face was much darker than the indian girl who had bleached hers. I thought they would have both looked better if they hadn't ****ed about with there appearance.
Encyclopedia articles are suppose to be neutral in language, this article fails it is written in the language of mass media trying to grab peoples attention by eliciting fear.
Holymolytree2 spoofs this well but (s)he needs to exaggerate even more to make the intent clearer. Many people talk about signs of health as disease and think sychological assistance/surgery are required for normal things. Asserting you can catch baldness is a clue as is the juxtaposition of porn and religion as ideals although the humorous content could be made starker by placing them closer. The best bit and the clearest give away is the talk of aberration of human form it had me laughing.86.12.38.180 (talk) 10:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hair products

There should be information regarding hair loss that can be caused by hair products, particularily spray and gel. There are no warnings on the products, but it can probably be taken as scientific fact that the products can cause balding. Treatments for this type of balding should also be added to the treatments section of the article. --Anon. 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

External links section

Seems to be much too long. Any of the current links that are particularly good? - brenneman ^{L} 00:14, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I'm going to forge ahead. - brenneman ^{L} 06:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Bald is Beautiful

I can't help but notice several statements involving the website Bald is Beautiful, which are nothing more than confidence-boosting propoganda. While I'm in no way opposed to this, I don't really think a Wikipedia article is the place for it.

I can see the relevance if it could be argued that this site is culturally relevant. But it has virtually no inbound links (according to Google) arguing against its cultural significance. This is just a small step above someone writing personal narrative.

Not all baldness is alopecia

I removed the comment "However, it is important to note that not all baldness is caused by alopecia." Could someone explain this comment? Am I missing somthing here? Not all baldness is caused by baldness?

al·o·pe·cia Audio pronunciation of "alopecia" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l-psh, -sh-) n.

Loss of hair; baldness. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alopecia --Ryan Wise 07:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I find your sarcasm superfluous. Perhaps whoever misappropriated your jargon terms was not aware that one was synonymous with the other. Until about ten minutes ago, I too was under the impression that alopecia referred to a rare medical condition that was different from regular MPB. M. Frederick 04:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't sarcasm. Someone said "Baldness is not all alopecia." Baldness is alopecia. Period.

What is the benefit of people trying to define terms that they're not familiar with and unwilling to look up? Honestly?--Ryan Wise (talk) 08:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sharon Blynn

I edited the 'bald is beautiful' insertions to make them less NPOV but I couldn't find any support for the cultural significance of the website. A google search showed that it had five minor incoming links. If the site is to be considered somthing other than a plug, can someone demonstrate this person's cultural significance? --Ryan Wise 07:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ketoconazole/Nizoral

In the brief section about ketoconazole, I recommend mentioning that Nizoral shampoo is the most common ketoconazole-containing-product used by people who have hair loss. As far as I know, Nizoral is the only OTC product containing ketoconazole. It would be beneficial to readers to mention the brand name, simply to make it easier for them to find/research it in the form it is available to them. In baldness_treatments, Nizoral is mentioned by name when ketoconazole is discussed.

I would make the change, but am not positive about the NPOV implications when dealing with name brands. Drake 17:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit needed

The link to DHT should point to Dihydrotestosterone, since the DHT page is a disambiguation.
I'm not familiar with the Wiki syntax and can't figure out how to make it link to something other than the text that's displayed (it should still say "DHT").

Probable evolutionary cause of baldness

For exactly similar reasons for humans losing their body hair, it is likely that humans developed male pattern baldness. With the advent of clothes and fire, humans were able to shed their fur. Amongst other advantages, this allowed humans to work harder. Obviously it is easier to control ones body temperature in hot weather without a fur coat. Mammals need the fur coat without clothes and fire to keep themselves warm in lower temperatures, but this comes at the cost of not being able to sweat to lower their body temperatures while exerting themselves at higher temperatures.

It is very likely that men developed male pattern baldness for exactly the same reasons humans have lost fur from the rest of their body.

The logic in the above discussion is inexorable. WP apparently ignores inexorable logic which makes for weak articles such as this one, but can someone poke a hole in this logic?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 01001 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Logic is irrelevant. Provide a reference of someone who makes that claim. — Omegatron 05:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Baldness appears in other ape species, though, not just humans. Maybe it's evolution pre-dated those divisions.--Nectar 06:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

01001, please review the Wikipedia articles Inheritance of acquired characters and Lamarckism. This is the theory you are trying to insert into your articles. Please note that this theory was widely rejected in the scientific community in the early 20th century, but it still pops up in popular science (and Wikipedia). Although it "seems logical", it doesn't work that way. Neil916 06:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, though, that 01001 is saying those proposed advantages would represent increases in fitness.--Nectar 06:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

this comes at the cost of not being able to sweat to lower their body temperatures while exerting themselves at higher temperatures.

Horses sweat. Pigs don't. Which has more hair? But as Nectarflowed says, Wikipedia is not the place for original research. It's for citing the peer reviewed research of others. --Ryan Wise 16:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Note: 01001's OR views on this topic were contrasted with science's opinions on the matter several days ago here, he just doesn't beleive OR applies to his opinions of what is obvious (see edit summaries [3] [4]. Pete.Hurd 17:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

External link

Would like to place an external link to herhairlosshelp.com - More specifically to the forum since it offers a tremendous online support community to women who suffer from this affliction as well as other forms of hair loss.User:MMoyer 20 August 2006

Herhairlosshelp.com has been added to the site-wide spam blacklist because of persistent spamming on wikipedia, which is why you have been unable to add it. Aside from that, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory, so a link to a forum is inappropriate. See Wikipedia:External links for more information. Neil916 (Talk) 06:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the addition to the spam blacklist and am having trouble getting it taken off. I'm still fairly new to Wiki and didn't know the CORRECT way to help edit. I took a look at the external links article and still don't see why the site can't be added. "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article." as well as "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks." I don't understand how baldisbeautiful can stay and this site can't??? What about the external link in [[5]] to AlopeciaUK? Isn't this similar? MMoyer 08:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You spammed that link 21 times and showed no signs of slowing down until it was finally blacklisted. See Wikipedia:External links under "Links normally to be avoided", especially items #1, #2, #3, #4, and #9 to see why the link you propose is not appropriate on Wikipedia. The removal of your link while leaving any other links should not be construed as anybody "endorsing" any of the remaining links as being appropriate. If you think they're inappropriate, then by all means remove them with an edit summary referring to Wikipedia's policy. Sometimes it seems that spammers outnumber legitimate editors here on Wikipedia, so the extra help would be appreciated by all. Neil916 (Talk) 19:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply! Please don't think that I misconstrued at all... I am still learning... ;) I'll help out all I can! MMoyer 12:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This article is full of crap

Human beings did not develop male pattern baldness to make companies that sell products to grow hair wealthy. There are clear evolutionary reasons for humans developing male pattern baldness, and this article is completely ignoring them. By doing so this article basically is bashing bald people by suggesting that baldness is not a perfectly normal healthy condition. This article is basically worthless crap.01001 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC) thems fightin words.. disabled people fight! some douche up there says being bald is a disabilty hehe since wiki needs proof of shit. lol

If you believe you know 'clear evolutionary reasons' why humans have developed a mechanism that in histological terms greatly resembles organ rejection, then kindly tell us what they are: science would love to share your knowledge. Pfistermeister 10:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I entirely agree re cause not for commercial gain.

1. As for evolutionary reason (?advantages), this escapes me - care to explain, i.e. care to add this missing information to the article and so improve it ?

If we can use Darwin's theory of natural selection, the immediate implication is that male pattern baldness was naturally selected. The question than becomes why? But with no real discussion as to the evolutionary reasons men have developed male pattern baldness this article is just plain crap.

The most obvious answer is that men have lost their hair for the same reasons that humans have lost fur over the rest of their bodies. Unfortunately, thanks to the OR gestapo, the article on hair is so badly written as to offer no insight here. lol pwned. or gestapo. someone is gonna delete everything I write but leave yours. oh well. pwned that one least your shit will stay. ha

Also only a moron can watch those commercials that claim to restore hair to men's heads and conclude that they don't prey on men's insecurity with their appearance.01001 03:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. As for "perfectly normal healthy" not quite sure that is ablsolutely true. Firstly does the coverage of scalp hair provide some natural sun protect, thus decreasing the risk of solar keratosis in exposed areas ? Secondly there has been much research into whether baldness may be associated with increased cardiovascular risks - but of course there is nothing one can do to remove ones genetic family inheritance and I certainly do not mean to belittle the condition anymore than one might claim "bad" inherited risk of greying hair, short stature, diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia etc. The issues are whether this relates to altered testosterone levels which might influence both, a shared genetic lineage (i.e. those men who happen to come from families with higher genetic risks for heart disease also have greater rates of baldness as an independant and otherwise unrelated genetic inheretence), or some other cofactor.

Linking baldness with some genetic abnormality such as diabetes is pure bunk, because it is male "pattern" baldness. The pattern strongly implies natural selection.01001 03:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

1. • The Framingham study is the most well known study looking at heart disease (eg hypertension, cholesterol) and reported in 1995 that whilst "Extent of baldness was not associated with any of the outcomes. However, the amount of progression of baldness was associated with coronary heart disease occurrence (relative risk (RR) = 2.4), coronary heart disease mortality (RR = 3.8), and all-cause mortality (RR = 2.4). Rapid hair loss may be a marker for coronary heart disease."
     Herrera C, D'Agostino R, Gerstman B, Bosco L, Belanger A (1995). "Baldness and coronary heart disease rates in men from the Framingham Study". Am J Epidemiol. 142 (8): 828–33. PMID 7572959.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
   • Of course the obvious question then is whether baldness "is a novel risk factor, or is associated with abnormalities of established coronary risk factors." and a study in 2001 concluded "The lack of association between baldness and established coronary risk factors implies that baldness may predispose to coronary heart disease through novel mechanisms yet to be defined".
     Ellis J, Stebbing M, Harrap S (2001). "Male pattern baldness is not associated with established cardiovascular risk factors in the general population". Clin Sci (Lond). 100 (4): 401–4. PMID 11256978.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
   • Of course not all research comes to the same conclusions (?different methodology or issues of different populations studied) in 1998 a large study concluded "that the degrees of graying of the hair, baldness, and facial wrinkles are not predictive of a shorter life span in men and women in the Copenhagen City Heart Study." although found "single exception was observed in a small subgroup of men with no gray hair. They had a slightly, but significantly, lower mortality than the rest [relative risk (RR) = .81]"
     Schnohr P, Nyboe J, Lange P, Jensen G (1998). "Longevity and gray hair, baldness, facial wrinkles, and arcus senilis in 13,000 men and women: the Copenhagen City Heart Study". J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 53 (5): M347-50. PMID 9754140.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

So ?"normal" - yes (or at least I would like to think of myself as such), ?"healthy" - certainly not the negative belittling that "unhealthy" might suggest, but ?"perfectly healthy" - I am not so sure of. David Ruben ^Talk 10:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

This is why I added the bit about other primates going bald. It's not a purely human trait and therefore not related to our unnatural diets or anything like that. I haven't seen any explanation of the evolutionary reasons for it, though. — Omegatron 15:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any references on hand dealing with baldness per se, but if by "evolutionary reasons" for baldness one means body hair then the following might be worth reading, Rogers et al 2004. Genetic variation at the MC1R locus and the time since loss of human body hair Current Anthropology 45:105-108. See also talk:Hair#It is pretty obvious that people have lost their hair because of clothes. for User:01001's previous WP:OR musings on the topic. Pete.Hurd 15:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Would previous discussion of health risk debate be suitable for inclusion in baldness (seems more appropriate than in hair) ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Prevalence of male pattern baldness and age of onset within a human population is very clearly linked to diet (among other non-genetic factors.) Early onset of alopecia has been linked to earlier onset of heart disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11455846&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

This doesn't mean that one diet is more 'natural' than another. There may very well be evolutionary reasons for the uneven distribution of androgen receptors in the male scalp, though those are harder to prove. --Ryan Wise 06:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

User:01001 views on natural selection

"If we can use Darwin's theory of natural selection, the immediate implication is that male pattern baldness was naturally selected." I don't think that's the "immediate" implication, it seems far more likely that male pattern baldness is not, was never was, under direct selection. It's far more likely to be pleiotropic with another trait that is under selection. As for the "OR gestapo", it's cited scientific evidence against whatever you came up with in your head. I don't see any need to get all political about it, but I see Godwin's Law has just come into effect, and so I'll get onto more productive things. Pete.Hurd 03:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am practically certain that the standard established reason stated in basic anthropology text books is that humans lost their fur because clothes is a superior way to keep warm rather than a permanent fur coat. I am pretty certain that I read this in my college anthropology textbook. I do not have the time at the moment to research this at the library, but if noone else bothers to in the next several months I shall do it. The logic of this explanation is very compelling.

Or the logic is reversable. Was it hair loss first, clothes second? See the "Inbreeding" discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.217.177 (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Once the reason for humans losing fur on their body is established properly, the logic follows very easily that the reason that men go bald is very likely because of hats. If not for hats, baldness would be serious problem as the head is perhaps the most important part of the body to keep warm and protected. But with the technology of hats, hair loss on top of the head would serve the same air conditioning purposes as hair loss throughout the rest of the human body. I am not sure if this second paragraph is established scientific theory but it should be.01001 19:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any of this being clearly 'established' particularly since most children are born with hair on their heads, even though they lack it on the rest of their body. Biology doesn't have to be single cause --> single effect. There are numerous reasons to be taller or shorter. But there's a difference between saying that a trait was 'selected for' and saying that it wasn't selected strongly against. At a cellular level, folicles in a balding scalp are shown to be similar to older cells. DHT is a hair growth promoter. More DHT is linked to earlier MPB. Thus, if you grow hair faster when you're young (and have more androgens when you're young) you have less hair when you're older. --Ryan Wise 03:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does weightlifting cause baldness?

Weightlifting causing baldness? I've never seen any evidence for this, and it sounds especially fishy since men with male pattern tend to have lower levels of overall testosterone (and merely raised unbound testosterone). It's definitely relevant if true, but does someone have anything to back it up?

If your body converts your testosterone into DHT (due to low levels of Sex Hormone Binding Globulin) you're more likely to lose your hair. Men with lower SHBG (one factor influencing baldness) convert their testosterone into DHT. So they have lower T and higher unbound free androgens. Weightlifting increases testosterone which is either bound or converted into DHT depending on the person. Most anabolic steroids have the same effect. However daily aerobic exercise has been shown to raise SHBG, thus making hair retention more likely. So if weight lifting was mixed with aerobic exercise and steroids were not used, the outcome re: hair is less certain. You asked for support. Which part of this sequence do you want supported?

--Ryan Wise 03:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, men with baldness have lower total levels of testosterone, but higher levels of unbound testosterone. The only part of the equation that is not clearly substantiated is whether or not weightlifting increases the levels of unbound testosterone. It certainly seems intuitive, but I'd still like some sort of source on it.

Can anyone find any source, for whether or not weightlifting increases the levels of unbound testosterone? If not, it doesn't seem like the mention of weightlifting being a potential cause should be in the article.

To add something else, isn't it possible that muscle hypertrophy "consumes" free testosterone, and could thus be GOOD for hair? It just seems like there's no evidence regarding the effects of weight training on levels of free testosterone, so it shouldn't be in the article.

If anything it would be the other way around. Dr mercola found a high incidence of insulin resistance in prematurely balding men. weightlifting increases insulin sensitivity. the small temporary raise in test that weightlifting might give would not be significant in hair loss, moreover as mentioned what is important is free testosterone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PowerSam (talk • contribs) 01:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I provided cites for this a while back. They seem to have been removed. In short; aerobic exercise decreases SHBG and testosterone. Weight training + increased fat intake increases free testosterone. Studies don't clearly differentiate between aerobic and anaerobic exercise, typically. --Ryan Wise (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hair multiplication and rejuvination

Subsequent versions of the treatment are expected by some scientists to be able to cause these follicle stem cells to simply signal the surrounding hair follicles to rejuvenate.*

While some scientists claim this, it sounds dangerous. Folicles in a bald scalp are senescent. That means they are "old" at the cellular level. While senescent cells can be made to grow again (there are cases of immune suppresant drugs leading to hair growth in senescent cells) this would pose a severe cancer risk. --Ryan Wise 03:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Male pattern baldness is characterized by hair receding from the lateral sides of the forehead, known as "receding hairline" or "receding brow." An additional bald patch may develop on top (vertex). The trigger for this type of baldness (called androgenic alopecia because it is caused by male Gay-hormones or androgens) is DHT, a powerful sex hormone.

I've removed the instance of "gay", because I didn't find it on the androgens page, and it just looks like vandalism. If this isn't vandalism, it seems poorly worded. Thoughts? --Muna 11:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Accutane and hair loss

Has anyone who used Accutane to treat Acne in their teens experienced unexpected hair loss or balding, or more rapid hair loss than expected?

I have. Please share your thoughts and experiences. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.251.36.103 (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

please note original research is against wikipedia's policies. --Ryan Wise 05:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

More body hair = greater risk of baldness?

Apparently if you have full chest hair, back hair, and shoulder hair you have a 90% chance of being bald. Is there any truth to this or is it just another myth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.30.128.68 (talk) 06:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Writing a play

I am writing a play on a handicap or disability and (not to offend anyone) Alopecia is on the list of disabilities. I would like to write it on a person (probably female) with extreme Alopecia (my other option is Body Dysmorphic Disorder). Does anyone have any important info, sites, etc that could help me? Ladylaughsalot 19:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Picture of male pattern baldness in 40 year old man

No other picture in this article illustrates the area of effect of male pattern baldness as effectively as this one. All the picture of Patrick Stewart documents is that he has a hair cut. Yes, he is known as being bald, but the picture does not illustrate the extent baldness and thinning of his hair. The picture of the 40 year old shows that a subject at 40 years old has both areas of thinning and areas of complete baldness. Until a better free picture of that is added, it should remain on the article.Lkinkade 18:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The picture you put up doesn't show they guy's hair. Is he some friend of yours? Is this a practical joke?

--Ryan Wise 05:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It does show his hair, what is left. Are you sure you are looking at the same pic? Lkinkade 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture i was referring to has already been removed. Here's a link to what I was referring to.

[6]

--Ryan Wise 05:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now seriously

The point in the article that suggests people losing pubic hair "might result in lack of confidence" is ridiculous and provides no citations. Come now.

24.251.84.221 09:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If the introduction was as follows, would you take it seriously?:

Baldness, also know as toupee-ism, Yul-ism, Friar Tuck-ism, Monkism, Buddhism, Monkian-ism and Thundercat-ism is an hereditary disorder which causes varying degrees of disfigurement in afflicted individuals. Throughout history, many high-profile public figures have raised awareness and campaigned against this illness. Of these figures, Yul Brynner is perhaps the best known. Brynner first generated widespread sypathy towards the disease with the release of the 1956 film "The King and I", a grim tale which depicts a hapless Siamese king who suffers from the condition. Brynner continued to lobby against baldness until, tragically, it claimed his life in 1985.

Paralleling the emergence of HIV in the 1980s, baldness was once again drawn to public attention with the commencement of the science fiction series, "Star Trek: The Next Generation", with bald actor Patrick Stewart playing the program's lead character. Famously, the introductory line of "Star Trek" (its parent series) had to be changed from "To boldly go where no man has gone before", to "To baldly go where no man has gone before." Indeed, Stewart would continue to champion the baldness cause with the release of the documentary "X-Men", and rather less well in "X-Men 2" and appallingly "X-Men 3", once and for all proving that a strong link exists between baldness and the development of psychic powers. Holymolytree2 20:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Link spam

The 'embracing baldness' section seems to be full of link spam. Is there any reason not to remove it?

Citing sources

This article cites numerous sources. Could whoever put that tag on here please at least go through and put some {fact} tags where they'd like more references? --Ryan Wise 14:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Aerobics

I've removed the declaration that aerobic activity lowers testosterone - the only study supporting this found that cyclists had lower testosterone than non-cyclists. This is like assuming that playing football makes one bulky and large, or playing basketball makes one tall. A study should be found in which lower testosterone is shown to be a response to aerobic exercise.

Error in folklore section?

"Bald men are more 'virile' or sexually active than others."

Levels of free testosterone are strongly linked to libido and also DHT levels, but unless free testosterone is virtually non-existent levels have not been shown to affect virility

in the above is there a comma missing after "non-existent"? Don't know this subject well enough to fix.

Ejaculation lowers relaxin, a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor?

The article cites no sources whatsoever to show that ejaculation lowers relaxin, or that it is a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor.

Some of us actually choose to shave our heads!

I came looking for information for people who shave their heads just because they feel like it (much like myself). I keep hearing that people buff or wax their heads so that the hair grows back more slowly. I found no information here that would come anywhere near helping people who would want to choose to be bald. Where is the stuff to help us out?!

Warning tags unhelpful

The article has 26 sources, no 'citations needed' tags and a warning at the top saying that the article 'cites no sources?' If someone disagrees with the content of the article, could they at least give some constructive criticism in regards to what they feel should be fixed, supported, etc. Thanks. --Ryan Wise 02:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Leimo

The Leimo laser was recently approved by the TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) of Australia as a Class IIa Medical Device that regrows hair. Its ARTG number is 139 546.

I just fixed the ARTG number, it was actually the number of a catheter introducer. The TGA information only mentions 'laser, diode', it makes no mention of the devices ability to cause hair regrowth. Should this product even be mentioned? I can understand having a section on regrowing hair with lasers and other research but mentioning this one specific product seems like advertising to me. Should it be removed? MrFlit (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Shampoo leads to hair loss!

Recent studies point to the data that users who shampoo with products containing Sodium Lauryl Sulfate lose hair. This is worth looking into:

http://www.ioniczone.com/sodium-laur...tion-s/130.htm

http://www.hairlossbuddy.com/20/sodium-lauryl-sulfate/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.202.252 (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Placebo are not effective in treatment

Whomever wrote the section on placebo being a type of treatment based upon sexual side-effects with placebo/finasteride seems to have misunderstood the meaning of treatment. I am removing this section Tiny.ian (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove Trivia section

I'd like to work towards slimming this article down a little, it's quite a jumble right now. Let's zap the Trivia section entirely, especially since Trivia sections are generally discouraged. —Noah 02:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've worked it out. I removed all the celebrity crap and moved what was left up to the main article. Pipatron (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks. —Noah 07:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Baldness folklore

This seems worthy of its own page. Why don't we fork it off and get it out of the main article. Thoughts? —Noah 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

External link

This blog has some good information on hair loss and treatments. I think it is a good source, as it is written by a doctor (who is not trying to sell anything) that could be used as a citation, included as an external link, or extracted into the full text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.227.103 (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a valid referance. I will add in the next few days if I don't see any objections here. EBMdoc (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 (talk) 13:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

"Links to blogs and personal web pages should be avoided, except those written by a recognized authority." It would appear that a link to a dermatologist's website meets the criteria of authority. No? EBMdoc (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline.--Hu12 (talk) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like someone to add it under external links.--69.154.16.119 (talk) 19:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Lateral sides

This phrase is tautological. Someone who knows what is meant should fix it. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help!

هل يمكن أن يحدث الصلع الذكوري أو الوراثي بدون تراجع خط الشعر الأمامي؟ هل هناك فرق بين الصلع الوراثي والذكوري؟ هل يمكن أن يحدث الصلع الأنثوي إلى رجل؟ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.234.226.233 (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Either a good looking bald guy goes here or no image

This is not a commercial to sell baldness products.01001 (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Right... What was the point in removing an infobox and image (which is not a commercial) and replacing it with a BLP image and infobox? Bidgee (talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The picture is ugly and connotes that baldness is ugly. There are millions of pictures of bald guys. Why an ugly one?01001 (talk) 16:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting. You're using the wrong infobox and the wrong image. I see no issue with the current image (and I'm going bald myself). Bidgee (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why use an ugly image???????????????????? I will wait 24 hours for some reason why an ugly image is used here before reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 01001 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

(EC) The image is descriptive and "an ugly image" is not a valid reason to remove or revert. Bidgee (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sticking an ugly image of a bald guy on an article on baldness connotes that baldness is ugly. Especially right at the head of the article. The article is ugly and the picture is ugly. This is not NPOV.01001 (talk) 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because you say the image is ugly and the article is ugly doesn't mean you can be disruptive. Explain what the issue is rather then just saying it's ugly and it seem that you do have a POV of removing anything that you dislike. Bidgee (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a good point to be made about the 'medicalisation' of what is a not, to my mind, a pathological condition. But the wrong infobox is being used, and even addressing that, it may be that consensus is for a more medical style of illustration. William Avery (talk) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I hereby demand a vote on the image that heads this article

Apparently someone that sells hair restoration products is trying to take charge of this article. I hereby demand a consensus here. I want to know why an ugly offensive image belongs on top of this article.01001 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I changed it to Patrick Stewart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.252.3 (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Good luck with that, there are a handful of people that own this article. I am really wondering why they are so intent on keeping that ugly image there?01001 (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion. In what way does the image fail Wikipedia's policies? I see no issue with the image (Whether if you think it's ugly and offensive see WP:NOTCENSORED), I don't see how this article is being taken over by "someone that sells hair restoration products". Bidgee (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Besides that, if this came to a vote, there is no doubt that you would lose. Have you found a single other user in good standing who agrees with you here? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no doubt that I would lose! Have you lost your freaking mind or have I?

What the hell is so great about this ugly image that it has to grace the top of this article? Why are people so intent on keeping this thing on top of this article? I am completely befuddled.01001 (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying you feel that there is a consensus to keep?

First of all just because you think it's "ugly" doesn't mean that we should replace it to what you want (I would like to see a better image but ATM it's the best image we have). I've asked you what policies does the image breach/fail in Wikipedia and you've not answered that question. Bidgee (talk) 07:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

If you can replace it with another image that illustrates baldness like that one was, go ahead. The image you put up doesn't illustrate baldness; it illustrates Sean Connery, who happens to be balding. In fact, you could barely even see his head. This is an article about baldness, not an article about men who happen to be bald; surely the distinction doesn't elude you? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I stumbled upon this on complete accident while on another page, so let me give you an opinion from someone who does not edit this article at all. If this image does not look suitable, for some reason then replace it with a better one. Just remember WP:NOTCENSORED, works against the current argument at hand. Might I suggest going to Commons if you are set on a new image. -Marcusmax (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

After giving the image a good look it is also not suitable since this guy appears to be missing hair on the side of his head as well. This is not usual for male pattern baldness.

There is no replacing this image. I am certain that people that sell hair replacement are set on this one and they own the page.01001 (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

substitute the picture is also amateurish, dark and distracting background, and not really illustrative, per above. --Pedro (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussion about whether or not to replace the image is sort of pointless absent an alternative image. I'm satisfied with the one on here, but if people don't like it I'd be quite happy to consider an alternative image. As yet, no serious alternative has been presented. Also, 01001, your suggestion that those of us who reverted your near-vandalism of the page are in the hair replacement business (an allegation that, in my case at least, is demonstrably false) is pretty much ludicrous and a flagrant violation of WP:AGF. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We had Patrick Stewart and Sean Connery as alternatives. The commons is loaded with better images. The image there now is the type of an image the hair restoration people use. Changing the image met determined, aggressive and swift resistance. Why is there such a powerful determined resistance to changing this image?01001 (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I explained above why Connery and Stewart cannot be seriously considered as alternatives. If the Commons is loaded with better images, by all means find one. I have no objection at all to replacing this image with one that serves the same purpose. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

An ugly image on this page clearly represents a point of view and no one has responded to this main point.01001 (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

A beautiful image also represents a point of view. The question is what represents a neutral point of view. MvjsTalking 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Off topic, leave up for a couple days

stomach what can a woman take to flatten her stomach in replace of tummy tuck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.186.21 (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this question be better asked elsewhere? Anyway, the solution is not a pill, but exercise and weight loss. Skin will tighten up over time. Abductive (reasoning) 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting Data Regarding Exercise as Treatment

There is conflicting data/contrary evidence out there according to at least one comprehensive study in middle age to older men that regular aerobic exercise actually slightly increases DHT levels, which contradicts the claim made by one contributor in the Treatments section under Exercise. I plan on making changes to this section if it can;t be refuted here in discussion. The study in question can be found here: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/569299 B.Soto (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

terrible citation

Citation #17 is a horrid link. Unless someone finds another source for the info corresponding to that link, the text should be deleted. (Referring to: "Most cases associated with female baldness can be treated in a very effective fashion because of the advancements made in the field of medical science...[17]") — Eric Herboso 19:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Went ahead with being bold and removed the text. If you want to work the text back in using a different source, here's the removed text for reference. — Eric Herboso 19:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Picture needed.

We all know what bald men look like, but not bald women. The Female Hair Loss section could really use an illustration. Dlabtot (talk) 03:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

news

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/ucla-va-researchers-may-have-discovered-190273.aspx "Now, a team led by researchers from UCLA and the Veterans Administration that was investigating how stress affects gastrointestinal function may have found a chemical compound that induces hair growth by blocking a stress-related hormone associated with hair loss — entirely by accident..." worth including? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiserd911 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

more news

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45259102/ns/today-today_health/#.TsFkIla3O0s "The drug [Latisse], which in its earliest, unsexiest incarnation existed solely as a glaucoma treatment, is best known as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved wonder drug that can grow and darken your poor listless lashes . Now, it's being tested for a new use: growing hair on your dome." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.20.197.219 (talk) 18:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Baldness is the same as Alopecia

The hair loss is named alopecia, if you lose hair, you become bald, because of that, this article should be merged with "Alopecia", both terms are the same. --BOMBINI (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree Ramwithaxe 21:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Advertisement for unproven TRX2 should be removed

While medical policing frequently deletes well sourced peer reviewed information that happens not to be a "review" article, breathless hype has been inserted into this article supported by no study at all, and it reads like the ad copy that it is:

Unlike any drug, a dietary supplement, TRX2, is introduced by Oxford BioLabs, after the Oxford Scientists' research on small proteins called "potassium channels". Similar to Minoxidil, TRX2 works by reactivating potassium channels. The treatment contains L-Carntine-tartrate, which has been documented to induce hair growth in humans.[31][32]

One of the cited footnotes 31 or 32 above, is just about the amino acid, L-Carntine-tartrate.

The other cite includes the following information:

1. TRX2 by Oxford Biolabs

Product: The company believes that support of hair follicle's potassium ion channels is the key to maintaining hair growth. It launched its product, TRX2, yesterday.

Pros/cons: Although the company presents the product as a medical breakthrough, it's actually just another dietary supplement and as such is not approved by the FDA. In industry parlance, that's another of way of saying "we can't prove it works."

--Ocdnctx (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your argument Ocdnctx. I appreciate your interest.

You may notice that, the statement has been rewritten to make it more neutral (by removing the word "unlike"). And please note that, "The product is a dietary supplement, not a drug, and hence not approved by FDA." - this makes clear that TRX2 is a supplement. Supplement NEVER are approved by any medicinal regulatory agency (only drugs are). You can't get approval for a supplement NOR do you require it (only drugs and medical devices). I think the title of the CBS's report "pharmas-4-BEST-shots-at-a-CURE-for-baldness" is a best shot indeed - seems logical that, these four are the best in mass market. And the product is acknowledged and cited in peer reviewed publications (you can note that from the citations now). And finally the research is backed by University of Oxford's Department of Biochemistry. Hope I can prove that, it's not an advertisement but an informing statement peer-reviewed by several renowned publications. Thanks.  —Mayeenul Islam ^(TALK) 16:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikification

This article is a mess and needs serious Wikification. There are parts that read like blog entries with significant sections of unreferenced editorializing. Someone should clean it soon. Ramwithaxe 21:40, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

here's a citation for the powerful nature of DHT

On the Wiki page 'Androgen', there's a chart revealing DHT's potency and text reinforcing this:

Determined by consideration of all biological assay methods (circa 1970). Data from Steroid Biochemistry and Pharmacology by Briggs and Brotherton, Academic Press. Testosterone 100 5alpha-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) 90 Androstanediol 60 Androstenedione 20 Dehydroepiandrosterone 10 Androsterone 10

5alpha-dihydrotestosterone (DHT) was 2.4 times more potent than testosterone at maintaining normal prostate weight and duct lumen mass (this is a measure of epithelial cell function stimulation). Whereas DHT was equally potent as testosterone at preventing prostate cell death after castration.[10] 2.98.155.225 (talk) 12:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC) vburmester

Proposed merge

I have proposed a merge from baldness to androgenic alopecia, with any remaining content merged into alopecia, and a comment left on Androgenic alopecia stating "the term baldness redirects here. For other causes of hair loss , see alopecia. For other uses of 'bald', see bald (disambiguation).". Any comments are welcome. A concurrent discussion is underway on Wikiproject Medicine, available here.

This merge seeks to reduce the duplication in content and improve the overall quality of Wikipedia. LT90001 (talk) 11:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I propose this merger because:

• Currently this article exists in a bit of a quandary with no formal definition.
• I think the term 'baldness' is used in common parlance to refer specifically to the hair loss covered in androgenic alopecia, so it is appropriate to redirect there
• A disambiguating note at the top will redirect other causes of hair loss to alopecia, a more appropriate place for the discussion of other causes of localised and generalised hair loss. LT90001 (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree-- seems logical. Lesion (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This merge has been proposed for over 18 months. I have completed the merge from baldness to alopecia'. Although 'baldness' is the common name, the term 'alopecia' is much less ambiguous. The article on 'alopecia' has been expanded with a {{About|}} note to redirect readers to 'male pattern baldness' if this is their intended search. I hope this goes some way to improving the quality of wikipedia and stopping the duplication of information amongst these topics. LT90001 (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2013 (UTC)