correlation of craniofacial dystrophy (misdevelopment) with hair loss

AutisticBeaner

AutisticBeaner

Nosebreather
Joined
Oct 13, 2019
Posts
8,924
Reputation
12,272
mike mew has said that craniofacial dystrophy, incorrect facial development, is becoming generally worse and more common. and for some reason hair loss is getting more and more common too (I mean, why would it if it's for the most part genetic?):
Stress, diet, and even hair treatments are among the possible reasons younger generations are noticing hair loss at an earlier age.
how could this make any sense?
i don't know if you've seen this article. it associates craniofacial dystrophy, incorrect facial development, with hair loss in a rather plausible way:
doesn't it seem a bit weird that our hairline is more appealing once it goes from the juvenile round shape to the square shape, yet as soon as it goes past that it becomes very unappealing? wouldn't it make more sense if we were to keep this ideal square shaped hairline throughout the years when we're sexually active, let's say from the age of ~18 into the 30s or whatever and only then move on to the latter norwood stages?
obviously, this thread is not to completely discount any genetic influence.
 
  • +1
Reactions: HowAmIAlive123, Darkstrand, PURE ARYAN GENETICS and 4 others
MSE should be mandatory for everyone
 
  • +1
Reactions: CursedOne and AutisticBeaner
so what should we do?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 5912
i stopped reading there
i knew that some idiot was gonna stumble upon this. this doesn't even have anything to do with mewing. jfl if you don't even believe that faces develop a certain way
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Lmao, diggbicc, Incoming and 1 other person
jfl if you don't even believe that faces develop a certain way
stop wasting your days with that cope. it's your life.
You'll end up swollen the geneticpill while you cry.
"eNviRomeNtAL"
"muh ancestors"
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: EndlessHunger, Incoming and Golang
i've believed for a long time that hair loss and mpb arelargely associated with scalp mechanical tension caused by poor craniofacial development and bad posture but i've always gotten shit for it.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Need2Ascend, entrenador, PURE ARYAN GENETICS and 5 others
i've believed for a long time that hair loss and mpb arelargely associated with scalp mechanical tension caused by poor craniofacial development and bad posture but i've always gotten shit for it.
i've never even taken it into consideration until few months ago but it does make sense. what i find most convincing is this:
Norwood 7 left galea right

the area where the hair falls out way earlier (the scalp) is exactly where the galea is. and if the galea is tightened or compressed then the blood vessels have a much harder time getting through it:
Scalp1

(notice the fourth layer is the galea)

that's probably also why scalp massage works to some extent
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadelite, Baldingman1998, Deleted member 7173 and 1 other person
Jfl at you I have a monster jawline with monster eyes and I started norwooding a bit weeks ago
 
  • JFL
Reactions: AutisticBeaner
actually, looking at these pictures, some of them depict the frontalis muscle in the shape of a latter norwood stage.
337
Download

what if losing the hair on the upper forehead, the early norwood stages, was mostly genetic but losing the hair on the scalp was mostly caused by a compressed galea, what the article discusses?
 
  • +1
Reactions: diggbicc, Chadelite and Incoming
Fucking terrifying if true
 
and if the galea is tightened or compressed then the blood vessels have a much harder time getting through it:

Doesn't really explain why HTs work or why a NW-zone follicle that's transplanted to your hand still ends up minituarized.
 
  • Woah
Reactions: RAITEIII
Good thread tbh, gj op!

Doesn't really explain why HTs work or why a NW-zone follicle that's transplanted to your hand still ends up minituarized.

Is the latter part really the case? If you transplant a follicle form the crown to an arm for example, it will fall out? Interesting if true.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 7173 and AutisticBeaner
If you transplant a follicle form the crown to an arm for example, it will fall out? Interesting if true.

Yes, as it is still susceptible to the circulating androgens. Cba to find the study rn, but it was performed in the 80s afaik.
 
  • Woah
  • +1
Reactions: RAITEIII and Deleted member 5061
It might accentuate the problem but it's not the main reason, so cope.
 

I've been reading up on this and this theory seems to hold some water
 
  • +1
  • Woah
Reactions: GigaMogger, AutisticBeaner and Incoming

I've been reading up on this and this theory seems to hold some water
I'm thinking thinning on the crown may very well be related to neck tension. I've also read in a study that usage of the frontalis muscle might affect the hairloss in the early norwood stages, when your hairline starts transforming into this "M"-like shape.
the frontalis muscle is the muscle you can see here right where the forehead is, the one that looks just like the forhead of someone with nordwood 2:
Download

that would also explain why there seems to be not much of a connection between thinning of the crown and losing hair at the front (beside age).
there's gotta be some genetic factors as well though, it's just a question of how big that is.
 
Doesn't really explain why HTs work or why a NW-zone follicle that's transplanted to your hand still ends up minituarized.
Wtf? it's over we are basically doomed but why would the hair on the top of your head have higher sensitivity?

There's usually no hairloss during puberty when you have peak androgenic activity, maybe it's due to changes in androgen sensitivity/AR levels overtime but it remains unclear why this happen on a specific area of your scalp whereas in some other part of your body the complete opposite process could take place.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Lolcel
Doesn't really explain why HTs work or why a NW-zone follicle that's transplanted to your hand still ends up minituarized.
Sorry just to be sure but according to this then non NW-zone transplanted follicle wouldnt fall?
 
There's usually no hairloss during puberty when you have peak androgenic activity, maybe it's due to changes in androgen sensitivity/AR levels overtime but it remains unclear why this happen on a specific area of your scalp whereas in some other part of your body the complete opposite process could take place.
that's exactly why i found this so convincing
Image001
 
  • Woah
Reactions: RAITEIII
that's exactly why i found this so convincing
View attachment 524402
I tend to think that it's probably a multifactorial issue.

@Mayorga thoughts on mature hairline? A sudden increase in androgenic activity that gives you NW2 and then it suddenly stops again and you could mantain your hair for decades.
 
I tend to think that it's probably a multifactorial issue.
yea definitely. there's gotta be some sort of a genetic factor, some sort of a hormonal factor or some sort of a factor related to other health issues.
 
  • +1
Reactions: RAITEIII
non NW-zone transplanted follicle wouldnt fall?

exactly

@Mayorga thoughts on mature hairline?

it's not just the amount of androgenic activity per se. the AR pathway is quite complex and there are many coregulators that play a role in the final outcome, so gene expression is obviously important here and we know it can differ even in neighbouring regions. add that to the decreased aromatase expression in temporal areas so less estrogens to stimulate growth (though er-alpha and er-beta seem to have opposite effects on hair).

a mature hairline is just a scenario, dictated by the individual genetic make-up, possibly in combination with environmental factors.

all in all the interplay between the pathways involved in MPB is far from understood and inhibiting the production of the androgen with the highest AR binding affinity (what fin does) seems like the most practical solution that we have at the moment.
 
  • Woah
Reactions: RAITEIII
exactly



it's not just the amount of androgenic activity per se. the AR pathway is quite complex and there are many coregulators that play a role in the final outcome, so gene expression is obviously important here and we know it can differ even in neighbouring regions. add that to the decreased aromatase expression in temporal areas so less estrogens to stimulate growth (though er-alpha and er-beta seem to have opposite effects on hair).

a mature hairline is just a scenario, dictated by the individual genetic make-up, possibly in combination with environmental factors.

all in all the interplay between the pathways involved in MPB is far from understood and inhibiting the production of the androgen with the highest AR binding affinity (what fin does) seems like the most practical solution that we have at the moment.
Mirin your iq.

One last question I don't want to use finasteride given that it inhibits DHT type 2, which is involved in the development of sexual charactheristics so I wondered the level of efficacy of RU and if you think it could interfere AR's in other parts of your body with the premise that it could go systematic?

Theorically, inhibiting those AR's seems like a potential better alternative in certain way...

Is 5% the only concentration I could/should (try to experiment to lol )use?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Chadelite
Is 5% the only concentration I could/should (try to experiment to lol )use?

i have seen reports of success with 2.5%. RU has not been shown to have systemic anti-androgenic effects AFAIK.
 
  • Woah
Reactions: RAITEIII
i have seen reports of success with 2.5%. RU has not been shown to have systemic anti-androgenic effects AFAIK.
Thx king
 
  • +1
Reactions: Mayorga
mike mew has said that craniofacial dystrophy, incorrect facial development, is becoming generally worse and more common. and for some reason hair loss is getting more and more common too (I mean, why would it if it's for the most part genetic?):

how could this make any sense?
i don't know if you've seen this article. it associates craniofacial dystrophy, incorrect facial development, with hair loss in a rather plausible way:
doesn't it seem a bit weird that our hairline is more appealing once it goes from the juvenile round shape to the square shape, yet as soon as it goes past that it becomes very unappealing? wouldn't it make more sense if we were to keep this ideal square shaped hairline throughout the years when we're sexually active, let's say from the age of ~18 into the 30s or whatever and only then move on to the latter norwood stages?
obviously, this thread is not to completely discount any genetic influence.
thanks 4 info.

Mike Mew is also not immune to the balding.

Mike2.png
 
yeah only women never go bald

this is fucking stupid
 
mike mew has said that craniofacial dystrophy, incorrect facial development, is becoming generally worse and more common. and for some reason hair loss is getting more and more common too (I mean, why would it if it's for the most part genetic?):

how could this make any sense?
i don't know if you've seen this article. it associates craniofacial dystrophy, incorrect facial development, with hair loss in a rather plausible way:
doesn't it seem a bit weird that our hairline is more appealing once it goes from the juvenile round shape to the square shape, yet as soon as it goes past that it becomes very unappealing? wouldn't it make more sense if we were to keep this ideal square shaped hairline throughout the years when we're sexually active, let's say from the age of ~18 into the 30s or whatever and only then move on to the latter norwood stages?
obviously, this thread is not to completely discount any genetic influence.
Stop teaching these ungrateful scums
 
mike mew has said that craniofacial dystrophy, incorrect facial development, is becoming generally worse and more common. and for some reason hair loss is getting more and more common too (I mean, why would it if it's for the most part genetic?):
how could this make any sense?
i don't know if you've seen this article. it associates craniofacial dystrophy, incorrect facial development, with hair loss in a rather plausible way:
doesn't it seem a bit weird that our hairline is more appealing once it goes from the juvenile round shape to the square shape, yet as soon as it goes past that it becomes very unappealing? wouldn't it make more sense if we were to keep this ideal square shaped hairline throughout the years when we're sexually active, let's say from the age of ~18 into the 30s or whatever and only then move on to the latter norwood stages?
obviously, this thread is not to completely discount any genetic influence.
 
They just react jfl and shit same on reddit calling people schizo for giving a theory @AutisticBeaner
 
They just react jfl and shit same on reddit calling people schizo for giving a theory @AutisticBeaner
oh i thought you were calling the mews ungrateful lmao my bad

you're right though i have long given up unless people specifically ask about it
 
  • +1
Reactions: horizontallytall
oh i thought you were calling the mews ungrateful lmao my bad

you're right though i have long given up unless people specifically ask about it
I literally ahve morehair loss on one side wheremy Forehead is protruding
 
  • +1
Reactions: AutisticBeaner
oh i thought you were calling the mews ungrateful lmao my bad

you're right though i have long given up unless people specifically ask about it
It started after 17 .
 

Similar threads

lestoa
Replies
11
Views
1K
melon6329
melon6329
redfacccee
Replies
41
Views
3K
Shubbz
S
lestoa
Replies
22
Views
3K
kanderior
kanderior
nuisance
Replies
12
Views
1K
nuisance
nuisance

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top