i have heard a radio doctor (no, he doesn’t work on radios) say that in some cases, women have had liposuction on their legs and have had an increase in their breast measurements. i am not making this up. (i think he was dr. dean o’dell “dr. dean”, and i think he’s national, but maybe just regional). if this is true, it would appear to me that the bodies of these women have a kind of homeostasis to account for this (IANA biologist, this may be the wrong word)…hold on, i’m getting to my question…o.k…my theory is that if a man with hairy ears gets electrolysis on his ears, his crown may regrow hair that it lost as he matured, thru this effect.
Questions:
has anyone heard of this kind of effect in regard to electrolysis/hair regrowth?
has anyone heard of research on this?
secondly, something called 'hair advantage" has been advertised on the radio (i know, i know) as helping to regrow hair through stopping a certain hormone from being produced in the body. is this a crock?
Interesting question, HH. It would appear that adults have all of the fat cells that they will ever have. When a person gains weight, the fat cells simply get bigger, like a balloon filling with air. When the person loses weight, each fat cell gets smaller.
IF a person removes some fat cells…let’s say 50%…then if the person gains weight, all of the increase must come from the fat cells that are left…so each of the remaining fat cells gets twice as large as it did before the surgery.
Therefore, if we remove fat cells from the lower regions, the fat cells left in the upper part of the body must take up the excess weight gain.
As a related side thought…everyone says they hate fat. But did you know that much of the difference in the body contours between males and females is due to the difference in fat deposits in the two sexes? Think of all the beer belly guys with no butt! Doesn’t happen all that much in women.
Another related side thought…most of the difference in the size of breasts is due to the amount of fat deposited there. Different genes cause different amounts of fat to be deposited in hips or thighs, so we can have females with large breasts and lean butts. The places we deposit fat is pretty much determined by genetics and what hormones are present to turn on the genes.
Wow…I got so into the fat question that I ignored the hair part of the post!
Since hair growth is determined by the activity of the cells in a particular follicle (and not by fats circulating thoughout the bloodsteam), if you kill the cells in one place, it will not effect the activity positively or negatively in another place.
So the removal of hair in one place will not cause it to grow more in another place.
[Ignoring the fact that as I loose hair on the top of my head, it seems to sprout in a variety of other places…nature’s little prank]
I don’t know anything about “Hair Advantage” but if it claims to act on a certain hormone it is probably DHT which binds to the androgen receptors in the hair follicle ultimately resulting in hair loss. Rogaine and Propecia work on the same principle so the concept is not a “crock” though the execution may be. For instance, while Human Growth Hormone will increase lean body mass, it can’t be assimilated through mucous membranes. All those products that contain oral HGH are a crock. As for what Dr. Dean said, it could be a result of the adipose tissue in the breast taking up some of the slack as previously mentioned or possibly a hormonal change due to the shock/body chemistry changes of the radical surgery.
Whenever I listen to any sports radio shows, I hear commercials for “Avacor” (sp?), and another similar product (never heard one for Hair Advantage). They operate on the same DHT-blocking principle. The Avacor commercial claims a “90% success rate” in regrowing hair. Personally, I’d have to think that if these products really worked, with the types of results claimed, you’d hear them advertised all over the place, not just on radio shows geared towards middle-aged males. It would practically be front page news.
Also, keep in mind that, while a product may actually regrow hair, it may be nothing more than “peachfuzz”. Regrowth? Technically, yes. Noticeable? Hardly.
right. i am quite often torn between the fact that great marvels of science are out there while at the same time, great marvels of human treachery are flourishing as well.
I cannot believe my whole response to this just got lost. Bummer. I’ll summarize.
I’m not saying this is necessarily the case with “Hair Advantage,” but often a marketing company will quote credible scientific studies to back up a product that doesn’t work like the ones used in the studies. I used HGH oral spray as an example but it works the same way in many hairloss scams. Check out this site: http://www.21stcenturyhgh.com/clinicalstudies.htm
You might read this and come to the conclusion that HGH works and you would be right. But the HGH oral spray doesn’t. The HGH in the study was injected. The Human Growth Hormone molecule is too big to pass through mucuous membranes so while the theory they espouse is correct the application of it isn’t. “Hair Advantage” is PROBABLY doing something along the same lines. Perhaps quoting research done on minoxidil about how stopping dht from binding at receptors is a way to prevent hairloss to give credibility to a product which doesn’t actually work like minoxidil. I can’t find anything on a google search about Hair Advantage other than forum entries saying it’s a scam so it’s tough to say anything more other than your better off sticking to one of the three products with FDA approval for treating hairloss - Minoxidil, Finasteride (Propecia), and the latest, Dutasteride (Avodart - NOT Avacor!!)