Where my socks are, there is no hair! This is a new thing but noticable. Does wearing socks kill off leg hair? if so, I am getting longer socks.
Underwear doesn’t seem to do this, by contrast.
Socks can wear against the area and lead to hair loss, but poor circulation from a number of conditions (some serious, some not) is also a problem. Tight socks can work in conjunction with other issues.
Since there is a potential underlying medical condition, the standard warning is required:
We can’t diagnose anything here. Please see a doctor. It might be nothing; it might be something.
That’s pretty normal. I have no hair in the front and back of my ankles. I have hair on the right and left side of my ankles though.
I don’t think it’s a sock that causes it, 'cause if it was I’d have no hair period
It’s possible that aging plays a factor.
Aging = reduced circulation… but aging is associated with risk of having other conditions that can contribute.
Kind of like, “I have a headache”. Could be stress, high blood pressure, your eyes straining or a large, malignant tumor.
Well, thanks, but i am not even asking my dr. I am fine.
Famous last words!
Are you trying to say, “It’s not a tumah?”
Must be hair loss from socks season. Recent thread:
Do men lose hair on lower legs as they age due to use of socks or natural aging?
No it’s “I do NAT have a TUMAH!”
You butchered that line!
It’s NOT a TUMAH!
clip:
As I mentioned in the other recent thread: I had the same loss of hair in the same area . . . but then continued to lose it gradually higher and higher, above the sock line. Then I was diagnosed as being diabetic. My endocrinologist looked at the hair pattern on my legs, and ascertained that I had been diabetic for the past 7 years. He said it was caused by poor circulation, a side effect of diabetes.
Now, 13 years later, I have no leg hair below the knees and not much on the thighs. And my body hair in general is thinner . . . except of course in my nose and ears.