» I did not know about that Kligman study, and I heartily admit that throws
» a monkey wrench in what I thought. Hmmm…we know that soy isoflavones
» topically applied reduced sebum secretion by 65% in one experiment
» http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wads.jsp?IA=US2003005494&LANGUAGE=EN&ID=090063618014838a&VOL=28&DOC=008576&WO=03/072079&WEEK=36/2003&TYPE=A1&DOC_TYPE=PAMPH&PAGE=1and
» green tea extract cut it from about 1.20 down to .71, which is almost in
» half…so cutting androgenic uptake will decrease sebum secretions, so
» its a suprise that upping androgens wouldn’t up them. As you say, it would
» appear that the glands are working at full capacity.
Yes. Nobody’s saying that you can’t LOWER sebum secretion, which has been demonstrated numerous times in various experiments in both animals and humans. Kligman’s premise was that you can’t RAISE them in humans, merely by supplementing with extra androgen (at least, in the specific way that he attempted to do so…I’ll have more to say about that in just a moment).
» » Kligman’s own tentative hypothesis to explain those null
» » results was that even in normal men (men with normal levels
» » of androgens), their sebaceous glands are ALREADY “maxed-out”
» » in response to androgens, so giving them even more produces
» » no extra effect. However, I have a problem of my own with
» » that tentative explanation. Before I state it here, I’d like
» » to hear your response to what I’ve said up to this point.
»
» Let me venture a guess, perhaps their alpha
» five reductase enzymes (type one) were working at full capacity
» and couldn’t convert anymore T to DHT, or perhaps the androgen
» receptors they have are already “full” and can’t accept more
» androgen? Maybe the little glands can only work so hard? About
» all out of guesses here. That is a “styming” fact.
» 
»
No, Michael, you’re overlooking a much more mundane and obvious possibility! 
What if it turns out that simply giving normal men moderate levels of testosterone (the word “moderate” being the key word here) ultimately has relatively little effect on their overall levels of androgenic stimulation, simply because the HPT axis will immediately start to downregulate indigenous testosterone production in an effort to achieve homeostasis?? If the body attempts to maintain a rather tight control over androgenic stimulation, maybe you have to go really overboard with it like bodybuilders do with anabolic steroids, before you get a really noticeable effect. But surely that possibility would have occurred to Kligman, wouldn’t it?? That guy is smart as hell! :surprised:
So my own theory is that maybe Kligman’s failure to increase sebum production in those men by giving them moderate levels of androgen was a result of the normal downregulation of the test subjects’ own indigenous androgen production.
» » » Repeat mutations on genes get worse with age, I do know that.
» »
» » Can you give me a reference or citation for that? I’d always heard
» that, Ive never bothered to look it up. I’ll try and spend a little time
» with google. I thought that was why diseases tended to get worse with
» age…
Let me know what you find out. I’ve never heard such a claim.
» » »» Sure, if that really happens (I’d like to see that reference).
» » But even if that weren’t true, I would attribute it to the
» » cumulative damage to hair follicles from years of exposure
» » to androgens.
»
» This is where I have had observances that make me think otherwise
» Ive posted ad nauseaum in the past pictures of women who took
» testosterone to be like men, and they went bald in some cases
» rather quickly----as in less than two years.
I’m saying that in NORMAL, TYPICAL cases of balding, there is cumulative damage to hair follicles over a period of years. I’m not saying that you can’t dramatically speed-up the process by taking supraphysiological levels of androgens.
» The balding of these women didn’t take long…thats why the
» “cumulative” idea of ROS doing in hair follicles over many years seems
» unlikely to me personally. What about the men who start losing it at 16
» and are bald by 23? Thats why I always had a problem with that.
You do realize, don’t you, that that same argument also argues against the alleged increase in androgen receptor repeat mutations as being a cause of balding? Do teenagers start to have those mutations at the age of 16, and it’s complete by the age of 23?
.