(05-26-2014, 02:08 PM)Shannon Wrote: I find the study you reference to be a bit odd. ...Hey Shannon,
It seems that the theory put forth does not fit the observed facts.
firstly I agree with you - the study in general was a bit odd -from my perspective, based on the diagrams they used and even the grammar.
But I strongly believe in the underlying premise - that 'detumescence' therapy works - in spite of how they wrote about it in that study. My take away from the study is that increasing blood flow reverses hair loss - not so much the underlying mechanism they propose - which (as you mention) is problematic. For me it only makes sense that blood flow, or lack there of, and calcification that traps DHT is a major cause of hair loss. I think calcification is more at issue here than subcutaneous body fat (although that is likely a factor).
These guys have tried it on themselves, one even growing hair on BALD regions:
http://immortalhair.forumandco.com/t9446...ted#104529
So, yes, the study is a bit odd - theory and presentation wise - but the RESULTS are what I find interesting... and that is all we would care about with a sub, right?
EDIT: As much as the study looks dubious, this guy seems to think everything in it is proving to be true:
http://immortalhair.forumandco.com/t9446...ted#105627
"Every single thing in that study has been correct!!"