Measuring Hair Loss
One of the problems that we have before we
even start to quantify hair loss is the method that we use for establishing:
- Whether in fact any hair
has grown (or loss has been retarded).
- What quality of hair is
it? and:
- How do we measure it in
numerical terms.
It is important that you establish a method
of measuring your regrowth, as this could mean the difference between having to
pay for your products or obtaining them free for life. The accepted method for
evaluating hair loss or re-growth is a double blind clinical trial. The word
double blind refers to the fact that the actual product / substance is used on
some of the patients and a placebo (neutral substance) is used on others.
Neither the patients, or the person running the trial, know who is on the
actual substance or the placebo until after the trial. At that point the true
product users are identified and compared to the placebo group. Only if the
placebo group have more hair loss or less re-growth than the other group can
the substance be accepted scientifically to have an effect.
A number of products have produced double
blind trials which say that products do either stop excessive loss and in some
instances actually grow back hair. Interestingly enough, the placebo also
appeared to produce a positive effect in many trials too, so it would appear
that a positive attitude is also very important. The traditional way of running
these trials was to use a hair count method, whereby a small area of the scalp
is isolated, usually by drawing a circle through a template. Often a small
tattoo is used to mark the centre spot of the template for future reference and
the hairs inside the circle counted. The count is divided up into vellus
(unpigmented) or terminal (pigmented). The trial is trying to establish the
change in the number of terminal hairs over a given period. In recent years the
validity of this method of measuring hair re-growth has been called into
question as it would appear that human error could account for what appeared to
be hair re-growth. It was demonstrated that an experienced counter would count
a different number of pigmented hairs on a given head than his inexperienced
counterpart. Similarly, when a different technique was employed that physically
plucked the hairs from the head and attached them to sticky tape before
counting them (known as a unit area trichogram) a different result from the
traditional count method was obtained. In fact, the difference was so
significant, it meant that the traditional method showed new hair re-growth but
the new technique showed no new re-growth! This evidence brings into question
the validity of some of the positive results shown to exist in trials of
products that are scientifically accepted around the world as capable of
re-growing hair.
The point of the above example is that it
demonstrates that when a scientist, using a double blind clinical trial, makes
a claim that hair can be re-grown, a different scientist, can, by using another
equally scientific, but different approach, prove the first scientist to be
wrong and vice versa. The public meanwhile on hearing that a clinical trial has
been carried out tend to accept the information as if all trials are done on
the same scientific basis and they are not. Similarly the media write articles
as if all of the scientific community accept the methodology of the trial and
they do not
So where do we go from here when the scientific community
cannot agree what hope is there for the man in the street?
I hold a very simple view on regrowth. You
should be able to see with your own eyes or in a photograph very considerable
regrowth. However many men are very shy about showing their picture even though
they may have had considerable regrowth, it has also been very difficult to
have them show a TV camera their progress. To make this point I set up a
competition a few years ago whereby men would compete to regrow the maximum
amount of new hair on a previously bald head for a £10,000
($15000-$16000) prize. Such a financial incentive soon removed their
inhibitions!
The interesting thing about this contest, is, that it
showed that the frontal receding temples were much harder to regrow than a
balding crown and that age was not a handicap. It therefore altered the
direction of my research and I spent more time following products that help
receeding temples.
It is always a good idea to establish where you hair loss
currently is by having a proffessional photograph taken and more is given about
this on the free products page. Similarly you
should rate yoru hair loss on the Norwood Scale on the free
trial page.
If you would like to be kept up to date with the media
coverage in this area free of charge click
here.
|
