---------------------<br><br>
would that (a blood profile) reveal the problem?<br><br>
----------------------<br><br><br><br>
Conceivably it could. But most likely it won't. The usual reason that a family physician or internal medicine physician does a blood workup when people complain of hair falling out, is that they believe there is a psychological value to the patient of telling them their blood test shows nothing wrong. Their thinking is that most likely the test won't turn up anything, and that then they can tell you that, and suggest to you that you have little or no reason to worry about your health. After all, their thinking goes, hair is only hair -- you can buy a wig.<br><br><br><br>
If you want to be reassured that there is nothing seriously physically wrong with you -- that is fine. But if you just want to make sure you are going to have plenty of <b>hair</b> -- hearing that your doctor thinks its just fine if all your hair falls out, as long as your blood tests are normal, isn't such great news.<br><br><br><br>
Sometimes they may suggest vitamins, in the hopes that this will make it look like they are "doing something." A shotgun approach, like giving you every vitamin they can think of, for a symptom they don't understand, or a broad-spectrum anti-biotic, for an illness they haven't really identified -- is typical practice.<br><br><br><br>
There is a slight chance that the blood tests will turn up something specific. If that is the case, you should make sure you know exactly what it is that the test turned up; then you may want to consult more than one physican, to get alternative opinions regarding a course of treatment, if any is needed.<br><br><br><br>
If the blood test shows up nothing specific to hairloss, and nothing serious, your next step would be to get a referral to a dermatologist, or an endocrinologist, to specifically focus on the problem of hair falling out, regardless of the fact that it is not a sympton of "something serious." A general physician should only be treating hair loss if it is the result of some specificly identified disorder, for which hair loss is only one symptom, and the disorder needs immediate treatment, due to some general danger you are in as a result of having the disorder. Even then, this is probably a job for a specialist.<br><br><br><br>
Depending upon whether the loss is due to a skin problem, such as a skin disease, or to a general disorder that affects hair, you would be seeing either a dermatologist or an endocrinologist, respectively. I would start with the dermatologist, in the absence of any specific diagnosis that you have an endocrine disorder. If the dermatologist thinks you do, she might refer you to an endocrinologist.<br><br><br><br>
There is also the possibility that you might need some other kind of specialist. For example if hair loss was due to poisoning by a heavy metal, there might be a specific specialist who treats such conditions, though I'm not sure which speciality it would be.<br><br><br><br>
By the way, it is also possible to have a blood test that doesn't show anything out of order, yet still have a serious condition. That is because the doctor will rarely test your blood for every known thing that it can be tested for. That would be too expensive. You could, just hypothetically, have mercury poisoning, but a test for mercury might not be done on your blood, so your doctor would never know you had mercury poisoning. Or you could have lead poisoning, or copper poisoning. I'm just being hypothetical here; i don't know which metals, if any, cause hair loss. I'm just trying to make the point that they probably won't test for excess amts of every single metal. That might be outrageously expensive. But if you mentioned you worked in a factory that used mercury, they might test for mercury, and not for lead. Or vice versa.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
If hair loss was due to malnutrition, you would nead a nutritionist -- these are usually <b>not</b> medical doctors, but people with a master's degree or doctorate in nutrition. They cannot prescribe drugs or do surgery. They just make nutritional recommendations. They may send you to a lab for blood work, or to an MD for blood work, or urine or stool work. MD's would be giving nutritional advice only to treat a specifc disease such as, say, diabetes where food choices may be dependent on frequent blood tests, urine tests, stool samples, etc. Or if you had esophageal reflux, you might have an MD making food recommendations, combined with frequent looks at your esophagus and stomach, via tubes snaked down your throat. Or if you had a food allergy. Even for something as serious as heart disease, to work on your diet, a non-MD nutritionist would probably be better than an MD, because no-one is expecting immediate reactions to different foods and different diets. You would only need occaisonal tests, by an MD, to see if, over a period of weeks or months, your blood levels of say, lipid, were gradually improving. Generally nutritionists have more general knowledge about diet, than physicians. Most physicians are not competant to recommend diets at all. Generally only specialists treating a specific disease, have knowledge of specific dietary strategies that help with that specific disease. Even then, it is frequent to see physicans keeping dietary recommendations minimal. <b>Even for serious heart disease, some doctors simply don't think people can change their diet, and so they start prescribing medicines, right away, to control things they can measure in blood or urine, instead of bothering to suggest that someone make dietary changes.</b> I was amazed at first, when I realized it, but apparently a lot of MD's believe that people just can't change their diet much, that it is too difficult for most people to do. so , for heart patients, instead of recommeding having flesh much less often, they will recommend not frying your flesh, removing the skin from your chicken, using lower-fat cuts of meat -- set up little goals that they think people can succeed at reaching. They think people won't be able to succeed at stopping eating meat, but that they might succeed at stopping eating nuts -- so amazingly they will recommend stopping nuts, and continuing with meat, in the hopes that this will lower total fat intake slightly (nuts have about as much fat as meat).<br><br><br><br>
Little do they realize that some of us have a kind of self-control -- that they themselves don't have.<br><br>