body
Hair Loss (Alopecia)
Adverse effectHair Loss (Alopecia) is an adverse outcome involving loss of hair. It describes the hair-related change itself, rather than identifying its cause or severity.
A clear starting point for understanding the term Hair Loss (Alopecia).
These are research findings, not promises. Most options have little evidence, and results differ from person to person.
What can cause it
How likely each one is to cause it, most likely first.
Red Light Therapy (Photobiomodulation)practiceUnclear
Based on one study. Strongest study: a narrative review.
A 2021 review described temporary telogen effluvium in people with Androgenetic Alopecia.
Open the Red Light Therapy (Photobiomodulation) pageFastingpracticesimple.meter.userReports
Based on one study.
Open the Fasting page
The expert view shows every study, dose protocol and source.
What can cause it
Interventions reported to bring this on2 listedHighest probability
- →PracticesRed Light Therapy (Photobiomodulation)CertaintyLowSourceReview1 other source
A 2021 review described temporary telogen effluvium in people with Androgenetic Alopecia.
Who was studied
- People with a condition
- Alopecia Androgenetic
Open Red Light Therapy (Photobiomodulation)Study result
Temporary telogen effluvium
- →PracticesFastingCertaintyLowSourceAnecdotal1 other source
Repeated or prolonged fasting with inadequate protein and micronutrient intake can cause diffuse shedding (telogen effluvium) several months later.
How to read the evidence
Evidence tier — overall strength of the evidence for the whole compound
- StrongWell established — backed by strong, consistent human research.
- ModerateSome genuine support, but mostly from small or lower-quality studies. Promising, not proven.
- PreliminaryEarly-stage evidence — a promising hypothesis, not an established effect yet.
- LimitedVery limited evidence — treat this as a hypothesis, not proof.
- InsufficientNot enough good evidence to draw conclusions yet.
Certainty — how sure we can be that the effect is real
- Very highVery sure — strong, consistent evidence
- HighFairly sure — consistent evidence from good studies
- MediumModerately sure — new studies could change this
- LowNot sure — little or mixed evidence
- Very lowVery unsure — almost no usable evidence
Source — where the data comes from
- Meta-analysisPooled analysis of many trials — the strongest evidence
- RCTRandomized controlled trial — a strong human study design
- ClinicalA human clinical study
- Reference knowledgeFrom general health-science or pharmacology references, not a study of this exact claim
- Animal researchStudied in animals, not humans
- Community reportsAggregated user reports — anecdotal signal, not evidence
- TheoreticalMechanism-based reasoning, not yet tested
Study grade — quality of each underlying study (A best, D weakest)
- AHigh-quality — strong, consistent human trials
- BGood — solid evidence with some limitations
- CModerate — limited, small, or mixed-quality studies
- DWeak — preliminary, indirect, or animal-only
Confidence — how strongly the sources back a finding
A 0–100 score from study quality and agreement
Most supplement evidence is graded C–D. Read it as preliminary signal, not proof.
Full write-up
What is it
Hair Loss (Alopecia) is an adverse outcome involving loss of hair. It describes the hair-related change itself, rather than identifying its cause or severity. In this context, it is reported in association with interventions including Selenium and Krill Oil.
How interventions help
The interventions represented here are described as potential contributors to hair loss rather than as ways to improve it. The possible explanations span several patterns: hormonal changes that may affect genetically susceptible individuals, thyroid disruption, nutrient imbalance, and depletion of nutrients relevant to hair. Some findings describe hair loss directly, while others describe a possible pathway through which an intervention could contribute to shedding or thinning.
These possibilities are not interchangeable. A nutrient-related concern differs from a hormone- or thyroid-related concern, and the relevance may depend on individual susceptibility. The available findings also vary in how directly they connect an intervention with hair loss, so they should not be read as evidence that every person using one of these products will experience the outcome.
No dose, duration, onset, or persistence details are provided for these associations. It therefore is not possible to say how long an intervention would need to be used before hair loss might appear, whether continuous use is required, or whether shedding would continue after stopping. The information is best read as a set of potential contributors and proposed explanations, not as a guide to treating alopecia.
Choosing guidance
These entries describe possible contributors to hair loss, not options intended to treat it. They are therefore most relevant to someone reviewing a supplement or ingredient already being considered, especially when the timing of hair shedding follows its introduction or continued use. The information does not establish a reliable dose, duration of use, or time to onset for most entries, so it cannot show how quickly risk might appear or whether changing exposure would change the outcome.
The evidence types should guide how cautiously each entry is interpreted. Clinical evidence, including a meta-analysis or RCT, provides a more direct basis for human interpretation than anecdotal reports. Pharmacology references describe recognized or plausible possibilities, while anecdotal reports can signal experiences but cannot establish causation or clarify who is most susceptible. The listed health status is not specified, so these findings should not be assumed to apply equally across different causes or patterns of alopecia.
The entries are not fully consistent in direction or certainty: some describe hair loss as a reported outcome, while Astragalus includes a result pointing in the opposite direction. That makes the specific finding, study design, and context more important than treating every listed ingredient as interchangeable. For a person trying to identify a possible contributor, clinically studied entries warrant closer review, whereas anecdotal entries are better treated as signals for caution rather than confirmation.