Am I a Norwood 2 or 3? (or 2A or 3A?)

[Kirby_]

And the thing about future treatments is that nobody is sure when we'll actually be able to go into a clinic, put down a payment and get this stuff done--or just how well it will work. We do know that the more hair you have when these treatments come out, the better off you'll be. Slick bald areas, including the temples/hairline, may not respond well to new treatments if they respond appreciably at all. We just don't know yet.

Yes, exactly.

I'm not willing to let myself go bald in the hope that some future treatment option could restore all my hair, when I have the choice of a (very flawed) currently-existing treatment to prevent baldness, for the time being.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's a matter of when, it's a matter of if any of these super-treatments are ever available. I'd love as much as anyone to imagine by 2015 at least one super-treatment would be available, for the cost of a typical hair transplant or lower, able to restore plenty of hair. Or even better, something like OC000459 doing the same for cheaper. But realistically, any of that is unlikely to happen.

I'd have attempted to treat my hairloss even if we knew hard facts about effectiveness and release dates for treatments. We know neither.

[25 going on 65]

how exactly do we know that?

what was the point of this study if you guys are preaching the point of no return:
http://www.jci.org/articles/view/44478

I stand corrected: we don't know for sure. However we do know at least some of these treatments work on thinning areas; we do not know if they will work on slick bald areas to any cosmetically appreciable extent. We'll know when it happens in the real world; trying to connect the dots with a handful of studies and grasping for conclusions doesn't give us definitive knowledge, even if it does provide some hope.
And as glad as we are to know hair follicle stem cells remain in the bald scalp, that does not mean any treatment in the next 5-10 years will be able to sufficiently take advantage of this and be able to regrow cosmetically viable hair on a bare dome. I'll be excited if it will, but maybe it won't. So anyone letting their hair go now in hopes that a new treatment will get it back for them within the next decade is taking a risk that many fin/dut users simply don't have to take or worry about.

Edit: to be perfectly clear if I wasn't already, I don't believe there is an absolute "point of no return" for hair loss. But for the next 5-10 years of treatments, there very will may be. I understand some people accept that risk; I personally just can't do it.

[2020]

We do know that the more hair you have when these treatments come out, the better off you'll be.

how exactly do we know that?

what was the point of this study if you guys are preaching the point of no return:

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/44478

[Maradona]

I can't really agree with any doctors who say fin rarely works on hairlines; fin reduces the amount of DHT binding to all your follicles, wherever they are on the scalp. Hairline/temple follicles are just normally the most DHT sensitive so for some guys fin isn't enough to stop the miniaturization. But it can slow it down. However there are those of us who can maintain for years on this med. Even if the chance is 40/60 (I have no idea what the actual number is), that's more hope for us than the 0% chance we have without suppressing DHT.

I'm sorry to hear about your persistent sides though. Can I ask what effects you've had since you quit the drug? Also how long were you on it, and did you taper when you quit?

Really noticed them later and embarrassed to say all of them here but no ED that's whats important , thank god.

[25 going on 65]

I can't really agree with any doctors who say fin rarely works on hairlines; fin reduces the amount of DHT binding to all your follicles, wherever they are on the scalp. Hairline/temple follicles are just normally the most DHT sensitive so for some guys fin isn't enough to stop the miniaturization. But it can slow it down. However there are those of us who can maintain for years on this med. Even if the chance is 40/60 (I have no idea what the actual number is), that's more hope for us than the 0% chance we have without suppressing DHT.

I'm sorry to hear about your persistent sides though. Can I ask what effects you've had since you quit the drug? Also how long were you on it, and did you taper when you quit?

[Maradona]

The main trouble I have with this approach is that it's needlessly risky for guys who want to stop hair loss asap, more so than taking fin. MPB is unpredictable, and the rate of hair loss is not always consistent. There are men who literally live to age 55-60 with full heads of hair and then lose almost all of it within 5 years. There are also men who have very slow loss but then start going through massive sheds.
And the thing about future treatments is that nobody is sure when we'll actually be able to go into a clinic, put down a payment and get this stuff done--or just how well it will work. We do know that the more hair you have when these treatments come out, the better off you'll be. Slick bald areas, including the temples/hairline, may not respond well to new treatments if they respond appreciably at all. We just don't know yet.
And the risks with Gho have been discussed many times so I won't cover them, but I will say that even if he can regenerate donor, his work just isn't that impressive man. I don't know why this doesn't get brought up but I'm putting it out there plainly, his hairline work in particular is just not cosmetically good at this time.

I'm not saying your approach is wrong for you, everyone has to weigh the pros and cons for themselves. But for guys like Kirby who know they want to stop losing hair this year, and not in 3-5 or more, there are two options: fin and dut. He had the opportunity to consider his choices and for his personal goals, he made the right one.
Some of us are very attached to our hair (emotionally and as part of our image) and continuing to go bald for years just isn't something we want to do.

Good point, if he was shedding BAD like me before taking fin then it's a right choice. But if he wasn't shedding and just seeing minor and slow hairloss, well this right here can happen.

We are not sure of future treatment yes but we are sure we will get some conclusive news this year or early next year from aderans and histogen. Waiting a bit wouldn't have hurt at all.

I think it's impossible to convince a guy not to take fin, no matter how many times you warned them of the shed, the sides and the cons and how much hair he still has and how much it's been said even by doctors it's rare that it will work on your hairline. He will read the studies convince himself and truth is, statistically speaking, he won't have any problems.

That's why I gave up preaching against fin even though I suffer some permanent sides.

At the end of all of us will try it and some will regret it but most satisfied but most never know which group they are in until they drop the drug.

[25 going on 65]

I always preach never to go slick bald because future treatments may not benefit you, if you are slick bald.

If you have to risk with fin, fine. But when you're 30 and by 30 I don't mean you're old or you had your youth and its time to die, I mean your hair is great and will be incredibly slow in its progression. And If you have small hairloss and you want to take fin to prevent .5cm of recession in 2 years or you want to go back to norwood 0 it's in my opinion fukin retarded.

You have so many companies coming down the pipe with better treatments and this is a fact, if you lose a bit of recession just get Gho done on your hairline.

It's the least invasive procedure.

It's just stupid now to get on fin with the information we have unless you're going to be using for life or +10 years.

But you will get better and if you drop the fin now, trust me on this: you will not get back what you shed. So don't drop it, stick with it if you have no serious sides.

The main trouble I have with this approach is that it's needlessly risky for guys who want to stop hair loss asap, more so than taking fin. MPB is unpredictable, and the rate of hair loss is not always consistent. There are men who literally live to age 55-60 with full heads of hair and then lose almost all of it within 5 years. There are also men who have very slow loss but then start going through massive sheds.
And the thing about future treatments is that nobody is sure when we'll actually be able to go into a clinic, put down a payment and get this stuff done--or just how well it will work. We do know that the more hair you have when these treatments come out, the better off you'll be. Slick bald areas, including the temples/hairline, may not respond well to new treatments if they respond appreciably at all. We just don't know yet.
And the risks with Gho have been discussed many times so I won't cover them, but I will say that even if he can regenerate donor, his work just isn't that impressive man. I don't know why this doesn't get brought up but I'm putting it out there plainly, his hairline work in particular is just not cosmetically good at this time.

I'm not saying your approach is wrong for you, everyone has to weigh the pros and cons for themselves. But for guys like Kirby who know they want to stop losing hair this year, and not in 3-5 or more, there are two options: fin and dut. He had the opportunity to consider his choices and for his personal goals, he made the right one.
Some of us are very attached to our hair (emotionally and as part of our image) and continuing to go bald for years just isn't something we want to do.

[Maradona]

What are you, one of the Maradona "over 30s must forego treatments and compulsorily let themselves go completely slick bald" brigade? Or just blind?

I always preach never to go slick bald because future treatments may not benefit you, if you are slick bald.

If you have to risk with fin, fine. But when you're 30 and by 30 I don't mean you're old or you had your youth and its time to die, I mean your hair is great and will be incredibly slow in its progression. And If you have small hairloss and you want to take fin to prevent .5cm of recession in 2 years or you want to go back to norwood 0 it's in my opinion fukin retarded.

You have so many companies coming down the pipe with better treatments and this is a fact, if you lose a bit of recession just get Gho done on your hairline.

It's the least invasive procedure.

It's just stupid now to get on fin with the information we have unless you're going to be using for life or +10 years.

But you will get better and if you drop the fin now, trust me on this: you will not get back what you shed. So don't drop it, stick with it if you have no serious sides.

[Tracy C]

Or just blind?

Kirby,

I have seen your pictures. You do not look worse than you did before you started.

If you want to keep your hair, you need to learn how to control your anxiety over this and stick with the treatment. I know it's hard. I've been there and done that, but you need to find a way.

[2020]

And I see a 70% reduction in your brain capacity, while reading this thread. The declining average curve doesn't mean that ALL men suddenly started to lose their hair after 2 years. It only means that the regrowth in the majority of men peaked and a certain percentage of them, who were non-responders, now began to lower the average hair count.

I don't care how you put it - the hair count DOES DECREASE over time. I don't care if you're still 500% above the baseline after X years, RESULTS WILL WEAR OFF over time even though they shouldn't!

taking fin sets your DHT levels of those of a castrate. Castrates never lose hair. Why doesn't fin hold your hair forever?
For 10% of people fin(castration!) is not enough! how could that be? Also: numerous reports of worsening prostate problems and fin actually making hair loss worse.... something else is going on.

After 5 years on finasteride, only 10% men experience further hair loss. And as the recent study of Rossi et al. (2011) showed, after 10 years only 14% men worsened, while 21% men further improved between 5-10 years of therapy! Where are the long-term studies you quote? Where is the 50% of men losing hair on finasteride after 5 years?

"Better improvements are observed in patients older than 30 years (42.8% aged between 20 and 30 years did not improve also after 10 years)"

42.8% then....

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that young men with an advanced stage of hairloss are the least responsive to the therapy. Older men with a lower stage of baldness respond best. This suggests that the level of androgens circulating in the body plays a significant role.

huh? explain that.

[Kirby_]

And where is your bald vertex? Where is the "awful" amount of hair that you shed? I rather think that you are another case of a hysterical paranoic making havoc on internet forums.

What are you, one of the Maradona "over 30s must forego treatments and compulsorily let themselves go completely slick bald" brigade? Or just blind?

[WarLord]

For you, who so passionately quote the study of Sawaya

http://www.ehrs.org/conferenceabstracts/2000marburg/guestlectures/s04-sawaya.htm

in order to prove that finasteride upregulates androgen receptors.

What does the study actually say? Did you see the whole text? I didn't. But doesn't it describe this process? This excerpt comes from the same year (2000).

http://www.regrowth.com/hairloss-remedy/propecia/propecia_ar.cfm

[WarLord]

I see a downward trend starting from year two which SHOULDN'T BE THERE!!! 70% reduction is more than enough to stop all androgen interactions ever! Something else is happening and I know what. I can't believe it's taking 20 years to figure this crap out.

And I see a 70% reduction in your brain capacity, while reading this thread. The declining average curve doesn't mean that ALL men suddenly started to lose their hair after 2 years. It only means that the regrowth in the majority of men peaked and a certain percentage of them, who were non-responders, now began to lower the average hair count. After 5 years on finasteride, only 10% men experience further hair loss. And as the recent study of Rossi et al. (2011) showed, after 10 years only 14% men worsened, while 21% men further improved between 5-10 years of therapy! Where are the long-term studies you quote? Where is the 50% of men losing hair on finasteride after 5 years?

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that young men with an advanced stage of hairloss are the least responsive to the therapy. Older men with a lower stage of baldness respond best. This suggests that the level of androgens circulating in the body plays a significant role.

Is it only my impression that this forum attracts hysterical lunatics? Frankly, the atmosphere here is sickening and disgusting.

[WarLord]

yes and? T converts to DHT doesn't it?




that is an insanely stupid theory... there is no such thing as a catch up loss. Your genes have no ****ing idea how much hair you should have at July 1, 2012. AR sensitivity is inherited and that's that.

What is a fact is that AR sensitivity DOES GO UP when 5AR inhibitors are introduced to your body.




VAST MAJORITY of your DHT is biologically INACTIVE.





I meant to say that some people who are losing hair and when they start using finasteride, still lose hair despite it being VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE if fin truly blocked 70% of DHT and left your AR at the same sensitivity...





right, and?



yeah 6 years ain't that long in the business.... even the people on fin can get that. The point is that eventually YOU WILL start losing hair even though you shouldn't....




I've seen studies that are done over 10 years.... half of those people won't make it to 10 years with the same amount of hair

Show us the studies, please! I am thrilled to see them!

[WarLord]

Sure? NW2 and not 2.5 or so? I was marked down as a NW3 when getting my initial prescription, which worries me a lot still.

My make concern is the diffuse loss rather than my hairline, however. I am extremely worried that I left it too late to save my hair as viable - or rather noticed the MPB too late - unless Propecia really thickens it out on top. I lost a lot of hair in the first few months of Propecia due to shedding.

And where is your bald vertex? Where is the "awful" amount of hair that you shed? I rather think that you are another case of a hysterical paranoic making havoc on internet forums.