Dr. Cole regeneration

[Hicks]

Who could afford 10,500 grafts? Even 2,000 is a **********

[Kiwi]

Who could afford 10,500 grafts? Even 2,000 is a **********

You'd drag it out over years. Hopefully Pilofocus is cheaper than the Gho procedure. Hopefully he freely shares the technology with the entire hair transplant community.

If he doesn't he's a douchbag just like Gho...

[mmmcoffee]

Except, if the average person has 100,000 hairs, and we lose roughly 50-60% when balding, doesn't that mean you need 50000-60000 not 10500...I thought the average person has around 8-10k donor hairs as is which is why NW5+ are kind of screwed

[hellouser]

Except, if the average person has 100,000 hairs, and we lose roughly 50-60% when balding, doesn't that mean you need 50000-60000 not 10500...I thought the average person has around 8-10k donor hairs as is which is why NW5+ are kind of screwed

Average number of grafts available grafts for most people is anywhere from 4-8,000. I think 8-10,000 grafts means you are a freak occurrence and have ridiculously dense hair in the donor. Only way you could get 10k grafts is if you got near 100% yields and combined FUE + FUT.

You need to think of amount of grafts necessary in two ways:

1) How much coverage is necessary
2) How dense you want your hair to be

Average area for an NW7 is about 200cm/2. Mine is actually about that much. Side to side the balding area is 14cm wide and front to back its 18cm (use string to measure lengths). This translates to 252cm/2. However, I don't have a square balding area, its oval, more or less. So lets use an oval calculator:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/areaellipse.html

Result: 197cm/2.

So let's say you wanted some decent coverage at 35 grafts per cm/2. You'd thus need 7,000 grafts. But this is obviously a thinning look, so not exactly an ideal result. A better look would be around 55 grafts, therefor 11,000 grafts. This is of course assuming you are an NW6/7. Some people go by the rule that 1,400 grafts in an HT moves you back by one norwood. If this is correct, then 1,400 * 7 = 9,800. Which to me would be on the thin side.

To be completely honest, I'd easily sacrifice much more donor area if only to have more up top if regeneration weren't a reality. I'd rather be balding at the back and sides than at the top. Hopefully Pilofocus can alleviate this problem as well. However, this is exactly why regeneration is so absolutely VITAL to all of this. You'd basically need 3 megasessions to restore everything completely to a respectable level and anything after would be for density. Have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aqolq7BCf0

Thats 11,500 grafts and to me, still looks a little thin. Between that and what he had before, it's an insane result. But as I mentioned, I'd take even more from the donor... just look at his sides! They're still dense enough! But if you did two megasessions, let's say 3,000 grafts each, with regeneration to any extent but a minimum of 50%, you're guaranteed complete reversal with enough transplants.

Having said that, regeneration better be a TOP priority for Dr. Wesley. If he doesn't do this, he's not getting my money for an HT as I don't want to have a limit on procedures.... but if he does confirm and execute regeneration, he's going to get a lot more from me than what he could right now. I'm willing to pay more than what I would right now for an HT, but it needs to guarantee me regeneration.

[hirsute]

I've been thinking about this again and have concluded that I may have been wrong on my initial assertion. I was taking 1,500x7 and coming up with 10,500 grafts for good coverage; however, that would be going to the (what I believe nonexistent) Norwood 0. Ronald Reagan was the exception that proves the general rule. More realistically, the ultimate goal would be a Norwood 1. That would mean that a Norwood 7 would need 1,500x6 or 9,000 grafts for good coverage. This sounds somewhat better to me.

NW7 to 6 1,500, NW6 to 5 1.500, NW5 to 4 1,500, NW4 to 3 1,500, NW3 to 2 1,500, NW2 to 1 1,500.

[Kiwi]

Average number of grafts available grafts for most people is anywhere from 4-8,000. I think 8-10,000 grafts means you are a freak occurrence and have ridiculously dense hair in the donor. Only way you could get 10k grafts is if you got near 100% yields and combined FUE + FUT.

You need to think of amount of grafts necessary in two ways:

1) How much coverage is necessary
2) How dense you want your hair to be

Average area for an NW7 is about 200cm/2. Mine is actually about that much. Side to side the balding area is 14cm wide and front to back its 18cm (use string to measure lengths). This translates to 252cm/2. However, I don't have a square balding area, its oval, more or less. So lets use an oval calculator:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/areaellipse.html

Result: 197cm/2.

So let's say you wanted some decent coverage at 35 grafts per cm/2. You'd thus need 7,000 grafts. But this is obviously a thinning look, so not exactly an ideal result. A better look would be around 55 grafts, therefor 11,000 grafts. This is of course assuming you are an NW6/7. Some people go by the rule that 1,400 grafts in an HT moves you back by one norwood. If this is correct, then 1,400 * 7 = 9,800. Which to me would be on the thin side.

To be completely honest, I'd easily sacrifice much more donor area if only to have more up top if regeneration weren't a reality. I'd rather be balding at the back and sides than at the top. Hopefully Pilofocus can alleviate this problem as well. However, this is exactly why regeneration is so absolutely VITAL to all of this. You'd basically need 3 megasessions to restore everything completely to a respectable level and anything after would be for density. Have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aqolq7BCf0

Thats 11,500 grafts and to me, still looks a little thin. Between that and what he had before, it's an insane result. But as I mentioned, I'd take even more from the donor... just look at his sides! They're still dense enough! But if you did two megasessions, let's say 3,000 grafts each, with regeneration to any extent but a minimum of 50%, you're guaranteed complete reversal with enough transplants.

Having said that, regeneration better be a TOP priority for Dr. Wesley. If he doesn't do this, he's not getting my money for an HT as I don't want to have a limit on procedures.... but if he does confirm and execute regeneration, he's going to get a lot more from me than what he could right now. I'm willing to pay more than what I would right now for an HT, but it needs to guarantee me regeneration.

What about about BHT? Would you do it for the appearance of more density?

[Arashi]

I've been thinking about this again and have concluded that I may have been wrong on my initial assertion. I was taking 1,500x7 and coming up with 10,500 grafts for good coverage; however, that would be going to the (what I believe nonexistent) Norwood 0. Ronald Reagan was the exception that proves the general rule. More realistically, the ultimate goal would be a Norwood 1. That would mean that a Norwood 7 would need 1,500x6 or 9,000 grafts for good coverage. This sounds somewhat better to me.

NW7 to 6 1,500, NW6 to 5 1.500, NW5 to 4 1,500, NW4 to 3 1,500, NW3 to 2 1,500, NW2 to 1 1,500.

I tried to calculate how many hairs are available for transplant in an average donor.

Average grafts/cm2 in healthy scalp varies between 65 and 85. Average hairs per graft is said to be 2.5 (got both numbers from literature). The average donor size, that I don't know exactly, couldn't find any numbers, but I estimate it to be about 200 cm2.

So an average person has 200 * 20 = 4000 grafts available for transplant (= 10000 hairs). Which seems to be about right when you look at transplant results (generally beyond 4k grafts donor starts to look unnatural thin)

[Arashi]

Which by the way also is one of the main reasons I'm so skeptical regarding HASCI. When I look at my recipient, I think I have gotten about 1.35 hair/graft. They took 1600 grafts, so that's 2160 hairs. They said my donor quality was 'good', so I assume I have at least an average donor. So even *without* regrowth, an average person could go 5 times to HASCI for 1600 grafts each time, and donor would still look good. Yet they advise people on general even less than 5 HST's ...

[mmmcoffee]

Average number of grafts available grafts for most people is anywhere from 4-8,000. I think 8-10,000 grafts means you are a freak occurrence and have ridiculously dense hair in the donor. Only way you could get 10k grafts is if you got near 100% yields and combined FUE + FUT.

You need to think of amount of grafts necessary in two ways:

1) How much coverage is necessary
2) How dense you want your hair to be

Average area for an NW7 is about 200cm/2. Mine is actually about that much. Side to side the balding area is 14cm wide and front to back its 18cm (use string to measure lengths). This translates to 252cm/2. However, I don't have a square balding area, its oval, more or less. So lets use an oval calculator:

http://www.csgnetwork.com/areaellipse.html

Result: 197cm/2.

So let's say you wanted some decent coverage at 35 grafts per cm/2. You'd thus need 7,000 grafts. But this is obviously a thinning look, so not exactly an ideal result. A better look would be around 55 grafts, therefor 11,000 grafts. This is of course assuming you are an NW6/7. Some people go by the rule that 1,400 grafts in an HT moves you back by one norwood. If this is correct, then 1,400 * 7 = 9,800. Which to me would be on the thin side.

To be completely honest, I'd easily sacrifice much more donor area if only to have more up top if regeneration weren't a reality. I'd rather be balding at the back and sides than at the top. Hopefully Pilofocus can alleviate this problem as well. However, this is exactly why regeneration is so absolutely VITAL to all of this. You'd basically need 3 megasessions to restore everything completely to a respectable level and anything after would be for density. Have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Aqolq7BCf0

Thats 11,500 grafts and to me, still looks a little thin. Between that and what he had before, it's an insane result. But as I mentioned, I'd take even more from the donor... just look at his sides! They're still dense enough! But if you did two megasessions, let's say 3,000 grafts each, with regeneration to any extent but a minimum of 50%, you're guaranteed complete reversal with enough transplants.

Having said that, regeneration better be a TOP priority for Dr. Wesley. If he doesn't do this, he's not getting my money for an HT as I don't want to have a limit on procedures.... but if he does confirm and execute regeneration, he's going to get a lot more from me than what he could right now. I'm willing to pay more than what I would right now for an HT, but it needs to guarantee me regeneration.

Well shit I didn't realize it was that dire. I thought the average donor amount was much higher than what it is. Looking at my dads side they ranged from one lucky NW1 and 3 NW 5-6s

My dad had 6000 grafts transplanted around 45 and now at 62 he's a very diffuse NW3V (ugh) so it stands to reason he would be a NW6 or so. He never used fin or rogaine though. My moms side has no hair loss. I'm hoping I inherited a mix of genes...I know in heading for at least a 3V with diffuse thinning, so I probably am headed for 5-6 region.

Go team regeneration!

[mmmcoffee]

My hair that I'm used to used to be so thick you couldn't even see my scalp, now you can see it all over my frontal area with the assistance of a bright light (bathroom, sun). So I doubt I'd be satisfied with the thin coverage too. Ill try and measure my donor area for density