# Men's Hair Loss > Introduce Yourself & Share Your Story >  Am I a Norwood 2 or 3? (or 2A or 3A?)

## Kirby_

Been using fin since beginning of January and Nizoral since last December. Shed an _awful_ amount of hair on top - look far worse than baseline, actually noticeably balding to the naked eye, which I didn't before I started treatments.

Anyway, I'm more concerned with my hairline in this particular thread. Is it 2, 3? These pictures were taken in March after I shaved it grade 0 because of the heavy shedding loss. I put myself as a 3 or 3A, looking at the Norwood scale.





April, after growing hair out a bit.

----------


## mattj

I don't think you're anything more than a NW2. The 'A' designation for NW2 and 3 means that the front forelock area is receded or significantly thinned, and yours is still going strong and is actually quite low.

----------


## Kirby_

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.

----------


## stratofortress

Your hair isn't bad, just a little diffuse. Your hairline isn't any more than a NW2- just stick with the treatments I'd say.

----------


## Kirby_

Do you think it is theoretically possible to beat the diffuse loss with treatments? I realise that I won't get back to native density, I just need 'good enough' to be cosmetically acceptable. Which, frankly, I'm not at the moment under direct sunlight or strong artificial light sources. I shaved my head again a fortnight ago because my hair didn't look 'viable' enough to go round with, and the diffuse loss wasn't nearly as bad in appearance before I started Propecia.

----------


## stratofortress

> Do you think it is theoretically possible to beat the diffuse loss with treatments? I realise that I won't get back to native density, I just need 'good enough' to be cosmetically acceptable. Which, frankly, I'm not at the moment under direct sunlight or strong artificial light sources. I shaved my head again a fortnight ago because my hair didn't look 'viable' enough to go round with, and the diffuse loss wasn't nearly as bad in appearance before I started Propecia.


 I think at the very least you'll go back to baseline if you stick with it and with any luck it'll thicken up a bit. 

If you keep the buzzcut for a while, I'm sure no-one will notice the thinning.

----------


## southeast_eu

> I advise you to grow your hair longer. You don't want to reveal dat headshape.


 whats wrong with y ..his headshape is perfect for a nice shaved...
dude relax y can rock a bald head

----------


## Kirby_

> I think at the very least you'll go back to baseline if you stick with it and with any luck it'll thicken up a bit. 
> 
> If you keep the buzzcut for a while, I'm sure no-one will notice the thinning.


 I hope not! Although, I feel bad at the moment because shaving/buzzing my hair short shows off the compromised hairline. But having it longer, the diffuse thinness is VERY visible, I look heavily balding.  :Frown: 

Would you say that my hairline is 'presentable', acceptable, etc?

----------


## Tracy C

> I don't think you're anything more than a NW2.


 I have to agree with this.






> Sure? NW2 and not 2.5 or so?[/IMG]


 I'm sure and no, it is not more than a Norwood 2.  Your hair does not look diffuse to me.

----------


## 25 going on 65

Looks NW 2 to me as well.
Meds tend to work pretty well on diffuse thinners (I'm one myself). My guess is that you'll recover nicely from the med shed, which is normally a sign that your hair is responding to treatment.

----------


## Kirby_

> I'm sure and no, it is not more than a Norwood 2.  Your hair does not look diffuse to me.


 Unfortunately, it is rather diffuse, so much so that at the current length (Grade 2-ish), under strong lights I look like a NW5/6 with merely lots of 'fuzz' in the non-horseshoe area. I had thought before I started Propecia that it'd be easy, just sit back and take a tablet every morning. The actual shed-loss has been incredibly difficult to deal with personally, and has turned me into a neurotic mess when it comes to my body image: I look 'balding' now, when I didn't really to start with.  :Frown: 

25, I hope you're right that a decent recovery from the medshed is possible.  :Smile:

----------


## 25 going on 65

Shedding phases can be really rough. My fin shed was on the mild side but my keto shampoo shed (keto was my first MPB treatment ever) definitely depressed me. I had never been through anything quite like it.

I've told people before to remember something when they're feeling really down during this phase: because of our genetic condition, the hairs you've shed would have fallen out without meds anyway. The difference is that none of them would grow back, ever. 0% regrowth.
I know how this hair fall messes with your body image, believe me. This is the part where some people freak out, quit their treatments, and 5 years later they've fallen 3 Norwood levels (or worse). But you're on the right track man. Hang in there.

----------


## Kirby_

Nizoral can cause shed loss? Interesting. Like you I tried Niz/keto before I got my Propecia sorted, and it seemed like my density took a hit then in terms of cosmetic appearance. Perhaps in retrospect it was an initial shed, and what I shed due to fin was a 'double shed', if that makes sense. Unprovable of course, but something for me to contemplate.

Thanks for the kind words BTW.  :Smile:

----------


## 25 going on 65

Yeah, maybe it was a coincidence but I noticed a whole lot of shedding when I started keto, and it seemed to go on for months (though much less some weeks than others). I was using it more than I should have, so that was almost certainly a factor. But I also wonder if it spared me from a worse shed later when I started fin....who knows

----------


## Kirby_

I _wish_ my hairline was a NW1.  :Wink:  Thanks for the words of encouragement.

The as posted pictures don't relay the extent of the diffuse thinning so I'll take some new ones. It's really not good. I started to notice my hairloss when the density just didn't seem to cover the corners of my hairline any longer.

----------


## Kirby_

Took a photo of the awful extent of the diffuse thinning on my iDevice last night. Going to be a struggle to get back to cosmetically viable hair.

----------


## Tracy C

> Going to be a struggle to get back to cosmetically viable hair.


 Not really, if you respond to the medications - but it will take a long time.  Using a laser comb every other day might speed it up a little bit - but not a lot.

----------


## Kirby_

I'm pretty screwed until/if stuff like Histogen ever hits the market though, I realise. Only doing treatments to preserve what little hair i have until then.  Hair's about Grade 1 or 2 length currently.

----------


## Tracy C

> I'm pretty screwed until/if stuff like Histogen ever hits the market though...


 Not really.  You are in better shape than you think you are.  But as I said, it will take a long time.  Time that is measured in months and years.  Not weeks and months.

----------


## Kirby_

I'm five months in so far.

Feel too far gone at this stage TBH. Which is ironic as when I went to initially get Propecia I was nearly turned away for having hair that didn't look 'bad enough'!

----------


## Tracy C

> Which is ironic as when I went to initially get Propecia I was nearly turned away for having hair that didn't look 'bad enough'!


 That is because you are in better shape than you think you are.

Are you using Rogaine/Regaine foam as well?

----------


## Kirby_

Nope. Just Propecia and the Boots copy of Nizoral. Currently.

----------


## Tracy C

I am not so sure you would gain anything appreciable with Rogaine/Regaine - but you might.  It could be the lighting in the photo.  It's really impossible to say with any degree of certainty.  Using my experience with my laser comb as a guide, I would think you would probably gain more from using it than Rogaine/Regaine.  Besides, it might be a good idea to wait until you know how well you are responding to Finasteride before giving Rogaine/Regain a try.

Using Nizoral once a week is good - but you need to understand that Ketoconazole is not a stand-alone treatment for hereditary hair loss.  It is an adjunct treatment.

----------


## Kirby_

True, I know that Niz isn't much on its own. Still, has sorted out my dandruff and itching problems.

I'll see how I go with fin before I add other stuff. That was always the plan TBH.  :Smile:  Again, I did shed a lot with fin compared to my starting point. Just have to see when/if it kicks in clawing back what I shed.  :EEK!:

----------


## Johny.track131

Why dont you use some Toppik Kirby? it'll help with the diffuse look  :Smile:

----------


## Kirby_

Might have to, when it grows out a bit, yes.  :Frown:  Hopefully not as anything more than a temporary fill-in.

Here's what my hair looked like 16 or so months ago, incidentally.  :Embarrassment:

----------


## Johny.track131

How old are you and how long did it take to get to this level of diffse. And also, hopefully the new treatments work, stick with toppik and dont fret, also i have never thought about this, but i just went over to look at the hair replacement thread, people are happy there  :Big Grin:

----------


## Kirby_

I'm 30. Never noticed hair loss until last October, that's more about the creeping nature of hairloss though. Hairline hasn't moved much if at all since 2006, looking back at old photos. Shed lots on fin within the first 6 weeks. Niz to start with also made me shed, overdid it early on using it twice a week.

----------


## Tracy C

> I'll see how I go with fin before I add other stuff. That was always the plan TBH.


 That is a good plan.  If you do decide to add other stuff, consider giving the laser comb a try for about four months before you consider Rogaine/Regaine.  Since you consider yourself a diffuse thinner, you are a better than average candidate for LLLT.

Are you using sulfate free shampoo and conditioner for your regular washing?  If not, you should switch to sulfate free.






> Here's what my hair looked like 16 or so months ago, incidentally.


 I know some girls who wish they had hair as nice as yours.

BTW, being one who has used both, Dermmatch is way better than Toppik.

----------


## Kirby_

Sulfate free shampoo? Don't know anything about those TBH, in terms of what brand/product names to look for. Certainly would't mind trying those, I'll give anything a go at this stage.

----------


## Tracy C

Dr. Charles has mentioned sulfate free shampoo on this board several times.  I use Aveeno "Pure Renewal" sulfate free shampoo and conditioner and like them a lot.  There are other brands.  It usually states on the bottle if it is sulfate free or not.  If it doesn't say so on the bottle, it probably isn't sulfate free.

----------


## Kirby_

Basically have a bald patch, a SOLAR PANEL on top now. Propecia has destroyed my crown. It can't have been this bad before. I have taken Propecia for six months and NOTHING but a huge amount of shedding in the first month. Either I left it too late because no-one told me I was balding when it actually started, (my girlfriend denies that I have MPB, says I have "naturally thin hair in patches", I relied on her to tell me if there was anything wrong). I had to physically force myself to get a new prescription pack of Propecia earlier today. I can't leave the house without a hat, or answer the door. I am getting panic attacks every day unless I take the Lorazepam I was prescribed. I have to be very careful every single day to make sure I don't shave my head and throw away the tablets, it all seems hopeless.

----------


## Kirby_

Don't have a baseline photo to hand, taken with a proper camera, but this is two weeks after starting Propecia, taken with a webcam.

----------


## gutted

> Basically have a bald patch, a SOLAR PANEL on top now. Propecia has destroyed my crown. It can't have been this bad before. I have taken Propecia for six months and NOTHING but a huge amount of shedding in the first month. Either I left it too late because no-one told me I was balding when it actually started, (my girlfriend denies that I have MPB, says I have "naturally thin hair in patches", I relied on her to tell me if there was anything wrong). I had to physically force myself to get a new prescription pack of Propecia earlier today. I can't leave the house without a hat, or answer the door. I am getting panic attacks every day unless I take the Lorazepam I was prescribed. I have to be very careful every single day to make sure I don't shave my head and throw away the tablets, it all seems hopeless.


 so what are you trying to say? 

propecia made your hair loss worse??

----------


## UK_

> Basically have a bald patch, a SOLAR PANEL on top now. Propecia has destroyed my crown. It can't have been this bad before. I have taken Propecia for six months and NOTHING but a huge amount of shedding in the first month. Either I left it too late because no-one told me I was balding when it actually started, (my girlfriend denies that I have MPB, says I have "naturally thin hair in patches", I relied on her to tell me if there was anything wrong). I had to physically force myself to get a new prescription pack of Propecia earlier today. I can't leave the house without a hat, or answer the door. I am getting panic attacks every day unless I take the Lorazepam I was prescribed. I have to be very careful every single day to make sure I don't shave my head and throw away the tablets, it all seems hopeless.


 I dont know, but talking about panic attacks rings 'telogen' alarm bells.

----------


## 2020

why are all your photos black and white? I think your photos make it look worse than it actually is

----------


## gutted

> I dont know, but talking about panic attacks rings 'telogen' alarm bells.


 it wasnt too long ago you was championing the drug.

from the photos it looks like you have diffuse thinning. diffuse thinning is easily reversible.

----------


## 2020

> I dont know, but talking about panic attacks rings 'telogen' alarm bells.


 or worse:
reflex hyperandrogenicity

----------


## Kirby_

> so what are you trying to say? 
> 
> propecia made your hair loss worse??


 In some form. If this is the expected 'shed', then I am finding it rather distressing that there seems to be no evidence that the shed is reversing. 




> I dont know, but talking about panic attacks rings 'telogen' alarm bells.


 Really? Telogen is the all-over non-MPB thinning, right? The sides and back do look 'grainy' (see here), but that must surely be down to the short length at the moment, much shorter than I normally had my hair pre-treatment. And the horseshoe area is definitely denser than the top, certainly compared to the nearly-bald patch...




> from the photos it looks like you have diffuse thinning. diffuse thinning is easily reversible.


 Diffuse thinning in the MPB sense, rather than telogen? Are either that reversible? What happens if I have telogen stacked on top of ongoing MPB? I did try and tell myself that I had some kind of non-MPB hairloss for a few months, but the evidence doesn't seem to be the case.




> or worse:
> reflex hyperandrogenicity


 That's the process when 5aRIs stop working after five or so years, right?  :Frown:  That would be crushing if that is what is going on. I can't think what would cause that, as I've only taken fin since mid January, and never taken any similar kind of medication since.

(Last post was a bit panicked, took another half tab of Lorazepam to calm me down.)

----------


## gutted

> In some form. If this is the expected 'shed', then I am finding it rather distressing that there seems to be no evidence that the shed is reversing. 
> 
> 
> Really? Telogen is the all-over non-MPB thinning, right? The sides and back do look 'grainy' (see here), but that must surely be down to the short length at the moment, much shorter than I normally had my hair pre-treatment. And the horseshoe area is definitely denser than the top, certainly compared to the nearly-bald patch...
> 
> 
> Diffuse thinning in the MPB sense, rather than telogen? Are either that reversible? What happens if I have telogen stacked on top of ongoing MPB? I did try and tell myself that I had some kind of non-MPB hairloss for a few months, but the evidence doesn't seem to be the case.
> 
> 
> ...


 
dude, to me it doesnt even look like you had mpb to begin with. it could be argued you were experince diffuse thinning mpb, but even then that could be a result of the drug you are taking for the panic attacks.

what is a telogen? what you mean is a *telogen effliivium*.

this telogen efflicvium could have been caused by the panic attack drug you are on.

----------


## Kirby_

> dude, to me it doesnt even look like you had mpb to begin with. it could be argued you were experince diffuse thinning mpb, but even then that could be a result of the drug you are taking for the panic attacks.
> 
> what is a telogen? what you mean is a *telogen effliivium*.
> 
> this telogen efflicvium could have been caused by the panic attack drug you are on.


 The NHS website lists "hair loss" as a side-effect of Lorazepam, but unfortunately it can't have been a trigger for hairloss in my case. I was prescribed it most recently two weeks ago, as my panic attacks about the balding got worse. Last time I took the medicine was October/November last year, after I first noticed early signs of MPB after a haircut, which sent me into a terrible state! I usually get Lorazepam prescribed 2 or 3 times a year when I am at my worst.

I'm not sure how I can discover if it is telogen effluvium, just to rule it out for all. I'm doubtful that is the case, as the thinning I'm getting is all over the typical MPB areas., and I do have a MPB-dented hairline.

----------


## 2020

stop taking anti-depressants first of all.... not only it will possibly make your hair loss worse but it will permanently **** up your brain.
Whatever crap you people are taking for depression can't be more effective than regular vitamin D + exercise....

----------


## Kirby_

I should do really, but in my defence, I'm not an ongoing user of the Lorazepam. The most recent prescription I was only given ten tablets, and I'm not taking them every day. (Apparently the NHS doesn't like prescribing benzodiazepines these days and I'm "lucky" to be prescribed it.)

I totally agree with you about antidepressants (SSRIs) being nasty shit though! Was on four types on-and-off from 2001 to 2005. Had brain-fog, no libido, terrible withdrawal symptoms if I missed a day's medication. Ruined four years of my life which I should have enjoyed (being at college/university).

----------


## Kirby_

Just looked up Telogen effluvium on the NHS website.




> Telogen effluvium is a type of temporary hair loss that can be caused by your body reacting to:
> 
> hormonal changes, such as those that take place when a woman is pregnant 
> a short-term illness, such as a severe infection or an operation 
> 
> a long-term illness, such as cancer or liver disease
> 
> changes in your diet, such as crash dieting 
> 
> some medications, such as anticoagulants (medicines that reduce the ability of your blood to clot) or beta-blockers (used to treat a number of conditions, such as high blood pressure)


 None of that sounds applicable to my case AFAIK. Unless lowering DHT could count among "hormonal changes"... And in terms of medications, surely if Lorazepam was causing me TE, I would've had that before, and it wouldn't make me thin out in a MPB pattern... (Come to think of it, it's mostly like a Ludwig I-3 pattern, just with a larger bald patch where the vertex and midscalp meet up.)

----------


## gutted

> Just looked up Telogen effluvium on the NHS website.
> 
> 
> None of that sounds applicable to my case AFAIK. Unless lowering DHT could count among "hormonal changes"... And in terms of medications, surely if Lorazepam was causing me TE, I would've had that before, and it wouldn't make me thin out in a MPB pattern... (Come to think of it, it's mostly like a Ludwig I-3 pattern, just with a larger bald patch where the vertex and midscalp meet up.)


 is minox an option for you?

----------


## clandestine

> or worse:
> reflex hyperandrogenicity


 How common is this?

----------


## 2020

> How common is this?


 more common than you think. For example, those 10&#37; of people or whatever who don't respond to fin, I'm thinking that > 90% of them have hyper androgenicity.... a real 70% reduction in DHT is almost castration. No reason you would ever lose hair but you do because that 30% is wreaking havoc on those AR who become very sensitive for some... Also, how else would you explain that fin stops working after 5 years? Hyper androgenicity is the reason.

it's been documented in prostate studies so it's definitely real.

----------


## lalala

Dude, get a grip. You won't leave you house because of your hair? First of all, man up and stop acting like a 2 year old. Secondly, your hair loss is totally minor right now and if you used a little concealer it would look perfect. Just wait until your hair loss gets really bad and you can't even cover it up with concealer......

----------


## Tracy C

> I am getting panic attacks every day unless I take the Lorazepam I was prescribed. I have to be very careful every single day to make sure I don't shave my head and throw away the tablets, it all seems hopeless.


 It hasn't been long enough yet.  Treating hair loss takes a long time.  Time that is measured in months AND years.  It takes 12 full months before you will know if Propecia is working for you.  You still have six months to go before you will actually know if it is.  It takes more than 12 months to know how well Propecia is working for you.  Remember, months AND years.

----------


## Kirby_

Why do I look much worse than in October? Why do I look worse at 6 months compared to 3 months when I didn't have an actual solar panel bald patch? I'm convinced fin sped up my hair loss by half a decade. I should look at least as good as baseline by now. I can't even trust my girlfriend's opinion, she talks utter shit and denies I am balding, I'd be NW6 before she admitted I was balding. 2020's explanation about DHT makes sense, I haven't had any sexual side effects from fin after all...

----------


## Kirby_

Sorry guys and Tracy C total nervous wreck at the moment

----------


## Tracy C

> Why do I look worse at 6 months compared to 3 months when I didn't have an actual solar panel bald patch?


 You don't - and yes you did have that thin area back then.  It isn't much worse now than it was back then.  You are freaking out right now.






> I'm convinced fin sped up my hair loss by half a decade...


 No it hasn't.  You are freaking out right now.






> I should look at least as good as baseline by now.


 You do not look worse than base line.  You are freaking out right now.






> 2020's explanation about DHT makes sense...


 Don't trust 2020's explanations.  Doing so would be a big mistake.  He is not a qualified physician and he does not know what he is talking about.  2020 is just here to cause trouble and make himself feel better by making others feel terrible.

----------


## 25 going on 65

Reflex hyperandrogenism induced by finasteride is a hypothesis that very few doctors and (mostly) laymen on forums have come up with. It's not known or documented to exist at this time. 

Second, it unfortunately can take 12 months or longer on fin for men to return to/get beyond baseline cosmetically. (Some show improvement earlier but the "3-6 months" product literature is basically nonsense in many or most cases.) This is the "hurry up and wait" part that drives people crazy.
However, your photos don't look that bad. Actually your crown looks mighty solid, where I see thinning is more on top of the scalp towards the back. Maybe the pictures are misleading. But your diffuse pattern normally responds quite well to medication, so in 6-8 months you'll probably be in good shape.

I know it's easy to read  into your own symptoms and start worrying yourself to death. There have been times, particularly during sheds, that I thought fin was not helping me or perhaps making things worse. But I keep riding it out, and almost 2 years after starting, here I am still a NW2--with better thickness than I had when I started.
The last thing I'll leave you with is to remember: any hair you lose on fin, you would also lose off of fin. The difference is that off of fin, you have a 0% chance of stopping or reversing the process, while on fin your chances go up to 75-80 or more.

----------


## 2020

> Reflex hyperandrogenism induced by finasteride is a hypothesis that very few doctors and (mostly) laymen on forums have come up with. It's not known or documented to exist at this time.


 then explain how fin doesn't work for 10% of people even though fin makes your DHT levels go to castration levels? And then explain why it stops working after 5 years

----------


## Tracy C

> And then explain why it stops working after 5 years


 It doesn't stop working after five years.

----------


## 25 going on 65

> then explain how fin doesn't work for 10% of people even though fin makes your DHT levels go to castration levels? And then explain why it stops working after 5 years


 Well with MPB the problem isn't your DHT levels, it's that your follicles are sensitive to the hormone (or whatever cascading process is triggered by DHT).

That's why some guys have above-average DHT levels but die at 80 a NW2, while guys with low levels (whether naturally or from drugs) can hit NW6 by their mid 20s. For some, fin just doesn't reduce DHT enough to stop the miniaturization process. (Even at 30% DHT baseline, your follicles are still being attacked over time.) I imagine that's also why some guys who lose ground on fin can sometimes switch to dutasteride and stop their MPB that way.

It doesn't necessarily stop working in 5 years, that's just the typical length of time it takes to get below your baseline hair count. In fact you can tell the drug is still working because guys who stop after 5-15 years, because they think fin has quit on them, tend to lose insane amounts of hair over the following year.
Take Spencer as an example--he started losing hair over 20 years ago as a young adult, has been on fin for 17, and is now a NW3v. Without meds he would most likely be a NW5-7 by now

btw I'm not saying reflex hyperandrogenism can't be caused by fin, just that there isn't enough evidence to say it can. Keep in mind also, almost any drug has non-responders, not necessarily due to reflex hormonal changes

----------


## 2020

> It doesn't stop working after five years.


 

^ you're pretty much back at the baseline after 5 years... some people get more sure but fin won't work forever for reasons I mentioned above

----------


## 2020

> For some, fin just doesn't reduce DHT enough to stop the miniaturization process. (Even at 30&#37; DHT baseline, your follicles are still being attacked over time.) I imagine that's also why some guys who lose ground on fin can sometimes switch to dutasteride and stop their MPB that way.


 completely false. Most of that 30% would have been neutralized by your natural androgen binding proteins so whatever tiny amount was left over wouldn't cause you to lose any more hair...





> btw I'm not saying reflex hyperandrogenism can't be caused by fin, just that there isn't enough evidence to say it can. Keep in mind also, almost any drug has non-responders, not necessarily due to reflex hormonal changes


 you can't just suppress one of your most important hormones and expect your body not to do anything. Your body will try to reach homeostasis at any cost whether you like it or not.

*5AR inhibitors over time WILL CAUSE HYPERANDROGENISM. THAT'S A FACT. AND HERE'S THE PROOF:*




> Studies in 10 men with AGA where scalp biopsies are obtained before and after 6 months treatment with finasteride (a specific type II 5a-reductase inhibitor) reveal interesting results with regard to the effects of suppressing  DHT and how it affects  these androgen associated factors. Differences in expression were found for some of the  enzymes as well as transcription proteins, AR, ER-alpha and beta.
> *All scalp biopsies from patients obtained 6 months after finasteride treatment revealed intense upregulation of  AR expression in comparison  to pre-treatment biopsies of the same patient, whereas ERs were not affected, indicating that AR is very sensitive to the affects of 5a-R type II suppression of DHT.*


 http://www.ehrs.org/conferenceabstra...s04-sawaya.htm

what now? Still a theory? I can dig up a bunch of studies on prostate issues where they found that 5AR inhibitors  stop working after some time with definite AR upregulation

----------


## 25 going on 65

Am I misreading this abstract or are they basically saying the number of Androgen receptors will increase as a response to DHT suppression?

Also is there a way I can read the whole study without paying money?  :Big Grin:

----------


## 2020

> Am I misreading this abstract or are they basically saying the number of Androgen receptors will increase as a response to DHT suppression?


 if you're suppressing DHT by blocking 5AR then yes, number of AR will go up and they will probably be more sensitive.




> Also is there a way I can read the whole study without paying money?


 it's free?

----------


## mpb47

> completely false. Most of that 30&#37; would have been neutralized by your natural androgen binding proteins so whatever tiny amount was left over wouldn't cause you to lose any more hair...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't just suppress one of your most important hormones and expect your body not to do anything. Your body will try to reach homeostasis at any cost whether you like it or not.
> 
> *5AR inhibitors over time WILL CAUSE HYPERANDROGENISM. THAT'S A FACT. AND HERE'S THE PROOF:*
> 
> ...


 Don't know if you realize this or not, but you are quoting someone that got busted a couple of times by the feds and the FDA. She faked a medical lic and got barred from the FDA to do trials. She may know what she is doing but it''s hard to be sure after this.   Read the link below for more details. Just because it's written down does not make it true. I guess that is why they push peer review so hard.

Hyperandrogenism was a buzz word you heard thrown about back in the late 90's early 00's. It may be true but even back then most thought it was pretty rare. Or at least that was the impression I got.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009...f/E9-13929.pdf

----------


## 2020

why would she fake the results of that particular study?

Also, why is it so hard to believe that your body will fight your attempts at suppressing certain hormones?

----------


## mpb47

> why would she fake the results of that particular study?
> 
> Also, why is it so hard to believe that your body will fight your attempts at suppressing certain hormones?


 On December 11, 2003, the U.S. 
District Court for the Middle District of 
Florida accepted Dr. Mary E. Sawayas 
plea of guilty and convicted her of one 
count of making a false statement to a 
Federal agency, a Federal felony offense 
under 18 U.S.C. 1001. This offense was 
committed when Dr. Sawaya created a 
medical license by obtaining a copy of 
a colleagues Florida medical license, 
altered that license using a photocopy 
machine to reflect that the license was 
issued in her name, and submitted the 
false and fraudulent Florida medical 
license to the sponsor of a clinical trial, 
for which she was a clinical 
investigator. The sponsor submitted that 
license to FDA as part of the drug 
approval process. When the false license 
was due to expire, Dr. Sawaya once 
again created a false and fraudulent 
medical license with a different 
expiration date and submitted that 
license to the clinical trial sponsor.

For your second question:
I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just saying you need better sources.

----------


## 2020

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21557276

.. Immunohistochemical study revealed significant upregulation of ARs by finasteride treatment for 30-180 days....


seriously, how else would you explain that even though finasteride brings your DHT to castrate levels, yet you still continue to bald overtime when castrates don't

----------


## 25 going on 65

Are you sure castrates have similar DHT levels to non-castrated fin users? Castration would also drop testosterone dramatically if I'm not mistaken, which finasteride doesn't

Also I'm trying to read up on hyperandrogenism and it seems it applies to excess secretion of androgens, but not to an increase in androgen receptor sites. My mind is buzzing with questions.....
If the AR sites increase in number, but your body produces the same amount of 5a-reductase enzymes (and fin binds to the same amount, thus maintaining a consistently low level of DHT), is it necessarily the case that a greater amount of DHT is being absorbed after x amount of time on fin?

It might be that there is less opportunity for the protein binding 2020 mentions, therefore more DHT would reach AR sites. But that reminds me of another question: if most of the remaining 30% of DHT (for fin users) binds to protein and not AR sites, why does dutasteride give significantly better results for some of us? Especially for males who lose ground on fin but not dut? If the amount of absorbed DHT is so low with fin alone, should dut really make that much of a difference?

I'm not denying that the body naturally tries to achieve homeostasis, but that's the point of fin (and some other hormone medications). It's basically intervening in our endocrine system to induce certain physiological changes (in our case, stopping MPB). It's not necessarily the case that the male body is able to truly "offset" for the effects of fin, just like the female body isn't able to offset the effects of birth control/
Also it seems finasteride keeps working after any number of years, i.e. it still binds to the 5a-r enzyme and thereby reduces DHT. Does anyone here really think Spencer would have that much hair after 2+ decades of premature MPB if fin wasn't working for him?
The cosmetic result fades with time but to me it seems plausible that this is the result of cumulative damage; even if you suppress 90% of serum DHT (as with dut) there will always be some amount of the hormone reaching receptor sites in your follicles, no?

----------


## 2020

> Are you sure castrates have similar DHT levels to non-castrated fin users? Castration would also drop testosterone dramatically if I'm not mistaken, which finasteride doesn't


 T by itself doesn't cause hair loss as proven by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5-alpha...ase_deficiency





> Also I'm trying to read up on hyperandrogenism and it seems it applies to excess secretion of androgens, but not to an increase in androgen receptor sites. My mind is buzzing with questions.....


 it isn't that complicated.... your body has detected lesser levels of 5AR, so it tries to compensate for that in whichever way it can -> more receptors or more sensitive receptors.

Same thing happens with low T. Since there is less of that male hormone, your body tries to compensate by making more DHT since it's much more potent anyways.

This is all 100% true.




> If the AR sites increase in number, but your body produces the same amount of 5a-reductase enzymes (and fin binds to the same amount, thus maintaining a consistently low level of DHT), is it necessarily the case that a greater amount of DHT is being absorbed after x amount of time on fin?


 I'm thinking your body start upregulating AR activity until it reaches normal levels(before fin)





> It might be that there is less opportunity for the protein binding 2020 mentions, therefore more DHT would reach AR sites. But that reminds me of another question: if most of the remaining 30% of DHT (for fin users) binds to protein and not AR sites, why does dutasteride give significantly better results for some of us? Especially for males who lose ground on fin but not dut? If the amount of absorbed DHT is so low with fin alone, should dut really make that much of a difference?


 because there is even less DHT then? Much harder and it takes much longer for your body to upregulate all that to normal?





> Also it seems finasteride keeps working after any number of years, i.e. it still binds to the 5a-r enzyme and thereby reduces DHT. Does anyone here really think Spencer would have that much hair after 2+ decades of premature MPB if fin wasn't working for him?


 he doesn't have that much hair.... it's mostly hairspray and topik  :Big Grin: 
I'm pretty sure he has been slowly losing ground for many years now despite being on fin.





> The cosmetic result fades with time but to me it seems plausible that this is the result of cumulative damage; even if you suppress 90% of serum DHT (as with dut) there will always be some amount of the hormone reaching receptor sites in your follicles, no?


 maybe your body starts making more 5AR? Not sure, but your body is definitely responding to 5AR blockers by some sort of upregulation.

----------


## Tracy C

> ^ you're pretty much back at the baseline after 5 years...


 You are misrepresenting what that chart says.  That chart does not say that nor does it show that.

----------


## 25 going on 65

Ok. So this article does strongly suggest AR count increases with fin use. But that isn't technically hyperandrogenism (which would mean excess secretion of androgens rather than an increasing # of receptor sites) and I'm not convinced it would lead to the same symptoms, or to hair loss, nor am I convinced it is the sole reason why one can lose ground while on fin--if it is a reason. I think jumping to these conclusions isn't doing guys like Kirby any favors. It still requires a lot of guesswork on our part to fill in all these blanks, and guesswork has its place but it doesn't substitute for proper studies.
It still doesn't add up that fin actually does continue working for as long as 17 years (most likely longer, that's just the longest example I know of). Spencer himself admits he uses spray and concealer, but he is still a NW3v. He started balding in his early 20s and is now 47. There's no way he wouldn't be at least a NW5 by now without fin, and that's being highly generous. If he quit the drug tomorrow he'd be a bald man in less than 16 months. And there are users on hair loss forums who report over a decade of keeping their hair on fin or fin/dut. 
I'd say this notion of the body compensating/overcompensating for finasteride is worth looking into with more, different and bigger studies, but I'm not ready to embrace it yet--certainly not as a cause of hair loss--any more than I'm ready to embrace the idea of Gho multiplying follicles.
(btw I agree T doesn't cause hair loss, I only brought it up because it's needed for DHT to form and thought that might be another contributing factor to DHT reduction in castrates)

----------


## Tracy C

> Spencer himself admits he uses spray and concealer, but he is still a NW3v. He started balding in his early 20s and is now 47. There's no way he wouldn't be at least a NW5 by now without fin, and that's being highly generous.


 


> If he quit the drug tomorrow he'd be a bald man in less than 16 months.


 I doubt that it would happen anywhere near that fast - but it would happen.  You can use the curve in that chart that 2020 misread to extrapolate a much more probable time frame, which would be a heck of a lot longer than 16 months.

----------


## 2020

> Ok. So this article does strongly suggest AR count increases with fin use. But that isn't technically hyperandrogenism (which would mean excess secretion of androgens rather than an increasing # of receptor sites) and I'm not convinced it would lead to the same symptoms, or to hair loss, nor am I convinced it is the sole reason why one can lose ground while on fin--if it is a reason. I think jumping to these conclusions isn't doing guys like Kirby any favors.


 fine but that's still proof that your body does do some sort of upregulation to make existing DHT more potent in order to establish homeostasis....
This also explains how side effects go away for most people as long as they stay on it long term.




> It still doesn't add up that fin actually does continue working for as long as 17 years (most likely longer, that's just the longest example I know of). Spencer himself admits he uses spray and concealer, but he is still a NW3v. He started balding in his early 20s and is now 47. There's no way he wouldn't be at least a NW5 by now without fin, and that's being highly generous.


 his MPB is slow then and his hair loss still continued despite being on fin. WHY? 70% DHT reduction is pretty much castration. What is going on? Ideas?




> If he quit the drug tomorrow he'd be a bald man in less than 16 months.


 I wonder why...  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  Your body has upregulated itself to make existing DHT more potent. If you go off fin, suddenly all that extra DHT will ravage all your androgen receptors causing massive hair loss. Btw, there is no proof that going off fin will ACTUALLY get you exactly back at where you would have been... most of the time it's worse and sometimes it's not.




> And there are users on hair loss forums who report over a decade of keeping their hair on fin or fin/dut.


 so what then? Eventually they will start losing hair again though.... why?

----------


## 2020

> You are misrepresenting what that chart says.  That chart does not say that nor does it show that.


 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.

----------


## Tracy C

> I see a downward trend starting from year two which SHOULDN'T BE THERE!!!


 You are misreading that chart because you do not know what you are doing.

----------


## 2020

> You are misreading that chart because you do not know what you are doing.


 how am I misreading it? Hair count starts to go down after year two and it keeps going down... sure, you're still above the baseline but after some time you won't be....

The point is that this downward trend shouldn't happen! 70&#37; reduction in DHT is more than enough to permanently stop all androgen interactions but with 5AR inhibitors it isn't for reason I explained above.

What's the problem?

----------


## 25 going on 65

70% reduction in serum DHT wouldn't prevent all DHT from binding to follicular AR sites. What you're saying is that the DHT which does get through, is too little to continue the MPB process, which is something I'm not so sure about. Do castrates and non-castrated fin users really have the same DHT levels? Can I read about this somewhere?
btw I did consider the possibility that quitting fin leads to over-reception of DHT due to increased AR sites combined with pre-fin DHT levels. I'm just not ready to assume that's the sole cause of the "catch-up loss" phenomenon or if it's even a major contributing factor. (Maybe we don't know that quitting fin returns you to where you would have been in terms of lost hair, but if not then we similarly can't say it leaves you worse or better off.)

----------


## 2020

> 70&#37; reduction in serum DHT wouldn't prevent all DHT from binding to follicular AR sites. What you're saying is that the DHT which does get through, is too little to continue the MPB process, which is something I'm not so sure about.


 no... I'm saying that most of your DHT (> 90%) is already being "deactivated" by your body's own androgen binding proteins so I'm sure fin should be able to take care of the rest but it doesn't....




> Do castrates and non-castrated fin users really have the same DHT levels? Can I read about this somewhere?


 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1699965

control DHT levels: 4.5 ng/g
DHT levels after finasteride: 0.302 ng/g
DHT levels after castration: 1.14 ng/g

Castrates don't lose hair even though they have higher DHT levels than people on finasteride!!!

Castration-resistant prostate cancer exists for a reason.... castration is not enough!

^ lol I should post this in a separate thread: Finasteride - more effective than castration!




> btw I did consider the possibility that quitting fin leads to over-reception of DHT due to increased AR sites combined with pre-fin DHT levels. I'm just not ready to assume that's the sole cause of the "catch-up loss" phenomenon or if it's even a major contributing factor.


 how would you explain it then?




> (Maybe we don't know that quitting fin returns you to where you would have been in terms of lost hair, but if not then we similarly can't say it leaves you worse or better off.)


 ^ exactly. We don't even know. Some people end up worse, some better.

----------


## UK_

> Don't know if you realize this or not, but you are quoting someone that got busted a couple of times by the feds and the FDA. She faked a medical lic and got barred from the FDA to do trials. She may know what she is doing but it''s hard to be sure after this.   Read the link below for more details. Just because it's written down does not make it true. I guess that is why they push peer review so hard.
> 
> Hyperandrogenism was a buzz word you heard thrown about back in the late 90's early 00's. It may be true but even back then most thought it was pretty rare. Or at least that was the impression I got.
> 
> http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2009...f/E9-13929.pdf


 It was a conspiracy they took her out b/c she had the cure and knew about roswell.

----------


## mpb47

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21557276
> 
> .. Immunohistochemical study revealed significant upregulation of ARs by finasteride treatment for 30-180 days....
> 
> 
> seriously, how else would you explain that even though finasteride brings your DHT to castrate levels, yet you still continue to bald overtime when castrates don't


 My guess on what I have read elsewhere:

Well FIN does not block dht 100% .. and as time goes on some other variable comes into play. MPB genetics have a time clock that determine when you start going bald.

For example, why do some older men (60 +) who  have mostly full heads of hair start going bald so late in life?  They have lower levels of T/DHT compared to when they were younger yet they are only now starting to go bald.

The theory I read was that the time clock part of the genetics does something to make your AR's more sensitive to what remaining DHT you still have. So as long as you have some DHT, you will start going bald .
Probably the same reason as to why % wise, the amount of men balding, keeps increasing with age.

----------


## mpb47

> Ok. So this article does strongly suggest AR count increases with fin use. But that isn't technically hyperandrogenism (which would mean excess secretion of androgens rather than an increasing # of receptor sites) and I'm not convinced it would lead to the same symptoms, or to hair loss, nor am I convinced it is the sole reason why one can lose ground while on fin--if it is a reason. I think jumping to these conclusions isn't doing guys like Kirby any favors. It still requires a lot of guesswork on our part to fill in all these blanks, and guesswork has its place but it doesn't substitute for proper studies.
> It still doesn't add up that fin actually does continue working for as long as 17 years (most likely longer, that's just the longest example I know of). Spencer himself admits he uses spray and concealer, but he is still a NW3v. He started balding in his early 20s and is now 47. There's no way he wouldn't be at least a NW5 by now without fin, and that's being highly generous. If he quit the drug tomorrow he'd be a bald man in less than 16 months. And there are users on hair loss forums who report over a decade of keeping their hair on fin or fin/dut. 
> I'd say this notion of the body compensating/overcompensating for finasteride is worth looking into with more, different and bigger studies, but I'm not ready to embrace it yet--certainly not as a cause of hair loss--any more than I'm ready to embrace the idea of Gho multiplying follicles.
> (btw I agree T doesn't cause hair loss, I only brought it up because it's needed for DHT to form and thought that might be another contributing factor to DHT reduction in castrates)


 He may just have very gradual mpb like me. I am also 47 and min started at 17. My mom's brother also started in his teens and didn't become a NW5 till around age 60 and that was without any medicine.

----------


## Tracy C

> how am I misreading it? Hair count starts to go down after year two and it keeps going down... sure, you're still above the baseline but after some time you won't be....


 At least you are conceding your mistake.  So what if it goes down compared to baseline, it is still significantly above not using the med at all.  Look at that huge gap between the real medicine and the placebo.  Discounting that gap the way you are is unethical.

----------


## 25 going on 65

Either way at least this thread is teaching me new things.
My new regimen:

1.25 mg finasteride: once daily
2% keto shampoo: 1-2 times weekly
Castration: as needed

----------


## Tracy C

I'm sorry if this sounds silly but I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

----------


## 25 going on 65

lol I'm not really castrating myself, at that point hair loss would be the least of my worries

----------


## 2020

> At least you are conceding your mistake.  So what if it goes down compared to baseline, it is still significantly above not using the med at all.  Look at that huge gap between the real medicine and the placebo.  Discounting that gap the way you are is unethical.


 right but my point was that hair count SHOULD NOT GO DOWN EVER.

That study I posted says that FINASTERIDE is more effective than CASTRATION.
If castrates never go bald, why do finasteride users do? 

There is something more to this... as I said, you can't just suppress your 5AR long enough without your body doing something about it.

----------


## Tracy C

> right but my point was that hair count SHOULD NOT GO DOWN EVER.
> 
> That study I posted says that FINASTERIDE is more effective than CASTRATION.
> If castrates never go bald, why do finasteride users do?


 


> There is something more to this...


 The most logical conclusion is that the findings of that study you posted are flawed.  You cannot fully trust wiki "research".

----------


## 2020

> The most logical conclusion is that the findings of that study you posted are flawed.  You cannot fully trust wiki "research".


 what this?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21557276

this is an actual study from Taiwan university. 
Castration leaves more androgens than finasteride that's why castration sometimes it's not enough to stop prostate cancer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostat...sistant_cancer

finasteride works in a bad way because your body tries to fight its effect and after 5 years or so it starts winning....

----------


## TJ1154

> right but my point was that hair count SHOULD NOT GO DOWN EVER.
> 
> That study I posted says that FINASTERIDE is more effective than CASTRATION.
> If castrates never go bald, why do finasteride users do? 
> 
> There is something more to this... as I said, you can't just suppress your 5AR long enough without your body doing something about it.


 
Castration before baldness begins will prevent it from ever occurring, from what I understand. Is there any evidence that castration after baldness has started will prevent further baldness? If so, I would certainly like to read the studies. 

The logical reason for why average hair counts decline on finasteride is that the drug is not preventing hair loss entirely, but is simply slowing it down dramatically. As you can see from the chart, and as Tracy mentioned, the average finasteride responder is still considerably above baseline after five years on the medication. The slope is also much less steep for the finasteride user than it is for the placebo user, indicating that the rate of loss also continues to be slower after the 5 yr period. If 1 mg of finasteride blocks less than 90&#37; of the type 2 5alphareductase, then the remaining DHT could still attack the follicles, and this would explain why loss still occurs, albeit slower. Dutasteride blocks more than 97% of type 2 5alphareductase, from what I understand, and while there has never been a 5 yr study done by Glaxo in a manner similar to Merck's finasteride study, my hunch is that the rate of loss is only a fraction of what the finasteride loss rate is, and certainly way lower than placebo.

If I am on here 10 years from now and have maintained all of my hair (that would be for a total of 16 years on dutasteride), then I think you will have to eat your words, because there is baldness on both sides of my family. There are many accounts on forums of people maintaining for 15 years on finasteride, how does this square with your hyperandrogenicity theory? On the other hand, if my loss suddenly picks up in the next 3-4 years and I go bald very fast, then I will put some serious stock in what you are saying.

----------


## 2020

> Castration before baldness begins will prevent it from ever occurring, from what I understand. Is there any evidence that castration after baldness has started will prevent further baldness? If so, I would certainly like to read the studies.


 http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/20/10/1309





> The logical reason for why average hair counts decline on finasteride is that the drug is not preventing hair loss entirely, but is simply slowing it down dramatically.


 that's not logical at all... finasteride lowers your DHT levels below castration and castrates never lose their hair.
THE ONLY EXPLANATION for this phenomenon is that your body makes all of your androgen receptors more sensitive over time so that's why you start losing hair after some years with finasteride...




> As you can see from the chart, and as Tracy mentioned, the average finasteride responder is still considerably above baseline after five years on the medication. The slope is also much less steep for the finasteride user than it is for the placebo user, indicating that the rate of loss also continues to be slower after the 5 yr period.


 I don't care about the position you're at after 5 years... I see a trend and it is obvious after reading these forums that finasteride DOES in fact stop "working" after 5 years or so....

read propeciahelp.com forums. A lot of people there report EXCESSIVELY RAPID scalp hair loss and just as bad body hair growth after going off finasteride. Why would that happen unless your androgen receptors have become more sensitive to due 5AR blockers?




> If 1 mg of finasteride blocks less than 90% of the type 2 5alphareductase, then the remaining DHT could still attack the follicles, and this would explain why loss still occurs, albeit slower.


 sex hormones don't work like that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen-binding_protein




> Dutasteride blocks more than 97% of type 2 5alphareductase, from what I understand, and while there has never been a 5 yr study done by Glaxo in a manner similar to Merck's finasteride study, my hunch is that the rate of loss is only a fraction of what the finasteride loss rate is, and certainly way lower than placebo.


 sure, because it blocks that much more DHT it takes your body a long time to adjust itself to its "newly normal" androgen receptor sensitivity....

also, how do you explain how some people start LOSING hair after getting on finasteride/dutasteride?





> If I am on here 10 years from now and have maintained all of my hair (that would be for a total of 16 years on dutasteride), then I think you will have to eat your words, because there is baldness on both sides of my family.


 didn't I already prove that androgen sensitivity does in fact go up after taking 5AR blockers?
http://www.ehrs.org/conferenceabstra...s04-sawaya.htm

I don't care about one particular person's results. His body must be slow at adjusting itself then.

odds are very much against you at maintaining your hair with DUT for 16 years but good luck




> There are many accounts on forums of people maintaining for 15 years on finasteride, how does this square with your hyperandrogenicity theory? On the other hand, if my loss suddenly picks up in the next 3-4 years and I go bald very fast, then I will put some serious stock in what you are saying.


 many? I don't think there are that many at all. 5-7 years is about the average before you start losing hair again

----------


## Kirby_

Have to admit, when I started taking fin, I knew it isn't a drug that is effective forever, and I only ever considered it something to 'tide me over' until the big guns are available. (I'm becoming rapidly pessimistic that anything will be, on the mainstream/legit market, but that's another story.)

----------


## TJ1154

> http://jcem.endojournals.org/content/20/10/1309


 I stand corrected on that.




> that's not logical at all... finasteride lowers your DHT levels below castration and castrates never lose their hair.
> THE ONLY EXPLANATION for this phenomenon is that your body makes all of your androgen receptors more sensitive over time so that's why you start losing hair after some years with finasteride...


 There was a famous case about 100 years ago of a set of twins who were genetically susceptible to hair loss. One twin lost his hair as expected but the other twin had been castrated due to mental illness, so this twin still had a full head of hair. The physician injected the castrated twin with testosterone, and the castrated twin quickly lost all of his scalp hair except that on the sides on back. 




> I don't care about the position you're at after 5 years... I see a trend and it is obvious after reading these forums that finasteride DOES in fact stop "working" after 5 years or so....
> 
> read propeciahelp.com forums. A lot of people there report EXCESSIVELY RAPID scalp hair loss and just as bad body hair growth after going off finasteride. Why would that happen unless your androgen receptors have become more sensitive to due 5AR blockers?


 It could be reflex hyperandrogenicity as you said, but it could also be simple catch-up. I have no doubt that if I stopped taking dutasteride today, within a year I would have lost 30&#37; of the hair on my head, and would probably have a lot more body hair as well. This would not be due to reflex hyperandrogenicity, but rather due to my genes playing catch-up. My genes say I'm supposed to be a lot more bald and have a lot more body hair than I do right now. I've actually lost a bit of body hair from dutasteride, and my facial hair has thinned out by approximately 50% as well.




> sex hormones don't work like that.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen-binding_protein


 I don't understand what you're saying.




> sure, because it blocks that much more DHT it takes your body a long time to adjust itself to its "newly normal" androgen receptor sensitivity....
> 
> also, how do you explain how some people start LOSING hair after getting on finasteride/dutasteride?


 I haven't seen any evidence of what you're describing. I also don't understand your question. If someone isn't already losing hair, why would they get on finasteride or dutasteride? As a purely preventive measure? I doubt there are many people without an AGA diagnosis taking these drugs. Their hair loss might be minor, but the process has started in the vast majority of them. The fact that they continue to lose hair after getting on them is not proof that the drugs have caused the continued hair loss, is it? They were losing hair before getting on the drugs, so it seems odd to blame the drugs for the continued hair loss. 




> didn't I already prove that androgen sensitivity does in fact go up after taking 5AR blockers?
> http://www.ehrs.org/conferenceabstra...s04-sawaya.htm


 http://www.hairlosshelp.com/hair_los...rogenicity.cfm

"A: When the effects of androgens in the body are lessened, e.g. through lowering DHT or by systemic hormone receptor blockade, the body seeks equilibrium through a process called upregulation. This can take the form of increased hormone production and/or increased tissue sensitivity to the remaining hormones. The reason side effects usually gradually disappear with finasteride is probably due to such upregulation. In a small percentage of individuals, it may be that this process overshoots the mark, resulting in significant hyperandrogenicity. This is marked by such signs as greatly increased facial oil, increased pimples, and greatly elevated libido.*It's possible that in certain cases such hyperandrogenicity overcomes the hair-protective effect of, say, finasteride, though this does not appear to be the case for the vast majority of people."*




> I don't care about one particular person's results. His body must be slow at adjusting itself then.
> 
> odds are very much against you at maintaining your hair with DUT for 16 years but good luck


 I am unsure why you think it is incredibly unlikely that I will still have most of my hair 10 years from now when I haven't lost any in 6 years. You said that the decline happens a couple years in, well, mine didn't.




> many? I don't think there are that many at all. 5-7 years is about the average before you start losing hair again


 I have seen probably 20-30 cases posted on forums over the years, but you should also consider that people who have maintained their hair and are completely/mostly satisfied with it are a lot less likely to begin posting/continue posting on internet forums dedicated to hair loss.

----------


## Tracy C

> Castration before baldness begins will prevent it from ever occurring, from what I understand. Is there any evidence that castration after baldness has started will prevent further baldness? If so, I would certainly like to read the studies.


 All you need to do is meat up with a few M2F transsexuals.  Most will have a male hair line, depending on how old they were when they had surgery, some will have suffered some degree of hair loss but after they have surgery their hair loss stops dead in it's tracks.

I am in the unique position of having a very dear friend who just happens to be a M2F trans woman.  I have met several of her friends and can attest to what I have seen of their hair.  Even those who were suffering hair loss before they had their sex change surgeries stopped losing hair.  So yeah, castration prevents it and arrest it - but it doesn't reverse it.

----------


## 2020

> There was a famous case about 100 years ago of a set of twins who were genetically susceptible to hair loss. One twin lost his hair as expected but the other twin had been castrated due to mental illness, so this twin still had a full head of hair. The physician injected the castrated twin with testosterone, and the castrated twin quickly lost all of his scalp hair except that on the sides on back.


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





> It could be reflex hyperandrogenicity as you said, but it could also be simple catch-up. I have no doubt that if I stopped taking dutasteride today, within a year I would have lost 30% of the hair on my head, and would probably have a lot more body hair as well. This would not be due to reflex hyperandrogenicity, but rather due to my genes playing catch-up. My genes say I'm supposed to be a lot more bald and have a lot more body hair than I do right now. I've actually lost a bit of body hair from dutasteride, and my facial hair has thinned out by approximately 50% as well.


 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. 





> I don't understand what you're saying.


 VAST MAJORITY of your DHT is biologically INACTIVE.






> I haven't seen any evidence of what you're describing. I also don't understand your question. If someone isn't already losing hair, why would they get on finasteride or dutasteride? As a purely preventive measure? I doubt there are many people without an AGA diagnosis taking these drugs. Their hair loss might be minor, but the process has started in the vast majority of them. The fact that they continue to lose hair after getting on them is not proof that the drugs have caused the continued hair loss, is it? They were losing hair before getting on the drugs, so it seems odd to blame the drugs for the continued hair loss.


 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...






> http://www.hairlosshelp.com/hair_los...rogenicity.cfm
> 
> "A: When the effects of androgens in the body are lessened, e.g. through lowering DHT or by systemic hormone receptor blockade, the body seeks equilibrium through a process called upregulation. This can take the form of increased hormone production and/or increased tissue sensitivity to the remaining hormones. The reason side effects usually gradually disappear with finasteride is probably due to such upregulation. In a small percentage of individuals, it may be that this process overshoots the mark, resulting in significant hyperandrogenicity. This is marked by such signs as greatly increased facial oil, increased pimples, and greatly elevated libido.*It's possible that in certain cases such hyperandrogenicity overcomes the hair-protective effect of, say, finasteride, though this does not appear to be the case for the vast majority of people."*


 right, and?




> I am unsure why you think it is incredibly unlikely that I will still have most of my hair 10 years from now when I haven't lost any in 6 years. You said that the decline happens a couple years in, well, mine didn't.


 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 have seen probably 20-30 cases posted on forums over the years, but you should also consider that people who have maintained their hair and are completely/mostly satisfied with it are a lot less likely to begin posting/continue posting on internet forums dedicated to hair loss.


 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

----------


## Maradona

> 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. 
> 
> ...


 Let me ask you a favor 2020. Save me the hours of research and tell me which things are you on in order of priority.

You're after PGD2 blockers as number 1 priority etc...

I might experiment with other things than RU.

----------


## 2020

> Let me ask you a favor 2020. Save me the hours of research and tell me which things are you on in order of priority.
> 
> You're after PGD2 blockers as number 1 priority etc...
> 
> I might experiment with other things than RU.


 what do you mean? You wanna know my regimen?

----------


## Kirby_

Back on track, I've heard many times, in passing, claims that diffuse thinners like me "respond well" or "respond best" to treatment. Is this true? Does that mean that diffuse thinners are more likely to regrow and retain decent amounts of hair with treatments?

(Sorry about the panic post last week, I was having serious panic attacks. My main issue is that I certainly didn't look 'balding' to the naked eye before treatment with fin and Nizoral, but now I do.)

----------


## BaldinLikeBaldwin

I think the logic would be that it's easier to treat "thin areas" than bald spots

then again with current treatments any type of regrowth is not something you can expect imo

----------


## Kirby_

Well I realise that I'm almost certainly too far gone for treatments to ever do anything good for me, as I see it it's like buying a lottery ticket and hoping in vain that you're one of the lucky few that have sucess.

----------


## Tracy C

> I think the logic would be that it's easier to treat "thin areas" than bald spots


 Exactly.






> then again with current treatments any type of regrowth is not something you can expect imo


 I don't really agree with this because I grew a lot of hair back myself.  It is best to plan for the worst and hope for the best though.  Even if you don't have any re-growth, you should at least be able to maintain what you have so you don't loose any more.  Personally, I think Kirby is in better shape than he thinks he is.  He doesn't look any worse now than he did before he started and you just never know, once he has been treating it long enough to actually see any benefit, he might be surprised at with he sees.

----------


## Kirby_

^ I hope so. As I said, for me it's buying a Euromillions lottery ticket every Friday. I don't expect to hit the jackpot, but I can't expect _anything_ unless I enter the competition. There have been some rather impressive regrowth stories detailed on other forums (user RSR40 on HLH for example), that at least demonstrate what is possible.

If I get back to baseline, with a teeny bit more, I can live with that until some of the next-gen treatments start to arrive. (Really, I took a bit hit from baseline in the initial shed which the low-res photos I've posted don't show.)

----------


## Kirby_

Also, I've noticed that while my thin patch directly on top (midscalp?) is thinning, everything 'south' of the swirl, is nearly solid. Could that be an indicator of anything, or just my 'pattern'?  :Confused:

----------


## Tracy C

You should be fine.  Just stick with the treatments and give it reasonable time - at least a full 12 months.

----------


## 25 going on 65

> Also, I've noticed that while my thin patch directly on top (midscalp?) is thinning, everything 'south' of the swirl, is nearly solid. Could that be an indicator of anything, or just my 'pattern'?


 It's just your pattern most likely. There is a pretty huge variation in MPB patterns, especially for diffuse thinners like ourselves.

----------


## mpb47

> Also, I've noticed that while my thin patch directly on top (midscalp?) is thinning, everything 'south' of the swirl, is nearly solid. Could that be an indicator of anything, or just my 'pattern'?


 Just keep an eye on it as you get older. My relatives never went south there until they were all around 50 or so.

----------


## Kirby_

^ TBH, I can see two scenarios emerging. Either my hair won't be viable this time next year, despite or because of Propecia and the heavy diffuse loss. Or I won't have to worry in the long term about MPB, because much better treatment options will be available, easily by the time I'm 40... It's either/or, as I see it.

----------


## Kirby_

Added photo from last August to prove that my hair was relatively thick then. Is far worse now.

----------


## Kirby_

I'm convinced that either fin is destroying my hair, or I have something as well as MPB that is exacerbating my hair loss, possibly in conjunction with fin.

----------


## Tracy C

It is much too soon for you to know that.

----------


## Kirby_

I'm not convinced that Propecia/fin does anything but speed up balding. There must be a reason why it Propecia is not commonly known about in the UK. I went from SLIGHTLY thinning in a diffuse pattern to HEAVILY, VISIBLY balding.

----------


## Maradona

> I'm not convinced that Propecia/fin does anything but speed up balding. There must be a reason why it Propecia is not commonly known about in the UK. I went from SLIGHTLY thinning in a diffuse pattern to HEAVILY, VISIBLY balding.


 My question why the **** would even get on propecia being in your 30s with slow balding and a norwood 2?

I lost a lot of hair on propecia and quit months later.

But know this if you quit now, you will not get your hair back.
But if you keep at it, you might regrow what you lost but at the risk of sides.

----------


## 25 going on 65

> I'm not convinced that Propecia/fin does anything but speed up balding. There must be a reason why it Propecia is not commonly known about in the UK. I went from SLIGHTLY thinning in a diffuse pattern to HEAVILY, VISIBLY balding.


 Propecia isn't commonly known about anywhere, because most men don't treat their hair loss. But for a majority of males it will strengthen and maintain hair for years.
You'll want to be on it at least twelve full months before deciding whether it works for you. Some men need longer than that. If you do end up quitting, I would definitely taper off instead of dropping it all at once.
I'm sorry for your stress, but know that quite a few men quit finasteride prematurely and thus give up hair they could have saved. Quitting before a year has passed means you never should have taken the drug in the first place (unless you're quitting due to side effects).
For what it's worth, I have gone through sheds that made me worry fin wasn't working or was making things worse. But in the long term the result has been more and better hair.
Another thing to consider: stress can cause massive shedding.

Have you spoken to a doctor about this to see if there are other causes?

----------


## lalala

> Added photo from last August to prove that my hair was relatively thick then. Is far worse now.


 I think you look 100000% better with your hair short like it is now then you did back then.

----------


## 25 going on 65

> My question why the **** would even get on propecia being in your 30s with slow balding and a norwood 2?


 Probably because he wanted to stop going bald man.

----------


## Tracy C

> But if you keep at it, you might regrow what you lost but at the risk of sides.


 You guys need to accept that not everyone will get the possible side effects.  The actual numbers might be more than Merck claims but it is obvious that those numbers are not as high as the fear mongers are making it out to be.  Even data from independent studies show that the percentage is not that high.  Another important detail is that additional independent studies clearly show that in most cases the side effects are psychosomatic.  Now that's me talking, that's the data talking - and it is what it is.  Whether anyone wants to accept it or not - it is what it is.






> I'm not convinced that Propecia/fin does anything but speed up balding. There must be a reason why it Propecia is not commonly known about in the UK.


 You cannot know that until you have been using the medication for a full 12 months.  There is absolutely no way for you to know anything before then.  If you are not experiencing the possible side effects and you want to keep your hair, you need to stick with it for the full 12 months.  Yes it can get temporarily worse - but it usually gets better if you stick with treatment.  I have seen your pictures.  You do not look worse than you did before you started.  You are freaking out.   

The reason the proven treatments for hereditary hair loss are not as well known as you might think is simply because so few men actually bother to try to treat their hair loss.  The truth is that most men do not care enough about their hair loss to be bothered with treating it.  Again, it is what it is.

----------


## Kirby_

> My question why the **** would even get on propecia being in your 30s with slow balding and a norwood 2?


 What, so when people hit Three-O they have to let themselves go bald?! The "everyone gives up on themselves at 30" thing is BS.

----------


## Maradona

> What, so when people hit Three-O they have to let themselves go bald?! The "everyone gives up on themselves at 30" thing is BS.


 No! But you can definitely accelerate your hairloss when you start early sometimes.  It's not that you give up but if your hairloss started in your early 30s and you're a norwood 2 it only means you will get worse in YEARS and YEARS, it's super slow balding.

We have future treatments coming down the pipe waiting a couple of years wouldn't have hurt and only would have hurt your hairline by .5cm or so.

----------


## Kirby_

I don't want to risk anything. I got on Propecia as my hairloss generally wasn't _that_ visible, and I wanted to keep at least what I had whilst I wait for the next-gen treatments to arrive. Now I'm more familiar with hairloss forums, I realise there were an awful lot of treatments that fell by the wayside over the years, and I 'm much more sceptical that there will be anything better. I can't wait for salvation that may never arrive. As it is, I'm deeply concerned that I've screwed what hair I did have in January.

----------


## Maradona

> I don't want to risk anything. I got on Propecia as my hairloss generally wasn't _that_ visible, and I wanted to keep at least what I had whilst I wait for the next-gen treatments to arrive. Now I'm more familiar with hairloss forums, I realise there were an awful lot of treatments that fell by the wayside over the years, and I 'm much more sceptical that there will be anything better. I can't wait for salvation that may never arrive. As it is, I'm deeply concerned that I've screwed what hair I did have in January.


 Bro I got on propecia when i was norwood 1.5 ! And I started balding exactly a year ago. I was a norwood 1 a year ago.

 Check my old posts at ************, I ain't bullshitting ! 

Don't quit now that you're taking it or you will not get back what you shed.
Stick with it if you experience no sides.

----------


## Kirby_

I don't have much choice but to continue to the 1 year mark, and I have the tablets already bought anyway.

However, I definitely think there's a secondary factor in play other than (slow, until January) MPB. I have no idea how I'm going to get to the bottom of the issue though.

----------


## nick9278

Between maradona, 2020, etc. the amount of conjecture on these forums is unbelievable.

----------


## mpb47

> I don't have much choice but to continue to the 1 year mark, and I have the tablets already bought anyway.
> 
> However, I definitely think there's a secondary factor in play other than (slow, until January) MPB. I have no idea how I'm going to get to the bottom of the issue though.


 
Fin sometimes takes a long time to work. The first time I was on it it took a full 9 months before I knew it was working in the back. I also went through many fast loss/regrowth cycles as well and it times it did look worse. Even when you know it's working you may get those cycles though at least for me, they didnt seem to happen as often as the beginning.

Also remember that things are not always the way they seem. People think treatment X speed up their loss when in reality, it was just their mpb getting more aggressive. That's the way  mpb seems to work sometimes unfortunately. 

Don't let fear ruin your chances of success.

----------


## 25 going on 65

> I also went through many fast loss/regrowth cycles as well and it times it did look worse.* Even when you know it's working you may get those cycles* though at least for me, they didnt seem to happen as often as the beginning.


 Yeah, almost 2 years on this med for me and I still get these cycles. My initial shed wasn't especially bad though, I guess I lucked out, or maybe it was the keto shampoo I started before fin that forced a bunch of my weaker hairs out before fin had the chance.

----------


## UK_

> Between maradona, 2020, etc. the amount of conjecture on these forums is unbelievable.


 pahaha welcome to the sad depressing world of hair loss forums.

Dr Ziering really did say to add an extra 2 years to the initial 2014 release date - he did NOT say "give or take" he clearly said ADD two years, so on that note kirby I think it would be a good idea to stick with fin for now.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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. 
> 
> ...


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

----------


## 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

For you, who so passionately quote the study of Sawaya 
http://www.ehrs.org/conferenceabstra...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-rem...ropecia_ar.cfm

----------


## 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?

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.
> ...


 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

> 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 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

> 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  :Smile: , thank god.

----------


## 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

----------


## 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.

----------


## 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.

----------


## mpb47

> 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.


 I am with you. I am going to keep using what I know works. I keep hearing about all these new treatments but so far it's mostly just talk. When a bunch of guys start using them and show it's working then I might give it more thought..

Oh and be careful of those pills. They are ok for short term use but a friend's girlfriend has to use them everyday now as she is hooked.

----------


## Kirby_

One year mark... Hair worse than ever, certainly far much worse compared to baseline. Finasteride is a joke. There is no working treatments for MPb, and any are the best part of a decade away, if ever. We're all deluding ourselves.

----------


## WarLord

> One year mark... Hair worse than ever, certainly far much worse compared to baseline. Finasteride is a joke. There is no working treatments for MPb, and any are the best part of a decade away, if ever. We're all deluding ourselves.


 I understand your frustration, but you shouldn't be so negative. What are your DHT and testosterone levels? I wouldn't be surprised, if you haven't done any lab tests. If you don't know, how effectively finasteride decreases your DHT levels, then you can take the stuff for years without any visible effect. However, if you knew that it simply didn't work properly, you could immediately jump on dutasteride and don't waste your time.

----------


## Kirby_

> I understand your frustration, but you shouldn't be so negative. What are your DHT and testosterone levels? I wouldn't be surprised, if you haven't done any lab tests. If you don't know, how effectively finasteride decreases your DHT levels, then you can take the stuff for years without any visible effect. However, if you knew that it simply didn't work properly, you could immediately jump on dutasteride and don't waste your time.


 I don't know how/if I can get 'lab ltests' on the NHS. I certainly would if I did/can.

If anyone reading this knows if I can get them on the NHS, and if so what to ask for, please LMK.

----------


## Kirby_

BTW I have to admit that I won't yet believe that finasteride actually works full stop, all the photos and data off the Internet I will consider disreputable/faked until I can see a positive difference from using the drug with my own eyes. A working medicine shouldn't have left an ultra thin ultra see through patch the size of an orange on the top of my head.

----------


## ThinningB420

> One year mark... Hair worse than ever, certainly far much worse compared to baseline. Finasteride is a joke. There is no working treatments for MPb, and any are the best part of a decade away, if ever. We're all deluding ourselves.


 Can you please post a picture. I'd like to see what your hair now looks like. I'm sure it would help you to have independent people verify what you are seeing.

----------


## BigThinker

> BTW I have to admit that I won't yet believe that finasteride actually works full stop, all the photos and data off the Internet I will consider disreputable/faked until I can see a positive difference from using the drug with my own eyes. A working medicine shouldn't have left an ultra thin ultra see through patch the size of an orange on the top of my head.


 Everyone reacts differently to fin.  The fact that some people experience permanent sides while others never have any sort of sides is testament enough of that.  There really is no "cure-all" for any disease.  There will always be some anomaly of a person who doesn't respond well.

Sorry for your frustration.  I'm also extremely frustrated with my shedding which has just escalated.  It's easy to get heated and be irritable when MPB is constantly on the back of your mind.

Regards.

----------


## Kirby_

Thanks, that has boosted my mood.  :Smile:

----------


## peterpan

> One year mark... Hair worse than ever, certainly far much worse compared to baseline. Finasteride is a joke. There is no working treatments for MPb, and any are the best part of a decade away, if ever. We're all deluding ourselves.


 im in the same boat as you... had temple recesion and started fin, now i have diffuse thinning throughout.  allthough im holding out some hope.  something to consider though is that your stress is making things worse, if youre super stressed out your body will divert its energy from growing hair to other areas.  this is something ive been considering more and more and have been thinking my constant stress is related to my hairloss and could have done some damage to my adrenal gland as i have symptoms consistant with this.  it tends to happen sometimes from constant stress from what i can understand and i started to lose my hair after my dad was diagnosed with cancer and my girlfriend of seven years who i had planned to spent my life with dumped me and moved on instantly.  my hairloss really took off after my dad died so this might be indicative of the relationship between stress and hairloss.  seems like you, like me are predisposed for letting stress get the better of you.  best thing i can reccommend is just exercize man, not to get ripped(unless you want to) just to feel better and get your mind off of shit, its the only thing thats helped me that i can recommend.  trying to get healthier has really helped me to lower my stress levels which im hoping will help my hair so i can at least get through college and find a girl i can love again.  i feel like maybe if your big focus in life is your hairloss theres no way youll grow anything back cause youll always be bummed looking in the mirror.

anyway, sorry for the long post.  i wish you the best man

----------


## WarLord

> I don't know how/if I can get 'lab ltests' on the NHS. I certainly would if I did/can.
> 
> If anyone reading this knows if I can get them on the NHS, and if so what to ask for, please LMK.


 You made a fundamental mistake. You were basically idly watching your disappearing hair without any counteractions. No lab tests, no increase of dosing, no addition of minoxidil, dutasteride etc. 

I now have problems with finasteride, too, but I try to do something. I added it to my minoxidil routine in late June and when I was on it for 6 weeks, I started to observe a nice regrowth, but it stopped after several weeks and then it was basically stable for 2 months. Subsequently, all of a sudden (in late October), I began to lose hair along my hairline. The hairs were disappearing almost overnight. 

It took a lot of effort to find some laboratory doing tests of DHT, but eventually, I got my lab test from 8th November: DHT 52 ng/dl (!!!) It was an immense shock for me and for a while, I thought that the laboratory made an error in the decimal point. I immediately increased my finasteride dosage from 1 mg/day to 1.25 mg/day and on 5th December, I got 32 ng/dl. 

This is already at the bottom of the normal range (30-85 ng/dl), but still unusually high for a finasteride user, though. But my initial DHT levels may have been high, because I have always suffered from symptoms of hyperandrogenicity (besides hairloss I also had horrible acne and seborrhea). 

The shedding around my hairline still continues, but as far as I can say, the lost hair has virtually always regrown back. But I am not sure, what it means. Perhaps it is only a temporary shed induced by finasteride. However, it's been going for nearly 2,5 months already with no end in sight and I start to doubt, if it is normal. In any case, I again increased my finasteride dosage a bit and this week I want to check my DHT levels once more.

----------


## Kirby_

Again, I'm not sure what to ask for in terms of 'blood tests'. I'll ask my GP if I'd be allowed an NHS blood test to check on my DHT levels.

FWIW, the consultant dermatologist I saw said I should definitely get a 'liver function test' every 6 months when on fin, which I'm set to do, and recommended minox, but only on the bitemporal area. He also said that I should definitely not be on dutasteride yet.

----------


## WarLord

> Again, I'm not sure what to ask for in terms of 'blood tests'. I'll ask my GP if I'd be allowed an NHS blood test to check on my DHT levels.
> 
> FWIW, the consultant dermatologist I saw said I should definitely get a 'liver function test' every 6 months when on fin, which I'm set to do, and recommended minox, but only on the bitemporal area. He also said that I should definitely not be on dutasteride yet.


 I do hope that you already know that doctors are not the most reliable wells of knowledge. These are idiotic pieces of advice. Does he want to wait, until you are completely bald?! But before the start of dutasteride, you must definitely know your DHT and testosterone levels. 

And as for minoxidil: It is very short-sighted to apply it only on areas that are currently thinning.

----------


## Kirby_

I trust a consultant dermatologist (a CONSULTANT dermatologist) who checked my scalp with a 'scope over anything I read on forums from non-doctors. I learnt the hard way that I should have gone to a doctor on day 1 of noticing signs rather than getting amateur advice (e.g. 2020 claiming I had hyper androgenicity)

----------


## VMRockshow

I think your hair looks great in the first photo where it's shaved. I also would not say your past a Norwood 2 but i'm not great at analyzing that.

----------


## guygroomes12

If i had a dollar for every person watching their hair in the mirror way to much and working themselves into a hysteria. I would be a rich man. How about wearing a hat and taking some time off from obsessing about it

----------

