hairloser1

Seems so simple and looks so natural. Wonder what makes this such a good result? He seems to have one of those balding patterns that's favorable for HT's - balding on top but really good temples still. I guess that makes for nice looking hair when the HT ties the sides together. He also appears to have, at best, average diameter hair. Certainly not thick or course like some. Do you agree Dr Konior?

I know it's been debated before, but I came across some text from a medical book that I thought I would post. As background, PPG is the chemical in some minoxidil products that causes skin irritation. PPG-free products (like Dr. Lee's PPG-free solutions and Rogaine Foam) typically use glycerin instead of PPG. The book is called Fishers Contact Dermatits. It has nothing to do with hair loss. It has a section about PPG as a skin irritant and within that section has a paragraph titled "Glycerin vesus Propylene Glycol"...here's the text and the link: "Generally, it is agreed that glycerin is much less active than PG in producing primary irritant and allergic reactions. It is claimed, however, that glycerin is a less desirable solvent than PG. Also PG has better permeation through the stratum corneum, probably because it has different solvent properties(i.e., propylene glycol is more lipid soluble than glycerin). Becuase of these superior solubility properties, PG is preferred over glycerin in many pharmaceutical and cosmetic perparations..." http://books.google.com/books?...&ct=result&resnum=10 I used Rogaine with PPG for about 15 years and have used PPG-free stuff for last couple. I can't really use PPG anymore because the irritation just got so bad and continued to get worse the longer I used it. I personally feel the PPG-free stuff isn't near as effective as solutions with PPG. Just my two cents worth and what I've found to be the case for me. I have no proof to back up my opinion.

Did you start using rogaine foam or liquid? I've experienced the exact same thing. I used rogaine diligently for at least 15 years and then stopped for a few months which was a bad mistake. Anyway, because of the irritation caused by the propylene glycol in rogaine liquid and wearing my hair too long for the foam, I've used Dr Lee's 5% in the morning and 15% at night for the last 1.5 years. Twice during this period I've experienced major sheds. Once is when I got a buzz cut and used rogaine foam in the morning for about a month (still used 15% liquid at night). My hairline was pretty decimated. I could only conclude that it was from the rogaine foam because I kept using the 15% solution at night. My hair grew out and I stopped the foam. Quite a bit of the shed hair came back in a few months but not all. Recently, I decided to try the rogaine liquid again since it worked so well for so many years. Guess what, after a couple weeks a major shed started. I've lost tons of hair in the last month. The irritation was also terrible. I'm kicking myself for trying it again when my hair was fairly stable. I'm hoping that a lot of the hair that has shed in the last month will come back this summer. Many people say because all these products have the same main active ingredient (minoxidil), that there's no way switching will cause a shed. I disagree with this completely because I've experienced it. To answer your question, it could be a combination of both. I think it may be a little too soon to be losing hair from stopping Dr Lee's solution. When I stopped everything (after 15 years) it wasn't until right at the three month mark until all hell broke loose with massive shedding. I think it's probably from the new compound you've introduced to your follicles. It could be from the propylene glycol or whatever is in the foam that isn't in Dr Lee's solution. I think mbp hair follicles are very sensitive and easily shocked (maybe depending on their current state of miniturization), and intrducing any change like applying a different compound can cause a shed. This is why you hear a lot of stories about guys shedding after switching from the liquid to the foam or vice versa. It doesn't mean they both don't work, but your follicles are dependent on the exact solution they are used to.

Here's the link to the article: http://www.mothernature.com/Li...elf/Books/47/101.cfm

I was reading an article on the web about what to do for an oily scalp and they made the statement in the article that people with fine hair (smaller diameter) have higher density (more hair per sqare centimeter) than people with coarser or wider diameter hair. This made me wonder about donor density in people with fine hair maybe being higher than others. Of course, they could just mean on the top of the scalp it's a higher density?? Has anyone ever heard of this correlation between thickness of hair shaft and density? I'll try and find the article.

I was reading an article on the web about what to do for an oily scalp and they made the statement in the article that people with fine hair (smaller diameter) have higher density (more hair per sqare centimeter) than people with coarser or wider diameter hair. This made me wonder about donor density in people with fine hair maybe being higher than others. Of course, they could just mean on the top of the scalp it's a higher density?? Has anyone ever heard of this correlation between thickness of hair shaft and density? I'll try and find the article.

Thanks for sharing your experience. I looked at the photos on your weblog and have to say your hair looks pretty good. The addn'l grafts should finish it off nicely. If you have any immediate post-op pics that would be great. I'm wondering how Dr. Cooley went about transplanting around your rather substantial native hair. Did he shave the recipient area? Would you mind sharing info on your previous surgeries like # and placement of grafts? Photos before those procedures would be a nice bonus.

I re-read the post and looked at the photos again. This is reallly confusing. The doctor classified this patient as a 3A which looks fairly accurate (maybe a little optimistic) based on the photos. He's clearly a receder and doesn't seem to have diffuse thinning in the back half to any extent (I realize the flash didn't go off so maybe it's worse than it seems). I guess I just don't understand why you would place grafts over the whole head - all the way back to the crown - on a 3A scalp!

Obviously photos can be misleading but based on these I would have to say the results are disappointing. He seemed to have a lot of native hair left on the back half of his head. 3700 grafts located in just the front half should have provided a very solid result based on most other results I've seen posted with similar loss and that number of grafts or maybe even less grafts. It looks like the grafts were placed all the way to the crown even though he had mininmal (thinning) loss in the back third. To me, the 16 month results look like he either had additional native loss due to MBP or permanent shock loss of of some of his native hair due to the transplant. Some docs seem to believe in trying to "finish" an area in one HT and then moving on to other areas with subsequent HTs while others try to provide as much coverage as possible or even future-proofi the work by grafting into areas that aren't terribly affected with MBP yet. Based on graft placement, it looks like the latter approach may have been taken here. We don't know his donor situation, but based on his really solid crown and even back third of his scalp (based on the before top shot) I would have asked for all those grafts to be placed in the front half and no farther back and then try and rely on meds to keep the back strong. The overall result may have been better - less chance of shock loss in the mid-back scalp and more density for the hairline and front half. I have more hair than this guy and was thinking about 2000-2500 in the front third, but going on these results, I would either not do a HT at all or have to up that to at least 3000 to get the results I want (and that's with the goal of keeping a mature hairline).

ng2gb, I agree with you. I read somewhere recently that in the 70's scientists had a goal of having a cure for cancer by 1980 and thought that was realistic. I bet if this forum was around in, say 1995, and we took a poll and asked "do you think there will be a cure or some type of medication that will stop balding and grow back significant amounts of hair by 2008?" at least 90 percent would have said yes. They would have all been wrong. What do you think the results of that poll would be today if asked about 2020? I for one can't believe I've been using Propecia for ten years and not one other drug has been released for hair loss in that time. What's really scary is I think some people start on the HT journey betting that there will be some great new treatment in the next 5-10 years so they don't have to get more HTs or HTs will be much better at that time (no more scarring, full density, etc.) I'm not willing to take that chance. I think the best way to make the decision to get your first HT is to plan on the current treatments being all that will available for the next 15 years. If something amazing is discovered before then, great. It's not worth betting on.

I'm researching HTs also and three months is very suprising. That's long enough to undo any benefits someone may have received from minoxidil. If someone still has native hair they are trying to keep and minoxidil has grown, or more likely, kept hair that would have miniaturized and disappeared, that three month break can cause minoxidil withdrawal and all that hair will shed quickly and most likely only some will come back, and thats if you start back on minox within a certain window of time. It happened to me after long-term minoxidil use. All was good until around 2-3 months off the stuff. Then it was like a switch was flipped and it all fell out in about a month (hairline as well as top of head). I would definately not recommend starting minox if you know you will need to stop for longer than a few days at some point. Since I've been back on it for six months now and still have quite a bit of hair on the back two thirds, 3 months off would probably be a deal breaker for me. Not gonna go through that again. I wonder if 3 months is pretty standard?

For those who have had HT and the hair has fully matured what do you think your hair would look like if you chose to wear it really short (say around a #3)? Would the HT be more detectable? Just wondering because of the illusion of density concept. I understand most wear it longer because that's kinda the point of the HT. Maybe a dumb question...

For those who have had HT and the hair has fully matured what do you think your hair would look like if you chose to wear it really short (say around a #3)? Would the HT be more detectable? Just wondering because of the illusion of density concept. I understand most wear it longer because that's kinda the point of the HT. Maybe a dumb question...

NW4, Way back in the early 90's I used to just apply to the receding corners of my hairline and my crown. Over the years I started using an old Visine bottle because I didn't like the applicators that came with rogaine. At some point I started applying to the majority of my scalp. I've gradually used more than the recommended amount and now go through a bottle about every 3 weeks.

The two best ways to keep the hair you have are minox and propecia. I would begin minox as soon as possible. If you do use it for a long time, though, never stop or you may experience tremendous shedding of the hair it grew and the hair it kept you from using. I speak from experience, I used minox diligently for the last 15 years as well as propecia for the last 10. I firmly believe those two treatments kept me around an nw2 which is where I was at 30. I'm 41 now. However, a few months ago I stopped minox for a couple months and shed tons of hair for about 6 weeks. I immediately resumed both meds and most hair on top has returned but unfortunately my devastated hairline not so much. Now I find myself researching HT's which I would not be doing had I not stopped using minox.

Thanks guys. Bill, well stated. I agree completely. Manko, I also plan on using the meds forever, at least until something better comes along. I can't prove it but I know I'd be a nw4 or 5 right now if I'd never used rogaine and propecia. In my thrities I had a couple people who hadn't seen me since my twenties ask if I'd had a HT because my recession had not progressed and actually improved some. Anyway, if you don't mind me asking, how much of a cosmetic difference did the 1500 make?That's about the same # I'm thinking of. Was it a fairly substantial cosmetic improvement?

This is my first post even though I've been using this site to do research for several months. A little background... I'm 41 and have used propecia for 10 years and minox diligently for 15 years. My hairline and temples had receded quite a bit by the time I was 25. My question is about the guys I've seen pictures of who are primarily receders (nw2 - 3) and get hairline work done in the receded areas around their existing forelock. Obviously these aren't "stand alone" ht's as I've heard other people refer to. I wonder if the potential efficacy of the "big 2" at keeping native hair for a much longer period of time is encouraging more of these types of ht's? Eventually, even on finasteride this native hair will thin and disappear (5, 10, 15 years later). I'm definately not criticizing guys for doing this. I'm in the same situation (nw2 - 3). I would like to get about 1500 grafts around my hairline to thicken it up and just fill in the first half inch of my forelock and bring down my receded corners about a half inch. It would be a very conservative approach and I would still have quite a receded hairline but would be age appropriate. I think it could definately make a nice cosmetic difference for the next few years (who knows how long) but after that I would need another HT. I plan on having a consultation with at least one coalition doc. I basically go back and forth between short-term and long-term thinking (short-term - 3 years - excitement because my hair will look better!, long-term - 5 years+ - what have I commited myself to!) Sorry for rambling, I guess these are basically my questions: For those that may have had this type of HT, did you develop a long-term plan like indefinate use of meds and then future HT's as needed until you get to a point where you have replaced enough hair to feel good about how it looks with no further work? Some people think a HT should be able to stand alone and look OK with no further HT's or even the use of meds. I guess the reason for this is obvious (lack of finances for future HT, unexpected life events preventing future HT, etc.) however, for people with a good amount of native hair this isn't usually possible. This thinking would seem to limit HT's to people with most of their native hair already gone on top. Any thoughts on this? Thanks for any feedback.

This is my first post even though I've been using this site to do research for several months. A little background... I'm 41 and have used propecia for 10 years and minox diligently for 15 years. My hairline and temples had receded quite a bit by the time I was 25. My question is about the guys I've seen pictures of who are primarily receders (nw2 - 3) and get hairline work done in the receded areas around their existing forelock. Obviously these aren't "stand alone" ht's as I've heard other people refer to. I wonder if the potential efficacy of the "big 2" at keeping native hair for a much longer period of time is encouraging more of these types of ht's? Eventually, even on finasteride this native hair will thin and disappear (5, 10, 15 years later). I'm definately not criticizing guys for doing this. I'm in the same situation (nw2 - 3). I would like to get about 1500 grafts around my hairline to thicken it up and just fill in the first half inch of my forelock and bring down my receded corners about a half inch. It would be a very conservative approach and I would still have quite a receded hairline but would be age appropriate. I think it could definately make a nice cosmetic difference for the next few years (who knows how long) but after that I would need another HT. I plan on having a consultation with at least one coalition doc. I basically go back and forth between short-term and long-term thinking (short-term - 3 years - excitement because my hair will look better!, long-term - 5 years+ - what have I commited myself to!) Sorry for rambling, I guess these are basically my questions: For those that may have had this type of HT, did you develop a long-term plan like indefinate use of meds and then future HT's as needed until you get to a point where you have replaced enough hair to feel good about how it looks with no further work? Some people think a HT should be able to stand alone and look OK with no further HT's or even the use of meds. I guess the reason for this is obvious (lack of finances for future HT, unexpected life events preventing future HT, etc.) however, for people with a good amount of native hair this isn't usually possible. This thinking would seem to limit HT's to people with most of their native hair already gone on top. Any thoughts on this? Thanks for any feedback.