newbie33

I've had my fill of epistemological debate. But here's a string quartet playing Sweet Caroline. (I like the bits that go dah-dah-dah especially).

Thanks for sharing. Few questions: on the average virgin scalp, how many grafts do you think you can extract using that method alone? The closure - did you just use a single stitch per punched out area? Also, any pictures or descriptions of what those scars will look like when matured after a year or so? (I can't really picture how they would look). And, finally, why did you blindfold the cameraman? ;-)

I wish I was as certain of anything as a lot of people on these threads are about everything.

Well, if you've interested in HTs you've got to be prepared for your head to hurt. And as it happens I have been to Sweden, so I can observe this: lovely people and very reasonably-priced flat-pack furniture. In the most literal sense you posted a picture of a shaved down ht, which is what the OP asked for. But what that is basically saying is "Here's what your result is going to look like, mate". Which might be misleading. Notice I use the words 'might be'. Because after trying to explain and say nicely, I will boil my point down to a sentence: A picture of one person or multiple people's results does not indicate how representative that is of every result. Or how about this joke which gets the same point across (Maths is fun, kids!) A Mathematician, a Physicist, and an astronomer were travelling north by train. They had just crossed the border into Scotland, when the Astronomer looked out of the window and saw a single black sheep in the middle of a field. "All Scottish sheep are black," he remarked. "No, my friend," replied the Physicist, "Some Scottish sheep are black." At which point the Mathematician looked up from his paper and glanced out the window. After a few second's thought he said blandly: "In Scotland, there exists at least one field, in which there exists at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black." Also, you've two or three times told me how I should argue my points, which has quietly amused me, but might to the outside observer be considered patronising. Peace and love, chaps.

The implication of the OP's first post was that he wanted to see an example of a shaved down fue to understand what he would look like if he shaved down. The video shows what one person who's had it done looks like. Some people think it looks 'good'. If I showed a 'bad' result, then we'd be fifty-fifty. So the OP is left without knowing if he is going to look good or bad. And that doesn't really give the OP - or any of us - a good idea of the chances of getting a good or bad result. Because what the OP really wanted to know were the odds of getting a good or bad shave down. Let me extend this using a metaphor to a less controversial topic - race. (That's a joke - though I am going to use the metaphor). Say we want to know what the average or 'standard' person from Sweden looks like - or, to be more precise, their skin colour. Neither of us has been to Sweden and we can't find any census information. We look on the net. You could post a picture of a white man from Sweden. I could post a picture of a black man. Does this mean Sweden is full of black or white men, or fifty-fifty? We neither of us have any real idea. We don't know the population of Sweden or the race of the people in it. To extend the slightly tortuous metaphor further, let's say we have stumbled onto an internet forum and some of the posters are the census-takers in Sweden. We can ask them because they've been speaking with hundreds or thousands of people in Sweden. We assume they will have a better idea, but even they haven't seen all the census data. In this example the census-takers are the doctors - and that's why I posted what doctors say about scarring. (The census would be some medical research and the like). And also why I didn't post a picture to refute yours - because I'm not looking to argue one case over another - I'm looking for data and trying to work out the risks involved and the odds of getting what I consider a good result. And maybe along the way try to make others who are reading work out for themselves what risks and considerations they should make before a ht. Blake, how am I doing for patience? Matching yours? (I am trying hard).

So I guess to assert that you must be able to define a 'bad' scar and know/have an opinion on the percentages of which occurr from each type of procedure. Genuinely curious on what basis you make that claim. i.e your hunch from looking at internet forums, conversations with doctors, some objective evidence/medical literature etc. As for posting a picture of a 'bad' scar, I didn't do that because, if I recall correctly, the OP asked about what shaving to the bone would look like for him, and I have no more idea than the bees. I'm not sure if anyone can objectively give any evidence to back up the odds of it being good or bad - however that is defined.

And I wasn't offended, but apology accepted anyway, chap.

HT, I thought - and still think - what doctors who are likely to be doing the procedure say about scarring is relevant. What Bhatti says perhaps coincides with your point; Lorenzo's clearly doesn't (and I don't think Lorenzo would agree with his own website in a personal consultation). I guess I'm saying that there isn't agreement on this - and one or two results isn't necessarily demonstrative of every outcome. And my point, if I had one, is that in any event a general 'it is safe to shave/buzz down to whatever grade rule' (unless a relatively high one) isn't going to apply to everyone. In the same way FUT scars can differ, so will FUE scars. So does each patient's density, hair characteristics and skin/hair tone. We'd both say people considering fut should think about the potential scar, and the risk it might not be pencil thin. I don't see a difference in being equally candid about the risks of FUE. People thinking about procedures should consider the risk and the nuances of their own situation and potential outcomes, shouldn't they? Doctors doing the procedure should be candid and consistent, shouldn't they? (Patients are much more likely to believe them than a whole load of internet chat). These are rhetorical questions, by the way.

HTsoon, you've read everything I've said as some sort of refutation of what you're saying and responded with a rebuttal to it. It wasn't - and it was what I thought these threads were about: a conversation. I remember one of my doctors saying something about there being as many opinions about a condition as there are doctors. This topic seems to bear that out. Or, to put it along the lines of one my favourite little quips: Ask four economists, get five opinions. Blake, you're always reasonable. Relentlessly reasonable ;-)

I thought it relevant because most guys will look at docs' websites, won't they? Especially ones that are mentioned frequently. And it seems to me that this might be giving them a bum steer. And in general what doctors say about scarring would seem relevant to a debate about fue scarring. Here's what Bhatti's website says, by the way: "Any ingress into the skin by a sharp object howsoever small (even the smallest of all hospital syringe needles) shall leave a scar. However here we are talking only of scars that are not visible to the untrained eye and esp. when the hair grows back to even size #1. FUT on the other hand leaves a linear scar." And you've done Blake's patience a disservice. He actually more or less repeats himself four times.

Thanks doctor. Much appreciated. Should have phrased my question better - I meant the hair shaft: how many microns?

John, I'm really sorry to hear about the assault. That kind of thing must have a big impact on your life and I can understand why you'd be questioning all sorts of things right now. Life can be tough. Worth remembering there are a lot of wonderful, kind, hopeful, joyous things in life too. Now, I'm not sure I'd put Trump into those latter categories. And none of us will know what or why any of those celebs have had done - or why they haven't had it done. My best advice is to continue to research online. Get plenty of consultations with doctors and try to gauge what is achievable and if your expectations can be met. Also, if you can - and this is something I feel like I lack - meet patients who've had transplants. I'm with you on the nagging doubt that even the good results might be a bit underwhelming in reality. But remember, this is about creating the illusion of density with transplants - it's not going to give you the density (or likely hairline) you had at 15. Good luck.

HTsoon, Dr Lorenzo has this on his website: "With FUE there is no kind of scars whatsoever. Our patients can shave their head or wear their hair as short as they like, for the rest of their lives. With the FUE technique, the patient can choose their particular hair style at any time they want." Pretty sure Dr Bhatti's site used to call fue scarless too. Maybe still does - I've not looked in a while. I think there's a definite perception from prospective patients on here that they will be able to shave down, unnoticed, after an fue. Pretty understandable why they would think that when they see docs' websites say it too. Old Jacques and a clear strip scar (or scars) there. Well I never. Wonder who his doc(s) was/were?

FILM PITCH: Two Internet-feuding hair transplant surgeons are both unwittingly late checking into their hotel for a hair loss conference. While initially furious at a mix-up meaning they both have to share the same room, over the course of a weekend an unlikely romance begins...

Thanks for the comprehensive answer Dr Beehner. Two more for you! Was this done via strip or fue? And how thick is the guy's hair? Looks to be pretty decent, above-average hair from the pics.

Define 'short'.

Depends. How old are you? Has your hairloss stabilised? How many grafts you reckon you've still got there for extraction (fue or strip?)? The real answer, though, is get a consultation with few good surgeons to see what's achievable. If what they can achieve matches your expectation then it's worth looking into further.

HairJo, I can understand why people get attached to a procedure/doctor. There's a lot of monetary and emotional investment going into this stuff - all bound up with our identify and various values and intelligence we ascribe to choosing the 'right' procedure. I'm not an especially emotional person, but fortunately I work for a multinational and I'm fairly competent so they've given me loads of training to understand how to manage different people - and to the untrained eye I can even appear like a feeling, sentient being now! Still, someone feeling one way or another about a procedure isn't not going to make a blind bit of difference to how I view it - I'll always be drawn to the rational, objective. evidence-based argument. And that's for good or bad. SunSeeker. Fin is probably buying me a few years, and I don't take the recommended dose. It looks like 0.5mg gets to about 96% efficacy of the recommended 1mg, so I figure if I take 0.5 there's less chance of the side effects. Maybe you can experiment with dosage, after consulting with a doctor, of course. Seth, I twice said how I think most people use the term 'touch up', so I'm not going to labour the point. But I will say, if you ascribe motivations to others and define for them how they use words, then to yourself you will never be wrong. But you might be missing the point they are trying to make, and it might not convince those who are neutral. And in general, I think that basically framing this whole thing as FUTers versus FUEers just makes people more inclined to look for evidence that backs up their own argument - not look at all the evidence and then develop an argument based on it. Peace and love, chaps.

Great result. That guy has similar hairloss pattern to me. Dr Dogannay, what was the thickness of this guys hair? (I.e. How many microns?)

Anyone know who the YouTube Sam had his procedures done by? And it's probably worth remembering that most of us who've had or are considering a HT aren't planning to shave it down. It's worth considering the idea you might want to shave depending on future hair loss and the success/failure of a procedure, but it's not worth catastrophesing outcomes years or decades before they might - or might not - happen.

I guess a couple of months of dating isn't a very long time. All the same I'd tell her before you get it done. Seems unlikely you'll be able to hide it afterwards and you'd end up with more problems trying to hide it than just being honest from the start. Seems entirely likely she will say you don't need it - and of course she's right: you don't need it. I think most people who care about someone else would advise them not to get an elective medical procedure. Let us know what you decide to do. And good luck.

I'm sure Ezel won't mind us discussing this in general. SunSeeker. I came at this about three years ago with a totally open mind. It was actually after a consultation with Feriduni that I seriously thought FUE was an option for me. Alas, despite my absolute bias to wanting FUE to work out for me, I can't objectively get myself over the line to go through with it, honestly believing it's the best option (or acceptably near to best) for the number of grafts I'd need over a lifetime. Hence the fact I'm three years down the track and I've done nothing besides take fin to slow the hair loss.

OK, eyes on the prize. My final shot - is it a young Harry Belafonte?

Seth, thanks. Who'd have guessed your head would be too small? :-) I think the term 'touch up' - and certainly in this context with Ezel's procedure - isn't being used in the way you are using it. Ezel clearly thought the number of grafts he was having extracted would get him the desired result. I think most people use the term to mean going back over a result to achieve the original intended outcome, not as you define it as a staged approach to a final outcome. I've followed a few cases like this and it's the thing that really stops me from getting an fue procedure. Which is really what I'd prefer to get.

There's a bit of cross-purpose conversation going on here - deliberate or not. Feller and the strip, strip, strip argument is that you get the highest amount of grafts over your lifetime to cover an expanding balding area. The fue 'touch up' being discussed here is using grafts to restore a basically failed/sub-optimal result from fue. Seth, couple of questions for you too. The 5000 grafts you suggest which makes for a good strip candidate - is that 5000 over a lifetime or in one session? And second, had a v quick look at your result and couldn't quite make out - what's the reason you got another 1000 grafts so soon after the first 3000?