Rootz

A shot of the very frontal hairline with the hair up would have been nice, but from what I can see this looks impressive.

Yes, and it is actually advisable to get a nice tan (if possible) in the areas where there will be transplanted hairs. This will reduce the visible redness post op in the recipient area. Just don't get burned.

Overall transplanted density looks on the low side especially for FUT. Any idea what the approximate yield was? Doesn't seem like it was very high.

The thumbnails of the result look good, but when you enlarge the pictures the lack of density is apparent. For example, picture 8 of 12. I'm sure he'll continue to get growth and improve though.

As a final result I would find this disappointing, especially for FUT. However, I'm sure he has improvement to do. It's hard to judge the result posted here. If he had barely any growth at 6 months, he could still get a great result by a year. And by the same token if he was ahead of the curve with impressive growth by 6 months, he might not resume further growth and ultimately have an unsatisfactory result. Again, if this was the final result I would be unhappy.

The thing I like to see are pictures that present the results objectively with unbiased comparisons made between the before and afters. Sure, throw in a shot or two with the hair combed and styled but this isn't a beautfy pangent I want to see the result for what it really is. Pull back the hair, show close ups of the hairline with good lighting, show the actual density, etc. All too often the before pics are shown in the worst case scenario (i.e. wet, combed back and apart to reveal thinning areas) then in the after the hair is in the best case scenario (i.e. strategically combed and styled). I've seen results where the hair transplant itself had a relatively minor impact, because a small number of grafts were used and/or it was unsuccessful... but because of the apples to oranges comparison it looks like a great transformation and people are posting "Wow, amazing!". It's analogous to taking pictures of girls with and without makeup, and then trying to prove the ones with makeup look better for completely different reasons. That makes no sense. Edit: Yay 200 posts!

There's a lot of conflicting reports because everyone gets results differently. Some have 80-90% of their result by 6 months, others barely have any growth. It can take up to 18 months to see 100% results. You're probably fine

The hair is at different lengths pre and post, hard to tell how much the SMP helped.

Some things to think about, What does the initial range of 0.7 - 3.1 mean? Was the same type of range analysis or whatever done on the follow up reading after 6 months? How many times did you measure your DHT before and after? Just once? Were the tests taken at the same time of day following similiar conditions? Were you on the 1.25mg Fin consistently every day? How sure are you that the Fin you're purchasing is in fact Fin?

If you haven't already you might want to search for hair system threads. I've never used one nor plan to but from what I've read on here a good hair system, when in place, is basically undetectable. The good ones blend in with your scalp seemlessly and you can specify how much volume you want to avoid the system looking dense and unnatural. You'd need to shave the portion of your head the system attaches to, which is a big commitment as if you change your mind... you now have a big shaved area on your head.

If you don't want a FUT scar there's no point in getting another... I would do FUE and if you don't like your current FUT scar see if the same doctor can improve it during the FUE.

Unless you started as NW7, you will certainly lose more.

Nice documentation, thanks for sharing man

I'm generally not impressed with FUE results from the US, but Konior has posted one recently that was impressive. Looking at his website he has some good results but I can't tell which ones are FUT or FUE (or maybe they're all FUT). Well I also said a top FUE doc could produce basically the same results as a top FUT doc. I hesitate to say "as good" because I'm sure technically FUT will always have a slight edge... but the point is can you really tell the difference between like a 95% yield and 97% yield? In a 3000 graft session a 2% difference would be 60 grafts. I'm pretty sure you would have absolutely no idea plus or minus 60 grafts in a 3000 graft session.

If you do not like the results of your two friends, no need to even consider the doctors who did their work. Definitely go seek out better doctors. Unless there's some specific reason why you can't travel internationally, you should consider doctors in Europe first... or don't, your loss If you're adamant on staying in the US I would say Konior is your best bet for FUE. Otherwise check out Lorenzo, Feriduni, and Bisanga. Those are my suggestions. I don't know why you would consider FUT as an option, you can get results with FUE practically just as good as the best FUT work available. The top FUE doctors have results better than typical FUT docs. I wouldn't do FUT even if the doctor paid me money... which is why I can't relate to people who want FUT done to save money or because their doctor said so. It's easier for the doctor to do FUT, no surprise a lot of doctors encourage FUT and lead you away from FUE.

That stuff is too extreme for me, I wouldn't feel comfortable reducing my DHT by that much. I feel like it's asking for trouble.

The way I like to think of it is genetics determines a DHT threshold for certain hairs (hairline and crown) and this value is dynamic. That is, the threshold lowers with age. Where the threshold starts and how quickly it lowers is determined by genetics. But once the threshold for a particular hair follicle is reached or exceeded by our DHT level, the affected follicle begins to miniaturize... then eventually fall out and become permanently dormant. For some unlucky guys, as soon as they start hitting puberty their DHT levels are already meeting or exceeding the DHT threshold value of a bunch of follicles. These are the guys who are NW3 by age 20, NW6 by 30, then NW7 by 35. Then there are the lucky ones who start out with a high threshold which remains fairly constant througout the years and are still NW1 at 50 i.e. Brad Pitt. But by altering our DHT levels we can stay under our genetic threshold curve sort of speak and preserve hair. This is why I believe Fin is so effective. Fin won't bring back follicles that are already permanently dormant, but it effectively preserves hair. With that said I do believe lifting does affect hair loss. Based on a study I read it can raise DHT levels by 10-15%... but if you start losing hair from lifting, you probably would have started to lose the same hair in a few years anyways. By comparison, Fin reduces DHT by 60-70%.

In the long run I don't think it is possible for Fin to do anything for your hair but benefit it. In the short run it's possible to experience some shedding, so just be persistent if that happens.

I think it's because the number of grafts is more representative of the actual work they need to do. Extracting 1 graft with 3 hairs is probably the same amount of work as extracting 1 graft with 1 hair.

If DHT levels are irrelevant then why does Fin, which reduces DHT levels, unanimously work?

I think being concerned enough about hair to get a transplant but at the same time avoiding any treatment is silly. Fin is a bit of a different story, but I'd wager most who have had a HT have tried it at some point. Getting on treatments after already having a HT is obv not ideal as you may use up unnecessary grafts, but of course better late than never. I'm scheduled for a HT soon and have been on Minox for over half a year, and Fin/Nizoral about a month now. Ideally I should have started Fin sooner but originally I never planned on trying it.

For 3151 grafts and with that surface area I would have expected a pretty nice illusion of density. But I don't think the coverage in the result is very impressive. Doesn't look like he had a high yield.

Not gonna lie, I can't really see how good the result is because the pictures are biased. It may or may not have been intentional, but in the before the hair is combed out and away from the thinning area (to reveal and emphasize it) while in the after the hair combed up and over the the thinning area (to help conceal it). It is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

Generally speaking the hair loss pattern of your father isn't a very reliable indicator of what yours will be. In all probability you will have hair similar to your father's. But the key words are "similar" and "in all probability." Anything can happen. You can get a better idea of how probable this is by examining old pictures of your father's hair. If his hairline and hair characteristics are the same as yours when he was your age, then more than likely I'd say you'll have similar hair at his current age. It would also be a good idea to have your hair analyzed by a hair specialist and learn how much miniaturization you have and what you can expect in the near future. And of course, if you're serious about stopping hair loss you should get on treatments to invest in the future of your hair. Personally I don't think lifting has a significant impact on hair. I am a NW2 and lift/exercise regularly, yet my brother is basically bald and doesn't exercise at all. And my father has hair similar to your fathers. It's mostly a roll of the dice. That's genetics.

From observing results posted lately, I am impressed with Konior's FUE and if I couldn't leave the US I would definitely be consulting with him.