mahhong

I'll look like this guy? Really, you can get THAT much hair just from doing scalp exercises!?

Sparky is right. I haven't had a hair transplant yet but the most painful thing are the few injections and perhaps a couple of uncomfortable nights immediately after. Most people say the pain is nothing though, moderate at worst and after a few days it's all over. In terms of precautions you don't need to do anything to look after transplanted hair. It's just old, bald resistant hair in a new area of your head. It will grow and behave like normal hair and will remain in place for the rest of your life. There are a few things to bear in mind though: You will have scarring. It will not be major and will be unnoticeable when your hair is normal length (say anything over a couple of centimetres or so) but it will happen. The scars with FUE are generally pretty small and almost look like a different skin "texture" but don't be fooled by anybody telling you there will be no scars; there are. They are easily concealable just by having normal length hair however. But if you ever shave all your hair off there would be small but noticeable scars where you had the hair extracted from. Secondly a HT does not "cure" balding. It will replace hairs in bald areas but if you continue to bald further you may need additional HTs to cover this up. Your doctor will talk about all this with you. Generally speaking people are unsuitable for HTs below the age of around thirty because they may bald a lot more and the HT may look silly. Propecia or Minoxidil can help with this but one lifetime precaution is that a few years down the line (maybe 5, maybe 20, impossible to predict) you may need one or more further HTs to continue filling in bald or thinning areas. Those are the main things. In short your blood group shouldn't make any difference and you won't have to take anything or do anything to look after transplanted hairs. To stop further hairloss, however, you may need to look into medications or commit yourself to further transplants in the future. This is not such a big deal if you are say 50 and have lost all the hair you are going to lose (or the vast majority of it) but it may impact you if you are 25 and just starting to thin and go bald. A good doctor will always talk through the options and problems with you though. It is best to think of a single hair transplant as part of a bigger plan. Your doctor will talk through the whole plan and tell you honestly if you can reach your goals and if one procedure is enough. They will give you the big picture and you can go from there. Don't hesitate to get a consultation though!

Glad you agree labrat! I think it's interesting if you look at all the "best" HT's on the net (bobman being an obvious example) I would argue in 70%+ of the cases the guys have also lost some weight, bought good clothes and generally look clean and tidy. I think most men who have a successful HT combine it with a fitness regime and general fashion overhaul and that's when a HT goes from an improvement to a transformation. It's true of any part of your body really. It's hardly ever the case that somebody is good looking because of one feature. There are plenty of girls, to use a crass example, that the media would label overweight who look fantastic because they have curves and dress well and look happy. It's the same with someone like Billy Zane. The guy is about as bald as you can get with MPB but he looks great. Granted he's been blessed with better looks than most people but I guarantee if he was 30 pounds heavier or wore knitted jumpers and baggy cargo pants everywhere he'd be a face in the crowd. Instead he looks like he's thought about how he wants to appear and that, in itself, goes a long way to looking good. I think you raised a good point about what a good HT candidate is and one often overlooked point is the psychology behind it. I think a lot of men are convinced they won't look good until they have an absolutely full head of hair and pin all their problems on not having enough hair and needing surgery to get it. In most of these cases I think an HT will be a "failure" by patient standards because they'll have convinced themselves they're only 5000 grafts away from looking like Brad Pitt! Unless you're only looking for modest goals (i.e framing your face a bit better) I don't think an HT is worthwhile without looking into your physique, your clothes, your general sense of being etc. You only have to look at guys like Jack Nicholson and Sean Connery to see losing your hair doesn't really have to make any difference to your persona. In many ways I think a HT is really only worthwhile if you're comfortable enough to lose your hair anyway (ironic, I know). Otherwise it just becomes a black hole you can throw everything that's wrong with your life into and seethe over. Obviously HTs are a wonderful thing but they can become the equivalent of anorexia or something; some massive psychological obsession where enough is never enough. I would argue getting an HT should be combined with a general lifestyle overhaul if you really want to look and feel better. All the best HT results are really guys that have just improved everywhere and the hair in quite literally the icing on a much improved cake!

I haven't checked out the facts yet but I'm a bit confused about BHT. In principle I can see how it works. That having been said, isn't body hair programmed to shed after reaching a certain length which is MUCH shorter than a standard head hair? That's why we're not walking around with 3 inch hair on our chest and arms. If you have a BHT are you limited to the natural size of the body hair in terms of the length you can have your hair? Or is there some change in the follicle when it is moved up to the head? I've heard of a few people having BHT who end up having long hair; I just don't see how that's possible scientifically!

I agree with the comments about Judge Napolitano. Let's face it; all of us here and hair obsessed and see every strand as pretty much a blessing. In many ways Napolitano represents something of a false 'holy grail' to a lot of balding people; absolutely zero hairloss. What is really important is how good your hair looks on you. Napolitano has a lot of hair but fundamentally it looks silly on him. I'm sure he could improve on it with some styling but I actually think he's a rare case of genuinely having too much hair! That probably sounds like a bad joke to us, but I think it is possible! Clooney looks good but because he has good hair, not because he has thick hair. Guys like him or Christian Bale use what they've got (which is admittedly a lot) to the best advantage. There are plenty of good looking guys with less than stellar hairlines though. Jude Law, Josh Lucas, Andy Roddick, Christian Slater. And then there are extreme examples of good looking guys with massive hairloss: Jason Statham, Billy Zane etc. All of these guys have one thing in common; they've found a style that works for them. Most of them have also combined that with good dress sense, a decent-to-good physique and some general grooming. They've discovered what looks good on them and made the most of it. That's why LondonLad looks good. He was actually not a bad looking guy when he was totally bald and that was primarily because he shaved his hair and looks like he looks after himself. If he'd left his hair 4 inches long and all over the place and had a 3 week beard and 20 extra pounds he'd look damn awful! That's the thing with hair restoration I think; it has to be part of a general plan to look good. Napolitano has great hair but generally dresses and grooms pretty badly and it shows. Any girl on this planet, virtually, would take a totally bald Billy Zane over a suited, booted and ridiculously thick-haired Napolitano. Overall I think an HT is only going to be truly beneficial to your overall appearance if you look like you care. I see plenty of guys with a full head of hair who look terrible and plenty of cue-ball bald men who look brilliant. LondonLad clearly doesn't have the hair density of say a Clooney, but would most people notice? And would most people care? Nah! He looks good and somebody who didn't know anything about him would almost definitely never say "great looking guy but shame about hair density!". I guess we're always a complete package, whether we like it or not. If a HT is going to benefit you overall great, but if you're going to be overweight and unkempt and think a HT is going to eradicate the other problems then you're in trouble! Incidentally playing Devil's Advocate here but George Clooney might still have had an HT even if he did have hair "stubble" on the hairline. If he just had some touch-up work to the temples/hairline it could have just been grafts showing through at an early stage? I think overall this is pretty unlikely but not impossible.

Hi Dr. Charles, Thanks for your response! What about the actual pattern of hair loss, is there any way of determining that with any degree of certainty? I'm fairly certain I'm going to lose my hair but I'd like to know to what extent I'm likely to lose it if that's possible. I know you couldn't get an accurate diagnosis of eventual hair loss but I just wondered whether a doctor would be able to determine whether you're heading for Norwood 5a or Norwood 7 for example, or whether that kind of diagnosis is simply not possible. I'll look in to Hair Dx, however, so thanks for pointing that out to me as I had never heard of it!

Hey there guys, Just wanted to ask a question about whether it's possible to preempt how much hair you're eventually going to lose? The reason I ask is because I've started to lose my hair. Hairloss runs in both sides of my family so it's no surprise, but on both sides of my family it's quite different. On my dad's side it's sort of like somewhere between a Norwood 5a and 6. My Dad has hair on top but it's diffuse. He lost hair around his hairline so he has that typical frontal protrusion of his hairline still remaining but his temples and the sides of his hairline have almost completely gone. He also has a pretty big bald spot on his crown but his hair around the back and sides remains and is still quite high (certainly on his sides, higher than a typical Norwood 6). The hair on the very top of his head remains but has thinned diffusely and is probably miniaturized now as well (can't really see as he shaves it). I'd estimate it looks about 25-30% as dense as his "donor region". My Grandad on my Mum's side, however, is a definite Norwood 7. My Grandad on my Dad's side is actually less bald than my Dad but has the same pattern of loss. Anyway is there a way to forecast how you will bald scientifically? I know you couldn't show an exact forecast of your hair, but can doctors look at you aged 27 and know whether you'll be a Norwood 5a or a 7 by the time you're 50? My hunch at the moment is that I am taking after my Dad. I have thinned diffusely like my Dad (I have thick hair on my head so it doesn't notice that badly yet) and I have also receded at temples and crown like my Dad. My back and sides, however, are still very thick and very high with no sign of thinning (compared to my crown/vertex and hairline). Does this diffusion of the top of my hair combined with no visible diffusion/miniaturization mean I have a good chance of being a Norwood 5a, or at 27 is it still too early to tell? For the record I always remember my Dad being bald on his crown and his receding hairline (which, as a child, I lovingly dubbed his "Mr. T" - I remember him saying "you'll be sorry one day son", if only I knew!). If I'm a Norwood 5a like my Dad I'd be happy. My hair is incredibly thick and seemingly dense and I would hazard a guess I could get very good results. If it's like my Granddad on my Mother's side then that's different and much more worrisome! I have no idea how my Granddad on my Mother's side went bald except to say by the time he was late 40's he was totally Norwood 7. I would also say my Dad's hair is thinner than mine and my hair is textured a bit more like my Granddad on my Mother's side used to be (thicker and wavier) - could these be factors? From old photos, however, my Granddad on my Mum's side didn't look like a diffuse thinner. He seemed to have a full head of hair at 25-30 and the next pictures I can find it's gone! Anyway is there a way to scientifically measure what's going on upstairs and make a prediction on how your baldness will progress?

Congratulations! Don't be shy; hairloss is no fun but it's no reflection on you or your qualities as a person. I'm sure your HT will be a fantastic success and this time next year you'll be feeling on top of the world about what's to come! Best of luck and keep the forum informed of your journey; they'll have seen the highs and lows before and it'll be like having a protective arm on your shoulder the whole way through your positive transformation!

That's always been my thinking. I'm having to make a big decision about whether or not to use propecia in the next few months and I'm leaning towards possibly saying no (need to consult with a few professionals first though). My logic has always been that you can't really factor propecia into your life as a permanent way to halt hairloss. It might work for 5 or 10 years; perhaps even 15+, but if it inhibits "most" of the DHT it stands to reason that, over time, those small amounts of DHT still being produced will eventually remove near enough every susceptible hair on your head. To that extent you're gonna go bald eventually. You might be able to get 10 or more years out of your existing hair and that's good news but you'd still have to plan to one day have one or more transplants to replace lost hair. I think I'd rather just start down the HT route now and have multiple surgeries over the next 15-20 years. I'm starting to believe I'll end up a Norwood 5a based on my Dad's hair, his Dad's hair and my own hairloss at the moment (diffuse thinning across the top but a fairly high line on the back and sides). In many ways I'd rather just plan for getting there now than saving some hair for a decade, losing it eventually and having to go for a 2nd/3rd transplant anyway. It saves time, removes being on a drug for the long-term and with the increasing refinement of HT and the excellent results I think it's the best way overall. For me propecia just has too many variables; lack of knowledge over long term efficacy, cost, potential side effects, relatively scant data on long term usage etc. I can't help but feel it's a very good but ultimately limited stop-gap and as long as my donor amount and scalp laxity are solid I'd rather go down the HT route and know the hair on top of my head is stable than try and cocktail my way to success. Not that I'm trying to diminish propecia's use, it's clearly a godsend, I just feel HT is even more of a godsend and one we know we'll have to turn to eventually (lest we don't mind going bald in our 40's/50's).

I hate to sound like a celebrity columnist here with all my "juicy" facts but, interestingly, George Clooney was unwilling to have his hair shaved for a role in the film 'Syriana'. He put on a lot of weight for the film but originally they wanted to give him a bald head (just on top I think) to make him look older and he refused, citing the rather witty but distracting argument that he was "afraid it would never grow back". We all know that if you're not suffering from MPB that's scientifically incorrect (I'd imagine Clooney's physician would know that all too well!) so my hunch is he was hiding a scar or didn't want to mess with his hair too much. I feel like some dirty columnist from Heat magazine, but, there we go, just wanted to get that in!

This is something I'm a little confused about as well. It seems to me that Propecia, whilst very effective, is not a drug that is useful across somebody's lifetime. If you start taking it when you're 25-30 and you take it for 20-25 years it seems that, for most people, the drug has stopped working or simply that their hair has slowly fallen victim to the effects of the DHT propecia was unable to block and, although the hair has fallen out much slower, it will always eventually go. I know that's not a medical fact but it does seem that's the case. In addition the long term effects of propecia are unknown. I'm not suggesting it's dangerous or problematic with long-term use, but just saying that, these two factors combined, it seems that within say 15-20 years of use most men will have stopped taking propecia, either because it has stopped working for them and they have virtually no native hairs left to save or because they are concerned about the overall long-term effects the drug might be having. To that extent would it be fair to say most HT surgeons would cautiously plan their procedures with the belief or at least the knowledge that propecia will at some point in a patient's lifetime no longer be effective for them (especially if they are young, between say 25-40)? They're not going to pack every donor hair in to the bald gaps at the first instance because they know they may need to plan for longer term hairloss and the eventual reduction in efficacy of any drugs. So, with that being said, surely everybody who is on propecia will eventually have to either have further HT's as their propecia-maintained hair loses it's admittedly sturdy battle with MPB or resign themselves to losing the hair in those areas. I guess what I'm trying to say is would it be fair to say a HT is the only pretty much guaranteed method of permanent reversal of hairloss? And, if that's the case, whilst propecia has its uses surely those who cannot take the drug for whatever reason are still good candidates for successful (if multiple) HT's? I just can't imagine that in 30 years time anybody who started propecia now will really be seeing any major benefits from it (apart from losing their hair very slowly). To that extent is simply starting with HT's not a viable option?

I think that's the issue. George Clooney's hair is natural and it looks good because, well, it's his hair. If he had low density or a thin crown/vertex and ridiculously thick hairline he'd just look weird. Incidentally Sean Connery is most definitely wearing a hairpiece there. He went bald very early and wore a hairpiece from his second Bond movie onwards. Not that it invalidates your argument, just thought I'd put that out there. Getting a hair transplant is about planning for the future; will you need more, how much further hair will be lost etc. If you could guarantee your hairloss had stopped or know without reservation you had enough donor hair to cover your needs with good density you could probably get a NW2 hairline but you'd look beyond awful if you had the first inch of an NW2 hairline, then patchy hairloss and thinning. No respectful doctor would want to be responsible for that and no self-respecting patient would want to be the recipient of it. I don't think the hairlines you're showing are impossible with a hair transplant it's just you need to build up to that sort of a hairline (if you can) and not just "whack it in" and see what happens. I think most men would rather have a mature hairline with good density than a younger looking hairline you could see straight through.

I would say that sounds too low but I suppose it depends on a lot of factors. Your available donor hair and current density are the two major ones. Did your doctor discuss the possibility of doing multiple surgeries and maybe the 25 grafts per cm2 were part of an overall plan to increase density over a few sessions? Like most aspects of HT I don't think you'll get a definite yes/no answer because of the amount of variables but, as a rule of thumb, 25 per cm2 just doesn't quite seem enough for me. Perhaps it's worth getting a second opinion if you can? Other people on this site will hopefully be able to tell you more. Best of luck!

Hi Guys, I'm going to be considering my first of what I assume will be several hair transplants over the next 5-10 years, probably within the next 1-3 years. From my research it seems the common opinion on a good way forward is to use the Strip method to create the bulk of your HT and then maybe use FUE to get extra donor hair if you need further procedures for density (as FUE seems to offer a little more "finer detail" in terms of extraction, but is not as generally useful for bulk HT - at least that's what I'm getting from my research). Anyway my question is sort of related to FUE and in particular the method of donor hair removal. I'm led to believe that in strip but also in FUE the hair is removed from a donor "section". I can certainly understand why this is the case for strip (to create one clean strip wound across the back and sides of the head that will heal cleanly) but, with FUE, is it potentially possible to remove grafts from "random" sections of the available donor area? To try and explain my point I'll use a very bad diagram! Say you have relatively thick hair with a good density in your donor area; lets say below are the individual follicles: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Rather than a surgeon taking say, that whole patch but only from a small area of my entire donor region, is it possible and plausible to FUE in this sort of manner (where () denotes extracted follicle: I (I) I (I) I (I) I (I) I (I) I (I) I (I) I (I) etc. In my (probably terrible!) logic it seems that if you were to extract follicles in this manner across a larger area of your donor region (say pretty much the entire region) you could redistribute more hair without losing any quality in your cosmetic appearance across the donor region. Following on from that could you potentially yield more grafts in this manner? Just to clarify I don't mean literally taking a hair follicle, leaving the next one, taking the next one and so on; I know that sort of 1:1 ratio would be impossible. But say a 1:5 or 1:9 ration, for example. I'm sure there are major problems in my logic but I just wanted to throw the question out and see what people said. Would scarring and scalp laxity prove a limiting factor in this? At the moment I can't see how it would as surely removing individual FUs would result in that area scarring over with a tiny scar? As a result theoretically your donor region would be peppered in tiny scars but with no scar being big enough to make an overall cosmetic difference. Anyway just wanted to see if this is possible, ridiculous, plausible, ethical!? I just imagined that once you'd exhausted your donor region by strip (which is obviously massively dependent on scalp laxity) then a doctor could almost perform FUE strictly from a cosmetic standpoint; if you have thick hair and good density you could remove hair follicles on a ration basis across the whole of the donor region without compromising the aesthetic quality of that region (after all it'd just be like hairs falling off your scalp except in a controlled manner that is careful to maximise FUE with cosmetic balance). Look forward to your thought!

Hi newcomer, I am fairly new to this site and cannot give you any advice except, on a purely visual level, I do not think your hair looks that terrible based on the pictures you have supplied! I do see what you mean about the kinkier, coarser hairs, but please don't feel you're walking around with some hideous mutation sticking out of your head! I had a bit of difficulty seeing what you meant at first and I, like most people on here (yourself included), am hair obsessed at the moment! I would, like Bill said, speak to a professional. It does look however like this hairs might just shed and gradually grow finer and better in quality. I am only going by the photos so perhaps the situation is worse; I am just saying you sound very alarmed and I would keep things in perspective. You don't look like you have pubic hair on your head; the hairs are definitely different but don't appear hideous or to have taken over what looks to me as a really good head of hair! I hope you figure out a solution but for your own sake take a breather and put this in perspective. I doubt few people will notice them and based on what I see I don't see any obvious and massive issues. I was expecting your entire head to look like wire wool! Best of luck in finding out more information but in the meantime I hope you cheer up a bit and can stay encouraged. I am sure the problem is temporary or that, at least, you can get information and assistance for it. Best Wishes!

prezident; I don't wish to sound mean or insulting but it's exactly the kind of tirade you have come out with that I was looking to avoid and you've proven my point exactly. You are against propecia, I can see that. I imagine you would be against propecia if a dozen more scientific trials were conducted and each came up with the same results as the initial FDA trial regarding propecia. For the record I am not on propecia and it is my concern about the negative reports and my desire to know more that has stopped me from jumping straight on to the medication. But let's examine what I do consider to be the facts here (I, of course, cannot truly verify they are facts, but I have no reason to believe logically or scientifically they are not): Propecia is taken by millions of men. Millions of men have reported propecia as being of benefit to their hair recovery. Millions of men have not reported becoming depressed and moody after taking propecia. Millions of men have not reported erectile disfunction and/or permanent impotence. Whatever the true numbers may be I think we could all admit that the number of men on propecia is in the millions and the number of reported negative cases are not in that range. I happen to believe that negative side effects caused by propecia are more commonplace than the relatively small scientific trial suggested but, whatever the facts, propecia is clearly not some potent poison that's killing off the libido and happiness of millions of men. If it was we would have seen a far greater negative response overall, especially on the internet. I would like to quite safely reassert my statement that the number of men benefiting from propecia seems to outweigh those who experience negative effects. I cannot "prove" this to you except by means of common sense in looking at the ratio of those on the medication to the relative number of complaints you see on the net and in the general public. I would happily agree with you that most physicians support the results of clinical trials without really genuinely listening to the problems reported by patients (this goes for any medication and reported effect). I guess this is a combination of being taught to believe in the data, support the community, and the fact that psychosomatic symptoms, whilst they may not account for every problem, often do play a part in the problems patients have. This was entirely my point; it's easy to blame outside influences for your daily problems, from not going to the gym because you got caught in traffic and got home late, right through to assuming this pill or that pill must be giving you a headache, simply because you took the pill and now you have a headache. I am actually a cynic when it comes to the medical world; something we share in common it would seem. I am, however, not an illogical cynic and I would respectfully suggest this is where we differ. I am waiting - eager, in fact - for you to show me the problems with propecia and the cases that prove this problem is more than either infrequent, temporary and/or definitely and consistently biological. I was actually looking forward to someone coming on to this thread with a substantial case against propecia (I have read plenty of substantial cases for it) but alas, you have written frankly the same diatribe I have read on every other anti-propecia site. You may be right in your assertations. Your urologist friend may be right in his beliefs. I was hoping between you both you could have presented me and this community a convincing case. I will gladly admit my assertations have been based loosely on a combination of internet research, reading the admittedly few genuine statistics and applying a sense of logic to the personal stories found on the net. I have, however, found no absolutely conclusive proof that propecia=bad. I have found plenty of evidence that propecia affects your body and some people seem to be affected negatively, but I knew that. You can say the same about paracetamol. Or nuts. There's barely a substance or material on this Earth that doesn't have negative effects on some small percentage of the population. Arsenic, however, or Sarin gas, is poison. It will damage any human it contacts. Propecia is not a "poison". I wanted to establish how likely it was propecia was doing some damage to your body and, most importantly, the permanency of this damage. I can live with side effects but I do not like taking unnecessary risk; if I can feel safe enough through my research to try propecia I will. If the worst I can expect is a couple of weeks or months of low libido I'm happy to see what happens and make my own judgement. If I stop taking the pill and that doesn't subside I don't think I could accept that. Anyway, please don't be one of those posters who will keep telling me I am stupid and my facts are wrong without helping me get my facts right. All I wanted was to find one person who both disliked propecia and had a very compelling case for doing so. I have found plenty who dislike propecia and can keep telling me in various colourful ways (and often with an excessive use of CAPS). If you're a distinguished attorney hanging around with distinguished urologists and you both have great inside information on the dangers of propecia please help the less distinguished of us by giving us the facts and letting us come to a conclusion based on them. That was the point of this thread and I am eager to see it achieved. I suspect, unfortunately, you will tell me I do not understand, am not worthy of the knowledge, am lazy because I don't go find it myself or that you no longer care what happens with my hair loss because of my allegedly poor argument. I do hope you surprise me, and I imagine the rest of us, and become a help and not a hindrance.

Hi prezident, Thanks for your reply. I notice you chose to cut my quote off at the point I continued with: "That's not because I don't "believe" in the side effects, on the contrary, I'm very concerned about them." I wanted to use this thread as a place to debate and share information about the side effects of propecia and look at it in a more rational way than just love it/hate it. I'm not outright suggesting the side effects of propecia are purely psychosomatic. What I'm saying is if you take propecia and experience physical problems, it's not necessarily as simple as saying "propecia caused this". Many people take propecia and experience no problems; often for years. That doesn't mean it's safe, but it does mean that some people are able to tolerate it well. A few people seemingly have a massive negative reaction to it and, in the worst cases, seem to become permanently impotent or depressed. The positive cases, however, far outweigh the negative cases (even though there does seem to be more negative cases than the propecia trials would suggest statistically). The entire point of this thread is not to jump on the pro/anti propecia bandwagon but perhaps to offer some compelling evidence and equally compelling reasoning on the potential negative effects of propecia. Would you care to share some of the staggering results you've managed to find?

I have been debating for several months whether or not to start on Propecia. I'm experiencing the early stages of MPB (not too noticeable but clearly going to get worse) and know it's a very effective treatment to maintain your current hair. My main concern has been the reported side effects. There now seems to be a common consensus that more men experience some form of side effects than the original <2% reported in clinical trials. In addition these side effects are, in some cases, allegedly permanent or of indeterminate duration. Depression and near permanent erectile/libido problems are amongst the main reported negative side effects. I've been trying to think as logically as possible about the reported problems with Propecia. Any statistician will tell you that it's never as simple as cause and effect in real life. A good but unrelated example of this is a study that was done in a housing estate near a power station that seemed to have a disproportionately high rate of cancer. The public were worried but the scientific truth was simple; the estate consisted largely of fairly poor families who generally were bigger drinkers and ate a poorer diet which was higher in saturated fats. In addition a lot of them smoked and most did little to no exercise. It eventually became clear that these other myriad factors were much more likely to blame for the cancer rates than the nuclear power station. In addition, when you broke the statistics down into more detailed sections (age, area, lifestyle etc.) the actual cancer rates were little different to those found in similar areas with a similar demographic but without a power station. Anyway, apologies for the long digression but I was trying to make a point. My two main concerns with taking Propecia are long term sexual side effects or depression. So I started by looking at other causes related to the situation propecia takers find themselves in. Everybody who takes propecia for hair loss shares one consistent problem; they are losing their hair! They also share a further attribute that is probably less discussed; they are worried and trying to do something about it. This poses an interesting set of circumstances on propecia takers. By taking propecia you are clearly defining hair loss as a problem and a lifestyle inhibitor. This creates an interesting psychological environment for propecia users; they are losing a battle and, even if propecia helps put them on the front foot, it is still a battle nobody asked for. For the vast majority of people this isn't a problem. We all have physical or mental issues we must deal with and taking propecia is one way of dealing with one problem. But for some I would imagine taking propecia is the psychological equivalent of entering a scary and troublesome world. By trying to keep your hair you must acknowledge you could lose it and that losing it will be a major problem for you (otherwise you wouldn't be using propecia). This new way of dealing with life could easily have a negative impact on some people. Interestingly many seemingly unrelated but actually similar lifestyle changes can bring about depression or paranoia. Going to university, moving house, changing jobs, worrying about getting older etc. Any new world we venture into is strange and frightening and those more sensitive to these changes are more likely to get depressed I would imagine. That can create a feedback loop if you actively worry propecia causes depression. You take propecia and consign yourself to a "battle" to keep your hair and the knowledge of this can make you worried and perhaps a bit unhappy. In turn, this unhappiness causes you to wonder if the propecia (the most obviously new change to your life) is making you unhappy. Then you open up a whole can of worms; if you stop taking propecia you've taken a big step back in your "battle". If you carry on taking it maybe you risk more depression, further side effects and still face the obvious hairloss/success worries. It's interesting to note depression wasn't a factor in the initial clinical trials. I believe the reason for this could be the different psychological circumstances under which propecia was taken. Although these people were experiencing hair loss propecia was a new, experimental product; something people placed little or no emotional attachment in. Of course those on the trial would have hoped it worked but there are several factors to remember: At the time the hair loss world was a different place with little to no approved treatments (certainly none with any obvious success). If propecia worked you could be happy with results and, if it didn't, you lost nothing. Compare that with today's environment where propecia is seen as many different things at once; a cure, a drug, a risk, a hope and a commitment. If someone came up to you on the street and said "guess the right number between 1-10 and I'll give you $10,000" and you got the number wrong, you'd walk away laughing about the whole thing. If you went on a gameshow and the host said "you're one question away from $10,000" and you got the answer wrong, you'd be upset. I think this might be the difference between propecia as a trial product and propecia as an FDA approved solution for hair loss; the expectation, and the psychological approach that you stand to lose something and not just gain something. Regarding the sexual side effects these, scientifically at least, seem much more plausible (as DHT is, of course, related to that whole biological side of us). But, that having been said, the same above applies. Impotence can be caused by worrying and self-consciousness and starting propecia can potentially bring about both. Although I have not done extensive web-based research it's interesting to note it's much harder to find discussions/articles about people who take propecia/dutasteride for prostate problems and who mention depression than it is to find people who take propecia for hair loss who mention depression. This could be because more people take propecia for hair loss than prostate problems but, equally, it could be because those who take propecia/dutasteride for prostate attach a much different psychological expectation and hope to the medicine in that state than they do for the medicine as a hair loss drug. I am just musing here as I try to make my decision. My hair is not as important to me as my sex drive, well being and mental state. I do not like taking drugs at the best of times and so the thought of going on propecia doesn't fill me with joy. I am also worried about doing permanent or even semi-permanent damage. But I read what people say online and just wanted to try and put things in more context for myself and for others. When you take propecia you enter into a psychological contract with yourself which is far more complex than just "I'll take this and see what happens". You attach a burden of expectation, a fear of ramification and an obvious heightened awareness of your mental and physical well being and results. Some people with perhaps more sensitive or fearful psychological dispositions are bound to monitor themselves more deeply, perhaps too deeply. Suddenly a "down day" becomes worrying. Suddenly you notice an ache or a pain or some lethargy and the only thing you can think of is that you're on propecia. What do you guys think? I'm going to weigh up the pros and cons for a few months and, although this post sounds like a defence of propecia, it's more me trying to play devil's advocate on the people that report negative side effects. That's not because I don't "believe" in the side effects, on the contrary, I'm very concerned about them. I'm just trying to make a decision and put my mind into a proper psychological position to do so and see it through. I just find it interesting that depression is a common side effect of many cosmetic procedures or treatments. And, of course, hair loss treatment has one additional problem that many other medical and cosmetic procedures do not: it is a constant, never ending struggle and not a one off event. If you have surgery to remove fat from your face and it goes wrong you will be upset. If it goes right you will be ecstatic. If you have surgery or treatment for hair loss and it goes wrong you will be upset. If it goes right the optimistic among us will be happy and excited about the future and the pessimistic will think very differently: "is this permanent?", "is it over?", "oh god, i think propecia is losing it's effectiveness!" etc. etc. And therein lies the weakness in judging any hair loss product or treatment; there is no such thing as a "result", only a steady flow of progress or regress that we must work with and analyse to plan our next move. Even if you regain a total head of hair you'll spend the rest of your life worrying it stays that way! So, that's my late night musing done! Just wanted to open up a debate on this as I think measured, reasoned analysis of the psychological issues surrounding hair loss treatment is unfortunately rare. There are too many people who are too quick in saying "take propecia, idiot!" and, equally, too many who are equally quick to say "it's hell in a pill, I suffered long term problems and it should be banned". The truth is nearly always somewhere in the middle of the extremes, so I wanted to use this thread as a chance to explore the wider implications for taking propecia and other hair loss drugs, and the effect they may have.

Hey all! I've recently been reading up on DPA/DUPA. I'm 27 years old and started to experience hairloss (not particularly noticeable yet as I have quite thick, wavy hair, but it's easily noticeable to me!). Having done a bit of research on DPA/DUPA however, I think I might have one of these forms of hairloss. I would say that, although my temples and crown have definitely thinned more than the middle of my head, there has been a fair amount of thinning throughout the entire top of my head. My whole hairline has thinned out and I'm pretty sure this extends right through the top of my head. As I say, it's not particularly noticeable yet and the crown is definitely the thinnest area, but having said that I definitely haven't just receded at the temples and crown; it's been across most of the top of my head. Now, I look at my Dad's head for comparison! He has a fairly big bald patch in the crown and definite temple recession (classic horseshoe shape) but right across the top of his head his hair is clearly thinner than in the donor areas He still has some hair on top of his head (it would be hard to estimate density but, compared to the back and sides, it looks to be about 30-40% of the density in those areas). To look at his head he's almost exactly somewhere between a Norwood V and VI diagram. Now I don't recall how my Dad's hair looked when he was in his late twenties and thirties (you don't spend much time looking at baldness when you're 6 I guess!) but I remember he always had temple recession and a bald patch; as I recall the hair around the rest of the top of his head was always thicker but clearly that has always thinned out. The back and sides still seem to be pretty strong with my Dad but I do notice he seems to have thinner hair at the bottom of the back of his hair and around his ears. It's hard to tell as he shaves it very short but it always strikes me as looking, not really more diffuse, just somehow different. I can't tell if this is because he shaves his own head and maybe doesn't get to these parts as evenly or easily or whether it's because he has experienced thinning around there too. His father, my Grandfather, looks much more of a Norwood IV; he has more and thicker hair than my Dad but the telltale crown baldness and temple recession. He is on a heart medication that improves his hair growth, however (Minoxidil I would imagine). My Grandfather on my Mother's side is a definite Norwood VII plus! He had no hair on top and very little on back and sides. Also, the hair he does have on the back and sides white and seems thin (not ridiculously thin, but certainly quite wispy). It's very hard to tell whether this is diffusion of the "donor" area or as a result of him having such white hair. He hard dark, thick and wavy hair when he was younger though, so I feel he might have been a DUPA? Anyway I just wondered if I might have DUPA/DPA based on the facts of my hairloss I have mentioned? There is no doubt the temple and crown have thinned more than the rest of my hair, but I would honestly say there has been a some thinning literally right across the top of my head. It's not particularly noticeable yet but it will be in the next few years I think! The back and sides of my head are incredibly thick with hair (always have been). I haven't noticed any sort of thinning from those areas yet. In addition, I may be wrong but it always looks to me like the hair at the very "bottom" of your back and sides hairline always seems a bit wispier and more erratic than the hair in the bulk of your back and sides hairline? Maybe just me?! Anyway I know nobody can give me a diagnosis here but I just wondered if you had any thoughts. My initial feeling is that I'm not a DUPA but possibly a DPA? Right now I'm probably losing hair right across the top of my head in roughly a 4 inch "diameter" (if that makes sense?). In other words, my back and sides hairline seems to run pretty "high" up and it's only a relatively small central "tunnel" that seems to have noticeable hairloss. Do you think that means that's where the extent of my hairloss will be, and the point at which the hair has stopped thinning is likely to be the start of my 'donor' area (in the sense it's the point where the thinning stops, not where I can start getting strips cut from!). My Dad seems to have the same sort of 4 inch 'tunnel' where he's lost hair right across the top; the back and sides seem pretty full to me still and there is a very noticeable difference between where the hair is thinning and where it stopped thinning. Anyway I'm rambling! Any thoughts on this area would be great!

Thanks Guys I have heard of hair cloning too; it sounded like the about the biggest potential for progression. Also I know Intercytex got to Stage II of their medical trials (which involved not cloning hair but enabling spent follicles to grow again) but the company has dissolved since then (I think they have sold their ideas on, however...). The concept of hair cloning sounds exciting and a logical step forward for hairloss treatment. Clearly the major limitation of HTs is donor supply and, whilst I don't see HTs becoming obsolete any time soon, lets hope in the next 5-10 years we do start seeing stem cell and cloning technology being applied successfully in this field. To me the future does seems pretty bright in hair restoration. Already the options today are impressive and can potentially be used simultaneously: FUT, FUE, BHT, Propecia, Minoxidil, Nizoral etc. There are numerous opportunities to improve your hair density and restore your hairline within reasonable costs (certainly in line with any other cosmetic procedures). If hair cloning does come about it sounds like the perfect way to create virtually limitless donor supply. Equally if the work done by Intercytex proves fruitful that's another way to build up density. Exciting times!

Clearly hair transplantation and the hair restoration industry in general has come on in leaps and bounds over the last 20 years. The surgical knowledge and range of techniques have improved stupendously, the medication and non-surgical options are now vast (even if not all of them are that impressive!) and, it seems, the knowledge of MPB and how hair might be restored has been improved greatly. And yet, clearly there is some distance left to go before the threat of baldness is truly a thing of the past. But my question is simple; in your opinions and based on your knowledge, do you think restoring a full head of hair will be possible in the near future? I'm not necessarily talking about one miracle cure; I think we all know that's unlikely any time soon. But between the medications, the transplants and other new techniques being developed do you think we're close to seeing a time when restoring a near enough full head of hair, even for a NW6, is realistic? I'm asking primarily to collate thoughts but also to look at the larger plan for the future. Obviously none of us can hedge our bets on wonderful new technology that's only 5-10 years away, but similarly, should we be keeping one eye on future advancements when planning our hair restoration futures? I'm 27 and showing fairly early signs of MPB. If I experience it in the same or similar way that my father did (and I very much suspect I might) there is a good chance I'll be able to conceal and deal with my MPB through non-surgical means for at least another 2-3 years and possibly beyond. In addition, I haven't even tried temporarily getting rid of the problem by buzz cutting or shaving completely; both options I may explore before making any decisions. So, I'm asking just out of curiosity, do you think in your opinions (which I know on this message board range from personal to professional) that there will be minor or major advances in this field in the next say 3-10 years? I think so many people get so absorbed in the day to day of their hairloss problems they forget that they have a life outside of hairloss and, additionally, that the hairloss industry is an ever-evolving and seemingly ever improving one. I wanted to start this thread partly out of curiosity but also partly to focus myself and other people who are worried about their hairloss on to the bigger picture and hopefully get people thinking about the future; both their own personal future but also the future for this industry in general. And also, without trying to presume I can offer sage advice, I've read so many frantic and upset posts on this message board by people worried about their hairloss. I, of course, can understand their fears (can't we all!) but I think the first step in dealing with hairloss is to remember why you want and feel you need hair in the first place. To improve image, to improve self-esteem, to improve confidence. But I think any obsession is bad, and hairloss in no exception. You don't learn to drive; you learn how to get where you want to go in your own way, and I think dealing with hairloss is the same issue. When dealing with hairloss you're never just dealing with the loss of hair, but the deeper psychological scarring and fears that can bring about. What you're really looking for is confidence and being comfortable with yourself but I think a lot of people who get too engulfed by any one issue risk falling down on others too. I'm not trying to give advice or dictate how people should feel of course, it's just after reading a lot of posts on here I'm compelled to say we should all think about life and our futures in the biggest possible way; keep focused on our goals (not just hairloss goals), keep optimistic about the massive progress we make in science and technology (which can relate to hairloss treatment) and remember that getting a head of hair might change how you feel about who you are, but won't change who you are. I'm not saying don't worry about hairloss; I'm just saying don't stop worrying about everything else! There is a balance to be struck in life and having hair, by default, can only really be a section of that balance. Stay focused, stay driven and stay optimistic but most of all, stay realistic - there is hope in the future, and similarly, MPB is not a be all and end all. No point having a full head of hair if you're coming undone from the insides. Millions of people have had to deal with hairloss and, unfortunately, much much worse. There is already so much to be excited and thankful for in the world of hairloss treatment and I'm sure more is on the way (indeed, I'm interested in finding out!). Sorry for the rant, I was just compelled to keep typing because whilst I, of course, worry about my hairloss, my image, my self esteem and my future, I'm also realistic that there is more to me than hairloss and if I put all of myself into just getting that back I can lose so much more in the process. We're all here to combat hairloss but I've read some posts from deeply upset people and I think it's essential for our health to keep putting things in perspective and keep updating our goals, our realities and our hope for the future!

Hi Guys, This is my first post, so I suppose I'd better introduce myself! I'm 27 years old and starting to experience MPB (temple recession and general thinning from front to back, particularly in the crown). It's been ongoing since I was about 25. I would realistically imagine that it's not particularly noticeable to the 'average' person as I have pretty thick hair and wear it in a fairly 'choppy' style: but of course I know about it and very much imagine it is going to get worse! My Dad has MPB (he's 53) and I'd estimate it's about a Norwood 5. His father also has similar hairloss but takes heart medication that also improves his hair, so it's a bit less noticeable. My grandfather on my Mother's side is about as severe as hairloss can get! I'd say (at a glance) I'm much more from my father's side so I'm assuming (based on this thought and observing my own hairloss) I'm going to end up similar to him; pretty bald but with a bit on top still at least! Anyway I haven't gotten any sort of transplant yet, though imagine I'll have to in the fairly near future. I'm also not on any medication. I'm a bit reluctant to go on Propecia based on some of the horror stories I've read on the internet. I'm trying to be logical and rational about whether it's the best decision and of course its FDA approved and many men take it safely; but I'm counterbalancing that with other arguments. Firstly, there is every chance in the next 5-8 years better treatments (cell technology etc.) will be on the market; treatments with little to no side effects. Secondly, hair loss is not worth permanent infertility or ED! I'm trying not to be melodramatic about Propecia's negative side effects but I'm going to do some more research/observation before making any decision. Any thoughts you guys have on Propecia would be appreciated! OK, introductions over I wanted to ask a quick question that has been bugging me a bit since I've been researching HTs. I know there is a technique called BHT (body hair transplant) that is used in some HT procedures. I'm not considering getting one; it seems a bit sketchy to me with a lot of variables, but my question is related to something I've noticed with BHTs: A lot of people who have had donor hair taken from their chest/legs etc. seem to grow back virtually all of that donor hair in time. My question is; why is it that this donor hair can regrow but donor hair from the head is finite? I know the technique used to harvest donor hair from the back of the head is fundamentally different (harvesting a strip means cutting a whole section of hair follicles out) but, if a technique can be used to harvest hair but have the donor area follicles grow back, why is it this same technique can't be used on the head? That's my (probably ignorant) question; looking forward to hearing any thoughts! Thanks!