JayLDD

Whey and BCAAs should be 100% fine, but creatine is a no-go.

A good idea first would be to post photos of your situation to help people give you a more accurate recommendation. A very general claim would be that FUT or the strip procedure is best suited to large cases while FUE smaller work. Look into Hasson and Wong in Canada, also Dr. Cooley, Dr. Feller and Dr. Shapiro for some of the best FUT surgeons in the US. Well worth researching some of those names as a starting point and scrutinising their results for yourself, there's no short answer to any of those questions. The more research you do the better.

Neograft is garbage unless you enjoy butchering yourself and throwing money down the toilet. Definitely stick around the forum a bit and do some more research. Better to post pics of your situation and say what norwood you are its easier for people to help too. "best job for the least amount of money," That is fairy tale thinking, unless you're prepared to travel.

The truth is if someone has the money, they have reasonable expectations and they've researched risks and a good doctor, they should probably just get the surgery. There is definitely room for improvement. For your case though, your hair already looks fantastic and you likely have some body dysmorphia issues. Not saying to offend, but if 95% of people achieved your hairline with a transplant they'd be ecstatic, and for your age you're in that top 5% bracket. From your photos it doesn't look clear that you have hairloss to begin with, definitely no visible miniaturisation as is the case normally. There are also risks of a bad result (albeit low) that could put you in a worse position. Low reward/risk.

Probably best to get your specific intended doctor's opinion as they likely know best what they can actually achieve and the suspected outcomes with or without medication. At norwood 3v you obviously have a good head of hair left though so you're still in the ideal circumstances to benefit from medication. Only 2-5% of users get sides from fin, probably not a bad idea to consider it as in some ways in the longer term you will benefit more from the medication than a hair transplant. By the sound of your expectations and goals the typical results of medication are more what you're looking for too. If not, FUT is ideal. From the way you say "2-3 procedures" I think you underestimate the potential of a good doctor in a single pass, particularly with FUT. Your goals sound very achievable even without meds, but meds seem like the smartest option in the short term to be honest.

Truth is you didn't get enough grafts for neither coverage or density either. You could easily use another 3500 grafts. Nothing about your surgery was smart on behalf of the surgeon. Poor planning and no shave is only appropriate for those with very minor loss.

So unfair

Says the one stalking me on a hair loss forum.

If someone can't even successfully type the word "transplant", then they are probably not worth listening to on their opinions about hair transplants.

There is still a (low) possibility of substantial growth to come, Dr. Feller mentions a result in one of his vids where the vast majority started at around month 9. To be honest you used a very small amount of grafts considering the area covered. There was very little margin for error. In my humble opinion Konior's graft quote for you seems more on the money, and the truth is his FUE work is stronger.

"Respectfully, is a Norwood 1 age appropriate for the entirety of your life?" "Most men naturally recede to a 2 by mid life, whether they experience baldness or not." It makes sense to be cautious and economical, but look at a guy like George Clooney's hairline which is actually lower than Benny is looking for. Look at Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt's hairline. These are men approaching their sixties, with borderline perfect, and almost juvenile hairlines. It's a valid question to ask, but I've NEVER seen evidence that a perfect hairline at even 60 looks silly, and that's 30 years of a perfect hairline for this guy. I'm not talking about transplants, I'm saying that in my entire life, not once have I thought a man's hairline looked "too youthful" or perfect. Can you honestly say you have? Who makes fun of the 55 year old with a perfect hairline? No one. Cosmetic surgery can do more than make you look like "average", so why settle for it? In this case he's a had a sustained strong response to fin and is prepared to keep it up, and a strong donor area and no crown loss. Not a high risk patient. That aside, probably best to just let Feriduni do his thing and see what he suggests.

Are you just trying to piss people off? For 5 months that looks great. Obviously you've had prior work to get to this point but what you have looks good enough for a finished product, and by 10 months it will look substantially better again. Feel for those like myself at 2.5 months with no growth. As another Erdogan patient I've looked at hundreds of his results and you're doing better than average at this point.

Keser is one of the best doctors in the world for this type of work of dense packed low norwood hairlines. Definitely looks like incredible work.

Which doctor did you go to?

NO ONE is arguing against this, and no one is defensive on this point. What thread have you been reading? Is it that hard to actually READ the arguments made by the side you're not cheerleading for? I know its easier to create a straw-man than address legitimate points, but come on. Not a single post here has argued that FUE yields are as consistent or high as FUT on average, and no one has argued that FUE alone will be the best way to utilise precious donor area. The argument with you and Dr. Feller are so fantastic at avoiding and providing strawmans for is simply that FUE is a viable method for extensive loss, the yield for the best FUE surgeons (Dr. Beehner is not one of them) is consistently in the 90% range and the average donor can handle over 5000 manual FUE extractions. Cry about FUE forces all you like and grafts being "ripped" from the scalp (similar manipulative language to Trump in the debates referring to abortion as involving the baby "ripped" from the womb), it doesn't make the fantastic and consistent results of certain doctors like Lupanzula and Erdogan that rival any FUT doctor any less real, whether or not you would like them to go away. Is FUT the more appropriate method for the majority of patients? Most likely. Will FUE achieve the goals of the patients who opt for it, including not having a strip cut from their scalp? For the majority going to a top end FUE surgeon, it most certainly will.

You didn't address the fact that you made up the 75% number or simply took it from Dr. Feller's quotes. You didn't address the fact that you quoted a study on FUE by a doctor who has only done 80 FUE procedures over 9 years. Your stance hasn't changed IN SPITE of the evidence. You'll continue your tune no matter what unfortunately, even if that means making things up or quoting bad data by an FUT surgeon who opens his study stating that FUE is a poor procedure and doesn't state a number of important controlled variables such as holding solution. The crux of your argument is backed up by evidence; FUT grafts are of a higher quality and have less force ultimately inflicted upon them, and these will on average yield higher. FUT for the average patient will also yield more lifetime grafts than FUE. Beyond this, why do you have to make things up and quote bad data on FUE that's either fifteen years old or by a surgeon who has barely done FUE? Why make up the 75% figure when European surgeons such as Lupanzula, Feriduni, Erdogan and Keser have studies and results counting yield to confirm this is not the case? Hasson + Wong even state on their website that they believe they can "cherry pick" grafts with FUE and that the yields are equivalent. They also noticeably studied and learned FUE techniques from Dr. Erdogan, not Dr. Feller for example. Everyone here who has researched and looked at hundreds of results from doctors across the world is aware that you are exaggerating on your criticisms of this debate, whether or not the principle is correct. It sounds ridiculous because people only have to look at the FUE section of this website from the past year to see that your claims are unfounded. It isn't a good look. The fact is that there are FUE doctors yielding over 90% on a consistent basis and more and more doing cases moving up into the 6-7-8000 graft numbers through FUE across multiple procedures. 5000 FUE in a single pass is visible on various forums on a daily basis and from surgeons like Erdogan not only does the average donor look pristine a few months post surgery, 95% look pristine, totally at odds with claims that more than 1500 is unsafe or that FUE isn't suited to megassessions.

Dr. Beehners studies on FUE are a joke and for any serious doctor to reference these is laughable. A study of his on survival rates from July 2016 to the ISHRS of which the opening lines criticise FUE and labels FUT the "gold standard" does not even mention the holding solution used for grafts, and mentions that although he considers himself an above average FUE physician, he has only conducted EIGHTY FUE PROCEDURES IN OVER 8 YEARS. How can you possibly conduct a study like this without mentioning holding solution? He also says he is only experienced in FUE procedures averaging around 500 grafts. There are also multiple photo sets in the study of a set skeletonized FUE grafts in contrast to chubby FUT grafts. I have had an FUE procedure and seen the grafts, and they look absolutely nothing like the destroyed grafts in this study. Studies and patient graft counts by Dr. Erdogan and a small experiment with Dr. Keser achieving over 95% yield with FUE exist for any to see. As suggested by Swooping and Dr. Lupanzula prominent FUE doctors that also are heavily experienced in FUT don't feel they achieve a significant difference in yield. Anyone can throw around studies to prove their point, and it is extremely telling that anti-FUE doctors cite studies by doctors like Beehner who are totally inexperienced at FUE when expressing their views. Why cite a study on FUE by a doctor who has performed less than 10 FUE procedures per year and doesn't do more than 600 grafts at a time on average and biggest FUE procedure was 1300 grafts? None of that to discredit Dr. Beehner as a highly competent FUT surgeon, however you can't take a study by someone inexperienced with FUE to compare FUT results seriously. A legitimate study requires an exclusively FUE doctor who believes their work equals FUT such as Lupanzula with a doctor like Feller and comparing yields on the same patients in the same facility with controlled variables. Data comparing results by a single doctor with a single set of controlled variables (and in this case not a legitimate FUE doctor) is just that, results of a single doctor, under their own conditions with non-standardised tools.

What is wrong with you? https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/threads/26114-Help-and-suggestions-needed Look at the link. Do you honestly believe I said that? Can you read? I cannot tell if you are genuinely stupid or are trying to slander me. Again, I came to your thread to HELP you by offering medical studies on ketoconazole. Now you insult me and make things up.

Pathetic. Look at the link again you fool: https://www.baldtruthtalk.com/threads/26114-Help-and-suggestions-needed. I was QUOTING him and said "Don't listen to Amro he's a shill for this dodgy, pathetic company. They steal before and after pictures from Hasson and Wong and pretend they did them." How pathetic do you have to be to make things up and lie about what I said on a hairloss forum? Look again yourself if you're confused.

I'm not putting that on my head and wasn't recommending anyone else should. I was simply making a point. You brought up nizoral, I showed studies showing its positive effects for androgenic alopecia and as an anti-androgen and now you are insulting me and making things up like I told people to go to Turkish chop shops. Relax.

When in the world did I support anyone going to a Turkish chop shop? The doctors I would personally go to in Turkey are Erdogan (who I did go to and is recommended here) and Keser, who does the entire procedure himself slowly over a series of days and only one patient at a time. Both utilise a manual punch. Saying that consistent use of keto shampoo causes sheds is inconsistent with the medical literature over the past two decades and the scientific face that ketoconazole is an anti-androgen. You must be an outlier.

I agree that nizoral is a weak anti-androgen, however it is an anti-androgen proven to have small synergistic effects with minoxidil and propecia. Not sure which study you mean but there are at least twenty that range from concluding anti-androgenic qualities, the time it has these effects on the scalp, and its effect on hairloss. Importantly, it continues to be effective in the scalp for over 7 days so keeping it to 2 days per week seems logical. It most certainly goes further than aiding with scalp conditions, it is a scientifically proven anti-androgen. I'm not arguing its some sort of magical cure, but for a 5-15% improvement when you're already on fin why wouldn't you take it? The science is fairly clear on it through studies over the past twenty years. I appreciate some have serious issues with scalp flaking on overuse, but the science says it would be effective once per week. Most people can handle it and it's a cheap way to get a small anti-androgen boost. Just beware potential sheds if you come off it. Can always use Regenepure Dr with 1% keto which is sulfate free if you are more sensitive to it.

Will you post a 12 month result for your last surgery?

I provided you with evidence such as the word of site recommended doctors and various studies including those in the past five years. You then state that you "could" provide your own evidence but don't. You can't provide evidence for your argument, you then claim the FDA hasn't approved Nizoral for hairloss, therefore it cannot be used for hairloss. I say neither has dutasteride, and you now move the goalposts and start talking about a different approval agencies deduction on the matter. You also accused me of going to a no-name Turkish chop shop and an unethical doctor, despite it being a site recommended doctor and the vice president of the World FUE Institute. I am trying to HELP you by providing studies and evidence that nizoral is regarded by the medical science and hair transplant doctor community as an effective synergistic treatment for androgenic alopecia and ketoconazole is an anti-androgen. YOU are the one who wants to ignore the studies, and will therefore lose your hair more quickly. All because you don't want to admit you are wrong. Grow up.

Reality doesn't cease to exist simply because the FDA hasn't approved it so. Dutasteride isn't FDA approved for hairloss, but only an idiot would say it doesn't work for hairloss. Maybe you should get off avodart because it isn't approved? And no, I did not go to an unknown doctor, I went to the Vice-president of the world FUE institute and the person who was responsible for teaching Hasson and Wong FUE techniques. Also he is recommended on this site. I mean you don't even know the difference between "you're" and "your" and you're lecturing me on life decisions. Age has little to do with intelligence, and our argument here is proof of that. I've provided facts, you simply get emotional and insult. I always have the opportunity to get a hair system no matter my age; I only live my twenties ONCE, and i'd like to live it with hair. End of story.