Curious25

Yes but I’m the random forum member telling him to go and see a specialist about it. You’re the random forum member telling him to go and jump on it. And you don’t need to see a doctor, you can buy it online at the click of the button, or in the UK you can go to a pharmacy answer a few questions with the pharmacist and walk out of the shop with a 6 month supply. Poor lifestyle and diet can contribute to detrimental health effects, sure . . But they don’t actively seek to block an enzyme involved in hormone conversion. Look I’m glad for you that you have had a positive experience taking the medication, I wish everyone did - who wouldn’t want to take a small pill each day for it to halt their hairloss and potentially regrow some it back, it’s a no brainer. However it’s unfortunately not as simple as that, and undoubtedly comes with the potential of some pretty severe health risks - most of which, I would argue, the majority of hair loss sufferers wouldn’t deem a beneficial trade off for their hair. For that reason I encourage EVERYONE to research, educate, and consult with specialists in this field before making the correct and informed decision. Call me blind, but I fail to see how anyone could have an issue with that stance.

@makehairgreatagain another one - both Konior patients. @DEB1982 2 procedures and a larger amounts of grafts used, however stellar result. @Portugal25 is a good recent example of a very blank canvas who’s gained good coverage predominantly from BHT.

Although I believe your intentions are good, random forum members like you casually advising other random forum members to start taking a drug designed to block the conversion process in creating one of the bodys most androgenic male hormones is absurd. You have no idea of OP’s past or current condition, as neither potentially, could he. The advice should always be - Hey, there are medical options available - however you MUST consult with a urologist/endocrinologist/hrt specialist beforehand, regarding the use of this drug. I’ve recently been fortunate enough to visit a senior urological consultant, after years of what I thought was pretty solid due diligence and research on my behalf, in which I had reasoned with myself a compromise I was prepared to try - only to have had my eyes Re-opened a lot more than what I was expecting.

I am not sure on the exact science behind it - logic would suggest they could impede growth by clogging pours/restricting blood and oxygen flow. You have to remember that these newly implanted grafts are young and precious in their infancy, they’ve just moved home and are starting their growth cycle all over again, the last thing they need is to have a load of sticky chemicals poured on top of them whilst they are trying to peak out and become like their former selves! A lot of clinics and reps on here advise against it , so hopefully one of them will see this and be able to advise you with more integrity than my offer of reasoning 😀

Worthwhile doing! Hope it goes well for you!

It's a very subjective question on a number of criteria. Regarding shock loss, No. of grafts extracted/implanted, Size of recipient zone Size of donor extraction zone Volume of hair in or around recipient zone, Quality of native hair (miniaturising or not) Patient physiology Surgeon skill level Arguably type of HT (FUT v FUE) the list goes on. Regarding 'Back to baseline' - thats largely dependant on the patients natural speed of hair growth. There is evidence that certain vitamins, PRP, LLT and minoxidil can help speed up growth and 'bring in results earlier' - however there are a few threads on here that I have seen where patients haven't shed, or shed very little without the use of any of these, and then patients who have been using the aforementioned products, who have grown at a more average rate. Have a look around cases that are similar to yours to get a rough idea - however IMO shock loss is very rare amongst quality surgeons, although it can happen. I would advise to just go with the flow during the ugly duckling phase and just accept that it is part of the process - trying to make good of a bad situation with things like toppik etc will likely impede growth and results, which is kind of defeating the purpose of under going surgery in the first instance.

Correct. But for other NW6 observers who don't see the transformation on this thread as a good result, hair transplantation is absolutely not for them. This is an example of a very good result - and still, IMO, with the potential to improve up to 12-18 months, and furthermore so, with a second pass down the line if OP desires, to add to density with an extra 1000-2000 donor scalp grafts.

I once again refer you to what you previously wrote, in which my response was aimed at. I am not discrediting @gillenator as such, as there is no question he has been around the industry for a lengthy amount of time, and adds valuable input to the forum on a regular basis. However: 1) Your summarising point was in essence advising the community for it to be important to seek second opinions from non medically trained strangers on a forum, via photos, to that of an in person consultation with a HRN recommended surgeon, 2) The points that @gillenator made, in reference to your NW7 progression (in his opinion based from the photos), and thinning lateral humps and sideburns (again his opinion based from the photos), if true, should have and would have, been picked up during the consultation by any skilled, reputable and ethical surgeon - three attributes the HRN prides all of its recommended surgeons on being, 3) This therefore insinuates you are dubious of the credibility of the surgeon, in which should you have a dispute for whatever reason with any of the HRN recommended doctors, this should be raised as a separate issue altogether, and be bought up with the community and @Melvin-Moderator , alongside the provision of evidence as to why in the form of a case study, 4) My advice to you would remain the same even had it been one of the medically trained professionals on the boards commenting on this thread as, simply put, you cannot compare an in person examination to that of viewing some photos online, (something that @gillenator himself highlighted). An ethical, skilled, and reputable surgeon would not have recommended you had a further 3500 available donor grafts for surgery, unless you did have an available 3500 donor grafts for surgery.

From my understanding, the 6-8 hour half life of finasteride refers to its presence in the blood, and doesn't consider its enzyme inhibiting affects remain 'at work' for upto 30 days. With this in mind, if 5ar enzymes weren't continually produced on a day to day, you could theoretically take 1mg every 30 days - however the frequency is required to 'mop up' the new 5ar enzymes that. I think it would largely boil down to trial and error to establish the dose required, and the frequency of that dose needed on a case by case basis - I'm just trying to learn workout whether frequency > dosage, or vice versa. Have you been able to notice a difference in your native hair quality between the different protocols you've tried and tested over the years - and what were the deciding factors that has led you to opt for 1.25mg MWF - as opposed to 0.5mg MWF, for instance. Thanks

Looks brilliant Matt - you have perfect head of hair, theres no question. Re. your finasteride dosage - have you always microdosed at 1.25mg MWF, or is this the result of some trial and error? I've recently watched a customised dosage video, alongside some other smaller dosing threads, and I'm trying to get a general feeling of whether the efficacy vs elimination of sides is worth it or not. Thanks

Is it not considered to be a contraindication to take finasteride if you’ve had a substantial amount of beard grafts transplanted to scalp? Thanks

With the upmost respect for @gillenator - I would be inclined to suggest an in person consultation with a recommended surgeon from here to be a more accurate measure of your current state of play, as opposed to that of a forum poster with no medical background, looking at some photos you've stuck up. Second opinions are important, I agree - however a second opinion from another medically trained hair restoration professional, in person!

Lol. That’s all Pitts natural hair, he’s likely maintained it somehow with some form of medication - there’s actually an interview from a recent premiere he attended where the reporter (bald) commented on his hair, asking how it was possible they were the same age - in which Pitt responded ‘well I don’t know how many times you have to go to the bathroom through the night’ , whether that was alluding to a medicinal side effect or not, maybe I just read between the lines too thoroughly lol! I think there’s some serious witchcraft and wizardry that goes on in the form of concealer and wigs, however I’m pretty sure using finasteride/dutasteride will be as common as taking a multivitamin for guys in the industry, that along with the odd lucky few who got fortunate with fantastic genetics, looks and hair wise! Di Carpio , Efron and Pitt spring to my mind as the genetically blessed. Jackman, Depp and Cooper strike me as having to have worked to maintain what they have through meds and possible procedures (Cooper procedure, Depp to maintain hairline recession all these years, and Jackman has adult thinned hair, as opposed to youthful density).

First of all - go get checked out by your GP, and try get referred to a urologist consultant, or even better an endocrinologist/hrt specialist to assess your current state of play. Might turn out that you are flying sky high, and a subtle suppression of your 5AR enzymes isn't likely going to do you too much damage - on the flip side however, you may be slapped around the cheeks a couple of times, and told you are a bit on the low side of the hormones cards as it is, so let nature be nature and come back to me in a few years when we may need to start looking at giving you a boost, not taking it away, who knows - its not a one size fits all prescription, which is why its hilarious yet frightening reading so many non medic forum posters yell from the high hills that every hair loss sufferer in the land should gobble up 1mg of finasteride a day until their days are over. That goes for hair restoration surgeons as well. Then, armed with this new data - why don't you write out a good old fashioned pro's and con's list of whats important to you, or maybe even a few scenarios of how you could play things out without going down the medical route? Brad pitt hair, but with a nice set of growing BB's? Zac Efron locks, but once you get into the bedroom, you're as capable as your grandad is at impressing your lady between the sheets? Solid NW1 but your lovely beard now struggles to get going past a bit of bum fluff? Ok, back to business - and obviously this isn't necessarily going to be the case if you did respond well to the drug, however you are already aware the risks are there. In all seriousness - these are trade offs some men may be willing to make for their hair, and that is entirely THEIR decision. Measurements I think you need to consider would be your rate of hair loss, family history, developing pattern, facial hair strength, and donor strength. If all your family get to as far as a NW4 and you have a donor denisty of +80FU - do you really need to put yourself through the worry of potential risks of preventative medication, especially if you are in a financial position to budget for further surgeries as and when required? Ok - if you're early 20's and you are destined for a higher NW - preventative procedures maybe needed to be looked at with a little more weight, however again, its not one size fits all. Case by case. If donor hair was unlimited, I wonder how many people would still take the drug? The development and advances in procedures day by day, and utilisation of hair from other areas of the body is getting better and better - look no further than some of the recent NW6/7 transitions on these boards from clinics such as Eugenix, Hattingen, H&W - its not fake, these are real results that people wouldn't have believed could be done 20yrs ago, and trends suggest techniques and results are just going to get better and better. If you are having doubts about whether you will be able to live with taking it - start asking yourself, do you actually need to take it? The standard logic applied to taking the drug is in a nutshell; cling on to whatever you've got left, transplant whats gone, and hope to god that you'l get a decent run of it. It makes sense. Financially, and logistically. But remember, it doesn't stop hairloss - it slows it, it delays the inevitable - those who have more sensitive dht receptors in their follicles will need larger doses, than those who aren't as sensitive. If you can be content with a decent framing of your face, multiple procedures, and a strategically placed homogenous coverage across your scalp up to a NW 6 pattern, and really don't want to commit to using it - don't bother. Get saving, find a great surgeon who will develop a long term strategy with you, acknowledge and make peace with the limitations that there will inevitably be (you won't ever be Brad Pitt . . but you will sleep well without worry or concern about whatever the hell you may be doing to your insides), and go enjoy your life being the decision maker you truly are 😉

More people need to discuss the use of this drug with endocrinologists, hormone specialists, and urologists - as good as the hair restoration surgeons are in their field of hair restoration - they are simply not equipped to provide patient care, support, and advice with this medication.

Your hairs from the surgery will have been extracted from the DHT resistant area, therefore aren’t reliant on the use of finasteride - it’s use is designed to protect and maintain your native hair up that you already have/had up top.

I wouldn’t call it nonsense - that was the reason cited to myself from a clinic, and is also a well documented discussion in journals, albeit stemming from animal studies. For obvious reasons human studies are unable to take place. Because there is no confirmed clarity on whether or not female pregnant partners can be exposed in any way to the drug from her male partners use, as far as I have understood, there tends to be a general consensus of advisory messages to curtail its use during the period of trying to get pregnant/being pregnant.

There are too many variables to what is quite an evasive question - however generally speaking - a good HT is unnoticeable, regardless of density. If you go to a good surgeon and have a successful surgery, you definitely won't be feeling more or as self conscious about harsh lighting than you do already pre surgery.

If it was a reputable surgeon recommended on here, then I wouldn't worry and think it as odd - as an in person consultation is the most accurate way of assessing you, so I have full faith that this is likely a good estimate - and a positive one at that, 3500 grafts plus a further 750-1000 beard grafts should be more than enough for a skilled surgeon to re-vamp your balding area, and give you a full head illusion. Have you any pics of the front? RE. your NW status, your donor seems to be in good shape, especially post two HT's, so I agree with Melvin and would guess your final pattern to be where you are at now, however allowing room for some loss in hair shaft thickness. NW 7's are usually dramatically bald by their 30's, and you don't fit this category IMO.

The general recommendation from even the biggest advocates of using the drug is to come off it during trying to get pregnant, due to negative implications on foetal development (I believe).

With all due respect, and I empathise with you greatly for having recently undergone a seemingly unsuccessful intervention, I don’t think it would be accurate to denounce all BHT as a non credible technique, based on one experience. There are growing numbers of BHT cases being showcased around the world, with certain FUE clinics specialising in this method - producing some great results! Like all HT’s, each patient should be evaluated and taken as a case by case approach, for some it may not be suitable, however for others it may be so . . therefore I reiterate that I think it wrong to denounce all use of BHT. It is largely accepted already that BHT should play no role in hairline restoration - this is a different topic altogether and should focus on ‘how BHT should be used’.

When you come to extract the 750-1000 extra later on from the donor, how will the doc know which are native scalp grafts, and which are BHT - or are you just replenishing specific zones at the moment, so they will be able to extract from an area knowing it hasn't be touched with BHT? Also, do you take any preventative medication?

It's not 'my way', as I have never had this technique performed, or developed the methodology for mainstream use of it either - I am simply an intrigued observer, of a new concept that seems to be gaining some ground and producing some interesting results. I'm glad to hear you have had success with BHT scalps planted into your recipient - I have seen lots of results online where they have looked fantastic. My curiosity stemmed from the limitations that BHT grafts have (anagen phase, HGI tends to be 1FU, different texture to native scalp etc) - therefore wanted to ponder whether this was going to be a viable method to really enhance HT procedures, and allow for further donor depletion.

One of the most interesting threads on here at the moment! Looking forward to the blog,

I completely agree Melvin - I think this could have potential for being a new development in hair restoration, and possibly in the next 5 years with a little refinement, this will be more or less a universally approved method, that will help enhance hair transplants that one bit further, and take them to another level once again. Everybody gets hooked on hair cloning, and stem cell therapy etc - when in reality, if you look at how far HT's have developed in the last 20 years, tbh - even the last 10 years, it goes to show that 'the cure' may already be here for many hair loss sufferers, its just a case of the techniques and methodologies becoming better and better.