FUEtile

Just now, BurnieBurns said:

No significantly weaker than fin.

Coulsnt stableise with it as a monotherapy but used it as part of 

a stack with others

You think combining fluridil with topical fin would be best? What about RU? 

20 minutes ago, BurnieBurns said:

 

Depends how aggresive your loss is

What’s your experience? Would you say it’s as strong as topical fin? 

2 minutes ago, consequence said:

I looked through all of the peer reviewed medical literature to date and was underwhelmed by sample sizes and effect profiles.

Topicals are a massive waste of time and the next in a long line of hair fads. They are inconsistent in preparation and effect. People are free to try what they wish but that is my opinion after careful review of the literature. Spend some time on Pubmed not just arguing in an echo chamber.

I'm not going to get lost in the weeds with you as this thread is a total crap show already and you're clearly not open to reasonable discussion. 

I don’t think this is an echo chamber at all. I don’t disagree with you. The sample size of the study is small. You should post some of the data you’ve researched. I’m basing my thoughts off the study posted here. But if you have some studies that would refute it, post them. That’s the whole point of this discussion. It’s not to validate our biases. Its to get actual information. 

3 minutes ago, consequence said:

The data on topicals is very weak right now, still too new to know if it has effect. Plus, in the United States at least, you are relying on compounding pharmacies which have little to no federal oversight, so you don't know if the dose you're getting is consistent each time. Also the amount of testosterone converted to DHT in the liver and prostate vs locally in the skin varies massively, especially as an individual ages.

It probably has some effect. Will it be as consistent or as effective as oral medication? Not with current shot in the dark approaches. Several decades of research will be needed before there's even a chance of that. Also the closer it gets to oral medication in effectiveness, the more that is probably being absorbed systemically to get to the prostate and liver, meaning the side effects will be the same.

Generally a waste of time.

The study OP posted debunks this is there any other evidence or studies that help your argument or are you speculating?

4 hours ago, NikosHair said:

The only thing the study can tell us is the more you reduce DHT, the more hair you grow

This is what you literally said here ^

6 minutes ago, NikosHair said:

No contradiction - the efficacy for topical was less. Similar but less. This raises an interesting question that was discussed earlier in this thread. Could 1mg be overkill? That makes an interesting case for micro-dosing oral fin.

You're making the assumption the efficacy vs DHT reduction is linear. That's not what I said. (see above).

See above thats what you said. 

Side effects were statistically similar is not what you want to read if you're hoping topicals are the solution.

You’re looking at it from face value. You have to take into account the overall population. I would imagine there’s millions. If everyone switched to topical the number of fewer reported side effects would be in the tens of thousands. Not an insignificant number. 

You need to understand why 'statistical significance' is significant. The difference was so small that the researcher could not eliminate the possibility the difference was purely due to 'chance'.

(see above) 

To emphasize the point, 2.8% of the placebo group reported side effects ... They didn't even get any drug! (again, this was highlighted earlier in the thread).

The only thing this proves is nocebo is a real thing. 

Agreed.

I specifically referenced fancy marketing in the question. If you want a discussion purely on effectiveness or safety you can create your own question in your own poll😉

Your disdain for “marketing” is clouding your objectivity. 

'Possible' isn't acceptable if you sell a topical product that claims to grow hair by reducing DHT locally in the scalp. It can be tested very simply (described earlier in this thread) but the companies producing the topicals do not produce the results. I say that's unacceptable and perhaps they have results that don't support their product🙄

It doesn’t really matter the facts are that the efficacy was very similar to oral finasteride while systemic reduction was a 20+% difference. Your entire argument is based on this simple fact which refuted your point.

I appreciate you're late to the thread but this stuff has been covered earlier. Give topicals a try and let the community know how you get on👍

I’ll definitely be giving them a try.

Did you test your hormone levels? I can’t see how 3 applications would make a difference 

2 minutes ago, mustang said:

Concentration and delivery vehicle has nothing to do with packaging.

These bottles are compounded by pharmacies in an artisan way. They just dissolved the active compound on whatever vehicle the client asks.

Liposomes are proven to be more effective therefor allowing lower concentrations.

 

Can you expand a bit more? 

2 hours ago, NikosHair said:

For topical, the results were less, the sides were less, and the serum DHT reduction was less (Patients showed higher DHT levels in the topical cohort Vs oral fin).

The only thing the study can tell us is the more you reduce DHT, the more hair you grow and the greater the potential for sides. Nothing we don't already know. 

Critically, it only demonstrated rubbing stuff on your head was just another method to get the drug in the bloodstream, albeit a less effective way than taking low-dose oral fin. 

The study you posted debunks this theory. Based on your assumption less systemic DHT reduction should equal less efficacy. But that contradicts what was observed in the study. 

There’s over a 20% difference in systemic reduction between topical and oral. So, if what you’re saying is true, there should be a 20% higher efficacy rate with oral finasteride. Because more DHT reduction = higher efficacy. But that is not what the study says.

Topical and oral finasteride is numerically similar in terms of hair growth (efficacy), despite there being a 20+% difference in DHT reduction. 
 

Even the own study had this conclusion 

None of your points have any solid foundation. 
 

To summarize your points: 

Oral finasteride and topical have similar side effects profile. Statistically similar but there’s still over a 1% difference in sexual side effects. Stats mean nothing to individuals. 1% of 100,000 is 1,000 so the more users the higher the number. What may seem insignificant isn’t when you look at it deeper.

Oral finasteride is cheaper and you can microdose. There are no studies comparing microdosing finasteride and taking 1mg daily. So this point is inconclusive. But worth exploring. 

Topical companies rip you off by selling subscriptions. This point doesn’t have anything to do with effectiveness or safety. But even from a monetary standpoint. Topical finasteride is sold by several companies that are not expensive and don’t do subscriptions, and you can DIY your own topical. Making the cost only marginally more expensive than the oral version. Moot point.

The more DHT the higher the efficacy. On paper this makes sense but this study contradicts this theory. It’s possible that applying the drug topically reaches DHT at the hair follicle level making it similar in efficacy as consuming it orally. There are no studies proving this but this speculation makes more sense to me based on this study. 

17 hours ago, NikosHair said:

I haven't seen any studies that count hairs on micro-dosing. Studies are often funded by pharma companies and there just isn't any money in the micro-dosing results.

If you go down the super cheap micro dosing route you can try crushing a 1mg pill and mix it with a filler eg. microcrystalline cellulose. Then cap it (gelatine capsules). 

Thats an issue for me with the study you posted you can see the comparison between oral and topical. Efficacy was close and sides were reported less. That makes topical finasteride worth a try. You can even DIY your own topical so all the business stuff is irrelevant. 
 

I vote no

3 minutes ago, NikosHair said:

This has been covered earlier. The researchers concluded the sides on topical vs oral produced 'similar' levels of side effects. Based on the data they couldn't find statistical significance. In lay terms, they couldn't predict the outcome if they re-run the study. It was just too close to call. Not what you would expect the pharma company that funded the study wanted to hear (they produce a topical fin).

Some studies measured the reduction in DHT at different levels of fin. As you expect, there is a correlation between dosages, although it seems to top out at 1mg per day. A dosage of 5mg per day only marginally reduced DHT more than 1mg. The other interesting finding was you can take a fraction of a 1mg pill (0.2mg), and it still has a significant effect on DHT. Proving if we didn't already know, fin is a very potent drug,

Statistics means nothing to an individual 1-2% might seem small but not to those who’ve gotten sides. If oral finasteride users experience side effects at 2% and topical finasteride user’s experience 1% than it’s safe to say that topical finasteride has half the risk. 

I would then look at efficacy if the oral finasteride is a lot more effective it’s probably not worth trying topical. But if topical is close in efficacy and has less risk of sides it makes it worth trying. That’s how I look at it. You bring an interesting point about microdosing fin. I don’t look at systemic DHT reduction as a metric of efficacy. I look at hair count. Does 0.2mg of fin have a comparable hair count to 1mg? If so, what’s the percentage of side effects? If 0.2 mg is comparable to hair count and has even 0.5% less risk of sides its worth it. 

Anyone have any studies? 

4 minutes ago, NikosHair said:

Both lower systemic DHT serum levels and cause side effects. With topicals, the skin acts as a barrier so less fin gets into the bloodstream, but it also shows less efficacy in growing/maintaining hair.

I haven't seen a study demonstrating topical fin is better (efficacy/low sides) than micro-dosing oral fin. That's the real question you need to ask before dropping $$$ on topicals.

Based on that study you posted the topical had less sides than the oral version. To me it’s pretty clear that its less risk. I’d like to see a study comparing microdosing oral and using a topical. The topical was pretty close to daily fin. How much more effective is daily fin to microdosing? Are there any studies ?

Just now, NikosHair said:

Oral Fin is proven to increase hair count but doesn't work for many due to sides. The holy grail for topicals is getting comparable increases in growth with limited/no systemic reduction in serum DHT. The study demonstrates the fin does go systemic and does reduce serum DHT.

This may explain why many people on the forum complain of sides with topical fin.

 

Finasteride works, so does topical finasteride. The presence of side effects doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. That’s a different question than what you posed. You should’ve posed the question do topicals give you side effects. I don’t think you’re ever gonna find a drug that is 100% side effect free. 

Topical minoxidil still has sides for some but its a lot lower than the oral version. That’s why I use it topically. It seems logical to apply a drug topically to reduce risk, that doesn’t mean it’s completely risk-free. If you’re definition of a drug working is being side effect free I hate to tell ya there’s not a drug out there.

1 minute ago, NikosHair said:

I won't re-hash the discussion in the first couple of pages. Have a read and draw your own conclusions.

Define 'work' in the context of topicals

I would define an increase in hair count as working. How do you define it not working? 

6 minutes ago, NikosHair said:

Great!

What did you learn from the study cited in the opening post and subsequent discussion?

Did you vote or still undecided?

Based on that study it works. I haven’t seen you post anything aside from complaining about the business side. So why doesn’t it work?

1 hour ago, NikosHair said:

There are 5 pages of discussion into all aspects of 'Are topicals just hype and fancy marketing? You've chosen to talk about subscriptions.

• What would you like to share with us on the efficacy of topicals?
• Which studies have you read that convinced you either way?
• What products have you used, and how did they work out for you?

The floor is yours ....

You’re the one who started this thread without providing any of this info yourself, and you’re the one who started complaining about subscriptions not me.

You’re the expert here what have you used? Why are topicals a waste? Instead of complaining about money, tell us the reason why they don’t work. That’s why I’m here to learn. 

21 minutes ago, NikosHair said:

Subscription models very much work on customer apathy and inertia. They remove the friction between purchasing an item and paying for it. Of course, a one-off purchase using a credit card is easier than physically handing over the cash but subscriptions are a marketer's wet dream.

Companies know people are more likely to do nothing than do something. Spending money on a bottle of Jollop requires an action on your part. In contrast, a subscription purchase requires inaction, which is much better for the company's bottom line.

Using the example of a gym membership. Just like the subscription for a topical, the gym says, 'No contract - cancel anytime'. They know it requires action on your part to cancel. The reason you joined the gym was to get rid of the dad bod (or regain hair in the topical example), you can't stand how your appearance has slipped. By cancelling the sub, you effectively throw in the towel and accept your fate. 

People don’t cancel their gym memberships because it’s something they know they should be doing and probably convince themselves that they’re gonna start but never do cause they’re lazy. Having a subscription makes it more convenient. It would be annoying to have to pay each time you use the gym. It seems this thread isn’t really about whether topicals work or not. You should probably change the title to why capitalism is bad. 
 

15 minutes ago, 12345 said:

i don't think this is the same thing.

i think the hair product subscription services trap customers into buying multiple bottles all at once. if the product works, great all parties are happy. if it doesn't, you are stuck with the tab and useless bottles. 

Are they shipping all of the bottles and charging you all at once? I thought you were sent one bottle at a time. 

Just now, NikosHair said:

Medicine doesn't work that way. It is not considered to work until credible studies prove it does work.  The study cited in the opening post is credible, but it also showed significant a systemic reduction in DHT. 

Finasteride is a scientifically proven drug. What the hell are you talking about? Are you trolling? 

1 minute ago, NikosHair said:

I believe the best surgeons do care, as do their staff, that's why they are successful. It's true, some lose their way and look to cash others, unfortunately, get the 'god complex'  but the idea that caring for your patient and making money is mutually exclusive is a fallacy.

They care as long as they’re making money. Your whole argument is pretty dumb. There’s no surgeon out there doing pro bono work. The only thing that matters is whether their work is good. The only thing that matters is whether a product works. If it’s a useless vitamin or snake oil, then it’s bad based on merit. A product either works or it doesn’t. That’s the only thing that matters. 

4 minutes ago, NikosHair said:

The main market for topicals is customers who get sides from orals. The reaction to the meds is wide-ranging. These are precisely the people that aren't looking for a 6-month subscription-based commitment. They need to experiment and find the dose that works for them. For some, a bottle may last a month for others 3 months. 

Not adamant, just sceptical until proven otherwise. If you take the XYON product the only study conducted was carried out by the founder on 6 patients and it didn't even show it grew hair🙄

But as you say it's about making money ....

They can just cancel the subscription if it doesn’t work out for them. I don’t see the problem. It’s not like they’re signing a contract. 

So you’ve never even tried any topical and you’re saying it doesn’t work. XYON isn’t the only topical. It seems like you’re focusing on them cause the relationship with the forum. But they’re not the only topical around. If you’re gonna say something doesn’t work at least have some evidence to back it up. You don’t even have anecdotal evidence of your own.

I’ve never heard of a topical finasteride containing keto.

53 minutes ago, NikosHair said:

If anyone is still in any doubt that the marketers are all over this. 

The use of a subscription-based is another example. Companies love to sign you up for subscriptions. They understand that customer apathy is real. How many people have signed up for audiobooks, gym memberships, recipe boxes, etc only to find they get very little use/value out of the product/service?

Of course, it's just business and people are free to spend their money as they see fit.

Isn’t the hair loss industry as a whole a business? Do you think Propecia started off as a non-profit? Every online pharmaceutical company is subscription based. It’s medication that you need to take to every month so why wouldn’t it be subscription based. 

I hate to break it to you, but surgeons aren’t doing surgery outta the kindness of their hearts. They’re doing it to make money. It’s a cosmetic issue everyone involved is trying to make money. Accusing a company of trying to make money is like pointing out that the sky is blue. 

Duh they’re trying to make money, the question is whether it works. If it works, and there are customers willing to pay who cares. That’s how business works. I can’t try Xyon cause its not in Europe, but I’d try it. Have you tried any topical? Why are you so adamant it doesn’t work? 

10 hours ago, Viking360 said:

You will also require finasteride for the preservation of your pre-existing hair. 

Finasteride is a US FDA-approved medication which is known to stop and reverse progressive thinning (miniaturization of the hair in most cases).

Duration of post-transplant Finasteride: Lifelong (but we can take breaks of 2 to 3 months in between). The dosage can also be revised periodically.

4 minutes ago, Viking360 said:

Euginex is ready to do surgery without prior medication while Pekiner wants me to be on med for at least 6-8 months and do another evaluation.

So the only difference is taking meds after surgery and waiting 6-8 months? I don’t see the point in waiting your still gonna be bald in 6-8 months. 

It’s working are you taking any other med like minoxidil? 

Both said you need to take finasteride the only difference is Pekiner gave you the wrong norwood classification is that what you mean by contrasting?