Are some people choosing FUT for lack of intelligence?

[olmert]

There is a specific reason I ask this, and it is not because I deny that there a pro's and con's to both FUT and FUE. I don't think it is a weighing of these pro's and con's that are guiding people's choices, but rather complete misunderstanding.

 

I've presented the premise that I want to maximize the number of donor grafts. I've heard the claim here that doing a combination of FUT's and FUE's will give you more grafts than doing strictly a series of FUE's. In other words, those wishing to maximize donor grafts, cannot do FUE's alone, but must do FUT's too. I've posted to ask why this would be so. I received nothing but the most retarded answers, basically people claiming 1 + 1 = 3. They usually add in qualifying language and essentially say "In my opinion, 1 plus 1 can equal 3 in some circumstances, but you need a really good doctor, and I can't stress this enough."

 

It is obvious such people are not reading my question carefully enough. Such people also often say "the reason you can get more grafts with an FUT/FUE combination instead of a series of FUE's is that with FUT you get all the hair on the strip, whereas for FUE you only cherry pick a few grafts over the donor area." Only someone who does not understand my question could spout this nonsense.

 

Assume you start out with a donor region of 2.5 inches that contains 10,000 grafts.

 

You have two options.

 

Option 1. Cut with FUT a half inch strip in the middle, which gives 2000 grafts. Allow the remaining 2 inches to stretch out to cover the missing half inch. Now the donor region remains 2.5 inches, but only 8000 grafts cover it.

 

Option 2. Cherry pick with FUE 2000 grafts throughout the entire 2.5 inch region. Now the donor region remains 2.5 inches, with 8000 grafts covering it.

 

 

So why are people making the claim that an FUT/FUE combo will give you more grafts, than doing a series of FUE's? Do not answer that it is because FUT takes every graft from the strip, while FUE cherry picks. That just will tell me you did not read carefully enough.

[Britanium]

See for me i wanted to get the max amount of grafts i could. So by maxing out on strips first (about 6000 grafts in total) i was then able to get FUE which has so far given me around 4000 grafts - cherry picked like you mentioned.

My donor area is now totally used up FUT/FUE this was the only way i could get the amount of grafts i needed,

Yes i was lucky that my scalp had enough laxity for 2 decent strips. And my donor area was dense enough to still have FUE.

Im glad i did it this way. Those of us which need a great number of grafts to get the job done can go this route. Like yourself i have seen some Drs are able to do combined surgery - FUT/FUE.

I think if i had only done either FUT or FUE as a stand alone procedure there is no way i would have got the amount of grafts i did.

And lucky for me i still have BHT i could tap in too.

[GoForIt]

I'd recommend that you go to Dr. Bernstein's website, he's a forum member and he has a good discussion on this topic.

 

 

If you could look into a crystal ball and say where each individuals safe donor region was and harvest over the entire safe region with FUE then you could probably just go with FUE. The older the individual, the less the hair loss, the greater the confidence in the safe region to harvest from.

 

It isn't about 1+1 = 3, but about how you can move the most number of hairs which are safe without compromising the look of the donor region. If you have reasonable scalp laxity you can cut out a portion of the scalp and not affect the apparent density much (though you will have less surface area of hair-bearing scalp). With FUE, you don't decrease the surface area much, but you diffusely decrease the density.

[Squatch]

Yep I'm a stupid bastard! I also used to use the word "retarded" when I was 7 and didn't know any better. I was schooled very quickly on that one. Why do I care what is hidden under my thick donor area hair. I received just what I wanted. It leaves a future option for FUE if needed. I guess everyone can debate this but not a good way to start out a thread with."Are some people choosing FUT for lack of intelligence?"

Maybe something like this would be a better title option, and may not piss a few thousand readers off. "Are some choosing FUT without research?"

Edited November 10, 2014 by Squatch

[Ali Emre Karadeniz]

Assume you start out with a donor region of 2.5 inches that contains 10,000 grafts.

 

You have two options.

 

Option 1. Cut with FUT a half inch strip in the middle, which gives 2000 grafts. Allow the remaining 2 inches to stretch out to cover the missing half inch. Now the donor region remains 2.5 inches, but only 8000 grafts cover it.

 

Option 2. Cherry pick with FUE 2000 grafts throughout the entire 2.5 inch region. Now the donor region remains 2.5 inches, with 8000 grafts covering it.

 

 

So why are people making the claim that an FUT/FUE combo will give you more grafts, than doing a series of FUE's? Do not answer that it is because FUT takes every graft from the strip, while FUE cherry picks. That just will tell me you did not read carefully enough.

 

 

 

The reason why the above example does not apply in real life is that there is skin laxity.

You can assume that there is 3 inches of donor area covering 2,5 inches of bone. Half an inch is potentially hidden in the skin laxity. This actually is the amount you can take out without reducing the density. Only if you take out more than half an inch you will start reducing the density. So it could be,

 

Option 1: You cut out an inch of strip out. You get 2000 grafts but you reduce the density only 1000 grafts, because half an inch was skin laxity, or you can call it extra skin.

 

Option 2: You pick 2000 grafts from the donor area with FUE and you reduce the density by 2000 grafts.

 

Conclusion: To be able to get the most out of the donor area, we need to take advantage of both the skin laxity and the donor density.

[KO]

....How can you take skin out without reducing density...?

[1978matt]

Nice of you to call us retards when you're the one struggling to understand it!

 

For a start, FUE and FUT donor zones are not the same. They are two different areas and follicles are extracted in different ways. The baseline starting point is different for both.

 

The reason you will probably get more hair by taking FUT first is that in ideal conditions 95-98%* of the extracted follicular units (FUs) are dissected under a microscope without damaging them. The value of this increases the bigger the strip you can obtain. So lets say you have exceptional laxity and the doctor gets 5,000 FUs, if 5% have to be discarded you still have 4,750 FUs to use in the recipient area.

 

Now lets imagine a doctor tried to extract those 5,000 FUs from the 'strip area' except this time using the FUE technique. Because it would not be possible to take all 5,000 FUs at once, the doctor would have to do, lets say, 5 FUE sessions of 1,000 FUs each, spread over a 2 year period.

 

During FUE surgery number 1 he makes 1,000 extractions. 10%** of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 900 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 2, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it is a little harder as there is less hair to choose from and more guess work is required. 15% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 850 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 3, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area slightly. 25% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 750 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 4, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less ideal hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area further. 40% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 600 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 5, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from. 50% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 500 are useable.

 

So the total FUE grafts obtained from the 5 sessions is 900+850+750+600+500 = 3,600 FUs

 

Compare this to 4,750 FUs that could have been obtained by starting with FUT.

 

So the reason why it is generally preferable to go FUT first: Every time you FUE the 'strip donor' area a percentage of it is destroyed.

 

Second point: the more you FUE the harder it gets to extract more hair. See example above. Furthermore, everyone has a certain limit as to how much hair can be taken before the donor starts to look thin. For the average density patient it is usually less than what can be taken via FUT.***

 

The particular example you give in Options 1 and 2 is quite conservative being only 2,000 FUs. It's when you get into the 4,000+ range it is better to start FUT (if you can) in order to get the most lifetime donor hair.

 

I could also add that FUT extracts from the safest part of the donor region but some of the so-called 'experts' and 'non-retards' won't like it:).

 

*According to Pathomvanic / Limmer / C.... (Atlanta) studies.

**Transection typically 10-20% for first time patient with some claiming <5% e.g. C... (Atlanta)

***http://www.bhrclinic.com/technique/follicular_unit_extraction/

Edited November 10, 2014 by 1978matt

[Ali Emre Karadeniz]

Nice of you to call us retards when you're the one struggling to understand it!

 

For a start, FUE and FUT donor zones are not the same. They are two different areas and follicles are extracted in different ways. The baseline starting point is different for both.

 

The reason you will probably get more hair by taking FUT first is that in ideal conditions 95-98%* of the extracted follicular units (FUs) are dissected under a microscope without damaging them. The value of this increases the bigger the strip you can obtain. So lets say you have exceptional laxity and the doctor gets 5,000 FUs, if 5% have to be discarded you still have 4,750 FUs to use in the recipient area.

 

Now lets imagine a doctor tried to extract those 5,000 FUs from the 'strip area' except this time using the FUE technique. Because it would not be possible to take all 5,000 FUs at once, the doctor would have to do, lets say, 5 FUE sessions of 1,000 FUs each, spread over a 2 year period.

 

During FUE surgery number 1 he makes 1,000 extractions. 10%** of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 900 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 2, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it is a little harder as there is less hair to choose from and more guess work is required. 15% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 850 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 3, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area slightly. 25% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 750 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 4, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less ideal hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area further. 40% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 600 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 5, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from. 50% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 500 are useable.

 

So the total FUE grafts obtained from the 5 sessions is 900+850+750+600+500 = 3,600 FUs

 

Compare this to 4,750 FUs that could have been obtained by starting with FUT.

 

So the reason why it is generally preferable to go FUT first: Every time you FUE the 'strip donor' area a percentage of it is destroyed.

 

The particular example you give in Options 1 and 2 is quite conservative being only 2,000 FUs. It's when you get into the 4,000+ range it is better to start FUT (if you can) in order to get the most lifetime donor hair.

 

I could also add that FUT extracts from the safest part of the donor region but some of the so-called 'experts' and 'non-retards' won't like it:).

 

*According to Pathomvanic / Limmer / C.... (Atlanta) studies.

**Transection typically 10-20% for first time patient with some claiming <5% e.g. C... (Atlanta)

 

 

Dear Matt,

 

That is just a perfect explanation of one of the most important reasons why it is clearly better to start with FUT for a life time higher coverage. Unfortunately people don't think about the long term and the hair market takes advantage of this. 4000-5000 grafts FUE procedures are performed to give an excellent result, but finishing off the donor area completely. There is just not enough time for those patients to get older, find about their donor area, complain about their surgeons decision and damage the surgeons reputation. There is not enough time and memory of patients to refute this mistake of the surgeons and the surgeons will surely get away with it.

[Rootz]

During FUE surgery number 1 he makes 1,000 extractions. 10%** of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 900 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 2, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it is a little harder as there is less hair to choose from and more guess work is required. 15% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 850 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 3, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area slightly. 25% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 750 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 4, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less ideal hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area further. 40% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 600 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 5, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from. 50% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 500 are useable.

 

So the total FUE grafts obtained from the 5 sessions is 900+850+750+600+500 = 3,600 FUs

 

Compare this to 4,750 FUs that could have been obtained by starting with FUT.

 

So the reason why it is generally preferable to go FUT first: Every time you FUE the 'strip donor' area a percentage of it is destroyed.

 

Second point: the more you FUE the harder it gets to extract more hair. See example above. Furthermore, everyone has a certain limit as to how much hair can be taken before the donor starts to look thin. For the average density patient it is usually less than what can be taken via FUT.***

 

The particular example you give in Options 1 and 2 is quite conservative being only 2,000 FUs. It's when you get into the 4,000+ range it is better to start FUT (if you can) in order to get the most lifetime donor hair.

 

I could also add that FUT extracts from the safest part of the donor region but some of the so-called 'experts' and 'non-retards' won't like it:).

 

*According to Pathomvanic / Limmer / C.... (Atlanta) studies.

**Transection typically 10-20% for first time patient with some claiming <5% e.g. C... (Atlanta)

***BHR Clinic - Hair Transplant Clinic - FUE, Strip and Repair Surgery - Brussels

 

The hyperbole and generalization in the above explanation is kind of appalling. If you don't have some type of vested interest in FUT I would honestly be surprised.

 

The short answer as to why more people do FUT than FUE is, 1) People tend to trust doctors more than they should, 2) Most doctors do FUT and are more than happy to recommend it, 3) People tend to jump into decisions with improper research, especially when a doctor is giving them a thumbs up to do it

[KO]

FUT also damages grafts during strip removal.

 

You can assume that there is 3 inches of donor area covering 2,5 inches of bone. Half an inch is potentially hidden in the skin laxity. This actually is the amount you can take out without reducing the density.

 

Bump, can you explain this point? How can you take out hair without reducing density?

[olmert]

1. As to 1978matt’s points, I must first thank him for not saying "1+1=3.” But at this day and age, 1) can’t you go to a mega FUE guy, like Dr. Bhatii and get 5000 FUE’s in one session? And moreover is the transection rate really reduced by a whopping 50% by the fifth FUE? ; 2) Furthermore, don’t a lot of doctors say their FUE transection rate are just 2% worse their FUT transection rate: a 10% transection rate sounds fine to me, while a 50% transection rate sounds so bad that I would not get the surgery.

 

2. drkaradeniz’s point is very hard to understand. KO argues that it is false, that it is 1 + 1 = 3.

 

According to KO, say you took a strip of hair 2 inches wide with 3,000 hair follicles. Say you then compressed it and bunched it up, so that instead of covering 2 inches, it now covers one inch. Now you have 3,000 follicles per inch, instead of 3,000 follicle per two inches. KO says that the hair will look twice as dense after the bunching. drkaradeniz says that no, the hair will not look more dense because bunching skin together does not cause the appearance of denser hair. If this is really true, this is a very hard concept to follow. Does drkaradeniz means it is true? Is drkaradeniz instead saying the very believable claim that the hair is so dense in the FUT donor region that you can never perceive the reduced density that comes from taking the first 4,000 follicles? This, I have heard before: with very dense hair, the human eye cannot notice a small reduction in density, so while harvesting hair reduces density, it will not be noticed.

[Number47]

 

Conclusion: To be able to get the most out of the donor area, we need to take advantage of both the skin laxity and the donor density.

 

We can also add a scalp reduction to reduce the overall area of the balding scalp but noone wants to do it.

 

Its 2014 we have heard these arguments for a long time, they might have worked back then but the truth is in the results. And from the results we see from FUE alone we don't feel there there is any need for strip. Since you are from Turkey you must have seen the threads from your colleagues in here, if your results are more impressive using Strip and FUE we cannot wait to see them!

[Mickey85]

 

During FUE surgery number 1 he makes 1,000 extractions. 10%** of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 900 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 2, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it is a little harder as there is less hair to choose from and more guess work is required. 15% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 850 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 3, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area slightly. 25% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 750 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 4, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less ideal hair to choose from and scar tissue distorts the donor area further. 40% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 600 are useable.

 

During FUE surgery number 5, he makes another 1,000 extractions. This time it gets even harder as there is even less hair to choose from. 50% of the follicles are damaged during extraction so only 500 are useable.

 

]

 

This is such utter fallacy I do not even know where to begin. Why do you make zero mention of the dormant grafts that exist in a strip that cannot be used and are discarded? Surely you must compare apples with apples. Where on Earth did you get such figures as 40% of follicles being damaged on a 4th FUE procedure? Even more ridiculous is the assertion that 50% of the grafts in the 5th procedure are damaged. Do you have any evidence of this? Considering you state a specific figure I'm assuming you have evidence enforce this? This is complete hyperbole and erroneous.

 

Now I do not support the notion that anyone who chooses strip has a lack of intelligence, but I will not stand idly by while pure fictitious claims are being made.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Mickey85

[Spanker]

I don't understand what the issue is. No matter how much a person may wish that you could get just as many grafts through fue alone, wishing, theoretical math, ifs, ands, or buts, it's just a fact that unless you have a very tight scalp, you'll be able to get more grafts using both methods. It's been explained in several threads in great detail by educated posters and a physician. If there is a physician who would like to come forward (including an fue only doc) and state that this is not the case, I'd be greatly interested. The more laxity you have, the more you'll get out of a combination route than fue only. I just really don't understand why this is a difficult concept to accept. I'm being serious and but trying to be confrontational. It just is what it is. There is a saying that goes, "The truth is the truth whether everyone believes it or whether no one believes it." I think it's fitting here.

 

Not everyone will need that many grafts, not everyone will think it's worth the trade of the scar for the extra grafts, and strip is definitely not for everyone, nor is fue. I'm not saying that fue is bad, or not good, but to argue that you can get just as many grafts using fue only is wishful thinking, not true, and doesn't do anyone any good. It's just misinformation, plain and simple. That's really the end of the story on the matter.

 

I still support both procedures but scalp traits and the math on the subject paints a very plain picture.

 

That's really all I have to say on the matter. Everyone should do their research and choose the method that's best for them. Don't forget that it's the front if your face that you look at every morning in the mirror and the most important thing is how the grafts are put in and less so how they are taken out imo, but how they are taken out seems to take up the most energy.

[Mickey85]

I don't understand what the issue is. No matter how much a person may wish that you could get just as many grafts through fue alone, wishing, theoretical math, ifs, ands, or buts, it's just a fact that unless you have a very tight scalp, you'll be able to get more grafts using both methods. It's been explained in several threads in great detail by educated posters and a physician. If there is a physician who would like to come forward (including an fue only doc) and state that this is not the case, I'd be greatly interested. The more laxity you have, the more you'll get out of a combination route than fue only. I just really don't understand why this is a difficult concept to accept. I'm being serious and but trying to be confrontational. It just is what it is. There is a saying that goes, "The truth is the truth whether everyone believes it or whether no one believes it." I think it's fitting here.

 

Not everyone will need that many grafts, not everyone will think it's worth the trade of the scar for the extra grafts, and strip is definitely not for everyone, nor is fue. I'm not saying that fue is bad, or not good, but to argue that you can get just as many grafts using fue only is wishful thinking, not true, and doesn't do anyone any good. It's just misinformation, pain and simple. That's really the end of the story on the matter.

 

I still support both procedures but scalp traits and the math on the subject paints a very plain picture.

 

That's really all I have to say on the matter. Everyone should do their research and choose the method that's best for them. Don't forget that it's the front if your face that you look at every morning in the mirror and the most important thing imo is how the grafts are put in and less so how they are taken out imo, but how they are taken out seems to take up the most energy.

 

Very true.

[olmert]

Spanker, but you aren’t giving any reason, or you are giving a reason I can’t see. Are you saying it is so because of the higher transection rate for FUE, and saying FUE docs who claim only 2% higher transection rates with FUE are wrong?

 

Perhaps you say the combination will get more grafts because FUT takes the grafts from the entire strip instead of cherry picking with FUE. This seems illogical reasoning. After the strip is taken the neighboring skin gets stretched out, so is essentially cherry picked too.

 

My example shows this is faulty logic. Assume you start out with a donor region of 2.5 inches that contains 10,000 grafts.

 

You have two options.

 

Option 1. Cut with FUT a half inch strip in the middle, which gives 2000 grafts. Allow the remaining 2 inches to stretch out to cover the missing half inch. Now the donor region remains 2.5 inches, but only 8000 grafts cover it.

 

Option 2. Cherry pick with FUE 2000 grafts throughout the entire 2.5 inch region. Now the donor region remains 2.5 inches, with 8000 grafts covering it.

 

Dr.Karadeniz at least gives a reason. He says when you stretch skin out through FUT the skin gets stretched but the hair somehow doesn’t get any thinner. He says the FUT donor region gets no less dense with hair because it started out bunched up and relieving the bunch up means the donor region gets no thinner even though you took away hairs. This reasoning makes no sense to me and KO, but at least Dr.Karadeniz gives some reason, instead of declaring it self evident.

 

1978Matt gives a reason. He says the transection rate is higher with FUE, while Mickey85 says the transection rate is barely higher.

 

The extent of your reason is “it is just a fact.” Are you saying people have tried both ways in the past, and the people doing FUE/FUT ended up with more grafts, while no one knows why?

Edited November 11, 2014 by olmert

[Mickey85]

 

1978Matt gives a reason. He says the transection rate is higher with FUE, while Mickey85 says the transection rate is barely higher.

 

 

 

Allow me to be lucid. I believe yields with FUE and strip are largely dependant on the surgeon and clinic. I believe a surgeon like Lorenzo(FUE only) will generally have a better yield than a strip surgeon like Dr. Carman(my opinion). I don't believe all strip surgeons obtain a 95% yield on average and I don't believe all FUE surgeons obtain a 90% yield on average. If we compare two elite surgeons from both fields like Konior(strip) and Lorenzo(FUE) I believe their yields are very comparable in general. One case may have slightly better yield than the other but if averaged out, I personally do not see a huge discrepancy between elite surgeons of the two given methods. Now if you want to compare an elite surgeon like Konior's strip results to an average composite(FUE and strip) surgeon's FUE results, I would not be surprised if Koniors result is significantly more impressive. Doctors like Lorenzo, Bisanga and Reddy have shown that FUE can obtain a yield comparable to the results of elite strip surgeons so the actual method(FUE or strip) is not the primary factor, surgeon/clinic skill and ability is.

 

I don't believe patients who undergo strip are lacking intelligence in their choice or in general. I think 1978Matt got an amazing result as did Spanker. Could their results have been achieved via FUE? It is very possible(given donor density and other factors) but it is very possible that they wanted to utilize strip first and leave FUE for later if their balding progressed in the future. I cannot fault them for that. I personally do favor FUE for most circumstances but do not agree with the title of the thread and/or the notion that people who elect to undergo strip are unintelligent. I personally would find that characterisation insulting as I am sure some forum members have.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Mickey85

[mikeey]

Mickey85 who can debate your wisdom with FUE , its all known here that u have indepth knowledge in this area . I personally think that given today , MOST of people want to go FUE not becos of what u explained , BUT becos many are shit scared of FUT as it involved scalp cutting , and in general is painful and more abrasive and the healing time is Large ! BUT Fue is not 100 % either , I think most surgeons can achieve 80 % grafts on average and not like 95 % as some FUE Docs here claim , its near Impossible , maybe some Selling Tricks which I think Most people here know it already . But I am strongly against any clinic who preforms more than ONE Large FUE session per day , Its really gonna be a Haste and the Results will definitely not be Optimal , yea we all like Money but a Hair Mill .... No No Never !

[KO]

^Yes, that is correct, most including I believe Mickey, agree that FUT has higher yield. I also agree on these uber large FUE sessions. I think 2-2.5k/day should be about the max.

[scar5]

Dear Matt,

 

That is just a perfect explanation

 

Indeed it is.

Here you have a strip doctor patting the back a poster peddling the 'good 'ol gospel"..What a croc of $%&!

All of it is rubbish beginning to end.

 

The reason FUT is better first is because it suits the strip industry and the strip industry owned the HT landscape for so, so long, that so many have invested in it emotionally and financially,

 

All of that Matt stuff is a pile of crap..., and the docs stuff is utter nonsense too.

This density does not decrease nonsense! What a load of... I have no words..no patience.. absolute rubbish.

Five more years will bury this for good!

[Al - Moderator]

Suppose you get 6000+ fue done over the course of several years and are at the point where your donor area density is looking thin. It will be thinning throughout the entire donor area.

 

Suppose you had 6000+ strip done instead. You are asking why isn't the thinning the same since you would be stretching whatever area hasn't been touched, so it should look mostly the same as the fue.

 

My theory (and just about everyone else's who says you can get more from strip) is that you don't get as much stretch from strip to equal the same look as the removed hairs from fue.

 

Why not you ask? Suppose that after you did the 6000+ fue you were then able to remove a third or so of all of the fue scars and bunch them up into a long thin line from ear to ear. This is what you would have if you did strip. A lot of the thinning is condensed into that single long line of scar that usually isn't noticeable when your hair is combed over it.

 

Now if you had a strip scar and wanted to buzz your head then you may end up getting 800 to 1000 fue to cover the strip and then you are back to the same as doing fue only.

 

Is that understandable?

[KO]

^An interesting way to put it....but I am suspicious that a "pencil-thin" scar would have enough surface area to account for what you say.

[Al - Moderator]

^An interesting way to put it....but I am suspicious that a "pencil-thin" scar would have enough surface area to account for what you say.

 

Perhaps, but there is still more to it :-)

 

With fue it's also all of the small circular scars that begin to show through that gives the area the moth eaten look. This can especially happen in certain lighting and/or viewing angles when the thousands of shiny, white, slightly raised fue dots can be seen through the thin amount of hair that's left.

 

However with strip even if the area is just as thin as fue, it would still have an overall normal and more natural look to it because you won't see any white dot scars showing though. So it may be thinner than before having any HTs, but everyone's hair density is different, so it won't be so noticeable to anyone.

 

Just to note: I'm not for or against either one. I think both have their place and it depends a lot on the patient.

[GoForIt]

Reach back onto your head and pinch your scalp. Most people can pinch a roll of skin. There is some redundancy. When you cut out the strip, you essentially are doing a scalp reduction. You have some stretchback (which is why scalp reductions didn't work too well), but it isn't 100%. Think of it as a tummy tuck for your scalp - why would people have tummy tucks if the skin were to just stretch back to the original size?

 

The goal isn't to get FUE or FUT, but to maintain or create the fullest head of hear with the most coverage. FUE, FUT, and medications are tools

[Shampoo]

Now I do not support the notion that anyone who chooses strip has a lack of intelligence

 

I agree

and go one step further and say anyone that states

"someone choosing strip over FUE has a lack of IQ"

actually has a lack of IQ themselves!