FUT is more popular than FUE

[Swooping]

Swoop,

 

Only time will tell! However, I remember reading the same thing in 2008, 2009, 2010 ... and yet here we are 5,6,7 years later still having the same debate. I'm not saying FUE won't continue to increase in popularity, but there are a set of patients who will still weigh yield and characteristics over the scar and will chose it. To many, it may seem like a silly choice. But this is why I keep going on and on about why I think surgeons should be skilled in both and why the right procedure should still be offered to the right patient.

 

Unless something drastically changes, our surgical options in 2025 will be FUE and strip. The gentleman like I described above will still exist. And the 55 year old, NW 6 who is looking for a quick fix to help him find a new girl is going to want strip.

 

And, again, I don't care. I have no reason to promote one above the other. I could take out a loan tomorrow, open a tech FUE clinic in a state allowing it. I could get online and say my style of FUE has 95% yield -- with no evidence besides my word, throw up 1-2 good cases a month, charge $5 a graft, and live happily. But I don't think it's the right thing to do.

 

In 2025 I barely see a place for FUT, just looking at how the market will move from both a demand and supply perspective. At most it will be a small niche. I think all the evidence is already moving towards this.

 

Neither have I any reason to promote one above the other Blake. You make good points and you know I agree with your point about FUT yielding overall better results. However in a good FUT vs a good FUE practitioner scenario I believe this is marginal. I already outlined however that when we step down and we take a average FUT practitioner vs a average FUE practitioner (take the first best hair clinic mill in Turkey as an example) the difference will be way bigger.

 

Also, yes it makes sense that some people who really need to have every hair follicle used from the back of their head need to opt for a approach of both FUT and FUE.

 

However this doesn't dictate the overall demand. Consumers do and it's clear what they want. Take into account that supply is shifting towards FUE too (this wasn't the case a few years ago). Makes it all easier for FUE.

 

I think I have made my point already now though haha.

 

Anyway I wish you good luck with mFUE and look forward to more documentation. Maybe this will combine the best of both worlds? I sure do hope so!

[JoeTillman]

Yup. Seems like we are basically on the same page. And I didn't think about how few of these clinics would be ISHRS affiliated. You're right about that.

 

I think I may be a little less clear about the affiliations though. If you do have an ongoing financial relationship with these doctors, I think any reader would assume there is some incentive to align with their business model? I think this would be even more true with the FUE-only doctor. How is this different than aligning with strip while you were working with H&W? I understand that you work for/own an organization that consults with the clinics instead of being an actual employee, but I feel like the end results are similar?

 

Maybe I'm just not understanding, but feel free to reply privately or at a more appropriate time if need be.

 

Blake,

 

I'm fine responding publicly because it needs to be said but I don't want to derail this thread in doing so. The problem is that what I do is not easily defined. The easiest answer would be to say that the clinics I work with pay me a monthly retainer for my positive acknowledgement. The reality is that it goes much further than that but I'll simply say that I am a 100% pro-patient educator that helps clinics navigate the online world and work with them to find better ways to interact with patients, those that are happy and those that are unhappy.

 

My alignments come from those that see value in my input, considers my recommendations and wishes to integrate my extremely unique experience. If I don't agree with their approach to begin with and I don't like their style then I won't work with them. It's as simple as that and is why no doctor I work with can expect me to blindly push their position on an issue if I don't agree with it and that is why I "screen" those I'm dealing with now. Screeing those that wish to work with me helps me to avoid any conflicts of opinion and helps to insure that we can have a good working relationship.

 

One of my goals is to increase their business but I want to do so in an indirect manner that comes from positive overall recognition and for patient service both before and after treatment. The results matter but lets be honest; today there are more clinics than ever that do really good work so now, for me, the big difference is in clinic behavior toward the patient. Don't misunderstand however, I'm not saying there aren't clinics to be weary of based on results alone. Far from it but the chances of getting really bad work are greatly diminished with groups such as HTN to help patients along.

 

I feel blessed to have several clinics contacting me of late and I am in discussions with some (not all) of them to learn more about how they do things. This means that if I like what I see then there will be more doctors I'll be making announcement about. I am not taking on clinics just because of who they may be or how much money they may be offering me. I'm taking on clinics that have what I feel are good values to do the right thing and a desire to do really good work without worrying too much about their ego. To me, ego is the enemy of real patient service because when the doctor is more concerned about himself than his patient then the patient lost before he even started with surgery and they don't even realize it. My goal is to help avoid this as much as possible and in order to do so, I have to be paid for my time.

Edited June 18, 2015 by JoeTillman

[MAGNUMpi]

Hi Joe and Blake,

Thanks for letting us be privy to this very well informed discussion. I might have missed it but would it be fair to say you both agree that:

1. FUE results in less yield (more or less)?

2. Its better to FUSS first and then FUE if you want to access 6,000+ grafts over a life time?

I dont want to stir the pot just wondering if I understand.

Thanks guys.

[Blake Bloxham]

Hey Mag,

 

Yeah, I think you pretty much got it:

 

1) We do both agree yield with FUE is less. I do think we differ slightly on the amount and how much this matters, but the core of what you wrote is correct; we both agree it's less

 

2) Yeah, I think this is probably the way to get the most lifetime grafts. Doing strips first leaves a lot of virgin tissue to use for FUE down the road. Not true for the inverse. You also get thinning after removing around 50% donor via FUE, so you can get a ton of grafts this way, but you'll get since thinning if you go too high.

[LondonHTseeker]

The reason I chose FUE (2500 grafts) from a Turkish surgeon after 3 FUTs (for 4000 grafts total) with Dr Feller was price. But now I'm beginning to wish I didn't, because I need at least 1500 more grafts into my frontal hair and my donor area is now severely thinned. If Dr Feller can't do his mFUE on me due to over-depleted donor region I may have to consider another FUT (possibly for a questionable amount of grafts) or some FUE in combination with FUE body hair.

 

If you want at least 3000 more potential grafts from your donor area, people, I say go FUT then FUE last, or mFUE. Dr Feller is right, it makes sense. Even a stretched strip scar such as mine is often (usually?) preferable to losing donor supply.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

I agree, Magnum.

 

If you cut away all the personal attacks and wishful thinking it comes down to the best approach being FUT followed by FUE (or mFUE) for the most efficient use of donor resources.

 

Notice that even after thousands of hits not a single doctor has come on here to dispute these statements in fact? And after literally thousands of hits in a week you can be sure this thread has been read by most or all of the major players. It's making the rounds.

 

But as I've offered in the past, if anyone THINKS their favorite doctor would dispute the claims made here, I am happy to make a three way phone call to that doctor, record the discussion with their permission, and then post it right here online. All I ask is that the person reveal their name and address so that they can ever more be held accountable for their actions in the light of day as I and my colleagues are.

 

To date: no takers.

[Dr. Alan Feller]

The reason I chose FUE (2500 grafts) from a Turkish surgeon after 3 FUTs (for 4000 grafts total) with Dr Feller was price. But now I'm beginning to wish I didn't, because I need at least 1500 more grafts into my frontal hair and my donor area is now severely thinned. If Dr Feller can't do his mFUE on me due to over-depleted donor region I may have to consider another FUT (possibly for a questionable amount of grafts) or some FUE in combination with FUE body hair.

 

If you want at least 3000 more potential grafts from your donor area, people, I say go FUT then FUE last, or mFUE. Dr Feller is right, it makes sense. Even a stretched strip scar such as mine is often (usually?) preferable to losing donor supply.

 

There you have it. My concerns embodied in actuality.

 

London, I'm off this week, but will view your photos when I get back to the office on Tuesday and really pour over them. I'll PM you then.

Best.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Dr. Alan Feller

[JohnCasper]

Dr. Feller, pretty impressive rant supporting FUT and hammering FUE. This is a before and after picture of my FUE procedure. If you examined my results you would probably guess that I must be an FUT patient but would probably be surprised when you DIDN'T see an 8 inch linear scar on the back of my head.

[Sethticles]

There you have it. My concerns embodied in actuality. .

 

 

Well Dr Bhatti is performing BHT beard HT - he'll be happy to answer any questions if you think your are all donor'ed out..

[Dr. Alan Feller]

Perhaps, John. But I wouldn't be surprised by the tremendous amount of scarring and fibrosis within your donor area which would hamper future procedures and yields.

 

You also make my point for me, which is that you inevitably compare FUE to FUT. It has been 14 years since its introduction and FUE still can't stand on it's own but rather still has to compare itself to FUT.

 

If you read the first post of this thread it's that FUT is more popular than FUE. Not that FUE should be hammered. In fact few HT procedures worldwide are of the FUE variety. They are FUT. But since FUT is so well established it doesn't get the press it used to anymore.

 

It's like solar power. You hear about it's wonders all the time and how it compares to gas/coal powered generation of electricity. But do you ever read about how great gas/coal powered generation plants are at producing electricity? Never. In fact, they are derided all the time as terrible for the environment and a blight. Yet it is STILL the standard that we all rely on. Like FUT it is the unsung bedrock of electrical production; yet it is solar panels that get all of the press and the admiration from the masses. It is wishful thinking that makes this happen, along with a disdain for the conventional. Same thing for the FUT vs FUE debate. You can have your solar panels, I'll take a generator.

 

You wrote that I hammered FUE. I didn't. Read what I wrote again. I merely exposed aspects of FUE that were clearly being ignored, denied, or suppressed by those who do not perform them. I am not anti FUE, it has it's place and I perform them regularly. I just disagree with large numbers of FUE. Strip is simply better and safer.

 

John, you wrote in your post that I would be surprised NOT to find a linear scar on your head. Why would I or anyone else look unless you went out of your way to show us? You have plenty of donor hair with which to cover any scar, so who cares?

 

By the way, you have massive scarring which I would see if I examined you, it just wouldn't be linear in nature. And the chances of an FUE megassion producing visible donor thinning is much higher than that for strip simply due to the shockloss factor.

 

With thousands of hits this topic can't fairly be called a rant, but rather an eye opener and revelation for many. Rants don't produce this amount of interest from so many. You and your doctor included.

[Blake Bloxham]

John,

 

You had 7k FUE grafts placed several years apart, right? Also, do you have any hairline shots?

[KO]

Blake, do you not think Feller calling Mickey85 a "bully" is a personal attack?

 

Blake, any thoughts?

[delancey]

Dr. Feller, pretty impressive rant supporting FUT and hammering FUE. This is a before and after picture of my FUE procedure. If you examined my results you would probably guess that I must be an FUT patient but would probably be surprised when you DIDN'T see an 8 inch linear scar on the back of my head.

 

What's your donor density?

And how many grafts do you have left for the future?

[Swooping]

Perhaps, John. But I wouldn't be surprised by the tremendous amount of scarring and fibrosis within your donor area which would hamper future procedures and yields.

 

Really? I only hear this from your mouth. Doesn't make sense to me seeing the morphology of the dermal macro-environment and how a graft would be extracted. Furthermore there are observational facts which would disprove your point, you have nowhere to stand on with this point.

 

Furthermore do you think top FUE practitioners will concur with you on this point?

 

JoeTillman what is your view on the above statement from Feller?

 

If you read the first post of this thread it's that FUT is more popular than FUE. Not that FUE should be hammered. In fact few HT procedures worldwide are of the FUE variety. They are FUT. But since FUT is so well established it doesn't get the press it used to anymore.

 

No comment ..

 

By the way, you have massive scarring which I would see if I examined you, it just wouldn't be linear in nature. And the chances of an FUE megassion producing visible donor thinning is much higher than that for strip simply due to the shockloss factor.

 

Shockloss is temporary. Assuming you go with a skilled FUE practitioner who doesn't harvest to close and doesn't cause transection in neighboring hair follicles there should be no visible donor thinning. It's that simple.

 

If you talk about these cherry nit pick nuances for FUE why don't you tell people how a linear scar could stretch in some phenotypes even if it is perfectly closed?

 

Honestly, I'm enjoying your bias here. You make it sound like this topic is a eye opener for people. Man... The only thing people will see in this topic is how weak you stand and how biased you are.

 

Oh btw these are not unique hits what you see. You can F5 refresh this page and up the views of this topic if that makes you happy.

[Blake Bloxham]

KO,

 

To be honest, I feel a little too close to the situation. I think it would be best to ask Dave or Bill to evaluate. I'm more than happy to forward it to them if you'd like.

[Blake Bloxham]

Hey Swoop,

 

Dr Feller isn't really referring to the environment of the deep dermis/superficial subcutaneous layer itself or transection of surrounding follicles during FUE extraction. He's talking about the "confluence of scarring" that occurs from making multiple insults to the skin mere millimeters apart from one another.

 

Let me explain (and I'm sure you're already aware of a lot of this):

 

Anytime the skin is injuried, a predictable cycle of wound healing occurs. This starts off with a general and non-specific inflammation, followed by a period of cellular proliferation, maturation, and eventually remodeling into what we consider a scar.

 

What isn't frequently discussed, however, is that there is far more to wound healing that what we see above the skin. The inflammation phase of wound healing, as I said above, is very non-specific. This means that when you make a cut of X length on the surface of the skin, the area of inflammation under the skin is actually much larger - think 2(X), 3(X) etc. This initial period of inflammation creates signals that determine the area of wound healing under the skin. Because it's much larger than the cut/scar we see on the surface, the remodeled, matured scar tissue under the surface is much bigger as well.

 

Take a look at this image:

 

 

 

Note how the area of initial inflammation is much bigger than the cut itself. Also note how the scar tissue made from the fibroblasts (fibrosis) ends up cover this entire area. So, as you can see, a small cut on the skin led to a larger area of fibrosis.

 

Now, think of the cut shown in the image as a 1mm FUE punch. As you can probably see, 1mm punch through the skin actually ends up being 2mm, 3mm, etc, of fibrotic scarring under the skin. Now image that you do this 3,000 times with your spacing between the punches being less than your area of inflammation under the skin. What's going to happen? You're going to get a much larger, diffuse sheet of scarring underneath.

 

If this encroaches into the area of other follicles -- which it most certainly will -- extraction becomes much less certain from here on out.

 

Now, I've heard lots of people simply reply to my example with "nope, doesn't happen; the donor area is unchanged after large FUE procedures." To me, this just doesn't make sense. It's pretty basic physiology, and I don't really see the controversy.

 

Now, saying it decreases yield of future procedures or makes future extractions more difficult/variable is more of a theory than the above scientific facts, but it's not a hard conclusion to draw based on the known physiology.

[JoeTillman]

Dr. Feller and Blake are correct in that FUE creates a larger overall surface area of scarring than does FUSS. I've seen this in cross-sections of donor strip tissue removed during FUSS procedures after previous FUE procedures were performed on the same donor zone. The difference is quite shocking actually as for each and every donor extraction with FUE you get a direct 1 to 1 ratio of scar tissue, albeit on a micro level. The superficial scar formation usually appears to be slightly smaller than the original extraction point but the math doesn't lie. 3000 FUE extractions using even a .7mm punch, on the smaller side of what most doctors will use, will leave a rough total surface area of scar tissue measuring approximately 2100 mm2. Even if the resulting scar formation from each extraction is smaller than the tool used to make it there is still a substantial amount of scar tissue.Take a proper strip to get 3000 grafts and, assuming a donor density of 80 fu per cm2 and a strip 1cm wide the length of the strip will be 37.5cm long. Assuming a 2mm wide donor scar once properly healed and you have 74mm2 total surface area of scar tissue. Many times you can take a shorter strip that is wider, say 2cm instead of 1cm, and the total scar tissue surface area is halved at roughly 28mm2 with FUSS.

 

As I said earlier, the math doesn't lie but the problem is that the above math is only correct if the components of the equations are absolutes. Unfortunately in FUSS, absolutes do not exist across the board because no matter how perfect the routine is in any clinic; no matter how experienced a team may be, there is one variable that can never be nailed to perfection. The patient. This is why donor scars are not 100% predictable and why we see patients going in for revisions or camouflage, etc. regardless of who their surgeon was or what kind of stellar reputation they may have.

 

Now, the degree to which the underlying scar tissue expands beyond the borders of the initial extraction are debatable and unquantifiable and will forever be a variable that can never be nailed down but both FUE and FUSS will have expanded scar tissue below the epidermis. What is not being discussed is how FUSS also has a diminishing return with each subsequent procedure.

 

1.The overall harvest diminishes, in my estimation, approximately 30% to 40% with each subsequent procedure, assuming max harvest is attempted each time and favorable donor scars are generated. This is due to compounding amounts of tension.

 

2. Donor scars often, not always, interfere with clean donor strip removal and the second donor scar rarely heals quite as well as the first. It can be close but the chances of it being wider than the first is higher to varying degrees.

 

3. It is my opinion that donor shock levels can increase with each subsequent procedure as tension becomes more and more of a factor to work with and tension, particularly in the mastoid processes, is the enemy. If tension is too high in this area shock will most likely occur and it doesn't always come back. Most of the time it does but it is not 100% for each and every patient.

 

4. With each subsequent FUSS procedure the distortion of growth direction in the donor zone increases as any transition of direction is removed thus leaving a sharp turn in the donor hair. This is a non-issue with fairly conservative hair styles utilizing lengths equivalent to a #5 guard or longer but if you go shorter then it potentially becomes more evident. I have this in my own donor zone at shorter lengths, around a #3 guard length but not at longer lengths. Does it bother me? Not really and no one around me sees it but it is there nonetheless.

 

I could go on but the fact remains that Dr. Feller and Dr. Bloxham are correct in their assertions, there is more scar tissue formation in the donor zone from FUE than will be found with FUSS and there is no argument that is valid to the contrary. The question then becomes one of yield on subsequent FUE procedures. Does the yield decrease? If so, why?

 

It is noted by some that when scar tissue forms in the donor area the peripheral hairs are distorted from their natural angles of growth and it can be more difficult to extract each follicular unit because of this. I have seen this too in cross sections of donor strip tissue taken after previous FUE procedures were performed in the same donor zone. Is it enough to cause an increased transection rate? Yes and no. I think this is what separates the experienced extractors from the inexperienced extractors. It is my opinion that the issue of reduced tension for subsequent FUSS procedures is mirrored in FUE by the slower pace necessary to navigate such issues thus reducing the total harvest in subsequent FUE procedures, not because of tension, but because the slower pace does not allow for the same number of grafts to be extracted as the first pass allowed.

 

And the real issue is this. Most of what is laid out above, while entirely true and accurate, is academic for most but it ignores the elephant in the room, the reason why patients undergo surgical hair restoration in the first place. We can all point to cases left and right that support the back and forth arguments as much as we want; one guy's thinned donor zone is another man's stretched donor scar, etc. etc., but patients want the best cosmetic improvement for their appearance that is possible and in a growing number of minds having a strip scar is a step backwards from an otherwsie wonderful but flawed procedure known as FUSS and the way that the proficiency of *SOME* FUE clinics has improved (note that I did not say technique, because it is the same as it was 15 years ago), the trade off in lower yield is worth not having a strip scar for a lot of people.

 

And to reiterate, I'm not campaigning against FUSS, not in the slightest. I still stand by my position that in order to get the maximum amount of grafts safely one should consider FUSS till stripped out then supplement with FUE but that is only if you can handle having a strip scar of any kind and you aren't fresh out of a bar getting your inaugural "I'm 21" cocktail and lapdance:) Many cannot but many don't care about a strip scar so it comes down to being informed of what the reality is behind each option available to the patient. That is my mission and why I'm not firmly on either side of the fence on these issues. Each procedure has it's merits and to be honest, the only merit of FUE is no strip scar and in every other category there is a potentially lower ROI than with FUSS to varying degrees. I am simply acknowledging the reality of the world we live in today by saying the truth is not always relevant in that no matter how good FUSS may look to a patient they will still choose FUE because of the strip scar. Period. End of discussion. Mic drops, exit stage left.

Edited June 18, 2015 by JoeTillman

[Swooping]

I understand but I don't agree with the point you make that the scar tissue formed will be bigger than the wound itself. Is this really true? I just quickly read one article and watched this presentation about wound healing to refresh some things;

 

 

Have a look at the wound contraction specifics starting from the inflammatory phase wherein macrophages are present. The visualization implies that the deposit of scarring wouldn't be bigger than the wound itself. In fact it would get smaller due to constriction. I'm far from a expert on wound healing but if you can refer me to literature that says otherwise then please do.

 

However in the assumption that it does happen. Why would that matter? You know yourself that neighboring hair follicles happily continuously grow happily when grafts are extracted around them. If there would really be a deposit of scarring tissue (much) bigger than the wound itself wouldn't we actually see more evidence of this? Wouldn't this retard the growth of neighboring hair follicles way more? Wouldn't we see more a scarring alopecia type of thing? Which as you know is literally infiltration of scar tissue which leads to irreversible destruction of the hair follicle. We don't though do we?

 

Now let's assume that there is however infiltration bigger than the wound itself and it does infiltrate around healthy hair follicles. Why would this matter? After all the hair follicle is happily growing in the environment he is left in.

[Blake Bloxham]

Joe,

 

Excellent post.

 

Swoop,

 

Yeah. It happens. It's just physiology. The contraction phase is part of the remodeling phase of wound healing. The size is already well determined at that point. The scar is just making some fine tuning. The scar tissue won't affect the growth of surrounding follicles, but it will create more difficult extraction. The argument is whether or not this decreases success of future extractions in the region.

[Swooping]

The question then becomes one of yield on subsequent FUE procedures. Does the yield decrease? If so, why?

 

This was the most important question I wanted to know. Because Feller argues this. Never knew angle hair direction could change because of this. It makes sense though in wound healing considering the wound contraction phase could alter the surrounding morphology a bit or other factors could.Then again you argue that it shouldn't matter at all if someone is skilled at FUE like you say. So ultimately it's not a concern only a a cherry nit pick thing.

 

Great post by the way and many kudo's for you that you objectively lay down some flaws in FUT too!

 

After all the majority of people don't want a scar and they don't mind having a trade off for that. Period.

 

Doesn't make FUE the better procedure but it does make FUE by far the most attractive procedure.

 

Swoop,

 

Yeah. It happens. It's just physiology. The contraction phase is part of the remodeling phase of wound healing. The size is already well determined at that point. The scar is just making some fine tuning. The scar tissue won't affect the growth of surrounding follicles, but it will create more difficult extraction. The argument is whether or not this decreases success of future extractions in the region.

 

Yeah but it is from the initial size though, I don't seem to find somewhere where it really expands. Nonetheless I thought it was more in the context of damage to the hair follicle or something like that. Did not understand it was because of an alteration of hair growth angle which makes it harder to perform extractions without transection. Nonetheless factors like these only show a important fact imo. You need to go with someone who is skilled at FUE.

[Blake Bloxham]

Swoop,

 

I don't doubt that seeing a skilled FUE physician is key, but being good doesn't change anything about the blind nature of extraction. If the angle of the follicle below the scalp is further off from the hair shaft above the scalp compared to the norm AND if scar tissue is making these angles variable and unpredictable, all the skill in the world won't give you x-ray vision. Skill also doesn't change how tightly this scar tissue can grip the grafts and how much more damage it can cause during delivery. These are inherent problems that really can't be overcome by skill any more than inherent scar stretching could be overcome by a skilled strip surgeon. Pros and cons of everything in life, you know?

[Swooping]

Swoop,

 

I don't doubt that seeing a skilled FUE physician is key, but being good doesn't change anything about the blind nature of extraction. If the angle of the follicle below the scalp is further off from the hair shaft above the scalp compared to the norm AND if scar tissue is making these angles variable and unpredictable, all the skill in the world won't give you x-ray vision. Skill also doesn't change how tightly this scar tissue can grip the grafts and how much more damage it can cause during delivery. These are inherent problems that really can't be overcome by skill any more than inherent scar stretching could be overcome by a skilled strip surgeon. Pros and cons of everything in life, you know?

 

Partly, yes off course. However on scar stretching you really have 0 influence as that is just closing the wound as best as you can and then hoping it heals well. With extractions you have more control and you can look for transection and damage. I get you though now on the scarring point, thanks.

[Blake Bloxham]

Swoop,

 

Yup, scarring -- in both FUE and strip -- frequently comes down to patient physiology. I was actually working on a little screening tool to identify patients who are at risk for worse strip scarring, but never wrote it up. Maybe I'll finish it up!

[LondonHTseeker]

There you have it. My concerns embodied in actuality.

 

London, I'm off this week, but will view your photos when I get back to the office on Tuesday and really pour over them. I'll PM you then.

Best.

 

Thanks Dr Feller. I'm taking some more donor area photos tomorrow for Dr B.

 

My hope is that even if the FUE I had in Istanbul has over-depleted some areas, I have enough remaining donor areas which could be subject to an mFUE procedure and that would be enough to hit my thinning issues at the front. It could also provide a nice comparison between FUE and mFUE donor scarring.

[LondonHTseeker]

Well Dr Bhatti is performing BHT beard HT - he'll be happy to answer any questions if you think your are all donor'ed out..

 

My beard hair isn't too abundant. I'd really rather keep the little stubble I have. Plus I imagine there's a significant risk of visible scarring akin to acne scarring. As for body hair, I don't even have much of that (there's that area down below, I guess...). And taking leg hair would make me look like a eunuch every time I wear shorts for the rest of my life.