Bruce Willis-level MPB Progression.

[JeffC45]

I'm in the midst of the long, arduous process of considering and planning for a HT. Part of the research I've done is to find old pictures of balding celebrities and looked at how they progressed over the course of their career. I feel like this will give me some idea of what kind of hair loss to expect based on age and NW level.

 

There is one example of MPB that scares the living hell out of me: Bruce Willis.

 

I am currently 39 years old and would categorize myself as between a NW2 and a NW3. Based on my age and current hair loss, before deciding on a HT, I would like to make an educated guess as to what my future hair loss will be. Since I am planning on going the no-Fin route, I do not want to get a HT a 40 only to lose everything behind my hairline over the next 5 years.

 

Bruce Willis at age 39 looked similar, in hair loss, to me.

 

By 44, his hair receded, but he still had a noticeable hairline.

 

 

 

By age 49, basically the floor dropped out from under him and he looked like a full-blown NW6 or NW7.

 

 

I know everyone is different, but is this type of rapid hairloss common? I like to hope that my hairloss will progress at the same pace it has my whole life and I can keep up with it with 2-3 HT's. But my biggest fear is that all of a sudden between 40-50 my hairloss will accelerate and make HT's almost futile and leave me looking ridiculous.

 

Does hairloss generally maintain a steady pace or does it usually start to fall out more quickly when you hit a certain age?

[mahhong]

Unfortunately there are just no hard and fast rules when it comes to hairloss.

 

I would say that, very generally, the older you are are when you notice hairloss, and the slower it seems, the less likely you are to progress to an advanced level of balding. If you're 21 and already severely thinning/receding the chances are you're going to progress to the higher end of the Norwood scale. Conversely, if you're mid-30s and only just noticing some thinning or recession, there's a decent chance your hairloss will be slower and less aggressive.

 

There are always exceptions to the even that very general rule, however. There's no surefire way to know where your balding will end up but there are a few things you can do to try and get an idea:

 

Look at your family history - fathers, grandfathers etc, on both sides of the family. Did they bald? If so, what was the progression of their baldness like and how advanced did it get? There's no direct comparison, but a history of advanced hairloss in your family gives you some idea of where you may head.

 

Hair bulk/miniaturisation mapping - Your hair can be looked at closely under magnification and via other techniques to map where it may be thinning. Even in some areas where your hair looks full, there may be evidence of thinning not visible to the naked eye. Again, not a guaranteed way to predict future hairloss, but it may show up some clues or a pattern that wasn't immediately obvious.

 

In terms of preventing hairloss, outside of HTs your only other options are meds. You say you want to go the no-fin route and that's fair enough, but the honest truth is there's just no way to truly know what's in your hairloss future - meds are the only way to slow down any progressive loss that's inevitable and, as you say, there's always a risk you could get to a point where HTs alone couldn't cover all balding to a satisfactory degree.

[ontop]

You could try meds & wait & see if hour hairloss stabilise & take it from there.

 

The general consensus is the older you are, could give you a better idea of where your heading down the NW scale, but its not a given unfortunately.

This MPB is bit of a lotto.

[Speegs]

Finasteride can slow if not full on halt and retard hair loss. Its side effects are few and have only been reported by a near outlier of people that take the medication.

 

Without committing to take finasteride, exploring any surgical restoration is a moot point.

[JeffC45]

Finasteride can slow if not full on halt and retard hair loss. Its side effects are few and have only been reported by a near outlier of people that take the medication.

 

Without committing to take finasteride, exploring any surgical restoration is a moot point.

 

Don't want to have the finasteride debate. I am all too familiar with the side effects, because I've experienced them personally. I wish all the best to those fortunate enough to take it without sides and willing to risk its long term use, but never again for me.

 

Depending on your age, degree of hair loss, etc, a HT without finasteride is most certainly an option. I've consulted with some of the top doctors on this forum, whose medical ethics I have no reason to question, and all have advised me that this is the case.

[Speegs]

Don't want to have the finasteride debate. I am all too familiar with the side effects, because I've experienced them personally. I wish all the best to those fortunate enough to take it without sides and willing to risk its long term use, but never again for me.

 

Depending on your age, degree of hair loss, etc, a HT without finasteride is most certainly an option. I've consulted with some of the top doctors on this forum, whose medical ethics I have no reason to question, and all have advised me that this is the case.

If you're a young patient and not committed to prevention therapies such as either finasteride, rogaine, saw palmetto, or all of the above, then it is an expensive fool's errand to do anything surgically cosmetic with your hair, you're better off shaving it bald or exploring hair systems.

 

These are the cold hard facts.

[robc]

I don't the ink there are any perfect indicators of what the future progression would be. Most likely will have the slow progression of current hair loss.

I would do combination minox, a topical DHT blocker and laser comb therapy for 6 months and see how your scalp feels. Comb your hair out over the sink in the am and see what kind of shedding you have.

 

Hopefully this will stabilize your loss and you can check into a HT.

[mahhong]

Reviving an old thread, so apologies, but the original post got me thinking. Hollywood is not a good place to look for accurate hair and something didn't ring true to me about Bruce Willis - in the relatively new film Looper he's virtually a NW7 (certainly a full blown NW6) but, as the OP said, in the 90s and 00s he often looked to be a NW4.

 

I did a little more looking and found some revealing photos. The Letterman photo is from 1990. Although he still has a fairly decent head of hair (at least at first glance), it's clear his crown is opening up already.

 

The Cannes photo is from 1994/1995, not long after Pulp Fiction (when he was approximately 39/40). Even though sunlight is strong, I would say it's fairly clear he has extensive loss on the top of his head and his lateral humps are fading too. In fact I would say his final hairloss pattern is pretty clear. This photo shows better in less harsh light:

 

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/cannes-film-festival-pulp-fiction-in-cannes-france-on-may-20-bruce-picture-id113994437

 

I actually think Bruce was either using very good concealers and styling to hide his more extensive baldness or perhaps a partial system, or even a total system with receding hairline (bizarrely!). His receding hairline was always part of his look to some degree, so perhaps he wanted a full looking head of hair with that characteristic thinning at the front.

 

Here's another photo from the film Twelve Monkeys (1996) which I think shows his balding was far more considerable than most of his movie roles give away:

 

http://www.rtl2.de/sites/default/files/images/spielfilm/1100009606/12-monkeys-bruce-willis-1316209.jpg

 

Bottom line is I don't think he balded particular savagely and suddenly in his later years. I think his pattern was fairly established by his early thirties and it was just a combination of styling and makeup/hair tricks that made it look fuller, though still receding, in other films. To my eyes he looks essentially bald by the time he was 40, and then probably lost the last of his lateral humps and saw the crown open up in his 40s and 50s. But I certainly don't think he was rocking any particularly thick hair past his late 30s - it's just the typical Hollywood smoke and mirrors!