Are topicals just hype and fancy marketing?

[FUEtile]

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? 

 

[NikosHair]

1 hour ago, FUEtile said:

It’s medication that you need to take to every month so why wouldn’t it be subscription based. 

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. 

1 hour ago, FUEtile said:

Why are you so adamant it doesn’t work? 

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 ....

[NikosHair]

2 hours ago, FUEtile said:

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.

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 out, and others unfortunately, get the 'god complex', but the idea that caring for your patient and making money is mutually exclusive is a fallacy.

Edited April 13, 2023 by NikosHair

[FUEtile]

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.

[FUEtile]

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. 

[NikosHair]

4 minutes ago, FUEtile said:

If you’re gonna say something doesn’t work at least have some evidence to back it up.

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. 

[FUEtile]

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? 

[12345]

5 hours 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.

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. 

[FUEtile]

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. 

[12345]

Just now, FUEtile said:

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

i think the moderator would be the best person to answer this as he is a xyon subscriber and user. 

[Melvin- Admin]

Xyon does a 3-month subscription. If you cancel you’re only charged for the most recent fill. If you cancel the first month, you’re only charged the first month. You’re not stuck with a bill or bottles unless you don’t cancel the subscription. 
 

 

[NikosHair]

50 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. 

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. 

[FUEtile]

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. 
 

Edited April 14, 2023 by FUEtile

[NikosHair]

10 hours ago, FUEtile said:

It seems this thread isn’t really about whether topicals work or not. You should probably change the title to why capitalism is bad. 

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 ....

[FUEtile]

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. 

[NikosHair]

54 minutes ago, FUEtile said:

That’s why I’m here to learn.

Great!

Quote

 

With reference to the study @Melvin- Moderator kindly cited. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9297965/

The study does nothing to support the case for using topical finasteride, other than it was better than using nothing (placebo).

It would be interesting to hear your views and the study is a good starting point to support your views, either way.

 

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

Did you vote or still undecided?

[FUEtile]

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?

[NikosHair]

1 hour ago, FUEtile said:

So why doesn’t it work?

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

[FUEtile]

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? 

[NikosHair]

15 minutes ago, FUEtile said:

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

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.

 

[FUEtile]

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.

[NikosHair]

2 hours ago, FUEtile said:

Finasteride works, so does topical finasteride.

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.

[FUEtile]

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 ?

[NikosHair]

8 minutes ago, FUEtile said:

Based on that study you posted the topical had less sides than the oral version.

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).

16 minutes ago, FUEtile said:

How much more effective is daily fin to microdosing? Are there any studies ?

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,

[FUEtile]

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?