Are topicals just hype and fancy marketing?

[NikosHair]

1 hour ago, FUEtile said:

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. 

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). 

[FUEtile]

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

Edited April 15, 2023 by FUEtile

[NikosHair]

43 minutes ago, FUEtile said:

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

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. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by NikosHair

[FUEtile]

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. 

Edited April 15, 2023 by FUEtile

[NikosHair]

1 hour ago, FUEtile said:

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. 

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.

1 hour ago, FUEtile said:

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.

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

1 hour ago, FUEtile said:

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.

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

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'.

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).

2 hours ago, FUEtile said:

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. 

Agreed.

2 hours ago, FUEtile said:

Topical companies rip you off by selling subscriptions. This point doesn’t have anything to do with effectiveness or safety.

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😉

 

2 hours ago, FUEtile said:

It’s possible that applying the drug topically reaches DHT at the hair follicle level making it similar in efficacy as consuming it orally.

'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🙄

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👍

[consequence]

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.

[FUEtile]

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.

[FUEtile]

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?

[consequence]

4 minutes ago, FUEtile said:

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

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. 

[FUEtile]

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. 

[NikosHair]

35 minutes ago, consequence said:

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.

You raise an excellent point. The problem with compounding pharmacies is real and a problem, as highlighted in @Melvin- Moderator discussion with Dr.Vaño. 

TimeStamp 3:02

 

[NikosHair]

46 minutes ago, consequence said:

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. 

😁 

[mustang]

On 4/15/2023 at 6:10 PM, 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. 

Having used topical for 2-3 years and having regrown pretty much my entire scalp on them I am quite sure they are not a waste of time.

There are plenty of things without medical literature that work extremely well like RU58841, however, there is no safety data.

There is some medical literature on topicals used intradermally with extreme efficiency but I would agree transdermal is not the same as topical unless you have an effective vehicle for delivery which I believe a few companies now do.

I have seen great success with topical dutasteride on many as well as topical finasteride. Myself being one. It might not work for some just like pills don't work for some.

Edited April 17, 2023 by mustang

[mustang]

Here is my hair after stopping topical dutasteride for a year. 

18 months using it

1 year off:

[Melvin- Admin]

4 hours ago, mustang said:

Here is my hair after stopping topical dutasteride for a year. 

18 months using it

1 year off:

Thanks for sharing. This is a marked difference. Why did you come off? 

[Big Rome]

5 hours ago, mustang said:

Here is my hair after stopping topical dutasteride for a year. 

18 months using it

1 year off:

did you get any sides from using Dut topically? 

[mustang]

5 hours ago, Melvin- Moderator said:

Thanks for sharing. This is a marked difference. Why did you come off? 

Fatherhood attempts. 

[mustang]

3 hours ago, Big Rome said:

did you get any sides from using Dut topically? 

No but I used it once a week

I have heard of people getting sides if using it daily

[JP28]

11 minutes ago, mustang said:

Fatherhood attempts. 

Is it dangerous to have a kid while on duta? 

[Melvin- Admin]

14 minutes ago, mustang said:

Fatherhood attempts. 

I believe this is an important aspect to be transparent about, I didn’t take any anti androgen during or after the conception of my son. You don’t want to take any topical until after your child is born. I believe it’s okay if you’re having a daughter. 

[mustang]

1 hour ago, JP28 said:

Is it dangerous to have a kid while on duta? 

It can cause fetus malformation indeed. I emphasize in CAN, low chances but still.