a theory

[Trent]

hey, just a quick idea that i was curious about. i was secretly hoping that since i don't really have any male pattern baldness in my family (except after you turn like fifty get some thinning) i was wondering if perhaps propecia and the like might work "better" because there is less of a genetic predisposition, i.e. less DHT to block. just a total random thought that i had, just wondering if anyone out there had some good/bad results on propecia despite having very little family history of hairloss?

 

[jimmystanley]

less male pattern baldness doesn't mean less dht. it more likely means less susseptibility to dht in your scalp, dude.

 

[Axon]

You already know the answer to this.

 

[Trent]

i realize it doesn't mean less DHT in your body, my thought was perhaps less of an overall genetic disposition to DHT susceptibility might warrant better results, as there might be less DHT attacking the hair, thus less to block. i realize its a load of bull and has no proof or anything, i was basically just bored and curious if typically people with less of a history of hairloss had better results from propecia, since to be honest we don't really know much about how hairloss works other than DHT and genetics are the big influences.

 

[Axon]

You already know the answer to this.

I hesitate to use the term "grasping at straws." But anything is possible, sure.

 

[Trent]

ha, true. it was just a thought i really wasn't putting any huge amount of expectation or relying my hairloss turn around on this theory, it just crossed my mind.