I haven't seen any studies where T depresses hair. But if you think about it, T androgen, yes it is less active than its metabolite DHT. But it can bind to A-receptors, albeit to a lesser degree (maybe 2-3 times?) And if you take into account the fact that there is 2-3 times more of it, why can't T suppress hair in androgenetic alopecia?
Did you read my post? It is about the gene transcription a compound induces. That depends on so many things like co-activators, integrators, co-repressors. I literally stated in my post that AR binding is just the metaphorical door: there is a whole house behind that door (the nucleus) which contains many items (genes). A thief would get many expensive items from the house (DHT inducing a large array of androgenic gene transcription), while a visitor takes none (T which likely induces none until proven otherwise). You are correct in the sense that T binds the AR "looser" than DHT, moreover, turnover rate of T is also higher and the dissociation constant for the AR is higher as well. However, what really matters is what happens "behind the door", what I just explained. T and DHT cannot be treated on equal footing until proven otherwise.
Do you think bicalutamide does a good job at addressing these issues?
I would say that for an oral antiandrogen, Bicalutamide may be the only option to retain male body composition (except for gyno of course). This is due to Bica's unique mechanism that it actually promotes translocation of the AR into the nucleus, opposed to all other AA's. With any other AA, the androgen pathway is completely shut down because the AR will just remain static at the surface. The interesting thing is what the Bica-AR complex is going to do once it is inside the nucleus. It is definitely going to induce some transcription of AR-related genes: the current consensus is that it recruits co-repressors instead of co-activators (while other AA's recruit none since the complex does not even enter the nucleus). Clinical data suggests that body composition can be maintained through this mechanism, although it is unclear what this means for hair. Topical is of course always safer, and also allows the use of a "purer" AA like Enza, Apa, Daro.
This is what is so annoying, some people experience full regrowth without altering diet in any way, but in my case, diet absolutely affects results. Everyone is different, for all we know, people who's diet affects their hrt result may have an out of whack gut biome. Don't assume that just because it works for you, then it works for everyone. I'm sick of explaining this.
Some guys like SonicTemples are actually reporting temple growth on topical duta.
I know diet can have some importance, but it will never be more important then hormones. And to claim Androgens play a secondary role to diet in Male Pattern Baldness is simply stupid. I never said diet is not important, just that Yar's theories are pretty silly.
Very good. The amounts used are so small that liver toxicity does not play a role, and there are some reports available of very good results with topical Bica. The main problem is solubility, which is very poor. DMSO should not be used in my opinion (furthermore, it makes you and everything you excrete smell like rotten eggs), which leaves a pure ethanolic vehicle. Since the half-life is so long, a good protocol would probably something along the lines of:
This is simply not true. You are projecting your n=1 case to all male pattern baldness sufferers, which is not only wrong but also dangerous. Bica may not have "worked" for you (although I still think you terminated the experiment way too early), it can and will still work for many others. I feel sorry for you that you have had to resort to HRT to get your desired results, but fact is that the majority of people will not need it to get very satisfactory results. We do not know if we can completely eliminate DHT in the scalp, but topical Duta (possibly in conjuction with oral Duta) should come pretty close. I also disagree that HRT cycles would be safer than Nandrolone. Nandrolone is actually a bioidentical compound, found in minute amounts in the body. The skin metabolizes Nandrolone to DHN which is much less androgenic than DHT or Nandrolone itself. You cannot use 5AR inhibitors on Nandrolone monotherapy, because this conversion would be inhibited. HRT cycles are not safer because:
I try to explain this on this thread but nobody gets that. When you have a genetic defect with your adrenal glands, you're gone for good. Nor HRT will help you there.
Yeah of course. It depends whether the genes associated with male pattern baldness are transcribed or not. For example, Trenbolone definitely causes transcription of at least some balding genes, as well as Stanozolol. As far as I know, Nandrolone is not associated with baldness, but that is without 5AR inhibitors. Maybe the same would hold with 5AR inhibitors, who knows. I think DHN was touted less androgenic than Nandrolone itself in research papers but then again, it depends on how this androgenicity is expressed (and not necessarily on the degree of androgenicity).
Your hair looks pretty good in those pictures. If you would only have supplied those pictures I would not say you are balding at all. I think once you correct your hormonal imbalance (if it is possible) you should regrow whatever you lost.
What about anavar? Dbol? Boldenone?
Yeah I think your hair looks solid too. I understand your concerns but you can probably make a good recovery on a regimen that isn't extreme.
We will never have research on men. But even a study on women showed success only in 40-50% of cases, this is small and at best is a lottery. This is not even nearly guaranteed treatment. On this forum, only Ein and Maave got the result, all the rest continued to go bald (5+ people). At the Russian baldness forum, he did not help anyone. Perhaps it has an effect when used with Minoxidil, the effect of which is ambiguous for me personally.
You are as wrong as most when it comes to timing. If you continue to go bald after reaching full concentrations, elementary logic dictates that the drug is not working. I went bald 5 months after taking Bicalutamide, everything is extremely obvious. Apparently you are one of those who give Finasteride a year, then Dutasteride a year, then a year to something else, until you go bald. Since I'm smarter, I went bald before Norwood 1 and will get a perfect Norwood 0 because I was timing my drug testing correctly. While looking back, I understand that it didn't even make sense to try to use only the AP blocker, this idea was doomed to failure.
Thanks. I had to be determined to defeat baldness. Yes, switching between hormones must be harmful to the body. But I very much doubt there is research on this topic. It would be interesting to hear the opinion of a good endocrinologist on this issue. He would be shocked that someone has such level jumps and would clearly be at a loss.
I am not knowledgeable on AAS at all outside of Testosterone. You could search Reddit or any AAS forum for anecdotal reports. I believe Anavar should be quite hair friendly, since some women use it as well. Same for Boldenone. To be frank, I would never recommend steroids just like I would never recommend HRT for non-trans people. I am very aware on anything anti-aging, and AAS definitely do not fit into that picture. Administering exogenous T is already pushing it for me. I think the only anti-aging hormones are Pregnenolone, Progesterone, DHEA and Thyroid. The rest just ages you more rapidly (in supraphysiological doses, as always).
There is an older thread by IdealForehead that sums up the differences pretty well. Bica's massive half life is really favorable here, because RU has a meager half life of one hour (serum). Furthermore, Bica's binding kinetics are also far superior to RU. Basically, I see no reason to use RU at all. It is not safe, and there are many safer and more effective AA's available. I believe RU got introduced by influencers some years back, and that is where the hype originated. Not that it is not effective: it is just less effective and less well researched than other options (which are also FDA approved). I see no reason to use RU and Bica concurrently. The only thing I would keep an eye on with Bica is systemic build-up due to its half-life, however, that should be avoided with once or twice weekly applications. Daro would probably be even more effective, but it is also (a lot) more expensive.
Concentrations have nothing to do with timeframes of hair cycles. Any hormonal flux will induce a Telogen Effluvium of differential severity depending on the characteristics of that flux. This is also why every treatment should be given at least one year: the hair cycles need to stabilize first. This is not a bad thing if you carefully pick your treatment and stick to it.
Thank you for your thorough response. Are there any other AAs that may also work well topically?
