Has Natrual approach without the Big 3 helped you?

[hairhaircomeagain]

I had completely made up my mind to go completely natrual. Go on ImmortalHairs regime and on SuperZix. But again after reading some other posts I am thinking of going on finasteride. Damn...I am all confused.

I have started with nizoral 1% which gives me a headache on application. I think if something as mild as 1% nizoral can coz side effects then what will finasteride do ?

So, How many of you fellow hair transplant discussers can say for sure that Natrual remedies have helped you. Please reply, can further help me make my decision on Natrual vs FDA approved stuff.

Thanks

 

[hairhaircomeagain]

Bump...Cheez Guys...Seems like no one believes in Natruals in this Forum. Why is that ? No one benefitted with this approach?

 

[Lessofarockstar]

I thought about going the natural way too. But what I figured was that if I want to block DHT I can just as well do it with finasteride. If you block DHT enough and you are prone to getting sides from it you will get it either way. And it is just so much easier with finasteride.
But I know what you mean. The idea of going natural is very appealing and I was thinking about it myself. But for now I want to try the proven meds. If I get too many sides I will try immortalhairs and spironolactone etc. That's for sure.

Regarding the sides. Just because you get a headache from minoxidil it doesnt have to mean ANYTHING for your finasteride tolerance. The two drugs work in completely different ways.

 

[iamnaked]

I had completely made up my mind to go completely natrual. Go on ImmortalHairs regime and on SuperZix. But again after reading some other posts I am thinking of going on finasteride. Damn...I am all confused.

I have started with nizoral 1% which gives me a headache on application. I think if something as mild as 1% nizoral can coz side effects then what will finasteride do ?

So, How many of you fellow hair transplant discussers can say for sure that Natrual remedies have helped you. Please reply, can further help me make my decision on Natrual vs FDA approved stuff.

Thanks

I don't want to piss in your wine or anything, but I'm pretty sure zinc oxide isn't a 'natural' in that they don't make it from plants.

But this raises an issue that I find intriguing - namely why people make so much of a distinction between plant chemicals and manmade ones. When you come down to it, all chemicals are just rearrangements of the same fundamental building blocks. Why should it matter how they were created.? It's entirely conceivable that a plant could evolve to produce dutasteride in its leaves. Would this make it acceptable to people who think natural is best?

 

[Jacob]

And the answer is...a plant will never evolve to produce dutasteride in it's leaves.

To the original poster...I'm doing just fine w/out the "Big 3". I'm currently using a # of products from Elsom Research..as well as Inflamil from Lipoxidil. I just ordered Nanogaine from the latter..I'm a huge fan of SOD and just had to try the stuff.

I rotate a # of natural shampoos. Use natural gels etc. Take a bunch of supplements- more for overall health. They could help with the hair situation as well..especially GliSODin imo.

 

[The Gardener]

I'm not a big believer in natural topicals. Sorry, but you can't fight city hall.

However, if you wanted to fight male pattern baldness and decline the usage of the three proven treatments, I DO think that you have weapons at your disposal.

I am personally a big believer that humans can affect their internal "ageing clocks" through behavior. It has been proven that stress makes people age faster, and I believe that this same internal clock affects the timing of when follicles' sensitivity to DHT is turned on. If you adhere to a lifestyle that reduces "stress" and prevents excess inflammation of your tissues, then I think you can delay the inevitable.

 

[powersam]

it all comes back to insulin, stress inflammation, hairloss, aging. everything comes back to insulin.

 

[The Gardener]

I agree.

Most of my personal supplements (in addition to my vitamins) are anti-inflammatories and anti-oxidants. CoQ10, Alpha Lipoic Acid, Acetyl-L-Carnitine, L-Glutamine, etc.

 

[Private Ryan]

i am going to add flax seed to my diet... of course i don't expect it to do much for hairloss... but its great stuff for general health...

 

[Jacob]

I was just talking about "micro stress" in another forum. You know..like "micro inflammation". New Chapter makes a great stress formula..although I wouldn't rely on a pill- drug or natural- to completely deal with stress.

As for natural topicals...I guess if someone is going to say there's not much difference(or any) between naturals and drugs, then you'd have to say naturals most definitely can be the way to go. I don't agree with naturals=drugs 100%..nor do I think the drugs being "FDA approved" should really impress anybody. There is one internal and one topical that is FDA approved for hairloss. I would be willing to bet if some other ingredient made it first in those categories that they'd be the only ones FDA approved. Nothing is going to go for FDA approval anymore(IMO) unless it blows away the existing treatments.

 

[iamnaked]

And the answer is...a plant will never evolve to produce dutasteride in it's leaves.

You don't know that. It's certainly not conceptually impossible. Some pretty weird stuff has come from plants - aspirin, quinine (who'd have thought it). Just because it's unlikely doesn't mean it's possible.

My point is that what plants do in creating drugs is fundamentally the same thing as humans do - take building blocks and use enzymes/catalyssts to combine them into different more useful chemicals. If you're arguing that the specific way evolution works to create plants that makes drugs is better or healthier, you should offer some argument which explains with reference to the facts, why it is superior.

I can't think of any argument that you might use. Plants evolve as the result of completely arbitrary mutations in their DNA, the effects of which are shrouded in doubt and controversy- how is this a better way to produce drugs than by a synthesis of all the useful information we have about chemistry and the human body?

As for natural topicals...I guess if someone is going to say there's not much difference(or any) between naturals and drugs, then you'd have to say naturals most definitely can be the way to go. I don't agree with naturals=drugs 100%.

A drug is a drug is a drug. Doesn't matter how it's made. Its like putting a Chinese made camera up against an American made one and denying the first one is a camera.

 

[powersam]

its an effectiveness/side effect tradeoff really. those 'naturals' that can boast effectiveness similar to that of man designed treatments also tend to bring with them a similar degree of side effect. so what exactly is the benefit of natural treatments?

i also have to say i dont understand how people have a problem with GM produce. it lets you grow food without the use of pesticides etc, you'd think the greenies would be into that. but no they have this mudslinging campaign going on trying to push all companies to avoid GM produce.

 

[Jacob]

iamnaked...I'm referring to your evolution comment. Plants having "weird stuff" in them doesn't mean they evolved to contain them. In fact when you break it down to that level and see what each plant contains- and how some contain something exclusively, etc etc.. it makes evolution look a little...well...missing linkish. I know this isn't the place to debate this but am just explaining what I was referring to.

Plants do not create drugs. They contain things that yes, we humans, make into drugs..or as I like to say- when you get down to an extract of an extract of an extract, then yes..maybe to some it could be considered a drug. You wouldn't call an apple a drug even though it contains what can be extracted. You woldn't even call apple peel extract a drug even though it's just one part of the apple. If you'd break that down to just have one procyanidin- say procyanidin b-2...would that be considered a drug? Maybe.

A drug is a drug. A natural product is a natural product. If you like the FDA...that's how it is for them as well..although some would like to change that. At least they want to regulate naturals as well.

 

[Jacob]

PowerSam..that's why I prefer topicals over internals. I especially am not crazy about messing with my hormones..with naturals or drugs.

 

[iamnaked]

Plants do not create drugs. They contain things that yes, we humans, make into drugs..or as I like to say- when you get down to an extract of an extract of an extract, then yes..maybe to some it could be considered a drug. You wouldn't call an apple a drug even though it contains what can be extracted. You woldn't even call apple peel extract a drug even though it's just one part of the apple. If you'd break that down to just have one procyanidin- say procyanidin b-2...would that be considered a drug? Maybe.

Okay so it seems to me you draw the distinction in terms of concentration and purity - a drug is something which unadulterated and relatively pure. But I still don't understand how adding impurities (or other drugs) makes something safer or better for you??

 

[Jacob]

I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean the "preservatives" etc found in the topicals I use...I'd prefer they not be there either. But I've been told they are a very very small % compared to the other ingreds.

 

[Back In Time]

I think one of the most overused consumer buzz words is the word "natural". You slap the word "natural" on just about anything and you will get folks buying that item because it must be somehow better or pure for the body.

Realistically, there are thousands of things found in nature that are not good for you at all, or will do nothing to help you. Cyanide can be found in plants (like apple seeds), bacteria, fungi, etc for example. It's "natural", but that doesn't mean you want large concentrations of it anywhere near you. Aspirin can be found in multiple plants, but some of those plants can also cause horrible side effects if consumed in their "natural" state.

I guess my point is, many times there are good reasons for things that are not considered "natural", especially concerning medications or things that are used on the human body. I think people often confuse the work "natural" with the word "safe", when this can often times be the exact opposite of the truth.

 

[Jacob]

Which is why I only use natural things that are safe. That's another misconception- naturals haven't been tested etc.

I still can't get over how some will say naturals won't work..don't waste your money. And then turn around and say there's no difference between naturals or drugs. See what I said about the FDA before going there ;-)

 

[Back In Time]

And...that's where you kind of lose me.

If something has been FDA approved to treat hairloss, I can be reasonably sure that I'm using something that will treat hairloss, and work. If it hasn't been FDA approved to treat hairloss, then in my mind I'm possibly wasting time with something that won't work. It makes me think, if this (whatever you want to name) works so well, why isn't it FDA approved? If it worked so well there would be companies all over the place in trials with it, because there are billions of dollars to be made, with any product that will even slightly treat hairloss. On the same token, there are billions of dollars to be made selling snake oil, or whatever you can convince people will work. What I am using has been through clinical trials, the pros and cons have been scientifically tested on a very large scale, (and very well documented to boot) then those tests studied, and finally approved.

I'm not saying naturals won't work at all (and I wish everyone the best of luck in whatever they use), I just don't want to risk wasting my time on them losing more hair in the process, or using them just so I can feel better about going "natural" (and I kind of already said how I feel about all that).

 

[Jacob]

This is what I said previously: "nor do I think the drugs being "FDA approved" should really impress anybody. There is one internal and one topical that is FDA approved for hairloss. I would be willing to bet if some other ingredient made it first in those categories that they'd be the only ones FDA approved. Nothing is going to go for FDA approval anymore(IMO) unless it blows away the existing treatments." Imagine if procyanidins had been "discovered" first to do what they do.

A big reason for my saying that and another reason why other things aren't going for FDA approval..is the cost. Would it even pay if what is used is known- so anybody can just get their own supply and make it themself? That's a little harder with "drugs" and even things like TB4.

There are plenty of things out there "proven" to halt and even "grow" hair. Procyanidins and Rooibos extract are two that come to mind. I don't need the FDA to tell me that they've been proven..or safe. Some things they have passed turned out not to be safe enough. And/or not to work as claimed.

I don't just rely on one natural thing or even one natural topical..as you can see. Even those using the "proven" aren't exactly all getting their hair back or even halting their hairloss. I'm hitting it with a # of products..a # of different angles.