Increasing minoxidil absorption

[LookingGood!]

It takes very little retinoic acid to be effective for hairloss... like .025 percent. And a little bit goes a very long way. As an acne treatment the suggestion is to use a pea-sized dab. But I could imagine any retinoid having the exact opposite effect, including skin damage and hairloss, if overused. For hair regrowth, I limit applications to once every other day to avoid any potential problems.

Some people believe by reversing sun damage, Retin-a may also help prevent skin cancer. Although, as already stated, you must avoid direct sun exposure several hours after applying Retin-a. I apply mine at night, just before retiring to sleep. And the longer your hair, the less sun overexposure is probably an issue.

Retin-a is also thought to decrease sebum production. Retinoids in general are thought to reduce scalp DHT. But more importantly, Retin-a is believed to activate and maintain stem cells. On that end there's an overall improvement in, not just hair regrowth, but the skin's texture itself.

In other words, while minoxidil's results are temporary, the changes brought about by Retin-a are far more permanent... including increased vascularity. This almost suggests one might be able to go days/weeks without a minoxidil application, while still maintaining hair volume. I already have been able to limit my applications to once a day, with remarkable success... while using no other hair treatment.

I've also noticed, in the area of application, any gray pigmented hairs have progressively reverted back to my natural haircolor.

Joe,
I used Dr lwenbergs for yrs. Did you spray it on 8 inches from your head or use the dropper?

 

[joseph49853]

It needs to be specifically Tretinoin or Retin-a, in either .025% or .05% concentrations.

It's not just the concentrations that are important, but also HOW MUCH of them you apply.

I only say this because some people might confuse retinol with actual Retin-a. In equal amounts, a .05 concentration is simply going to be twice more potent. But it doesn't necessarily even mean it'll be twice more effective when used for hair growth. In fact, concentrations greater than .05% could actually cause scalp damage, or worst case scenario, hairloss. You'll see .025% most recommended because it gives greater coverage, with far less potential for overuse. While anywhere from .05 to .1 is recommended as an acne treatment.

To avoid sun exposure, I apply a pea-sized dab every other night, and then minoxidil around 30 minutes later for maximum absorption and efficacy.

When you apply Retin-A and minoxidil relative to each other doesn't make any difference.

Bryan

Are you speaking from experience? Because I haven't found this to be the case. If anything, I find there's less skin irritation, and more absorption (or less minoxidil lying on my scalp) if applied after thirty minutes. And I've tried both methods. I believe applying the Retin-a well in advance gives the opportunity for more sebum to be dissolved. In my mind, this is the most bang for the buck... with the least chance for irritation or sides.

L'Oreal even has a patent stating they are most effective applied away from each other. Retinols are already fairly unstable, and easily degraded when exposed to sunlight. Over time, minoxidil and Retin-a together have the potential to degrade, or destabilize, one another.

 

[joseph49853]

Joe,
I used Dr lwenbergs for yrs. Did you spray it on 8 inches from your head or use the dropper?

I use a separate Retin-a .025% cream from Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals combined with a generic CVS 5% minoxidil from a dropper.

 

[grabber]

Anybody here willing to sell some retin-a.... Just impossible to get some here in Canada....

Pleaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaase....

Here is my Email
grabbs@nbnet.nb.ca

 

[LookingGood!]

Joe,
I used Dr lwenbergs for yrs. Did you spray it on 8 inches from your head or use the dropper?

I use a separate Retin-a .025% cream from Ortho-McNeil Pharmaceuticals combined with a generic CVS 5% minoxidil from a dropper.

I did the same thing after I was fed up with Dr Lewenbergs price fluctuations.

I used the orthoMcneils fluid combined with the generic minoxidil . I added 10 drops to the minoxidil as per the pharmacist's directions.
I found it to be greasy also after 3 or 4 applications a day.
So you put the cream on first then minutes later the minoxidil? How come not combining them> Why the cream and not the fluid retinA?

Did you find it to be messy especially on the days you have to get ready for work?

 

[Bryan]

It's not just the concentrations that are important, but also HOW MUCH of them you apply.

I only say this because some people might confuse retinol with actual Retin-a. In equal amounts, a .05 concentration is simply going to be twice more potent. But it doesn't necessarily even mean it'll be twice more effective when used for hair growth. In fact, concentrations greater than .05% could actually cause scalp damage, or worst case scenario, hairloss.

Yeah, depending on how much you apply.

To avoid sun exposure, I apply a pea-sized dab every other night, and then minoxidil around 30 minutes later for maximum absorption and efficacy.

When you apply Retin-A and minoxidil relative to each other doesn't make any difference.

Are you speaking from experience? Because I haven't found this to be the case. If anything, I find there's less skin irritation, and more absorption (or less minoxidil lying on my scalp) if applied after thirty minutes.

"Less minoxidil lying on the scalp"? Huh?

Anyway, I'm not really talking about irritation, I'm talking about general efficacy for growing hair.

And I've tried both methods. I believe applying the Retin-a well in advance gives the opportunity for more sebum to be dissolved.

"More sebum to be dissolved"?? Not sure where you're coming from with that!

In my mind, this is the most bang for the buck... with the least chance for irritation or sides.

That may well be true. I'm just trying to counteract the general assumption that's made by a lot of people that there's any particular _need_ to use minoxidil and Retin-A together, or close together (see my signature).

L'Oreal even has a patent stating they are most effective applied away from each other. Retinols are already fairly unstable, and easily degraded when exposed to sunlight. Over time, minoxidil and Retin-a together have the potential to degrade, or destabilize, one another.

There was an article written by Price and Shapiro a while back in which they claimed that minoxidil and Retin-A are unstable when mixed together in the same solution. However, they provided no reference or citation for that claim, and I've never been able to find any corroboration for it.

Bryan

 

[suicidedude]

So guys, does a damp head produce better absorption or does using retin induce better absorption?

 

[Goingat20]

both

 

[suicidedude]

both

or maybe retin-A is better? because it exfoliates the skin?

 

[joseph49853]

both

or maybe retin-A is better? because it exfoliates the skin?

I believe this to be true as well. Not only does Retin-a remove skin, both dead and living, it also helps remove deposits of sebum, and bacteria. These are the very things blocking minoxidil from complete access to the follicle. It also inhibits DHT. And it can also increase bloodflow and vascularity of the scalp. All things that water cannot do.

So not only does Retin-a increase absorption, but it makes the skin itself more receptive to absorption. And the good news is: these changes in the skin from Retin-a are far more long-lasting than the fleeting results from minoxidil alone.

The true test of the Retin-a/minoxidil combo has been for me: standing in a well-lit room, and looking in the mirror with my head slightly tilted back. I can now no longer see ANY of my scalp. As where before, on minoxidil alone the lack of density revealed some areas of scalp. Also, Retin-a has allowed me to completely fill in my crown. Something that a year on minoxidil never allowed me to do.

 

[Bryan]

Not only does Retin-a remove skin, both dead and living, it also helps remove deposits of sebum, and bacteria.

Can you elaborate on that a little? I asked you about your "sebum" statement in my earlier post in this thread, but you didn't reply. How exactly does Retin-A "remove deposits of sebum"?

Bryan

 

[suicidedude]

Bryan, do you recommend Retin-A?

How much do you think should be used on one application and how often should it be used?

 

[powersam]

i cant remember if it was on this forum or hairlosshelp, but someone made a post claiming that retin - A decreased the amount of AR receptors in the scalp. i must assume that this is a load of horse manure right?

 

[Old Baldy]

i cant remember if it was on this forum or hairlosshelp, but someone made a post claiming that retin - A decreased the amount of AR receptors in the scalp. i must assume that this is a load of horse manure right?

Now, I know I'm full of horse manure alot of times but here's what peaked my curiousity:

In article <8uro5g> p...@my-deja.com writes:
>From: p...@my-deja.com
>Subject: Re: Dr. P, So upregulation of androgen receptors by finasteride?
>Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 16:10:33 GMT
>Thank you Dr. Proctor for the reply. I was hoping you could
>clarify some things for me.
>1. I read some where that there was a study done by some well reknowned
> scientist or dr.s that showed that retin-a on a daily basis can
> actually reduce androgen receptors by 30-40%. Have you heard of
> this study and does this sound possible and accurate to you?


I've heard of such a study but don't recall the details.


>2. Under the reasons for you not taking finasteride you stated
> something about miscellanous concerns on reflez hyper, for some
> who is 28 what is the different concerns for them compared to
> someone in your age group?


Mainly, libido decrease is not as likely to be a problem. And you don't have
to worry about promotion of the last stage of prostate cancer.


>3. You also mentioned about progression of prostate caner. I though>


finasteride treated prostate cancer can this make it worse

There was a study that showed that in people with the last precancerous stage
of prostate cance, finasteride may "promote" the change to frank
adenocarcinoma of the prostate. This last state is effectively unknown under
age 50. And finasteride may actually inhibit the earlier stages.


and> since people at younger ages are using it for years and it>
does upregulate the androgen receptors in the prostate will this> raise the
chances of prostate cancer later in life and cause us more problems with
the prostate then would have been if we never took finasteride?


This may well be an issue... But remember, DHT is also the promoter for the
early stages of prostate cancer. So it could go either way.


Peter H. Proctor, PhD, MD
http://www.drproctor.com

Bryan's heard of the study(s) also. However, once Bryan informed me there are 3,000 to 10,000 androgen receptors in certain cells, I got a little disappointed.

If Retin-A reduced AR's by 40 percent we'd still have 1,800 to 6,000 AR's in the cells at issue. So, I mean, how many do you need for hair follicles to respond favorably or unfavorably to androgens? As a layman, I'd assume 1,800 to 6,000 AR's is probably enough to still "do their stuff"?

Might be a waste of time to concern myself with the number of AR's? :-x

Bryan kind of "slammed the door" on me when he gave me that info. In fact, I swore under my breath at Bryan when he gave me that info. :lol:

Now I don't mean to embarrass Dr. P but read this reply 17 months later:

In article <cc6b2012> chuckfras...@yahoo.com (Chuck) writes:
>From: chuckfras...@yahoo.com (Chuck)
>Subject: Re: Dr P: is blocking ARs counterproductive?
>Date: 7 Apr 2002 14:15:32 -0700
>How likely do you think it is that retin-a downregulates androgen
>receptors and how often would it have to be applied if it does?


I have never heard of it doing this.

Dr Proctor

Maybe "reducing AR's" and "downregulating AR's" mean different "things" to a professional? :? :? :?

 

[powersam]

ahh didnt know it was you who posted it, would have used different phrasing the reason i brought it up in this thread is because it sounded really interesting but kinda on that too good to be true plane.

 

[Bryan]

Bryan, do you recommend Retin-A?

Yes, if you use it cautiously. Some people just can't resist going overboard on it, and they pay the price for that.

OTOH, it's interesting that Dr. Proctor has pretty much reduced it to insignificant levels in Proxiphen. I guess he thinks that its value isn't worth the potential for irritation...

How much do you think should be used on one application and how often should it be used?

Dunno. Start at a very modest dose, and maybe gradually increase it until you start to get irritation. LOWER THE DOSE at the first sign of such irritation.

Maybe it's even better to use it somewhat intermittently.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

i cant remember if it was on this forum or hairlosshelp, but someone made a post claiming that retin - A decreased the amount of AR receptors in the scalp. i must assume that this is a load of horse manure right?

Just like what Dr. Proctor said in that old alt.baldspot post that Old Baldy quoted above, I could swear that I also saw a study in the past that found that Retin-A reduced the amount of AR receptors, but I still haven't run across it again. Maybe it was actually isotretinoin, instead of Retin-A...

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Bryan's heard of the study(s) also. However, once Bryan informed me there are 3,000 to 10,000 androgen receptors in certain cells, I got a little disappointed.

If Retin-A reduced AR's by 40 percent we'd still have 1,800 to 6,000 AR's in the cells at issue. So, I mean, how many do you need for hair follicles to respond favorably or unfavorably to androgens? As a layman, I'd assume 1,800 to 6,000 AR's is probably enough to still "do their stuff"?

Why would you assume that?? The last thing I'd do is try to "second-guess" Nature and decide that reducing androgen receptors by 40% when they were already around 3,000 to 10,000 would be of no use. You seem to think that that number is more than sufficient to completely saturate the androgenic response, but I wouldn't be so bold as to make such an assumption.

Ask yourself this question: if that "normal" number of androgen receptors were plenty big enough to do the dirty work, even if it were reduced by 40%, then why do you suppose that cells would have evolved a way to adjust their numbers up or down in the first place? Why would hair follicle cells have learned to "intensely upregulate" their numbers in response to something like finasteride (according to Sawaya)? Would Nature have done that just out of whimsy?

Might be a waste of time to concern myself with the number of AR's? :-x

Bryan kind of "slammed the door" on me when he gave me that info. In fact, I swore under my breath at Bryan when he gave me that info. :lol:

At the time, I noticed you seemed to be surprised by that number, and I couldn't figure out for the life of me why!

Bryan

 

[powersam]

40% would seem quite a substantial amount to me...

so Bryan, as far as dosing of retin - a , the best amount is an amount slightly less than that which gives you irritation? i'm assuming this irritation will be quite obvious.

 

[Old Baldy]

Good, thanks for the info. and opinion Bryan. Had to "bring you out" somehow!! :wink:

I agree with everything you say and, deep down, feel reducing the AR's by 40 percent might have a positive effect?

Maybe reducing from the 3,000 to 10,000 average range of AR's to 1,800 to 6,000 range will help with our ailment? You're clearly right when making the "mother nature" statement IMHO. The mere fact our systems upregulate or downregulate anything proves you're probably right IMHO.

I needed to hear your opinion.

Sometimes, I have to make strong generalizations to get you to respond Bryan. Sorry, but my strategy worked!! Good going Old Baldy!

Now don't get angry but there are times I ask you a direct question and you don't answer. So I got sneaky with this one and made an extreme wacko generalization. I find you respond more often to that type of "question". :wink:

I remember an old thread at alt.baldspot where some of the other veterans were laughing with each other when they used that strategy to "bring you out". It was a pretty funny thread. To your credit, you laughed also. You responded with something like "you guys used me huh", they responded, "well yes - duh". Another veteran said something like "geez - you think". :lol: :lol: :lol:

Sorry for my sneakiness(sp?)!!

I wish I could find that da** study though. All I could find was a 1994 study where prostate cells were tested in vitro. (And Retin-A reduced the number of AR's substantially.)

Oh, I forgot to mention, I was surprised that the average range of AR's was 3,000 to 10,000 due to the sheer number. It just seemed like quite a few. Why SO many? You see, now that was a direct question. :lol: