So far, results show that 2% minoxidil grows more hair than dutasteride in the short run. I believe that if dutasteride were given 2-3 years, it would grow hair at a faster rate than proscar or propecia, would do so for a much longer time before maxing, and would not have nearly as large of a decline afterwards. IMO, dutasteride would grow more hair than minoxidil in a few years, and then maintain most of it in a larger percentage of men than propecia does.
If you look at the propecia 5-year graph, people on propecia took a year to reach max, but when they switched to placebo and switched back, they took 3 years to catch back up. This shows that under the right circumstances, men may keep gaining hair for 3 years. I hope everyone is aware that just because the average guy maxes at 1 year and declines after 2, that does not mean all guys are like this. This a probably a wide range. The cross back group has more hairs to revive, since more are recently on the edge, so they can take 3 years. They grow the same ones back, but slower.
When merck was deciding what dose to make propecia, they discovered in small trials that 0.2mg/day is 82% as effective as 1mg per day which is 83% as effective as 5mg/day. Dutasteride was tested againsted proscar, not propecia, when proscar is 25% more effective than propecia, and the 5-year study was done with propecia, not proscar.
During the proscar vs dutasteride study, 0.5mg/day regrew about 20 more hairs per circular inch than proscar, and 2.5mg/day regrew another 20, and after they cut off the dose and tested another 12 weeks out, the highest dose of dutasteride had gained another 20, not slowing down. All of these numbers are higher than the 80 above baseline that propecia grew at 6 months. Propecia grew to 110 over placebo by 52 weeks. Avodart was 120 above placebo at 6 months, proscar 100, and 2.5mg was 140. After meds were cut off, the 2.5mg people regrew another 20.
http://www.forhair.com/images/dutasterideimg32.jpg
Not all men get thinner hair as they age, at least not noticeably. Some guys with low hairlines have very thick hair till age 80. I think much of the thinning that happens with age is caused by androgens. I think every man has male pattern baldness to varying degrees. It is hard to say if the thinning on propecia is the same rate as the general population, but I think dutasteride would have a slower rate, and that either drug would keep normal guys from thinning as fast in old age.
Men tend to make less testosterone and more DHT as they age, so male pattern baldness seems to be premature aging of follicles and then the scalp.
Since castration follow ups have shown castration to halt hair loss at different stages and keep the furthest frontal hair line, it seems that stopping androgens is enough to stop hair loss, at least in the small sample. However, maybe the testes made more than just testosterone, or maybe the testosterone is converted to more than just DHT to cause hair loss. So maybe blocking all 5ar would not stop hair loss. About 95% of testosterone is made in the testes, and women have about 5% as many androgens as men, half of which are DHT. So castrated men propbably have 5% as much DHT as normal men, at least in their scalp. Avodart inhibits 98.5% of type2 5ar, but causes increased levels of testosterone. So it is hard to say what DHT will do. Since the avodart testosterone levels are within the normal range, that means many men have levels that high, and probably not all have male pattern baldness. I wonder though if a disproportionate number of them have male pattern baldness. That would tell us the role of testosterone on hair, though it could just be from conversion to DHT, which we can stop.
Even though castration did not seem to regrow a lot of hair, this was 20 years later, looking at old photographs with different hair styles and limited angles. No hair counts. I think this proves that androgens cause the thinning of hair in "non-male pattern baldness men", and that you don't have to thin with age.
Men without 5ar2 don't thin. Even more proof that we don't have to, and that maybe androgens are the only trigger for male pattern baldness, though perhaps many other pathways might cascade after the first exposure. We know some of the secondary causes, and have treatments for those in the herbal forum, though the magnitude of their effectiveness has not been tested like propecia.
I find it odd that if you starve arm hairs of androgens, they shrink, but if you keep androgens away from head hairs, they don't just grow back to terminal length like you would expect. Maybe it is easier to get a good dose of AR blockers on an arm than it is to get it on the head. I read that a castrated man given testosterone lost his hair and did not grow it back after no longer recieving the testosterone, even though he never lost his hair before receiving the testosterone, while his twin brother did. So either a cascade starts and never stops until we stop it or keep it inhibited, or androgens have a permenant effect. I wonder if the fuzz on micheal berries wrist every grew back out again. Of course if body hair is that different from head hair, their is no reason it would have to be permanent either.
If you look at the propecia 5-year graph, people on propecia took a year to reach max, but when they switched to placebo and switched back, they took 3 years to catch back up. This shows that under the right circumstances, men may keep gaining hair for 3 years. I hope everyone is aware that just because the average guy maxes at 1 year and declines after 2, that does not mean all guys are like this. This a probably a wide range. The cross back group has more hairs to revive, since more are recently on the edge, so they can take 3 years. They grow the same ones back, but slower.
When merck was deciding what dose to make propecia, they discovered in small trials that 0.2mg/day is 82% as effective as 1mg per day which is 83% as effective as 5mg/day. Dutasteride was tested againsted proscar, not propecia, when proscar is 25% more effective than propecia, and the 5-year study was done with propecia, not proscar.
During the proscar vs dutasteride study, 0.5mg/day regrew about 20 more hairs per circular inch than proscar, and 2.5mg/day regrew another 20, and after they cut off the dose and tested another 12 weeks out, the highest dose of dutasteride had gained another 20, not slowing down. All of these numbers are higher than the 80 above baseline that propecia grew at 6 months. Propecia grew to 110 over placebo by 52 weeks. Avodart was 120 above placebo at 6 months, proscar 100, and 2.5mg was 140. After meds were cut off, the 2.5mg people regrew another 20.
http://www.forhair.com/images/dutasterideimg32.jpg
Not all men get thinner hair as they age, at least not noticeably. Some guys with low hairlines have very thick hair till age 80. I think much of the thinning that happens with age is caused by androgens. I think every man has male pattern baldness to varying degrees. It is hard to say if the thinning on propecia is the same rate as the general population, but I think dutasteride would have a slower rate, and that either drug would keep normal guys from thinning as fast in old age.
Men tend to make less testosterone and more DHT as they age, so male pattern baldness seems to be premature aging of follicles and then the scalp.
Since castration follow ups have shown castration to halt hair loss at different stages and keep the furthest frontal hair line, it seems that stopping androgens is enough to stop hair loss, at least in the small sample. However, maybe the testes made more than just testosterone, or maybe the testosterone is converted to more than just DHT to cause hair loss. So maybe blocking all 5ar would not stop hair loss. About 95% of testosterone is made in the testes, and women have about 5% as many androgens as men, half of which are DHT. So castrated men propbably have 5% as much DHT as normal men, at least in their scalp. Avodart inhibits 98.5% of type2 5ar, but causes increased levels of testosterone. So it is hard to say what DHT will do. Since the avodart testosterone levels are within the normal range, that means many men have levels that high, and probably not all have male pattern baldness. I wonder though if a disproportionate number of them have male pattern baldness. That would tell us the role of testosterone on hair, though it could just be from conversion to DHT, which we can stop.
Even though castration did not seem to regrow a lot of hair, this was 20 years later, looking at old photographs with different hair styles and limited angles. No hair counts. I think this proves that androgens cause the thinning of hair in "non-male pattern baldness men", and that you don't have to thin with age.
Men without 5ar2 don't thin. Even more proof that we don't have to, and that maybe androgens are the only trigger for male pattern baldness, though perhaps many other pathways might cascade after the first exposure. We know some of the secondary causes, and have treatments for those in the herbal forum, though the magnitude of their effectiveness has not been tested like propecia.
I find it odd that if you starve arm hairs of androgens, they shrink, but if you keep androgens away from head hairs, they don't just grow back to terminal length like you would expect. Maybe it is easier to get a good dose of AR blockers on an arm than it is to get it on the head. I read that a castrated man given testosterone lost his hair and did not grow it back after no longer recieving the testosterone, even though he never lost his hair before receiving the testosterone, while his twin brother did. So either a cascade starts and never stops until we stop it or keep it inhibited, or androgens have a permenant effect. I wonder if the fuzz on micheal berries wrist every grew back out again. Of course if body hair is that different from head hair, their is no reason it would have to be permanent either.
