This Ones For All The People That Ride Mathew Mchonahey's Nuts. Never Had A Hair Transplant

[Crystalclear12]

Again, impossible. You're talking about being able to identify guys who get AMAZING RESULTS on steroids, based on their vascularity, etc. which anyone can identify. eg. Zac Efron. But that is not all steroid users.

If you take a 130 lb 15% bf guy and put him on a 10 week cycle, we can say from the science he will end up on average at 143 lb 14% bf by the end. There is no way in hell you can look at a 143 lb 14% bf man and tell me if he's taking steroids or not. He will just look like a small, average man.

I literally said wayyyy up in the begininng of this thread "we're talking about inshape steroid vs natty not skinny fat faggots" now you're saying yes u can tell if he's inshape but not if he's a skinny fat f*****? Am I getting this right? See how you're getting a bit confusing here changing your argument? lol you're a joke.

 

[Crystalclear12]

Okay man, you should work for the drug testing associations at the Olympics/NFL/NBA/MLB/UFC as well as every other professional sport, since you could just go to the sidelines and point out every steroid user by sight. They wouldn't even have to test their blood/urine.

You could revolutionize all these fields and really clean up the sports. I'm sure they'd pay a lot for your services.

I really should as any time I'm watching UFC or the olympics or any other athlete on tv I'm generally thinking "that persons on, that person looks good for natty, etc etc" then usually the people I think are on fail their steroid test after the fight, I'm a hero.

 

[IdealForehead]

I literally said wayyyy up in the begininng of this thread "we're talking about inshape steroid vs natty not skinny fat faggots" now you're saying yes u can tell if he's inshape but not if he's a skinny fat f*****? Am I getting this right? See how you're getting a bit confusing here changing your argument? lol you're a joke.

Since the start I have been talking about the fact that many of the steroid users in Hollywood or the modelling industries are not super ripped or dedicated, and the entire reason they have been using steroids is to "cheat" so they don't have to work hard to be "presentable".

I stated Hugh Jackman as an example of an OBVIOUS user. And I said most are not that type. Most steroid users in Hollywood and modelling do not look any better than natural lifters with good genetics.

 

[Crystalclear12]

Since the start I have been talking about the fact that many of the steroid users in Hollywood or the modelling industries are not super ripped or dedicated, and the entire reason they have been using steroids is to "cheat" so they don't have to work hard to be "presentable".

I stated Hugh Jackman as an example of an OBVIOUS user. And I said most are not that type. Most steroid users in Hollywood and modelling do not look any better than natural lifters with good genetics.

if someone's 140 lb 10-15% bf and takes steroids vs someone else with those exact bf percentages, I, as well as pretty much anyone whose been on steroids for a while can tell which ones on cycle vs which one isn', simple because of how their muscles look while on cycle. Try to let that sink in.

 

[Crystalclear12]

Since the start I have been talking about the fact that many of the steroid users in Hollywood or the modelling industries are not super ripped or dedicated, and the entire reason they have been using steroids is to "cheat" so they don't have to work hard to be "presentable".

I stated Hugh Jackman as an example of an OBVIOUS user. And I said most are not that type. Most steroid users in Hollywood and modelling do not look any better than natural lifters with good genetics.

There are tell tail signs that are too long to explain. Mathew mcconaheys body is natural. He has no traps. Traps are the first thing to show when you're 8-10% bf while on cycle because you use your traps pretty much for any upper body excersie, including simply taking weights off a rack. You must be such a know it all in real life everyone must hate you srs

 

[IdealForehead]

This is the last thing I will try to say on this subject, as I think the discussion has entirely run out of usefulness.

Here is Matt at his typically "buff" state:

Is it possible he could get here without steroids if he has good genetics and training? Absolutely. But is it also possible he could have used a few cycles of testosterone to make it happen faster and easier? He would not be the first in Hollywood to do so.

I raised this possibility in the first case because cycles of testosterone could easily explain periodic fluctuations in his hair quality/density. As a man prone to male pattern baldness, every time he goes on cycle, even with finasteride, he will shed more, and when he stops, if he is treating it well and prone to good recovery on the meds (which it seems he is given his initial good response to the meds in the early 2000s), he will recover some as well.

This would potentially lead to a periodically fluctuating hairline and hair density over time, which we have seen.

Obviously, no one will know for sure except Matt and those close to him, but I think it's as good an explanation as any. Transplants don't vanish over the span of a few months and then reappear, and wigs are easily spotted under bright lights with hi resolution cameras. So those are less probable to me.

For the wig theory fans, I give you John Travolta's lace:

This is what I mean about hi res photography. These were both an excellent hairpieces with excellent attachment, but under the bright lights and with a very good camera, one can easily zoom in and see the way light reflects off the lace. This is true of all lace pieces.

The only pieces which avoid this problem are thin skin V-Loop hairpieces, but they have a very clear "line" at their edge where they start and finish, plus hair direction through them is erratic as well, so they are easily identified too under harsh circumstances. They are also newer technology.

Matt has shown no evidence of any of these telltale signs of wigs or pieces at any time despite dozens/hundreds of red carpet appearances since he first started balding, so I do not think this is at all likely or probable as an explanation for his hair, and I return to the one I offered from the start.

Primarily, I believe he has had a fantastic result from the meds in the early 2000s. He has had very good styling from his team to help cover thin spots and make it look thicker when needed. Fluctuations we have seen could be explained by him going off the hair meds periodically and/or running testosterone cycles to "cheat" on his diet/exercise routine. And most recently, it is possible he may have had a recent transplant, but not likely before 2011 based on the picture posted earlier of what he looked like then.

This will all be speculation, and people will probably speculate until he dies. But I think that's as good an explanation as any, and it's the best I can provide.

 

[Crystalclear12]

This is the last thing I will try to say on this subject, as I think the discussion has entirely run out of usefulness.

Here is Matt at his typically "buff" state:

View attachment 67268

Is it possible he could get here without steroids if he has good genetics and training? Absolutely. But is it also possible he could have used a few cycles of testosterone to make it happen faster and easier? He would not be the first in Hollywood to do so.

I raised this possibility in the first case because cycles of testosterone could easily explain periodic fluctuations in his hair quality/density. As a man prone to male pattern baldness, every time he goes on cycle, even with finasteride, he will shed more, and when he stops, if he is treating it well and prone to good recovery on the meds (which it seems he is given his initial good response to the meds in the early 2000s), he will recover some as well.

This would potentially lead to a periodically fluctuating hairline and hair density over time, which we have seen.

Obviously, no one will know for sure except Matt and those close to him, but I think it's as good an explanation as any. Transplants don't vanish over the span of a few months and then reappear, and wigs are easily spotted under bright lights with hi resolution cameras. So those are less probable to me.

For the wig theory fans, I give you John Travolta's lace:

View attachment 67269
View attachment 67270

This is what I mean about hi res photography. These were both an excellent hairpieces with excellent attachment, but under the bright lights and with a very good camera, one can easily zoom in and see the way light reflects off the lace. This is true of all lace pieces.

The only pieces which avoid this problem are thin skin V-Loop hairpieces, but they have a very clear "line" at their edge where they start and finish, plus hair direction through them is erratic as well, so they are easily identified too under harsh circumstances. They are also newer technology.

Matt has shown no evidence of any of these telltale signs of wigs or pieces at any time despite dozens/hundreds of red carpet appearances since he first started balding, so I do not think this is at all likely or probable as an explanation for his hair, and I return to the one I offered from the start.

Primarily, I believe he has had a fantastic result from the meds in the early 2000s. He has had very good styling from his team to help cover thin spots and make it look thicker when needed. Fluctuations we have seen could be explained by him going off the hair meds periodically and/or running testosterone cycles to "cheat" on his diet/exercise routine. And most recently, it is possible he may have had a recent transplant, but not likely before 2011 based on the picture posted earlier of what he looked like then.

This will all be speculation, and people will probably speculate until he dies. But I think that's as good an explanation as any, and it's the best I can provide.

I stopped reading after the pics of John. Mcconahey has the exact same hairline in 99 as he has in 2010. To think that fluctuation is due to steroids and responses to finasteride causing him to gain and lose hair to the point where is baseline pictures are identical, is like saying it's possible that aliens will invade earth, technically it could happen, we don't KNOW, but it's unlikely right? Mathew mcconaheys isn't of steroids in that picture. He has a receding hairline which i have never seen anyone recover from fully on finasteride.. I said earlier the only people that respond like that are diffused thinners, yet later you used a defused thinner as an example. Mcconahey still has a forelock, John t doesn't. The thin forelock allows you to put s system BEHIND your hairline making it look natural and masks it. Again, you're wrong. Maybe aliens will come though, maybe.

 

[IdealForehead]

I stopped reading after the pics of John. Mcconahey has the exact same hairline in 99 as he has in 2010. To think that fluctuation is due to steroids and responses to finasteride causing him to gain and lose hair to the point where is baseline pictures are identical, is like saying it's possible that aliens will invade earth, technically it could happen, we don't KNOW, but it's unlikely right? Mathew mcconaheys isn't of steroids in that picture. He has a receding hairline which i have never seen anyone recover from fully on finasteride.. I said earlier the only people that respond like that are diffused thinners, yet later you used a defused thinner as an example. Mcconahey still has a forelock, John t doesn't. The thin forelock allows you to put s system BEHIND your hairline making it look natural and masks it. Again, you're wrong. Maybe aliens will come though, maybe.

This theory doesn't make sense, as his corners and temples have receded, so to put something BEHIND the forelock would still risk being visible from the sides and angles of the forelock. It makes no sense from a utility standpoint also, as his hairline since he has been on the meds has generally been a stable NW2-3 and would not require that.

Receded temples/corners in 2011:

This is a very natural NW2-3 hairline with good but clearly reduced density on top that is typical for someone who is a good responder on finasteride/minoxidil to get from where he started.

Belgravia's site also features many men who have had great responses on finasteride/minoxidil.

eg.

This is a typical "strong responder".

 

[Crystalclear12]

This theory doesn't make sense, as his corners and temples have receded, so to put something BEHIND the forelock would still risk being visible from the sides and angles of the forelock. It makes no sense from a utility standpoint also, as his hairline since he has been on the meds has generally been a stable NW2-3 and would not require that.

Receded temples/corners in 2011:

View attachment 67271

This is a very natural NW2-3 hairline with good but clearly reduced density on top that is typical for someone who is a good responder on finasteride/minoxidil to get from where he started.

Belgravia's site also features many men who have had great responses on finasteride/minoxidil.

eg.View attachment 67272

This is a typical "strong responder".

His hairline looks the same as 99 there plus topiks. He combs his forelock to the left and right. And that propecia pic literally made me laugh out loud. If you can't see whats wrong with those pics then you're not even a worthy person to argue with.

 

[IdealForehead]

Here is another case of strong finasteride response after 6 months on the right.

These people are the lucky ones but they absolutely exist. From memory, the stats from studies were that around 5% of propecia users get large amounts of regrowth. 40-50% get some regrowth but not as much. The rest stay the same. 1% declined.

A 5% chance of a major positive response is not bad statistically. If I told you you had a 5% chance of winning the lottery, you'd probably buy a ticket.

And agreed, Matt's hair when blowing in the wind is not spectacular.

 

[Crystalclear12]

Here is another case of strong finasteride response after 6 months on the right.

View attachment 67273

These people are the lucky ones but they absolutely exist. From memory, the stats from studies were that around 5% of propecia users get large amounts of regrowth. 40-50% get some regrowth but not as much. The rest stay the same. 1% declined.

A 5% chance of a major positive response is not bad statistically. If I told you you had a 5% chance of winning the lottery, you'd probably buy a ticket.

And agreed, Matt's hair when blowing in the wind is not spectacular.

Again you post a diffused thinner aka hair is all thinning aka all hair is minituizing at the same rate. There isn't a single finasteride user that has a receding hairline that takes finasteride and goes from a Norwood 3 to a Norwood 1 like mcconahey. Not a single one.

 

[IdealForehead]

Again you post a diffused thinner aka hair is all thinning aka all hair is minituizing at the same rate. There isn't a single finasteride user that has a receding hairline that takes finasteride and goes from a Norwood 3 to a Norwood 1 like mcconahey. Not a single one.

He's not a Norwood 1 in that pic from 2011.

Here is in 2005:

Also not a NW1.

Here he is in 2016:

Also not a NW1.

Here again in 2016:

Also not a NW1.

He's been consistent in the NW2-3 zone in paparazzi (ie. casual) red carpets and beach photos. Variations in hair length, style, wetness, color. Never any lace or hairpiece evidence in sight.

He's pretty good at covering his corners when he styles it a certain way, and I can't say for sure he isn't wearing a piece in the Black Tower movie (straight black spiked hair) but otherwise it doesn't appear so.

 

[Crystalclear12]

Mcconahey 2015.... Norwood 1. Finasteride can't do this. He wears a system. You're wrong.

 

[IdealForehead]

Mcconahey 2015.... Norwood 1. Finasteride can't do this. He wears a system. You're wrong.

Yeah, that's an interesting picture and looks really good. Actually it's from 2012 though by reverse image search.

Under less favorable lighting, this was his 2013 hair, one year later at the same event, very clearly still showing male pattern baldness in the NW2-3 range:

Which then looked like this ie. MUCH BETTER and very similar to yours in the official paparazzi pictures:

Absolutely this is still in the realm of medication response. And you can see the difference angles, styling, lighting, and photography make.

A hairpiece would have to replace his CORNERS to put him back to a true NW1 and then would be visible in these pictures the same way Travolta's has been.

It's quite possible he's using concealers and other tricks at certain times, but a hairpiece does not seem evident.

 

[Crystalclear12]

Yeah, that's an interesting picture and looks really good. Actually it's from 2012 though by reverse image search.

Under less favorable lighting, this was his 2013 hair, one year later at the same event, very clearly still showing male pattern baldness in the NW2-3 range:

View attachment 67278

Which then looked like this ie. MUCH BETTER and very similar to yours in the official paparazzi pictures:

View attachment 67279

Absolutely this is still in the realm of medication response. And you can see the difference angles, styling, lighting, and photography make.

A hairpiece would have to replace his CORNERS to put him back to a true NW1 and then would be visible in these pictures the same way Travolta's has been.

It's quite possible he's using concealers and other tricks at certain times, but a hairpiece does not seem evident.

The thing about hair systems is you can take them out. He clearly has Norwood 1s in all his movies and most red carpet events. It's impossible to go from where he was in 99 to this pic here. Plain and simple.

 

[Crystalclear12]

He puts the system behind his hairline (again) then combs his forelock left and right to go over the system creating density while hiding the system. This is getting repetitive.

 

[IdealForehead]

He puts the system behind his hairline (again) then combs his forelock left and right to go over the system creating density while hiding the system. This is getting repetitive.

How can you put a hairpiece BEHIND a NW3 hairline, and turn it into a NW1 hairline?

Mechanically that doesn't make sense.

By definition to turn a NW3 into a NW1, you must put the hairpiece IN FRONT of the hairline at the corners and temple points as they are receded.

Here's a William Shatner picture showing how with blonde hair, and hi res photos, hairpieces may even be seen and identified THROUGH the hair:

Matt has been photographed likely hundreds of thousands of times under all sorts of conditions. Paparazzi love this sh*t. If they could get a pic that "exposes" him they would in a heartbeat.

In Game of Thrones, all the hairpiece wearers are blatantly obvious on a 100" projector when I watch at home and that's one of (if not the) biggest show on TV with great makeup artists and a very high budget.

Hair pieces are not as good as the recent sales hype toupee salesmen have promoted them to be. If you've been to a hairpiece clinic or played with them yourself you'd see what I mean. Even bleached knots can show up as little "dots" that stand out. Tapes and glues "shine". The lace always creates a grid if you look closely enough or the hair is parted or the wind blows.

His changes are far better explained by concealers, cycling medications, and even transplants than "the best and most invisible hairpiece in the history of hairpieces".

 

[IdealForehead]

The flaws of hairpieces are why one notorious hairpiece wearer still wears a baseball hat at almost every event:

He's in constant fear of being "exposed", and that's even with a thick black wig combed down.

That doesn't even raise the problems of blending color, curl, density, and flow with wigs and natural hair, which is very difficult to do, and even harder to do hundreds to thousands of times without anyone noticing a discrepancy.

Wig hair by nature has been subjected to massive amounts of processing which strip the outer cuticle and thus change the texture and shine of them. Wig hair does NOT look like real hair.

You can see this in Enrique's wig above that its color, texture, density, and general flow do not look entirely natural. And his is as easy a wig to make as any (dark black, combed forward, no hairline exposed, no parting or scalp visible).

Wigs are very challenging work.

 

[Crystalclear12]

Once again I'll break this down and hold your hand like a small child. He puts the system behind his forelock, where the Norwood 4 island would connect. He then combs the "island" left and right to cover the system. You can never see the actual hairline in either of his corners. One side is worse than the other and he can get away with showing more hairline. This is getting repetitive. He's a Norwood 1 in all his movies man, he's held as a hair transplant god... I think it's obvious to both of us he has not got a hair transplant as he has no hairline in the corners.

 

[Crystalclear12]

The flaws of hairpieces are why one notorious hairpiece wearer still wears a baseball hat at almost every event:

View attachment 67282

He's in constant fear of being "exposed", and that's even with a thick black wig combed down.

View attachment 67283

That doesn't even raise the problems of blending color, curl, density, and flow with wigs and natural hair, which is very difficult to do, and even harder to do hundreds to thousands of times without anyone noticing a discrepancy.

Wig hair by nature has been subjected to massive amounts of processing which strip the outer cuticle and thus change the texture and shine of them. Wig hair does NOT look like real hair.

You can see this in Enrique's wig above that its color, texture, density, and general flow do not look entirely natural. And his is as easy a wig to make as any (dark black, combed forward, no hairline exposed, no parting or scalp visible).

Wigs are very challenging work.

I wouldn't doubt that mcconahey cuts his own hair from the back and sends them in to have a system created out of them.