i went to see a hair consultant yesterday and he said that I was a diffuse thinner but it was still androgenic caused by the DHT. What does this mean???
He said I had thinning at the crown and to be honest i'm not sure that I believe the extent of what he was saying as I have always had 'baby' hair (i.e. very fine) with a visible crown. What I have noticed thinning (and the reason I was there) are my temples - and I'm very unhappy with the recession there as I used to have thin hair all over but it was easy to style as the hairline was straight.
My partner tells me she can only notice a difference at the temples from years ago.
So anyway, what does it mean to supposedly be a diffuse thinner which is still caused by DHT?
Also, do you think that this guy could have been wrong in his 'diagnosis'? (He barely even looked at my hair and I think just noticed that mine was thin all over).
He said I had thinning at the crown and to be honest i'm not sure that I believe the extent of what he was saying as I have always had 'baby' hair (i.e. very fine) with a visible crown. What I have noticed thinning (and the reason I was there) are my temples - and I'm very unhappy with the recession there as I used to have thin hair all over but it was easy to style as the hairline was straight.
My partner tells me she can only notice a difference at the temples from years ago.
So anyway, what does it mean to supposedly be a diffuse thinner which is still caused by DHT?
Also, do you think that this guy could have been wrong in his 'diagnosis'? (He barely even looked at my hair and I think just noticed that mine was thin all over).
