Diffuse thinning vs male pattern baldness

[Guest]

How do the two differ...Just wondering like what the "pros" and "cons" are of each one....is the mechanism the same? I also heard its impossible to go completly bald as a diffuse thinner...any comments would be appreciated.

 

[Thinning]

I think if you start off with a thick crop and diffuse thin it can look better over the course of your life than if you quickly go through the Norwood scale.

Clint Eastwood is a good example. He gradually thinned over the course of 20-30 years, with slight norwood advancement each decade.

If you start off with thin hair, diffuse thinning can look really bad, worse than a thick norwood regression.

IMO.

 

[Guest]

If you start off with thin hair, diffuse thinning can look really bad, worse than a thick norwood regression.

IMO.

Sounds like me right there...well with dry hair it doesn't look that bad (check my pics in me threads) but wet....looks pretty bad ..but this is only when its soaked...if I apply my towel...not even dry it but just take off the excess water it still looks ok.

 

[jumpedthegun]

Moose,

I'd say our hair is very similar. Been on finasteride for about a year. I think my hair initially got thinner on finasteride, but it has stayed consistent so i guess i'll accept a slight thinning so long as it stays the same for the next few years.

Though, I have to say that I think receeding is better than diffuse thinning because you can go a lot longer before it's noticeable. I have a friend who started receeding about seven years ago, but the rest of his hair is so thick, and he wears his hair with a part so the hair curves down his forehead, and you would never even think he's losing his hair. Even if it got to a point that it bothered him, with all that thick hair he could easily get a transplant. Not always an option for diffusers.

On a positive note, i would think diffusers would respond better to finasteride. I don't know if that is entirely true or not.