Is minoxidil Once a Day Enough for Results?
- Thread starter mbehr22
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 42
CousinIt said:
First of all, I hope you're using the word "underestimate" loosely here, because I think the technology that Dr. Price used in her study was more impressive than the one used by Dr. Olsen in the study you cite below. Dr. Price used BOTH haircounts and hairweights, as opposed to ONLY haircounts used by Dr. Olsen. I agree with Dr. Price that hairweights are generally more reliable and trustworthy than haircounts. Notice the rather surprising amount of fluctuation in the counts in Price's graph, whereas the weight graph shows a lot more consistency over the 96 weeks of the study.
CousinIt said:
Second of all, what makes you even think that there's THAT much difference between those two studies? Olsen states in her study that after 48 weeks, 5% Rogaine grew 45% more hair (measured in haircounts) than 2% Rogaine. Did you even bother to MEASURE what the equivalent figure is in Price's study??
Putting a ruler on Price's graphs at the 48 week point, I personally measure a difference in haircounts (relative to an average of the placebo and no-treatment groups) that shows an improvement of 38% for the 5% solution over the 2% solution. For hairweights, I measure an improvement of 37%. Since Olsen's figure is 45%, both studies are pretty much in agreement, considering the inevitable statistical variations from one group of test-subjects to another. That's 45% in one, 38% in the other, and you can't expect much better agreement than that in studies of this type! :wink:
Bryan
- Reaction score
- 42
mbehr22 said:
Oh, I don't know. What do YOU think?
mbehr22 said:
It's neither good nor bad. It simply shows that the standard application of 5% Rogaine IS more effective than the standard application of 2% Rogaine, but not as much better as what most people had probably assumed.
Bryan
CousinIt
New Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Bryan...
As per the graphs you submitted, based on using a ruler as you did, hair count percentage increases were as follows at 48 weeks:
2% minoxidil....27% increase from starting point 0
5% minoxidil....33% increase from starting point 0
The difference translates into 5% minoxidil obtaining a 22% increase of effectiveness over 2% minoxidil, not 38%. How were your numbers arrived at?
As far as the studies themselves:
Price Study
Consisted of 36 men, broken into 4 groups. Groups were, 8 men...2% minoxidil, 9 men...5% minoxidil, 10 men...placebo, 9 men...untreated. I find it very difficult to get excited on findings based on these low numbers (17 actually tested with minoxidil) , though I am sure that Dr.Price was diligent in her efforts.
As far as hair weights are concerned, I would agree it attempts to achieve a precise method of measuring hair loss because it considers both the number of hairs,diameters and hair length in its calculation. Its disadvantage is that the sample size represents a relatively small sample of the scalp surface (1 cm in this case), but because it measures hair length as well, it is not as meaningful as intended. Don't get me wrong, I am equally unimpressed with hair counts per se, since it measures only the number of hairs and makes no allowance for their variations in diameter. Personally I would prefer to see evaluations based on the enhanced phototrichogram technique.
On the other hand, the Olsen trials employed 393 men. In total 315 men were on the minoxidil as compared to 17 in the Price study, this would lend itself to a more statistically valid conclusion. Again this encompassed only hair counts, which I previously stated my displeasure of and its shortcomings. But since we can only compare oranges with oranges, this is the only statistic common to both studies and the only one which can be compared.
As per the graphs you submitted, based on using a ruler as you did, hair count percentage increases were as follows at 48 weeks:
2% minoxidil....27% increase from starting point 0
5% minoxidil....33% increase from starting point 0
The difference translates into 5% minoxidil obtaining a 22% increase of effectiveness over 2% minoxidil, not 38%. How were your numbers arrived at?
As far as the studies themselves:
Price Study
Consisted of 36 men, broken into 4 groups. Groups were, 8 men...2% minoxidil, 9 men...5% minoxidil, 10 men...placebo, 9 men...untreated. I find it very difficult to get excited on findings based on these low numbers (17 actually tested with minoxidil) , though I am sure that Dr.Price was diligent in her efforts.
As far as hair weights are concerned, I would agree it attempts to achieve a precise method of measuring hair loss because it considers both the number of hairs,diameters and hair length in its calculation. Its disadvantage is that the sample size represents a relatively small sample of the scalp surface (1 cm in this case), but because it measures hair length as well, it is not as meaningful as intended. Don't get me wrong, I am equally unimpressed with hair counts per se, since it measures only the number of hairs and makes no allowance for their variations in diameter. Personally I would prefer to see evaluations based on the enhanced phototrichogram technique.
On the other hand, the Olsen trials employed 393 men. In total 315 men were on the minoxidil as compared to 17 in the Price study, this would lend itself to a more statistically valid conclusion. Again this encompassed only hair counts, which I previously stated my displeasure of and its shortcomings. But since we can only compare oranges with oranges, this is the only statistic common to both studies and the only one which can be compared.
JohnnySeville
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
I have to comment as a long time user of minoxidil products. I began using 2% rogaine back in the 80's, gave me some growth and kept any losses to a minimum. In the 90's after several years I switched to the 5% when it came out. This grew back a substantial amount of hair for me, over and above 2%. I am currently on the foam since it came out and find that this has even increased what the 5% solution has done for me. IMO, from experience, the 5% minoxidil is at least 50% better than 2%.
- Reaction score
- 42
CousinIt said:
I arrived at those numbers by comparing the results to the placebo/no-treatment groups, not the starting baseline.
CousinIt said:
I acknowledge that the Price study didn't use as many test-subjects as the Olsen study, but nevertheless the results were statistically significant (although more so for the weights than the counts).
CousinIt said:
I don't understand what you're saying. The advantage of hairweights is that it measures the TOTAL AMOUNT OF HAIR PROTEIN that's produced by the hair follicles. That's an improvement in simply measuring the number of hairs, which, as you point out, doesn't say anything about their thickness.
Bryan
JohnnySeville
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Bryan said:Wow. You never thought to try increasing the dose of the 2% solution?
Bryan
Actually I have alway used more than 1ml per dose, probably 1.5-2ml. Never had a problem with sides and it seemed to work well. Even today I am using almost 1 full cap of Foam, getting good results still after all these years. Who ever said minoxidil stops working after so many years. still working well here.
- Reaction score
- 42
johnnyseville said:
Not me. _I_ have never said that!
Until I'm presented with evidence to the contrary, I'll keep believing that topical minoxidil continues to provide that famous "offset of growth" as long as you continue to use it. It's just that for most people, the balding process eventually catches up with it and overtakes it. Evidently in your own case, your balding stabilized at a certain point and hasn't progressed.
Bryan
G
Guest
Guest
Bryan said:
Bryan,
Assuming they aren't on finasteride or dutasteride along with the minoxidil, that is, right?
JayMan