minoxidil efficacy

[Guest]

I always thought minoxidil worked like this.

1) You apply the stuff.
2) Depending on your fenotype (how the genes are expressed) you grow a certain amount of hair.
3) After aprox 1-1,5 years you have reached max amount of hairs that can be grown with minoxidil.
4) You maintain that hair - for how long? well some say 10 - 20 years.

So your graph according to this should go up, flatline and then go down but after quite some time.

Anyway this won´t matter to an individual since it´s based on a population - not all will grow equal amounts.

 

[HAIRLOSSMILITANT]

"So your graph according to this should go up, flatline and then go down but after quite some time. "

YES, I AGREE WITH THIS.
ALSO THE DECLINE RATE SHOULD NOT BE AS SHARP.
ANYWAY, BIG CHEERS FOR THE GRAPH MAKER. THE GENERAL IDEA IS RIGHT.
[/quote]

 

[blue]

That graph is depressing lol

 

[Guest]

So.... taking on board what has been said, we now have a graph that declines at a much slower rate after the loss of efficacy, which in this case I have put at two years for both minoxidil and finasteride, but as we know this may actually be as little as 1 year for some people whilst much longer for others.

And as MH has pointed out recent the five year studies for propecia put a large percentage of men above the bassline at 5 years.

This graph looks hopefull to me as I am on both minoxidil and finasteride as well as Nizoral, T/Gel and Folligen which have not been factored in.

The graph also does not take into account any synergistic effects of using minoxidil and finasteride together.

And obviously if you wack off too much or miss church this will also effect the outcome.

Good Luck and stay off the blue line.


Ty

 

[blue]

What about spironolactone and minoxidil?....you think the results of that combo would last just as long as the finasteride/minoxidil?

 

[Petchsky]

Blue, your avatar is seriously intense! Although it beautifully captures the sheer horror and anguish of the male pattern baldness prodicament coupled with the helpless rage one feels when trapped by the realisation of impending doom.

Sorry, off to the Tate Modern art gallary tomorrow and want to fit in by being as pompous as possible, just thought i would brush up my skills.

This is a damn good thread and is something i have been wondering about for a while. It shows the benefit of the proscar minoxidil combo and has certainly made me feel alot more at ease.



:lol: :lol:

 

[blue]

My avatar was created by Ty ...he is the one you should be complimenting it on......i think he did it in flash.....not sure though,anyways back to my question....

Would spironolactone/minoxidil.....have that lasting of effect(in years as shown) just like the finasteride/minoxidil combo?

 

[HAIRLOSSMILITANT]

THE GRAPH IS ALMOST PERFECT.
You just need to make a slight decline at the 5 year mark for the orange line of "minoxidil + Propecia" combo. We don't want to mislead people to think this combo is going to keep their hair forever ('cause it doesn't).

So a slight decline at the 5 year mark would make it more realistic. If you can do that, then I suggest for HairLossTalk.com to actually make an article on this issue and put this graph on the research section of the site.

THANKS TO TY!!!

 

[Guest]

You just need to make a slight decline at the 5 year mark for the orange line of "minoxidil + Propecia" combo.
So a slight decline at the 5 year mark would make it more realistic.

Do you mean that by year 5 the orange line of minoxidil + finasteride combo should have declined some or do you mean that there should be a decline starting at the 5 year point?

If it is the former, the line does actually decline from year 2 (very slowley) should this decline be faster?

If I do make the orange line of minoxidil + finasteride combo decline any faster it would lose it's relationship with the finasteride only plot (the pale blue dashed line)

At the moment this relationship shows that the offset of growth between the two does not run parallel and that after the 2 year 'lose of efficacy' point those using minoxidil + finasteride will start to lose ground but not at the same rate of decline as those just using finasteride, and obvioulsy carrying the 'offset of growth' with them on this decline.

Obvioulsy I could decline both the minoxidil + finasteride and the finasteride only graph by the same amount, but I was trying to keep the just finasteride plot above the baseline at 5 years.

?

Ty

 

[Bryan]

You just need to make a slight decline at the 5 year mark for the orange line of "minoxidil + Propecia" combo.
So a slight decline at the 5 year mark would make it more realistic.

Do you mean that by year 5 the orange line of minoxidil + finasteride combo should have declined some or do you mean that there should be a decline starting at the 5 year point?

Shouldn't you show it starting to decline slightly at the 2-year point?

If it is the former, the line does actually decline from year 2 (very slowley) should this decline be faster?

I think it's logical to keep the finasteride + minoxidil line parallel with the finasteride-only line after the 2-year point, to emphasize the "offset" concept.

If I do make the orange line of minoxidil + finasteride combo decline any faster it would lose it's relationship with the finasteride only plot (the pale blue dashed line)

But I think the relationship IS correct, as long as they remain parallel!

At the moment this relationship shows that the offset of growth between the two does not run parallel and that after the 2 year 'lose of efficacy' point those using minoxidil + finasteride will start to lose ground but not at the same rate of decline as those just using finasteride, and obvioulsy carrying the 'offset of growth' with them on this decline.

Yeah, I'd fix that.

Obvioulsy I could decline both the minoxidil + finasteride and the finasteride only graph by the same amount, but I was trying to keep the just finasteride plot above the baseline at 5 years.

Which is what you accomplished! That shouldn't interfere in any way with the minoxidil + finasteride line. I would decline the minoxidil + finasteride line the same as the finasteride-only line, AFTER the 2-year point.

One could probably quibble all day long about the slopes and exact positions of all the individual lines, but it would be pretty much topologically correct, in my opinion, with the modest change I mentioned.

Bryan

 

[Guest]

Shouldn't you show it starting to decline slightly at the 2-year point?

If it is the former, the line does actually decline from year 2 (very slowley) should this decline be faster?

Ok new graph, with the minoxidil offset of growth now running parallel with non-minoxidil use (although many here believe that the minoxidil plot will decline slower than it's offset non-minoxidil plot)

Like Bryan said, you could tinker with the plots all day but it would be pointless as the scales are only representative.

Also, where propecias DHT inhibiting effects start to outweigh minoxidils growth stimulating effects is symbolic, don't read this crossover as actually happening around year 5, the point is that it likely to happen eventually.

Is this how things are?

cheers

Ty

 

[Bismarck]

still seems wrong to me: the minoxidil-only curve should approach to "untreated".

 

[Bismarck]

still seems wrong to me: the minoxidil-only curve should approach to "untreated".

 

[Petchsky]

Looks pretty good to me

 

[Guest]

still seems wrong to me: the minoxidil-only curve should approach to "untreated".

To stop using minoxidil will point the line towards 'untreated', by continuing the use of minoxidil you will slow this decline.

 

[Bismarck]

still seems wrong to me: the minoxidil-only curve should approach to "untreated".

To stop using minoxidil will point the line towards 'untreated', by continuing the use of minoxidil you will slow this decline.

After 2 years the minoxidil-curve is parallel to "untreated". That would imply that minoxidil-users lose the same amount of hair after 2 years as someone who never used anything.

 

[Bryan]

still seems wrong to me: the minoxidil-only curve should approach to "untreated".

Ahem. Well, you're challenging the "offset" theory, of course. But that can't really be successfully challenged until we have a lot more REALLY long-term studies, I suppose...

Bryan

 

[Guest]

still seems wrong to me: the minoxidil-only curve should approach to "untreated".

After 2 years the minoxidil-curve is parallel to "untreated". That would imply that minoxidil-users lose the same amount of hair after 2 years as someone who never used anything.

which one is correct?

should the minoxidil curve approach to "untreated"

or

should the minoxidil line stay parallel

or

should the minoxidil line decline, but not as fast as the untreated line?


cheers

Ty

 

[Bryan]

still seems wrong to me: the minoxidil-only curve should approach to "untreated".

To stop using minoxidil will point the line towards 'untreated', by continuing the use of minoxidil you will slow this decline.

After 2 years the minoxidil-curve is parallel to "untreated". That would imply that minoxidil-users lose the same amount of hair after 2 years as someone who never used anything.

EXACTLY! You hit the nail on the head!

Bryan

 

[Guest]

with the addition of cessation of minoxidil use