Prox-n

[htownballa]

Im thinking of trying prox-n to boost up the thickness in hairline and behind it. I already use tricomin. Would using tricomin and prox-n be redundant? I know prox-n has copper peptides in it but I dont know what else it has in it. Not sure if it is worth the money if I plan on continuing tricomin?

 

[LostWind]

Im thinking of trying prox-n to boost up the thickness in hairline and behind it. I already use tricomin. Would using tricomin and prox-n be redundant? I know prox-n has copper peptides in it but I dont know what else it has in it. Not sure if it is worth the money if I plan on continuing tricomin?

I want to switch from spironolactone to Prox=n...
See which one is better..

 

[Felk]

I'd use both.

Tricomin has different peptides than prox-n. Prox-n also contains NANO growth stimulators as well as copper peptides.

 

[htownballa]

any more opinions?

 

[MPBWarrior]

prox-n seems to better as a whole but also much more expensive

 

[Sean68]

im considering it as well, has anyone had good results?

 

[JWM]

Prox-N is a decent treatment but far too expensive if you ask me. If you want the benefits of Nano I would use Dr. P's shampoo. Yes, Prox-N contains other things, but again, I believe that for the price, it is a mediocre treatment.

I would stick with the spironolactone cream.

 

[Bryan]

Prox-N is a decent treatment but far too expensive if you ask me. If you want the benefits of Nano I would use Dr. P's shampoo.

That seems like an odd statement to me. Are you suggesting or implying that NANO Shampoo is a more cost-effective treatment than Prox-N? I don't believe it is.

Bryan

 

[htownballa]

So tricomin + NANO shampoo > than Prox-n? damn

 

[JWM]

That seems like an odd statement to me. Are you suggesting or implying that NANO Shampoo is a more cost-effective treatment than Prox-N? I don't believe it is.

Yes I am. Dr. P himself has said that Nano by itself can be pretty effective. One bottle can last MONTHs (I've gotten 6 months out of some) and if you by the LEF version for $20...

Keep this in mind though. Although I don't think they are bad treatments, I also don't think treatments like Prox-N and Nano shampoo are anything to write home about. And before you even mention it Bryan, your pictures and results on this site do not provide a decent argument IMO.

Your turn

 

[Bryan]

That seems like an odd statement to me. Are you suggesting or implying that NANO Shampoo is a more cost-effective treatment than Prox-N? I don't believe it is.

Yes I am. Dr. P himself has said that Nano by itself can be pretty effective. One bottle can last MONTHs (I've gotten 6 months out of some) and if you by the LEF version for $20...

Why don't you ask Dr. P for his opinion on that? I doubt he'll agree with you that the shampoo is more cost-effective than Prox-N.

Keep this in mind though. Although I don't think they are bad treatments, I also don't think treatments like Prox-N and Nano shampoo are anything to write home about.

What DO you think are treatments to write home about?

Bryan

 

[JWM]

OK, I'll give you a point for calling me on my choice of words.

I don't think ANY of the available treatments today are anything to 'write home about' but I believe the best we have, that produces the most consistent results for the majority, are Finasteride and Minoxidil. Anything else is like adding bleu cheese on top of filet. Tastes good, but not absolutely necessary in order to enjoy the filet

 

[htownballa]

OK, I'll give you a point for calling me on my choice of words.

I don't think ANY of the available treatments today are anything to 'write home about' but I believe the best we have, that produces the most consistent results for the majority, are Finasteride and Minoxidil. Anything else is like adding bleu cheese on top of filet. Tastes good, but not absolutely necessary in order to enjoy the filet

I would not write home about minoxidil

 

[Bryan]

I don't think ANY of the available treatments today are anything to 'write home about' but I believe the best we have, that produces the most consistent results for the majority, are Finasteride and Minoxidil.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on all that. I seriously doubt that minoxidil is as effective as Prox-N (in the long-run, at the very least). And I think a direct, head-to-head comparison of finasteride and Prox-N would be fascinating! :wink:

Bryan

 

[JWM]

And I think a direct, head-to-head comparison of finasteride and Prox-N would be fascinating!

Wow! that's a bold statement Bryan. I wish there was way we could set this up.

I have this image of a bottle of Prox-N and a finasteride pill meeting in the center of the ring to get their instructions from the ref :lol:

 

[Goingat20]

we know that finasteride doesnt work for everyone, do you think prox-n works for everyone?

 

[Bryan]

And I think a direct, head-to-head comparison of finasteride and Prox-N would be fascinating!

Wow! that's a bold statement Bryan. I wish there was way we could set this up.

Me too. BTW, which do you think is the bolder statement to make: for Dr. Proctor to say that prescription Proxiphen is UNQUESTIONABLY more effective than finasteride, or for me to imply that it's not obvious whether Prox-N or finasteride is more effective?

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

we know that finasteride doesnt work for everyone, do you think prox-n works for everyone?

No, of course not. Nothing works for everyone.

Bryan

 

[Guest]

I thought Prox-N is for regrowth and Proxiphen is more for maintenance because it doesn't contain spironolactone?

A better matchup in a study would be Prox-N/Proxiphen versus dutasteride. Might as well put them up against the best oral DHT inhibitor out there rather than picking the weaker one.

 

[CCS]

yeah, proxiphen is maybe unquestionable better for the small area you can apply that 25mL vial to. diffuse thinners are better off with finasteride. and lets not forget about the area that has not yet gone bald. Put cream on that. or even apply a liquid there every day.