Is the Age-Old Quest for a Baldness Cure Reaching Its End? | Hacker News Reader

Is the Age-Old Quest for a Baldness Cure Reaching Its End?

newyorker.com

115 pointsca98am79239 comments

Just a few days ago, Japanese researchers announced major breakthrough in hair follicle replication and start of pre-clinical trials. [1] Can anyone more knowledgeable about the field dissect how viable this looks?

This is in addition to Shiseido/Replicel in Japan also doing clinical studies [2].

[1] http://www.organ-technol.co.jp/uploads/2018/06/98a3d5caabf1c...

[2] http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/replicels-cell-ther...

> start of pre-clinical trials.

Means it's still at 10 years away from commercialization, if everything goes fine. in pre-clinical they may find adverse events that kill the drug early. Like most experimental drugs.

Interesting. If I understand correctly, this one is not a drug but a means of replicating a single hair follicle (to then be surgically planted one-by-one as in hair transplants)

The Korean paper 6 months ago look d promising as well.

I've always heard, you can't choose if you go bald, but you can choose when you go bald. Just shave your head if you don't like going bald. It seems to me like the people going bald are the ones who care about it. I don't think it affects how others think of you much at all.

Propecia is apparently effective but the sexual side effects seem to make it not worth it.

Shaved head is the best option, but going bald definitely negatively affects your attractiveness and makes it harder to get dates - especially when younger.

I think attractiveness is like creating a D&D character. You have a low score for "hair" - to compensate max out on sense of humour or abs or something.

FWIW, all of the things you mentioned are probably highly determined by genetics.

You think abs/a good physique and humour aren't skills you can develop?

Yeah, pretty much.

The person I responded to didn't mention physique, which can be influenced by lifting weights. Diet works to a certain degree (ie, you can avoid most of the really bad stuff and you will see improvements, but you probably won't end up as a fitness model). I think there's a good chance that the ability to stick to a diet is highly influenced by genetics, as evidenced by the fact that dieting is a notoriously poor long-term intervention, even though it is incredibly simple in concept.

The person I responded to specifically mentioned abs. Having visible abs requires an incredibly low level of body fat, which is not achievable my most people unless they take performance enhancing drugs of some kind. But, you know, the people selling programs and methods for achieving abs have a vested interest in this not being widely known.

As for sense of humor. I dunno. I guess you're probably funnier when you're in a specific state of mind (at ease, not stressed out, etc.). And I guess you can memorize some jokes and gags. But in my personal experience, funny people all tend to be funny in unique ways. As in, there's no way they learned their particular brand of humor from somebody else.

> I think there's a good chance that the ability to stick to a diet is highly influenced by genetics, as evidenced by the fact that dieting is a notoriously poor long-term intervention, even though it is incredibly simple in concept.

This conclusion is based on data with very poor controls. The success of dieting depends entirely on its macro and micronutrient composition.

Dieting also has poor long-term success because people see it as a temporary measure, and not as a lifestyle change as they should, ie. this is how I should be eating from now on. It's no wonder they revert back to previous body composition with that mindset.

Studies have also shown people vastly underestimate the number of calories they eat. There are numerous studies that demonstrate that people who stick to a fixed nutrition plan of X meals per day with decent portion sizes, and no snacking outside of meal times, easily maintain their weight long term. This doesn't require superhuman genetics or some kind of iron clad will power, your body compensates for small fluctuations above or below your caloric target.

Which isn't to say there are no more mysteries in nutrition science, but the basics are well understood and simple to adhere to. Most people just don't want to. I was in that group a little over a year ago.

> The person I responded to specifically mentioned abs. Having visible abs requires an incredibly low level of body fat, which is not achievable my most people unless they take performance enhancing drugs of some kind.

Well that's completely false. Abs are visible at body fat levels as high as 15%, depending on the underlying musculature. At 10-12%, even that's no longer a factor. These body fat levels are readily achievable. 10-15% is also easily sustainable and not "incredible" by any stretch. You can get abs just with a good diet without any exercise at all in fact.

Edit: go ahead and google image search "skinny abs" for plenty of pictures of skinny people with abs. You're telling me they're all on performance enhancing drugs?

> But in my personal experience, funny people all tend to be funny in unique ways.

Which they learned through life experience. Mimicking relatives and friends, seeing and retaining what they and others did that made people laugh. If you decide to one day change and become funny, these kinds of observations followed by trial and error are exactly how all the funny people you know became funny. Ask any comedian if their jokes just come naturally to them via genetic inspiration, or if they have to actually work at it. They'll tell you how many times they've bombed on stage.

You're treating humans like simple physics formula: change a variable on one side of the equation and the other side of the equation changes in kind. Humans don't work like that, though, because we have brains which adapt our behavior to our circumstances.

You say (emphasis mine):

> Which isn't to say there are no more mysteries in nutrition science, but the basics are well understood and simple to adhere to. Most people just don't want to.

That's the catch, isn't it? You can't just write that off. Motivation is part of the equation.

Motivation isn't genetic, which was the key thrust of your earlier argument.

Of course it is. Here's a link for you:

https://www.quora.com/To-what-extent-is-work-ethic-genetic

First Law of Behavior Genetics: All human behavioral traits are heritable.

https://www.scribd.com/document/203690269/Three-laws-of-Beha...

Third Law: * A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families.

In other words, neither genes nor your family environment while growing up can account for a substantial portion of your adult behaviour.

> You're treating humans like simple physics formula: change a variable on one side of the equation and the other side of the equation changes in kind.

Energy balance is a simple physics equation. Yes there are adaptations as I noted in my previous post, but they don't change this basic fact, merely how conveniently it's achieved.

> That's the catch, isn't it? You can't just write that off. Motivation is part of the equation.

Sure, and why not make the initial conditions of the Big Bang part of the equation while you're at it? Then nothing is your fault or within your control, and you can just do whatever you want and blame god for the way things are.

Dismissing personal responsibility in your life is not a valid option. Your citations down below demonstrate that roughly 50% of variation in personality are heritable. Relinquishing the other 50% of your personal responsibility is a sure way to ensure that nothing changes.

> Energy balance is a simple physics equation. Yes there are adaptations as I noted in my previous post, but they don't change this basic fact, merely how conveniently it's achieved.

Humans have brains. One of the things that human brains do when somebody reduces their caloric intake is that they down-regulate that person's motivation to do stuff. So yeah, you can't violate the laws of thermodynamics, but the energy equation is inputs minus outputs. If you reduce inputs but also reduce outputs, then you haven't changed the energy balance.

> Dismissing personal responsibility in your life is not a valid option.

Look, I agree. I initially responded to somebody talking about abs. Then I make a comment about diets being extremely ineffective long-term interventions. You disagree, but the literature on this topic is extensive. In fact, the fact that people cannot follow diets is just about the only reliable finding that nutrition research has produced.

You may look at a .5 heritability for something and think that leaves a whole lot of room for personal responsibility, so let me add some context. Height has a heritability of about .8. No sane person, anywhere, believes that a person has any control over their height. It is entirely your genetics and, absent severe malnutrition, random shit that happens in your life (possibly starting inside the womb).

A .5 heritability for conscientiousness means that, to start, 50% of your work ethic and sense of personal responsibility (rough common language approximations of the conscientiousness trait) are completely and utterly out of your control. Then, out of the other 50%, free will is one of many possible other things which exert influence.

Now, you may think, oh, well all 50% of that is up to the individual. But I assure you that it almost certainly is not. I could probably come up with dozens of things that would have an influence, but here are just a few that come to mind first: your income level, whether or not you have a chronic illness, how stressful your job is, how stressful your marriage is, whether or not you have family members who are ill, whether or not you have dependent children. All of those things go into non-shared environment and many of them are not in your control. But you better believe they influence your ability to take personal responsibility.

> One of the things that human brains do when somebody reduces their caloric intake is that they down-regulate that person's motivation to do stuff.

You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense. Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation, but as long as my hunger is satiated, I don't see how that makes sense.

The real problem with us (myself included) these days is that we eat WAY more than we need. Cutting back to a more reasonable level should not be causing motivational problems.

> You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense.

It makes tons of sense in an evolutionary environment where your body is trying to keep you from starving. Less motivation means you save calories for things which are absolutely necessary.

Note that I followed the section you quoted with this: >Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation, but as long as my hunger is satiated, I don't see how that makes sense.

You completely ignored that part.

Please explain how my body could be worried about starving if my hunger is satiated.

Your answer also ignores this part: > The real problem with us (myself included) these days is that we eat WAY more than we need. Cutting back to a more reasonable level should not be causing motivational problems.

How is reducing our calorie intake from WAY to much to just right going to make my brain start worrying about starving?

Also, if my brain is worried about starving, it should be MORE motivated to gather resources for, if nothing else, more food!

"You are saying that just because I'm eating fewer calories, I'm going to have less motivation? That makes no sense."

That makes perfect sense to me. Reduced calorie input = reduced energy intake = reduced energy surplus = more motivation to conserve energy = less motivation to expend energy. A lot of this might be psychological, but it might also be biological (for the same reason why fasting tends to encourage the body to store nutrients as body fat in anticipation of future fasting).

Well, sure, when you ignore the part of my comment that said "Sure, if I'm hungry (similar to if I am tired, upset, etc) I will have less motivation".

The key issue is we're talking about going from eating TOO MUCH to eating ENOUGH.

> from toasterlovin

>Then I make a comment about diets being extremely ineffective long-term interventions. You [naasking] disagree

Nope. naasking did not disagree. Here is what they said:

> from naasking

> Dieting also has poor long-term success because people see it as a temporary measure, and not as a lifestyle change as they should, ie. this is how I should be eating from now on. It's no wonder they revert back to previous body composition with that mindset.

> One of the things that human brains do when somebody reduces their caloric intake is that they down-regulate that person's motivation to do stuff.

No, that's a last resort resulting from extreme caloric deficits over prolonged periods. In fact, fasting actually increases perceived energy levels over the first several weeks. Which makes perfect sense: if your body thinks you're having trouble finding food, it's adaptive to be alert and ready so you don't miss any eating possibilities.

Over prolonged periods of caloric deficit, your body down regulates hormones which lowers various metabolic functions so you use less energy in various ways (lower body temp, reduction in NEAT), but this happens over the course of months, and even this energy output reduction is easily staved off by deficit cycling, mild exercise and/or maintaining only a mild deficit rather than a steep one.

> Then I make a comment about diets being extremely ineffective long-term interventions. You disagree, but the literature on this topic is extensive. In fact, the fact that people cannot follow diets is just about the only reliable finding that nutrition research has produced.

That's not really what I said:

1. I said summarizing this research as "diets are ineffective" is the wrong conclusion. Diets are very effective when they're not presented as temporary interventions, which is how people often view them.

2. The research doesn't show that people can't follow diets, but that they won't for "reasons", among which are addiction to certain foods, emotional eating, and just general ignorance about nutrition. This is partly an educational failing, and partly because they simply have no compelling reason to care more than the immediate pleasure they get from indulging.

> Height has a heritability of about .8. No sane person, anywhere, believes that a person has any control over their height. It is entirely your genetics and, absent severe malnutrition [...]

Well you just said it there: nutritional choices by you or your parents have a considerable influence on your height. I also think you're overstating it by saying only severe malnutrition can impact your ultimate height.

> All of those things go into non-shared environment and many of them are not in your control. But you better believe they influence your ability to take personal responsibility.

"Influence" does not entail "determine". You know what else would have a negative influence on a person's sense of control of their life? Telling them most of their body composition, nutritional failings and overall health is out of their control. This too has been extensively studied.

In fact, better well being through better nutrition and exercise is consistently shown to be one of the best changes a person can make in their life, giving them back a sense of control so they can tackle their other problems. Pushing your narrative isn't doing anyone any favours.

> Motivation is part of the equation

So really, it comes down to laziness.

Getting abs is much easier than you believe. I have visible abs and I eat pizza, burgers, and fried chicken each week. I take no drugs, except the caffeine that comes in my soda, nor do I naturally have a high metabolism (my abs weren't visible when I was younger).

I got visible abs by balancing what I eat, lifting weights, and running. What matters at the end of the day is having the discipline to either control your diet, your physical activity, or both.

Abs and sense of humor determined by genetics?

Surely you jest.

Given how desirable abs are and how few people have them, how is it plausible that they are merely the result of effort? Surely if all you had to do was follow X program for Y months, most men would have abs. But they don't.

Similar situation for humor. Women consistently rate a sense of humor as one of the key things they are attracted to. Yet most men are not funny. Surely if all you had to do to be funny was follow X program for Y months, most men would be Dave Chappelle. But they're not. Probably because being funny is some kind of an indicator of intelligence that can't be developed or faked easily. And that's probably why women are attracted to it: it's a reliable, genuine indicator of genetic quality.

> Given how desirable abs are and how few people have them, how is it plausible that they are merely the result of effort? Surely if all you had to do was follow X program for Y months, most men would have abs. But they don't.

As someone who has been fat in what feels like a different life, and today enjoys a developed athletic physique, I find your comment ridiculous.

It sounds like the kind of self-delusion an overweight, unfunny person engages in to feel better about themselves while avoiding the challenge to be healthier, more attractive, or have a better personality.

People are lazy, lack discipline, and are surrounded by poor choices, these are the dominant factors.

Sorry, there are parallel threads going, so I'm going to abandon this one. That said, I misspoke slightly here and rather than rehashing everything, I'll point you to my response to naasking.

> Surely if all you had to do was follow X program for Y months, most men would have abs. But they don't.

Discipline, determination, motivation vs laziness?

This is pretty true for success in anything. Eat less, exercise more -> better body. Spend less than you earn -> better financial stability. Etc.

Certainly there are some who could never have abs. I doubt it's very many though.

> all of the things you mentioned are probably highly determined by genetics

- citation needed

Please do explain to us how super genes are required for one to develop abs or a sense of humour.

As someone who was seriously skinny and out of shape and managed to develop abs through consistent training and dieting, I disagree with this.

Sure, it is easier to develop abs if you are already in a normal BMI and have your diet under control, but after reading all your comments on this threat, I haven't seen any concrete evidence that one can't achieve those unless they have some special genetics.

Sounds more like an excuse one makes for himself to throw his hands up in the air and call it a day rather than actually implementing diligence and self-control.

I decided to get ahead of my hair thinning by shaving my head last year. It's shut down online dating almost completely. But because I stand out a little more now it's actually been great for my work life. People don't forget the bald bearded guy.

It's shut down online dating almost completely.

Hmmm... I shave my head and my experience with online dating is that it actually attracted women that love shaved heads.

Yes - I've seen some of that. But I'm 26. I don't know if there are as many people my age who love shaved heads as there are past 30 or so. (I'm assuming you are older than I am)

Interesting. As a bald bearded guy they seem to be everywhere, so I've never thought of myself as standing out.

I work in sales/recruiting and most the people in the industry are young, clean shaved, attractive folks so the bald bearded look stands out.

Your tagline on dating sites should be "I want to dip my bald head in oil and rub it all over your body"

Seinfeld fans will recognize the quote.

I started shaving to a No 2 in university due to thinning hair. At the time I perceived a decrease in interest from women. 20+yras later, I shave with no comb (< No 1) about once a month. There is a definite increase in interest from women when my head is freshly shaved vs after a couple of weeks of regrowth. So I feel there is an attractiveness spectrum where full head of hair > none or almost no hair > partially bald / balding.

Interestingly in winter I often wear a beanie and people take a much longer look when greeting me while I have it on. I am not sure if it is because it forces them to focus more on my facial features for recognition or maybe they are trying to work out what my hair might look like underneath.

Regardless, losing hair and shaving my head did affect my attractiveness. Weirdly I think it also can be similar to the "grey-hair" effect where people attribute a sign of aging to greater experience and wisdom.

I shave my head twice a week to keep it at that none or almost no hair stage. If I let it go longer than four days it does not look very good at all.

I wear a hat quite a bit now but it's more because I'm worried about the sun than anything else.

People that don't shave their head drastically underestimate how much work it is to maintain that image.

Worse, when you slack off because life is stressing you out, its immediately obvious to everyone around you and the depression cycle goes into hyperdrive as you have to deal with constant comments and queries reminding you about both your baldness that is probably a significant source of stress and your current mental state.

Work to maintain a shaved head? Get a cordless, adjustable beard trimmer. Buzz your head every day in the shower. No mess and it takes maybe 30 seconds. Regular people can't tell the difference between the shortest setting and shaved with a blade. I've been doing this for most of the last 20 years.

If you insist on shaving with a blade, a Mach 3 should do the job in under a minute.

> If you insist on shaving with a blade, a Mach 3 should do the job in under a minute.

I'm confident I would cause myself injury if I tried to shave my head and face that fast. (Source: infrequently but predictably injuring myself while not paying attention.)

The other advantage of that is that leaving a tiny bit of stubble rather than shaving razor-smooth will help prevent ingrown hairs.

The one scientific text on the matter I found via a quick Google search suggests that a shaved head increases perception of dominance and confidence, but decreases attractiveness: http://opim.wharton.upenn.edu/DPlab/papers/publishedPapers/M...

Oddly, but not surprisingly, the public press over-represented those findings as also suggesting that fully bald men are perceived as more attractive: https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/4469188/bald-men-perceived...

Which is quite a common thing in this kind of discourse. People are quick to suggest that being bald is really okay and nobody should care, but give the same people 100 pictures of men and they will end up rating those with full hair more attractive than those with hair loss or baldness without further reflection.

Startup idea: creating some kind of stylish, fluffy headgear that somehow replaces hair while still not trying to pose as fake hair / a toupee. This could be huge fashion market.

This also depends on someone's body type (are you overweight or fit?) and facial bone structure. Having a well-defined jawline and facial symmetry helps. There are people who look good bald (see: Dwayne Johnson), but it's not for everyone.

A whole lot of guys end up losing all of their hair trying to get muscles like Dwayne Johnson.

“Startup idea: creating some kind of stylish, fluffy headgear that somehow replaces hair while still not trying to pose as fake hair / a toupee. This could be huge fashion market.”

Hats. You’re describing hats.

How about an EEG headset.

https://goo.gl/images/WHEVhB

So... the Uber for Hats then?

No, hats usually have a completely different aesthetic and function than hair, they don't complement the shape of the face in the same way at all. Hats are also mostly worn outside, but seem improper to wear while simply sitting at a desk or lazing on a couch. Someone who would like to cover up a bald head most of the waking time is not well served with most types of hats.

> Hats are also mostly worn outside, but seem improper to wear while simply sitting at a desk or lazing on a couch.

There are many different types of hats. Baseball caps, berets, cowboy hats, beanies, ascot/flat caps, fedoras, boonies, Panama hats, etc. That's mostly just the traditionally male ones too.

Some work better indoors than others. I don't often wear hats anymore, but if I'm wearing a baseball cap type, I'll slide it around backwards when indoors most times.

If I'm lounging on my couch and don't feel Co for table exposing a portion of myself I'm sensitive about and it's not temporary, I've made a major mistake at some point.

What you're suggesting might be useful, but it would just be another type of hat.

In the UK you can get a tattoo that looks like stubbles.

Including a link to an image would really help shed some light on your comment.

Plugs do a good enough job. There are a few actors with them that you would never be able to tell.

A shitty plug job looks horrible though. You get what you pay for.

The rating of the 100 pictures thing misses a very subtle point...

Most women aren't attracted to bald guys. But, a small fraction are.

So, assume there is a bar with 100 women in it. 99 of them dislike bald guys (or are indifferent). But 1 of the chicks is absolutely crazy about bald guys.

Now, if you're the only bald guy in the bar, you are almost guaranteed to score... the one nutty chick who lusts after bald guys will be all yours... no competition (as there aren't that many bald guys in your cohort.)

The guys with hair, though? They will be competing with one another. The girls will be ranking them according to other factors besides hair... it's a confused stressful mess over there with the non-bald guys.

But you? The second you walk in, the baldophilic chick makes a beeline for you.

The morale: you don't need all people to think you're not unattractive. Instead, you just need one person to think you are extremely attractive. The latter is more likely if you have some odd defect.

In this case you also need to be attracted to those persons for it to work in your favor.

Are we HN readers known for high standards when it comes to women? Perish the thought. When your pick-up lines involve references to Python or Containers, you take whatever's available.

I participate in a rewards program and they recently started a daily "survey" that asks dumb questions in the form of "Do you prefer X thing or Y thing?" And I click either X or Y so I can get my stupid 10 points, never mind that in a high percentage of cases, the answer is "Are you freaking kidding me? I wouldn't do either of those two things!"

I have two points in bringing that up:

1. The older I get, the more skeptical I am concerning the value of any and all survey results.

2. Real relationships aren't based on some "hair or no hair?" quiz.

I'm a woman. My ex was slightly shorter than me. Post divorce, I have known a couple of men that I would have happily dated if they hadn't had a chip on their shoulder a mile wide about how women will not date them because they were too short. I actually spent considerable time trying to find some way to let the first guy know that I was interested in him without it somehow going weird places. But it just wasn't possible. He made it absolutely impossible to tell him "I find you attractive" without it coming across like "I'm offering you a pity fuck because I have zero self esteem myself and really enjoy eating shit."

My policy these days: I'm not your therapist. If you have some enormous hang up like that, it isn't my job to help you get over it.

I strongly suspect that a lot of people have trouble getting dates not because of X trait, like baldness, but because of the boatload of baggage they carry around about it. I get it: You have that baggage because people rejected you or criticized you over it.

But, IMO, there are better ways to handle that than to take a drug that can permanently impair sexual functioning. Or covering it with some fluffy fashion wear.

I was reminded of an episode of Seinfeld where a guy with a full head of hair started shaving his head because it was cool.

He eventually got fed up with shaving his head and decided to let it grow back, only to find he had gone bald for real in the meantime.

Elaine's bf the swimmer. shaved his head to go faster and she pushed him to grow it back after seeing a photo of him with. he had started to go bald

IIRIC he shaved his head for faster swimming and grew it back when Elaine asked him after seeing his driver license photo with gorgeous hair. But yes, his transformation from pretty cool person into a slob and giving up on everything after realizing he is bolding was close to life experience of many :/

edit: I was sitting on this page for too long and missed that there is another reply already

I decided to shave my head a few times in my 20's just to see how it looked on me. It looks great, so I'm not worried about that fallback plan.

Thankfully at 35, I have barely receding hair and a blue mohawk, so I'm probably ok for a while :)

> I don't think it affects how others think of you much at all.

Unfortunately people care a good deal about that.

There's also a highly effective surgical alternative to everything mentioned in this thread: FUE hair follicle transplants.

You can move roughly half the hair from the side of your head to the top without causing an overly thin look on the sides.

It has been speculated that Elon Musk fixed his early balding with FUE. If you look at the side of his head today, you can see the thinning.

I'm no expert on this, but I'm almost positive I've read that post-transplant one has to use finasteride (+ minoxidil iirc) to keep the transplanted hair safe from DHT removing it.

If did this very thing after my hairline and bald spot became prominent and don’t regret it one bit. It’s easier, cheaper, and, given the fact that I can count on one hand the number of haircuts in my life I actually liked, looks better on me I think.

I take propecia and I have experienced zero sexual side effects that are in anyway noticeable.

doesn't work if you have bumpy weird shaped head.

I'm afraid that if I lose my hair I'll find out I have some weird crack or a third eye or something in there...

I thought that I had wavy hair

Until I shaved. Instead,

I find that I have straight hair

And a very wavy head.

- Shel Silverstein

http://shelsilverstein.yolasite.com/wavy-hair.php

The most obvious impact is in the sexual selection department. There's no shortage of online dating profiles where women openly state they will only date tall men with a full head of hair.

What sexual side effects are you talking about? I was on Finasteride for 4 months.

Never spotted any side effects!

I was on it for maybe 2 weeks. A few days in I noticed a sort of numbing of my weenie. Needless to say I stopped taking it shortly thereafter and things went back to normal. I don't want to know what would've happened had I continued for a long duration.

I am not sure. I used to apply an external lotion Finasteride.

Maybe I will straightaway refuse if a doc prescribes Finasteride pills to me.

Viagra was originally developed as a treatment for baldness, but they pivoted when the test subject reported getting erections.

That's just not true.

1989: British Pfizer scientists Peter Dunn and Albert Wood create a drug called sildenafil citrate that they believe will be useful in treating high blood pressure and angina, a chest pain associated with coronary heart disease.

Hair Growth Clinical Therapies Pipeline (from folliclethought.com):

https://i0.wp.com/www.folliclethought.com/wp-content/uploads...

It's fair to say that the next few years are interesting for balding men (I am one of them lol)!

I am in my late 20s and recently lost all my hair from alopecia universalis. It was a shock when it happened, but now I don't think I'd even want to go back. There is zero maintenance, no hair grows anywhere. I only get positive comments on my look. I do work out to stay fit, my face would have no definition otherwise.

For a lot of guys, the slow progression of baldness is a source of anxiety, but now I have it all over with and I don't need to think about it.

> For a lot of guys, the slow progression of baldness is a source of anxiety,

Bald is fine. Full head of hair is fine. IMO, the only problem comes in when people are hanging on to hair when they should really just let go.

I had really long hair in my late teens, early 20s. I noticed it start to go in my 30s and once it hit that point, I just started trimming it super short. Does anyone really care anymore or is this just some thing made up by the media now?

And a bit of tangent to your point, if someone is worried about attractiveness, hitting the gym will do way more for that than grasping on to hair.

I guess given straight choice though, would you have preferred to keep your hair?

Maybe that's what this is about. I know I would, given a choice. I like my hair.

If it was free with no sides, I'd have it back. I'd probably still crop my hair though, but grade 5 not grade 0.5

I would still keep it super short because it is easy and fits my lifestyle, but obviously making a choice is typically better than being forced.

>> And a bit of tangent to your point, if someone is worried about attractiveness, hitting the gym will do way more for that than grasping on to hair.

Or a successful IPO :-)

Ok, but if you go bald, you have to get rid of sideburns too, which is a touchy subject for a lot of guys.

Haha...I can grow a really thick beard rather quickly, so if I ever feel the need to get crazy with some hair I just stop shaving for a couple of months.

Started balding in my early twenties (male pattern). Did the Minoxidil thing for a while. I perceived bald men as mostly brutes or thugs. And I didn't see myself that way. After some time I just started accepting it as part of who I am. Now in my thirties I would never go back, it's very easy to maintain, my head is cooler and I don't have to think about hair styles.

The same thing happend to a friend of mine about 4 years ago. Lost ALL of his hair. His main pain point is the lost eyebrows and eyelashes. Did you lose them too? How do you deal with it / feel about it?

Yeah they are all gone. I was worried about first impressions and meeting people but it has never been an issue.

Gene Roddenberry was asked by a reporter about casting Patrick Stewart in Star Trek: TNG. "Surely by the 24th century, they would have found a cure for male pattern baldness." And Gene Roddenberry responded "No, by the 24th century, no one will care."

Mr Roddenberry was very progressive, though I think he might have been too optimistic with how humanity evolves (as others before and after him).

Enough literature centers around a dystopian view.

Yes, and after Gene Roddenberry died the showrunners turned away from his vision. They made the Federation much darker when they introduced Ro Laren and the Maquis. This tonal shift took centre stage in DS 9 and Voyager. From the low key lighting to the interpersonal conflicts, these shows marked a dramatic departure from Roddenberry's vision.

We saw how deep this rabbit hole really went when they introduced Section 31 and even went so far as to do an episode where the Federation imposed martial law on earth, something I never would have imagined Roddenberry doing.

I thought you would mention Discovery. That show has strayed even further from Roddenberry's vision, but at the same time tries too hard to still be part of it via references. Enterprise, even with all its problems, managed to stay in spirit better.

>That show has strayed even further from Roddenberry's vision

I don't think Discovery was darker than DS9 at all. I thought it was a fantastic attempt to explore how a highly progressive society deals with a culture who doesn't share their ideals.

They vast majority of the characters are huge believers in the highest ideals of the Federation. Throughout the series they struggle with sticking to those ideals, but at the end they manage to do it. I actually thought that the ending of Discovery was very similar thematically to Picard's decision with Hugh.

I agree with you both. I wonder why the formula worked for Roddenberry and others left it. It doesn’t seem too hard to follow the general TNG formula.

They made the Federation, and humans, more realistic.

The problem with a utopian ideal is that utopias are, by definition, inhumane. Humans are not perfect, so you either have to make them perfect, or force them to conform to a perfect ideal which ignores and suppresses human nature. We war, we hunger, we lust, we hate, we fear... those aspects of our psyche aren't just going to go away because someone invents replicators and warp drives.

Humans that are like us struggling (and often failing, in their imperfection) to live up to an ideal in an imperfect universe are far more relatable and, ironically, more optimistic than simply having them be perfect to begin with and skipping over the messy details of how to get there from here.

Also, in practical storytelling terms, Gene Roddenberry's ideal humans evolved beyond a lot of the pathos that makes for compelling drama. Look at Wesley Crusher, whose character was basically Gene Rodenberry's Ubermensch, on one end of the spectrum , versus someone like Barclay on the other - which character would be more interesting to watch?

The Visitor episodes were some of the best. I loved the concept of his character about as much as the Q.

But then with the right acting and writing many different types of characters can become compelling - see Quark, for instance.

I agree with you that Barclay was far more entertaining to watch then Wesley. The only entertaining thing about Wesley was how much he annoyed captain Picard.

As for utopias, I've spent a lot of time thinking about them recently. I just finished taking a philosophy course on utopian and dystopian societies. The overall impression I got was that utopias are predicated on assumptions about human nature and they tend to marginalize or outright exclude anyone who doesn't fit in. This made for an interesting comparison with the dystopias.

I think Gene Roddenberry's argument is that we can develop a culture of excellence that overcomes the need for any sort of radical biological engineering to make people more agreeable. I don't know it's at all feasible but I find it interesting to imagine.

>Yes, and after Gene Roddenberry died the showrunners turned away from his vision.

what is your take on Andromeda? I feel like in many respects it is really back to the original spirit.

I hope not. Humans have their inner demons, but historically, noble causes have revolved around reining them.

Even in the 21st century, you can choose not to care regardless of what other people might think.

As a bald man, I have mostly chosen to not care. But there are times where I wonder if it hasn’t severely, negatively impacted my life’s path.

At the very least, you can live knowing that you ended up where you are in life because of who you are, not because of something you pretended to be. I have a techy friend from Harvard class of 2006, but he didn't want to be thought of as a nerd when he got there, so he pretended to be an alpha banker type instead.

Well, fast forward 10 years, and no one bought the alpha schtick, and he missed his chance to be a billionaire working with Zuckerberg.

You never know how positively the world is going to react to you being comfortable and confident with yourself.

> At the very least, you can live knowing that you ended up where you are in life because of who you are

that's only reassuring if he's in a good place...

I’ve been through many hells.

Half of it is shallow society value. But half is a sign of body degradation, very few aren't distressed by that

As a not-bald person I have no experience here so I'm curious if you would mind expanding on what you feel like the severe, negative impacts have been?

I’ve been called names because of it. Pretty sure it contributed to bullying and work place harassment at my last job. I’ve been told people literally do not believe me because of my looks. The women that rejected me based on my hairline are the least of it.

Sorry to hear that.

I’ve been told people literally do not believe me because of my looks.

FWIW I've been told the same thing when I wore a beard, and have heard the same of other people for other physical traits.

For me, the biggest impact is health. I was recently diagnosed with a very benign skin cancer, but I dearly love open air driving, so trying to figure out how to enjoy my Jeep while not inviting melanoma is tricky.

Isn't hair relatively low SPF? So wouldn't applying sunscreen solve that problem?

Quite probably.

Since I was a kid I've hated sunscreen so I do my best to find other solutions. Or pretend it's not a problem.

Yep sunscreen is very nasty stuff. Wish it wasn’t such a pain to work with and wear.

From http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/09/12/2362010.ht...

> Overall, the researchers found hair offered a protection factor ranging from 5 to 17, which is significantly lower that the average sunscreen, which offers a protection factor of 30.

Patrick Steward is one of the very few men who looks really, really good with a bald head (which he had from an early age, he was in his early 30s in 1984's "Dune" IIRC). Most men just don't look very good that way.

Patrick Stewart (b 1940) was 44 in 1984.

I dont think that is true. Most men look okay bald - better than the alternative in any case.

That's an extremely subjective statement and, I think, a modern sentiment. Starting around the 1990s, it became much more acceptable for men to be bald, either trimmed very short or shaved.

I mostly thank Patrick Stewart and Michael Jordan for the push toward normalizing it.

> Patrick Steward is one of the very few men who looks really, really good with a bald head

Say what? Lot's of guys rock it! Off the top of my head Jason Statham, Michael Jordan, shaved-head Sam Jackson, Johnny Ive, shaved-head Bryan Cranston all pull it off pretty damn well. What would Vin Diesel even look like with hair?

You're listing mostly a bunch of very successful actors and entertainers, most of whom (except Jordan) probably wouldn't have gone very far if people thought they were ugly. If Vin Diesel looked bad, he wouldn't have gotten the parts he did.

So this is confirmation bias.

Out of the whole population of bald/balding men, these men are the exceptions.

Presumably by the 24th century they've also cured sunburns and skin cancer too.

Meanwhile, in the present day, the top of your head is the part of your body most exposed to the Sun, and hair is useful in preventing sunburns. So being bald isn't equal to having hair.

they can also dematerialise you and dematerialise you in seconds.

so i guess it'll fix a few ailments on the way. but then why not just teleport someone who's dying into his fully healthy state.

We don't even need a cure for cancer, we'll just not re-materialize the tumors. Brilliant!

we could sequence someone's genes at 20 and just teleport you in your 20 year old self every time.

You'd have to keep the brain intact if you actually want to keep existing continuously. That sounds trickier.

A lot centers around how you read the series to gauge the power of transporters. Bear in mind these are machines that A: Can accidentally leave a full copy of you behind (Riker) B: Can take your body and split it into "good" and "evil" halves, later recombining them (Kirk) C: Can combine two unrelated life forms together into one (Tuvix) and separate them later and the coup de grace for this discussion D: Can turn you into a childhood version of yourself that still has your full memories (Picard, Guinan, a few others)

So, canonically, the "beam yourself into a younger you" problem is all but solved. Yes, with various minor environmental pokes and prods, but meh, they've demonstrated the ability to replicate those when necessary, so hardly a stopper.

That last one is one of the most egregious examples of how weird it is that nobody ever follows up on anything that happens in Star Trek. Whoops! Figured out how to turn an old man into a ~14 year old with all his memories! Ha ha, life sure is weird, but otherwise uninteresting, right? Unimportant! Move on!

Is it "new life" or "new civilizations"? I think you will find it is not. Outside our mandate!

Man, can you imagine having to decide how you were going to look for the rest of your life (hair style, tattoos, piercings, musculature, body mass...) at age 20? It'd be like when you picked your AIM screen name at age 10 and then had to tell it to people in college.

[Minor nit: genes are insufficient to record someone's physical state.]

[Minor nit: I'd argue age 25-30 is probably a better physical peak to snapshot than age 20.]

Wil McCarthy's "The Queendom of Sol", very funny and entertaining series, recommended for whoever interested in that crazy idea (and a lot more):

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1361835.The_Collapsium

You're getting down voted, but you raise the one issue I have with being bald: sun damage. In spite of daily sunscreen and hats, I'm still accumulating sun damage to my head. This will continue into old age. I like how I look now, but I'm concerned about how I'll look at 65. Hopefully, baldness will be cured by then, or we'll have the ability to completely reverse damage to skin.

I don't really see how you could have sun damage underneath a hat.

Finding and continuously wearing a hat that would entirely compensate for a lack of hair is non-trivial.

Driving at 70mph down the road in a Jeep with no top and no doors, e.g.

I guess, but even if you have hair your face is pretty vulnerable to burning.

Not as much as the top of your head, though. And regardless, even if your face burns, at least your head won't. The more sunburn you get across a larger percentage of your body, the worse it is. Getting less sunburn is always better than getting more sunburn.

Always having to wear a hat is worse than just being able to have hair (if that's going to be an option). Hats are limiting fashion-wise and not appropriate or possible in many situations. The beach is particularly problematic, for instance.

Are you a bald, active person? If not, I suggest that you lower your baseless skepticism and open your mind a bit.

Maybe people thought I was joking? I wasn't though. Sun damage to the top of your head is a serious concern in being bald. It puts the lie to the statement that the only reason being bald is bad is that people are prejudiced against it. No, it's bad in its own right. Hair is useful protection for your body and the top of your head is the part of your body that is the most exposed to the elements.

http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/little-known-sci-fi-fact-patric...

Roddenbery originally didn't like the idea of a bald captain and made Stuart audition in a wig. After the initial audition he decided that Stuart was perfect no matter how much hair he had. There are a few photos online of him in the wig and man does he look goofy.

Stewart With Wig (Picture)

https://ap-pics2.gotpoem.com/ap-pics/item/12931/822.jpg?

That’s a really nice wig.

That doesn't look nearly as bad as I thought it would. I never had a problem with Picard being bald though. Even as a kid he was my favorite character on the show.

I like how it's somehow "progress" that we stop caring about things. If someone who spent their life contributing to society in exchange for green pieces of paper is willing to give up thousands of them to keep their hair, who am I to complain? Nothing in the Universe has any inherent value. Maybe it feels good to have hair, vs. not. How should I know? I've never been without it. We spend an amazing amount of money on fabrics made from insanely tiny fibers, $300 chairs, carbon fiber bicycles, 10-megapixel screens, and a cornucopia of crap whose only real purpose is making some fraction of life slightly more pleasant at a basic sensory level. But somehow if you want to keep the hair on your head it's a stupid complaint and nobody should ever do anything about it, don't you know that we need that money to find a malaria vaccine, how could you be so vain? Have you looked at EA's profits lately? How about InBev?

I guarantee people will care in the 24th century. People will care about so many pointless things we'll have forgotten how to blow off the distress of balding men with virtue signalling. And we'll be better off for it.

I think you miss the point of the quote. He was basically telling the interviewer his question was stupid. Yes. In the 24th century they can grow hair on a bald man's head, but they're not gonna judge him if he doesn't. Just like no one gives a fuck if Van Diesel or Dwayne Johnson doesn't have haie.

“But still cast good-looking actors for the roles, because viewers care.”

I was hoping this would be able people no longer judging others or feeling judged about their hair. No such luck.

It's baked into evolution and sexual selection. Guys with hair look better because it says something about their suitability for reproduction. Not much different than say breast size in women. We can combat such bias at an intellectual level, but that doesn't change our underlying wiring. The nice thing about getting older is I no longer care what anyone thinks about my baldness ;-)

I think balding has an evolutionary purpose too: you get more vitamin D from the sun.

This is a really interesting idea.

So why would not everyone be bald at ever age? Why would women not be balding? Evolutionary just-so story incoming...

To me this sounds like utter nonsense. I never actually met a woman who had a problem with baldness. Only men. It's like a certain other subject that only men worry about and maybe 1% of women.

I find that men around me are more judgmental of my baldness than women

There's a bit of stigma about a woman commenting on a bald man's head to him.

Women generally won't express it. They often won't return advances, though, which speaks louder than words. Not that it matters, as there are far more important things to be anxious about.

Studies have shown that a shaved head makes men appear more dominant. While that may be cultural, it’s interesting since testosterone/ dht are the instigator in hair loss.

> It's baked into evolution and sexual selection.

Human attraction is way more complicated than this

Please explain.

Sexual reproduction selects either the fittest available mate or the most compatible with the group, to create offspring that is likely to be either more independent or more compatible with group living.

Natural Selection favors throttling the reproductive pace of individual members of a species for the overall diversity and health of the group, and to prevent overpopulation that could be ruinous to a group. Some species are reproductive for the majority of their lives, and have shorter lifespans or less abundant reproduction. Humans' relatively long lifespan and relatively short reproductive period allow us to use less energy concerning ourselves with survival and reproduction than other species.

Baldness, menopause and homosexuality are examples of nature telling us to slow down our mating activities and ideally to find other ways to contribute to the collective- like supporting the young (teach), creating persistent works (write a book), sharing resources (buy a family house), or conserving resources (die).

Well, of course. They just highlighted the relevant aspect.

I'm pretty sure if a woman has the choice to reproduce with Jeff Bezos or some hairful homeless person, she will choose Jeff.

Of course it's only one small factor and not the most important by far. But all other things being equal....

Not sure because many bald powerful physically unfit men have no problems getting women.

It's not like it's the only factor, or even a primary one.

It's baked into evolution and sexual selection.

Primates can go bald. My understanding is that it is a positive for sexual selection.

And if humans being bald actually affected sexual selection, we wouldn't have bald men any more.

Sexual selection wouldn't eliminate baldness. Most men marry between their early 20s and early 30s, when a large majority of men still have a large majority of their hair. It's influenced by a number of genes, and the X chromosome (inherited from the mother) has the most influence.

So what, not having hair is a disability now? Better stop giving insurance money to those paraplegics with the full head of hair. Bastards don't know how privileged they are to have hair.

Sometimes an article and the upvoting thereof express HN's insecurities so well it makes me wonder if every single post is in someway tainted by similar psychological issues.

You can probably extend that to 90% of what everyone in the world verbalises or writes, we aren't robots, even when being objective we are driven by feelings. It doesn't mean everything is "tainted", just that everything we say and do is entwined with our thread of history, that's a more interesting reality than one where everything is clinical entirely distinct and independent - such a reality would be so inert life probably isn't even possible... what are we talking about?

In general the crowd at hacker news prides themselves on being super objective, so I think it's worthwhile to recognize the fundamental subjectivity of being a human.

Yes, when looking deeper into objective comments all kinds of things will be revealed, the more you look, the more that "objective" can often seem linguistically superficial.

I think it's an important thing to recognise especially in the worst case when some people exploit this to convincingly present opinion as fact... anyway i'm way off topic, my point was in response to wufufufu: I don't wonder if posts on HN have some kind of psychological biases, I am confident they do, in spite of perceived objectivity.

Once you start down that dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny.

(If you can manage it safely, it's not a bad thing to consider. But it really easily turns into a cognitive hammer big enough to beat any fact into submission to your prior beliefs, and seals you off from intellectual discourse.)

This is true of almost everything written. Most think-pieces and opinion columns by even professional journalists are just humans wishing out loud for a world reordered so that they are made more important or attractive.

Everything is tainted by psychological issues. If not, there would be no reason to prefer one state of the world over another.

It’s a cultural thing in the Black community, it’s looked at as less attractive to be balding than to be bald. I started having a receding hairline at around 30 and have been shaving my head every since - for the last 15 years.

I chose to keep a bald head at times even in college.

Being clean shaven also helps with ageism as a 40+ year old developer. With no gray hair showing, people assume I’m at most in my early 30s.

Have you looked at SMP? It looks really good on darker skin tones, and black guys can pull off a fairly straight/young hairline with it.

Why would I? Having a bald head is not considered unattractive in the Black community. Bald with a full beard is also a trend now.

When I’m interviewing, I go completely clean shaven to get rid of the gray hair. I stayed clean shaven at my last job because it was very corporate and the CxO level folks I dealt with as the architect were very conservative.

Now that I work for a smaller company, I let my facial hair grow out but still shave my head.

I mean, you'd snap your fingers today and regrow all your hair if you could. Nothing wrong with making small improvements.

IMO having a defined hairline again can really help frame the face. You still look bald/buzzed after the SMP.

Actually I wouldn’t. Even when I had a full head of hair, I went months with a clean shaven head.

shaved full head >= shaved balding head

I was going to comment on the cultural differences in regards to balding. My experience is similar to yours and I would always observe how balding Caucasian coworkers would continue to allow their sides to grow. I couldn't even imagine how I would look in my 30s with hair on the side and bald on top, it's just not an option for me. I watch Inside the NBA on TNT and notice how all three of the black hosts have bald heads and it's perfectly fine. Meanwhile Ernie Johnson is holding on to his sides for some reason. Very interesting.

Check out SMP, scalp micro-pigmentation, which is essentially thousands of tiny tattoo dots.

I'm SO HAPPY I got an SMP earlier this year. The tattoo dots match the appearance of a recently shaved/buzzed head and make it appear as if you have a full head of 5 o'clock shadow.

What did people/girls say who stroke your hair? What was their reaction to you saying it was a tattoo?

More and more men have embraced baldness, especially with beards being the facial focal point at the moment. If it can prove to be more than a fashion trend, perhaps going bald won't be seen as an "issue" as much as just another style of appearance.

Much of it is probably due to the exclusivity of not being bald as you get older. If everyone has a full head of hair, then its value is zero.

Hm, I'd rather have a intimidating set of dragon horns. Maybe something modular for the way I feel atm. Ooo RGB mood horns? They would less to clean and take care of. A way to head butt morons, and keeps the sun off my head and out of my eyes as well as a cool way to do sunglasses. It might be hell on the car roof upholstery. It would also be cheaper than all of the fake products they sell for 'healthy hair'. Also relieve 'Crack cures' on the internet and medical burden as well.

I'll take baldness treatments seriously when it doesn't involve taking something or applying something, every month for the rest of your life.

I started losing my hair at 20 and by 26 I was shaving it off. I'm 36 now and can honestly say I look far better without hair than I ever did with.

That doesn't stop me from thinking every month or so that maybe I should investigate what's new in regrowth.

In my early 20s I shaved my head b/c I thought I would not care. As it turned out, my head is as spherical as a ping-pong ball and of almost the same color and sheen. I'm balding now and more vain about it that I wish I was.

Great article for the first ~75%, but why the abrupt transition to a buzzfeed piece on Trump and the lack of conclusion? The author really lost his momentum there..

It seems to be a literal compulsion. I think Trump supporters call it "Rent Free" and they aren't wrong.

Off-topic but slightly related question: people with good hair in their 40s what do you do? Do you oil? Shampoo less often? What do you do? Other than genes, what can makes good hair? What can make hair-fall slow?

I am no expert, but I would avoid super hot water onto your head and try not to wear hats, tug on your hair, or otherwise encourage the hairs to fall out. Also, stay fit and potentially cultivate facial hair: both of these will help balance out the receding hairline.

You shouldn't be washing your hair daily to begin with.

Doesn’t answer your question, but men in their twenties can be prescribed Finnasteride which can help prevent testosterone from being metabolized into DHT. It’s something they have to continually take though.

Can confirm, been on Finasteride since my early 20's, maybe 6-7 years. Now 30 and haven't lost any hair. You have to keep taking it but it works damn well at maintaining what you have

Also as brand name Propecia.

Many have reported that it causing sexual issues for them, for some they are permanent even after stopping taking it. At the very least, even without big issues - (not sure if it's within posting here guidelines, but still) "morning wood" would be gone.

There is some relation between DHT and hair loss [1](Under Biological functions). Maybe it's possible to lower your DHT level to delay male pattern baldness?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrotestosterone

Nizoral shampoo can help. Reduces inflammation and fungus, and blocks scalp DHT uptake.

Counterpoint: How about a cure for back hair?

(Asking for a friend.)

If you have non-blonde hair... laser removal. For blonde hair it's still electrolysis.

No mention of the Korean paper?

Am favorating this since this topic is V V important for me!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

What is up with todays journalism? Long meandering stories where the meat (facts/news) is hidden or completely left out.

Does someone have a TLDR?

New Yorker isn't typical journalism in that they focus more on long-form think pieces.

Getting a TLDR of a New Yorker piece kind of defeats the purpose.

Long form pieces are nice but most of New Yorker's stuff read like student essays padded to meet a quota.

As someone in the process of grading 50 undergrad essays, I respectfully disagree! I read the WSJ and NYT for short form news. But the New Yorker does something else entirely and, in my view, continues to do it very, very well.

"Today's journalism"? It's called long-form journalism, and it's a format for people with longer attention spans who like to read.

If you don't like it, you probably shouldn't read New Yorker articles.

Ok. I like to read novels, but when you want to inform me about the status of baldness treatments I rather like you to be to the point.

But I get this is the saucage making for the New Yorker. Unfortunately, this had become a trend. So ok, then just not for me.

This isn't a news story, it's a profile piece describing the mood and state of an industry. There's no one central focus, it's more meant to express a mood and variety of small developments rather than one big development.

It was solved a long time ago - just start taking 1mg of Propecia once a day as soon as you start to see the start of hair loss. Propecia will allow you to keep the hair you already have, well into your seventies - just ask Trump. There are even generics so it won't cost that much.

It does have some nasty side effects though..

No, this is absolutely false. Provide me a valid study.

Any one of the persons here claiming finesteride has these side effects, I need a study supporting this.

Here you go. It's in the label of the drugs these days.

https://www.aafp.org/news/health-of-the-public/20120418finas...

Worth noting that this article does explicitly denounce the existence of a causal link being supported by science.

You would need to do explicit clinical trials to look exactly at that kind of adverse events to prove the link. Nobody is going to do that.

The FDA also uses black-box warnings for antidepressants. It's an association closely tied to a high risk population.

Downvote all you want, but this is a classic case of a nocebo.

"the group informed about the sexual adverse effects of finasteride reported increased incidence of ED, when compared to the group without information"

Ironically, all the fear mongering has made the issue worse.

"To date, there is no evidence-based data substantiating the link between finasteride and persistent sexual side effects in the numerous double blinded, placebo controlled studies using finasteride 1 mg for hairloss."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3481923/

This is the UK NHS take on it: http://www.nhs.uk/news/medication/hair-loss-drugs-linked-wit...

Propecia caused some pretty serious hormonal changes in my friend which persisted after stopping. Its apparently a known problem but still not labeled correctly. You can find many support groups across the internet with sufferers.

Over the course of a few years taking Propecia, in my late 20s, I completely lost my sex drive.

When I started taking the drug, my doctor warned me of possible side effects. I figured I could just quit if that happened, and things would go back to normal. Eventually, they updated the labeling to say that side effects can persist indefinitely.

I’ve talked to men who have been on it for years without experiencing side effects. I cannot say for certain Propecia is the root cause to my symptoms, there’s really no way to know for sure, but I experienced a radical shift while on it. Taking a powerful but poorly-understood drug that rewires your sex hormones isn’t a decision to take lightly.

I've read that it's only a problem if men ignore the side-effects and continue taking the drug. Is this not true?

It's hard to separate from men who don't take the drug but have erectile dysfunction.

But it is a problem that propeciahelp.com trolls scourge the internet and preach how destructive propecia is.

I’m not trolling, I just saw the drug mentioned here and decided to talk about my experience. I was a healthy guy in my twenties, and my sex drive went from high to non-existent while I was on the drug. Like I said, I can’t be sure Propecia was to blame, but personally I believe there was a connection.

Anyway, if you take Propecia and don’t get side effects, that’s great! Nobody said all men will get side effects and nobody’s questioning your virility.

Oh apologies, I didn't direct that at you or anyone here. It's an known problem on several hair loss forums because male pattern baldness is a sensitive issue = trolling feeding ground. Mix this with self-image issues, depression, and even mental illness (some of the chronic trolls have this one), and you end up with one very vulnerable community. Yes, there are studies on this behavior in hair-loss forums.

I think it's like half of young males experience a period of erectile dysfunction in their life, it's certainly common. (go ask any urologist). With the 3% reported side effects on finesteride, I've read there are 0.7% of cases which are not resolved in itself with therapy (most studies don't get this far). If you can believe this, then there are at least 4 people here have claimed this happened to them. Where are the 12 people that were resolved? Is there even one?

Unless persons are skipping that second part in vivo, it could be fewer than 0.7% of users cannot be resolved on their own. Millions of people take the drug, and you don't find them near this topic for a reason. Not improbable, but where are those missing 2.3%?

I ended up deleting a few studies but it's mostly psychiatric issues, with some hormonal and testosterone problems. You can't convince people like that though but it's unfortunately true. The endocrine issues happen everywhere just like ED, that's why they test your bloodwork in advanced during your routine physical. You did say you are a healthy guy though.

I'm not the nicest guy, but I honestly don't mean to direct this at you. It's just a frequent topic, with an incredible amount of misinformation, and many anecdotes with common and often destructive themes.

I think it's one of the stranger phenomenon of the internet.

Nobody said all men will get side effects and nobody’s questioning your virility.

The problem is people implying that you may lose sex drive or the ability to get an erection for an indefinite period of time, essentially out of the blue. Hence why I asked if the ED and sex drive problems persist if one immediately stops the drug when the effects are first experienced.

I'm not sure how long after discovering the new issues my friend waited before stopping. He was only on it for less than a year, maybe even a half year, to put some constraints.

Well it's cutting by 60% the most powerful androgenic hormone in your body - of course there's going to be negative side effects. When it comes to hormones, any change has consequences. It's analogous to women's birth control.

Question: Are homeopathy forums the best place to go for homeopathy support?

Edit: That means yes.

In some men, propecia/finasteride caused erectile dysfunction. So I will never take this drug.

That's the nature of finasteride, it lowers DHT which is one of the most impactful hormones on libido. Unfortunately, it does not return to it's original levels after cessation either.

Dr. Justin Saya who is one of the best men's endo docs out there and has treated 10k+ cases of ED has suggested finasteride is a common cause of permanently lost libido and ED.

It works and can even allow you to regrow hair. However, your sex drive will take a nose dive. When you stop, things go back to normal, including the hair loss.

> When you stop, things go back to normal

Not always. Constant loss of sex drive has been reported to occur even after stopping the treatment, and it's part of the drug label these days.

Personal experience: no major side effects

DHT is not the most important (androgen) hormone after puberty

That's an odd statement. What is the most important hormone?

Testosterone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dihydrotestosterone#Biological...

(though there is some margin for discussion, see the last paragraph of that section)

It’s a real head-scratcher. But this strand of research might be at the root of a solution.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com