Matthew McConaughey new observation. Log Out | Topics | Search
Hairloss-Reversible Home Page | Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Hairloss-reversible.com » Male Pattern Baldness » Matthew McConaughey new observation. « Previous Next »

Author Message
 

michael
Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 06:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

There are a couple of things that should be added to M.M. history that could prove he has hair transplants.

One thing is the hairstyle. He always styles his hair back. Propably it is due to the scars he has in the back of his head. His hair style did not change since 2002!!

Another thing is his body shape.

He has very well musculed body without any signs of the body fat or water retency.
Normaly hair treatments like Propecia or natural DHT inhibitors decrease DHT which leads to some extra bodyfat and water retency after some years. He has no such signs.
 

jpj
Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 07:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Michael,
Matthew McConaughey no DOUBT works out. Looking good is his living. Ive been on propecia since 97' and I have low body fat and muscles (at least as much as McConaughey does) because I pump iron/cardio. Taking finasteride will NOT turn you into a woman with gynochomostia unless you have a hormone problem or just sit on your ass and eat all the time.

Here are propecia.com's proof pics as to whether propecia works. These are the clinicals here. http://www.propecia.com/finasteride/propecia/consumer/see_the_proof/photographic _assessment.jsp

As you can see, propecia definitely will regrow a little lost hair on top and in the back by blocking 65% of blood serum level of DHT and 38% of the scalp level of DHT. Dutasteride blocks over 90% of DHT and something like 58% of scalp DHT.

McConaughey would be a fool not to at least be on propecia (and he might be on fluridil, which is even better as you can see here http://www.menspharma.com/index.php?id=detail&sub=hair) or even both which would be best , as Im sure his agent has told him. I think he has plugs, and they are good ones done at a place like NHI. He has grown his hair long in the back to buff up the diminished density there. However, remember this: Matthew McConaughey can easily afford to buff up the donor area with body hair from his legs, or afford cloning AS SOON as its available, or any kind of hair multiplication docs will do under the table for him now. He's a multimillionare. Its also possible that he is just wearing an extremely good toupee' like Farrel makes, but Im like you, I think he's had a good professional transplant.

You mentioned all the scars in the back of his head.......Good surgeons can make a small linear scar and go back in and extract follicles one at a time and "plug in" the scar, making it very small. Youre over all density will be much less, but the scar is hard to spot, even up close. Some choose to FUE (follicular Unit Extraction) all the plugs by getting them taken out with a small tool that excises folliclar units one by one with no linear scar. Its kinda like taking every third hair from the back of your head and just thinning the hair out.

An actor can afford all these things. Most of us cant though.
 

Anonymous
Posted on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 - 08:48 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

"Here are propecia.com's proof pics as to whether propecia works. These are the clinicals here. http://www.propecia.com/finasteride/propecia/consumer/see_the_proof/photographic _assessment.jsp"

Hey thanks for that link jpj! I'm surprised their pictures aren't any better than that. Seems like Naqi is maintaining at least as well with the scalp exercises.
 

michael
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 03:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

There r many comments about increased bodyfat retency after many years of propecia treatment. I am one of the examples. I doubt Mattchew would stay as slim as he is poping propecia for years.


By the way he looks I assume he got very good transplants done plus he is doing HGH treatment, which holds his body shape and hair as a teenager.
 

jpj
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 12:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Has Matthew stated publically that he does HGH treatment? I understand that there are longterm drawbacks to this?
 

Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 03:49 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Here are some interesting 12 month results comparing propecia with a placebo treatment from the www.propecia.com website:
http://www.propecia.com/finasteride/propecia/consumer/see_the_proof/photographic _assessment.jsp

12-Month Results*_____PROPECIA_______Placebo
Moderate Improvement__4%(6 of 155)___0% (0 of 150)
Slight Improvement____34%(52 of 155)__7% (11 of 150)
No Change___________62%(96 of 155)__85% (128 of 150)
Decrease_____________1%(1 of 155)____7% (11 of 150)

Amazingly, 92% of the people using the placebo treatment showed either some improvement or no change after a year! In other words, to conduct this study Merck picked a bunch of people who weren't even losing their hair! They must have been really scared results wouldn't live up to expectations, otherwise they would have gone out of their way to pick people who were NOT losing their hair for their study.

Obviously, this is the most convincing set of results Merck can come up with to prove the efficacy of propecia, otherwise they would have posted results from some other study. Also, propecia only outperformed the placebo treatment by 37% according to their own statistics ... totally pathetic.
 

Anonymous
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 03:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Correction:
otherwise they would not have gone out of their way to pick people who were NOT losing their hair for their study.
 

Downunder
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 04:40 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

I normally don't follow such topics, but when browsing I clicked on the link and shortly after got a video presenting that Propecia grew hair and did not grow hair on ANY of the placebo group at any time over 5 years.... What the? .. How can this be true?

I had the 2 year study info and the placebo group showed a response and in the information I had they changed the placebo group to finasteride after 12 months. This may be another study but even the data up to 12 months the data does not correlate.

As anonymous above notes there is normaly always a placebo response in some people. Even in those loosing hair their hair loss may change.

It got me curious to look about on the site and there is some clever presentation of footage in the user stories. They present terrible photos but their bald areas are now as dark as you can get. If you fiddle around you can manage to get the transition frame on some and the balding area looks more real (not as great coverage) and not so complementary.

It seemed to be a entertaining show. Just get your friends to wear sunglasses to darken your thinning areas.

New product! X-ray specs that let you see the hair in the naughty bits, and automatically darkens the hair on the balding bits! Just $99.99 with steak knifes. Life is getting better everyday with this modern technology.
 

jpj
Posted on Wednesday, November 30, 2005 - 09:25 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Anonymous?

Do the men in the pictures look like they arent losing their hair to you? They HAVE BALD SPOTS!!!!! I mean HELLO!!!!

38% saw slight imporovement or moderate improvement with propecia. Propecia only stops 38% of scalp DHT levels. SO you have 62% of scalp DHT still binding with the dermal papilla's androgen receptors, yet the body's (hairs) are regenerative enough to get 5 years of increased hair counts by just inhibiting this small amount of DHT. Dutasteride's pics are more impressive. It inhibits 58% of scalp DHT. By the way.....many well-read posters on various sites believe scalp DHT is MUCH more important than blood levels of DHT in baldness now.

My point in the post is mainly this: Dr. Marty Sawaya, Dr. Ken Washenik, Dr. Hideo Uno, Dr. Loren Pickart, Dr. Peter Proctor, the doctors at Intercyclex, the doctors at Anderans, the local dermatologist are NOT ALL WRONG ABOUT BALDNESS. They are right. The galea tightening doesnt cause baldness, increased lymphatic pressure doesnt cause baldness, sebum backing up into your hair canal and getting rancid and inducing an immune system response doesnt cause baldness, demodex mites dont cause baldness, shampoo does not cause baldness.

Androgen hormone getting into your androgen receptors of genetically predisposed hairs over time causes baldess. The worst effect of the androgen interaction with your dermal papilla is the microcapillaries under the hair seem to degenerate over time too much to properly nourish the follicle. Tom's excercise seems to counteract this some, but not enough to regain a great amount of lost hair because the follicle itself degenrates with androgen hormone over time, leaving it too small and damaged to be rescued unless some gene-therapy is intoducted to get the stem cells reactivated.

This is why androgen receptor blocking drugs like Fluridil (illegal in the states)would be the best way to go for a young man first exhibiting baldness. Adjuncitve therapies like the scalp excercise combined with hair-healthy nuttition would proboably give a guy a good head of hair most of his life if started early enough.
 

Anonymous
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 08:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post

"Do the men in the pictures look like they arent losing their hair to you? They HAVE BALD SPOTS!!!!! I mean HELLO!!!!"

So what? Some people just bald up to a certain point and then the balding process stops. Maybe in selecting people for the study they had a questionnaire with questions like these:
What stage of balding are you at?
Did your balding progress over the last 5 years?

Maybe they only selected people for the study who answered NONE to the first question and/or NO to the second question. How else can you explain the amazing fact that 92% of the people ON PLACEBO showed no worsening in their condition after 1 year?

Besides, they only show pictures of 9 people out of a total of 279. So how do you even know the other 270 were balding? Just because it's implied? Of course, good ol' Merck would never try to sucker you, right? Remember Celebrex? Actually, the fact that 92% of the people on placebo showed no worsening in their condition after 1 year PROVES that they are suckering you.


"Dr. Marty Sawaya, Dr. Ken Washenik, Dr. Hideo Uno, Dr. Loren Pickart, Dr. Peter Proctor, the doctors at Intercyclex, the doctors at Anderans, the local dermatologist are NOT ALL WRONG ABOUT BALDNESS. They are right...Androgen hormone getting into your androgen receptors of genetically predisposed hairs over time causes baldess."

This is such bs. None of these people agree on all the issues and a lot of them believe in a whole slew of possible causes/treatments for balding. It's really funny how defensive people on propecia/rogaine get about their treatments to the point of twisting facts and assuming a holier than thou attitude.

By the way, good points, Downunder.
 

jpj
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 12:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

http://hairlosstalk.com/photogallery/pgmartin3.htm

There are pictures of someone who used "the big 3" at the one year mark. Tell me if you dont think they worked.

"Anonymous", SHOW ME ONE DAMNED place online where Proctor, Pickart, Washenick, Uno, Intercyclex, Anderans, Elaine Fuchs disagree about the direct androgenic alopecia theory. They DONT disagree. THEY ALL AGREEE.
 

Anonymous
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 09:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

jpj, I'm really disappointed in you. Face it ... 92% of propecia trialists don't even have any hair loss. Sorry you're not one of them. Best of luck BUT DON'T GO AROUND TWISTING FACTS
 

jpj
Posted on Thursday, December 01, 2005 - 10:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Here is a pic of a guy who used Propecia, minox, and nizoral shampoo for one year.

http://hairlosstalk.com/photogallery/pgmartin3.htm


How is posting that before and after pic "twisting facts"?

"92 percent of propecia trailists dont even have any hair loss"======gee, were you "anonymous" internet posters one of the docs involved in the trial? Am I missing something here "anonymous"?
 

Anonymous
Posted on Friday, December 02, 2005 - 05:09 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Don't reply to him jpj. He is just trolling.
 

Greg
Posted on Friday, May 26, 2006 - 05:26 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Hello. nice site!
 

Dave
Posted on Monday, May 29, 2006 - 05:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post

Hello. nice site!

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.