Antiandrogens vs DHT blockers

[SoulOfTheReaver]

Which is more efficient?

I'm trying to set up a regimen for myself and i've decided to go with rogaine for regrowth, nizoral to cool down inflammation, but where stopping the loss is concerned....

I've been reading about propecia and other finasteride DHT blockers, and i don't like what side effects there were. So i'm considering the alternative of androgen blockers like Topical Spironolactone.

Is there any difference in efficiency? Any reason to recommend finasteride over androblockers?

thanks in advance fer yer kind replies.

 

[kthxbi]

i thought anti androgens and dht blockers were the same things?

 

[SoulOfTheReaver]

According to the guides on this very site, it's not.

http://www.gourmetstylewellness.com/hair-loss-t ... risons.php

And that's why i asked, because i'm trying to decide between something like finasteride which is a DHT inhibitor and something like topical spironolactone s5 which is an androgen blocker.

The first has potentially unpleasant side effects while topical spironolactone has none. Is there any reason why i'd use the former over the latter?

 

[kthxbi]

According to the guides on this very site, it's not.

http://www.gourmetstylewellness.com/hair-loss-t ... risons.php

And that's why i asked, because i'm trying to decide between something like finasteride which is a DHT inhibitor and something like topical spironolactone s5 which is an androgen blocker.

The first has potentially unpleasant side effects while topical spironolactone has none. Is there any reason why i'd use the former over the latter?

effectiveness + ease of use.

 

[SoulOfTheReaver]

Ease of use is not an issue. I don't mind it being topical instead of a pill.

What about effectiveness though? How much better are DHT blockers than antiandrogens?

If possible, is there any concrete data that shows this?

Thanks.

 

[John979]

Technically, neither Finasteride nor Dutasteride are "DHT Blockers." Rather they are 5-alpha reductase inhibitors -- blocking the activity of enzymes which convert T to DHT.

Virtually all anti-androgens are "DHT Blockers," if by that you mean a chemical which binds to an androgen receptor in lieu of a an androgen.

 

[Bryan]

I agree with what "JohnNYC" said above! The term "DHT blocker" isn't something that's normally used by doctors or scientists -- it's just something that's mainly used by lay people on hair loss sites like this. It's just a loose bastardization that isn't very scientific.

The proper term for a drug or chemical which slows or prevents the formation of DHT from testosterone is "5a-reductase inhibitor". Well-known examples of such drugs would be finasteride and dutasteride.

The proper term for a drug or chemical which stops the effects of androgens by binding to androgen receptors and preventing androgens from binding to them would be "androgen receptor blocker", or simply "antiandrogen".

To avoid confusion as much as possible, let's all try to use the same terminology that doctors and scientists use in this case, okay?

 

[SoulOfTheReaver]

Bryan, Johnny,thanks for the clearup, i'll read more about the science behind it.

But for a quick answer, of all of these anti-androgens, finasteride & co. is the most efficient?

 

[John979]

If we want to get very, very technical, I believe "androgen receptor antagonist" is the correct term...

Which is best always starts a pissing contest, but my experience is that Dutasteride is more effective than Finasteride and not because it is "stronger" (technically greater binding affinity) but because Dutasteride inhibits both 5-alpha reductase types, and at least in some Type I has activity in the scalp and/or hair follicle.

True "anti-androgens" are another story.

 

[Bryan]

Which is best always starts a pissing contest, but my experience is that Dutasteride is more effective than Finasteride and not because it is "stronger" (technically greater binding affinity) but because Dutasteride inhibits both 5-alpha reductase types, and at least in some Type I has activity in the scalp and/or hair follicle.

You actually experienced that that's why dutasteride is more effective than finasteride?

If you start reading the technical literature on those drugs, you'll see that dutasteride inhibits the type 2 enzyme more completely than finasteride (about 98%-99%, compared to 85%-90%). That almost certainly is the main reason dutasteride is more effective. It's the type 2 enzyme which is closely associated with hair loss.

 

[smitysmity]

But for a quick answer, of all of these anti-androgens, finasteride & co. is the most efficient?

I'd go right now

1). CB0301
2). Dutasteride
3). Finasteride
4). RU58841
5). ASC-J9

Those are probably you're top 5. All of them are expensive, some are about as "underground" as you can get.

 

[John979]

I agree with Smity's list in about that order, although I do not quite yet have any direct experience with CB.

Regarding Dutasteride, I believe that 0.25 mg in 1.0 ml of vehicle, applied every other day, is effective, at least for those with very short hair. Thus, 30 gel caps lasts 120 days, which is not too expensive.

Also there seems to be very good synergy with Dutasteride and 2% Keto.

 

[smitysmity]

I agree with Smity's list in about that order, although I do not quite yet have any direct experience with CB.

Regarding Dutasteride, I believe that 0.25 mg in 1.0 ml of vehicle, applied every other day, is effective, at least for those with very short hair. Thus, 30 gel caps lasts 120 days, which is not too expensive.

Also there seems to be very good synergy with Dutasteride and 2% Keto.

I agree with that.

- Most people don't have any experience with CB but you'll start hearing testimonials about it within the next 3 to 6 months. Studies show that CB can be about 2x more effective than Propecia which is about 50% weaker than the highest dosage of dutasteride which nobody on this board would recommend you doing.

- 0.25mg every other day should be fine. Heavy usage of a product usually is what causes severe side effects. A low dosage of topical dutasteride should be about as safe as you can get.

All in all, there isn't a clear #1 so the recommended regimen is for you to use a few products (Growth Stimulant + Anti Androgen) at the start and see what fits you and what is working. Start early so you at least you have some breathing room in case a product doesn't work is also key.

 

[John979]

Let me add to the AA Eucapil since I am using that as well. I know the reports are mixed but if you have the $$$ it might be worth a try.

IMHO, if it was marketed by Merck, there would be many more uses but I think its coming from a Czech Republic company is a negative to some, which might not be fair.

 

[smitysmity]

Let me add to the AA Eucapil since I am using that as well. I know the reports are mixed but if you have the $$$ it might be worth a try.

IMHO, if it was marketed by Merck, there would be many more uses but I think its coming from a Czech Republic company is a negative to some, which might not be fair.

How has Eucapil been doing for you?

I think the reviews pointed out that it was a medium to weak anti androgen from what I read on the HLH Forums.

 

[maggie99]

Studies show that CB can be about 2x more effective than Propecia which is about 50% weaker than the highest dosage of dutasteride which nobody on this board would recommend you doing.

I have seen this claim a few times regarding CB. I don't think it is accurate to say it is 2x more effective than propecia.

What the Cosmo trial claimed is that CB is 2x more effective than propecia-as an anti-androgen. not 2x more effective than propecia as a 5a-reductase inhibitor, which is the reason why it is effective for hair loss. as an anti-androgen propecia is not that that strong and the claim in this context is not that impressive.

the Cosmo claim that as a anti-androgen CB is stronger in it's binding ability then flutamide is, is more meaningful.

 

[peloncete1989]

An anti-androgen blinds your receptor to any androgen (or a group of them).

An inhibitor of an enzime, blocks an enzime and avoid the conversion of a prohormone (like testosterone) to an hormone which is the active compound (like DHT).

What's the deal in here?

We are blocking the conversion of the test into DHT, but we're not blocking free-testosterone or free-DHT.

So, our follicles still being attacked by T and DHT. An antiandrogen (theorically) blinds the follicle (in the male pattern baldness case) and neither T or DHT could attack it.

This is a very basic idea of the difference between both.

PS: which is more effective? Without a doubt (I'm talking ALWAYS theorically) the antiandrogen, if we don't have androgens in our follicles the ANDROGENTIC alopecia doesn't exist.

That's easy, if you don't have liver, you can't have liver cancer. This is exactly the same, if you don't have androgens on your follicles, you don't have androgenetic alopecia.