Dr. Woods, my question got lost in this thread. I will post it again.
You said **
» Although body hair , when transplanted to the scalp, will “usually”
» increase in length, the degree of increase is dependent upon where it came
» from and how long and robust it was.
»
» Although it is usually packed more densely , fundamentally WHAT YOU SEE IS
» WHAT YOU WILL GET.
» **
If the body hair are packed more densely, why will one see hair growth like on chest. Why not denser? Is it because the haircycles do not change as Dr. A says.
Or is it that the yield will be less due to dense packing as Dr. Cole suggests?
Arun, whenever a patient has his dense chest/abdominal hair trimmed with the clippers, one thing becomes very obvious.
Once trimmed, it is plain to see that the hair are separated by greater distances than was imagined, and it is not in reality, as densely packed by nature as one would think .
The density is largely due to length, and angle of observation.
From the very earliest days of the HT Industry, doctors learnt that even poor results and low density can be disguised and sold to the public by choosing carefully selected photos with the best ANGLE OF OBERVATION.
Patients with a good hairline, but extremely poor results and low density behind the hairline can still look great,……but only if you look at them dead on.
A bald guy, with a narrow hairline rim can be presented as though he has a full head of hair.
And that same trick is used very successfully today.
The thing with chest and abdominal hair is that it is observed from a dead on angle most of the time, and the hair sits very flat against the skin.
What you need to do is find a friend with a very hairy chest. Then, in the name of scientific research , ask if you can press your ear against his belly button, and gaze upward toward his nose.
(If your request is denied, try a box of chocolates, flowers and movie tickets)
The density appears different, and proves that angle of observation is critical.
Now , as far as the hair cycle thing goes.
Yes , there may be something to it, but in the real world , I believe it to be largely IRRELEVANT.
The hair cycles don’t really make that much practical visible difference., and I believe that these long and convoluted pseudo scientific arguments are infact a mad scramble to find a credible excuse for a string of body hair failures going back about 2 years.
Body Hair “no shows” and frank failures are to be blamed on the doctor, and Not “hair cycles” which I believe to be no more than a clever distraction covering up the practice of big promises, big numbers, but in reality only delivering ragged, transected and damaged follicular fragments, which will never grow.
And lastly, dense packing.
This can only be done successfully if the follicles are perfectly extracted, and then inserted using incredibly small incisions under high power microscopic control.
It takes many, many hours of incredibly precise microsurgery .
Pre punching holes and trying to “production line” such an intricate procedure is doomed to failure.
What does succeed are the ‘MEDICAL” excused for the failures, which most people seem to accept, and the doctors are off the hook.
Dr Ray Woods
