103%

[Bilo]

As someone below pointed out, the fact that they give the hair count increases in percentages with no indication of base hair counts means they are giving us much less information that it may have at first seemed.

However, perhaps this line of thinking could help us at least divine a “minimum” hair count increase for one of the members. Let me know if you find any flaws:

1. Hair counts within a certain area can only be whole numbers. 15 hairs, 30 hairs, etc.

2. The final hair count, after the measured increase, can also only be a whole number.

3. If one of the trial members had an increase of 103%, in other words, he doubled his hair count in that area plus three percent, then three percent of his initial hair count must also be very close to a whole number (we also have to take rounding of that 103% into account).

4. Around 30 hairs (possibly 29) is the first number where an increase of 3% gets you something approaching a hair. For example, an increase from 29 to 59 is an increase of 1.034 percent. From 30 to 61 is 1.033, etc.

So at minimum then, the person whose hair counts increased by 103% must have had around 30 hairs to begin with. Of course, this tells us nothing of the quality of the hair grown.

Any thoughts?

[BostonBaldy]

The range is from 13% to 105%, not 103%. As far as hair quality, I’m actually not that concerned. I seriously doubt that they are counting vellus hairs – that would be stupid and counter-productive. Not to mention that vellus hairs don’t usually show up very well using photographic methods.

But the real isssue is this – why was the initial cohorot of Phase II such a failure, even more so than Phase I cohort?

Best,
BB

» As someone below pointed out, the fact that they give the hair count
» increases in percentages with no indication of base hair counts means they
» are giving us much less information that it may have at first seemed.
»
» However, perhaps this line of thinking could help us at least divine a
» “minimum” hair count increase for one of the members. Let me know if you
» find any flaws:
»
» 1. Hair counts within a certain area can only be whole numbers. 15 hairs,
» 30 hairs, etc.
»
» 2. The final hair count, after the measured increase, can also only be a
» whole number.
»
» 3. If one of the trial members had an increase of 103%, in other words, he
» doubled his hair count in that area plus three percent, then three percent
» of his initial hair count must also be very close to a whole number (we
» also have to take rounding of that 103% into account).
»
» 4. Around 30 hairs (possibly 29) is the first number where an increase of
» 3% gets you something approaching a hair. For example, an increase from
» 29 to 59 is an increase of 1.034 percent. From 30 to 61 is 1.033, etc.
»
» So at minimum then, the person whose hair counts increased by 103% must
» have had around 30 hairs to begin with. Of course, this tells us nothing
» of the quality of the hair grown.
»
» Any thoughts?

[Bilo]

Not sure how I got the 103%.

However, we follow the same process for 13%. For the 13% to get us a number close to a whole number, we need a number close to 30 hairs in the original hair count.

We can’t have a 13% increase if we only have 10, or 20 hairs, because that would leave us with about 1/3 and 1/2 of a hair respectively. 30 hairs, growing to 34 hairs give us an increase of 1.133 (very close to 13%).

» The range is from 13% to 105%, not 103%. As far as hair quality, I’m
» actually not that concerned. I seriously doubt that they are counting
» vellus hairs – that would be stupid and counter-productive. Not to
» mention that vellus hairs don’t usually show up very well using
» photographic methods.
»
» But the real isssue is this – why was the initial cohorot of Phase II
» such a failure, even more so than Phase I cohort?
»
» Best,
» BB
»
»
» » As someone below pointed out, the fact that they give the hair count
» » increases in percentages with no indication of base hair counts means
» they
» » are giving us much less information that it may have at first seemed.
» »
» » However, perhaps this line of thinking could help us at least divine a
» » “minimum” hair count increase for one of the members. Let me know if
» you
» » find any flaws:
» »
» » 1. Hair counts within a certain area can only be whole numbers. 15
» hairs,
» » 30 hairs, etc.
» »
» » 2. The final hair count, after the measured increase, can also only be
» a
» » whole number.
» »
» » 3. If one of the trial members had an increase of 103%, in other words,
» he
» » doubled his hair count in that area plus three percent, then three
» percent
» » of his initial hair count must also be very close to a whole number (we
» » also have to take rounding of that 103% into account).
» »
» » 4. Around 30 hairs (possibly 29) is the first number where an increase
» of
» » 3% gets you something approaching a hair. For example, an increase
» from
» » 29 to 59 is an increase of 1.034 percent. From 30 to 61 is 1.033, etc.
»
» »
» » So at minimum then, the person whose hair counts increased by 103% must
» » have had around 30 hairs to begin with. Of course, this tells us
» nothing
» » of the quality of the hair grown.
» »
» » Any thoughts?

[helpme007]

bilo, you didnt allow for that they may have rounded their numbers.

or did you allow for this too?

i thought the same thing coz if you have an increase of 105 % that cant be that it was 2 hairs out of one.

anyway im too lazy to think through this, but you did for us

so you say something like 30 hairs at least? and an increase of 105 % , then thats not bad.

[Bilo]

The only rounding they could be doing is to the final percentage (in otherwords, rounding from say, 12.8 to 13), but this is already taken into account in the calculation.

» bilo, you didnt allow for that they may have rounded their numbers.
»
» or did you allow for this too?
»
» i thought the same thing coz if you have an increase of 105 % that cant be
» that it was 2 hairs out of one.
»
» anyway im too lazy to think through this, but you did for us
»
» so you say something like 30 hairs at least? and an increase of 105 % ,
» then thats not bad.

[ipod]

I don’t think they will ever give actual hair count. We never have the full hair count for Rogaine or minoxidil, it was expressed in percentages also.

[Space_Ace]

Okay, time for the uninformed dumb guy (me) question.

Maybe I’m not understanding the meaning of the perecentages, but it seems to me that even the high of 105% is kind of pathetic. I mean, guys are going to want this procedure done on areas of their head when there is almost (or even zero) terminal hairs. So if your crown only has, say 10 terminal hairs on it, then this space-age super-expensive procedure will give you a whopping extra 10 hairs?

Someone correct me if I’m totally misinterpretting the percentage numbers, or the nature of this procedure itself.

[helpme007]

» Okay, time for the uninformed dumb guy (me) question.
»
» Maybe I’m not understanding the meaning of the perecentages, but it seems
» to me that even the high of 105% is kind of pathetic. I mean, guys are
» going to want this procedure done on areas of their head when there is
» almost (or even zero) terminal hairs. So if your crown only has, say 10
» terminal hairs on it, then this space-age super-expensive procedure will
» give you a whopping extra 10 hairs?
»
» Someone correct me if I’m totally misinterpretting the percentage numbers,
» or the nature of this procedure itself.

yes , you are right. it will probably at the start only be good for people who still have some hair.

[baldlatino34]

» » Okay, time for the uninformed dumb guy (me) question.
» »
» » Maybe I’m not understanding the meaning of the perecentages, but it
» seems
» » to me that even the high of 105% is kind of pathetic. I mean, guys are
» » going to want this procedure done on areas of their head when there is
» » almost (or even zero) terminal hairs. So if your crown only has, say
» 10
» » terminal hairs on it, then this space-age super-expensive procedure
» will
» » give you a whopping extra 10 hairs?
» »
» » Someone correct me if I’m totally misinterpretting the percentage
» numbers,
» » or the nature of this procedure itself.
»
» yes , you are right. it will probably at the start only be good for people
» who still have some hair. ICX IT DOES NOT WORK IN PEOPLES NORWOOD 6?