I took finsteride for a couple of years in my mid to late twenties. My libido was affected but I'm not sure if it was the drug or the severe lack of confidence caused by the realisation I was going to be bald soon.
I started balding on my crown, but being relatively tall I could hide it when standing or when facing people seated. After months of doing crazy stuff like getting to restaurants early so I could get a seat with my back to a wall and declining meetings in glass-walled meeting rooms at work I decided enough was enough and shaved my head.
Making that move was the best thing I could have done for my confidence. Instantly I felt better about myself and that translated in to other areas of my life.
It was probably the drug. I didn’t have libido problems but I gained erectile dysfunction. It mostly went away after I stopped taking the drug. Mostly.
Not OP, but I took finasteride from ages 26 to 29. One day, around the time I quit, I realized that I couldn't remember my last sexual thought or impulse. That part of me had slowly but completely shut down during the time I was on the drug.
In my case, things never really went back to normal. It's been about seven years since I quit. A few years ago, the labeling was updated to say that sexual side effects "could persist even after stopping the medication."
I can't say for certain finasteride was to blame. Many people take it for many years with apparently minimal side effects.
Is there something special about deadlifting that achieves this effect over, say, squats? I'm a skinny distance runner but deadlifting is my favorite strength exercise and it does seems to increase libido. I just attributed it to feeling pumped. Wouldn't any heavy weight workout produce the same effect?
In theory squats should be the same (I think engaging the leg muscles has the most effect on testosterone), but for me deadlifts worked better as well. Doing climbing using a lot of power is even better.
Finasteride is a 5-alpha-reductase inhibitor. Basically, it works by preventing the conversion of Testosterone into its more potent form, Dihydrotestosterone. Without DHT a lot of the effects of Testosterone, including maintaining your libido, are significantly reduced. I was on it for about a year to speed up my hair recovery and it definitely worked wonders, but that was along with replacing my testosterone with estrogen, so the "side effects" were actually the intended effects in my case.
Finasteride has potential side-effects on the libido. Not the parent, but I stopped using it because it seemed to give me something akin to ED; took my system about a month to recover, and that month was embarrassing, humiliating, and horrifying.
Probably. I asked about a hair transplant before and was told you’ll need to take these drugs or your new hair will fall out.
That’s what the article isn’t telling you. You’ll soon be more easily be able to get new hair but you’ll also need one of these potentially dangerous drugs for the rest of your life...
> you’ll need to take these drugs or your new hair will fall out.
Not really true, male pattern baldness is generally caused by non-resistant DHT hair follicles which nearly always occurs at the top of the head. New transplanted hair is taken from the "safe" DHT resistant hair follicles at the side + back of the head. Successful transplanted hair follicles still have different yields from various factors, but they're typically not susceptible to the same cause of baldness as the rest of the follicles in the MPB area.
You're recommended to take drugs to prevent/reduce further hair loss and avoid your new hair from looking like a patch infront of a balding area. But if you have good density/elasticity (to maximize harvest) and a mild pattern of baldness you can get away with not needing to take any drugs.
AFAIK this isn't necessarily true. The transplanted follicles will not suffer the same fate as your original follicles, so the "new" hair won't just "fall out". The thing about transplants is that, depending on how much existing hair you have, the transplant is really only used to fill in missing spots. This means it's essential to stop any more of the existing hair from falling out, or you'll need another transplant later to cover up the new spots. The reason most people are prescribed finasteride/minoxidil is to slow/prevent any of that existing hair from falling out.
When I got implants they told me to take minoxidil and finasteride. I didn't take the finasteride, and the implants are fine. They eventually told me I could stop the minoxidil, which made me wonder what the point was.
Even if there were no side-effects, you are basically choosing between learning to accept yourself and the aging process vs. looking at yourself as having a problem and forever worrying about it. Reason enough to think twice about forever-medication.
I took propecia in my late 20s and early 30s. I was lucky, it stopped my hair loss and slightly reversed it as I started growing new hair. However, sexual drive kind of disappeared. I could still have sex, but the drive I previously had was much much lower. I stopped. My hair loss returned and my sex drive did go back to previous levels. It was then when I realized the sexual side effects propecia had on me. Looking back, not sure I really gained much by taking it.
wow - I kinda thought I was the only one who experienced this. similar to other commenters in this sub-thread, i took propecia in my mid-20s for a few years and had the exact same negative response. libido went up in the first few weeks, but then dropped precipitously. had my first-ever 'no show' with a woman i'd just started dating, and that was that.
stopped and recovered within a few months. though libido has dropped lately, but hey i'm in my 40s now.
stay away from propecia! minoxidil, shave, or transplant.
I have been using finasteride since I was 21, and I'm now 34. I understand some men feel this way, but it's anecdotal at best. Coupled with a hair transplant, I feel much better about myself and have a lot more sex than I used to.
Gotcha! Sorry, now I understand the context better. I took it as bragging but you were actually drawing parallels with regard to medication and libido side effects.
I made an assumption and which made me look like an ass...sorry about that.
This is a good and funny reply. Also, it accidentally led me down a fun rabbit hole and I ended up trying to learn about the oldest scientific works are that are still regularly cited today.
Answers: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&as_yl... is a good starting point. Euler's paper demonstrating that there is no solution to the Königsberg bridge problem and inventing graph theory in the process is one of the more recognizable (to me) papers, but there's a lot of truly interesting, foundational work there.
My wife guessed that Newton would be on there, but I couldn't easily turn him up. I'm probably just bad with Google scholar, or maybe it's so foundational that nobody bothers to provide a citation for e.g the very existence of _calculus_ or _gravity_
My original question was "the oldest still-cited scientific work") but I relaxed my criteria due to poorly defined definitions on 'still-cited' and 'scientific'. Still an interesting way to spend some time, so thanks for the digression!
I've watched every single episode of the Simpsons. I thought the newer episodes were decent. However, the current season is a complete disaster story-wise. I don't know if they changed the lead writers, but there's a discernible quality gap.
"Let's Go Fly a Coot" is the worst episode ever. I'm shocked they thought it was ok to air such mess.
Yup, I think this is also good advice. If you are young, good at math and trying to choose between CS, CS+Math and Math; don't go with CS. You'll find much more challenge doing a Bachelor with other people who actually get maths. The few things you miss not doing full CS are much easier to read up over a holiday than the fundamental concepts of university math.
I haven't seen the paper, but presumably the authors used a binary definition of "technical", which I suspect actually means "job that requires higher education", which might also correlate with "job in which fathers tend to have children later".
"There was no association with a mother’s occupation. However, children who had both parents in technical fields were at a higher risk of having a more severe form of autism."
