Copper Peptide questions

[ukmale24]

1)Difference between copper peptide and normal copper that you get in multi-vitamins?
2)Anyone tried applying copper peptide to the scalp/hairline with good results?
I would like to try taking it orally if possible.
3)A large tub of Copper Peptide on ebay for a tenner, worth a punt?!

I've only recently read up a little on it and imo, i think reinvigorating ageing cells is getting to the root of the problem better than minoxidil and possibly finasteride does. Other things that do this well are meant to be hydrolysed collagen and co-enzyme q-10 which i want to give a go in taking before finasteride, but my hairline is getting worse so i'm feeling rushed into taking finasteride.

 

[Ende]

Peptide-copper complexes are different from copper in multivitamins. They're used locally, either topically or injected subcutaneously. Their effects mimics those of SOD (superoxide dismutase). They're growth stimulants, reverse scarring and reduce inflammation.

 

[ukmale24]

Cheers Enden, you really are like an encyclopedia of hair-loss knowledge 8]

What do you think to the Copper Peptide hair masque? Think it may make a difference?

 

[jakeb]

I think the studies done with copper peptides referred to AHK copper peptide, which is a specific tripeptide. As far as I know, the copper peptides in most things you're going to find on ebay and elsewhere are either just a mix-match of general protein + copper sulfate. Might do something, but it's not what was studied and showed promise.

Tricomin has AHK copper, which I've tried. It didn't help me personally. I wish there were more information about it. They've never released info about concentration. That it contains blue dye isn't reassuring. From what I've read about AHK, 2% would create a fairly brilliant blue solution on its own.

If there were a way to get get ahold of ahk at an assured 2%, I'd try it again. But for now it's under patent. :hmmm:

 

[Bryan]

I think the studies done with copper peptides referred to AHK copper peptide, which is a specific tripeptide.

The studies were done with a number of different copper-peptides, of which AHK (the one used in Tricomin) was the most effective.

 

[blaze]

Actually Tricomin AHK-Cu is off patent now. So it would be perfectly legal to buy this compound for ourselves.

Maybe we could do a group order/buy? Would anyone be interested in buying some AHK-Cu powder and making your own 2.5% topical that was used in the studies?

The FDA studies said that it outperformed Minoxidil 2%. That may not sound earth shattering, but it works via a different function. The key I believe is to use multiple treatments that target Androgenetic Alopecia in different ways. Hideo Uno wrote a paper that touched on this, and he is one of the experts on male pattern baldness.

Human Androgenetic Alopecia invovles scaring/fibrosis and inflammation. Antiandrogens and Minoxidil and other hypertrichotics dont address that. AHK-Cu does though. The real big 3 should be finasteride, minoxidil and AHK-Cu. I wish Tricomin was the strength they tested. But its obvious its not even close.

Here are some before and afters from the FDA phase 2 trials/studies:

This was just AHK-Cu 2.5% *ALONE* which is pretty decent to me. In combination with other treatments I think it can help promote a pretty dramatic effect.

 

[ukmale24]

Tricomin uses GHK-Cu doesn't it??

 

[powersam]

Whichever one Tricomin uses, there is so little of it in there that they need to add blue dye to get it looking right.

Tricomin is not an acceptable option in my opinion.

A copper peptide solution at any strength to be able to have a marked effect, would not need blue dye to look blue. Can economics really be a good enough reason for there being so little AHK-CU in there? Surely they'd sell more and then make more money if it was actually effective to the degree seen in the studies.

 

[powersam]

Whichever one Tricomin uses, there is so little of it in there that they need to add blue dye to get it looking right.

Tricomin is not an acceptable option in my opinion.

A copper peptide solution at any strength to be able to have a marked effect, would not need blue dye to look blue. Can economics really be a good enough reason for there being so little AHK-CU in there? Surely they'd sell more and then make more money if it was actually effective to the degree seen in the studies.

Charging $64.00 US per bottle on their site! :whistle:

Meaning they should be able to afford to put a decent percentage of peptides in there, and get better results for their customers.

 

[ukmale24]

i've seen a cosmetic product meant for the face with 10% ghk-cu in, think that's a better option? (probably only to put on hairline and temples)

 

[blaze]

Whichever one Tricomin uses, there is so little of it in there that they need to add blue dye to get it looking right.

Tricomin is not an acceptable option in my opinion.

A copper peptide solution at any strength to be able to have a marked effect, would not need blue dye to look blue. Can economics really be a good enough reason for there being so little AHK-CU in there? Surely they'd sell more and then make more money if it was actually effective to the degree seen in the studies.

Charging $64.00 US per bottle on their site! :whistle:

Meaning they should be able to afford to put a decent percentage of peptides in there, and get better results for their customers.

They dont care about customers. They care about making money. They were virtually bankrupt when bringing tricomin out anyway.

So is anyone interested besides me in trying to aquire some AHK-Cu to try for our self, so we can use the study strength of 2.5%?

 

[Bryan]

I remind everybody of what the woman in the ProCyte office said, when asked about the effectiveness of Tricomin, compared to the effectiveness of the 1.25% and 2.5% solutions that were used in the study. She said that Tricomin was "between the 1.25% and 2.5%, but closer to the 2.5%"

 

[powersam]

I remind everybody of what the woman in the ProCyte office said, when asked about the effectiveness of Tricomin, compared to the effectiveness of the 1.25% and 2.5% solutions that were used in the study. She said that Tricomin was "between the 1.25% and 2.5%, but closer to the 2.5%"

Bryan that does not really mean much. "The woman in the Procyte office'?

She ran studies or had access to studies which proved this? The personal opinion of the woman in the Procyte office who sells Tricomin is obviously not a reliable objective source.

What though do you think could cause such a huge boost in effectiveness whereby they can get close to the 2.5% results with a far lower percentage of peptides?

 

[Bryan]

What though do you think could cause such a huge boost in effectiveness whereby they can get close to the 2.5% results with a far lower percentage of peptides?

Frankly, I don't believe that they have a "far lower percentage of peptides". I think such a claim is probably an exaggeration.

 

[powersam]

What though do you think could cause such a huge boost in effectiveness whereby they can get close to the 2.5% results with a far lower percentage of peptides?

Frankly, I don't believe that they have a "far lower percentage of peptides". I think such a claim is probably an exaggeration.

There would be no need for them to use blue dye in their product if it did not have a low percentage.

 

[Bryan]

There would be no need for them to use blue dye in their product if it did not have a low percentage.

I think that's pure speculation. Believing that Tricomin has a really really low amount of copper-peptide (compared to what was used in the formal trial) I think is pure guesswork. I'm astonished that anybody would jump to conclusions based on the simple fact that it has "blue dye" in its ingredients.

 

[terrapin12]

I just ordered some Tricomin, I'm hoping it will spruce up the fine hairs minoxidil has given me along my hairline and crown and add some thickness. I'm not expecting additional hair growth, but would better looking hair be out of the question from peptides?

 

[powersam]

There would be no need for them to use blue dye in their product if it did not have a low percentage.

I think that's pure speculation. Believing that Tricomin has a really really low amount of copper-peptide (compared to what was used in the formal trial) I think is pure guesswork. I'm astonished that anybody would jump to conclusions based on the simple fact that it has "blue dye" in its ingredients.

Why would they add blue dye to something that should already be blue?

 

[terrapin12]

There would be no need for them to use blue dye in their product if it did not have a low percentage.

I think that's pure speculation. Believing that Tricomin has a really really low amount of copper-peptide (compared to what was used in the formal trial) I think is pure guesswork. I'm astonished that anybody would jump to conclusions based on the simple fact that it has "blue dye" in its ingredients.

Why would they add blue dye to something that should already be blue?

Marketing. Full colors are more appealing than weak ones, I suppose.

 

[Bryan]

Marketing. Full colors are more appealing than weak ones, I suppose.

Exactly. Maybe it's simply not blue enough (based on a content of maybe 1.5% or 2% or so peptide), according to what the marketing honchos decided when they were first getting Tricomin ready to be sold. Drawing any more big conclusions than that, based just on the presence of blue dye, is ridiculous, in my opinion.