My Copper Peptide Journey......

[1derphull]

I still think that is wrong. I've used tricomin a couple times and plan to buy some more, I know it lasted over a month and a half. 1ml is plenty to cover the scalp (at least for me) so Tricomin would last me 3 months if I used it twice per day, 6 if I used it once per day.

 

[hair_tomorrow]

I use anywhere from 14 - 20 spritzes of tric per application - which really soaks my scalp pretty good.

1 application per day - sometimes 2 if I can squeeze it in.

Looks like my bottle is going to last at least a full three months - or very close to it. (I'm 2 months and 3 weeks into my first bottle)

 

[Jacob]

Coltsfan...does the Alterna product still contain "superoxide dismutase"? I've been wondering if they changed the formula since they changed the look and made it a "serum".

Thanks..

 

[The Gardener]

On another note, are you getting stoked for USC footbal or what? This years game with the Irish should be a little more competetive.....

Tough break today for the Irish. I think ND had the talent to win but got caught. SC drew Arkansas today, and pretty much eviscerated them, something in the range of 70-17.

Yes, the ND/USC game should be a great one. The USC team this year is a different mix than the well-balanced team of last year. This year, their offense is much better and, in my opinion, the best in the NCAA. Talented and DEEP. Their defense, more specifically their defensive line, is very young and inexperienced, great high school drafs, but nowhere as deep, athletic, and lethal as their offense. ND is tough this year. Should be good.

 

[follijinxed]

What about UC Davis upsetting Stanford. Go Ags! First time Stanford has ever been beaten by a non Division 1-A school. (UCD is Div 1-AA) ESPN didn't even bother mentioning it. Ags got a long way to catch USC though.

On another note, are you getting stoked for USC footbal or what? This years game with the Irish should be a little more competetive.....

Tough break today for the Irish. I think ND had the talent to win but got caught. SC drew Arkansas today, and pretty much eviscerated them, something in the range of 70-17.

Yes, the ND/USC game should be a great one. The USC team this year is a different mix than the well-balanced team of last year. This year, their offense is much better and, in my opinion, the best in the NCAA. Talented and DEEP. Their defense, more specifically their defensive line, is very young and inexperienced, great high school drafs, but nowhere as deep, athletic, and lethal as their offense. ND is tough this year. Should be good.

 

[Dave001]

I'm not sure of the exact number of published studies showing the effectiveness of CUs, but there are a number of them.

Please provide citations to the human studies. Studies with the stump tailed macaque are also acceptable. Other animal models are less valuable because the mechanism through which copper peptides work in androgenetic alopecia (Androgenetic Alopecia) is unknown. Studies in other animals (e.g., mice) aren't worthless, but because you contend that additional studies would be redundant, there must already exist a lot of well-designed human studies, and those are of much greater relevance.

I haven't found any studies involving copper peptides or oligopeptide complexes of transitional metals for treating Androgenetic Alopecia on MEDLINE. Studies of such are of interest.

IThey all show that CUs are effective in regrowing hair. Once the results of one study have been duplicated several times, piling on additional studies does nothing to increase the evidence, it just becomes redundant. We know to a high degree of certainty that both minoxidil and CUs work. That was my point.In addition, there is some evidence that they work together better than either separately.

I look forward to seeing the studies. Don't forget to include references to studies showing an additive effect of copper peptides combined with minoxidil, which you mention above.

 

[Dave001]

Do those 6 ounce bottles of triocomin really last a month and a half as advertised? 50 bucks for 1.5 months makes it more costly than minoxidil but less costly than propecia. Ouch.

I don't get it. How could 6 oz last only a month and a half? Minoxidil comes in 2oz=60ml bottles, which lasts 1 month at 1ml twice per day.

6oz=180ml, at 1ml twice per day that's a 3 month supply.

Why does everyone act as though Rogaine were the reference topical, from which dosages of all topicals are derived?

 

[1derphull]

Why does everyone act as though Rogaine were the reference topical, from which dosages of all topicals are derived?

It's slightly self evident, being that 1ml should be enough to cover the entire scalp especially when your hair is damp (after a shower). Any more than that and things get runny, no matter what topical I use.


OTOH, Who cares? Are these questions that keep you up at night? My god, man!

 

[Dave001]

Why does everyone act as though Rogaine were the reference topical, from which dosages of all topicals are derived?

It's slightly self evident, being that 1ml should be enough to cover the entire scalp especially when your hair is damp (after a shower). Any more than that and things get runny, no matter what topical I use.

So you can only apply about 1 mL of the vehicle (a solution) at once. How is the optimal dosage self-evident from that?

OTOH, Who cares?

Everyone discussing it in this thread, evidently.

 

[mvpsoft]

Here you go Dave:

"Dermatologic Research Techniques", CRC Press, 1996.

Chapter 16: "Phototrichogram Analysis of Hair Follicle Stimulation: A Pilot Clinical Study with a Peptide-Copper Complex" Ronald E. Trachy, Leonard M. Patt, Gordon M. Duncan, and Bernard Kalis. This was done on *human* subjects with male pattern baldness. Both total and anagen hair density increased significantly (anagen hair: +39%) with the larger topical dose of copper-peptide (glycyl-histidine-lysine-valine-phenyalanine-valine), especially when compared to total and anagen hair density LOSSES in the placebo-treated group.

Chapter 17: "Quantitative Assessment of Peptide-Copper Complex-Induced Hair Follicle Stimulation Using the Fuzzy Rat" Ronald E. Trachy, Hideo Uno, Shelley Packard, and Leonard M. Patt. This was done on rats. Copper peptides significantly stimulated hair growth, compared to vehicle.

Chapter 18: "Evaluation of Telogen Hair Follicle Stimulation Using an In Vivo Model: Results with Peptide-Copper Complexes" Ronald E. Trachy, Erika D. Timpe, Irene Dunwiddie, and Leonard M. Patt. This was on mice. Copper peptides significantly stimulated hair growth in mice, compared to vehicle; it also exceeded the growth induced by 2% topical minoxidil, which was also tested.

On his Skin Biology forum, Loren Pickart said this:

Prof. Hideo Uno researched both minoxidil and SRCPs for hair growth. He also wrote the textbook on Rogaine for physicians when minoxidil first came out. He always told me that minoxidil and SRCPs worked synergistically together - that is, their combined action was geater than each individual action. Minoxidil generates small thin hairs and SRCPs help thicken the hairs.

http://healthyskin.infopop.cc/groupee/f ... 9150072073

You would have to ask him for the citation, if there is any. He didn't provide it, just made the comment.

Folligen discusses the results of a mouse study. I don't know if that is the same study to which Red Rose referred. It also cites other studies that show, among other things, that CUs reduce the level of DHT in the follicles.

Recent research indicates that the DHT that harms hair follicles comes from the the skin's sebocytes and sweat glands (sebaceous glands). (Chen et al 1996) 5 alpha-Reductase, the enzyme system that converts testosterone into DHT occurs in two enzyme forms. The type 1 represents the 'cutaneous type'; it is located primarily in the skin's sebocytes but also in epidermal and follicular keratinocytes, dermal papilla cells and sweat glands as well as in fibroblasts. The type 2 is located mainly in the seminal vesicles, prostate and in the inner root sheath of the hair follicle.

Furthermore,

Copper ion in the skin is more effective in inhibiting the type 1 form which is primarily producing the DHT that damages follicles and can be administered locally to the skin. Sugimoto et al (Sugimito 1995) found that copper ion is a potent inhibitor of 5-alpha reductase, inhibiting both types of 5-alpha reductase (both type 1 and type 2) that produce DHT and is the only metal to do so. Copper ion inhibits (50% reduction in activity) type 1 alpha reductase at 1.9 micromolar (0.12 micrograms copper ion per milliliter) and type 2 alpha reductase at 19.2 microM (1.2 micrograms copper ion per milliliter). No other metal has these effects.

The application of SRCPs may provide sufficient copper ion into the hair follicle area to block DHT production in the scalp. Metabolically active copper ion (that is, copper ion free to block 5-alpha reductase) in the human body exists at about 1 microgram per milliliter in the blood and less in the skin. While the uptake of ionic copper from Copper-Peptides applied to the scalp is very low, human experiments by Professor John Sorenson (University of Arkansas) have found that they can raise copper ion levels in the skin to the effective level of 1 microgram per milliliter.

My point was that CUs have been proven to regrow hair on humans, mice and rats. There are studies that give some rationale for the mechanism by which they accomplish this.

In addition, 0ne of the leading researchers on minoxidil (the one Pickart cites) has apparently stated that there is a synergistic effect between minoxidil and copper peptides. I don't have a citation for that, but I didn't claim that there was one. Presumably he has some reason to make the claim. Be that as it may, my claim is merely that there is solid clinical evidence that CUs regrow hair, as solid as we're going to get. Piling on more studies at this point does nothing to increase the certainty of the conclusion that CUs regrow hair.

 

[Justlooking]

If I use minoxidil in the morning and tri at night would it be effective or should I put them on together or within 15 mintues of each other?

 

[mvpsoft]

They don't have to be used at the same time to be effective, you can apply one in the morning, one at night, and get the synergistic effects. However, for minoxidil to be most effective, you should apply it twice daily.

Dave, here's another article containing a number of references, and a detailed explanation of why CUs are effective.

http://www.skinbiology.com/2004RussiaHa ... eling.html

 

[Dave001]

Here you go Dave:

"Dermatologic Research Techniques", CRC Press, 1996.

[chapters from a book discussing research]

The text that I snipped above didn't include references to original research, but chapters from a book, apparently discussing some research.

On his Skin Biology forum, Loren Pickart said this:

[some comments]

Recent research indicates that the DHT that harms hair follicles comes from the the skin's sebocytes and sweat glands (sebaceous glands) [...]

Yikes, Pickart thinks that sweat glands and sebaceous glands are synonymous? Sweat glands (sudoriferous glands) comprise the eccrine and the apocrine glands. Sebaceous glands secrete sebum.

Furthermore,

[more comments]

My point was that CUs have been proven to regrow hair on humans, mice and rats. There are studies that give some rationale for the mechanism by which they accomplish this.

In addition, 0ne of the leading researchers on minoxidil (the one Pickart cites)

What makes Pickart a "leading researcher on minoxidil"?

has apparently stated that there is a synergistic effect between minoxidil and copper peptides. I don't have a citation for that, but I didn't claim that there was one. Presumably he has some reason to make the claim.

Maybe, but what has been presented thus far is only hearsay, not direct reference to original research.

Be that as it may, my claim is merely that there is solid clinical evidence that CUs regrow hair, as solid as we're going to get. Piling on more studies at this point does nothing to increase the certainty of the conclusion that CUs regrow hair.

Sorry, but the fact that you were unable to provide a single direct citation to any of the evidence isn't very convincing of its "redunancy," much less the repeatability necessary to establish a place for copper peptides in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia.

 

[Dave001]

They don't have to be used at the same time to be effective, you can apply one in the morning, one at night, and get the synergistic effects. However, for minoxidil to be most effective, you should apply it twice daily.

Dave, here's another article containing a number of references, and a detailed explanation of why CUs are effective.

http://www.skinbiology.com/2004RussiaHa ... eling.html

That's from a commercial website that sells copper peptide related products. The salt required to digest it would cause hypertension.

The only study of copper peptides on hair growth involving Pickart that is indexed by the major bibliographic databases is the following:

R. E. Trachy, T. D. Fors, L. Pickart, and H. Uno (1991). "The hair follicle-stimulating properties of peptide copper complexes. Results in C3H mice." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 642: 468-469.

 

[mvpsoft]

I didn't say that Pickart was a leading researcher on minoxidil. I said that he cites a leading researcher on minoxidil. You should read more carefully.

Pickart doesn't think that sweat and sebaceous glands are synonymous. You should read more carefully.

I said that studies exist. I cited a text that cites the studies. You wanted evidence of the studies, I cited it. I don't have the citations for the studies themselves, you can get the text if you are interested. But my point is that the stiudies have been done. Just because I haven't given you the references for the studies themselves, it doesn't follow that they don't exist. What I have given you is proof that they do exist, which is all that's logically required to make my point.

Just because a site sells copper peptides doesn't make the studies it cites somehow invalid, merely for that reason. If that were a good argument, then any studies on anything sold by this site would be invalid also, which is of course absurd.

You said that there is merely a "tad" of evidence in support of copper peptides. That claim is false.

 

[Dave001]

I didn't say that Pickart was a leading researcher on minoxidil. I said that he cites a leading researcher on minoxidil. You should read more carefully.

Oops. You didn't. Mistake noted.

Pickart doesn't think that sweat and sebaceous glands are synonymous. You should read more carefully.

Er, then who is "folligen.com"?

I said that studies exist. I cited a text that cites the studies. You wanted evidence of the studies, I cited it. I don't have the citations for the studies themselves, you can get the text if you are interested. But my point is that the stiudies have been done. Just because I haven't given you the references for the studies themselves, it doesn't follow that they don't exist. What I have given you is proof that they do exist, which is all that's logically required to make my point.

I've long known about all of the studies that you didn't refer to. I don't need the citations. My point in asking for citations to copper peptide studies was to find out whether the opinions being expressed concerning their effectiveness were informed opinions, or blind faith. If the former, I wanted to know which studies composed their basis. It's hard to imagine that one could form an opinion on the quality of evidence without having any exposure to that evidence, which means having read the studies in this case. Just because there has been a study or two about something doesn't mean that anything has been proven, nor is it any indication of *what* has or has not been proven. I think the only one in this thread commenting on the effectiveness of copper peptides that has read the studies relevant to hair growth is Bryan, and our opinions (or lack of) on their effectiveness are pretty similar from what I recall: namely, they look interesting and show some promise, but very little is known about how, or to what extent they're effective. E.g., do they actually affect the progression of balding, or just stimulate a little bit of hair growth as minoxidil does?

Just because a site sells copper peptides doesn't make the studies it cites somehow invalid, merely for that reason.

I didn't say that it did. But you didn't provide citations that also happened to appear on the site; you referred to the site itself as a resource.

If that were a good argument, then any studies on anything sold by this site would be invalid also, which is of course absurd.

You said that there is merely a "tad" of evidence in support of copper peptides. That claim is false.

Again, on what do base that claim? You haven't read any of the relevant research. You can't even cite a single study.

I know it probably sounds as though I'm trying to bust your balls, but I'm really not. I think that very few people here have read any of the studies, or even reviews from peer-reviewed literature, and I'm trying to emphasize the importance of assessing the quality of information.

 

[mvpsoft]

namely, they look interesting and show some promise, but very little is known about how, or to what extent they're effective. E.g., do they actually affect the progression of balding, or just stimulate a little bit of hair growth as minoxidil does?

Either one is sufficient to sustain the point that I made, to which you orginally objected, i.e., that there is evidence indicating that both are effective, sufficient evidence that we can conclude with confidence for both that they are effective. Neither is effective for everyone, neither is as effective as we would like, neither grows gobs of hair. But they are both effective, about as effective as we're going to get with any topical at this point, and there is sufficent evidence available to make that claim.

Moreover, at least one minoxidil expert (I suppose) has claimed that minoxidil and CUs work synergistically. I don't know of any studies to support that claim, and I didn't say there were any. I simply stated something to the effect that there is some evidence for that. Informed claims made by experts count as evidence.

I really don't see why it is important that you get inside my head. I simply made a claim, you objected, I gave the evidence to support the claim. My psychological or epistemic profile should not be particularly relevant, or even interesting.

If you really want to know, I have a Ph.D. in a totally unrelated field, and I have published in refereed journals. All that means is that I think I understand the concept of what support for a claim looks like. Although I confess when I read the posts of one Mr Foote on this site, I lose faith in my abilities on that score. <g>

 

[ColtsFan]

Jacob/Gardner

Sorry guys been out of town for a week riding dirt bikes, no computer access.

Jacob, yes The Alterna still has SOD listed as an ingredient along with copper and zinc. If you go to 4alterna.com, they have a complete ingredient listing for that product.

Gardner, that game was entertaining if anything else, I just think this year USC is way too strong for just about any team. 5th year senior leadership at and Heisman winner at QB, all those freaking athletes, great coaching, etc, etc, they will roll this year. Im just hoping for a close game and then you never know what might happen.

Im just glad the Colts arent heading your way after all. Broke ground on a retractable stadium and signed a 30 year lease yesterday. Glad to have quasi outdoor football in 3 years....

 

[Jacob]

Coltsfan..thanks. I wasn't able to find the complete ingreds list there though. Is there a page with just the ingreds for each product? I see some of the "active ingreds"...

 

[Dave001]

namely, they look interesting and show some promise, but very little is known about how, or to what extent they're effective. E.g., do they actually affect the progression of balding, or just stimulate a little bit of hair growth as minoxidil does?

Either one is sufficient to sustain the point that I made, to which you orginally objected, i.e., that there is evidence indicating that both are effective, sufficient evidence that we can conclude with confidence for both that they are effective.

Absurd. I had pointed out that there is VERY little data on the effectiveness of copper peptides by comparison to minoxidil, and I will maintain that position until copper peptides have the long-term randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials with respectable sample sizes that minoxidil does.

Neither is effective for everyone, neither is as effective as we would like, neither grows gobs of hair. But they are both effective, about as effective as we're going to get with any topical at this point, and there is sufficent evidence available to make that claim.

I disagree, and your claim of sufficient evidence is greatly weakened by your failure to provide any.

Moreover, at least one minoxidil expert (I suppose) has claimed that minoxidil and CUs work synergistically. I don't know of any studies to support that claim, and I didn't say there were any. I simply stated something to the effect that there is some evidence for that. Informed claims made by experts count as evidence.

(above emphasis mine)

WHAT????? Good Lord! A claim is NEVER evidence of any sort, no matter who makes it.

I really don't see why it is important that you get inside my head. I simply made a claim, you objected, I gave the evidence to support the claim. My psychological or epistemic profile should not be particularly relevant, or even interesting.
[...]

I have no idea what that is in reference to.