AHK Copper Peptide

hairtest wrote:

MiamiSteve wrote:Any update from anyone in regards to AHK-Cu ?
Also I would like to know if I purchase the power, is it something that can be mixed right into a bottle of minoxidil?
Any opinions on cream as opposed to the liquid?
Thanks for everyones input.
MS

I just placed by 4th order. I would recommend using Rejuveplex. It is helping regrow my hairline.

Progress=Great. Pics will come soon enough. They are too easy to manipulate in my opinion so I will REALLY have to show some ridiculous growth. I am talking full restoration. As of now - my opinion that you couldn't regrow your hairline has been reversed. Slowly but surely.

MiamiSteve wrote:Any update from anyone in regards to AHK-Cu ?
Also I would like to know if I purchase the power, is it something that can be mixed right into a bottle of minoxidil?
Any opinions on cream as opposed to the liquid?
Thanks for everyones input.
MS

TrueGround wrote:I'm not aware of any trend since I've been battling hair loss where people have mentioned getting regrowth from emu oil. I bought my emu oil from the guy at that hairloss-research website, and trust that it is superior quality to what's mostly offered out there. It did absorb into the skin extremely well and is likely a fantastic carrier oil. However, after going through 3 bottles of the stuff (prob 6-8 months) of application, I didn't notice anything in terms of improvement in hair quality.

The guy who sells the stuff claims that his customers consistently get initiation of vellus hairs (within weeks) with emu, which will eventually go terminal. I did not experience this.

One thing I should note is that I was on a kitchen sink supplement approach while applying emu oil at the same time. Fairly quickly after I dropped the kitchen sink approach and emu application, the sides of my head (around ears) started thinning pretty quickly.

TrueGround wrote:Sure,

My entire treatment approach was based on the guidance at the hairloss-research website. I may be leaving a couple things out, but the following supps I took were:

-Soy Isoflavones
-Green Tea Extract
-Optimized Resveratrol
-Super Bio Curcumin
-Sea Iodine
-L-Taurine
-Super Absorbable Tocotreinols and Black Theaflavin Extract (on and off)

I noticed pretty good stabilization with this approach. I slowly came off of these supplements due to cash restrictions and not seeing regrowth, which I was expecting since it was my first attempt at correcting hair loss with supps. I had unrealistic expectations.

My balding pattern is the classic receding hair line, with thinning around the ears/sides of head and very minor thinning at vertex as well. Started when I was about 19 and has been very slow. Overall, I'm about a Norwood 2.75-3, minor vertex.

TheLastHairbender wrote:The study I believe you're referring to appeared as Chapter 16: "Phototrichogram Analysis of Hair Follicle Stimulation: A Pilot Clinical Study with a Peptide-Copper Complex" by Ronald E. Trachy, Leonard M. Patt, Gordon M. Duncan, and Bernard Kalis, in the book "Dermatologic Research Techniques" (1995/6). In that study, only the copper-hexapeptide complex GHKVFV:Cu was tested on humans, and at solution strengths as high as 10% w/w. That particular complex has properties that may be very distinct from AHK-Cu. For example the exposed terminal residue of GHKVFV, the valine moiety, is non-polar and hydrophobic, while that for AHK, the lysine moiety, is polar (+) and thus hydrophilic. There is evidence that the latter is more biologically active than the former when applied topically, and vice versa for ID administration. Suffice it to say that while both are "copper-peptide complexes" they have distinct physical properties and thus information about one may not be directly applicable to the other. The observed distinction between terminal residues' side-chain polarity and the resulting variation in bioactivity levels is just one concrete example.

To use results obtained for one copper-peptide complex as a source of quantitative information about an alternative complex is completely non-permissible. If it were, then the current studies on the multitude of new complexes would not be necessary, as most had already been conducted for GHK and GHK:Cu throughout the 1980s and 90s. The case I'm going to make is actually even stronger than that. There is sufficient variation in physical properties across complexes all of which could be called "AHK-Cu", so information about one form of AHK-Cu (a 2:1 complex of tridentate ligand-to-copper for example) cannot be immediately applied to alternative forms of AHK-Cu (an equimolar concentration of ligand-to-copper, as another). So even if there were a human study on AHK-Cu, it would only provide information about that particular coordination complex, so you'd have to make sure the ambiguous blue powder you were buying as AHK-Cu was in fact the exact same ratio of peptides-to-copper, and then further that the peptides were bonded to the copper as the same way used in the study, as AHK can be coordinated to Cu(2+) in many different ways: with the hydroxide terminus on the lysine residue providing the only donor atom (monodentate), with the same on the histidyl group also providing a donor atom (bidentate), or with each of the three residues providing a donor atom to the copper (tridentate, the preferred configuration for a tripeptide according to ProCyte). Then there can also be multiple or fractional peptides complexed in any of these ways to the copper. All of those potential combinations fit the definition of "AHK-Cu" and all are likely to have different physical properties. We know they do already because each has exhibited different peaks in tests by absorption spectrometry, which provides the only method of empirical distinction to date as far as I know. Therefore one would expect different optimal treatment quantities based on the particular coordination complex at hand. This also implies variation in what would be considered 'safe' treatment quantities even within the class of complexes referred to as AHK-Cu.

ProCyte understood this. If you read carefully, they actually never even used the term "AHK-Cu", they only make reference to complexes of "AHK:Cu", with the understanding that there are a potentially infinite number of distinct substances that can be synthesized from a coordination of the AHK tripeptide to copper(II) according to a variety of alternative peptide bonds and molar ratios of the two. And in providing experimental results, ProCyte always included the specific molar ratio of peptide-to-copper that described the particular AHK:Cu complex under study. If that were not a relevant piece of information, there is no reason why it would be systematically disclosed right next to the X mg or X % w/w treatment quantity without fail in ProCyte's reporting of experimental results. That the Pyo et al. study omitted this information seems to be the anomaly, and I've already contacted the principal investigator in that study and still await a response. The fact is that the ratio of peptide-to-copper in the final product of synthesis is as critically relevant a detail about treatment quantity as the % w/w concentration. If you're applying a 1:1 complex at levels deemed safe or effective based on a 2:1 (peptide:metal) complex...then you have double the expected quantity of elemental copper stored in depot in your scalp's dermal tissue. That may become an issue for you.

So when Hairevo claims: "The recommended percentage of AHK-Cu Copper Tri-Peptides to use within your custom formula is 2.5 to 5%", on which particular complex are they basing that presumption? Nevermind that this amount seems way, way, too high for any AHK-Cu complex given the available data. ProCyte never reported topical tests of any AHK-Cu complex over .5% even in a mouse model. Where the heck are they getting 2.5 to 5%? Not only is there no evidence that this level is optimal, there is no evidence that this level is safe, and in fact there is stronger evidence that this level is not safe for hair and dermal tissue - evidence from the very study that each of the three named retailers cites as their sole piece of evidence. It seems doubtful they even read that reference.


I love what these outfits are trying to do for everybody, but just because it's possible to have a company generically synthesize something for research purposes doesn't mean it's safe to apply any random amount within a centimeter of our brains. It seems that whoever led the community to copper peptides and suggested best practices for their administration did so with an insufficient understanding of the science involved. Those gray-market treatment dealers and videos like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xZKqrMF-bA serve to perpetuate that misunderstanding. I have more faith in ProCyte's and Dr. Pickart's knowledge of the specific biology, that's why my recommendation at present is to avoid all bulk AHK-Cu and its derivative products that aren't specifically Tricomin or Folligen, and even then to follow package instructions since there is demonstrable risk in overexposure. Pyo et al. has shown us that AHK-Cu means playing with live ammo; this is not the benign, innocuous substance we should max out on like fiber, as we may have initially been led to believe.