>Anyone who tried this, please share your experience! Thanks
I second that. Also I'm wondering how it compares to other "natural" products such as Crinagen in terms of effectiveness, cost, ingredients (e.g. how much azelaic acid in Revivogen?) etc. Revivogen shares ingredients with Crinagen and has a few extra (fatty acids) but appears considerably more expensive.
> >Anyone who tried this, please share your experience! Thanks
> I second that. Also I'm wondering how it compares to other > "natural" products such as Crinagen in terms of effectiveness, > cost, ingredients (e.g. how much azelaic acid in Revivogen?) > etc. Revivogen shares ingredients with Crinagen and has a few > extra (fatty acids) but appears considerably more expensive.
> * Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * > The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>I just this second applied Revivogen for the first time. It burned and >irritated my scalp a little. Is anyone else having this
expierence?
That would probably be due to the Niacin which is known to increase blod circulation where applied. I had the same experience, (and was expecting it) with Nioxin scalp treatment which also contains Niacin. Not a bad thing I'd say if its bearable.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network * The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>>Anyone who tried this, please share your experience! Thanks
>I second that. Also I'm wondering how it compares to other >"natural" products such as Crinagen in terms of effectiveness, >cost, ingredients (e.g. how much azelaic acid in Revivogen?) >etc. Revivogen shares ingredients with Crinagen and has a few >extra (fatty acids) but appears considerably more expensive.
After reading the above lists of ingredients and prices, I find myself leaning toward Crinagen as being the better product.
Several things bother me about Revivogen:
1) It contains all those fatty acids; I wonder what they think is the purpose of those? GLA is *supposed* to inhibit 5AR, but what about the others? Worse, the unsaturated fatty acids (the two linolenic acids and the linoleic acid, and possibly the SP extract) are very susceptible to oxidation, yet they have no antioxidant in the product to protect them (the tocopherol acetate doesn't serve this function).
2) The pyridoxine hydrochloride continues to be an issue for me. Most of us in this newsgroup are aware of the study that found that the pyridoxine form applied to tissues *increased* DHT, but the pyridoxal form *decreased* DHT levels. I'm still amazed that Revivogen would use the "wrong" form of the vitamin. When Farrel questioned them about this a while back, their answer was a rather lame, "Well, we've found that the product as a whole works". This is not good enough for me! I want to know if they were aware of that study when they were designing the product, and if so, why did they take a chance by using the "wrong" form? If they were unaware of the study, why didn't they know something the rest of us knew, and why do they *continue* to use the "wrong" form?
3) Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion of the tocopherol acetate in the formula. I can't see any possible function for this ingredient. Moreover, if they are under the mistaken belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, then this would cast doubt for me on the entire product. If they are this clueless about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the product.
The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the "wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of vitamin E.
So far, I'll have to vote for Crinagen as probably being the better product.
You have obviously have never seen either product ;-)
Crinagen, the last time I used it, was a thick soupy green mixture. OTOH Revivogen is clear, non greasy and looks far more stable in my opinion. Based on the consistencies I would say Revivogen would be far better at penetrating into the follicle than Crinagen
> >>Anyone who tried this, please share your experience! Thanks
> >I second that. Also I'm wondering how it compares to other > >"natural" products such as Crinagen in terms of effectiveness, > >cost, ingredients (e.g. how much azelaic acid in Revivogen?) > >etc. Revivogen shares ingredients with Crinagen and has a few > >extra (fatty acids) but appears considerably more expensive.
> After reading the above lists of ingredients and prices, I find myself > leaning toward Crinagen as being the better product.
> Several things bother me about Revivogen:
> 1) It contains all those fatty acids; I wonder what they think is the > purpose of those? GLA is *supposed* to inhibit 5AR, but what about > the others? Worse, the unsaturated fatty acids (the two linolenic acids > and the linoleic acid, and possibly the SP extract) are very susceptible > to oxidation, yet they have no antioxidant in the product to protect them > (the tocopherol acetate doesn't serve this function).
> 2) The pyridoxine hydrochloride continues to be an issue for me. Most > of us in this newsgroup are aware of the study that found that the > pyridoxine form applied to tissues *increased* DHT, but the pyridoxal > form *decreased* DHT levels. I'm still amazed that Revivogen would use > the "wrong" form of the vitamin. When Farrel questioned them about this > a while back, their answer was a rather lame, "Well, we've found that the > product as a whole works". This is not good enough for me! I want to know > if they were aware of that study when they were designing the product, and > if so, why did they take a chance by using the "wrong" form? If they were > unaware of the study, why didn't they know something the rest of us knew, > and why do they *continue* to use the "wrong" form?
> 3) Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion > of the tocopherol acetate in the formula. I can't see any possible > function for this ingredient. Moreover, if they are under the mistaken > belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, then this > would cast doubt for me on the entire product. If they are this clueless > about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other > mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the product.
> The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as > Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the > "wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of vitamin E.
> So far, I'll have to vote for Crinagen as probably being the better product.
Ive been using crinagen on my right temple for about 2 weeks and it is full of vellus hairs. I was also thinking revivogen but ended up going with the crinagen as a cheaper substitute. Ill keep you all informed on my results
In <757488B4258B2639.44D10A7A8F576A45.18BCAAEC5A6B8...@lp.airnews.net>, the sagacious br...@pointecom.net Bryan Shelton perspicated:
> 3) Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion > of the tocopherol acetate in the formula. I can't see any possible > function for this ingredient.
Yeah, doesn't it need to have the acetate cleaved off in order for it to be an antioxidant and doesn't that cleaving normally happen during digestion?
It is my impression that only free form tocopherols provide preservative protection of foods and medicines.
>Moreover, if they are under the mistaken > belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, then this > would cast doubt for me on the entire product. If they are this clueless > about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other > mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the product.
> The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as > Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the > "wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of vitamin E.
They both have Saw Palmetto. But, heck, that's easy to add to one's own formulation. Crinagen has Azelaic acid as well.
Why the zinc as acetate hydrate in Crinagen? Revivogen has it as sufate and so does Prox N.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 17:40:17 GMT, Randall Parker <rgpar...@west.net> wrote: >In <757488B4258B2639.44D10A7A8F576A45.18BCAAEC5A6B8...@lp.airnews.net>, >the sagacious br...@pointecom.net Bryan Shelton perspicated:
>> 3) Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion >> of the tocopherol acetate in the formula. I can't see any possible >> function for this ingredient.
>Yeah, doesn't it need to have the acetate cleaved off in order for it to >be an antioxidant and doesn't that cleaving normally happen during >digestion?
>It is my impression that only free form tocopherols provide preservative >protection of foods and medicines.
Yes, absolutely! The fact that they don't seem to know anything about this or the pyridoxal/pyridoxine issue makes me wonder what other mistakes they may have made in this product. Sheesh!
>>Moreover, if they are under the mistaken >> belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, then this >> would cast doubt for me on the entire product. If they are this clueless >> about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other >> mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the product.
>> The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as >> Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the >> "wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of vitamin E.
>They both have Saw Palmetto. But, heck, that's easy to add to one's own >formulation. Crinagen has Azelaic acid as well.
>Why the zinc as acetate hydrate in Crinagen? Revivogen has it as sufate >and so does Prox N.
I doubt that the specific zinc salt makes much of a difference, as long as there aren't solubility problems.
>>> 3) Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion >>> of the tocopherol acetate in the formula. I can't see any possible >>> function for this ingredient.
>>Yeah, doesn't it need to have the acetate cleaved off in order for it to >>be an antioxidant and doesn't that cleaving normally happen during >>digestion?
>>It is my impression that only free form tocopherols provide preservative >>protection of foods and medicines.
>Yes, absolutely! The fact that they don't seem to know anything >about this or the pyridoxal/pyridoxine issue makes me wonder what >other mistakes they may have made in this product. Sheesh!
>>>Moreover, if they are under the mistaken >>> belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, then this >>> would cast doubt for me on the entire product. If they are this clueless >>> about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other >>> mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the product.
>>> The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as >>> Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the >>> "wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of vitamin E.
>>They both have Saw Palmetto. But, heck, that's easy to add to one's own >>formulation. Crinagen has Azelaic acid as well.
>>Why the zinc as acetate hydrate in Crinagen? Revivogen has it as sufate >>and so does Prox N.
>I doubt that the specific zinc salt makes much of a difference, >as long as there aren't solubility problems.
>Bryan
"""""""""""""""" Zinc acetate and zinc sulfate were used in one study to reduce sebum output in rats,Dr Razack may have seen this study?
I have forwarded the post onto them for comment and they will be replying. Based on my initial discussions they say the majority of the DHT inhibition occurs from the GLA and ALA and not from the B6. That is the fundamental difference between their product and Crinagen
> >> 3) Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion > >> of the tocopherol acetate in the formula. I can't see any possible > >> function for this ingredient.
> >Yeah, doesn't it need to have the acetate cleaved off in order for it to > >be an antioxidant and doesn't that cleaving normally happen during > >digestion?
> >It is my impression that only free form tocopherols provide preservative > >protection of foods and medicines.
> Yes, absolutely! The fact that they don't seem to know anything > about this or the pyridoxal/pyridoxine issue makes me wonder what > other mistakes they may have made in this product. Sheesh!
> >>Moreover, if they are under the mistaken > >> belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, then this > >> would cast doubt for me on the entire product. If they are this clueless > >> about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other > >> mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the product.
> >> The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as > >> Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the > >> "wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of vitamin E.
> >They both have Saw Palmetto. But, heck, that's easy to add to one's own > >formulation. Crinagen has Azelaic acid as well.
> >Why the zinc as acetate hydrate in Crinagen? Revivogen has it as sufate > >and so does Prox N.
> I doubt that the specific zinc salt makes much of a difference, > as long as there aren't solubility problems.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 20:00:04 GMT, "Farrel" <far...@my-deja.com> wrote: >I have forwarded the post onto them for comment and they will be replying. >Based on my initial discussions they say the majority of the DHT inhibition >occurs from the GLA and ALA and not from the B6. That is the fundamental >difference between their product and Crinagen
I'll also mention that there can't be very much GLA and ALA in the product, if it's not even greasy...
> >>Anyone who tried this, please share your experience! Thanks
> >I second that. Also I'm wondering how it compares to other > >"natural" products such as Crinagen in terms of effectiveness, > >cost, ingredients (e.g. how much azelaic acid in Revivogen?) > >etc. Revivogen shares ingredients with Crinagen and has a few > >extra (fatty acids) but appears considerably more expensive.
> After reading the above lists of ingredients and prices, I find myself > leaning toward Crinagen as being the better product.
> Several things bother me about Revivogen:
> 1) It contains all those fatty acids; I wonder what they think is the > purpose of those? GLA is *supposed* to inhibit 5AR, but what about > the others? Worse, the unsaturated fatty acids (the two linolenic acids > and the linoleic acid, and possibly the SP extract) are very susceptible > to oxidation, yet they have no antioxidant in the product to protect them > (the tocopherol acetate doesn't serve this function).
> 2) The pyridoxine hydrochloride continues to be an issue for me. Most > of us in this newsgroup are aware of the study that found that the > pyridoxine form applied to tissues *increased* DHT, but the pyridoxal > form *decreased* DHT levels. I'm still amazed that Revivogen would use > the "wrong" form of the vitamin. When Farrel questioned them about this > a while back, their answer was a rather lame, "Well, we've found that the > product as a whole works". This is not good enough for me! I want to know > if they were aware of that study when they were designing the product, and > if so, why did they take a chance by using the "wrong" form? If they were > unaware of the study, why didn't they know something the rest of us knew, > and why do they *continue* to use the "wrong" form?
> 3) Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion > of the tocopherol acetate in the formula. I can't see any possible > function for this ingredient. Moreover, if they are under the mistaken > belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, then this > would cast doubt for me on the entire product. If they are this clueless > about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other > mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the product.
> The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as > Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the > "wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of vitamin E.
> So far, I'll have to vote for Crinagen as probably being the better product.
> Bryan
Bryan, crazy as it sounds, is it possible they're using the fatty acids to create a "protected" environment on the scalp? I read today on www.salusmaster.com in the section on Folligen that Dr Pickart does something with the product to try to create a "safe" . and "incubated" environment by actually *increasing* sebum or oily coating on the scalp to prevent dehydration and help "protect" follicles.
This is diametrically opposed to the comments Ive heard that when a man hits his "change of life" at age 25, gets fat, and starts to lose hair, that DHT and sebum production increase, which both can lead to hairloss.
Is salusmasters information incorrect? Why would folligen want to create a fatty oily scalp environment? Is it possible this is what Revivogen is doing with their fatty asses? I mean acids?
HT
-- **************************************** http://www.hairlosstalk.com Live 1 on 1 with hot nasty balding men. ****************************************
On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 23:24:33 GMT, HairTalk <ad...@hairlosstalk.com> wrote: >Is salusmasters information incorrect? Why would folligen want to >create a fatty oily scalp environment? Is it possible this is what >Revivogen is doing with their fatty asses? I mean acids?
I doubt it. After all, Farrel quoted them as saying specifically that the GLA and ALA do most of the DHT suppression, so that's probably the only reason they put them in there.
> In article > <757488B4258B2639.44D10A7A8F576A45.18BCAAEC5A6B8...@lp.airnews.net>, > br...@pointecom.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote: > > On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 11:30:38 -0800, Jake > <cytokine14NOcyS...@hotmail.com.invalid> > > wrote:
> > >>Anyone who tried this, please share your experience! Thanks
> > >I second that. Also I'm wondering how it compares to other > > >"natural" products such as Crinagen in terms of effectiveness, > > >cost, ingredients (e.g. how much azelaic acid in Revivogen?) > > >etc. Revivogen shares ingredients with Crinagen and has a few > > >extra (fatty acids) but appears considerably more expensive.
> > After reading the above lists of ingredients and prices, I find myself > > leaning toward Crinagen as being the better product.
> > Several things bother me about Revivogen:
> > 1) It contains all those fatty acids; I wonder what they think is > the > > purpose of those? GLA is *supposed* to inhibit 5AR, but what about > > the others? Worse, the unsaturated fatty acids (the two linolenic > acids > > and the linoleic acid, and possibly the SP extract) are very > susceptible > > to oxidation, yet they have no antioxidant in the product to protect > them > > (the tocopherol acetate doesn't serve this function).
> > 2) The pyridoxine hydrochloride continues to be an issue for me. > Most > > of us in this newsgroup are aware of the study that found that the > > pyridoxine form applied to tissues *increased* DHT, but the pyridoxal > > form *decreased* DHT levels. I'm still amazed that Revivogen would > use > > the "wrong" form of the vitamin. When Farrel questioned them about > this > > a while back, their answer was a rather lame, "Well, we've found that > the > > product as a whole works". This is not good enough for me! I want > to know > > if they were aware of that study when they were designing the > product, and > > if so, why did they take a chance by using the "wrong" form? If they > were > > unaware of the study, why didn't they know something the rest of us > knew, > > and why do they *continue* to use the "wrong" form?
> > 3) Probably the one thing that bothers me the most is the inclusion > > of the tocopherol acetate in the formula. I can't see any possible > > function for this ingredient. Moreover, if they are under the > mistaken > > belief that this is serving as an antioxidant for the fatty acids, > then this > > would cast doubt for me on the entire product. If they are this > clueless > > about tocopherol acetate, then I can't help but wonder what other > > mistakes they've made in the formulation and production of the > product.
> > The bottom line is that Revivogen costs almost five times as much as > > Crinagen, has lots of fatty acids that are probably unstable, has the > > "wrong" form of B6, and has a ridiculously ineffective form of > vitamin E.
> > So far, I'll have to vote for Crinagen as probably being the better > product.
> > Bryan
> Bryan, crazy as it sounds, is it possible they're using the fatty acids > to create a "protected" environment on the scalp? I read today on > www.salusmaster.com in the section on Folligen that Dr Pickart does > something with the product to try to create a "safe" . and "incubated" > environment by actually *increasing* sebum or oily coating on the scalp > to prevent dehydration and help "protect" follicles.
> This is diametrically opposed to the comments Ive heard that when a man > hits his "change of life" at age 25, gets fat, and starts to lose hair, > that DHT and sebum production increase, which both can lead to hairloss.
> Is salusmasters information incorrect? Why would folligen want to > create a fatty oily scalp environment? Is it possible this is what > Revivogen is doing with their fatty asses? I mean acids?
> HT
> --Hello HT
I don't know too much about hair loss or the products but I have heard that excess sebum contributes to hair loss. If Folligen is creating a sebum rich scalp environment, first, is this a good idea and second, if this is truly a good idea, what about other hair loss products that cut down on sebum? In what circumstances should these other products be used and should they be used in conjunction with folligen? Any thoughts?
> **************************************** > http://www.hairlosstalk.com > Live 1 on 1 with hot nasty balding men. > ****************************************
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 03:47:23 GMT, "Farrel" <far...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Farrel, why don't you forward my post to the fine folks at Revivogen? > I'd truly like to hear their response.
> Bryan
Ok here is their response, strangely enough they were able to comment in spite of the many "regulations" that prevented Spamcorp from answering any questions. ;-)
Thank you for forwarding the comments posted on the baldspot news group for our reply. We appreciate the opportunity to answer any concerns and questions about Revivogen and always welcome criticism, suggestions, and questions.
First I like to provide you with some details about the formulation of Revivogen. Unlike what seems to be the popular belief, Revivogen is not a Crinagen mimic formula based on Azelaic Acid, Zinc, and B6. It actually is a GLA, ALA, and Linoleic based formula with Azelaic acid and other ingredients added as complementary and supportive ingredients. We have chosen GLA, ALA, and Linoleic Acid because they are in fact the most potent and best researched 5AR inhibitors known today. These ingredients have the proven ability to block both type 1 and 2 forms of 5AR equally from 90 to 98%. Also they are the only ingredients that have been actually proven to inhibit 5AR when applied topically and are highly absorbable into the skin which makes them a great delivery vehicle for other ingredients.
Yet another unique quality of GLA and ALA is their potent anti-inflammatory properties. In fact the most common usage of these fatty acids as oral supplements is as anti-inflammatories for the treatment of inflammatory arthritic conditions (rheumatoid arthritis, etc.). It is a known fact that a low grade inflammation also occurs in androgenetic Alopecia which eventually leads to scarring alopecia after a long time. As such anti-inflammatories are of essence to any successful therapy for hair loss. Based on these facts it is apparent why we have mainly relied on GLA, ALA and Linoleic acid as our main active ingredients. They have the best scientific studies and the best properties in one place.
The most important thing about these fatty acids is that they must be in the free fatty acid form or they don't work. This means all natural oils including Borage oil, Emu Oil, Flax Seed Oil, etc. which have less than 1% free fatty acid in the natural form, will not work and are worthless. This again is proven by the scientific studies. We only use pure fatty acids in Revivogen which is very expensive and hard to make. The other fatty acids in the formula are in much lower concentrations and they are there because it is very difficult to distract and separate them and unnecessary. All studies discussed here are published at the research section of our site at www.revivogen.com/research.html for public viewing.
In regards to the formula's potency and preventing oxidation we have taken very stiff measures to prevent this from happening which includes:
1. Producing small quantities to have fresh formulas on a regular basis. 2. Using smaller bottles for the formula to prevent prolonged exposure to the air (we would have saved significant amount of money if we used one single 4 oz. bottle). 3. Inclusion of Alcohol, vitamin E (alpha, gamma, and delta Tocopherol), Ascorbyl palmitate and BHT in the formula to provide additional and reliable anti-oxidant protection.
We have added Azelaic Acid (5%), Zinc, B6, Saw Palmetto Extract (98% fatty acids) and Niacin (for inducing capillary dilation and increasing blood flow to the scalp) to increase the formula's potency and to provide additional means of 5AR inhibition. All of these ingredients have good research but the only ingredient that seems to be bothersome to many is Pyridoxine HCl. We are aware of the study about the differences of Pyridoxine vs. Pyridoxal. The reason we chose Pyridoxine HCl was that as first documented in British Journal of Dermatology the invivo (not invitro) studies have shown that "Pyridoxine HCl potentiates the effects of zinc and Azaleic Acid in inhibiting 5-alpha Reductase. Additionally when the three substances were added together at very low concentrations which had shown to be ineffective alone, 90% inhibition of 5 alpha-reductase activity was obtained". It is a clinically proven fact that these ingredients work synergistically in blocking 5AR and therefore one has to look at their combined effect rather than each individual ingredients properties when studied alone. Now if you look at the studies about saw palmetto and many other compounds you would see that for every study claiming their effectiveness there is another study claiming that they don't work or have a negative effect. We place more value on the study published in the British Journal of Dermatology which has a very high degree of scientific credibility than other journals.
In regard to the before and after pictures first I like to assure every one that they are real. Obviously they represent our best results which did not happen over night. If the quality is not great it is because during the past three years as we were experimenting with the formula we were not planing to market it or to turn it into a commercial product. As such we were taking the pictures sparingly without much attention to lighting, angles, etc.. Our interest was first intellectual and then a hobby rather than preparation for a business venture. It was only during the last year that we learned about other products available for hair loss on the Internet and decided to market and sell our formula. So if the lighting is incorrect or the angles are not the same it is not because we are trying to mislead anyone or create amazing before and after pictures.
But an even more important and over looked fact is that any before and after picture is useless for trying to comparing products with each other or for e valuating what kind of results one should expect with using any product. Each individual is different and results vary from person to person. If Revivogen has worked for X it does not mean that it will work for Y or that they will have similar results. We highly recommend that any one who is using Revivogen or any other product to take their own before and after pictures for evaluating their results.
Finally we do not guarantee results or claim that Revivogen grows hair or prevents hair loss. If we do make such claims then FDA and FTC would consider Revivogen as a new treatment for hair loss and require FDA studies and approval which can take 7-10 years and millions of dollars. We leave it to our customers to make an educated and reasonable decision as to what to expect from Revivogen based on the scientific evidence and the facts. However, we do guarantee our customers satisfaction with a hassle free 90 day money back guarantee.
We know that it is impossible to please every one, and that there is always room for improvement. We welcome all constructive criticism, comments and recommendations. We can never live up to every one's expectations but we do our best to provide the most effective and safest product to our customers around the world. As such I like to announce here that we are considering to change the B6 in our formula from Pyridoxine to Pyridoxal in our next production to ease the many concerns raised about this issue. We like to hear from the members of baldspot as to which form of B6 they prefer, given our reasoning that was provided here. They can cast their votes by sending an email directly to me at i...@revivogen.com . Thank you again for bringing this matter to our attention and providing us with an opportunity to response.
> > Farrel, why don't you forward my post to the fine folks at Revivogen? > > I'd truly like to hear their response.
> > Bryan
> Ok here is their response, strangely enough they were able to comment in > spite of the many "regulations" that prevented Spamcorp from answering any > questions. ;-)
> Thank you for forwarding the comments posted on the baldspot news group for > our reply. We appreciate the opportunity to answer any concerns and > questions about Revivogen and always welcome criticism, suggestions, and > questions.
> First I like to provide you with some details about the formulation of > Revivogen. Unlike what seems to be the popular belief, Revivogen is not a > Crinagen mimic formula based on Azelaic Acid, Zinc, and B6. It actually is a > GLA, ALA, and Linoleic based formula with Azelaic acid and other ingredients > added as complementary and supportive ingredients. We have chosen GLA, ALA, > and Linoleic Acid because they are in fact the most potent and best > researched 5AR inhibitors known today. These ingredients have the proven > ability to block both type 1 and 2 forms of 5AR equally from 90 to 98%. > Also they are the only ingredients that have been actually proven to inhibit > 5AR when applied topically and are highly absorbable into the skin which > makes them a great delivery vehicle for other ingredients.
> Yet another unique quality of GLA and ALA is their potent anti-inflammatory > properties. In fact the most common usage of these fatty acids as oral > supplements is as anti-inflammatories for the treatment of inflammatory > arthritic conditions (rheumatoid arthritis, etc.). It is a known fact that a > low grade inflammation also occurs in androgenetic Alopecia which eventually > leads to scarring alopecia after a long time. As such anti-inflammatories > are of essence to any successful therapy for hair loss. Based on these facts > it is apparent why we have mainly relied on GLA, ALA and Linoleic acid as > our main active ingredients. They have the best scientific studies and the > best properties in one place.
> The most important thing about these fatty acids is that they must be in the > free fatty acid form or they don't work. This means all natural oils > including Borage oil, Emu Oil, Flax Seed Oil, etc. which have less than 1% > free fatty acid in the natural form, will not work and are worthless. This > again is proven by the scientific studies. We only use pure fatty acids in > Revivogen which is very expensive and hard to make. The other fatty acids in > the formula are in much lower concentrations and they are there because it > is very difficult to distract and separate them and unnecessary. All studies > discussed here are published at the research section of our site at > www.revivogen.com/research.html for public viewing.
> In regards to the formula's potency and preventing oxidation we have taken > very stiff measures to prevent this from happening which includes:
> 1. Producing small quantities to have fresh formulas on a regular basis. > 2. Using smaller bottles for the formula to prevent prolonged exposure to > the air (we would have saved significant amount of money if we used one > single 4 oz. bottle). > 3. Inclusion of Alcohol, vitamin E (alpha, gamma, and delta Tocopherol), > Ascorbyl palmitate and BHT in the formula to provide additional and reliable > anti-oxidant protection.
> We have added Azelaic Acid (5%), Zinc, B6, Saw Palmetto Extract (98% fatty > acids) and Niacin (for inducing capillary dilation and increasing blood flow > to the scalp) to increase the formula's potency and to provide additional > means of 5AR inhibition. All of these ingredients have good research but the > only ingredient that seems to be bothersome to many is Pyridoxine HCl. We > are aware of the study about the differences of Pyridoxine vs. Pyridoxal. > The reason we chose Pyridoxine HCl was that as first documented in British > Journal of Dermatology the invivo (not invitro) studies have shown that > "Pyridoxine HCl potentiates the effects of zinc and Azaleic Acid in > inhibiting 5-alpha Reductase. Additionally when the three substances were > added together at very low concentrations which had shown to be ineffective > alone, 90% inhibition of 5 alpha-reductase activity was obtained". It is a > clinically proven fact that these ingredients work synergistically in > blocking 5AR and therefore one has to look at their combined effect rather > than each individual ingredients properties when studied alone. Now if you > look at the studies about saw palmetto and many other compounds you would > see that for every study claiming their effectiveness there is another study > claiming that they don't work or have a negative effect. We place more value > on the study published in the British Journal of Dermatology which has a > very high degree of scientific credibility than other journals.
> In regard to the before and after pictures first I like to assure every one > that they are real. Obviously they represent our best results which did not > happen over night. If the quality is not great it is because during the past > three years as we were experimenting with the formula we were not planing to > market it or to turn it into a commercial product. As such we were taking > the pictures sparingly without much attention to lighting, angles, etc.. Our > interest was first intellectual and then a hobby rather than preparation for > a business venture. It was only during the last year that we learned about > other products available for hair loss on the Internet and decided to market > and sell our formula. So if the lighting is incorrect or the angles are not > the same it is not because we are trying to mislead anyone or create amazing > before and after pictures.
> But an even more important and over looked fact is that any before and after > picture is useless for trying to comparing products with each other or for e > valuating what kind of results one should expect with using any product. > Each individual is different and results vary from person to person. If > Revivogen has worked for X it does not mean that it will work for Y or that > they will have similar results. We highly recommend that any one who is > using Revivogen or any other product to take their own before and after > pictures for evaluating their results.
> Finally we do not guarantee results or claim that Revivogen grows hair or > prevents hair loss. If we do make such claims then FDA and FTC would > consider Revivogen as a new treatment for hair loss and require FDA studies > and approval which can take 7-10 years and millions of dollars. We leave it > to our customers to make an educated and reasonable decision as to what to > expect from Revivogen based on the scientific evidence and the facts. > However, we do guarantee our customers satisfaction with a hassle free 90 > day money back guarantee.
> We know that it is impossible to please every one, and that there is always > room for improvement. We welcome all constructive criticism, comments and > recommendations. We can never live up to every one's expectations but we do > our best to provide the most effective and safest product to our customers > around the world. As such I like to announce here that we are considering to > change the B6 in our formula from Pyridoxine to Pyridoxal in our next > production to ease the many concerns raised about this issue. We like to > hear from the members of baldspot as to which form of B6 they prefer, given > our reasoning that was provided here. They can cast their votes by sending > an email directly to me at i...@revivogen.com . Thank you again for bringing > this matter to our attention and providing us with an opportunity to > response.
In <SZyy4.10077$u8.370...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, the sagacious far...@my-deja.com Farrel perspicated:
> The most important thing about these fatty acids is that they must be in the > free fatty acid form or they don't work. This means all natural oils > including Borage oil, Emu Oil, Flax Seed Oil, etc. which have less than 1% > free fatty acid in the natural form, will not work and are worthless.
Is this true? If so, how can one convert fatty acids to free form?
Is the problem that they are esters?
Also, ask them why they are using the acetate form of Vitamin E. I don't think that is providing any preservative effect.
>In regards to the formula's potency and preventing oxidation we have taken >very stiff measures to prevent this from happening which includes:
>1. Producing small quantities to have fresh formulas on a regular basis. >2. Using smaller bottles for the formula to prevent prolonged exposure to >the air (we would have saved significant amount of money if we used one >single 4 oz. bottle). >3. Inclusion of Alcohol, vitamin E (alpha, gamma, and delta Tocopherol), >Ascorbyl palmitate and BHT in the formula to provide additional and reliable >anti-oxidant protection.
But this doesn't jive with information we were given before by another poster about Revivogen; were we misinformed? Here's the other info:
>The reason we chose Pyridoxine HCl was that as first documented in British >Journal of Dermatology the invivo (not invitro) studies have shown that >"Pyridoxine HCl potentiates the effects of zinc and Azaleic Acid in >inhibiting 5-alpha Reductase."
Actually, you're mis-remembering what the article said. The abstract for this study clearly indicates that B6 potentiates the effects of zinc, but NOT azelaic acid.
>"Additionally when the three substances were added together >at very low concentrations which had shown to be ineffective alone, >90% inhibition of 5 alpha-reductase activity was obtained". It is a >clinically proven fact that these ingredients work synergistically in >blocking 5AR and therefore one has to look at their combined effect >rather than each individual ingredients properties when studied alone. > [...] >As such I like to announce here that we are considering to change >the B6 in our formula from Pyridoxine to Pyridoxal in our next production >to ease the many concerns raised about this issue. We like to hear from >the members of baldspot as to which form of B6 they prefer, given our >reasoning that was provided here.
On further reflection, I've had a change of heart on this issue. Rather than change from pyridoxine to pyridoxal, why not simply take OUT both the pyridoxine and the zinc?
Why would I suggest this? Because the pyridoxine has no effect on the azelaic acid, so it's not needed for that. It *does* potentiate the zinc, but then zinc only inhibits 5AR type 1. See:
"Cations inhibit specifically type I 5 alpha-reductase found in human skin" Author: Sugimoto Y; López-Solache I; Labrie F; Luu-The V J Invest Dermatol, 104: 5, 1995 May, 775-8
This study found that zinc ions had no effect on 5AR type 2, but they did strongly inhibit 5AR type 1. But increasingly it appears that the important isozyme in the follicle and the dermal papillae, and the one responsible for hair-loss, is type 2.
So it's with a great sense of irony that I suggest that you take out the B6 and zinc entirely, and rely on the fatty acids and azelaic acid to do the job.
Bryan, how do they come up with the statement that only type 2 is responsible for hair loss. If they are getting that solely from hearing that finasteride users halt hair loss, then that is not sufficient argument. What about the people for whom finasteride doesn't work? Maybe these people are just not responding to the drug (i.e., their bodies are not inhibiting 5AR type 2) or type 1 is also causing the problem for them.
> "Cations inhibit specifically type I 5 alpha-reductase found in human skin" > Author: Sugimoto Y; López-Solache I; Labrie F; Luu-The V > J Invest Dermatol, 104: 5, 1995 May, 775-8
> This study found that zinc ions had no effect on 5AR type 2, but > they did strongly inhibit 5AR type 1. But increasingly it appears > that the important isozyme in the follicle and the dermal papillae, > and the one responsible for hair-loss, is type 2.
> In <SZyy4.10077$u8.370...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, the > sagacious far...@my-deja.com Farrel perspicated: > > The most important thing about these fatty acids is that they must be in the > > free fatty acid form or they don't work. This means all natural oils > > including Borage oil, Emu Oil, Flax Seed Oil, etc. which have less than 1% > > free fatty acid in the natural form, will not work and are worthless.
> Is this true? If so, how can one convert fatty acids to free form?
> Is the problem that they are esters?
Yeah -- what does this actually mean? How does one determine if these oils (GLA's/LA's) are at least 1% free fatty acids in natural form? Are we just talking topically here as well?
br...@pointecom.net (Bryan Shelton) wrote: >Dr. Alan Shargani of "Revivogen" wrote:
>>The reason we chose Pyridoxine HCl was that as first documented in British >>Journal of Dermatology the invivo (not invitro) studies have shown that >>"Pyridoxine HCl potentiates the effects of zinc and Azaleic Acid in >>inhibiting 5-alpha Reductase."
>Actually, you're mis-remembering what the article said. The abstract >for this study clearly indicates that B6 potentiates the effects of zinc, >but NOT azelaic acid.
>>"Additionally when the three substances were added together >>at very low concentrations which had shown to be ineffective alone, >>90% inhibition of 5 alpha-reductase activity was obtained". It is a >>clinically proven fact that these ingredients work synergistically in >>blocking 5AR and therefore one has to look at their combined effect >>rather than each individual ingredients properties when studied alone. >> [...] >>As such I like to announce here that we are considering to change >>the B6 in our formula from Pyridoxine to Pyridoxal in our next production >>to ease the many concerns raised about this issue. We like to hear from >>the members of baldspot as to which form of B6 they prefer, given our >>reasoning that was provided here.
>On further reflection, I've had a change of heart on this issue. Rather >than change from pyridoxine to pyridoxal, why not simply take OUT both >the pyridoxine and the zinc?
>Why would I suggest this? Because the pyridoxine has no effect on >the azelaic acid, so it's not needed for that. It *does* potentiate >the zinc, but then zinc only inhibits 5AR type 1. See:
>"Cations inhibit specifically type I 5 alpha-reductase found in human skin" >Author: Sugimoto Y; López-Solache I; Labrie F; Luu-The V >J Invest Dermatol, 104: 5, 1995 May, 775-8
>This study found that zinc ions had no effect on 5AR type 2, but >they did strongly inhibit 5AR type 1. But increasingly it appears >that the important isozyme in the follicle and the dermal papillae, >and the one responsible for hair-loss, is type 2.
>So it's with a great sense of irony that I suggest that you take >out the B6 and zinc entirely, and rely on the fatty acids and >azelaic acid to do the job.
>Bryan
That's completely the opposite to what I think is the key ingredients in revivogen.Zinc & b6 have glucocorticoid antagonistic properties as well as androgen blocking.This in my opinion makes them more valuable than anything else in the formulation.This zinc/b6 solution is talked about at:www.mindspring.com/~bupper1/index.htm.Remember we've talked about the general ineffectiveness of topical anti-androgens in the past. If topical antiandrogens were as a _group_effective then the argument would soundly favor the antiandrogen property at work.What we know is that only a few antiandrogens have shown any success in treating mpb and this in my opinion votes for a different way of working other than antiandrogenic.
On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 16:54:09 GMT, donalddon...@my-deja.com wrote: >Bryan, how do they come up with the statement that only type 2 is >responsible for hair loss. If they are getting that solely from hearing >that finasteride users halt hair loss, then that is not sufficient >argument.
Oops! I should have made crystal clear that _I_ am the one making that claim, not the folks at Revivogen. I don't have any idea what their thoughts are on this issue, but lately I've really been re-thinking my own position and this is now what I believe.
And off the top of my head, here are three good reasons:
1) Yes, finasteride halts hair-loss (at least in most people). Its activity is almost entirely against 5AR type 2, and only minimally against 5AR type 1.
2) The medical journal article that I quoted from extensively recently demonstrated that 5AR type 2 is indeed the major player in the follicle itself, including the all-important dermal papilla.
3) Last, and certainly not least, is the fact that 5AR-deficient pseudohermaphrodites, who never go bald, are deficient ONLY in 5AR type 2. They have perfectly *normal* levels of 5AR type 1.
These three facts taken together (and I might be able to think of others) seem to me to strongly support the idea that 5AR type 2 is the villain in hair-loss, and type 1 apparently plays little or no role.
>What about the people for whom finasteride doesn't work? >Maybe these people are just not responding to the drug (i.e., their >bodies are not inhibiting 5AR type 2) or type 1 is also causing the >problem for them.
We've speculated about this before, recently. It doesn't seem to be that the failures simply don't respond to the drug, because somebody pointed out that Merck found that their DHT levels were lowered just like the successes. And again, the pseudohermaphrodites have plenty of 5AR type 1, and it doesn't bother *them*.
I suspect that it's a matter of timing AND degree: we know that even severely balding men can have their hairloss switched-off like a light- switch when their DHT levels are *severely* reduced, like in castration; but if levels are reduced by only around 65%, as happens with Propecia use, this isn't quite enough to pick up everyone, and there are a few unlucky outliers left behind. The reason the pseudohermaphrodites apparently have complete success with a bit less DHT reduction than what you get with Propecia, I would guess, is that they are that way from birth and do not begin after hairloss has already commenced.
|
