Google Groups Home
Help | Sign in
Revivogen! Question
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
  Messages 1 - 25 of 91 - Collapse all   Newer >
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Dying  
View profile
 More options 6 Feb 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: "Dying" <gwi...@yesic.com>
Date: 2000/02/06
Subject: Revivogen! Question
Anyone who tried this, please share your experience! Thanks

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Jake  
View profile
 More options 8 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: Jake <cytokine14NOcyS...@hotmail.com.invalid>
Date: 2000/03/08
Subject: Re: Revivogen! Question

>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.

Crinagen ingrediants

Polysorbate 20; Azelaic acid (5%); Zinc acetate hydrate; Niacin;
Vitamin B6 (as Pyridoxal-5-phosphate); Saw palmetto extract
(serenoa repens); Ginkgo biloba extract

Crinagen 4 oz (118ml) costs $19.95  free postage

Revivogen ingredients

Alpha Linolenic Acid, Gamma Linolenic Acid, Linoleic Acid, Oleic
Acid, Palmitic Acid, Myristic Acid, Saw Palmetto Extract,
Azelaic Acid, Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6), Zinc
Sulfate, Niacin (Vitamin B3), Tocopherol Acetate (Vitamin E)

2 x 60 ml + shampoo costs $99 + postage

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
melvin  
View profile
 More options 8 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: "melvin" <melvin...@pcisys.net>
Date: 2000/03/08
Subject: Re: Revivogen! Question
I just this second applied Revivogen for the first time.  It burned and
irritated my scalp a little.  Is anyone else having this expierence?

"Jake" <cytokine14NOcyS...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message

news:0222858d.632633a6@usw-ex0108-063.remarq.com...


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Jake  
View profile
 More options 8 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: Jake <cytokine14NOcyS...@hotmail.com.invalid>
Date: 2000/03/08
Subject: Re: Revivogen! Question

>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!


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Discussion subject changed to "Crinagen vs. Revivogen" by Bryan Shelton
Bryan Shelton  
View profile
 More options 9 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: br...@pointecom.net (Bryan Shelton)
Date: 2000/03/09
Subject: Crinagen vs. Revivogen
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 11:30:38 -0800, Jake <cytokine14NOcyS...@hotmail.com.invalid>
wrote:

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


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Farrel  
View profile
 More options 9 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: "Farrel" <far...@my-deja.com>
Date: 2000/03/09
Subject: Re: Crinagen vs. Revivogen
Bryan

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

Farrel

--
    HAIRTODAY.COM - Your One Stop Hair Loss Shop
                       http://www.hairtoday.com

Bryan Shelton <br...@pointecom.net> wrote in message

news:757488B4258B2639.44D10A7A8F576A45.18BCAAEC5A6B8682@lp.airnews.net...
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 11:30:38 -0800, Jake

<cytokine14NOcyS...@hotmail.com.invalid>


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bryan Shelton  
View profile
 More options 9 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: br...@pointecom.net (Bryan Shelton)
Date: 2000/03/09
Subject: Re: Crinagen vs. Revivogen

On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 03:47:23 GMT, "Farrel" <far...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Bryan

>You have obviously have never seen either product ;-)

You're right, I haven't actually seen either one!

>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.

Well, you can't always go by appearances.  You may have heard that
vegetable oils can become dangerously oxidized even before they
start to smell bad.

>Based on the consistencies I would say Revivogen would be far better
>at penetrating into the follicle than Crinagen

Farrel, why don't you forward my post to the fine folks at Revivogen?
I'd truly like to hear their response.

Bryan


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
AkOnAtAk1  
View profile
 More options 9 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: akonat...@aol.com (AkOnAtAk1)
Date: 2000/03/09
Subject: Re: Crinagen vs. Revivogen
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

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Randall Parker  
View profile
 More options 10 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: Randall Parker <rgpar...@west.net>
Date: 2000/03/10
Subject: Re: Crinagen vs. Revivogen
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.


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bryan Shelton  
View profile
 More options 10 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: br...@pointecom.net (Bryan Shelton)
Date: 2000/03/10
Subject: Re: Crinagen vs. Revivogen

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.

Bryan


    Reply to author    Forward  
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message, you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
mike  
View profile
 More options 10 Mar 2000, 08:00
Newsgroups: alt.baldspot
From: mike <emkay...@dodgenet.com>
Date: 2000/03/10
Subject: Re: Crinagen vs. Revivogen

""""""""""""""""
Zinc acetate and zinc sulfate were used in one study to reduce sebum
output in rats,Dr Razack may have seen this study?

    Reply to author    Forward  
You must