>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?
