Optimal AHK-Cu Proportioning: Math Inside.
- Thread starter TheLastHairbender
- Start date
TheLastHairbender
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 5
You two: Do NOT start that argument here.
Instead of those giant jars of gumballs you win if you guess how many are inside they need to just sit a bottle of Tricomin there and let people guess the concentration of AHK-Cu.
On a more relevant note: Does anyone know if Tricomin underwent any other changes when transitioning from the former see-through to the new, shorter white bottles? I haven't seen anything to indicate it was more than just redesigned packaging, but just curious if anyone has heard otherwise. I just got mine yesterday, from drugstore.com, and it came in the new white bottle. Input?
Instead of those giant jars of gumballs you win if you guess how many are inside they need to just sit a bottle of Tricomin there and let people guess the concentration of AHK-Cu.
On a more relevant note: Does anyone know if Tricomin underwent any other changes when transitioning from the former see-through to the new, shorter white bottles? I haven't seen anything to indicate it was more than just redesigned packaging, but just curious if anyone has heard otherwise. I just got mine yesterday, from drugstore.com, and it came in the new white bottle. Input?
- Reaction score
- 42
TheLastHairbender said:
I think it's fairly important to settle this argument here, for the simple reason that the cost of AHK-Cu (cost per gram) is important. I've heard that the price from this other source of AHK-Cu is quite high; why spend the extra money, if Tricomin gives you an even better deal for the money? :dunno:
TheLastHairbender:
Your question, I think, is really addressing dosage per square cm. And to my mind, I've never understood how this is NOT part of the usual discussion.
Just slapping some amount of fluid onto your skin seems incredibly random. I'm diffuse thinning (and bless my ancestors, have a fairly sizeable head at 6'4") so can easily use 6ml of a liquid product just to achieve bare coverage. Importantly, I need less than half if it is a cream with high slip. So if a liquid is 5% I'm obviously applying double the amount of active, compared to the same concentration in a cream vehicle. This is assuming that the liquid and cream have the same penetration abilities.
And how is it not relevant whether I apply "bare" coverage or "really really lots"? Especially given how some scalps are dry, oily, unhappy, whatever, your dosage (per cm^2) might be twice mine. Someone needs to explain how this doesn't matter.
I've read the "1ml" assertion. Over how much area? For guys who are receding, is that only applied to which areas? (I have no experience with that.) And for a diffuse thinner, I lose a lot of product as it hits the hair. No way to know how much, but that is a factor for me, anyway, so if someone needs 1 ml of a topical, does a diffuse thinner need twice as much to account for the hitting hair everywhere? Who knows, but maybe this is one factor for why not much works for diffuse thinning. (I know that there is no way to tell, but still, all part of the dosage issue.)
(The economics - much larger coverage area, lots of product loss - of diffuse thinners is pretty ugly.)
I've never understood why topicals aren't discussed as g of active per centimeter squared of skin (when it isn't meant to be ultimately absorbed systemically). Your question is a good one.
And, to add to your conundrum (and observation of this whole vacuum of info), penetration of AHK (or anything else) is, I would assume, also a factor. 5% solution in a neutral vehicle should provide, in theory, a lesser amount of AHK; a vehicle with a good driver or other penetration enhancer (including microneedling, iontophoresis, sonophoresis, etc.) would presumably deliver far more of the active into the deeper dermal layers. I read in some report (and no, I don't have it anymore, thanks to a truly pernicious virus/worm on my old pc) that actual penetration of AHK (and GHK) is fractions of one percent.
Really, now that I think about it, topicals should be discussed perhaps as g of active that actually penetrates a square centimeter of skin.
edit: The korean study was on just bare hair follicles, I think, yes? If so, that is why I'm thinking that their amount was so small: no penetration issue.
Maybe take the .000000whatever amount from the korean study, work it backwards using the penetration rate, and that will back you into a percentage you could be comfortable with. Maybe not. I'm just guessing here.
I'm concerned about the dermal death, too. But have any human studies every reported extra baldingness (if it isn't, that really should be a word) for subjects on the far right of dosage? Petri dish hair follicles aren't always representative of the whole ecosystem of your scalp. Not arguing, just truly asking.
(Bryan, while I understand your argument economically - and that could work, depending on some details - there is a finite amount of product that, at least for my skin/scalp - can absorb in any time period. And tricomin in particular is pretty slick stuff. I assume the silicones are why guys say it "wears" well, easy to apply, doesn't leave hair weird for the day, etc. But the formula also, at least for me, precludes applying enough over a 24 hour period to reach 2.5-5%. It simply isn't possible for my skin - pretty healthy, no irritation, not dry, not anything but normal - to accept that much tricomin to reach supposedly efficacious levels. So it is possible that, while perhaps a financial argument could be made - and there is no way I am throwing myself into this fray - there are other considerations, sometimes.)
Your question, I think, is really addressing dosage per square cm. And to my mind, I've never understood how this is NOT part of the usual discussion.
Just slapping some amount of fluid onto your skin seems incredibly random. I'm diffuse thinning (and bless my ancestors, have a fairly sizeable head at 6'4") so can easily use 6ml of a liquid product just to achieve bare coverage. Importantly, I need less than half if it is a cream with high slip. So if a liquid is 5% I'm obviously applying double the amount of active, compared to the same concentration in a cream vehicle. This is assuming that the liquid and cream have the same penetration abilities.
And how is it not relevant whether I apply "bare" coverage or "really really lots"? Especially given how some scalps are dry, oily, unhappy, whatever, your dosage (per cm^2) might be twice mine. Someone needs to explain how this doesn't matter.
I've read the "1ml" assertion. Over how much area? For guys who are receding, is that only applied to which areas? (I have no experience with that.) And for a diffuse thinner, I lose a lot of product as it hits the hair. No way to know how much, but that is a factor for me, anyway, so if someone needs 1 ml of a topical, does a diffuse thinner need twice as much to account for the hitting hair everywhere? Who knows, but maybe this is one factor for why not much works for diffuse thinning. (I know that there is no way to tell, but still, all part of the dosage issue.)
(The economics - much larger coverage area, lots of product loss - of diffuse thinners is pretty ugly.)
I've never understood why topicals aren't discussed as g of active per centimeter squared of skin (when it isn't meant to be ultimately absorbed systemically). Your question is a good one.
And, to add to your conundrum (and observation of this whole vacuum of info), penetration of AHK (or anything else) is, I would assume, also a factor. 5% solution in a neutral vehicle should provide, in theory, a lesser amount of AHK; a vehicle with a good driver or other penetration enhancer (including microneedling, iontophoresis, sonophoresis, etc.) would presumably deliver far more of the active into the deeper dermal layers. I read in some report (and no, I don't have it anymore, thanks to a truly pernicious virus/worm on my old pc) that actual penetration of AHK (and GHK) is fractions of one percent.
Really, now that I think about it, topicals should be discussed perhaps as g of active that actually penetrates a square centimeter of skin.
edit: The korean study was on just bare hair follicles, I think, yes? If so, that is why I'm thinking that their amount was so small: no penetration issue.
Maybe take the .000000whatever amount from the korean study, work it backwards using the penetration rate, and that will back you into a percentage you could be comfortable with. Maybe not. I'm just guessing here.
I'm concerned about the dermal death, too. But have any human studies every reported extra baldingness (if it isn't, that really should be a word) for subjects on the far right of dosage? Petri dish hair follicles aren't always representative of the whole ecosystem of your scalp. Not arguing, just truly asking.
(Bryan, while I understand your argument economically - and that could work, depending on some details - there is a finite amount of product that, at least for my skin/scalp - can absorb in any time period. And tricomin in particular is pretty slick stuff. I assume the silicones are why guys say it "wears" well, easy to apply, doesn't leave hair weird for the day, etc. But the formula also, at least for me, precludes applying enough over a 24 hour period to reach 2.5-5%. It simply isn't possible for my skin - pretty healthy, no irritation, not dry, not anything but normal - to accept that much tricomin to reach supposedly efficacious levels. So it is possible that, while perhaps a financial argument could be made - and there is no way I am throwing myself into this fray - there are other considerations, sometimes.)
- Reaction score
- 42
tuesday said:
An earlier discussion of this issue (might have been earlier in this same thread, or in a different one) did conclude that (assuming that the percentage of the AHK-Cu peptide in Tricomin is indeed 1%, like they say), Tricomin really is a better deal for the money than the external "AHK" peptide that some people are using. Now, I can understand that you might not like the fact that Tricomin has just a relatively small amount of the stuff; perhaps you could experiment a little, by letting half of it evaporate to form a 2% solution. Seems reasonable to me.
Well, amodimethicone would also be twice the concentration. And since that is an issue (at least for me), I'm not sure if your plan would be feasible in all situations.
Also, how long would it take to evaporate? We have pretty high humidity six months of the year (over 60% today), so I would think that would be an issue. A cup of coffee left on the counter only goes down by about a centimeter after two days. And almost no decrease at all (to my eye) if left outside on the porch in the summer.
We keep our flat fairly cold (63 degrees), which also won't work in favor of evaporation since the process is dependent upon the energy of the air molecules "chipping" the water molecules off the surface. Colder air = less energy = hits surface with less force = less "chipped" off water molecules.
Tricomin is a solution (not an emulsion), I believe. Solutions evaporate slower than pure substances. (How much slower depends on the activity of the solute and its nature relative to the solvent, as well as the concentration of all combined solutes.) If air molecules hit the surface of the tricomin and don't happen to hit a water molecule (meaning it hits any of the other ingredients listed), then evaporation won't occur for that impact. I don't know how many ppm in tricomin aren't water, but this is a factor.
If tricomin is technically an emulsion - and it might be because of the high silicone amount - then this argument is the same, just more so, since emusions "protect" the components more. Though obviously a thicker, more concentrated example, how much water evaporates from dish soap if you leave the cap off? Same possibility here. Though I would imagine tricomin would evaporate faster than dish soap, I also suspect that the silicone is going to get in your way a bit here.
And since evaporation happens by air contact of surface area, your plan might have to include transferring the solution to a wide, flat container...and then transferring it back when done. Of course, discerning "half" is quite a bit more difficult in a wide flat container. Not a deal breaker, but an added concern.
Of course the water will find a way out. But how long will it take to eliminate 3 or 4 ounces? And the more concentrated your solution gets, the slower the next evaporative amount (solutions evaporate slower than pure substances, and more concentrated evaporates slower than less).
And I don't know the exact chemistry, but the silicone that is in tricomin rather reminds me of my wife's silicone contacts. And silicone in contact lenses is specifically there to KEEP more water bound. So it is possible that evaporation might be reduced (though maybe not completely thwarted) by the other solutes included with the AHK.
I'm not arguing it couldn't work, given certain assumptions of percentages. I'm saying that I have enough money to not have to step around dinner plates of tricomin for a couple weeks until your effect is achieved. I also pay extra for non-stop flights and lounge access because how I spend my time is always weighed against the amount of money I have, if that frames what I wrote.
edited to fix a typo
Also, how long would it take to evaporate? We have pretty high humidity six months of the year (over 60% today), so I would think that would be an issue. A cup of coffee left on the counter only goes down by about a centimeter after two days. And almost no decrease at all (to my eye) if left outside on the porch in the summer.
We keep our flat fairly cold (63 degrees), which also won't work in favor of evaporation since the process is dependent upon the energy of the air molecules "chipping" the water molecules off the surface. Colder air = less energy = hits surface with less force = less "chipped" off water molecules.
Tricomin is a solution (not an emulsion), I believe. Solutions evaporate slower than pure substances. (How much slower depends on the activity of the solute and its nature relative to the solvent, as well as the concentration of all combined solutes.) If air molecules hit the surface of the tricomin and don't happen to hit a water molecule (meaning it hits any of the other ingredients listed), then evaporation won't occur for that impact. I don't know how many ppm in tricomin aren't water, but this is a factor.
If tricomin is technically an emulsion - and it might be because of the high silicone amount - then this argument is the same, just more so, since emusions "protect" the components more. Though obviously a thicker, more concentrated example, how much water evaporates from dish soap if you leave the cap off? Same possibility here. Though I would imagine tricomin would evaporate faster than dish soap, I also suspect that the silicone is going to get in your way a bit here.
And since evaporation happens by air contact of surface area, your plan might have to include transferring the solution to a wide, flat container...and then transferring it back when done. Of course, discerning "half" is quite a bit more difficult in a wide flat container. Not a deal breaker, but an added concern.
Of course the water will find a way out. But how long will it take to eliminate 3 or 4 ounces? And the more concentrated your solution gets, the slower the next evaporative amount (solutions evaporate slower than pure substances, and more concentrated evaporates slower than less).
And I don't know the exact chemistry, but the silicone that is in tricomin rather reminds me of my wife's silicone contacts. And silicone in contact lenses is specifically there to KEEP more water bound. So it is possible that evaporation might be reduced (though maybe not completely thwarted) by the other solutes included with the AHK.
I'm not arguing it couldn't work, given certain assumptions of percentages. I'm saying that I have enough money to not have to step around dinner plates of tricomin for a couple weeks until your effect is achieved. I also pay extra for non-stop flights and lounge access because how I spend my time is always weighed against the amount of money I have, if that frames what I wrote.
edited to fix a typo
- Reaction score
- 42
I can understand your problem, if you live in an area with fairly high humidity, like you describe. It certainly would be a lot tougher than living in, say, Las Vegas! 
I can see you going through the process of buying the external AHK-Cu peptide, if you really want the higher percentage of peptide.
I can see you going through the process of buying the external AHK-Cu peptide, if you really want the higher percentage of peptide.
Well, in the end, the doubled amodimethicone of a reduced tricomin makes the whole subject a non-starter for me. The other stuff was just to point out that the idea might not be as straightforward as accidentally leaving the cap off a bottle of Hendrick's overnight.
TheLastHairbender
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 5
Both sides have valid points here: supplementing Tricomin with additional AHK may not be for the pennywise. Running the numbers according to Bryan's suggestion indicates that Tricomin may not be such a bad deal after all.
To those willing to spend modestly, however, the idea of reducing the water volume of Tricomin to yield a stronger solution of AHK with unknown effects on the volume of inactive ingredients may not be a proposition worth saving a few bucks over. In fact, at first blush I think this increases risks much more than simply dissolving 1.33g of AHK in 60mL Tricomin. The fact can be debated, but for me the simplicity and precision of my aforementioned approach dominates.
For the interested reader, the 180mL bottle of Tricomin, at a mass of ~171 grams, would contain 1.71g of AHK-Cu at the highest end of the reported concentrations, 1%. Given that a bottle runs anywhere from $42-$65 (got mine on drugstore.com for $42.50 less 8% cash back for buying through the Mr. Rebates portal), the cost per gram of AHK-Cu ranges from $24 - $38, which approximates the market price for the pure powder form. If you're satisfied using a 1% strength concentration (and believe that is truly the concentration), then just buying Tricomin should be the winning proposition. And at 2mL per day a bottle would last three months, adding only $14-$23 to your monthly treatment costs (my regimen currently sits at $101/month total, thanks mostly to the $32/month 5% spironolactone). If, however, you wanted to increase the strength beyond that amount, I think buying bulk AHK-Cu to add to Tricomin is the safer alternative than home distillation or reduction.
Anyway. I've decided to use just straight Tricomin for the first month of treatment to become better adjusted to the AHK and other ingredients, and will only add additional powder starting in month 2. This is also because my 28g of Tricomin from November shrunk down to 26.4g in my dry Arizona refrigerator (which suggests the stuff everyone bought was at least 5.7% water by volume...probably not intentionally but if AHK is hygroscopic it may have been hard to avoid during repackaging).
Final note: if anyone is interested in the Mr. Rebates thing I mentioned you get 2-10% back from a variety of online retailers, many of which carry solid treatments: drugstore.com, Amazon, CVS, Walgreens, etc. just by visiting the retailer via Mr. Rebates' portal. It used to be invite only but they may be taking all comers now, I'm not sure, but if you want to support the Lord's work we're doing here please sign up through my referral link, it does you no disservice and will help me afford to stay on the cutting edge, I'd appreciate it! Referral link: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=594652
Thanks everyone for your contributions to this discussion, especially Bryan and Tuesday, much appreciated!
To those willing to spend modestly, however, the idea of reducing the water volume of Tricomin to yield a stronger solution of AHK with unknown effects on the volume of inactive ingredients may not be a proposition worth saving a few bucks over. In fact, at first blush I think this increases risks much more than simply dissolving 1.33g of AHK in 60mL Tricomin. The fact can be debated, but for me the simplicity and precision of my aforementioned approach dominates.
For the interested reader, the 180mL bottle of Tricomin, at a mass of ~171 grams, would contain 1.71g of AHK-Cu at the highest end of the reported concentrations, 1%. Given that a bottle runs anywhere from $42-$65 (got mine on drugstore.com for $42.50 less 8% cash back for buying through the Mr. Rebates portal), the cost per gram of AHK-Cu ranges from $24 - $38, which approximates the market price for the pure powder form. If you're satisfied using a 1% strength concentration (and believe that is truly the concentration), then just buying Tricomin should be the winning proposition. And at 2mL per day a bottle would last three months, adding only $14-$23 to your monthly treatment costs (my regimen currently sits at $101/month total, thanks mostly to the $32/month 5% spironolactone). If, however, you wanted to increase the strength beyond that amount, I think buying bulk AHK-Cu to add to Tricomin is the safer alternative than home distillation or reduction.
Anyway. I've decided to use just straight Tricomin for the first month of treatment to become better adjusted to the AHK and other ingredients, and will only add additional powder starting in month 2. This is also because my 28g of Tricomin from November shrunk down to 26.4g in my dry Arizona refrigerator (which suggests the stuff everyone bought was at least 5.7% water by volume...probably not intentionally but if AHK is hygroscopic it may have been hard to avoid during repackaging).
Final note: if anyone is interested in the Mr. Rebates thing I mentioned you get 2-10% back from a variety of online retailers, many of which carry solid treatments: drugstore.com, Amazon, CVS, Walgreens, etc. just by visiting the retailer via Mr. Rebates' portal. It used to be invite only but they may be taking all comers now, I'm not sure, but if you want to support the Lord's work we're doing here please sign up through my referral link, it does you no disservice and will help me afford to stay on the cutting edge, I'd appreciate it! Referral link: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=594652
Thanks everyone for your contributions to this discussion, especially Bryan and Tuesday, much appreciated!
TheLastHairbender
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 5
I do not, but I recall reading that an ethanol/PG/H20 vehicle similar to that used for liquid minoxidil was expected to work well, although there were suggestions not to compound it in the same solution with minoxidil because possible interactions between the two were not well understood. I would not take action based on this advice alone, but it might help you search for more complete answers.
I'm putting mine directly in Tricomin. A 6oz bottle can be had for ~$40-45 on sale and should last 3 months at 2mL per day.
I'm putting mine directly in Tricomin. A 6oz bottle can be had for ~$40-45 on sale and should last 3 months at 2mL per day.
Sparky4444
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 44
How are you making out with this??? I like Tricomin a lot for what it does for my hair health in general, but it definately needs a boost in concentration....
If my math is correct, adding about 3g of AHK-CU to a full bottle of Tricomin should bring the concentration up to about 3% give or take??
TheLastHairbender
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 5
I have only been using the AHK-Cu/Tricomin mix for less than a week, so nothing to report so far, although it does feel pretty good to apply.
Adding 3g of AHK-Cu to a 6oz/180mL bottle of Tricomin will increase the concentration of AHK-Cu by 1.75%. So the total concentration will depend on the innate concentration of AHK-Cu in Tricomin - that neverending argument seems to have settled on a disagreement between .3% and ~1%. Some claim to have had it tested, revealing .3%, others claim to have heard from ProCyte directly that it is roughly 1%. I am personally not convinced that we know the answer to this, as the manufacturer has never made a publicly verifiable admission. In either case, the total concentration with a 3g addition to a full bottle of Tricomin will be between 2.05% and 2.75% if those numbers provide lower and upper bounds. To confirm, the +1.75% was calculated as: 6oz x 28.5g/oz = 171g of Tricomin, then 3g/171g = .0175, or 1.75%. If you wanted to increase the concentration by, say, 2.5% to yield an approximately 3% solution, add: 171 x .025 = 4.275g AHK-Cu.
I have only mixed a +2.2% solution myself, meaning a 2.2% increase in the concentration, by adding 1.33g to 1/3 bottle of Tricomin (60mL) that I measured out in a graduated cylinder. I executed the mixture at room temperature and can confirm that this quantity added did not result in oversaturation - and after five days maintained at room temperature I have not observed precipitation of any solids. Good luck!
Adding 3g of AHK-Cu to a 6oz/180mL bottle of Tricomin will increase the concentration of AHK-Cu by 1.75%. So the total concentration will depend on the innate concentration of AHK-Cu in Tricomin - that neverending argument seems to have settled on a disagreement between .3% and ~1%. Some claim to have had it tested, revealing .3%, others claim to have heard from ProCyte directly that it is roughly 1%. I am personally not convinced that we know the answer to this, as the manufacturer has never made a publicly verifiable admission. In either case, the total concentration with a 3g addition to a full bottle of Tricomin will be between 2.05% and 2.75% if those numbers provide lower and upper bounds. To confirm, the +1.75% was calculated as: 6oz x 28.5g/oz = 171g of Tricomin, then 3g/171g = .0175, or 1.75%. If you wanted to increase the concentration by, say, 2.5% to yield an approximately 3% solution, add: 171 x .025 = 4.275g AHK-Cu.
I have only mixed a +2.2% solution myself, meaning a 2.2% increase in the concentration, by adding 1.33g to 1/3 bottle of Tricomin (60mL) that I measured out in a graduated cylinder. I executed the mixture at room temperature and can confirm that this quantity added did not result in oversaturation - and after five days maintained at room temperature I have not observed precipitation of any solids. Good luck!
Sparky4444
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 44
Very helpful! Thank you!
TheLastHairbender
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 5
No problem. Just note that the calculations I gave are for the 'mass fraction', percentage w/w. If instead you wanted to express the 'mass concentration', percentage w/v (g/mL), then you'd just use 3g/180mL = 1.67% w/v. It's sometimes important to take note of the distinction but in this case, with 1g solution = .95mL, not so much. Best wishes.
LawOfThelema
Experienced Member
- Reaction score
- 18
0.25 mL per application? what sized area were they covering?