8 replies to this topic

[John2009]

Loreal has a product called Inneov for Men. The product is comprised of Beta Sitosterol – 100 mg, Taurine – 150 mg, Green Tea Extract – 140 mg, Grape Seed Extract – 40 mg, and Zinc Gluconate – 10 mg.

Has anyone tried their own version of this product ? If so what were the results ? Does it seem plausable that this could work and would it be safe long term ? It looks to me that there would be health benefits to using most of these ingredients anyway. However, I am not familiar with Beta Sitosterol or any negative side effects due to long term use (same with Taurine). Any comments would be appreciated.

http://www.hairloss-...enPictures.html

http://www.hairloss-....org/blog/?p=81

Which ingredient is probably the most important ?

Edited by John2009, 21 February 2013 - 03:56 AM.

[JLL]

Looks like the product is trying to combine different approaches... the beta sitosterol is there for the 5-alpha-reductase inhibition, green tea and grape seed extract probably for reducing inflammation. Not sure about zinc gluconate.

I would probably just try a combination of beta sitosterol and taurine to see what happens. You could always drink a few cups of green tea daily in addition.

[Mind]

I drink green tea. In isolation, it has done nothing for my receding hairline.

[JLL]

Maybe you should pour it on your head

[nowayout]

Patents are meaningless. People patent everything and anything they think they might make money off before they even investigate it, but most patents are therapeutically useless.

[John2009]

I think most companies investigate things before undertaking the large expense of patenting (large companies will always hire patent attorneys for this). Loreal must have thoght they were on to smething in order to try to patent it and undergo the time and expense of patenting.

Edited by John2009, 22 February 2013 - 03:51 AM.

[JohnD60]

I think most companies investigate things before undertaking the large expense of patenting (large companies will always hire patent attorneys for this). Loreal must have thoght they were on to smething in order to try to patent it and undergo the time and expense of patenting.

I disagree with the general premise of your post, that is if a large company is willing to spend roughly $10,000 to get a patent, it is an indication that the claims in the patent application have substantial veracity. The cost of a patent is piddly amount for a company like Loreal.
And, large companies like Loreal have patent lawyers on staff, they don't need to hire them. Here is a link to a perpetual job opening ad that Loreal runs for staff patent attorneys.http://www.patentlyo.com/jobs/2010/11/patent-attorney-large-corporation-clark-nj.html
eta: one website I read said Loreal obtains more than 500 patents a year, I find that credible http://www.happi.com...8/loreal-at-100

Edited by JohnD60, 22 February 2013 - 06:23 PM.

[nowayout]

Here is another illustration that patents don't mean squat. A patent for hair growth by applying creatine

http://www.google.co...s/US20040171693

There is absolutely no study supporting it and I doubt there was ever even any intention or plan to conduct such a study. There are in fact some plausible reasons for believing that creatine may increase hair loss. But someone just thought it plausible for some reason and wanted to register it so they could sue in case anybody in future came up with a hair growth compound somehow made from or including creatine. The first author actually has other spurious patents proposing other substances for treating hair loss, and a patent for pretty much any cosmetic use of Rhodiola rosae, so general it is unbelievable that it was actually granted.

Edited by viveutvivas, 22 February 2013 - 09:31 PM.

[niner]

so general it is unbelievable that it was actually granted.

This happens way too much. The USPTO position seems to be "if in doubt, grant it, and let the courts sort it out". They are underfunded and understaffed. Patent trollery is a huge problem- the patent system is at the moment acting to stifle technology development far too often, rather than encouraging it.