The human equivalent dose of luteolin would be about 3g/day, which is a lot -- but this makes it more interesting, for although luteolin has been available as a nutritional supplement for decades, I don't think that people have normally taken it at that sort of dose. Or anywhere near that sort of dose.
Luteolin is a weak yellow dye, but there are presumably ways to formulate it for topical use so that it's colorless. In general, it's usually pretty easy to get chemicals into follicles. (As opposed to through the skin, e.g. with a nicotine patch, which is possible but more difficult.) If this stuff works, it'll be a staple of haircare and anti-aging products for decades.
It's not in that particular study, but more potent analogs appear to exist. They lack luteolin's easy off-the-shelf availability, though, and presumably the mechanism of action is the same at any rate.
There are a lot of issues with this study, but I'll start with the obvious one: They exposed those stem cells to a concentration of 15μM luteolin. That's grossly non-physiological. There's no way that you're ever going to see a 15µm plasma concentration following luteolin supplementation, at any reasonable dose.
What's more: "Luteolin exhibits limited blood-brain barrier permeability (−0.907) and CNS permeability (−2.251), indicating poor penetration into the brain."
So if 15µm concentrations are unattainable in plasma, the brain would be exposed to much less still.
In animal experiments, as noted in your link, luteolin appears beneficial. There could be a dose-response-curve thing, where reasonable (physiological) amounts are neuroprotective, whereas exposing cells to very high concentrations directly is damaging.
Luteolin itself doesn't require cofactors as it is not enzymatic and the human body does not produce it. To humans, it's simply an exogenous small molecule... Like, e.g., aspirin.
S-adenosylmethionine is presumably involved in its metabolism and excretion. This doesn't imply that you'd want to take SAMe with your luteolin dose.
> If this stuff works, it'll be a staple of haircare and anti-aging products for decades.
You’re over thinking it.
I tried Luteolin at clinically insignificant doses both as a nutritional supplement and in this really expensive hair care product and not only did it regrow my receding hair line, colour my hair unnaturally black, and marry someone half my age, if you buy one month supply right now at this exorbitant priced we’ll throw in a set of stake knives.
> Luteolin was applied to the skin on their backs for 16 weeks. The results showed that mice developed gray hair less frequently than those that did not receive luteolin. Oral administration of luteolin provided similar results.
Broccoli, due to high surface area, captures more fertiliser and pesticides that are difficult to wash out without soaking, which no one does. For this reason table broccoli is usually very high in added toxins.
lead acetate. I worked in an environmental lab and one day all our water samples were spiking outrageously high in lead. As we began to check for contamination we traced it to my boss. He used Grecian Formula and had a habit of touching his hair. We were testing for ppm of lead at the time in waste water but this batch of samples was peeking out our equipment. Turns out Grecian Formula has %’s lead ! So just touching and equipment or glassware after touching his hair totally contaminated all the samples. So yeah, stay clear of that stuff unless you would like a measurable drop in IQ from nerve damage.
Until 2018 the formulation used in the United States contained lead(II) acetate. Because lead acetate was banned in cosmetics in Canada and the European Union, the formulations sold there did not contain it.
Article mentions they’re working on creams and stuff to apply this. Does simply ingesting them not work? They’re both tasty and healthy foods, for most people, it's a good idea to eat the regularly.
The mouse study had them taking the stuff orally, but at 0.5mg per g of bodyweight per day. After scaling to human size and human metabolic rate, this would come out to about 3000mg/day.
That's an awful lot.
Green peppers are rich in luteolin, but you'd need to eat roughly 2500 peppers per day. It's rather more efficient to (a) take a synthetic supplement, or, even better, (b) deliver the stuff directly into follicles.
> Luteolin was applied to the skin on their backs for 16 weeks. The results showed that mice developed gray hair less frequently than those that did not receive luteolin. Oral administration of luteolin provided similar results.
Seems so, although I can see taste being a barrier for many.
>what's the ultimate benefit against just using hair dye?
Permanent hair color generally contains PPD to penetrate the hair cuticle so the dye can actually bind to the hair. That stuff is notorious for causing wicked allergic reactions and sensitizing users over time.
Just because it didn’t work for your hair doesn’t mean it wasn’t a good decision to eat it, though! I have ADHD, and broccoli (which has folate) helps me focus.
I’m blonde and eat a lot of pineapple. You’ve got nothing to lose. If you’re not used to the taste, it’s a pretty popular pizza topping and you could try it that way.
I still remember a rumor that there was a kind of trend in the late 90s or so where pregnant women dyed their hair blonde thinking that will made their children have natural blond hair
IIRC hair dying is not great during pregnancy. It is slightly, but measurably oncogenic in children of mothers who died hair during pregnancy and breastfeeding. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3543291/
> https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3921/13/12/1549
The human equivalent dose of luteolin would be about 3g/day, which is a lot -- but this makes it more interesting, for although luteolin has been available as a nutritional supplement for decades, I don't think that people have normally taken it at that sort of dose. Or anywhere near that sort of dose.
Luteolin is a weak yellow dye, but there are presumably ways to formulate it for topical use so that it's colorless. In general, it's usually pretty easy to get chemicals into follicles. (As opposed to through the skin, e.g. with a nicotine patch, which is possible but more difficult.) If this stuff works, it'll be a staple of haircare and anti-aging products for decades.
It's not in that particular study, but more potent analogs appear to exist. They lack luteolin's easy off-the-shelf availability, though, and presumably the mechanism of action is the same at any rate.