Looks · part of Skin, hair and appearance
Does it grow hair?
Hair counts and hair density, measured rather than photographed.
0
people in trials
1
studies in people
1
compounds, animal or lab only
3
compounds people report on
0
trials found nothing
Measured in people
A trial that gave people the compound comes first. A study that only watched people, who happened to have more or less of something related, comes after. Both are studies in people and both are here. Only the first kind tested the thing you are asking about, and the watch-only ones are labelled. Within that, the most people come first. That is a fact about the studies, not a judgement about the compound. Counts are never added up across compounds, because the same person can be in more than one trial.
Supplements
1 compound · 0 people given one of themVitamins, minerals, amino acids and botanicals sold over the counter, held to the same standard.
- 01CreatineSupplementModerate. At least one finished study in people, and at least 100 people who took it. 3 completed trials, 168 people given it.5 reportednobody was given it1 watch-only study
The whole creatine causes hair loss story rests on one small study that never looked at hair. 20 college rugby players took creatine for three weeks. Their blood showed a shift in the balance between two male hormones. Nobody counted a single hair. Nobody followed the players afterwards. And no other team has got the same result in the years since. That is the entire evidence base for a claim repeated everywhere.
The numbers The single study behind the entire creatine and hair loss claim. It measured a hormone ratio in 20 rugby players over three weeks. It did not measure hair.
Clinical Journal of Sport Medicine, 2009· number of people not givenobserved only, nobody was given it
What people using it report
- Worry about hair loss is widespread in forums and makes many people stop. The 2009 hormone study never measured hair. A 2025 study that did measure hair found no change.
What people using these actually report
These are people describing their own use. They come from clinic write-ups, complaint records kept by regulators, and public forums, and they are shown as written. They are the best guide on this page to what people actually do, what they expect, and what goes wrong. They cannot show that anything works. Nobody was compared with people on a dummy pill, and people who saw no effect mostly stopped posting. Both things are true at once. The bad reports are kept in for the same reason.
- Worry about hair loss is widespread in forums and makes many people stop. The 2009 hormone study never measured hair. A 2025 study that did measure hair found no change.
Sources: Strength training forums and supplement communities. Uncontrolled self-report, included for expectations rather than as evidence.
- Testicular shrinkage is described as common enough to plan for, and the usual answer described is adding hCG. Acne, oily skin, hair loss and worsened sleep apnoea come up regularly.
Sources: Long-running testosterone protocol, side effect and monitoring threads on ExcelMale, found by site-restricted search and read in September 2026. This material is closer to accumulated board guidance than to individual experience reports, and is described as such above. Nothing is attributed to any specific post and no post is reproduced.
- Thick blood, a raised hematocrit, is the problem discussed most and the one people monitor most closely, managed by blood donation, smaller more frequent injections, or dose reduction. Acne, water retention, nipple sensitivity and mood swings are described in the first weeks and usually as settling. Testicular atrophy and loss of fertility are treated as expected rather than as surprises, with hCG and sperm freezing raised in response. Hair loss and blood pressure come up as slower problems found through bloodwork rather than felt.
Sources: Testosterone replacement threads on ExcelMale covering injection frequency, cypionate dose protocols and side effect management, found by site-restricted search and read directly, September 2026. Nothing above is attributed to any specific post and no post is reproduced.
Measured in animals or in the lab, not yet in people
These are kept apart from the studies in people, not ranked against them. They answer a different question. A result in a rat is a real result, and a reason somebody ran the study. It is not a measure of what happens in you. When the work in people is missing, the reason is usually money, not failure. The bottom of this page explains why.
Peptides and blends
- 01AHK-CuPeptideAnimal or lab only. Only animal or lab studies on this page. No study in people yet. 1 animal study, 1 lab study, no human study.2 reported1 animal or lab study
Measured in animals or in the lab
In a dish. Hair follicle cells became more active.
The numbers Increased hair follicle cell activity in culture.
Archives of Pharmacal Research, 2007· lab (cells in a dish)
Why the trial record looks like this
A missing trial usually means nobody would pay for it. Nobody spends hundreds of millions of dollars on a molecule they cannot own. So the compounds with the thinnest record in people are often the oldest and easiest to get, not the weakest. Taking Creatine as the example, because it states the problem most clearly:
Creatine is a rare case on this site. The problem is not missing studies. It is that a large, truly positive body of research has been stretched to cover claims it does not support. The strength evidence is strong enough to justify creatine on its own. The muscle size effect shrinks when you scan the muscle directly instead of guessing from a whole-body scan. The thinking claim was tested by a regulator, at a maker's own request, and failed.
The hair loss story is the mirror image. It spreads as fact, but for years it rested on one study of 20 rugby players that measured a hormone ratio and never looked at anyone's hair. A 2025 study that did measure hair and male hormones found no change. Believing the hair claim now means ignoring that result. That is the same mistake as believing the overclaims, just pointed the other way.
A compound shows up here only when a study on its own page names this goal and reports a result for it. Just naming it is not enough. Work in people, in animals and in the lab is counted separately and never mixed. People counts come from the study lines, and when in doubt they count low. Nothing here is advice. Nothing here tells you to take or to avoid anything.