Smiter
Explorer
Methylene blue achieves the same effect at a far lower cost...trust me.
KLOW - useless blue junk, or a phenomenal peptide?
- Thread starter jason370
- Start date
skeptick
Explorer
Does anyone have anything to share regarding MB???Smiter said:
Methylene blue achieves the same effect at a far lower cost...trust me.
That belongs in another thread. Go ahead and start one. This thread is about klow being garbage.skeptick said:
Does anyone have anything to share regarding MB???Smiter said:
Methylene blue achieves the same effect at a far lower cost...trust me.
Smiter
Explorer
Naturally... astoundingly pointless up to now.skeptick said:
Does anyone have anything to share regarding MB???Smiter said:
Methylene blue achieves the same effect at a far lower cost...trust me.
skeptick
Explorer
ThanksSmiter said:
Naturally... astoundingly pointless up to now.skeptick said:
Does anyone have anything to share regarding MB???Smiter said:
Methylene blue achieves the same effect at a far lower cost...trust me.
Smiter
Explorer
No worries at all, I've got you covered. Bros over Bluesskeptick said:
ThanksSmiter said:
Naturally... astoundingly pointless up to now.skeptick said:
Does anyone have anything to share regarding MB???Smiter said:
Methylene blue achieves the same effect at a far lower cost...trust me.
My partner is curious about GHK-cu because of what it can do for hair and skin. I'm thinking about getting her klow instead, since it brings extra perks, anti-inflammatory ones in particular. Should I start her on plain GHk-cu, or just go straight to klow?
bay_area_schizo
Explorer
are you putting klow on your face? I have to ask since I'm new around here
FarmgirlRebel
Explorer
I've been using KLOW — not the combined blend, but as separate shots (I prefer adjusting my own BPC and TB doses)...
It wasn't until I came off it that I realized how much it had been helping. The glute tear I'd been trying to repair did improve, though not fully, and then it began hurting more... my knees got sorer too (I have an old ACL/PCL tear). I hadn't realized how much better they'd gotten.
This time around I'm staying on longer before taking a break and increasing the BPC and TB amounts.
Remember, I'm older, so I've got more accumulated damage and arthritis setting in, which likely made the difference far more obvious for me than it would be for a younger person.
It wasn't until I came off it that I realized how much it had been helping. The glute tear I'd been trying to repair did improve, though not fully, and then it began hurting more... my knees got sorer too (I have an old ACL/PCL tear). I hadn't realized how much better they'd gotten.
This time around I'm staying on longer before taking a break and increasing the BPC and TB amounts.
Remember, I'm older, so I've got more accumulated damage and arthritis setting in, which likely made the difference far more obvious for me than it would be for a younger person.
joseblo
Explorer
I haven't used KLOW, but GHK-Cu applied topically has solid research behind it for skincare. To get a mild topical "botox light" effect, some mix SNAP8 into it. Skip buying the freeze dried vials—plastic tubes of GHK run about $10/gr, and you can combine that with HA to create a serum. Look it up!bay_area_schizo said:
are you putting klow on your face? I have to ask since I'm new around here
Judging your own progress is often tougher than spotting it in someone else. A buddy of mine has been running GLOW for 2 months, and if you asked him, he'd tell you it did nothing—yet the skin on his face looks noticeably better.
Around 3 months ago he also began topical GHK-cu plus a collagen and biotin supplement. During the first couple of months his hair thinned out in a way that worried him, but it has now at least returned to where it was at the start, which was pretty cool to watch. (In theory, the weaker hair shed and stronger new growth replaced it.)
Around 3 months ago he also began topical GHK-cu plus a collagen and biotin supplement. During the first couple of months his hair thinned out in a way that worried him, but it has now at least returned to where it was at the start, which was pretty cool to watch. (In theory, the weaker hair shed and stronger new growth replaced it.)
Ticks
Explorer
That's a fair observation — when you see yourself daily, gradual shifts slip past you unless you keep records. Solid point
Hawk_recon
Explorer
GLOW is close enough to KLOW that I figure my experience is relevant. Several months in, and my honest take is that I can't point to much of anything. Skin-wise? Nothing at all. There's a tendon issue that's been bothering me, and possibly it's slightly better, but I couldn't swear to it. Cost versus benefit doesn't add up in my case, TBH. From what I've read and heard, plenty of folks do well on it. Guess it's just not what my body needs or reacts to
Mochizuki0124
Explorer
I had a mass taken out of my chest. 2 weeks after the operation I began Klow, and I was soon back in the gym without delay. According to my barber, my hair also became thicker, and my skin got better, particularly the bags under my eyes and my wrinkles. Since Reta and Klow are the only things I use, at least part of that has to be Klow.
randompersonrandom
Explorer
n=1, but a couple of months back my mom began KLOW, then she picked up a kit, and now she's on the verge of nervously stockpiling it since she NEVER wants to be without it. Both of us are in an odd spot where looking hot matters VERY much to us (she was widowed not too long ago and has healed up, and within the past year we each dropped sixty pounds), and she swears to god it has made a HUGE difference in her face. I'm undecided, because sure, my face looks a hundred times better too, but I can't tell how much comes from the blue mystery powder shoot-up and how much comes from being skinny.
That's quite something! I wish the same miracle had happened for me with this blue liquid, but I've gotten nothing from it. People here on the forum keep telling me to hang in there and keep using it long-term (6 months) before I'll notice anything.
Honestly, it could be either one. If you don't look hollow or saggy, I guess the blue liquid must be doing something?
Still, I have to wonder why anything blue gets so much hype: the blue pill, methylene blue, and now klow/glow/ghk-cu.
I'd like to know whether your mom has given topical ghk-cu a shot and if it might bring extra benefits. Might be worth a try!
randompersonrandom
Explorer
Nope. It's on her radar, but tretinoin is too, and doing both doesn't appeal to her. Tretinoin is on my radar as well, though I'm a bit worried it could harm the glands around the eyes. Adapalene is working well enough for me, and I'm not eager to pile countless products onto my face and devote endless hours fussing over them.
For someone who is older, I'm usually against beginning tret, since results tend to be poor and they get a lot of peeling with little healing to show for it. A safer route for her would be GHK-Cu, maybe alongside gentler retinols.
Good to hear adapalene is doing the job for you. Minimalist approaches get my support.
lessthanhalf
Explorer
For GHK-cu, there is solid human data showing skin benefits when applied topically — but honestly, that's where the human clinical trial evidence stops.
Given how complicated, broad, and poorly characterized the effects of each ingredient are — never mind all of them together — no ethics board would sign off on a trial of KLOW or GLOW given systemically. Add to that the absence of even animal studies.
The sheer number of people reporting it works does seem persuasive. A while back I talked this over with chatgpt.
Someone who tries these peptide blends and feels they helped has genuinely lived through that benefit, but beyond a clinical trial setting — where bias is controlled for and controls exist — that doesn't establish it will help anyone else. It is, at most, suggestive anecdotal evidence.
There are explanations for why something could accomplish nothing while still appearing to work.
Usually people begin treating a problem when it is at its worst, so as the severity drifts back toward the mean over time, the treatment will seem effective.
The chronic soft tissue inflammatory / age related connective tissue degradation type issues it is often said to resolve do fluctuate a great deal in symptom intensity over time.
Then there's the placebo effect — and the extent to which these peptides' effects have been repeated online is very good at persuading people it must be real if so many say so, which amplifies the placebo effect further; and provided it isn't causing harm, that actually makes it a useful treatment.
My reasoning is this: if it genuinely boosts connective tissue growth, then it risks triggering that growth in places you don't want it — the heart or liver, for instance — which could mean organ damage or failure down the line. So if it does what it claims, it might be unsafe; and if it doesn't, then the best case is that it's a placebo.
Given how complicated, broad, and poorly characterized the effects of each ingredient are — never mind all of them together — no ethics board would sign off on a trial of KLOW or GLOW given systemically. Add to that the absence of even animal studies.
The sheer number of people reporting it works does seem persuasive. A while back I talked this over with chatgpt.
Someone who tries these peptide blends and feels they helped has genuinely lived through that benefit, but beyond a clinical trial setting — where bias is controlled for and controls exist — that doesn't establish it will help anyone else. It is, at most, suggestive anecdotal evidence.
There are explanations for why something could accomplish nothing while still appearing to work.
Usually people begin treating a problem when it is at its worst, so as the severity drifts back toward the mean over time, the treatment will seem effective.
The chronic soft tissue inflammatory / age related connective tissue degradation type issues it is often said to resolve do fluctuate a great deal in symptom intensity over time.
Then there's the placebo effect — and the extent to which these peptides' effects have been repeated online is very good at persuading people it must be real if so many say so, which amplifies the placebo effect further; and provided it isn't causing harm, that actually makes it a useful treatment.
My reasoning is this: if it genuinely boosts connective tissue growth, then it risks triggering that growth in places you don't want it — the heart or liver, for instance — which could mean organ damage or failure down the line. So if it does what it claims, it might be unsafe; and if it doesn't, then the best case is that it's a placebo.
MTSpace
Explorer
For many years, the main support for AAS boosting strength, aggression, and muscle mass came from observation. The medical field minimized how these substances affect protein synthesis and refused to recognize receptor cell activation.