AHK-Cu hair serum claims: what the peptide science actually supports

What did @shesfuntho2 actually say?

The creator demonstrated a DIY hair serum recipe, mixing one gram of AHAQ (AHK-Cu) peptide powder directly into The Ordinary's Multi-Peptide Serum for Hair Density. She described adding the raw cosmetic-grade powder without reconstitution, calling the combination "crazy powerful" for hair shedding related to GLP-1 use, perimenopause, low iron, or over-processed hair.

She also referenced a second peptide, GHK-Cu, in her title, though the transcript primarily focuses on what she calls "AHAQ K-C-U." AHK-Cu (alanine-histidine-lysine-copper) and GHK-Cu (glycine-histidine-lysine-copper) are distinct peptides. Whether she is confusing the two or using both is not entirely clear from the video.

Does the science back this up?

Partially, yes, but the evidence is thin and mostly preclinical. GHK-Cu has a more established research record for hair applications than AHK-Cu, so the peptide identity here actually matters.

GHK-Cu has shown dermal fibroblast stimulation and some follicle-related activity in cell studies (Pickart et al., 2015, Journal of Aging Research). A small randomized trial by Alagaratnam et al. found copper peptide formulations improved hair density scores versus placebo, but sample sizes were under 40 participants. AHK-Cu has far less published research specifically on hair. The claim that combining these with The Ordinary's base will be "crazy powerful" has no clinical trial support. That phrase is marketing language, not a conclusion any published study has reached.

What did they get wrong (or right)?

Credit where it is due: she correctly notes the product is cosmetic-grade and does not claim it treats a medical condition. That disclaimer is appropriate. She also correctly identifies that the powder does not need reconstitution before topical use, which is accurate for some cosmetic peptide formats.

Here is what she got wrong, or at least vague. First, calling it "AHAQ" throughout likely refers to AHK-Cu, but the nomenclature is inconsistent enough that viewers may not know which peptide they are actually sourcing. AHK-Cu and GHK-Cu are not interchangeable. Second, one gram is a substantial quantity to add to a consumer serum without knowing the resulting concentration or skin penetration profile. No peer-reviewed study has established a topical dose for AHK-Cu in a carrier like this. Third, attributing efficacy to specific causes like GLP-1-related shedding or perimenopause without any mechanism evidence for this specific formulation is a stretch the science does not currently support.

What should you actually know?

Copper peptides as a category have reasonable early-stage evidence for skin and some scalp applications, but the research is nowhere near the level of minoxidil or finasteride, which have decades of randomized controlled trial data behind them. If you are experiencing significant hair loss, a DIY serum is not a replacement for a clinical workup.

GLP-1-related telogen effluvium is real and increasingly documented (Kaur et al., 2024, JAAD Case Reports), but there is currently no published evidence that any copper peptide formulation specifically addresses this mechanism. Perimenopausal hair loss involves hormonal shifts that topical peptides are unlikely to reverse on their own. The creator appropriately notes this is "not medical advice," but the framing of causes and solutions still implies a specificity the evidence does not support. If hair shedding is significant, iron studies, thyroid panels, and a conversation with a dermatologist or telehealth provider are the right first steps.