Arey’s Gray-Hair Trial Reports Fewer Grays With a Supplement and Serum

On October 30, 2026, Women’s Health reported results from a trial of Arey’s “The System,” a combined oral supplement and topical serum for gray hair. The outlet says the randomized, controlled, double-blind trial was published in the Journal of Drugs in Dermatology in October 2026. The reported findings center on a lower gray-hair count among participants using both products.

The trial tested the combination and its components

According to Women’s Health, the study enrolled 173 men and women and followed them for 26 weeks. Participants had not dyed their hair for at least a month.

Participants were assigned to four groups:

• Oral supplement plus topical serum.
• Oral supplement plus placebo serum.
• Topical serum plus placebo supplement.
• Placebo supplement plus placebo serum.

This design included both the complete system and the individual components paired with placebos. The headline findings reported by Women’s Health concern participants receiving the supplement and serum together. Those results should therefore remain attached to that combined regimen rather than being credited to either product alone.

The report also describes participants’ impressions of hair thickness, fullness and shine. Those reports are a separate outcome from the gray-hair measurements and deserve a separate reading.

The reported percentages describe different outcomes

Women’s Health reports the following changes in gray hairs:

• At week 12, the combination group had 9% fewer gray hairs.
• At week 24, the combination group had 13% fewer gray hairs.
• By week 24, the placebo group had a 10% increase.

The article also reports how participants were distributed across broader outcome categories. At week 24, 88% of the combination group had fewer gray hairs or no increase. The corresponding figure was 65% in the placebo group.

Conversely, 12% of participants in the combination group reportedly had more gray hairs. That compared with 35% in the placebo group.

The distinction matters: the 88% figure combines improvement with stability. It does not mean that 88% of participants experienced a reduction. Describing it as a general success rate would lose that important detail.

For hair quality, participants using the combination reportedly described thicker, fuller and shinier hair at three times the rate of participants receiving placebo. This is a reported perception of hair quality rather than a measurement of restored pigment.

Together, these figures describe outcomes within the trial groups. They are not a forecast for an individual considering the regimen or a guarantee of the same experience in daily use.

Important study details remain unresolved

The Women’s Health article supplies no study title or authors and no DOI or link to the full paper. The available reporting does not provide enough detail to independently assess the complete protocol or statistical analysis. Adverse-event results, study funding and investigator conflicts of interest also remain unavailable in this account.

These are limits on assessing the evidence. They are not evidence that the trial was conducted poorly. A reported randomized and double-blind design is useful information, but it does not replace access to the methods and disclosures.

Eligibility descriptions also differ on the age range. That discrepancy needs to be resolved against the full publication before stating precisely which age group the study represents.

The endpoint definition behind “13% fewer gray hairs” also needs clarification from the paper. Preserving that wording is more accurate than translating it into a claim that existing gray hairs regained color. Dermatologist Joshua Zeichner told Women’s Health that repigmentation of hair that has already turned gray is extremely unlikely.

The American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) says there are currently no effective medical treatments to add color back to gray hair. It notes that color may return in specific circumstances, such as after an underlying health condition is addressed, while emphasizing that more research is needed.

There are also boundaries around duration and generalizability. Follow-up lasted 26 weeks, while the key gray-hair results were reported at weeks 12 and 24. That is a limited observation period rather than evidence of long-term prevention.

The finding does not establish that supplements or serums generally slow age-related graying. Nor does it establish a response in people whose graying is primarily genetic. Younell’s discussion of early-stage gray-hair research offers related context for keeping different stages of evidence separate.

Personal decisions should stay tied to the evidence

For someone considering this product, the useful next step is to seek the full study report and check that the evidence matches the exact regimen being sold. Questions about personal suitability belong with a qualified clinician rather than being settled by a headline percentage. The trial report is a starting point for that conversation rather than a treatment instruction.

The AAD describes gray hair as a normal part of aging. It also advises clinician assessment when an underlying condition may affect hair color. If graying is premature or comes with other concerns, discussing it with a dermatologist or primary-care clinician is more appropriate than assuming a supplement is needed.

A vitamin deficiency is one example the AAD identifies as a possible underlying issue. That does not mean gray hair itself establishes a deficiency. Younell’s broader discussion of hair assessment and nutritional adequacy provides related reading on that distinction.

For everyday habits, the AAD lists balanced nutrition and adequate sleep among measures that may help delay graying. It also includes not smoking, stress management and sun protection. These measures will not altogether prevent graying.

For readers who prefer coverage, the AAD identifies hair dye as an option. It advises considering skin sensitivity and ingredients because some longer-lasting dyes may irritate the scalp or cause allergic reactions. Choosing coverage is a cosmetic decision rather than a judgment about how someone should age.

Clearer reporting would make the finding more useful

The next useful research question is whether the reported difference persists beyond the study window and which participants account for it. Access to the complete publication would also allow a more grounded assessment of the methods and safety findings.

For now, the reported results give readers a specific combination to examine more closely. The meaningful advance would be a clearer understanding of who benefits and for how long, not a broader promise that normal graying has become preventable.

Sources

1. This New Treatment Duo Could Halt Grays and Make Hair Thicker
2. What causes gray hair, and can I stop it?