# Has the actual pheromone content of sweat been established?

**URL:** <https://pheromonetalk.com/t/has-the-actual-pheromone-content-of-sweat-been-established/53391>\
**Category:** Pheromone Theory & Molecules\
**Created:** [November 18, 2011, 8:18am UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/has-the-actual-pheromone-content-of-sweat-been-established/53391 "2011-11-18T08:18:02Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dbot](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/dbot/32/1595_2.png) [@dbot](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/dbot)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 6:06pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/has-the-actual-pheromone-content-of-sweat-been-established/53391/21 "2011-11-23T18:06:02Z")

</div>

Lol a bottle of sweat would definitely grab some attention, but maybe not for the right reasons 😃

That there “Eau Naturale” is based on the ratios in [that 1988 quantification study](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=PubMed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=3379959) I mentioned. I improvised the quantities of androsterone and DHEAS since they weren’t included in the quantification. So my mix is:

> [@](#):
>
> Androstenone : Androsterone : DHEAS : Alpha Androstenol : Beta Androstenol : Androstadienone : Androstadienol (5,16-3b).  
> 1 : 1 : 1 : 4 : 1 : 10 : 2
> 
> where 1 part = .625mcg per spray.
> 
> With about 6% fragrance oil (Acqua Di Parma type, yum).

I don’t know if these ratios resemble anything you guys have tried in an MX, John, but if not I recommend you mix some up and give it a spray! I am completely surprised at how much attention this mix got in its first run! I wrote up the results [on my blog](http://hackingthehive.com/2011/eau-naturale-1-0-a-pheromone-mix-based-on-a-healthy-males-natural-pheromone-output/). The highlights are:

- Lots of repetitive looks from females ages 20-30. These were mostly furtive but sometimes blatant and sustained.
- Some DIHL.
- Lots of hair flipping and twirling.

This was going on while I was just sitting quietly at my laptop working, not making any effort to engage anyone or to look like anything other than someone getting some work done. So, really attention-grabbing! Big surprise there!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![enitpenima](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f04885/32.png) [@enitpenima](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/enitpenima)\
**Post date:** [November 23, 2011, 6:29pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/has-the-actual-pheromone-content-of-sweat-been-established/53391/22 "2011-11-23T18:29:21Z")

</div>

Guys, wow, I did not expect this to heat up so much.

First of all, thanks for all the answers so far.

Second, I think experimentation without reference points can work, but is usually a more error-prone method. Doctors don’t prescribe hormone replacement therapy without first knowing the normal range, and then knowing the person’s actual score.. and even if you are a bodybuilder and don’t know your actual score, knowing the normal range is still helpful to decide on steroid dosage. The old reports on pheromone usage have shown the occasional “colossal overdose” - this is an error that could be avoided if you have ANY reference figures (never mind the Donald or Ross).

Third, I can think of several ways actual measurements can be used:

1. Measure lots of normal people in various situations and determine averages and ranges.
2. Measure a variety of people and track correlations between demographic/personality/mood and measured values of each substance.
3. Measure the same person in several controlled environments, or with intentional modifications (like a testosterone injection) to measure the effect on values.
4. Measure “ideal” profiles that people may aspire to, like Ross or the Donald or whoever else agrees (if the Donald doesn’t, some other attention-seeking negotiation guru will); this is the least scientific option, but it has curiosity and marketing value.
5. Maybe something else…

The fact that I only gave some (and not all) of these as examples of what might be interesting in no way indicates that I’m not interested in the rest. Any real-world figures are much appreciated! 🙂

Thanks.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![monesmadedoit](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/pheromonetalk.com/monesmadedoit/32/325_2.png) [@monesmadedoit](https://pheromonetalk.com/u/monesmadedoit)\
**Post date:** [December 19, 2016, 11:33pm UTC](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/has-the-actual-pheromone-content-of-sweat-been-established/53391/23 "2016-12-19T23:33:53Z")

</div>

The commenter is clearly trained in chemical ecology.

Several years later, a comprehensive review of human body odor fails to confirm volatile  
androsterone, enone, enol, A1, dienol, DHEAS or DHEA in human scent.

Not just one study.  
Dozens of studies of the whole human body  
spanning 5 decades. Ten papers on armpit odor alone.

Detection of enone in human sweat cannot be accurately confirmed.

This information is not new. The community chose to ignore it.

Very informed people, perhaps seeing futility, stopped  
discussing it.

The science journals have not. And what they say is not  
kind to our cherished folklore.

Since this post was written new work is being done  
on headspace analysis. None of it appears to  
change the conclusions about [putative pheromones](https://pheromonelabs.com/product-category/advanced-pheromones/putative-pheromones/)  
favorably.

> [@xev](#):
>
> enitpenima:
> 
> I think you ask a good question, and I think the answer is we don’t really know rates of emission of pheromones. Identifying compounds in sweat is easier than quantifying them. Moreover, quantifying compounds in sweat doesn’t directly answer your question, either, because the “dose” a person may be giving off is determined by the amount of volatiles evaporating off of their body (and that is dependent on other factors besides just the concentration of the compound in their sweat).
> 
> What would answer your question, and what no one is doing (at least that I’ve read) is dynamic headspace analysis, which would allow measurement of _rates_ of emission of pheromones.
> 
> Even if this research were going on, the variables would be many and complex (as others in this thread have mentioned). So the “normal” range of androstenone emission would be huge, as would the ranges for androstadienone and all the other compounds of interest.
> 
> I deal with these kinds of logistical difficulties in a related field of chemical ecology. The difficult-to-control variables are huge, and end up being a major impediment to research progress. I can only imagine things are even more complicated with humans.

[Previous page](https://pheromonetalk.com/t/has-the-actual-pheromone-content-of-sweat-been-established/53391.md?page=1)