Ok so I have taken such a deep interest in the biochemistry and neuroscience behind pheromones that I asked many of my college professors to include my current professor in neurobiology. She gave me some homework as an extra credit assignment. I need the list of names for each pheromone in these products; IS, IO, IH and AMMO. I will keep everyone posted on all my findings and explain the science behind them if any.
That’s like asking Kentucky Fried Chicken what’s in their Secret Sauce… 
Better for you to work with the straight Alphanol, Betanol, Androstenone because YOU KNOW what’s in them when you order. These have been known for many years and can be used for studies, I could imagine.
1Alpha
.
We’re not going to tell you, use the Search function to find out.
I see now that I won’t get much help from this site. This was expected since I was already warned by my teacher that it wasn’t possible. That’s why I will get so many people reluctant to answer my question or help… Cause no one really knows the EXACT names of the pheromone that is supposedly in each product. But hey I’m only trying to help so don’t stress it. Ignorance is bliss
Well your not going to get a full list for each product. Its a trade secret. Only the base mones are revealed not the steering mones.
While science has a long long way to go in pheromone technology, AD and many of us who have been researching and testing them for years already know the current science behind most of the main putatives. I dont want to insult your teacher. I am sure he/she is very intelligent but unless they have been following the current research some of us probably know more then they do.
Still we would like to hear how you do with them and if you need assistance be sure to ask. There is a bit more to mones then just spraying them on. Its not easy to mimic mother nature 
Tisha
I’m currently in class but ill post once I’m out and I’m sure ill get flagged for providing more than enough proof and resources on the matter. Feel free to PM me as well since A LOT of people will be ticked off
You shouldn’t get flagged for providing info or proof of your intentions. Lots of researchers and students have asked for the info before. They still wont tell you the formulas though. They are coded for a reason. No one but a handful of lab techs and the formulators know the actual mix.
Best bet as Alpha suggested is buying the single named putatives and testing them. Then you will know. They are in the experimone section of the store. Keep in mind singles dont cause attraction its the combo of putatives and how they steer and work off of each other that does but you can get the general feel for what each one does. Basic mixes like AMMO and IO are easy and revealed. Ishine has TAA but thats coded so we cant tell you exactly what it is although some of the long time users and testers know from testing different named putatives.
This may help some… -none, -rone, -nol explained - #2 by tisha23
As far as the coded putatives it will be a ice cold day in hell before anyone gets the chemical names of those. LOL Its not that we dont want to help you but AD is a research company and this is how they work.
Tisha
I am a skeptic 1st and always and can tell you that these products have unraveled more than one situation in my favor. Alpha is right, you can not ask KFC for the secret recipe whether the ambition is scientific or not. There are many scholarly articles related to pheromones if you use the google scholarly search option, that is what I did. The other option you have for research is to try one of the products in a double blind study. Interview subjects with 2 interviewers of closely similar attributes one wearing a product, I recommend A314 or shine, then perform a secondary interview regarding what the interviewee felt the personality/attributes of the previous interviewers were. Even more interesting would be if you had access to an MRI machine and could do active mapping of a brain in an environment with the product both present and not. Posting such results positive or negative would likely earn you great esteem around here. Remember, physicists couldn’t expect to have much of a career if they talked about time travel not long ago and now it is one of the most prolific areas of study. Let us know either way.
Couldn’t you just buy some samples and run them through HPLC?
I’m sure it’s possible, but there may be some complications. You’ll have several fairly similar steroidal compounds in a mix with fairly different activities plus whatever scents androtics adds. Some of the stuff in a mix would probably be easy to separate, say alpha nol from androstenone. Differentiating between enantiomers like alpha nol and beta nol, or androsterone and epi androsterone however, might be harder. I don’t know if those two molecules would even elute at different rates with HPLC. I’m sure it’s possible to reverse engineer a mix. And I strongly prefer single molecules because I like to know what I’m using. But there’d be some difficult kinks, I’d think, with reverse engineering a product. Not that I’ve seen a lab in over a decade, so everything I’m posting may be way out of date. If so, apologies.
Anyone who is sincerely interested in this stuff from a scientific perspective, should really take the reductionist path and test single molecules anyways, as was suggested by other posters. Nobody is going to publish a research article on ‘instant shine.’ Neither will a professor advise such a study.
The problem is that for the most part single molecules don’t produce the same quality of effects that mixes do.
Decades ago there was a study that found that woman find men after -none use less attractive. The didn’t buffer it. As a result of such studies the scientific establishment thinks that pheromones don’t do much for human social interactions.
Unnecessary reductionism is one of the worst diseases of current scientific thinking.
As long as you don’t say ‘instant shine’ but list the components there’s no reason why they shouldn’t publish the article.
In your methods section you could probably even say that you brought the stuff in a commercial mix called ‘instant shine’.
First, let me qualify this post;
I fully realize 99% of the public doesn’t give a damn about the kind of thing I’m about to discuss. They want to grab a bottle or two of stuff that “just works.” I get that. I’m speaking, here, for the 1% or so of people that feel differently and who are willing to invest a tremendous amount of time and energy for a slightly better understanding of how pheromones should behave.
-
For the aversive -enone tests, what dosage did they use? The clinical tests which found enone aversive tended to use pretty huge amounts, much higher than what are used in phero-mixes or sweat output. And for many people, enone IS aversive, even though it has positive effects which can also be noted. Raw cocoa is also bitter and bitterness is considered a non-appetitive taste, But it helps to know what the stuff tastes like before sugar is added if we’re going to cook with it. Further, many responses to pheromones may very well follow an inverted U shaped curve, so the effects at high doses can’t be viewed as related in a linear fashion to the effects at lower doses. Basically, dosage matters for hormones and pheromones and it’s a mistake on the part of the researchers, not a flaw in reductionist methodology, if they don’t take this into account.
-
I’ll agree that buffering a mix is important, of course, especially at higher doses of enone. But there’s a difference between using two different complex mixes and titrating a single buffer. The second gives me knowledge that I might re-use. The first does not. If I understand that alpha androsterone upregulates the GABA(A) receptor (relaxing) and Beta rone blocks it (stimulating), I have some clue about how those things will balance or unbalance other molecules in my mix. Without an understanding of 7Keto DHEA’s effect on 11beta HSD it would be difficult to predict how it might react with androstadienone. Etc.
As another example; I like using pregnenolone as a mone. But I also know that because of its strong GABAergic antagonism that I can’t use a high dose of it in a mix that contains enone because it will unbuffer the enone.
The thing is that there are a near infinite number of possible combinations of molecules. So either we work from a reductionist basis or else we copy the molecules in an evolved system (like, the sweat from a healthy male) and then tweak them one molecule at a time in a reductionist fashion. If we don’t use one of those two methods, then we trust to a researcher who has done one of these two things. Otherwise, what basis do we have to understand a complex mix in a way that the information can be re-used to predict the effects of a third mix?
- We’re not going to see a published article on “Instant Shine” because the ingredients aren’t public knowledge. If someone wants to understand the molecules that they’re using and if they want to be able to tap into the published literature about those molecules, then they need to understand individual molecules. It’s totally rational that a company wouldn’t want to give out their complete ingredient list because then other companies would profit from their work with no effort. But that’s what’s best for the company, not the consumer. A consumer is best served, in many different ways, by knowing what they’re using.
It’s possible. UHPLC is getting better and quicker constantly. In my birthtown is the headquarters of a major global chemical company - its main fields are aroma and food-additives industry, cosmetic actives development and scent-creation and perfuming. They have absolutely high-end labtech, espc. analytics. I know some ppl working in the labs - it is possible. They have a subsidiary in the states btw.. If anybody is looking for a job in that field and has the qualifications, I can highly recommend that company. (PM for further info - it is not as well known as Bayer or BASF)
We welcome intense discussions. Any attempt at reverse engineering putatives for commercial purposes violates our TOS. Egregious offenders risk loss of putative access permanently and in our sole discretion.
We’re friendly. We’re not kidding.
Carry on friends. 
Charles,
let me assure you I never have and will never give any AD product, mx or putative over to anyone for commercial analysis of any sort. As many of the users I’m very intrigued by the biochemics involved in mone-technology and sure would not mind knowing more about the formulas,
BUT
I respect your proprietary rights and this companies policy, especially the
very open attitude towards discussion, critique and speculation - as you just displayed in your post.
My offer for PMing me is only meant for any chemist/biologist/student roaming this forum who is interested in getting to know a high-quality german company/employer in the NY-area that might not be so well known around the scientific community in the US - nothing to do with pheromone buisness.
Thanks!
Of course. Chatting about putatives is lovely. Sending our molecules to an analytic lab not. Thanks for seeing the difference.