Im finding it more and more a plabco effect honestly with my new study ill put on the forum when im done. Now i know there is a study with sweat and the female cycle but where is there a single study that these phero’s actually work.. Not that i dont take the word of the posters on here but as i said i want to see a study on it. Can someone please point me to a link that says these phero’s we use have actually work? Thank you i just want more knowledge im not challenging the phero community
I don’t think the kind of study you have in mind (double blind study with consumer products, right?) exists, but a good starting place for more general knowledge is James V. Kohl’s book, The Scent of Eros, available at your library - you can even read selections online here:
You might want to go HERE, and click on the “Scientific Evidence” title.
Streetarson, this is not written to slam or slandar you, and although you may take offense, I will make no apologies.
I have read many of your posts, but after you slammed PhatSounds, I started avoiding anything you wrote. However,this post does seem sincere, and it caught my attention enough to respond.
It’s clear that you have a high opinion of yourself, and I am not saying that’s a bad thing, but I think that opinion may very well be preventing or hindering your ability to objectively see any phero results. And, I think that you may very well be subconciously sabotaging any phero edge that you might actually benefit from.
My reasoning: You clearly do well with women without pheros, and I’m willing to bet that you have better game than your friends. I think it’s entirely possible and likely that when you gave your friends pheros and you went pheroless, you tried harder than they did and even more so than you normally would.
Result: you got the girls and your buddies got nothing. And, I’m also going to go out on a limb and say that when you have your pheros on, you don’t try as hard, thuse reinforcing the belief that the pheros aren’t really doing anything.
Resulting opinion: Must be a placebo effect, because when you gave your buddies your pheros and you went pheroless, you still did better than they did. And, when you do wear pheros, your don’t do any better than when you’re not wearing them.
My suggestion would be to try to humble yourself at least a bit, and consider that even with millions of years of evolution, we’re still producing the same pheros that virtually every animal on earth does, and that since those pheros are an integral part of their mating and communicaton process, they probably still have something to do with ours too.
The human body is incredibly efficient, and in a healthy body, there is no chemical or energy waste. If pheros did not play a part in our social/mating process, the human body would have long ago evolved beyond and shed production of those pheromones.
If you want proof, just wear about 100 mcg’s of Androstenone and walk into your police station at shift change. If it’s a placebo effect, then none of the guys should act any differently toward you. Or, wear 100 mcg’s on your next date and see how the date goes.
100 mcgs of Androstenone would definitely be enough to settle whether or not pheromones can impact behavior or not for you.
If you are still interested, I would suggest lots of beta-nol. At high doses, it could be considered ‘mind-altering’. Don’t quote me here, but I believe doses of around 150mcgs were used by a member for meditation.
As for studies, well, as you are probably aware yourself, studies that involve feelings, impressions, or behavior ultimately share the same weakness. All opinions and observations are subjective, no matter how controlled the situation might be.
Even if you have a double blind study, and one participant plays with her hair all day. To the observer, they might subjectively think that there is attraction, or they might think that they are just playing with their hair a lot. The participant might know they’re acting in such a way on purpose (because they’re attracted), but they might also not be aware and doing it unconciously. Everything is ultimately subjective.
Go try it for yourself again and let us know.
You might want to check out the link I posted for him above. The studies cited there involved wiring up subjects brains and scanning for changes in activity. Nothing “subjective” there.
Mtnjim, that’s quite a lot of information. I won’t be able to digest it all for quite some time. I understand that a study involving subjects wired up is an objective study, but regardless the scientist must interpret the results of the study. Despite the fact that the scientist might have an external reference as the basis for comparing behaviors or results, the fact still remains that as some point the scientist must interpret those results and state a claim. The difference between seeing a 45% activity rate and calling it significant or seeing a 45% activity rate and calling it insignificant is subjective. As well as determining what exactly a 45% activity rate means.
In any case, streetarson’s tests/studies (I assume) have no patients wired up to brain activity scanners, therefore the majority of his results will be from his observations/perceived behavior, the observations/perceived behavior of his participants and the observations/perceived behavior of non-participants. Thus, ultimately his study is going to be subjective.
come to NYC and read my thread
http://www.pheromonetalk.com/mens-pheromone-advice-tricks-tips/proof-pheros-work-a314-13093.html
granted it not scientific study but my commute has been made a lot easier now
Not to comment on specific products, but scientists have now proven that there are several chemicals that do induce pheromonal behavior in humans. Androstadienone, secreted by males, can alter a woman’s period, for instance, and human sweat in general has effects on women, such as increase in cortisol, increase in heart rate, etc. (generalized autonomic arousal) A Swedish research study found that homosexuals have lower levels of androsterone in their urine, and more etiocholanone, and the Swedish researchers hypothesize that this related in some way to homesxual attraction- possibly making androsterone a pheromone of sorts.
Androsterone is probably the most controversial, since it’s found in pigs (farmers use it to induce heat) and other animals (as well as humans) and some scientists believe it does nothing in humans. Most people can smell it, and describe it as either a sweet musk scent, or as urine/sweat. Anecdotally, people claim it is assosciated with an aura of aggression or assertiveness. Given that humans have evolved from the same ancestors as pigs, it’s not beyond possibility that androsterone would have some kind of effect on humans as well, though I admit I don’t have any research I could find to back it up- absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence, however.
Now, will pheremones automaticly translate into every man becomming a lothario Don Juan? I don’t think so. Human behavior is alot more complicated than lower animals, we are far less dependent on reflex, taxis, and instinctual behaviors. Most animals do not engage in abstract, symbolic thought, after all (though research has shown many primates do in fact have the capability). This complicates what, exactly, you can consider a behavioral pheromone in humans, since humans are capable of processing the outside word using symbolic thought, reasoning, and experience to a far greater degree than most, if not all other animals. I would submit what might cause a pig to instinctively enter heat, might simply in a human possibly suggest the idea to them, since they have a thousand other things happening in their mind at the same time, something the pig doesn’t have. The pig almost exclusively experiences the world in what Piaget would call “sensorimotor”- “I’m hungry, so I eat” “I’m tired, so I sleep”… “this male pigs smells sexy, so let’s mate”, etc. Humans do this too but to a far lesser degree. “I’m hungry, I think I’ll have Chinese… or do I really want Mexican- I’ll just be hungry three hours later?”
So, there you go… definitely I’d say there’s good evidence that androstiadenone has pheromonal effects on humans, and tentative evidence for androsterone as well, though just how much this implies that a product actually works is speculation at this point and needs more study.
That is /very/ interesting indeed. I think Streetarson doesnt doubt the existance of natural pheromones and its effect on us. He is skeptic about the synthetic ones.
What happens when someone highly ODs on something like xnone?
It depends on what you mean by pheros working. I’ve never had an “Axe Body Spray” moment but I have noticed some interesting reactions, particularly wearing androstenone.
Phya is not alone. Few people can digest the amount of information required to make an informed decision about pheromone product use and its potential benefits. Besides, the information involves knowledge of neuroscience that most people, even highly educated biologists, don’t have. That’s why Forums, especially this one, are often the best source of information. If such a forum had been available a few hundred years ago, we might be discussing whether the Earth was flat. And there will always be people who try to sway the opinion of others in one direction or the other. Today, the people who know that human pheromones affect the behavior of other humans are less likely to be compared to those who used to fear sailing off the edge of the Earth.
See for example:
Thomas L.
Notes of a biology-watcher. A fear of pheromones.
N Engl J Med. 1971 Aug 12;285(7):392-3. No abstract available.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
Mr/Dr. Kohl… why do you think most people are unconvinced of the reality of pheromones/neuroinfluencing chemicals? There are alot of scientific papers out there individually showing small results, but the perception by most medical “experts” and journalists is that they are nothing but the sad delusions of pickup artists. Androstadienone, for instance, was widely publicized even in the mainstream news as effecting female cortisol levels, and yet the implication that it could be a pheromone is ignored (everywhere except on these forums and similar forums, where it is well known as Instant Female Magic- and the effect on both men and women, for positives or negatives, seems to be well documented and better understood than many scientists themselves).
I’ve been experimenting with pheromones in earnest for several weeks now, and I see results. Yes, they are very subtle but they are adding up over time- for instance I notice enhanced bonding with strangers and clerks in stores, they seem to know me better on a deeper level, or give me more respect, depending on what I last wore in their presence. The fact that many of my observations are subjective (and often subtle), doesn’t negate the reality that these chemicals are changing peoples behaviors over time towards intimacy (in the proper sense of the term, emotional closeness, friendship, etc.) or more respect. Some of it may be “sociological Heisenberg Principle” (I cannot observe a thing without changing it- also there is an amount of placebo I suppose), but I tend to doubt it, as I seem to generally elecit more positive reactions even when I am “minimally” involved in a situation vs. not wearing pheromones.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s a big deal if the “world” doesn’t grasp pheromones, though I can see big potentials for fields such as psychiatry/psychology, medicine, and so on. However, it’s nice to keep it “our little secret” at the same time. I’m not sure the world is quite ready to be flooded with lots of novices doused in androstenone. No good can come of that, I’m sure.
The reality of pheromones has been grossly overstated by most of the marketers. Claims of aphrodisical effects don’t set well with researchers or with laypersons who know that such claims are nonsense–no matter what research the marketers cite. Androstadienone was initially touted to act via the non-existent human VNO, so any associated claims have been lost in follow-up studies using supraphysiological amounts to elicit minimal changes in mood with no indication that the mood change leads to a change in behavior.
The potential uses for an effective mixture of compounds that can effect hormones and thereby affect behavior are limitless. This takes relationship therapy to a new level, for example. It’s not just a get you in the door approach, it addresses what makes or breaks the relationship: chemistry, both short-term and long-term.
When marketers initially focussed on individual chemicals, like androstadienone, androstenone, etc., they missed the need to address species-specificity. We may respond to some of the chemicals that are mixed in the scent signatures of other species, but we also must assuredly respond to something unique about the human scent signature and also unique to individual males and females with changes across the lifespan. That’s where the heavyweight neuroscience comes in. With a little understanding of what 's required to elicit species-specific behavior in adult humans, a few researchers (like me) know where to look for the right chemicals. But researchers also know better than to make claims before the data has passed peer review. It is unfortunate that so many of these “peers” have been taught to discount everything about human pheromones–but that’s largely the result of the marketing claims.
James V. Kohl
James, I may not always understand every statement you make, although I am usually able to follow most of what you have to share, but I can’t tell you how much I enjoy reading and appreciate your contributions here. You state clear and concise facts and rarely provide a debatable opinion. It is always refreshing to read your posts.
What does this say about unconscious influence, though? (I have a psychological background, not hard sciences). I suppose marketting a product as “this product suggests sex” is less impressive than making wilder claims.
So, in “layman’s speak”- the amounts of androstadienone used in most products are very high as compared to what is normally emitted by an adult male? (perhaps a kind of “shock and awe” approach to reach physiologic levels on distant subjects/“targets”). I have noticed with androstadienone products, there is an obvious psychological effect on myself- it is somewhat negative, maudlin mood. I’ve noted in a group setting with men (when I wore it), it seemed to result in sentimentality/moodiness and heavy, slowed conversations, though there might have been an element of verbal communication there as well going on (you of course know what they say about a statistic of one: it’s just an anecdote).
BTW, do you have any scientific insights into the “negative” reaction a large minority of men experience from using androstadienone products? Why do some men experience nothing psychologically, and yet others like me experience a lowered/maudlin/labile mood? Do we produce more natural androstadienone, or are we sensitive to it? It would be curious if we (the minority) were merely insensitive, since our own bodies produce this, allegedly. Perhaps there is some correlation with mental illness and overproduction (just my own hypothesis), since it appears most androstadienone-product-sensitive men have a correspondingly higher psychiatric/mental health history- perhaps we are making too much of a chemical that makes ourselves feel miserable? (and is it a coincidence that one of the first things that typicly is abandoned during major depression, is hygene and bathing- long before depression has deepened? or that bathing and hygene seems to produce a mild change in mental state that seemingly has nothing to do with marketting hype? I’m not sure if these are all connected, in reality, but it is an intriguing possibility and it would be interesting to see research on such things to answer those questions).
So your approach is neuroscientific (rather than “try this and tell me what happens”). I suppose that is more direct and scientificly rigorous, though possibly much more time consuming, costly, and possibly less immediately fruitful for the general public. I believe there are benefits to both approaches. Obviously only the former approach will be accepted by the scientific community, however, the latter can be used to generate anecdotal interest in general (from “enthusiasts”).
I believe androstenone is greatly overhyped, based on personal experience it doesn’t really “attract” people (and to their credit, I don’t believe Androtics claims it is a sexual attractant per se). In fact I believe more than a little androstenone tends to repel people in general (and anecdotally this seems to vary by race/ethnicity). It probably suggests sexuality/fight-or-flight/aggression, but it doesn’t necessarily suggest it towards the wearer, not without some sort of other situational influences. I’ve gotten much better results socially with androstenol and androsterone- they seem more human and sociable and actually do “attract” people to you (making you more “open and trustworthy” as some would call it), and have few negatives going against them.
BTW, I look forward to reading your book, Scent of Eros. I intend to purchase it soon. Is it by chance available as an electronic book?
I’m not sure why “wild claims” are effective, but if they weren’t we wouldn’t see so many of them. In contrast to the wild claims of cause and effect, an unconscious influence can be more powerful than any influence that we think about. Like other animals we might do something without thinking about the consequences. Maybe unconsicous affect is the the basis of the wild claims. But, if you think about the wild claims right now, you may realize that anyone affected by pheromones will also be thinking about the consequences of their behavior. Thought tends to negate aphrodisiacal effects. Maybe people should think a bit more about wild claims.
I’m not sure what amount is used in any product, but the researchers are using supraphysiological amounts to get minimal effects on physiology. That’s probably why they can’t show behavioral affects, which are probably harder to measure than most physiological changes. Even larger amount of androstadienone might be required to get measurable behavioral affects, but using pounds of the stuff seems counterintuitive (i.e., rather unnatural).
No, I haven’t studied its use, I’ve just read the literature. None of the literature I’ve read indicates why androstadienone would be expected to elicit a behavioral affect. I asked a colleague why he was studying androstadienone, and he said --quite frankly, because everyone else is. So goes their search for physiological and behavioral changes attributed to human pheromones.
Less immediately fruitful for the general public is subjective. It presumes that other products are capable of producing results, which of course we have seen in anecdotal reports. But if we are to believe the anecdotes, shouldn’t we expect that by now there would be some scientific support for them? If not, fruitful results seem likely to come from research on different compounds and mixtures. The research is costly, as you indicate, but anecdotes are like psychological case studies. They may be important indicators of what happens to some individuals, but are unlikely to apply to anyone specific.
Someday I will detail the species specificity of androsterone compared to other androgen metabolites, so it can better be compared to the relatively non-specific androstenone (a pig pheromone). It would be nice if someone beat me to this. Actually, I’m surprised that people who have included androsterone in their product(s) don’t mention why. And I don’t know anyone who has looked to see which product was the first to contain androsterone (and exclude androstenone). If I were a marketer I would capitalize on that information.
Sorry, it can be read, in part on the iUniverse site–and the entire text might be viewed for all I know. But there’s no real electronic version out there. Page 109 of the 1995 (and the 2002) book version mentions androsterone.
James V. Kohl
author/creator: The Scent of Eros
So, it is a trendy molecule that you believe the evidence shows, has little practical value? Certainly less interesting than other molecules?
That would be interesting reading (species-specificity), at least for some. From my soft scientific background, speaking of personal experience, I believe that androsterone speaks deeper to our humanity than androstenone.
I do believe androstenone has effects on people, but it seems to speak more to the body than to the mind. I notice a general autonomic nervous system arousal- heart rate and anxiety increase much more easily under its influence. I do seem to notice some reactions from people, especially in higher dosages- there’s an obvious feeling that something is unusual (particularly in men), as if somebody “smelled” wrong (and I’m guessing they don’t consciously smell the molecule in all cases). Some people (mostly older or minority women) do seem to take notice of it, but I don’t believe that equals attraction, at least in a rigorous definition.
Thanks, I’ll check it out. I also ordered your book off Amazon.com.
I have one more question for you… Have you done any research on beta-androstenol, or seen any memorable research on this molecule? Any thoughts on it?
Thanks.
Less interesting to me because I’ve focussed on adrenal hormone metabolites and species specificity. Trendy, perhaps because others were led by works in the early 90’s to study it. Researchers are just now getting around to quantifying adrenal hormone metabolites (studied in the 60’s), and some groups are addressing species specificity.
This agrees with a 2002 report by T. Nakazono et al. (in Japan), that I received from the author in the mail today along with reports from 2005 and 2008. The 2002 report compares dogs, cats, beef cattle, pigs, and (oddly) one non-human weasel (perhaps a ferret?). Humans can be identified based on their profile of 5 17-ketosteroid conjugates: 2 are conjugates of androsterone, and 2 are conjugates of its dehydroepiandosterone metabolite counterpart: etiocholanolone.
In such generalized conditions there is little likelihood of an association that equals attraction. But women “taking notice” is a good thing, especially if the androsterone is mixed with the right compounds and fragrance is added. The only way to directly speak to the body is via the mind–as indicated by the titles of my last publications: The Mind’s Eyes:…
I haven’t done any research on it, and don’t know how it came to be promoted as a pheromone or as a putative human pheromone. For all I know it was touted only because someone thought they could make it appear they had found something new, when no research reports were available. That happened a lot on the LS forum, and may have carried over here–I haven’t looked at the old posts here. My thoughts are that if I haven’t seen any reports, either at conferences or in the scientific literature, I don’t need to pay any attention to what marketers are saying about particular compounds.
James V. Kohl
http://www.pheromones.com
Interesting that I found those insights through subjective self-experimentation, and yet scientific literature has backed that up.
I believe the self-effects of androsterone and androstenols are at least as important as the effects on the other subjects in an observation. It really does seem to help with “unlearning” mal-adaptive social responses. In my case: shyness and problems gauging eye contat intensity. This effect lasts, to some extent, even when pheromones are not used (though sometimes the objective responses are different in situations), as if I am learning new patterns of behavior that work better. I can see tremendous therapeutic benefits to these molecules in psychotherapy. Greater intimacy and trust between the therapist and the client, for instance, and faster results. Similar to hypnosis, but much more direct.
“Motivation in a bottle”. Of course it is not perfect (but then very few things are), I still have much to learn socially after being an egg-head/borderline Asperger’s for far too long.
Actually, I was speaking of androstenone- the pig pheromone. People do seem to notice it, though it seems to convey no really uniquely “human” information. Something is up, perhaps people react on an “animal” level. Self-effects include a mild feeling of excitement or danger, but I don’t believe there is necessarily a significant sexual edge until large doses are used (perhaps it suggests more “kinkiness” than anything, and anecdotally it apears the effect is stronger on women than men). I can see how this might easily appeal to somebody in a club/bar setting, where much less suggestion is necessary, and everything is working “right”. Still, most of the marketting claims are grossly overstated. This “pheromone” is going to have limited appeal to “nice” girls.
Androsterone, on the other hand, has very different self-effects in large doses. On a clean body I sense a feeling of calm. Things I will say are taken somewhat more seriously by others- I seem to have the “power” to suggest advice to people much more easily, without them reacting defensively. I walk with the poise of an old, wise man who no longer thinks too much of what others think of him, but will listen attentatively to what they say. Self-assurance without any ego.
This is wise advice for any scientist to maintain their scientific integrity.