There's more activity involving human pheromones. Now that you've seen the latest on pheromones in tears, here's one about the detection of anxiety. My colleagues seem to be shying away from use of the term "pheromones" as you can see in the latest research reports. They want to use chemosignals or chemosensory signals, or other terms that make it seem more like humans are very different than other animals when it comes to our response to social odors. But that's like saying we're very different when it comes to our response to food odors--and we're not. Wake up and smell the pheromones people, especially you researchers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20929974

Smelling chemosensory signals of males in anxious versus nonanxious condition increases state anxiety of female subjects. Albrecht J, Demmel M, Schöpf V, Kleemann AM, Kopietz R, May J, Schreder T, Zernecke R, Brückmann H, Wiesmann M. Chem Senses. 2011 Jan;36(1):19-27.

James V. Kohl
http://www.scentoferos.com

I've heard that pumpkin was a "turn-on" scent for women, haven't tracked down any research on it yet

(07-24-2011 11:13 PM)2Soon2Care Wrote:  I've heard that pumpkin was a "turn-on" scent for women, haven't tracked down any research on it yet

The food odor/sexual arousal link(s) comes primarily (if not totally) from unpublished results of research done under the directives of neurologist Alan Hirsch, who is one of the most genuinely pleasant people I have ever met.

On the other hand, he seems to seek out media attention for results that might not make it past peer-review, which tends to annoy other olfactory researchers who would rather their peer-reviewed published results drew more attention than press releases.

Ahh how funny - it would be interesting to take an as-yet-uninvented arousal scanner to a food fair to see what horny dishes were cooked up!

(07-25-2011 11:32 AM)jvkohl Wrote:  The food odor/sexual arousal link(s) comes primarily (if not totally) from unpublished results of research done under the directives of neurologist Alan Hirsch, who is one of the most genuinely pleasant people I have ever met.

On the other hand, he seems to seek out media attention for results that might not make it past peer-review, which tends to annoy other olfactory researchers who would rather their peer-reviewed published results drew more attention than press releases.

Some interesting references...

http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content...i248.short
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-43699-001
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.10...1/abstract
http://journals.lww.com/hnpjournal/Abstr..._to.4.aspx
http://digitalcommons.library.unlv.edu/t...tions/110/
http://chemse.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/5/479.short
http://books.google.com/books?id=qiDgm-E...tlKYnNKlA0

(07-25-2011 7:58 PM)2Soon2Care Wrote:  Ahh how funny - it would be interesting to take an as-yet-uninvented arousal scanner to a food fair to see what horny dishes were cooked up!

The honeybee has emerged as an animal model in this regard. It links flowers, foods, and pheromones to physiology and behavior, and helps to explain why pheromone-enhancement of fragrance products works well for me because I understand the science. For example, my next product for women will incorporate a flower odor that has a positive effect on the hormone most closely linked to cyclical changes in their behavior.

That makes sense - I would not at all be surprised if the entire history of the fragrance industry has been driven in part if not wholly by a desire to produce the effects that are now possible with the science of pheromones and chemoreception coming into place - field testing on dates, in courtesan's boudoirs, ballrooms, courts, as well as in the bush in small villages, etc. and lab testing by witch doctors, medicine men, tribal women, alchemists, trading companies, and finally real scientists!

(07-25-2011 9:29 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  The honeybee has emerged as an animal model in this regard. It links flowers, foods, and pheromones to physiology and behavior, and helps to explain why pheromone-enhancement of fragrance products works well for me because I understand the science. For example, my next product for women will incorporate a flower odor that has a positive effect on the hormone most closely linked to cyclical changes in their behavior.

(07-26-2011 6:05 AM)2Soon2Care Wrote:  That makes sense - I would not at all be surprised if the entire history of the fragrance industry has been driven in part if not wholly by a desire to produce the effects that are now possible with the science of pheromones and chemoreception coming into place - field testing on dates, in courtesan's boudoirs, ballrooms, courts, as well as in the bush in small villages, etc. and lab testing by witch doctors, medicine men, tribal women, alchemists, trading companies, and finally real scientists!

Given your broad-based perspective, the number of real scientists who are attempting to accurately link cause and effect is minimal. This suggests that, for whatever reason, real scientists are not very concerned about chemosensory progress, at a time when the honeybee model exemplifies the importance of that progress.

The honeybee already serves as a model organism for studying human immunity, disease resistance, allergic reaction, circadian rhythms, antibiotic resistance, development, mental health, longevity, and diseases of the X chromosome. Included among these different aspects of eusocial species survival are learning and memory as well as conditioned responses to sensory stimuli.

Yet, even after we demonstrated conditioned responses to a mixture of androstenol and androsterone, other researchers continue to ignore the broader implications of our findings. A model is a model. After the other aspects of the honeybee model were extended to humans, we showed that pheromones condition responses to specific sensory stimuli; two chemicals. Are other scientists simply saying "that's nice," or are they ignoring what comes next due to their fear of pheromones?

Thomas, L. (1971) Notes of a biology watcher. A fear of pheromones. New England Journal of Medicine, 285, 7, 392 393.

Minimally, the forum members here seem unafraid of pheromones. Predictably, when those who are not afraid exceed 10% of the population, nearly all others will realize the importance of new findings.

"Minority rules: Scientists discover tipping point for the spread of ideas." July 25th, 2011. http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-07-mino...ideas.html
"The researchers are now looking for partners within the social sciences and other fields to compare their computational models to historical examples. They are also looking to study how the percentage might change when input into a model where the society is polarized. Instead of simply holding one traditional view, the society would instead hold two opposing viewpoints."

An example of this polarization is people who believe that visual input is more important to human behavior versus those who believe that olfactory/pheromonal input is more important --as it is in every other species on the planet.

(01-21-2011 7:57 PM)jvkohl Wrote:  There's more activity involving human pheromones. Now that you've seen the latest on pheromones in tears, here's one about the detection of anxiety. My colleagues seem to be shying away from use of the term "pheromones" as you can see in the latest research reports. They want to use chemosignals or chemosensory signals, or other terms that make it seem more like humans are very different than other animals when it comes to our response to social odors. But that's like saying we're very different when it comes to our response to food odors--and we're not. Wake up and smell the pheromones people, especially you researchers.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20929974

Smelling chemosensory signals of males in anxious versus nonanxious condition increases state anxiety of female subjects. Albrecht J, Demmel M, Schöpf V, Kleemann AM, Kopietz R, May J, Schreder T, Zernecke R, Brückmann H, Wiesmann M. Chem Senses. 2011 Jan;36(1):19-27.

James V. Kohl
http://www.scentoferos.com

jkv,
I've been wondering about chemosensory vs. pheromone classification.

There are questions as to what is a pheromone. And how should molecules be classified if they are not proper pheromone molecules but still have pheromone effects. Most recently with the other steroid hormone and prohormone molecules that are mentioned in the threads that try to predict AD molecules (since AD has p74-p130 that's alot of molecules to call putative pheromones, we sure don't have 56 molecules that are definitive human pheromones).

While human pheromones are excreted from the human body does the point of excretion determine if they are pheromones?

For instance: If chemicals that pass from the blood in the lungs to air and are then exhaled possible pheromones if they have a chemosensory response? Or would they only be considered as chemosensory molecules. I have read that some doctors can use the smell of breath to detect some diseases. I think there was a link between sweet and diabetes. (A fruity odor to the breath occurs as the body attempts to get rid of excess acetone through the breathing. This is a sign of ketoacidosis, which may occur in diabetes. The breath may have an ammonia-like odor (also described as urine-like or "fishy") in people with chronic kidney failure. Also use of Drugs notedly Paraldehyde, Triamterene and inhaled anesthetics, Insulin - injection.)
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/...003058.htm
As such, could any chemical exhaled be a chemosignal/pheromone? Or is the true pheromone restricted to apocrine gland secretions? Or are their metabolites also included?

Specifically, DHEA, and Pregnenolone; could they be exhaled as a source of chemosignal without being excreted by endocrine apocrine glands, and as such be legitamate pheromones?

I reallize that this is not concretely decided yet, but is there a line in the sand? Part of my question is in regards to the amount of pheromones we give off. I know that I can lose over 1 pound of water while sleeping 8 hours. (I live in an area with very low relative humidity.) If I'm kicking out pounds of water, is it possible to be distributing micrograms of varied chemicals that are residing in my blood just by exhaling?

The flip side of this is trying to figure out if there is even a chance for these chemicals to be exhaled. Are they able to be transfered from blood to air in the lungs, or excreted thru the lymph nodes in the throat like the tonsils. Or are they just to big to make it across those barriers?

(08-15-2011 11:45 PM)dexter Wrote:  
I've been wondering about chemosensory vs. pheromone classification.

”Pheromones are defined as substances which are secreted to the outside by an individual and received by a second individual of the same species, in which they release a specific reaction, for example, a definite behavior, or a developmental process.”

The only way a species-specific mammalian chemical signal can release a definite behavior or effect a developmental process is by effecting hormone-secreting nerve cells in the brain.

Androstenol does this, but it is not species specific. Androsterone is much more species specific to primates, and more so to humans, and perhaps it is even individually specific to human male secretion of steroid hormone metabolites via enzymatic conversion.

If you start with the definition, look for where the chemicals are produced and how they are metabolized, you have a chance of discovering a mixture of human pheromones (mammalian pheromones always occur in mixtures). If you look only at one part of the process, you may be confused about cause and effect. This might lead you to categorize a chemosensory stimulus as a pheromone.

Alan Hirsch has done this to a degree with food odors. He doesn't really refer to pumpkin pie odor as a pheromone, he just links it to sexual arousal in a manner similar to what is expected of pheromones.

Winnifred Cutler says that her pheromones increase affection, without showing an effect on any hormones, or telling us what pheromones she is calling pheromones.

Others suggest we redefine the term pheromone to fit their findings or lack of findings.