(11-20-2012 3:50 AM)Mara ~ Love Potion Wrote:  I apologize for intruding, but just FYI - this is the entire basis behind Love Potion fragrances. We have been blending plant, animalic and even insect derived scents for well over 25 years without pheromones, but with pheromonal effects.

It does make sense how scents can have an pheromone like effect without being "Pheromones".

I've had some very short discussions with JKV about this and he is a strong believer in seperating pheromones and "other chemosignal molecules".

I'm all for locating non-pheromone putatives that have pheromone effects on humans regardless of species of origin.

It goes to reason that plants that produce smells do it attract insects or other animals to help them in pollination. Seems sexual in a plant way. But the chemicals they produce are not endogenous to the bug, but rather a close analog of the bugs chemical that works just as well, or better. I'm sure that some plants attract animals in the same way.

The aromatic molecules and scents have attributes that can be analogs to human pheromones as well, just by chemical structure, not always by noticeable scent. Humans can react to things they can't "SMELL" but that they smell in the covert way that pheromones work.

(08-01-2012 1:55 AM)dexter Wrote:  Yohimbine Hypochloride
(not Yohimbe, but it comes from yohimbe, like 6% of yohimbe is Yohimbine Hypochloride, the other 94% is other stuff)

I found Yohimbine HCL at the vitamin store last night and couldn't resist buying it for a pheromone test.
[REMINDER, THIS IS NOT YOHIMBE, YOHIMBE IS JUST PROCESSED PLANT, THIS IS ONE MOLECULE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS EXTRACTED FROM YOHIMBE OR SYNTHESIZED.]

(11-09-2012 12:56 AM)Grape Ape Wrote:  Couldn't these plant sterols be the putative?


On another note: Finesteride might as well be looked at as poison for the male body. It has ruined many lives, and there are plenty of class action suites. I'd advise one to do their homework before researching with it in any way.

YES YES YES

these plant sterols could be the putative. AD's "SINGLE" molecules may be useless and we just feel the putative effect of the plant sterols.

I'm not saying that Pxx is useless, I am saying that we don't know if the effects come from the sterols, the PXX single molecule, or the combination of the sterol&Pxx. Not an isolated variable for users to test. AD knows, but they don't show their hand for us to see the actual mix.

Yohimbine... interesting social. Havent noticed sexual effects. As a supplement its only supposed to work on men anyways. Never tried it that way.

I'd like to throw Nutmeg onto the list too. Maybe not as a sterol, but as a plant based putative pheromone.

(12-16-2014 7:56 PM)dexter Wrote:  I'd like to throw Nutmeg onto the list too. Maybe not as a sterol, but as a plant based putative pheromone.

Very interesting. I have half a clue where you're going with that. I have some nutmeg EO. ....have you tested it? The smell is rather strong.

Since this thread was revived, and I went through and read the whole thing, I just wanted to add something. It seems there are false connections being made between biological (in vivo) effects and pheromonal effects of chemicals. A common theme is the conjecture that if XXX promotes Z effect in the body, it should be tested for similar results as a pheromone. However, if you look at the most scientifically tested and proven human pheromones, at least the steroid ones, you'll find that these are the LEAST effective hormones in the body. The explanation for this is a simple evolutionary one. Sex steroids are metabolized (deactivated) by the body and excreted in sweat. Humans (among other animals) evolved a way to sense the presence of these sex hormone metabolites, which hint at the levels and balance of the hormones inside the body.

Real clues for pheromonal activity will likely come from theories of olfaction, assuming that olfaction and pheromone detection are similar. Receptor binding will likely explain most, but "vibrational" theory may have a role, too. These are very likely not the same receptors that are responsible for hormone and drug action. Either way, the molecular shapes (including conformers) and electron density will eventually predict pheromone activity, but just because we don't have that information now doesn't mean we should be connecting biological effects with the pheromonal. These effects of a single molecule are almost more likely to be opposite than similar.

(01-02-2015 11:38 AM)DrHorrible Wrote:  It seems there are false connections being made between biological (in vivo) effects and pheromonal effects of chemicals.

ok. you caught me, doing something. But I don't think you understood the mindset behind the beginning of this thread. This was a public version of a non-public thread discussing androtics direct's use of plant sterols as carriers in their putative products (Pxx's).

I was starting from the assumption that the effects seen from Pxx-Pxxx were not isolated to the "single molecule" but from a blend of that molecule with a whole bunch of plant sterols that have shapes that are very similar to known human pheromones. This possibly skews the results as they could be from the sterols, or the sterol/putative combination and not from the putative by itself.

(01-02-2015 11:38 AM)DrHorrible Wrote:  if you look at the most scientifically tested and proven human pheromones, at least the steroid ones, you'll find that these are the LEAST effective hormones in the body.

I disagree. There are many human pheromones that are also active human hormones/steroids.

(01-02-2015 11:38 AM)DrHorrible Wrote:  The explanation for this is a simple evolutionary one.

I disagree. On the basis of nothing is simple with pheromones.

(01-02-2015 11:38 AM)DrHorrible Wrote:  Real clues for pheromonal activity will likely come from theories of olfaction, assuming that olfaction and pheromone detection are similar.

It is possible, but there is much that is cross-coupled between olfaction/veramonasal/physiological effects due to inhalation->lungs->blood. Many self effects come from transdermal absorption of the pheromone/putatives into the blood stream.

(01-02-2015 11:38 AM)DrHorrible Wrote:  These are very likely not the same receptors that are responsible for hormone and drug action.

I like to think of it as an avalanche effect with a photomultiplier tube. A single photon hits the detector causing a bunch of electrons to be released. So you can detect a single photon of light and get an electric signal showing that it was detected. With 'mones a single molecule of 'mones hits a receptor, causing the release or conversion of a bunch of hormones into the blood. An anology where the photon is the 'mones and the electrons are the hormones. The avalanche of hormones (compared to the amount of detected 'mones) trigger the same receptors in the body that they usually do with hormone/drug actions. Although the the Pheromones may trigger only the initial local receptors because they are in such small quantity, the released hormones may trigger all receptors that could detect them, this may be limited by barriers like the blood brain barrier that may block vomeronasal responses that go to the brain from having a direct effect on the rest of the body (indirect effects still exist), or responses that occur in the rest of the body from crossing the blood brain barrier to get to the brain. I remember another thread about this and the different receptors that are distributed thru the body that are activated differently based on location.

although not 'mones, it was discussed about 5-HT receptors having different effects based on where they are located in the human body.
[ RE: Pheromones as biologically active substances due to mucosal absorption
06-18-2014 03:01 PM ]

http://pherotruth.org/Thread-Pheromones-...ion?page=2

So localized reactions may occur and have different effects on the basis of route of absorption.
Vomeronasal Organ
Olfactory Bulb
Lungs
Skin
Tonsils/Adenoids
GastroIntestinal tract

(01-02-2015 11:38 AM)DrHorrible Wrote:  These effects of a single molecule are almost more likely to be opposite than similar.

Again, nothing is simple, i will take this to also say that generalizing that a single molecule is likely to act either the same or different as a 'mone than as an in vivo molecule is just too much of statement. I will not stand behind opposite or similar for such a generalization.

I figure this is the best suited thread for this.

A link in german, from the faculty that made the discovery of the remaining, functioning pheromone receptors:

http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/duft/duftforschung.html

the text under the 4th green beam/baulk ("synthetische Moschusdüfte - synthretic musc-scents" ) roughly translates to:

-There are three artificial musk groups: Polycyclen, Makrocyclen and Nitromusk-compunds.
The cell-physologist of the University of Bochum have identified and characterized RECEPTORS for all three in the olfactory mucosa. They also found that humans often show mutations in the corresponding genes of those receptors, leading to no or impaired ability to sense those musk-notes (!).
The team of the Professoer already sucessfully patented the 3(!) scent-substances that do in fact activate those receptors. -


So ladies and gents, more phero-receptors. Musk, well, that's not far off from -Androsterone and -none and the other androgens right?
These findings will be published with high impact, expect the concering industries to muscle into the field sooner rather than later. Pharma and fragrances ....to me it's also no longer in doubt that lots of natural (derived from EOs, some discussed in this thread), synthetic substances (hedione) will have pheromonal, neurohormonal and other psychoactive or physical effects.
Esp. companies like firmenich, IFF etc. have all the expertise and technology at their disposal already, if they catch up on the findings, the field will see drastic developments

My apologies to dig up old threads. But this info thru all 4 pages of this thread is super interesting to me. So I wanned to bump this thread and see if we came to an updated knowledge. Sorry but am just keen.

Thanks in advance.