(10-07-2012 10:19 PM)wiserd Wrote:  This suggests that beta sitosterol might increase anxiety. It's a long shot since it exerts its effects in the body primarily by inhibiting an enzyme (5-alpha reductase) rather than activating or blocking a receptor. If it DID work pheromonally, that would say a LOT about the mechanism by which pheromones worked.

This is cool info.

I knew that 5-alpha reductase was responsible for Testosterone->DHT,
I didn't know it was also responsible for metabolizing PROGESTERONE into allopregnanolone (alloP) and allotetrahydrodeoxycorticosterone (alloTHDOC) among others.

I'll have to look and see what the "others" are too.

So FINASTERIDE can increase anxiety because it will block formation of alloP and alloTHDOC from Progesterone, which in turn means they can't bind to GABA receptors.

If Beta Sitosterol (a plant Sterol) acts like Finesteride,
And IF Finesteride does increase anxiety,
Then, Beta Sitosterol MIGHT increase anxiety as well.

Of course, they may work a little differently, but this may be an important clue/fact in understanding the complex interactions that pheromones can play a role in.

Hmm,
I never got anyone to bite on the reason I started this thread.

The Putatives from Androtics come mixed with Plant Sterols to "AID DIFFUSION".

I look at the term "AID DIFFUSION" and saw something else.
I saw a problem, if these Plant Sterols, such as above, are naturally occuring aphrodisiacs, there may be some mix up in the results of the Pxxx Putatives that contain them. Since the putatives contain sterols, the effects that are seen may be from the putatives, or a combo of the putatives and Molecule, rather than pure effects of a single molecule.

The other thing I saw, reading between the lines, was that these Plant Sterols were used for disguise. They are so close in molecular structure to many pheromones/hormones/steroids/sterols that it would make detection harder. You can't reverse engineer a putative if it has 5 molecules in it that appear so similar in molecular structure. It would be like making a suicide at the soda fountain (mixing a squirt of every flavor of soda) and then asking someone to take a sip and tell you what type of soda it was.

So, there is nothing wrong with a company adding 10mg of plant sterols along with 1mg of actual putative molecule into 30mL and calling it a putative. Especially when it is also adding 6% fragrance (6% of 30mL is about 1.8mL, around 1800mg of fragrance) per 1mg of putative. Just to clear up my numbers, 1mg of putative molecule will make 5mcg/spray out of 30mL, if you get 200 sprays out of the 30mL.

What would be wrong would be to contribute the effects of the putative to the putative molecule without giving credit to the plant sterols, which are considered to be aphrodisiac scents over the decades and centuries. This could be considered aliasing results, coupled results, or cross coupled results. All of which we experience without this added layer of mixing, just because 'mones are that complicated, especially in mixes.

So...
will anyone bite on this now?

(11-02-2012 4:37 PM)dexter Wrote:  Hmm,
I never got anyone to bite on the reason I started this thread.

The Putatives from Androtics come mixed with Plant Sterols to "AID DIFFUSION".

I look at the term "AID DIFFUSION" and saw something else.
I saw a problem, if these Plant Sterols, such as above, are naturally occuring aphrodisiacs, there may be some mix up in the results of the Pxxx Putatives that contain them. Since the putatives contain sterols, the effects that are seen may be from the putatives, or a combo of the putatives and Molecule, rather than pure effects of a single molecule.

The other thing I saw, reading between the lines, was that these Plant Sterols were used for disguise. They are so close in molecular structure to many pheromones/hormones/steroids/sterols that it would make detection harder. You can't reverse engineer a putative if it has 5 molecules in it that appear so similar in molecular structure. It would be like making a suicide at the soda fountain (mixing a squirt of every flavor of soda) and then asking someone to take a sip and tell you what type of soda it was.

So, there is nothing wrong with a company adding 10mg of plant sterols along with 1mg of actual putative molecule into 30mL and calling it a putative. Especially when it is also adding 6% fragrance (6% of 30mL is about 1.8mL, around 1800mg of fragrance) per 1mg of putative. Just to clear up my numbers, 1mg of putative molecule will make 5mcg/spray out of 30mL, if you get 200 sprays out of the 30mL.

What would be wrong would be to contribute the effects of the putative to the putative molecule without giving credit to the plant sterols, which are considered to be aphrodisiac scents over the decades and centuries. This could be considered aliasing results, coupled results, or cross coupled results. All of which we experience without this added layer of mixing, just because 'mones are that complicated, especially in mixes.

So...
will anyone bite on this now?

Interesting notion. What's a bite? Testing plant sterols? There's a lot of promise there but its hard to get testers for anything.

(11-02-2012 4:37 PM)dexter Wrote:  Hmm,
I never got anyone to bite on the reason I started this thread.

The Putatives from Androtics come mixed with Plant Sterols to "AID DIFFUSION".

I look at the term "AID DIFFUSION" and saw something else.
I saw a problem, if these Plant Sterols, such as above, are naturally occuring aphrodisiacs, there may be some mix up in the results of the Pxxx Putatives that contain them. Since the putatives contain sterols, the effects that are seen may be from the putatives, or a combo of the putatives and Molecule, rather than pure effects of a single molecule.

The other thing I saw, reading between the lines, was that these Plant Sterols were used for disguise. They are so close in molecular structure to many pheromones/hormones/steroids/sterols that it would make detection harder. You can't reverse engineer a putative if it has 5 molecules in it that appear so similar in molecular structure. It would be like making a suicide at the soda fountain (mixing a squirt of every flavor of soda) and then asking someone to take a sip and tell you what type of soda it was.

So, there is nothing wrong with a company adding 10mg of plant sterols along with 1mg of actual putative molecule into 30mL and calling it a putative. Especially when it is also adding 6% fragrance (6% of 30mL is about 1.8mL, around 1800mg of fragrance) per 1mg of putative. Just to clear up my numbers, 1mg of putative molecule will make 5mcg/spray out of 30mL, if you get 200 sprays out of the 30mL.

What would be wrong would be to contribute the effects of the putative to the putative molecule without giving credit to the plant sterols, which are considered to be aphrodisiac scents over the decades and centuries. This could be considered aliasing results, coupled results, or cross coupled results. All of which we experience without this added layer of mixing, just because 'mones are that complicated, especially in mixes.

So...
will anyone bite on this now?

Interesting notion. What's a bite? Testing plant sterols? There's a lot of promise there but its hard to get testers for anything.

(11-02-2012 4:50 PM)wiserd Wrote:  Interesting notion. What's a bite? Testing plant sterols? There's a lot of promise there but its hard to get testers for anything.

Oh. What's a bite. Well when you fish, you put bait on a hook, throw it in the water, and hope for a fish to take hold of it, only fish don't have hands, only mouths, so they bite. They bite on the bait.

I was throwing out some bait on the topic of Androtics putatives containing plant sterols.

And looking to see if anyone else felt as I did; that the Androtics putatives being advertised as a single putative molecule combined with plant sterols and scent were actually mixes of putatives, the plant sterols being putatives in addition to the "single" molecule.

reading between the lines, i meant to say, If an androtics molecule has plant sterols in it in addition to the putative molecule, it is possible that you are getting pheromone reactions to the plant sterol alone, and no real reaction to the putative molecule.

Because the plant sterols listed in this thread have years of history as "aphrodisiacs", as scents and as foods, and they look similar to existing pheromones in there chemical structure.

Plant Sterols

1.) β-Sitosterol 84-46-5
2.) campesterol
3.) stigmasterol 83-48-7
4.) Stigmastanol 83-45-4
5.) ergosterol
6.) BIOCHANIN A 491-80-5
7.) Yohimbine Hypochloride

and others known as phytoestrogens from soy or wild yam.

If plant sterols are in the mix, you may get aliased results in testing out putatives due to the fact that it is a mix of 2 to 10 molecules, not a single molecule. Plant sterols are bioactive, that's why they are called "sterols".

(11-08-2012 6:25 PM)dexter Wrote:  Oh. What's a bite. Well when you fish, you put bait on a hook, throw it in the water, and hope for a fish to take hold of it, only fish don't have hands, only mouths, so they bite. They bite on the bait.

I was throwing out some bait on the topic of Androtics putatives containing plant sterols.

And looking to see if anyone else felt as I did; that the Androtics putatives being advertised as a single putative molecule combined with plant sterols and scent were actually mixes of putatives, the plant sterols being putatives in addition to the "single" molecule.

reading between the lines, i meant to say, If an androtics molecule has plant sterols in it in addition to the putative molecule, it is possible that you are getting pheromone reactions to the plant sterol alone, and no real reaction to the putative molecule.

Because the plant sterols listed in this thread have years of history as "aphrodisiacs", as scents and as foods, and they look similar to existing pheromones in there chemical structure.

*laughs*
Reminds me of Airplane, the movie.

"You'd better tell the Captain we've got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital."

"A hospital? What is it?"

"It's a big building with patients, but that's not important right now."

I just was asking what you wanted from us. ;-)

I wasn't able to get a noticable reaction with yohimbe. But maybe there was something wrong with my extract. Were you?

There might have been something workable from tongkat ali but I never explored it and don't know the active ingredient(s). It felt a little like Androstenone. Mood elevation for me. A little intimidation in others.

I got massive depression from cucumber seed extract. Toned down, maybe it could be useful as an androstadienone substitute. I never tested it on others and I'm less susceptible to androstadienone induced depression now, I think. It only took a year of exposure to adjust.

Magnolia extract, which has 11B hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase inhibitory activity among other things seemed to decrease physical distance a bit with guys. I didn't have the chance to test on girls. It's probably useful, but it was annoying having people reach right across my face because I had no personal space. I'm hoping it will be useful mixed with, say, some Androstenone and dienone. I don't know if it's better or worse than Glycyrrhizic acid.

You could very well be right about Androtics. It's hard sometimes to tell if the folks at Androtics are confused or just being deliberately obfuscatory and trying to confuse others. But personally I have enough toys that I'm not too worried about reverse engineering their stuff any more. I'm sure that there are a ton of active plant sterols. It's just a matter of diving in and testing them.

Pure speculation isn't going to inspire people. We have a lot of it around here. If you get a positive report, though, you can call in the cavalry.

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.

(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.

I'd agree that finesteride is shit as a medicine and probably not useful as a pheromone. But It'd be educational as a pheromone ( or B-sitosterol would) because these things act pharmocologically primarily by poisoning 5alpha reductase. If using them reduced sex drive, that would demonstrate that mones worked, in part, via absorption to the blood stream. That's probably not much incentive for most guys to test this stuff, of course. But an anti-sex pheromone might be useful for some girls.

Of course, if they didn't work the absorbed dosage just may be too small, so that result would be ambiguous.

I'll bite.

Thanks for the information regarding product purity.
This thread has narrowed the selection process.

ya feel me?