I was curious what the natural amount of pheromones were in a healthy male or athletic/muscular male?

I found an old post by nbully on a pheromone blog that attempts to figure out how much there is (credit to smellscent):

http://smellscent.blogspot.ca/2007/10/na...mones.html

Quote:Quantity of naturally produced mones
Quantities found (pmol/mg.hair, with approximate 24-h totals in parentheses) were:
Androstenone - 5 alpha-androst-16-en-3-one, 0-15 (0-433)
Androstadienone - 4, 16-androstadien-3-one, 0-143 (0-4103)
Beta-Androstadienol - 5,16-androstadien-3 beta-ol, 0-3.5 (0-728)
Alpha-Androstenol- 5 alpha-androst-16-en-3 alpha-ol, 0-17 (0-1752)
Beta-Androstenol - 5 alpha-androst-16-en-3 beta-ol, 0-4 (0-416)
From the study: "Simultaneous quantification of five odorous steroids (16-androstenes) in the axillary hair of men, " Nixon A, Mallet AI and Gower DB, (Division of Biochemistry, United Medical School, Guy's Hospital, London, England)


In the current post I will try to convert these numbers to 'mcg' units.

1) Quantities in the paper are given in pmol/mg.
2) 1 pmol = 10^-12 mol (mole).
3) 1 mole = the substance's atomic or molecular mass in grams (For example for C-12 it is 12 grams)
4) 1 mole contains a total of N atoms/molecules (N being the Avogadro's constant = 6.022*10^23).
5) As seen from my post on Saturday, September 08, 2007, molecular weight of all these common steroids are very close to 270.
6) So for each steroid 1 pmol = 270*10^-12 grams = 270*10^-9 mg = 270*10^-6 mcg

Therefore for these androstenes

1 pmol = 270*10^-6 mcg

The amounts are given in pmol/mg of hair. So we have to multiply the amounts with total mg of hair on pheromone generating areas of human body (axillary and pubic hair). Lets use a conservative amount for total amount of axillary and pubic hair as 100 mg (QUANTITATIVE MEASUREMENT OF A SECONDARY SEX CHARACTER, AXILLARY HAIR, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs....tb31960.x says 20.1 mg for axillary hair in under 17, accounting for much more hair after puberty is over we can say it might be approximately 100 mg, but at this point it is a guess only, better estimates are required)

Therefore the total amount of pheromones present at any time (and total amount generated in a day mentioned in parantheses) maybe obtained by multiplying the above quantities given in pmol/mg.hair with (270*10^-6) * (100). This gives,

Androstenone = 0.4 (12) mcg
Androstadienone = 3.9 (111) mcg
Beta-Androstadienol = 0.1 (20) mcg
Alpha-Androstenol= 0.5 (47) mcg
Beta-Androstenol = 0.1 (11) mcg

Not having the amounts of -Androsterone and DHEA-s slightly mars the excitement, but the amounts of given pheromones match reasonably well with what we use.

Finding the ratios of these using the maximum of the 24-h total amount

a-none : a-nol : b-nol : Androstadienone : beta-dienol = 1 : 4.2 : 1 : 9.9 : 1.8
~ 1 : 4 : 1 : 10 : 2

Using these ratios when mixing might help in producing a more natural profile.

Is the math accurate?

(05-06-2018 7:55 PM)P4yn3 Wrote:  I was curious what the natural amount of pheromones were in a healthy male or athletic/muscular male?

I found an old post by nbully on a pheromone blog that attempts to figure out how much there is (credit to smellscent):

http://smellscent.blogspot.ca/2007/10/na...mones.html

Is the math accurate?

He guessed the amount of hair to be 100 mg and did calculations based on that. Assuming 100 mg is a reasonable number, then yes the math is correct. I cannot find the number of male participants or their backgrounds, but the age range of participants was 18-40 years (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3379959). Given the broad range, it might be good indicator to make a broad product, but probably not a specialized product. It's unfortunate that there is no data for androsterone in this study. Last, at the end he abbreviated androstenone as a-none rather than e-none as it is here. A-none here is androstAnone, a different molecule that often complements androstEnone.

Hopefully I didn't miss anything, that's a lot of text and my vision has been blurred today.

Interesting but no one said that natural concentration is the best.Big, unnatural concentrations could yield, big unnatural results.I'm all for the big unnatural results, fuck the average

(05-09-2018 3:07 AM)stefdude Wrote:  Interesting but no one said that natural concentration is the best.Big, unnatural concentrations could yield, big unnatural results.I'm all for the big unnatural results, fuck the average

That's a really good point. I do wonder though if the study were to be replicated with extraordinarily healthy people in their twenties, how different would the ratios be? Perhaps that ratio, in a larger concentration and carrier that our vendors graciously provide, could be the closest we might get to achieving a "holy grail" mix. It's bittersweet that pheromones aren't, for lack of a better term, mainstream.

(05-09-2018 11:37 PM)OptimistPrime Wrote:  That's a really good point. I do wonder though if the study were to be replicated with extraordinarily healthy people in their twenties, how different would the ratios be? Perhaps that ratio, in a larger concentration and carrier that our vendors graciously provide, could be the closest we might get to achieving a "holy grail" mix. It's bittersweet that pheromones aren't, for lack of a better term, mainstream.

Yeah but how is healthy defined?The lower end of today's normal testosterone range could be objectively low attraction-wise.And new healthy averages could be set based on average, because a decade ago males had 10% more testosterone.

I know that "normal" steroid guys get more attention from most males and they have unnatural testosterone.Women get oversized lips, asses, and breasts and they become more attractive usually.I'm all for natural in women but a little bit above normal average is perfect IMO.

I agree about the ratios though.That might be a good hint.

(05-11-2018 4:00 AM)stefdude Wrote:  Yeah but how is healthy defined?The lower end of today's normal testosterone range could be objectively low attraction-wise.And new healthy averages could be set based on average, because a decade ago males had 10% more testosterone.

I know that "normal" steroid guys get more attention from most males and they have unnatural testosterone.Women get oversized lips, asses, and breasts and they become more attractive usually.I'm all for natural in women but a little bit above normal average is perfect IMO.

I agree about the ratios though.That might be a good hint.

I've heard about guys on juice getting more attention as well.

We need to learn to mimic the guys on juice. Keeping the appropriate ratios is key.

(05-11-2018 11:51 AM)P4yn3 Wrote:  I've heard about guys on juice getting more attention as well.

We need to learn to mimic the guys on juice. Keeping the appropriate ratios is key.

I did mention in a recent Journal entry that Nbully79's early research was phenomenal.

Guys on juice are muscular so factor that in to the equation. Women love muscular men.

Click link to find out "What's causing all this?"

(05-11-2018 12:12 PM)Paradox Wrote:  I did mention in a recent Journal entry that Nbully79's early research was phenomenal.

Guys on juice are muscular so factor that in to the equation. Women love muscular men.

Click link to find out "What's causing all this?"

I laughed so hard at that video lol