Question about Pheros

[mitsubachi]

Hi guys, I

juz ordered a bottle of Pheros recently and am still waiting for the order to arrive. I have a question about Pheros

which is, what is the pheromone contents of the product? Is it just solely a cologne or does it have pheromones in

it. And also, is there -nol, -none or -rone in it and the ratio? Hope to get my bottle soon so that I can try it out

and post some feedback.

[Holmes]

I think it has trace amounts of

various L-S pheromones in it + cops...

Doc?

[DrSmellThis]

Good question. Holmes is correct! :)

* I've been needing to write about this for a while, so thanks for the motivation! The pheromones in

Pheros (pictured, at left) come from three sources:

1.

"Analog pheromones" from the perfume industry. This is a term not generally familiar to love-scent, except

through my postings. Analog pheromones represent an advance in pheromone technology here at L-S.



"Analog pheromones" are fragrant compounds from natural sources that are thought to

be active due to the pheromonal shape of the molecule, such as being shaped similar to testosterone or estrogen.

Such molecules were found by perfumers to trigger a reaction even when not absolutely identical to the corresponding

human pheromones, as the "key still fits the lock". This is one reason why EO's like jasmine turn us on. Sometimes

they are identical to substances found on the human body (Jasmine contains indole, which is found near the

anus on men and women, for example.), to be sure, and sometimes they are closely similar. They are all "analogs,"

because they are found in nature in places other than on humans. (Those of you who are audiophiles would find a

similarity between analog pheromones as compared to synthetic mones; and analog recordings as compared to digital

recordings.)

The first advantage of using analog mones is that there

is a great variety of analog molecules in nature. This allows us to have huge numbers of different active

substances, imitating the staggering variety of pheromones and smelly substances actually found on the human body,

as "human musk". Ultimately, what attracts in the real world is the overall musk emitted by a person, and not

just a few select pheromone chemicals.

The second advantage is that

analog pheromones each have a great, useful fragrance that helps the smell of a perfume. They smell more than do

synthetic pheromones. So they help you to create a sexy smell, per se, and the smell itself becomes part of the

effect. The smell of an analog pheromone can be quite lovely, as the main chemical is found along side other

fragrant residues that enhance its smell. So androsterone that comes from cedar smells better than petroleum-derived

androsterone from a chem lab, such as the -rone available here at L-S.

Thirdly, analog pheromones are more natural than synthetic pheromones, which are petroleum derived

instead of coming from plants. This advantage translates into their smell and appeal.

The perfume industry isolates and concentrates analog pheromones from their natural sources. They

have often been discovered by exploration; by perfume chemists who are trying to figure out why an essential oil

works as an aphrodisiac, for example. They examine the chemical constituents and eventually discover chemicals that

are very similar to those found on the human body or in sweat. They find the molecules that are the most useful for

perfuming through trial and error over many years. Fragrance chemistry is a huge, multibillion-dollar industry, and

has been in existence for over a century. They have been at work on this stuff for several decades, at

least.

I won't be divulging the 15 or so isolated analog pheromones

I used -- not that anyone here would recognize them anyway. But in the future, if interest is high enough, I may

bring some of them to the table as individual -mones. They are very effective, and smell great. I used them

exclusively for several years before I ever found out about L-S mones, with much success, and still use them

regularly! :thumbsup: Using them individually, or in mixes, is also a great way to go. But that's for down the

road.

2. Simple natural sources. These include natural musks

(e.g., civet, ambrette. These each contain up to hundreds of analog-mones, depending on the substance.), essential

oils that contain analog pheromones, and other plant substances. In some cases pheromone analogs found in nature are

identical to actual human pheromones. (Cedar contains androsterone, for instance.)

3. Trace amounts of added synthetic human pheromones. Most all the ones available at L-S were

used, including copulins, at a low concentrations, like 1/100 the concentration of the typical products here, just

to complete the artificial "human musk" effect of Pheros, and make it more human.



* The flip side of this approach is that, due to the huge number and variety of

active natural substances in Pheros, there is no way to list all the chemicals and the amounts of each. There

are 150 or so ingredients, and I don't know the concentrations of anything. Ultimately, I let the smell determine

how much of each thing I added. I went for the overall "musk effect" (the "human note"), and the overall smell of

the perfume.

[TRock]

hey doc, the pheros reminds me of

salad dressing. should the bottle be shaken up before i use it?

[Fuse]

Thanks for the detailed response

Doc. I'm going to place my order in a few minutes.


I just have one question. Does it contain trace

amounts of A1? I'm assuming that's probably the one L-S pheromone that's not in Pheros.

[DrSmellThis]

That is a fair assumption.

;)

[DrSmellThis]

hey doc, the

pheros reminds me of salad dressing. should the bottle be shaken up before i use it? Yeah, shake it 3-4

times.

[mitsubachi]

Thanks for the great

explaination Dr Smellthis. So, would you say that Pheros:

1) Is an all-rounded pheromone product,
2) makes you

sexually attractive eg. TE, or
3) makes you look friendly eg. SOE/WAGG

[bjf]

Doc, surely there has to be at least

one scientific study on the pheromone analogs???

I'd really like to see that data supporting that

pheromone analogs have any effect on people. Everything in nature is similar. One molecule off and things become

very very different things.

I understand just because there isn't much or any data to support something

doesn't mean it can't be true, but I've looked everywhere with no success to find any evidence from the

scientific community supporting pheromone analogs, etc etc. Even aromatherapy doesn't have a lot of support, but

if you have studies on that stuff as well, I'd like to read them.

[DrSmellThis]

Good questions!



http://www.internethealthlibrary.c

om/Therapies/Aromatherapy-Research.htm (http://www.internethealthlibrary.com/Therapies/Aromatherapy-Research.htm)



http://users.erols.com/sisakson/pages/agoindex.htm



There's a couple aromatherapy links. There is a ton of research on aromatherapy! I'd still have candida and

chronic fatigue if it wasn't for oregano EO. There's a ton on it on the web. Surely you can find things there.



If we want research on the effectiveness of pheromones to attract, unfortunately, we have to stick with -nol.

There is thin research on everything else for that, including -none, A1 and -rone. There is no pheromone

research specifically on seduction, other than the anecdotes here in the forum. Cutler's studies that looked at

frequency of sex don't even tell you what she used. there's a couple of other studies at most on sexual habits

after wearing mones.

There's nothing really on analog pheromones outside "the industry". There aren't that

many people that even use the term, and no one outside of perfuming circles. I don't even have access to any

studies -- yet. It's very secretive within the perfume industry, moreso than with Erox by far! So I'm just

going off the traditional knowledge, and I've had to scratch and claw over the years -- in a specialized corner of

it -- just to get that! I'm lucky to have any of that.

Perfumers have been trying to seduce, and succeeding,

for thousands of years. The ability of natural smells to arouse is self evident. The sexiness of smells is self

evident, and analog pheromones are just attempts to label or isolate whatever is naturally already in those smells

that might be contributing to the given effect. Musk, jasmine and other natural substances have been known to

attract for literally thousands of years. Perfume chemists have noticed that many of these substances in traditional

aphrodisiacs happen to have hormonal chemical shapes, (for example. Not all pheromones are hormones) or are even

identical to various biochemicals found on the body. It's just a hint for us, but a damn good hint, given all

the other things we know about pheromones and smells. We can put 2 and 2 together and become driven by

curiosity. Traditional perfuming approaches are another way to go, another angle to get at the same thing. You are

starting with art and moving toward science, as opposed to starting with science and moving toward art. But it's

all the same fundamental project, and you can't have one without the other. Why not come at it from two angles,

both of them, and not just one? This is a different kettle of fish, and something to have fun with. We have the

scientific research for the rest of it.

If you want to experiment with analog mones, get your girlfriend to wear

some pure jasmine or rose, whichever you like best; and see if your tendency toward amour doesn't increase,

compared to before! Have her do it 5 times. Once might be enough. It doesn't matter if the reason is "just due to

the smell", does it? You don't want to separate that out anyway. Getting a smell together is the point. Or get a

sample of pure Himalayan deer musk, be you male or female, and inhale some deeply just before having sex. You'll

know right away, as its powerful. It will be a "n=1" research study. Or look through the archives here for ladies'

comments on sandalwood -- they all totally raved how sexy it was. They raved over some of the EO mixes too. Did you

see them rave about any individual mones that way?

I've several years more experience with analog mones than

with the ones sold here. One of the things that convinced me initially was the "buzz" or rush I would get from

smelling the analog mones straight (not that I smelled them just for the buzz) and the rush ladies would get from

smelling them. I expected that type of buzz from synthetic mones and was initially disappointed, as I was accustomed

to it. Yet I found out that the -mones sold here work in a somewhat different way. It's weird, because I was once

skeptical about the stuff sold here because I trusted what I already knew.

Once you know pheromones are

effective in general, and have developed you own way of figuring them out, is it really necessary to exercise our

deepest skepticism on every new substance before trying it? For me the answer is yes and no. I'm not asking Bruce

to show me studies on the Chikara mones because he's not telling us what they are, and even if we knew, there's

probably no research on those specific chemicals yet. On the other hand, I'm skeptical in terms of wanting to be

cautious before I make a purchase; knowing the story behind something, and knowing who's selling it. I want to know

the general research on pheromones and put it together with everything else I know. I love controlled scientific

studies, but don't need one to justify every decision I make throughout my day, especially regarding romance. That

would be a boring and crazy life.

[bjf]

Thanks Doc. I agree, there is a lack

of scientific evidence on pheromones in general, not just analogs. A good post.

I asked mostly because I

never got any hits off of it, and it doesn't get talked about much on the forums. I know Koolking and Burgerama I

think have had much success with it. Maybe I just haven't used enough. The concentration of analogs & pheromones

would probably be a lot lower than the other products, so maybe I should be using proportionally more?

Guys

who have found it to evoke reactions, let us know what you are doing.

[DrSmellThis]

No one product will work for

everyone. I know someone who sells strictly analog pheromone perfumes (I won't post a link out of respect). Yet,

although I wouldn't want to do without analog pheromones, some of his things I love, and others I don't. It comes

down to preferences and individual chemistry. I know you get drowsy from smelling the valerian root, whereas I get

pleasantly relaxed. I know you have a sensitivity to some animal musks. As it is you said you are only able to use a

half-dab or whatever of the beta version. So maybe another product would be best for you. I wish I had more products

already!

[bjf]

Larger doses I didn't see anything,

and I cut down for the reasons you know, but because this stuff is so interesting, I'm willing to go back to

whatever amount I need to in order to see a sign. I got the stuff because I wanted to experiment with pheromone

analogs, etc, so I'm not overly concerned about the drawbacks, I'm more focused on learning about human behavior

and nature.

Any Pheros users out there, let me know what gets you reactions.

[mitsubachi]

Hi bjf, are you already using

Pheros or you have yet to use it? If you have, what are your impressions of it and how has it worked for you? I

would post my feedback after I receive my shipment and start using it.

[bjf]

I tried without any luck but you are

getting the newer version and I think DST said something about concentrating the pheromone analogs more, and

hopefully there will be more noticable reactions among Pheros users. Maybe the best use for the old Pheros would be

for taking some edge off the -none, as JDM and Big Gulp liked the NPA/Pheros combo.

You can add an oil with

pheromone analogs, but most of it is still going to be other things, so I'm not sure the levels were high enough

the first time around but DST should be able to elaborate on this; whether he was able to obtain more concentrated

analogs for the second version, or whether the first version had about the same amount of concentrated analogs

(rather than just the oils that contain them).

[mitsubachi]

Maybe the best use

for the old Pheros would be for taking some edge off the -none, as JDM and Big Gulp liked the NPA/Pheros

combo.
I dun have NPA. But do you think TE would combine well with it? I've read in some posts that pple

combine Pheros with Chikara to good effect. But I'm not sure if those successes refer to the older batch or the

stronger batch which I am going to receive.

[bjf]

TE is a good substitute for NPA. But

there's really no need to combine things if they work just as well on their own, and that is what you have to

figure out. If you have unscented, sandalwood or edge arouser, I'd say it would be good to combine with, just

because it would make it smell better, but I can't say whether it will significantly change the reactions you get

from the edge.

[mitsubachi]

Hi Dr SmellThis, I would like

to know which are the application points you would recommend for Pheros and what is the recommended amount to be

applied? Also, I think I read in some posts that Pheros enhances the effects of other products, is that true? Would

you recommend Pheros to be used alone, or in conjunction with other products and which products and at what ratio?

Sorry for asking so many questions.