Phero Blurb on MSN Front Page

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Upon signing out of Hotmail, I saw this on the msn.com main page. At first I thought it was just someone writing to a so-called expert, asking about the validity of phero products.

However, it appears to be an abstract of a recent article for Physiology and Behavior and centers on women testing pheros for male attraction. Perhaps someone with access to the documents could post them to aid the females of the forum in their pursuits.
http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/2953.971 (\"http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/2953.971\")

[Watcher]

It is done by cutlers group that is athena products but the publicity is there.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

So, what\'s in this stuff?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

This same information was in the local NBC News here with a survey. It is $98.00 a bottle from Athena but no content quanity posted.

[jvkohl]

The following study is being discussed on sexnet: a listserver for those interested in aspects of human sexuality. So far, the concensus appears to be that the study results are questionable.

Physiol Behav 2002 Mar;75(3):367-75
Pheromonal influences on sociosexual behavior in young women.

McCoy NL, Pitino L.

Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, 94132-4168, San
Francisco, CA, USA

A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of a synthesized putative female
pheromone was conducted with regularly menstruating, university women (N=36,
mean age=27.8). The pheromone formula was derived from earlier work
investigating the underarm secretions of fertile, sexually active, heterosexual
women. A vial of either synthesized pheromone or placebo was selected blindly
and added to a subject\'s perfume. Subjects recorded seven sociosexual behaviors
and reported them weekly across three menstrual cycles. Beginning with Day 8 of
each cycle, the first cycle contained a 2-week baseline period followed by an
experimental period of as many as 3 weeks each from the next two cycles for a
maximum of 6 weeks. The 19 pheromone and 17 placebo subjects did not differ
significantly in age, weight, body mass index, dating status or ethnicity nor
in reported accuracy, back-filling data, perception of a positive effect or
perfume use. Placebo subjects were significantly taller than pheromone
subjects. Except for male approaches, subjects did not differ significantly at
baseline in average weekly sociosexual behaviors. A significantly greater
proportion of pheromone users compared with placebo users increased over
baseline in frequency of sexual intercourse, sleeping next to a partner, formal
dates and petting/affection/kissing but not in frequency of male approaches,
informal dates or masturbation. Three or more sociosexual behaviors increased
over baseline for 74% of pheromone users compared with 23% of placebo users. We
conclude that this synthesized pheromone formula acted as a sex attractant
pheromone and increased the sexual attractiveness of women to men.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

James, please tell us who came to this consensus and what the criticisms are.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

bump.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

double bump

[Watcher]

PHeromones just became front page news in australia. Right across. So expect a bit more discussion to start down this way.

[jvkohl]

truth,

The concensus I mentioned was based upon several different negative comments about Cutler\'s obvious influence in McCoy\'s study. The comments were made on Sexnet (a listserver for sexresearchers) and on Evol-Psych (a listserver for evolutionary psychologists.)

One big negative is that Cutler still refuses to tell, at least in the scientific literature, what pheromone she reportedly is using, while continuing (more than 8 years now) to say that she won\'t reveal it until she gets a patent on it. But, many years ago, she told a TV audience that she was using DHEA.

Another problem is that 20+% of women who weren\'t wearing the pheromone also experienced an increase in measures of sexual behavior--something that suggests a need to reexamine study design and statistical analysis.

Finally, there is no way to determine if increased sexual behavior could simply be attributed to the effect of Cutler\'s pheromone on the women who were wearing it, rather than the men who were exposed to the women wearing it.

Typically, these flaws would make it impossible for the report to get past \"peer review.\" Guess the reviewers thought it still had some value. I don\'t, except for the fact that more people are becoming aware of pheromones as a result. On the other hand, Cutler\'s involvement will invariably lead to the media presenting a false impression of the findings.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Comments on criticisms of Cutler\'s research:

1. Yes, the non-disclosure of phero contents is the biggest red flag to me. I don\'t see many published articles with \"mystery\" effectors.

2. I actually don\'t have a problem with 20+% of placebo women reporting an increased in sexual activity. Placebo is a strong effector, and the 20+% is probably real!

3. Yes, we don\'t know whether the results are due to an effect on the wearer. However, how would you control for this in a study? Block the wearer\'s nose?!

[jvkohl]

This is the second article with the mystery effector (from McCoy).

74% minus the placebo effect 23% yeilds an actual effect on 51% of a similar population; not much more than a 50/50 chance; nor significant.

Re: control; arguably McCoy should know that the best way to demonstrate a causal relationship is to measure a hormone response. If it occurred in the men, the effect would be on men; if it occurred in the women; the effect would be on the wearer. Granted, hormone assays are expensive, but pheromone science has come to the point where nothing else will suffice to show the effect by definition on _both_ physiology and behavior--as has been done in other mammals.

Meanwhile, we will have the self-promoting studies; perhaps I can get one of my own past peer review (not).

[**DONOTDELETE**]

\"74% minus the placebo effect 23% yeilds an actual effect on 51% of a similar population; not much more than a 50/50 chance; nor significant.\"

James, you won\'t find many hehaviorial studies with results even that dramatic!!!