Preliminary dosing suggestion for the Andro1

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Short answer: Use about 0.1 ml or two drops of the stuff applied or sprayed over a large area of skin.

Recall that I had done some research on the hit statistics about six months ago that suggested the ideal NONE dose was around .02 mg. Later on, we found that average male sweat had 0.015 mg of NONE in it. So, I\'m using the ideal sweat (the \"proportion theory\" as suggested by Irish, though this idea has been around the website for a while) as a guide.

Recall the study we used for this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_ uids=8142319&dopt=Abstract

This study looked at both axillary sweat (normal sweat) and apocrine sweat and derived pheromone content in each.

Now, there’s a bunch of math that I won’t repeat (go look at the message thread if you want to see some of it.) The study does give two sets of data – the axillary data being presenting in picomoles per cm^2 of skin, and the apocrine given in nanomoles per nanoliter of apocrine sweat. Now the range or sweat products is massive – about 200 ml to 10 L per day. (inactive types run about 1L a day) Most of this is actually axillary sweat. I’m going to punt and say that 100ml of apocrine sweat is produced per day (non-active).

The end results:

For apocrine sweat (100ml)

.058mg ‘none
.055mg ‘dienone
.003mg ‘nol

For axillary skin (20000 cm^2)
.015mg ‘none
.104mg ‘dienone
.040mg ‘nol

Adding to get a they “typical male”
0.073mg ‘none
0.159mg ‘dienone
0.043mg ‘nol

I’d like to caution that the apocrine sweat amount is for a day/hour whatever duration. So the pheros accumulate and then get depleated, washed away, removed with clothing changes, etc. So in real life I’d bet that the apocrine sweat pheros are a lower number. (I also suspect that the phero density would be lower in someone who sweats 10L a day!)

Since the axillary skin quantity closely correlates with the known “hits” seen at .02mg and that .073 mg of ‘none would be an overdose for most, I’m using the axillary skin numbers to set the baseline for ‘dienone use, or 0.104 mg.

So, in theory presenting 0.104mg of \'dienone to the world would seem to be the ideal starting point if one were intending to simulate a normal human male.

Well, this sure makes the math easy.

The new stuff has a concentration of 1mg/ml, this means using .1 ml of the new stuff. (one bottle will have 100 doses.) this is roughly two drops. One spray would put you just a bit over this.

FYI, this is a massive quantity compare to what we \"normally\" use of -none based pheros. I sure hope it doesn\'t smell too bad.

But -- how to apply it? The sweat study found high picomole quanities in ordinary skin, and nanomole quanities in apocrine skin. The results above suggest that about 2/3s of the material should be spread over the skin, and 1/3 in the apocrine areas (pits). This tells me that spraying the is the most desireable application method.

[ March 23, 2002: Message edited by: Bruce ]

[Irish]

You mentioned the study data for apocrine was given in nanomol/nanoliter...actually it is nanomol/microliter. Typo, or did you calculate that way? [img]images/icons/crazy.gif[/img]

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yep, screwed that math up bad.

Actually, I ran into some other math error as well, so the apocrine figures are in error. The axillary figures are not.

What\'s bothering me -- and it bothered me when I first read the study -- is how concentrated sweat would be apparently be.

One ml of apocrine sweat (based on the nmol/microliter) would have:

0.58mg \'none
0.55mg \'dienone
0.029mg \'nol

I\'m just having a hard time believeing the apocrine figures in general. In any case, the axillary sweat figures remain the same and set the floor.

Obviously, 100ml would have 100x this. Given how much even .02mg of none smells, I just can\'t believe that one ml has 30X this.

Back to research what the actual apocrine sweat volume is...and what\'s in it.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Scientist, lets get back to basics for us slow ones here. What\'s considered axillary vs. apocrine sweat? I think axillary is in the armpits and genital regions, and apocrine everywhere else (?). In that case, how did you estimate the axillary surface area to be 20,000 cm^2?! I\'d think that\'s for the whole body.

Gosh, Realm used to advertise that one spray of their product gives you the equivalent of one naked body worth of pheromones. From these calculations, they\'re way off!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Truth --

The apocrine glands are the smelly ones (armpits and groin) the axillary glands are also located in the armpits and generate much of the fluid. These are eccrine glands -- the same type of glands located all over your body. They are densest in your pits, groin, face and palms and soles of feet.

I made a leap and assigned the axillary gland figures to equate to all eccrine glands. The typical body surface area is about 2 square meters, or 20,000 cm^2.

There\'s some huge sources of error in these calcs. Let me tear my work apart for a moment:

For one, I\'ve yet to find a solid reference to the quantity of apocrine sweat generated, just that it\'s significantly less than axillary/eccrine sweat.

There\'s also a wide variation in phero density in sweat. I selected the maximums from the study, as the minimums in some cases were zero. For example, the range on \'none was 0.1 to 2.0 nmol/microliter. So you could reduce the figures and order of magnitude and still be correct.

I assigned the axillary values of phero concentration per cm^2 to the entire surface area of the body. One could assign it to a mere 100 cm^2 or so -- but I would assume the eccrine glands on the rest of the body must make a contribution. Clearly there is a variation in the density of glands between the pits and \"normal\" skin.

It would be nice if we had a solid reference as to phero outputs. The best we have right now is references to a few pieces. I would really like to know what the typical quantity of apocrine sweat per day is, and what the actual distribution of eccrine glands is in order to compute a typical phero quantity from the study. I\'d also like to see a phero study with a richer statistical environment -- a mean value and some idea of what the standard deviation is -- for the quantity of pheros in sweat and on skin.

I did some research on this, and the best reference I found to date was James Kohl\'s most recent paper!

There is much work to be done, this is simply and educated (and error prone) guess I\'m proposing. If I\'m within an order of magnitude on the best dose, I\'ll be happy.

That said, just the raw axillary sweat ratio suggests that WAY more \'dienone should be used than \'non or \'nol.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Scientist, I\'m coming to grips with the uncertainty in the task you\'re undertaking.

I guess I would have taken the area of the just the armpits and genitals as the area of the axillary region, and assumed the concentration in other regions of the body to be small.

I think the calculation of pheros from the apocrine data is even more uncertain, because the phero concentration probably depends on the volume of sweat. If you sweat gallons, it\'s probably going to be mostly water. Just like urine -- the more you drink and piss, the more diluted the urine. In this case, it\'s obvious from the color. =).

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I guess others checks for our calculation are:

1. If these numbers are correct, should we be getting any results with our phero supplements at all?

Some people are reporting results with only a fraction of one component in human sweat.

2. If these numbers are correct, how bad would we smell?

Some people report that one spray of Edge produces an inhuman level of body odor. If we really had that much -none on our bodies, plus 4 to 5 times more -dienone, we\'d smell pretty bad, but we don\'t.

I think the ultimate question is not how much pheros are on our bodies, but the concentration in the air about two feet away from our body at the height of a typical female. If we can just have an electronic nose to give us the concentration of each component...

[**DONOTDELETE**]

An electronic nose would be nice.

I\'m with you -- that if the numbers (especially for the apocine glands) are correct, we\'d stink REAL bad.

As far as the most simplistic dosing answer I can give...

\'dienone is present in sweat (per the study) at 6.9 times the amount of \'none. So I\'d imagine using 6.9 X the \'none content one normally uses is a good starting point.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

So, thunder, is the smell of -dienone as strong as -none. If so, there\'s no way we can wear that much -dienone!

Anyway, I once calculated that based on inferred patent figures for Realm, a spray of Realm for women contains no more than 0.0033 mg -dienone. Just bumping this figure up to 0.02 mg would be a big leap from what\'s been used so far.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

It\'s nice to see you back, Scientist. Last I heard, you were having fun ODing on SOE. How did it go with the girl? Any new opinions on SOE, -nol and -rone?

[Watcher]

Ill chip in here applying SOE in the morning say 8 swipes of 2 cm each that 3/4 of an inch for those americans here. And not applying all day the breakdown effect noted by james works well. Especially when you apply under the arms.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

SOE rocks. Mission accomplished. [img]images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

Unforuntely SOE isn\'t glue. I don\'t think I\'ll be with this one much longer.

No new opinions, though I will say I\'ve been somewhat against \'none, I can see how a _slight_ amount of it might help. \'nol has always been good to me, and I think the \'rone pushed it over the top.

My plan will be to apply the new stuff and SOE.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

So, how much SOE did you converge upon, Scientist? Did you eventually leave out the \"hint\" of -none? I could have given SOE a better try if the scent didn\'t make me so self-conscious. Maybe, I should order the chem kit with my Andro 1. [img]images/icons/blush.gif[/img]). That\'s $180 investment though! I guess I\'m hoping the -dienone is all I\'ll need.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Interesting quote from the Realm patent:

Several 16-Androstene steroids, including 5.alpha.-Androst-16-en-3.alpha.-ol and, 5.alpha.-Androst-16-en-3-one, 4,16-Androstadien-3-one, 5,16-Androstadien-3.alpha.-ol, and perhaps 5.alpha.-Androstadien-3.alpha.-ol, are naturally occurring in humans and may be present on the skin. It is estimated that the naturally occurring maximum concentration of all 16-Androstene steroids on human skin is from 2 to 7 ng/cm.sup.2. During intimate contact it is estimated that a human would be exposed to no more than 700 ng of a naturally occurring steroid. Since these compounds are relatively
non-volatile, it is estimated that, even during intimate contact, a human subject would inhale no more than 0.7 pg of a naturally occurring steroid from the skin of another. The subject invention is effective because it delivers a much larger amount of the active pheromone steroids than does normal intimate
contact between individuals.

Well, if you believe the Realm patent, humans aren\'t exposed to more 700 ng (0.0007 mg) of steroids. That\'s why their perfume containing somewhere between 1-25 mug/ml Andro-1 is effective.

Hmm... Realm claims that one spray of of their product gives you one naked body\'s worth of pheromones. If 700 ng = one naked body\'s worth, then:

700 ng / spray = (0.13 ml/spray) * concentration

concentration = 5.4 mug / ml (0.0054 mg/ml)

That\'s within their patented range of 1 to 25 mug/ml. This is definitely miniscule compared to anything sold at Love Scent. This 1/10th the -none concentration of APC. We\'d need to dilute the andro-1 concentrate 200:1!

[**DONOTDELETE**]

the realm patent in interesting as it cites the 2 to 7ng figure, which is pretty close to the 5.2ng the previously cited study found. It sounds as though they believe that no more than 100cm^2 of skin is involved in \'dienone exposure/production.


If this is true, then from the previously cited study, the dose for \'none would be 70ng!

In any case, if we round the 700ng up, it becomes 0.001 mg. So .001 ml (or half a dab) would be the 10X the minimum dose. So diluting the new stuff 20:1 would get something which one dab would hit the minimum dose right on.

We\'ve got quite a range to play with!

[Nutt]

I guess its back to the old fact that no matter how many fancy calculatins we work out, the only thing that we ( as a group) can reley on is experimental feedback for the exact thing were looking to get, which is a pretty diverse and difficult to mesure thing, and is going to vary slightly from person to person even at the same dosages.

cant wait to see some results rolling in though.

( and yeah, I broke down and ordered, I can afford it so why not I guess [img]images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] )

[**DONOTDELETE**]

If Realm is right that 700 ng represents the total steroids on the human body, and we\'re applying 0.02 mg (20,000 ng) of -none to get an effect, this also supports the view that -none is the not the key ingredient. On one of Realm\'s sites, it says that -dienone and -none smell very similar, and there\'s even evidence that they share the same olfactory receptor. So, the effect of -none may be conditioned from the response with -dienone, since the olfactory system can\'t tell them apart. But since the VNO, which is much more sensitive, can detect -dienone, the working dosage for -dienone may be much lower.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well, if some of us have noticed an effect applying only 700 ng of andro-1 in 1 spray of Realm for Women, we should feel excited about trying more than twenty times that amount in just 0.02 mg of the concentrate. =).

[Tantalus747]

\"On one of Realm\'s sites, it says that -dienone and -none smell very similar, and there\'s even evidence that they share the same olfactory receptor.\"

Truth, I\'m not doubting that the evidence exists, but what is it?

I generally don\'t like how far many ideas are stretched on this board without studies backing them. But if they do share the same olfactory receptor, you\'ve got an excellent hypothesis there that would explain alot.

[Watcher]

So IF they do react to the same receptor then would they produce a different response also because of the difference in compounds could dieanone be used as a better replacement for none.
As far as ideas going places well it is best to cover everything and leave nothing out even if it goes so far as being a bit stupid or unreal.
IT weeds out false responses etc and also encourages more conversation and responses and also encourages creativity. Although some will stick to scientific evidence some of us will go in new directions in attempts to discover undiscoverd aspects etc.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

From:
http://www.erox.com/SixthSense/StoryOne.html

At first sight, it may seem odd that such similar molecules as androstenone and androstadienone would have such dramatically different effects on the female VNO. After all, their olfactory properties are quite similar, as are their electrostatic and hydrophobic binding properties. Indeed, there is evidence that both molecules interact with the same putative olfactory receptor.(13)
...
13. JE Amoore, P Pelosi and LJ Forrester, Specific anosmias to 5a-androst-16-en-3-one and w-pentadecalactone: the urinous and musky primary odors, Chem Senses Flavor 2 401-425 (1977)

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Well, if andro-1 and -none affect the same olfactory receptor, then the olfactory component of the response should be identical. In that case, there\'s no need to include -none in the mix if andro-1 is present. However, -none an\'t replace andro-1 in obtaining VNO component of the response.

One interesting thought... If it\'s true that the concentration of andro-1 in Realm for Women is only 5 mug/ml, it likely only affects the VNO and not the olfactory system, since the concentration is so low. The question is whether increasing the level, produces a larger VNO response or activates the olfactory system as well as the VNO.

[Irish]

Thanks for the interesting info. That Realm number for skin surface concentration seems to match some of the other study data, so that gives me a little confidence in their numbers.

If the 700 ng is a decent number for total naturally distributed steroids on the body, I guess I don\'t care how the steroids got on the skin anymore. I\'ll use that number as a baseline for an un-enhanced human till I find something better to use.

I\'ll ratio out the components of the total 700 ng as best I can from the data available to me...then I can start at a \'naturally produced\' total phero load and begin to ramp up the load (in the same proportional component ratios) till I bump up against an od ceiling of one or more of the components. OD could come from stink, or some overload effect on the target that reduces effectiveness.

Question: what\'s the molecular weight of -nol? Also interested in the molecular weight of -nol(3beta) and -dienol. I already have been using the following which I found earlier:

-dienone 270.42
-none 272.4
-rone 290.4

Question#2: any evidence -rone is presented on the body? Saliva? Etc.? Or did we just get lucky finding an effective internal chemical that happens to work when externally exposed to targets?

Thanks all.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Irish, I would guess that it is two more than -none (make the keto group into an alcohol, add two protons and two electrons) so that\'d be about 274 Mw. As far as finding these monsters anywhere else on the body, it would be logical to think of any part of the body that has oil around (i.e. the skin) We know that the pheros are solubile in oil, and marginally soluble in alcohol. I am guessing that the pheros will not be soluble in water with out some sort of trick (vessicles, or micelles.)

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Walter Mitty ]

[Watcher]

I use SOE at work but work is still only a small area of play i prefer the rest of the city to play with (well not to play with) but a workplace setting can be a little confining.
For those of us using in more social settings well it is fun to play with especially SOE but i have brought so much over the last four years that i have at least two more years supply of pheromones left so i dont need to order but the new stuff coming out works great as well. So if customs persists on stealing any shipments well all well and good because i have enough to keep me going plus i can buy from a local phero maker (attraction and andro 4.2) come from australia and shipment within the country is not subject to customs or anything else. I have been told its perfectly legal so it is a case of customs slight of hand and dubious activities.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

bump

[Tantalus747]

I don\'t see why a larger amount would be needed to trigger an olfactory response than a VNO response.

After all, the response we\'re looking for isn\'t a conscious one. It\'s a conditioned response to an extremely small - subconscious lvl - of olfactory stimulation.

[drchaos]

I think the hypothesis would be

1) because it\'s not clear there is such a thing as a truly \"subconscious\" olfactory response.

2) a VNO which is a separate organism might have very specialized receptors whereas the olfactory bulb has many different generalized receptors and you get combinations of signals.

a fun diversion:
------------------


In fact the neural dynamics and decoding of olfaction is really really amazing. According to the way any reasonable science would work if you had two smells each of which made a pattern of X and Y on the distribution of receptors, then it would make sense that if you put them together it would be a smell like X+Y on the receptors. But it isn\'t. You can tell it is some of X and some of Y. How does this happen? It\'s almost magic.

Color vision is the same way---the spectrum encountered by the eye does NOT identify the color. Famous studies (many years ago now) have made color patches on paints that when you put them under colored lights would make a surface painted \"green\" look exactly like what a \"brown\" or an \"orange\" painted surface under white lite would be according to the scientifically measured spectrum.

But it doesn\'t look like the way the spectrum say it does. For some reason, you will automatically \"know\" it is really still green paint viewed under a weird light.

Evolutionarily the goal is to be able to discern physical properties of the thing you\'re looking at despite changes in background illumination. How does it work?
I don\'t know it\'s magic.

--------
Anyway back to pheros. In other animals with specialized receptors it\'s a different system from general olfaction. Think of it like a Cable TV box (regular perception and lots of channels)....and then you have the BatPhone.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Take a look at this abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=108662 00&dopt=Abstract

Ultrasensitive pheromone detection by mammalian vomeronasal neurons. Leinders-Zufall T, Lane AP, Puche AC, Ma W, Novotny MV, Shipley MT, Zufall F.

The abstract says that the VNO neurons can detect concentrations of pheromones at 10^(-11) M, making them among the most sensitive chemo detectors in nature. So, if andro-1 activates the VNO, it may work at levels much lower than current dosages of -none. That\'d be great, since we wouldn\'t need to stink so much.

Also, not in the abstract, but in the paper, was the intersting finding that the VNO response saturates at about 10^(-7) M for most pheromones. In other words, the response at 10^(-5) and 10^(-3) M were found to be identical to that at 10^(-7) M. It\'d be nice if we can translate these to real world figures.

As a starting point, does anyone know the olfactory threshold for detection of most odors? I suspect it\'s significantly higher than 10^(-11) M.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Actually Truth, the range is quite large and depends on the cmpd. Some things like beta-mercapto-ethanol do not require much of a conc to detect (if you have ever smelled this stuff you will probably agree.) The other point to bring up, while not always quantitative, the human nose can detect odors better than the best instruments. In general, nature has a better way of doing everthing. Tracking dogs for instance...

If you want key words for papers on this, look up sensory science, with relation to food. Lots of stuff out there.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Walter Mitty ]