Interesting review article (including more questions for Mr. Kohl!)

[xvs]

According to this very long and very informative article http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm androstenone causes women to have NEGATIVE REACTIONS to men, while androstenol causes positive reactions.

This is as I\'ve observed recently.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: xvs ]

[ April 03, 2002: Message edited by: xvs ]

[jvkohl]

xvs,
Thanks for the comments. How did you happen to find this article?

others: the PDF (downloadable) version is
easier to read than the immediately viewable
version.

The author (with help from friends in Vienna):

[**DONOTDELETE**]

The only problem with the PDF file is that it appears to be password-protected. [img]images/icons/crazy.gif[/img]

[xvs]

Third hit on google when searching for androstadienol!

Hey, what\'s your opinion on the enantiomer question?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

I dunno if JVK has followed that post, but essentially you can make a mirror image (enantiomer) of the \"andro1.\" There has been a little discussion about which is the correct stuff. There is also a link to a site that has a brief discussion about the two compounds.

But, I mentioned in one post that the molecule on the right (the (+) optical rotation one) in the link that was posted was probably the active one. I am confident in this because of the origin of all of these molecules is cholesterol. While is is an interesting question to ponder, biology doesn\'t work like that. All of the sugars we digest are the \"D\" form, and all the amino acids (except in some strange lactic acid bacteria bacterocins) that we use are the \"L\" form.

But, JVK, if you do have any insight on this, I love to hear more.

[xvs]

Also, I\'m curious as to why you don\'t mention -rone in your article, and what you think the effects of -rone are?

Thanks again

[drchaos]

\"negative\" responses of androstenone

JVK, you review the experiments showing negative responses of androstenone. In the previous section of the paper you emphasized the conditioning via simultaneous presentation of olfactory(or VNO) signals with other visual cues etc.

I am concerned that the results of those studies that show negative female responses to androstenone are done in situations without actual male humans around, just pictures of them.

Because teh correlation with the other cues saying \"guy over here\" is absent might the response be completely different than in the natural state?

Evolutionarily might the odor of androstenone (being a persistent hormone) *without* an actual specific known male around logically induce a negative response? That is, it would be a signal \"some strange guy has been around here\" meaning that it could be a man from a rival tribe, and hence represent danger. Until it was correlated with a \"known friendly\" man in person then the odor of man should in fact be regarded negatively.

Or perhaps the reason for negative response to odor is on account of other dangerous male mammalian predators, lions or wolves. A woman, especially one pregnant or with young children would be vulnerable to predation unless she felt \"safe\" cued the natural combination of androstenone and androstenol from friendly men around.

[Whitehall]

Dr. Chaos,

In support of your \"unknown, unseen man\" speculation, woman prefer face-to-face encounters with men while men stand \"shoulder-to-shoulder.\"

Hence, a male pheromone signature with no actual man within sight would trigger anxiety like a non-face-to-face encounter only worst.

[xvs]

I notice that in this usenet posting from 1995 Mr. Kohl mentions that at least one of the Athena substances contains DHEA sulfate.

Do you happen to know if this is the case, and if so whether it\'s the 10X or the 10:13? I am curious and would like to try it if so.

[ March 29, 2002: Message edited by: xvs ]

[jvkohl]

I\'ll try to answer questions in the next day or two. Very busy now, sorry.

[jvkohl]

Last I checked the PDF wasn\'t password protected. Anyone else have this problem? If necessary, I can send the PDF directly via email (it\'s much easier to read than the online version).

Hadn\'t followed the enantiomer discussion, but did see that it seemed to be appropriately resolved by those with more knowledge of chemistry than I have (Phil Stone is probably the best).

At the time the article was written, I was still unsure about going public with androsterone news/data--although I did include mention of it in an April 2001 presentation to Association for Chemical Senses. Also, was waiting to see what Phil might have to say about it, since he already had product available. You may want to look at my Forum posts in January, when SoE first became available. I commented on what the effects were in my experiments, and what we could expect (relaxation, pleasant response to the associated clean/musky consciously perceived odor). Of course I also said I would write up a fact filled post on androsterone: sex differences; sexual orientation differences. Sorry about the delay. I started a new lab job in January and it still is keeping me busy. No time for any detailed writings; that\'s why I\'m trying to keep up with the Forum (but sometimes have trouble even with that).

Dr. Chaos has a good perspective on the androstenone studies. Hard to say what type of effect one could expect in the absence of a male. As most of you know, context is everything when it comes to pheromones. The issue of \"conditioning\" is paramount, and you never know how any other person has been conditioned to respond to consciously perceived odors. So, when androstenone concentrations reach perceptible levels, it\'s much more likely to be a negative signal (urinous) compared to androsterone (musky). Still, you can look back through the posts and see that some people perceive androsterone to be urinous. Fortunately they are few, compared to those who can better appreciate this chemical for what it is: an indicator of reproductive fitness--immediate response from the adrenal glands, no waiting for someone to assess overall levels of androgen. That\'s probably why most guys say that women are more talkative/friendly when SoE is worn. Maybe it won\'t lead to sex unless further assessment of the \"smell\" of testosterone (e.g., androstenone) can be acheived. So, either count on the breakdown of androstenol to androstenone in SoE, or as an unadvised alternative: add a little androstenone to the SoE mix--as several people have done to get more positive \"sexual\" results. Talk is cheap when you\'re looking for sex, right guys?

Cutler\'s DHEA comment was before 10X was available. I think I also mentioned that she said a product (like 10X) wouldn\'t work for men--but then promptly introduced it to the market with wild claims, as a pricey male alternative to 10:13. This should give you an idea of her credibility (0 as far as I\'m concerned). I wouldn\'t waste my time or money on her products--as many have stated in this forum.

Hope that answers everyone\'s questions and deals with comments appropriately. If not, I\'ll check back soon.

[xvs]

Thanks for your reply!

Here\'s another article which seems interesting. It\'s a rather exhaustive review of the case for the human vomeronasal organ\'s existence, and it includes a long analysis and critique of Erox\'s studies which claim that only adrostadienone and estratetraenol are human pheromones because of the potentials they supposedly evoke in the VNO.

What do you think of this, and have you experimented with other possible pheromones besides the ones everyone talks about?

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Dear JVK,

I do have the password problem too. how should I go about solving it?

[xvs]

Just read the HTML version online at http://www.nel.edu/22_5/NEL220501R01_Review.htm and don\'t worry about the PDF. They\'re the same.

[jvkohl]

xvs,
Michael Meredith is one of the most well-respected researchers who has studied chemical communication. The article you linked to is basically a 1997 conference symposium follow-up. I attended the conference where the first symposium on human pheromones was presented: individual articles were published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 855. Michael has remained skeptical of the human VNO work, and rightfully so. Like Cutler\'s work, it cannot be replicated. Unlike Cutler\'s work, however, at least Berliner\'s group isn\'t hiding anything, which explains why Michael gives them the credit he does.

Overall, however, the issues I deal with do not depend on the human VNO or its likely function. As long as the luteinizing hormone (LH) response has been demonstrated (it has by McClintock women-women; and Preti, men-women) it is clear that human pheromones elicit changes in hormones--the basis for their link to changes in behavior. I\'m sure it was another of Michael Meredith\'s publications that mentions that this LH response is a common feature of mammalian chemical communication between opposite sex conspecifics.

I have not been able to determine whether androsterone elicits change in LH, but I have little doubt that it does. I have been able to determine that it has effects on women\'s behavior--as confirmed in discussions on this Forum. Don\'t know whether Phil Stone will explore the LH connection, or if perhaps Martha McClintock or one of her post-docs might do so. In any case, I made the case for androsterone public at the Association for Chemoreception Sciences confernce last April (2001). My conference abstract is among those published in Chemical Senses, and I gave androsterone samples to Martha, Davi Hayreh, and Denise Chen among others. I\'m anxious to see whether the LH response is evident, but not too concerned about when this happens. For example, Preti and Wysocki first attempted to find an LH response in women to men\'s axillary secretions in 1990, but it took them till 2001 to find and present it. Sometimes, anecdotal evidence for the effectiveness of human pheromones is more telling than scientific data.

Since I haven\'t been able to do the follow-up on androsterone, I have been unwilling to take on any other chemical studies. I think that the works of others on androstenone and androstenol are sufficient, albeit somewhat confusing.