Hi-Octane +2

[Teak]

Just curious as to what people think of this pheromone additive (Hi-Octane +2 by Michael Vie/M.C. Marble, Co.), that I noticed elsewhere on the net. It is meant to contain both -none and -nol suspended in witch hazel, although the makers do not disclose how much of each.

I found it mentioned on the PI site showing a graph of how much -none competiting products have. Doesn\'t seem to have much -none according to the makers of PI, which I guess isn\'t such a bad thing if you are a younger user. But then the makers of PI are trying to push the fact PI has high levels of -none and don\'t look at -nol and -rone levels. I guess maybe they are aiming PI at the 25+ range (although don\'t state it) since the study cited on their site as to why -none is so important and worth comparing, used men aged 25-42. Which from what I have read on this forum is probably the age range that will benefit from products with high levels of -none, where as under 25s are better off using products with lesser amounts of -none combined with -nol and -rone. As younger people tend to produce more -none naturally as it is and OD\'ing on -none can have a negative effect towards the oppposite sex.

Having said that, I think I read somewhere (probably from the makers/distributors of Hi-Octane +2, but can\'t find it now), that they aren\'t convinced by the validity of those lab reports stating the amount of -none in the competiting products. Allegedly the supporting lab reports are fake and there is no such lab with that name, or at least the lab isn\'t as independent as the makers of PI would like people to believe. I think they were trying to say their product has more -none than the lab reports suggest. But that could just be the makers of Hi-Octane +2 trying to defend their product with less -none to the general public that assume more is better. Or maybe Hi-Octane +2 is a rubbish product and they didn\'t want to admit it, I don\'t know.

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

[Bruce]

Hello,
We used to sell the stuff at Love Scent and while I wouldn\'t call it \"rubish\" it is clearly the weakest pheromone additive on the market to the point of being roughly 1 light year behind the pack. I don\'t doubt the PI evaluation at all, although I think I did when I first saw it. If you pour a considerable amount of Hi-Oct onto a piece of material and wait the very long time necessary for that witch hazel smell to completely evaporate, you will be able to detect a VERY faint smell of aNONE and while I suppose it is theoretically possible that the amount of aNOL (which you can\'t smell) is picking up the slack, I tend to doubt that, as it would require a NOL level about 10 times the anemic NONE level to get off the ground. I also had severe mixing problems on at least one occassion and found that adding Hi Oct to oily cologne caused globs of precipitant to form and drift to the bottom.
Back when I designed what is now known as the \"old\" Pheromone Additve the idea was to come up with an additive type product that really had some balls. I am just guessing based on smell, but I would say the old PA is roughly 3-5 times stronger than Hi Oct, and although old PA is more closely matched to Hi Oct in formula, the popular New PA has about 5 times the aNONE as does the old PA. If you were to do a comparative sniff test between side by side equal amounts of Hi Oct and NPA I am quite sure you will agree the difference is obvious. If you want to buy something from that company get their Beaches; also skimpy on the pheros I would guess, but smells great. Probably a woman could add some PI/W to that and have herself quite a brew. I used to wear that stuff myself and found the smell very relaxing somehow.
Cheers,
Bruce