Human pheromone-enhanced products increase your natural appeal.  In this regard, they are somewhat like cosmetic products designed to enhance your visual appeal. However, the enhancement they provide is at an unconscious level; it’s not something that most people ever think about.  Marketing claims that guarantee you will get more sex are unscientific and unrealistic. If you are unappealing, human pheromones cannot magically make you appealing. Human pheromones can help because nearly everyone is somewhat appealing, and human pheromones enhance that natural appeal.

Need more information? Get in touch via our contact page.

Sniffing out the truth (New Scientist Opinion)

My colleague, Richard L. Doty provides a synopsis of his book “The Great Pheromone Myth.”  Does anyone else think that mammalian pheromones are a “myth”? Comments may still be open.

Knowing the truth when we see it (comment #20)

Minimally, using Doty’s logic, we must wait until someone details which combination of visual cues affects what part of the brain that links the stimuli to the elicited behavior. If not, how can we say we are visually attracted to the visually appealing physical features of other people when we don’t know what features elicit our response or how they elicit any endocrine or behavioral response?

Dr. Doty has responded to my comments and implied that I have an undeclared conflict of interest because I have developed pheromone-enhanced products for sale. Claiming a conflict of interest is a common tactical maneuver that is used to cast doubt on dissenting opinions, and it should work in many cases.  Commercial ventures are for profit, when scientific research typically is not. However, Dr. Doty neglected to mention his involvement in the commercial development and marketing of smell tests, where his research and academic status can provide some additional income. Unfortunately, he has planted his  his financial feet firmly in the science of conscious odor perception.  This appears to present a conflict of interest when he discusses my area of research, publications, and expertise: the pheromones he says don’t exist. In contrast, a recent publication from the Sense of Smell Institute presents what may be a less biased view of what is currently known about mammalian pheromones, including human pheromones.

“In non-human mammals both primer and releaser pheromones have been discovered and identified…” The full text is available on line. Human Pheromones: What’s Purported, What’s Supported

This article begs the question of whose commercial interests,  if any,  are most likely to be behind the claim that mammalian pheromones are mythical.  The answer to the question is research based.

Some scientists tend to confuse co-existence with cause and effect. It is important to know the difference when discussing brain activation. These three articles help to illustrate the difference.

Cause and effect: The evolved neurophysiological mechanism that allows olfactory/pheromonal input from the social environment of all mammals to activate the brain and cause changes in behavior is detailed in an award-winning journal article that was concurrently  published as a book chapter.  See: The Mind’s Eyes: Human Pheromones, Neuroscience, and Male Sexual Preferences.

This article provides information about a cause and effect pathway that connects olfactory/pheromonal input (i.e., androstenol) to hormonal changes in the brain.  Savic, I. and H. Berglund (2010). “Androstenol – a Steroid Derived Odor Activates the Hypothalamus in Women.” PLoS ONE 5(2): e865

Co-existence: If there is a mechanism that allows visual input from the human social environment to cause changes in behavior, the mechanism is not known to known to exist in other mammals, or in any species.

An unknown mechanism – if it exists — might somehow link visual input to brain activation.   Platek, S. M. and D. Singh (2010). “Optimal Waist-to-Hip Ratios in Women Activate Neural Reward Centers in Men.” PLoS ONE 5(2): e9042.  If brain activation occurs via this unknown mechanism, it might also be associated with the development of men’s preferences for the visual appeal of a woman’s waist-to-hip ratio (WHR).  However, this is a very speculative approach with no support from any animal model.

Besides, the visual link to brain activation associated with development of WHR preferences is not required. Karremans, J. C., E. F. Willem, Willem E., et al. (2010). “Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio.” Evolution and Human Behavior (in press).

To conclude that a preference for any sexually dimorphic secondary sex characteristic is based on its visual appeal jettisons at least 400 million years of human evolution. Suddenly we favor a consciously perceived signal of fertility/fecundity that requires the visual input. But visual input is not required for the development of the WHR preference in congenitally blind men, or for the development of sexual preferences in any other species of mammal.

Rice, Zhang et al. 2010 links dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) to adipose tissue distribution in men. Hormones also determine adipose tissue distribution in women, which allows us to visually differentiate women from men. However, appearance does not directly influence the hormonal changes that are required to link visual input to behavior. Natural body odor does directly effect the hormonal changes that are required to link, via association, olfactory/pheromonal input and appearance to a man’s behavior. This form of non-verbal communication requires no conscious perception, and has been with us since the evolutionary dawn of sexual reproduction (e.g., with yeast).

Rice et al (2010) address the role that DHEA appears to play in the determination of visceral and subcutaneous fat distribution, which is associated with weight distribution and the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR). So far as I know, no one else has offered an explanation for the evolved development of WHR preferences.  (Evolved development requires an animal model for its basis, and other animals respond to olfactory/pheromonal input, which is responsible for the development of their preferences for the physical features of other animals.)

Metabolites of DHEA that are associated with the WHR might convey the olfactory/pheromonal information that elicits hormonal changes associated with visual input and the WHR during the development of WHR preferences. My co-authors and I proposed this explanation in Kohl et al (2001):

“We would be remiss if we failed to address yet another aspect of what is most commonly believed to be visually perceived physical attraction: the waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) Sex steroid hormones control regional fat distribution [104], which interacts with reproductive control mechanisms. For example, fat tissue converts androgens to estrogens [105]. Circulating E levels appear to lower WHR, while circulating T levels appear to increase WHR, which is believed to signal reproductive fitness in women, and perhaps in men [106]. In addition, high levels of LH and FSH as well as estradiol levels are linked to lower WHR and to the earlier pubertal endocrine activity of females. However, the conscious or unconscious mechanisms linked to the perception of WHR and its link to physical attractiveness, have not been detailed. Presumably, these mechanisms exist cross-culturally, but they have defied explanation. The conditioning of visually perceived physically attractive WHR by association with steroid hormone-dependent chemical cues (e.g., human pheromones) seems to be a very likely explanation for the increased desirability of men and women whose weight and height are proportionate.”

Now that Karremans et al (2010) have shown that visual input is not required for the development of the WHR preference, it appears even more appropriate to adopt an animal model for its evolved development. That model is the olfactory/pheromonal model I have detailed since my first presentation in 1992.

I have elsewhere attempted to partially detail the involvement of DHEA metabolism in the production of species-specific human pheromones, but these details remain speculative.  Nevertheless, I don’t consider these details to be quite as speculative as the comments of others who state that the WHR preference is a manifestation of culture, because other animals don’t need culture to develop preferences for physical characteristics associated with olfactory/pheromonal input and reproductive fitness.

Citations:

Rice, S. P. L., L. Zhang, et al. (2010). “Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) treatment in vitro inhibits adipogenesis in human omental but not subcutaneous adipose tissue.” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology In Press, Accepted Manuscript.

Karremans, J. C., W. E. Frankenhuis, et al. (2010). “Blind men prefer a low waist-to-hip ratio.” Evolution and Human Behavior. In Press, Accepted Manuscript.

Kohl, J. V., M. Atzmueller, et al. (2001). “Human pheromones: integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.” Neuro Endocrinol Lett. 22(5): 309-21.

Tobin, Hashimoto et al., (2010) states with unusual clarity: “We are not suggesting that social recognition in humans depends on olfactory signals… and in humans olfactory recognition probably has only a small role.”

If no one with olfactory deficits ever had a problem either with bonding or with social recognition, this might be true. However, the well-detailed link between olfactory/pheromonal stimuli from the social environment and its ability to condition hormone responses associated with behavior, suggests that the neurophysiological mechanism that links the sense of smell and vasopressin is very similar across species of mammals. Therefore, we might do well to reconsider reports associating oxytocin and vasopressin with bonding, monogamy, polygamy et al., and get our sense of smell tested, even if the testing personnel seem to treat us like animals.

What are you calling pure conjecture?

1. “The articles in this issue summarize the factors surrounding sex differences with respect to ontogeny, phenotype, and hormone-sensitive actions. They follow a sequence that begins with genetic sex differences and carries through to cell, tissue, organ and, finally, systemic effects…  — Naftollin, 1981

Obviously, the ontogenetic pathway to sex differences across phylogeny is gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system. (That’s an animal model.)

2. “The interaction between sensory input and hormonal levels appears to be a general rule in endocrine relationships underlying behavior.” –LeMagnen 1982.

Obviously, the sensory link from the social environment to hormones and sex differences in behavior is the gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway. (That’s a summary of the data that fits the animal model).

By telling us that what’s obvious about this animal model is pure conjecture, you reveal that something has gone horribly wrong in the acquisition of information that led you to theorize (i.e., in other discussions on this topic)  that culture has anything whatsoever to do with the development of human preferences for visually perceived physical features. I don’t know what the problem could be, and you don’t seem to consider it a problem. I don’t think there’s any point to continuing to try and reach you with a model in your world of theory. On the other hand, I don’t think I should let you make unsubstantiated statements (above) like those that you continue to make.

Minimally, I acknowledge your evolutionary theory (ies), no matter how ridiculous they seem. I don’t know why you refuse to acknowledge biological facts — unless you simply cannot understand the difference between theories and facts.

Focus on visual perception of sexually dimorphic cues conceals the true meaning of non-verbal communication via olfactory/pheromonal cues, which do not require any interpretation. The WHR preference and other preferences associated with visual input are wrongfully interpreted as meaningful (e.g., by evolutionary psychologists), despite their lack of meaning across phylogeny. Moving forward with this obfuscation, others are now proposing that additional consideration be given for more aspects of WHR-associated visual input.

The Role of Human Body Movements in Mate Selection “… men’s preference for a woman’s slim waistline (as indexed via the waist-to-hip ratio, WHR; Singh, 2002, 2006) was demonstrated only with still images. However, bodies in motion are dynamic sources of information, and this may have an effect also on the perception of cues such as the WHR. Doyle (2009) reported a peak shift effect in the attractiveness perception of WHR when women were moving. He argues that while walking, motion of the waist and hips results in continuously alternate left and right side WHR that are perceived as highly attractive. Modeling this in a female model with a WHR of 0.70 results in left and right side WHRs that are even smaller than 0.70, which are then perceived as “supernormal” (Doyle, 2009).”

From an evolutionary perspective, all measures of visual appeal obfuscate the only real measure of physical appeal across species: olfactory/pheromonal cues of reproductive fitness. Meanwhile, I suspect that plans are being made to detail how movement may be involved in the meaningful interpretation of the distance at the waist from the front of the body to the back, in relation to the circumference of the waist (then compared to an estimation of bust size) — a more complicated measurement than WHR.

The article linked above includes information on hormonal correlates of body movement, which can be directly linked to olfactory/pheromonal cues. Nevertheless, the authors posit that “…it is possible, that evolution has shaped our brain in order to process body movement cues of other individuals in the context of mate selection, similar to evolved preferences for static morphological features of the face and body.” Arguably, however, “…body movement signals information that is crucial for mate choice, as people are sensitive to the variation in movement styles and make attractiveness judgments based on them…” Does the fact that people are sensitive to body movement indicate that evolution has shaped our brain to process movements in the context of mate selection, or do we merely think that we need to process these cues all the while our mate selection is based on olfactory/pheromonal cues of reproductive fitness, like in other animals?

Miller and Maner (2009) helps to establish the link from human pheromones to behavior. It shows that human pheromones elicit changes in hormone levels. There’s a well detailed pathway to changes in testosterone (T) that starts with gene activation in hormone-secreting cells of hypothalamic tissue in the brain, which is the organ that controls our behavior. What this means is that human pheromones are chemicals found in our social environment that directly activate a gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway, which directly links pheromones to behavior.

Scent of a Woman (from Psychological Science)
by Saul L. Miller and Jon K. Maner
“The current research provides evidence that ovulatory cues are detectable via chemosensory signaling and, moreover, that these cues are linked with functionally relevant endocrinological responses in men.”

Click here for Free Full Text

Berliner, David L; Jennings‑White, Clive L., Adams, Nathan W. (1996) Pregnane steroids as neurochemical initiators of change in human hypothalamic function and related pharmaceutical compositions and methods. United States Patent # 5,563,13

The above patent appears to have incorporated the false concept that human pheromones act via the human vomeronasal organ (VNO), which has been shown to be non-functional. Nevertheless, this group (see below) might have been the first to show effects of a progesteronic (luteal phase) pheromone on testosterone levels in men.

Berliner, D.L., Monti‑Bloch, L., Jennings‑White, C., & Diaz‑Sanchez, V. (1996) Functionality of the human vomeronasal organ (VNO): Evidence for steroid receptors. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 58, 3, 259‑265.