Well think about it this way, out of all the people who use it, the vast majority of users love it and have great results, but the horror stories aren't really that common but when people have a bad experience they report it. Same with a restaurant in a sense a hundred trips and never make a review but one bad time it's getting blasted with a one star. People don't go raving about how great a supplement is nearly as often as when it's bad
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Dnp
- Thread starter timmylaw
- Start date
If you are taking dnp or are planning to watch this. The effective dose is too close to the lethal dose. Its too dangerous and there are other ways to lose fat.
D-max
Member
What is the effective dose?
What is the lethal dose?
Thanks for sharing the video, but there was nothing new in there. Yes the ED and LD are very close so one has to be super careful when deciding how much to take. And yes that ED will vary person to person. No doubt, I agree with them on that. I don't know about the cancer stuff, there is a lot of contradictory opinions on that one. Not being an oncologist I'm in a position to evaluate none of them. No mention of PN which at this point seems like the biggest issue.
Just trying to aware everyone of the risks. Its your body you can do what you want.
I believe in a lot of what Dave says, and I think there is a better solution to burning fat and getting the same results. Just my 2 cents about the topic.
Thought the video was perfect for this topic because it came out today.
What better solution?
There is no evidence of this. The EPA does not list it as a carcinogen and indicates there is no information or evidence of cancer being caused in humans or animal models.
You didnt watch the video
I know a lot of people who take DNP, not quite 100 though
The issue is compounded by the fact that reports of PN over the last decade have been significantly higher than when it was used legally in the 30s. That makes me think something else might be going on in relation to the raw quality of the stuff BUT that is complete speculation on my part.
To answer your question, yes it is more prevalent than discussed. Especially when you consider most clueless folks focus on discussing side effects that are complete bullshit instead, which leads me to...
I watched the whole video. Beyond the 8min point Dave is talking complete and utter bullshit. That's not my opinion by the way, that's a fact.
1) DNP has been shown to REDUCE oxidative stress within the cells. So that's his whole theory on how it might cause long term problems down the drain. To quote myself:
"The recommendation to run tons of antioxidants is given my bros who know jackshit about DNP.
DNP, as with most artificial uncouplers, lowers the rate of superoxide production by mitochondria. In other words, it reduces ROS (oxidative stress) and therefore there is no need for an anti-OXIDANT. This is well established in the literature, which is why I'm saying that those bros who recommend tons of antoxidants do indeed know jackshit about the compound:
Comparison of the effect of a mitochondrial uncoupler, 2,4-dinitrophenol and adrenaline on oxygen radical production in the isolated perfused rat l... - PubMed - NCBI
"Tissue ROS level decreased and oxygen uptake increased soon after 2,4-DNP infusion"
The mitochondrial uncoupling agent 2,4-dinitrophenol improves mitochondrial function, attenuates oxidative damage, and increases white matter spari... - PubMed - NCBI
"Relative to vehicle-treated animals, pretreatment with DNP maintained mitochondrial bioenergetics and significantly decreased reactive oxygen species levels, lipid peroxidation, and protein carbonyl content following spinal cord injury."
Novel neuroprotective, neuritogenic and anti-amyloidogenic properties of 2,4-dinitrophenol: the gentle face of Janus. - PubMed - NCBI
"Some of these effects appear to be due to mild mitochondrial uncoupling and prevention of cellular oxidative stress"
2) DNP has also never been shown to be carcinogenic in humans or animals and believe me, they've looked into it a bunch of times.
Both hamster & rat models were tested with the sole aim of seeing if it induced cancer. They ended up either dying from the higher doses or getting shredded - none got cancer.
The latest EPA report shows that it is not classified as a carcinogen because there is zero human data to suggest it and the animal models used:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/2-4-dinitrophenol.pdf
I have no idea where these sudden DNP = cancer opinions have come from in recent weeks but it is certainly not supported by the evidence. It's, as usual, scare mongering bullshit from people who know next to nothing about the compound (yes, Dave included).
Last edited:
Tighten up your diet and do some cardio, blah blah blah
Gbro
New Member
All the video said was "reefer madness!"
Another thing that occurred to me about that video last night. The story about them feeling hot while capping DNP does not seem credible. I'm not saying it could not happen, I don't know because I have never tried it,
<speculation>
but since DNP is understood to build up in your system over days it would seem odd that a few hours of exposure to it would produce such a rapid reaction that then ended rapidly. If there was such a sudden reaction it would seem to follow that the amount ingested (through skin, breathing, whatever) would have been very high and that this would have caused more severe issues.
</speculation>
I have read about workers in the 1930's being exposed to it having it impact them but they worked with it day after day.
And of course the statement that it cooks you from the inside out again.
I think communities would be better served by a discussion of legitimate risks that is free from hyperbole. Otherwise, people will tend to disbelieve that there are risks when some risks are real.
<speculation>
but since DNP is understood to build up in your system over days it would seem odd that a few hours of exposure to it would produce such a rapid reaction that then ended rapidly. If there was such a sudden reaction it would seem to follow that the amount ingested (through skin, breathing, whatever) would have been very high and that this would have caused more severe issues.
</speculation>
I have read about workers in the 1930's being exposed to it having it impact them but they worked with it day after day.
And of course the statement that it cooks you from the inside out again.
I think communities would be better served by a discussion of legitimate risks that is free from hyperbole. Otherwise, people will tend to disbelieve that there are risks when some risks are real.
I know a lot of people who take DNP, not quite 100 though
The issue is compounded by the fact that reports of PN over the last decade have been significantly higher than when it was used legally in the 30s. That makes me think something else might be going on in relation to the raw quality of the stuff BUT that is complete speculation on my part.
To answer your question, yes it is more prevalent than discussed.
@MrRippedZilla
Given you have experience with DNP, and know others who do as well, you seem like a good person to ask what the actual incidence and/or risk of PN might be. I realize that given a lack of research and such you would just be offering observations, but if you're willing to do that it would be helpful and appreciated.
It does not burn ATP exactly. It interferes with the creation of new ATP, making that process less efficient. Therefore more energy (that is, fuel, that is, fat) is required to produce ATP.
I've always found Romano to be a bit of a liar... Or a big exaggerator. He's always struck me as a bit of an asshole as well.
I would put it in the 10-15% ballpark based off the data & anecdotal experience with the anecdotal edging towards the latter end of that range.
No.
DNP works by making the usual ADP>ATP conversion process a lot less efficient. This results in your body having to increase glucose uptake to produce ATP via glycolysis. All of which = more energy being used to produce the same amount of ATP.
Creatine aids ATP production via ADP. Since DNP makes the whole ADP>ATP process less efficient, I would argue that not only does creatine not help with any of this but also the usual benefits of creatine won't be seen while on DNP.
JohnnyD
Member
I guess everyone should run dnp, we’d be healthierI know a lot of people who take DNP, not quite 100 though
The issue is compounded by the fact that reports of PN over the last decade have been significantly higher than when it was used legally in the 30s. That makes me think something else might be going on in relation to the raw quality of the stuff BUT that is complete speculation on my part.
To answer your question, yes it is more prevalent than discussed. Especially when you consider most clueless folks focus on discussing side effects that are complete bullshit instead, which leads me to...
I watched the whole video. Beyond the 8min point Dave is talking complete and utter bullshit. That's not my opinion by the way, that's a fact.
1) DNP has been shown to REDUCE oxidative stress within the cells. So that's his whole theory on how it might cause long term problems down the drain. To quote myself:
"The recommendation to run tons of antioxidants is given my bros who know jackshit about DNP.
DNP, as with most artificial uncouplers, lowers the rate of superoxide production by mitochondria. In other words, it reduces ROS (oxidative stress) and therefore there is no need for an anti-OXIDANT. This is well established in the literature, which is why I'm saying that those bros who recommend tons of antoxidants do indeed know jackshit about the compound:
Comparison of the effect of a mitochondrial uncoupler, 2,4-dinitrophenol and adrenaline on oxygen radical production in the isolated perfused rat l... - PubMed - NCBI
"Tissue ROS level decreased and oxygen uptake increased soon after 2,4-DNP infusion"
The mitochondrial uncoupling agent 2,4-dinitrophenol improves mitochondrial function, attenuates oxidative damage, and increases white matter spari... - PubMed - NCBI
"Relative to vehicle-treated animals, pretreatment with DNP maintained mitochondrial bioenergetics and significantly decreased reactive oxygen species levels, lipid peroxidation, and protein carbonyl content following spinal cord injury."
Novel neuroprotective, neuritogenic and anti-amyloidogenic properties of 2,4-dinitrophenol: the gentle face of Janus. - PubMed - NCBI
"Some of these effects appear to be due to mild mitochondrial uncoupling and prevention of cellular oxidative stress"
2) DNP has also never been shown to be carcinogenic in humans or animals and believe me, they've looked into it a bunch of times.
Both hamster & rat models were tested with the sole aim of seeing if it induced cancer. They ended up either dying from the higher doses or getting shredded - none got cancer.
The latest EPA report shows that it is not classified as a carcinogen because there is zero human data to suggest it and the animal models used:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-09/documents/2-4-dinitrophenol.pdf
I have no idea where these sudden DNP = cancer opinions have come from in recent weeks but it is certainly not supported by the evidence. It's, as usual, scare mongering bullshit from people who know next to nothing about the compound (yes, Dave included).
There's a difference between it not being carcinogenic and it being healthy.
Just because chemo is used to treat cancer doesn't make it something we should take to prevent it. Rough metaphor.
I used to be very anti DNP, so I understand a lot of the sentiments that some have with being against it. With that said, I've found through a lot of research that many of the talking points about it are exaggerated or false entirely.
Thanks... a lot...
And you feel it does not correlate to dosage or cycle length?
Similar threads
