Think DNP Can Be Used Safely? Think Again

CensoredBoardsSuck

Master
10+ Year Member
It's the time of year when bodybuilders start looking for ways to shed body fat and the interest for many invariably turns to DNP. There are articles on the internet that suggest DNP can be used safely if you're smart about it. Nothing could be further from the truth. DNP is a poison that has lead to cataracts, renal failure and deaths due to hyperthermia. It has an extremely narrow therapeutic index, i.e. the dose of DNP required to induce weight loss is very close to its lethal dose. In addition, its effects are unpredictable. A dose that was well tolerated in a previous cycle might not be tolerated on the next. As the use of DNP continues to gain in popularity, the death rate will continue to climb. There is no safe dose of DNP.

The first two studies below note the dosage of DNP in which deaths have occurred. These dosages are the same dosages currently being advertised as safe and the ones most often used by bodybuilders.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, deaths have occurred in people who ingested 3--46 mg of dinitrophenols per kg of body weight per day (3-46 mg/kg/day) for short periods or 1--4 mg/kg/day for long periods.

Reports of DNP poisoning related to weight loss appear to be becoming more common. McFee et al. (13) reported the death of a 22-year-old male 16 h after his last DNP dose, estimated at 600 mg/day over four days for weight loss.



Journal of Analytical Toxicology, Vol. 30, April 2006

Case Report
Two Deaths Attributed to the Use of 2,4-Dinitrophenol
Estuardo J. Miranda 1, lain M. Mclntyre 2, Dawn R. Parker 2, Ray D. Gary 2, and Barry K. Logan TM


We report the cases of two individuals, one in Tacoma, WA, and
the second in San Diego, CA, whose deaths were attributed to
ingestion of 2,4-dinitrophenol (2,4-DNP). 2,4-DNP has historically
been used as a herbicide and fungicide. By uncoupling
mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, the drug causes a
marked increase in fat metabolism that has led to its use to aid
weight loss. Both cases reported here involved its use for this
purpose. Features common to both cases included markedly
elevated body temperature, rapid pulse and respiration, yellow
coloring of the viscera at autopsy, history of use of weight loss or
body building supplements, and presence of a yellow powder at
the decedent's residence. Because of its acidic nature, the drug is
not detected in the basic drug fraction of most analytical protocols,
but it is recovered in the acid/neutral fraction of biological extracts
and can be measured by high-performance liquid chromatography
or gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. The concentration
of 2,4-DNP in the admission blood samples of the two deaths
reported here were 36.1 and 28 rag/L, respectively. Death in both
cases was attributed to 2,4-DNP toxicity. Review of information
available on the internet suggests that, although banned,
2,4-DNP is still illicitly promoted for weight loss.
Introduction


[In the paper below, McFee et al. reported the death of a 22-year-old male 16 h after his last DNP dose, estimated at 600 mg/day over four days.]

Vet Hum Toxicol. 2004 Oct;46(5):251-4.
Dying to be thin: a dinitrophenol related fatality.
McFee RB1, Caraccio TR, McGuigan MA, Reynolds SA, Bellanger P.

Abstract
2, 4-dinitrophenol (DNP) was originally used as an explosive and later introduced in the 1930's to stimulate metabolism and promote weight loss. It's also a component of pesticides still available globally. Concerns about hyperpyrexia lead to DNP being banned as a dietary aid in 1938. A 22-y-old male presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with a change in mental status 16 h after his last dose of DNP. On admission he was diaphoretic and febrile with an oral temperature of 102 F, but lucid and cooperative. He became agitated and delirious. Intravenous midazolam was initiated with mechanical cooling. Pancuronium was administered later and the patient was intubated. Over the next hour the patient became bradycardic, then asystolic, and despite resuscitative efforts, died. Advertisements claim DNP safe at the dose our patient ingested. It is widely available and with the potential to cause severe toxicity is an understudied public health concern.



Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 48 (2007) 115–1
Dinitrophenol and obesity: An early twentieth-century regulatory dilemma
Eric Colman

Abstract

In the early 1930s, the industrial chemical dinitrophenol found widespread favor as a weight-loss drug, due principally to the work of Maurice Tainter, a clinical pharmacologist from Stanford University. Unfortunately the compound’s therapeutic index was razor thin and it was not until thousands of people suffered irreversible harm that mainstream physicians realized that dinitrophenol’s risks outweighed its benefits and abandoned its use. Yet, it took passage of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938 before federal regulators had the ability to stop patent medicine men from selling dinitrophenol to Americans lured by the promise of a drug that would safely melt one’s fat away.


Cyril MacBryde, a physiologist from Washington University School of Medicine, reported ‘‘alarming functional changes’’ indicative of liver, heart, and muscle toxicity in his obese patients treated with small doses of dinitrophenol (MacBryde and Taussig, 1935).

But some physicians continued to believe that the drug was a reasonable therapeutic option for obese patients recalcitrant to dietary intervention when used in the properdose and under the care of a knowledgeable physician. Even this position, however, became untenable when young women taking therapeutic doses of dinitrophenol under the supervision of physicians started going blind (Horner et al., 1935). If the estimate of one San Francisco ophthalmologist is accurate, during a two and a half year span, as many as 2500 Americans may have lost their sight due to what became known as ‘‘dinitrophenol cataracts’’ (Horner, 1936).



Australas J Dermatol. 2014 Nov 4. doi: 10.1111/ajd.12237. [Epub ahead of print]
Cutaneous drug toxicity from 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP): Case report and histological description.
Le P1, Wood B, Kumarasinghe SP.

Abstract
The use of 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP) has regained popularity as a weight loss aid in the last two decades due to increased marketing to bodybuilders and the increasing availability of this banned substance via the Internet. 2,4-DNP is a drug of narrow therapeutic index and toxicity results in hyperthermia, diaphoresis, tachycardia, tachypnoea and possible cardiac arrest and death. Skin toxicity from 2,4-DNP has not been reported since the 1930s. We report a case of a 21-year-old bodybuilding enthusiast who presented with a toxic exanthem after taking 2,4-DNP, and describe the first skin biopsy findings in a case of 2,4-DNP toxicity.
 
Seriously if you cant get shredded with gear and resort to dnp.. maybe you should change sport to somethin else.. I am beeing 100% serious.

Thank you for replying with your 100% serious OPINION. Now we know where you stand on the issue regardless of what the science says.
 
All he has shown is how one can cherry pick data to support their PRE-CONCEIVED biases and notions.

Cherry picking, eh? In that case there must be opposing data. I want to see your opposing evidence.

The data I posted shows DNP isn't safe. That is the best evidence available. Referring to it as "cherry picking," shows us once again that you are ignorant.
 
Cherry picking, eh? In that case there must be opposing data. I want to see your opposing evidence.

The data I posted shows DNP isn't safe. That is the best evidence available. Referring to it as "cherry picking," shows us once again that you are ignorant.

You showed a few case studies of outliers who died from typical dosing. 62 deaths I believe it is since the 1930s, many of which are long term occupational exposure deaths. Hasn't lightening killed more people than that? The best evidence you have is a couple case studies????

Mmmmmm yummy
Yummy DNP
image.jpg
 
You showed a few case studies of outliers who died from typical dosing. 62 deaths I believe it is since the 1930s, many of which are long term occupational exposure deaths. Hasn't lightening killed more people than that? The best evidence you have is a couple case studies????

Where's your opposing evidence? Oh, that's right, you don't have any. All you have is bro science. Good luck with that.
 
You're more than welcome to try again for the daily double this time.

DNP-Related Fatalities

Fatalities from the intake of DNP, whether accidental or suicidal, have been reported since the turn of the twentieth century (Table 1). To date, there have been 62 published deaths attributed to DNP (Fig. 1). The largest publication of 36 deaths due to DNP was published in 1919 [6]. This was a study into the deaths in munition factories in Paris due to occupational exposure to DNP. It highlights the improve- ments made in the factory to prevent further deaths through simple measures such as ventilation, personal protective equipment and better hygiene. This combined with changes in legislation brought the death rate down from 16.3 per 10,000 t of DNP handled/produced to 1.2 per 10,000 t.

During the 1930s, reported DNP-related fatalities were all individuals who had taken it for weight loss [46, 47, 51, 56, 57, 61, 67, 71]. After the 1930s, there have only been two fatalities in the remainder of the twentieth century [15, 68]. One related to deliberate ingestion of DNP [68] and the other was where an individual accidentally ingested a liquid he thought to be grape juice, but in fact contained derivatives of DNP [15]. This further decline in fatalities may reflect the labelling of DNP as ‘extremely dangerous and not fit for human consumption’ by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1938.

Over the last decade, from 2001 to 2010, there have been 12 deaths related to exposure to DNP. These fatalities have been linked to deliberate overdose [4, 22, 69], accidental toxicity associated with use by body- builders or for weight loss [21, 28, 72–75] and accidental occupational exposure [33].
This resurgence in reported fatalities may reflect the increased availability of DNP over the internet, marketed particularly towards body- builders.

Preceding death, the patient is often profoundly hyper- thermic and there may be associated methaemoglobinae- mia. Death is usually secondary to massive cardiovascular collapse. There have been frequent reports of a rapid (within minutes) onset of generalised rigidity after death [6, 11]. This profound muscle rigidity has also been seen to happen before death making mechanical ventilation very difficult [21]. This early onset of generalised rigidity after death has been attributed to the release of calcium from the cytosol due to the depletion of ATP [22].

Ingestion is currently the most common route of exposure to the drug leading to death. The lowest published lethal human oral dose of DNP is 4.3 mg/kg [76]; the doses reported in the published acute and suicidal fatalities range from 2.8 g to an estimated 5 g. The highest reported dose taken in acute overdose associated with survival was a woman who took 2.4 g with no complications [70].

 
I'm not a fan of drug demonization and the resulting good vs. bad, and even the safe vs. dangerous, debates. It is rarely productive because it tends to focus on making judgments for/about other people. You see it happen with all types of non-medical drug use e.g. alcohol, steroids, cocaine, marijuana, etc.

I think it's more effective to focus on evaluating the risks associating with each drug and the available harm reduction strategies and allow each individual to determine whether the cost/benefit ratio is acceptable to them. What is unacceptable for me may very well be acceptable to others.

So, let's just focus on risks associated with DNP. As far as I know, everyone agrees that the window between the effective dosage and the lethal dose (LD) is very narrow. This small window makes DNP very risky when compared to other drugs with a much wider window.

There are people who find this risk acceptable. I don't doubt that there are people who "know what they are doing" and can remain within the effective dosage range. Unfortunately, I think the majority of those people who think they know what they are doing really don't. This isn't a big issue with drugs like AAS that have no established or an impossibly high LD. But there is little room for error when you fuck up DNP dosages.

The LD is the most discussed risk associated with DNP. But something I can't emphasize enough is the additional risk associated with black market DNP. Most discussions of risk assume the 200-milligram DNP capsules actually contain 200-milligrams of DNP. In the real world, no one should be so naive to assume this. Does it really contain 200-mg? Or 100-mg? Or does it contain 300-mg?

Also, just because a drug doesn't kill you, it doesn't make it safe or healthful nor does it disprove other risks associated with the drug.
 
You showed a few case studies of outliers who died from typical dosing. 62 deaths I believe it is since the 1930s, many of which are long term occupational exposure deaths. Hasn't lightening killed more people than that? The best evidence you have is a couple case studies????

Mmmmmm yummy
Yummy DNP
View attachment 22440
Are those dintros? I heard he was changing capsule colors. I had cream color ones.
 
Good luck bro. Just be careful. His shit supposed has extra stuff to make your ride easy. But it never is. Be safe and shred the fuck um. Ohhh buy a under the tongue thermometer if you work out in the sun or in a hot climate
 
I'm not a fan of drug demonization and the resulting good vs. bad, and even the safe vs. dangerous, debates. It is rarely productive because it tends to focus on making judgments for other people. You see it happen with all types of non-medical drug use e.g. alcohol, steroids, cocaine, marijuana, etc.

I think it's more effective to focus on evaluating the risks associating with each drug and the available harm reduction strategies and allow each individual to determine whether the cost/benefit ratio is acceptable to them. What is unacceptable for me may very well be acceptable to others.

So, let's just focus on risks associated with DNP. As far as I know, everyone agrees that the window between the effective dosage and the lethal dose (LD) is very narrow. This small window makes DNP very risky when compared to other drugs with a much wider window.

There are people who find this risk acceptable. I don't doubt that there are people who "know what they are doing" and can remain within the effective dosage range. Unfortunately, I think the majority of those people who think they know what they are doing really don't. This isn't a big issue with drugs like AAS that have no established or an impossibly high LD. But there is little room for error when you fuck up DNP dosages.

The LD is the most discussed risk associated with DNP. But something I can't emphasize enough is the additional risk associated with black market DNP. Most discussions of risk assume the 200-milligram DNP capsules actually contain 200-milligrams of DNP. In the real world, no one should be so naive to assume this. Does it really contain 200-mg? Or 100-mg? Or does it contain 300-mg?

Also, just because a drug doesn't kill you, it doesn't make it safe or healthful nor does it disprove other risks associated with the drug.

Thank you for a level headed response. I can agree with most of your points.

We both agree some people know what they're doing and some don't and probably never will but how can someone ever "get in the know" so to speak when you always present the one side of the argument and not the other? How will someone learn to use it "safely" and stay within a therapeutic range when those that try to educate are misquoted and drowned out by the opposing side.

MrRippedZilla is an extremely knowledgeable and experienced person and has done his homework on this subject. He had to deal with too much BS in this thread and decided it wasn't worth it to remain in the conversation. Now those that have deemed the risk acceptable suffer bc one less intelligent poster is here to present the facts.
 
Good luck bro. Just be careful. His shit supposed has extra stuff to make your ride easy. But it never is. Be safe and shred the fuck um. Ohhh buy a under the tongue thermometer if you work out in the sun or in a hot climate

Thank you for your concern. I have looked into this for a while now and will take precautions to make sure I have a successful run.
 
The LD is the most discussed risk associated with DNP. But something I can't emphasize enough is the additional risk associated with black market DNP. Most discussions of risk assume the 200-milligram DNP capsules actually contain 200-milligrams of DNP. In the real world, no one should be so naive to assume this. Does it really contain 200-mg? Or 100-mg? Or does it contain 300-mg?

Also, just because a drug doesn't kill you, it doesn't make it safe or healthful nor does it disprove other risks associated with the drug.
This a good example of why I scrutinize the testing, Labmax and HPLC/MS.
What happens if ABC tests his DNP from X lab and it shows 200mg, next batch is made stronger(300mg) and XYZ person looks at ABC's test thinking it applies to his batch as well from X lab takes too much and dies...

Trying not to derail the thread but CBS take a look at some of the stickies:
https://thinksteroids.com/community/threads/how-to-not-fuck-up-dnp.2159/

The thing is, you need to learn more about something. Don't post studies that obviously do not apply to the AAS community. Nobody on the board has died from DNP from what I have heard. Google DNP deaths and it will result in people seemingly not educated.

You are looking like a fool CBS demonizing something you don't have any experience with. Whilst there is many first hand users on this board that can EDUCATE and bring something to the table.
Come with valid points such as Millard's. All your chit-chatting and not many points made.. Do some thinking CBS <3
 
I'm not a fan of drug demonization and the resulting good vs. bad, and even the safe vs. dangerous, debates. It is rarely productive because it tends to focus on making judgments for/about other people. You see it happen with all types of non-medical drug use e.g. alcohol, steroids, cocaine, marijuana, etc.

I think it's more effective to focus on evaluating the risks associating with each drug and the available harm reduction strategies and allow each individual to determine whether the cost/benefit ratio is acceptable to them. What is unacceptable for me may very well be acceptable to others.

I agree that people should decide for themselves whether the risk/reward ratio is worth it for any drug.

However, lets not pretend that this thread had any intention of educating readers on the risks & possible harm reduction strategies to incorporate on dnp.

It was scare mongering equivalent to the typical bro responses of "its poison bro!" or "your going to fry your insides and die man!"
Except in this case we had cherry picked studies and stupid statements about "no such thing as safe dnp use" - despite the fact that I have used it multiple times as have about a dozen other individuals I know personally along with countless other online members of various boards with success.
Not to mention the fact that the evidence taken as a WHOLE (including studies, statistics, anecdotal, etc) clearly shows that safe usage is possible and risks can be minimized.

Had it not been for me & doc providing accurate information about dnp, this thread would have been just another scare mongering piece of bullshit - studies or not - and would have done absolutely NOTHING to educate readers about dnp use.
 
Thank you for a level headed response. I can agree with most of your points.

We both agree some people know what they're doing and some don't and probably never will but how can someone ever "get in the know" so to speak when you always present the one side of the argument and not the other? How will someone learn to use it "safely" and stay within a therapeutic range when those that try to educate are misquoted and drowned out by the opposing side.

MrRippedZilla is an extremely knowledgeable and experienced person and has done his homework on this subject. He had to deal with too much BS in this thread and decided it wasn't worth it to remain in the conversation. Now those that have deemed the risk acceptable suffer bc one less intelligent poster is here to present the facts.

I think we can learn to minimize harm associated with DNP (and any other drug) by having robust and vigorous discussion about the drug.

@MrRippedZilla presented two assertions that were challenged: (1) the suggestion that DNP was safer than T3 and other weight loss drugs; and (2) that vitamin c / antioxidants could prevent DNP-induced cataracts. The challenges weren't bullshit. Opposition in debate is a good thing.

The burden of answering the original question 'can DNP be used safely?' affirmatively is quite a challenge. And no, just because bodybuilders can use it without dying doesn't mean it can be used safely. And no, just because the published fatalities associated with DNP may not be extraordinarily high does not change the low therapeutic index.

Any discussion about DNP should never ever shy away from the risks, published or not. The question of whether the risks are overstated is interesting. But again, low therapeutic index. That risk is difficult to overstate.

Can steps be taken to reduce harm associated with DNP? Yes. But the relative risk associated with its use should always be front and center.
 
Except in this case we had cherry picked studies and stupid statements about "no such thing as safe dnp use" - despite the fact that I have used it multiple times as have about a dozen other individuals I know personally along with countless other online members of various boards with success.
Not to mention the fact that the evidence taken as a WHOLE (including studies, statistics, anecdotal, etc) clearly shows that safe usage is possible and risks can be minimized.
Overstatement goes both directions. It is a bold claim to say that the non-medical use of any drug is "safe". Generally, the standard is whether it is safer than not using the drug. Can you honestly say that about DNP? Can you even say that about AAS?

Usually, it a matter of evaluating risks. The type and nature of the risk may vary. The associated risks may be inconsequential in some cases. But there is still risk.

When most people discuss safe use of AAS or other drugs, they generally mean that the risks can be minimized to an acceptable level. What is acceptable for one person may not be acceptable to another.

Another way to look at the "safety" of drugs is its relative risk when compared to other drugs. How risky / how safe is this drug when compared to other drugs?

When I discuss drug use the two things I am interested in are: (1) evaluating risk and (2) finding ways to minimize risk. I don't like wasting my time judging people who assume any given risk.
 
I think we can learn to minimize harm associated with DNP (and any other drug) by having robust and vigorous discussion about the drug.

@MrRippedZilla presented two assertions that were challenged: (1) the suggestion that DNP was safer than T3 and other weight loss drugs; and (2) that vitamin c / antioxidants could prevent DNP-induced cataracts. The challenges weren't bullshit. Opposition in debate is a good thing.

The burden of answering the original question 'can DNP be used safely?' affirmatively is quite a challenge. And no, just because bodybuilders can use it without dying doesn't mean it can be used safely. And no, just because the published fatalities associated with DNP may not be extraordinarily high does not change the low therapeutic index.

Any discussion about DNP should never ever shy away from the risks, published or not. The question of whether the risks are overstated is interesting. But again, low therapeutic index. That risk is difficult to overstate.

Can steps be taken to reduce harm associated with DNP? Yes. But the relative risk associated with its use should always be front and center.

I agree opposition in debate is a good thing but not when the "opposition" begins calling people idiots and studies posted as bullshit. It just makes for juvenile remarks.

1) RippedZilla didn't say DNP was safer than T3 just other weight loss drugs but it is more effective than T3. He reworded it to help the confusion.

2) he did post some research supporting his stance on the cataracts issue and conceded the research was mixed.

CBS began the thread by making a bold claim which has yet to be supported. He says there is no safe dose of DNP. Admitting there's a therapeutic index basically nullifies that statement does it not? Then when Jim was challenged on one of his opinion statements regarding DNP being catabolic, he went so far as to say it might prefer protein.....nothing. No supporting evidence. Just unsubstantiated claims to which he himself chastises someone else for. I'm all for robust and vigorous discussion but it's clear that anyone who attempts to post contradicting information to anything these two say, the argument devolves into a shouting match.

What do you personally define as running it safely?

I don't think people ever shy away from talking about the risks, I think people why away from talking about the benefits and risk minimization techniques for fear of being on the receiving end of the wrath of certain members. I've received numerous messages from people asking for more info in private but they won't make a thread about it bc they're uncomfortable.
 
We both agree some people know what they're doing and some don't and probably never will but how can someone ever "get in the know" so to speak when you always present the one side of the argument and not the other? How will someone learn to use it "safely" and stay within a therapeutic range when those that try to educate are misquoted and drowned out by the opposing side.

How do you "learn to use DNP safely?" Stay within a certain dosage range? There have been fatalities at that range. Minimizing the risks amounts to taking DNP and then hoping it doesn't kill you. It's a roll of the dice. That's it.
 
It was scare mongering equivalent to the typical bro responses of "its poison bro!" or "your going to fry your insides and die man!"

I presented accurate information. The fact that you don't like it is irrelevant and certainly doesn't amount to a refutation.

You claimed that DNP is "safer/more effective" than thyroid hormone, and then back tracked, saying you didn't mean 'safer'.

You claimed that the risk of cataracts was 0.1%, and then when you were shown evidence to the contrary, you conceded that it was actually closer to 1%.

You claimed the risk of cataracts can be easily mitigated by taking your vitamins, and were unable to support that statement.

That's three claims in one thread and you were unable to support a single one.

Except in this case we had cherry picked studies and stupid statements about "no such thing as safe dnp use" - despite the fact that I have used it multiple times as have about a dozen other individuals I know personally along with countless other online members of various boards with success.

As I said to DeeDee, if I "cherry picked" studies, there must be opposing research. I want to see it. I want to see studies that tell us what the safe dose is.

Your personal experience proves nothing other than you know how to use bro science.

Not to mention the fact that the evidence taken as a WHOLE (including studies, statistics, anecdotal, etc) clearly shows that safe usage is possible and risks can be minimized.

Cite your evidence.

Had it not been for me & doc providing accurate information about dnp, this thread would have been just another scare mongering piece of bullshit - studies or not - and would have done absolutely NOTHING to educate readers about dnp use.

You and DeeDee provided bro lore. You've posted NOTHING that shows DNP can be used safely.
 
Back
Top