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.
 
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.

How many people have died from using it at this range you speak of (assuming the 3-6mg/kg acute and 1-4mg/kg chronic use), how many people have used DNP, how many people have lived after having used DNP, what percentage of total DNP users died at this range?
 
How many people have died from using it at this range you speak of (assuming the 3-6mg/kg acute and 1-4mg/kg chronic use), how many people have used DNP, how many people have lived after having used DNP, what percentage of total DNP users died at this range?
Safe = avoiding death?
Safe = Using without permanent and irreversible damage?
Safe = No side effects?

CBS is being silly :)
 
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.

Tell us how those studies don't apply to the AAS community. LMFAO

Regarding your comment that "no one on the board has died from DNP," so what? It proves NOTHING. No one on the board has died from AIDS that they contracted from engaging on in unprotected anal sex, either. Are you suggesting gays shouldn't use condoms? That's your argument in a nutshell. And you say it's me who looks like a fool? Look in the mirror, dude. You'll see a clown staring back at you.
 
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 agree with everything you have said regarding the subjectivity of the term "safe". But as you said, this goes both ways since deeming something to be "unsafe" is equally as subjective.
There should be no absolutes when it comes to this sort of discussion.

In order to accurately assess the risk/reward ratio of any compound it is important to illustrate the risks and benefits of the compound in full.
Then the interested reader has all the information necessary to make an informed decision.
This never happened in this thread.

You cannot accurately assess the risks of a compound by selecting a few case studies and ignoring the overall statistics regarding DNP - that is exactly what the OP did.
I have no issues with illustrating the risks of dnp, in fact I admitted that it is indeed a dangerous compound. However, the cherry picking nature of this thread made it obvious that the dangers would be overstated.
Look at the evidence as a whole and then point out the risks - don't nit pick.

You also cannot make an informed decision without talking about the benefits of dnp in terms of it being the MOST effective fat loss compound available (something everyone conveniently forgot to mention).
On average, a 100mg dose can increase metabolism by 11% - that is astonishing and nothing else will come close to it.

Illustrate the risks/benefits by looking at the evidence as a WHOLE helps the interested reader make an informed decision.
Cherry picking studies to satisfy a pre-conceived opinion helps absolutely no one. Without me & doc this thread would be totally useless from an objective reader's POV.
 
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.

How many people have died from using it at this range you speak of (assuming the 3-6mg/kg acute and 1-4mg/kg chronic use), how many people have used DNP, how many people have lived after having used DNP, what percentage of total DNP users died at this range?

You completely avoided my question. How do you learn to use DNP safely?
 
Tell us how those studies don't apply to the AAS community. LMFAO

Regarding your comment that "no one on the board has died from DNP," so what? It proves NOTHING. No one on the board has died from AIDS that they contracted from engaging on in unprotected anal sex, either. Are you suggesting gays shouldn't use condoms? That's your argument in a nutshell. And you say it's me who looks like a fool? Look in the mirror, dude. You'll see a clown staring back at you.
The studies don't apply to the AAS community because a study will prove what is found in a study. This is why repeated studies are done to see if the same results are achieved and keep variables down. Keep in mind a study is to show what a study shows. It's not to PROVE a general statement, it's to show information about what is found in that study on those people.
This is why the LABMAX/HPLC/MS is shit as well... A test only tests what is in ONE vial... A test is not to be used and then interpreted and applied to contain the same as to other vials...

A study needs to be extrapolated carefully. I.E. IN STUDY Y WE FOUND THAT X AMOUNT OF PEOPLE DIED. Ok, got it! That doesn't mean anything unless you carefully examine the information.. Some people died, look at the variables. How many variables are there that are the same? How many are different?

Define safe please. This is called defining your terms...
 
Last edited:
Again, if I cherry picked studies, there should be opposing research. Yet you can't seem to find it. That fact is very telling.
And you're an idiot. So what.
Define safe first CBS....... You are claiming it isn't SAFE, what does SAFE mean? It's gone 5 pages and you haven't defined your terms. The only thing I can see that you talk about being "safe" is avoiding death....

Yes, I am an idiot but I still love you.
 
Last edited:
Let me ask CBS one question and that will determine a lot about the intention behind this thread:

- Do you TRULY believe that the evidence you provided in your original post is an ACCURATE representation of dnp?

Please consider a few things before you answer this question:
- the overall statistics that I PROVIDED on dnp related deaths along with the doses at which it occurred vs your 2 or 3 case studies. This is known as STRONG OPPOSING research since it proves that your overstating the danger dramatically.
- the fact that you highlighted one physiologists opinion that dnp is toxic to the liver, heart, etc when the ATSDR toxicological profile says otherwise. More OPPOSING research.
- the fact that I SPECIFICALLY explained a 1950s study showing the impact vit c has on cataracts. More OPPOSING research.
- the significant amount of data doc provided.

Again I urge you take your time to consider these things before answering.
 
Let me ask CBS one question and that will determine a lot about the intention behind this thread:

- Do you TRULY believe that the evidence you provided in your original post is an ACCURATE representation of dnp?

Again I urge you take your time to consider these things before answering.
He won't answer >.>
 
Can steps be taken to reduce harm associated with DNP? Yes.

That's the question no one seems able to answer. How do you reduce harm when people have died from taking doses that are considered safe? No matter what steps you take, in the end, it all comes down to a roll of the dice. Either it kills you or it doesn't. That's what makes DNP unique among drugs.
 
Everyone is free to do as they please it's your body. Like my user name says love your body you only have one. I've ran DNP to know it is not worth the risk It will sneak up on you. In my case I got lucky I was in the hospital and was told if I had weighted one more day I wouldn't be here. All that to lose 14lb in 10 days not worth the pain I had to suffer for the next 2 weeks. Take my advice and personal experice if you want but don't come back saying
"My hands and feet hurt so bad I want to cut them off." My advice will just be to give it time as it could be permanent or get lucky and only last 2 weeks of the most horrible pain you could imagine. I would rather get my leg cut off with no pain medication than go through that pain ever again.
 
You completely avoided my question. How do you learn to use DNP safely?

Like I said to Millard, please define what YOU mean by safe as it seems we are each operating under a different definition. Safe to me: ran in a responsible manner (do your homework before jumping in head first), surviving, minimizing side effects, no significant long term permanent damage.
 
That's the question no one seems able to answer. How do you reduce harm when people have died from taking doses that are considered safe? No matter what steps you take, in the end, it all comes down to a roll of the dice. Either it kills you or it doesn't. That's what makes DNP unique among drugs.

Look at the study posted by RippedZilla. Many of the people who are dying do so bc of hyperthermia. How does one do this? Don't run it in the summer months or extremely hot climates, drink extra fluids and electrolytes to maintain hydration, minimize amount of exercise performed (no long duration sweaty intense cardio etc), monitor body temps closely and adjust dosage as necessary or come off if unable to control, if body temps get high take an ice bath, out cold damp towels on your forehead, underarms, Palma etc. If hospitalized don't hesitate to provide info to the emergency room staff (some of the deaths came about bc the doctor's had no idea what they were treating so they chased symptoms instead of formulated a plan), and some other methods.

So very few people have died from the recommended dosages it's like telling me I should be scared to go out in lightening storms bc of the chance I may get struck by lightening. Maybe I like to live in the wild side but I still go out in lightening storms, idk about anyone else though.

No one has said it wasn't unique. It very well is in more ways than one. You still haven't met a burden of proof by providing several case studies and an opinion.
 
What do you personally define as running it safely?

I don't define non-medical use of drugs in terms of being safe. I define it in terms of risk. It's a much more effective way to educate/inform without the appearance of bias.

I think we should define "safely..."

What's wrong with existing definitions as they are commonly used?

Safe = avoiding death?
Safe = Using without permanent and irreversible damage?
Safe = No side effects?

CBS is being silly :)

Define safe first CBS....... You are claiming it isn't SAFE, what does SAFE mean? It's gone 5 pages and you haven't defined your terms. The only thing I can see that you talk about being "safe" is avoiding death....
Ironically, CBS isn't the one using avoidance of death as proof of DNP safety.

Which is sillier? Citing death as proof of DNP danger? Or citing avoidance of death as proof of DNP safety?

I agree with everything you have said regarding the subjectivity of the term "safe". But as you said, this goes both ways since deeming something to be "unsafe" is equally as subjective.
There should be no absolutes when it comes to this sort of discussion.
Safe suggests absence of risk. Unsafe suggests presence of risk. Risk exists on a continuum. The degree of risk and nature of risks varies with different drugs.

Trying to defend the non-medical use of any drug as safe hasn't been a very effective strategy. That's why I prefer discussing it in terms of associated risks.
 
Like I said to Millard, please define what YOU mean by safe as it seems we are each operating under a different definition. Safe to me: ran in a responsible manner (do your homework before jumping in head first), surviving, minimizing side effects, no significant long term permanent damage.

How does one do this? Don't run it in the summer months or extremely hot climates, drink extra fluids and electrolytes to maintain hydration, minimize amount of exercise performed (no long duration sweaty intense cardio etc), monitor body temps closely and adjust dosage as necessary or come off if unable to control, if body temps get high take an ice bath, out cold damp towels on your forehead, underarms, Palma etc. If hospitalized don't hesitate to provide info to the emergency room staff (some of the deaths came about bc the doctor's had no idea what they were treating so they chased symptoms instead of formulated a plan), and some other methods.
What you've listed seems are harm reduction measures to reduce the significant risks associated with DNP. That's all good but if this is an argument for the safety of DNP, it is not very convincing...
 
Can you use DNP without dieing? Yes. Does that mean it is "safe" to use? Well that would be determined by the individual as to whether the risks outweigh the benefit. My concern would be there are too many variables involved. Is the DNP you got exactly the mg dose stated or not? That's just one variable to account for. While I am sure there are a number of people who manage to use it with success that doesn't mean it's "safe" to use imo.
 

Sponsors

Back
Top