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.
 
So you get side step saying what you really want to say, that which can't be proven by the way, and wash your hands of the responsibility that comes with making your claim simply by saying "My statement should be taken as a challenge to prove me wrong." And admitting you can't prove there is no safe dosage? A natural born Houdini.

Once again, with only 62 reported deaths up until 2011, out of hundreds of thousands of users, it's pretty clear your case studies are well outside the norm. It's like demonizing dairy bc part of the population is lactose intolerant.

As suspected, my comments went right over your head.

The bottom line is that neither you, nor Pimpzilla have been able to support your assertions that the risk of permanent harm/damage can be mitigated or that the risk of death can be mitigated.
 
Honestly man, I stopped taking you seriously the minute you called your OP an accurate evaluation of the risks involved with Dnp.

The fact is that your whole assertion that Dnp cannot be taken safely is based on a few, extreme case studies. Therefore it can never be considered an "accurate evaluation".

On the plus side, I'm pretty sure me & doc have provided more than enough info to help readers consider both sides of the spectrum :)
 
Honestly man, I stopped taking you seriously the minute you called your OP an accurate evaluation of the risks involved with Dnp.

The fact is that your whole assertion that Dnp cannot be taken safely is based on a few, extreme case studies. Therefore it can never be considered an "accurate evaluation".

On the plus side, I'm pretty sure me & doc have provided more than enough info to help readers consider both sides of the spectrum :)


And I stopped taking you seriously when you tried to mislead the readers by saying DNP was safer than thyroid hormone, and then back tracked with some lame excuse about a forward slash when I called you on it.

The purpose of your entire argument has been to minimize the dangers of DNP in spite of the evidence.

The only thing people on both sides will see is the fact that you and DeeDee were unable to provide any proof that the risks of cataracts and death can be mitigated.
 
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.

That certainly makes sense M but I'll add whenever people ingest a REGISTERED POISON bc "it's safe", many in the medical field would consider them both DELUSIONAL and SUICIDAL!
 
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.


Damn you went and investigated the CAUSE OF DNP mortality I MENTIONED, hyperthermia.

This type of therapeutic speculation on behalf of a non-physician is scary enough but worse yet is the fact your acknowledging these side effect DO OCCUR and you continue to opine TREATMENT is the best course rather than PREVENTION, by telling people DNP is F....ing dangerous to use.

There is NO RECOMMENDED DOSE of DNP, it's a damn poison. There are people on forums that THINK they can minimize the risk of DNP use but NO ONE in their right mind can argue DNP is worthwhile as a dietary aid AT ANY DOSE.

The stuff sucks the life out of those using it by catabolizing MUSCLE, carbs and fats and is so toxic few can "exercise while on it"!

There are so many other ways people, BB in particular can effectively lose weight, it's a wonder ANY LEGITIMATE BB would even go near this junk, let alone risk their or being "admitted to the hospital" bc of it, NUTS!

DD your a classic example of someone whom believes they are "living on the wild side" when the fact is your "living on the foolish side"!
 
Last edited:
Damn you went and investigated the CAUSE OF DNP mortality I MENTIONED, hyperthermia.

This type of therapeutic speculation on behalf of a non-physician is scary enough but worse yet is the fact your acknowledging these side effect DO OCCUR and you continue to opine TREATMENT is the best course rather than PREVENTION, by telling people DNP is F....ing dangerous to use.

There is NO RECOMMENDED DOSE of DNP, it's a damn poison. There are people on forums that THINK they can minimize the risk of DNP use but NO ONE in their right mind can argue DNP is worthwhile as a dietary aid AT ANY DOSE.

The stuff sucks the life out of those using it by catabolizing MUSCLE, carbs and fats and is so toxic few can "exercise while on it"!

There are so many other ways people, BB in particular can effectively lose weight, it's a wonder ANY LEGITIMATE BB would even go near this junk, let alone risk their or being "admitted to the hospital" bc of it, NUTS!

DD your a classic example of someone whom believes they are "living on the wild side" when the fact is your "living on the foolish side"!

And you happen to be a classic example of what happens when junior gets ahold of mommy's credit card and buys a medical license from the local walmart....

If the studies posted reference a therapeutic range of the drug then that there is proof a recommended dosage of DNP can exist.

You're welcome to support your OPINION Jim but until you do you just keep spewing unsubstantiated bullshit. It's quite entertaining bc you're "supposed" to be the educated one but oh well.
 
And I stopped taking you seriously when you tried to mislead the readers by saying DNP was safer than thyroid hormone, and then back tracked with some lame excuse about a forward slash when I called you on it.

The purpose of your entire argument has been to minimize the dangers of DNP in spite of the evidence.

The only thing people on both sides will see is the fact that you and DeeDee were unable to provide any proof that the risks of cataracts and death can be mitigated.

Risk of cataracts in women? Bc I forget if it was your own study or Ripped's that said there's only 3 suspected cases of males developing cataracts.....

The purpose of your argument is to demonize DNP in spite of the evidence so what's your point?
 
As suspected, my comments went right over your head.

The bottom line is that neither you, nor Pimpzilla have been able to support your assertions that the risk of permanent harm/damage can be mitigated or that the risk of death can be mitigated.

Maybe mine went over your head. I mean you are talking about the 62 deaths in X hundred thousand people who have used it right? That 0.062% chance of death? Excuse me while I worry about getting struck by lightening (odds 1 in 3000) bc I have a better chance of getting hit by lightening than dying from DNP. Hell, lightening has caused more deaths in a shorter amount of time than DNP. Maybe your next thread topic should be about the dangers of lightening bolts.....
 
And you happen to be a classic example of what happens when junior gets ahold of mommy's credit card and buys a medical license from the local walmart....
.

Really well at least I see patients in both an office and a hospital and have over 20 years of experience as a licensed and practicing physician, something you mislead others to believe thru a forum moniker.

Your a walking lie, but your fine with that I'm sure, dream on!
 
The purpose of your argument is to demonize DNP in spite of the evidence so what's your point?

My point is you cant support your contention that the risks of DNP can be mitigated.
Really well at least I see patients in both an office and a hospital and have over 20 years of experience as a licensed and practicing physician, something you only mislead others to believe thru a forum moniker.

Your a walking lie, but your fine with that I'm sure, dream on!

That's a good point and something DeeDee's been called out for on TID. The only reason anyone would misuse the doc title is to gain credibility they don't have.
 
Really well at least I see patients in both an office and a hospital and have over 20 years of experience as a licensed and practicing physician, something you'll only mislead others to believe thru a forum moniker.

Your a walking lie, but your fine with that I'm sure, dream on!

Mislead Jim? Do you know the definition of mislead? I've never hesitated to correct someone when they ask if I'm a doctor. May I ask if you at least waited till the licenses went on sale before making your purchase Jim? Ah, here we are, we have you helping one of your patients lol

image.jpg
 
My point is you cant support your contention that the risks of DNP can be mitigated.


That's a good point and something DeeDee's been called out for on TID. The only reason anyone would misuse the doc title is to gain credibility they don't have.

Neither can you support your contention there is no safe dose of DNP. What's your point?
 
Assuming the powder concentration is not altered

I'm not talking about getting your powder from some random UGL here.

It can be purchased from legitimate chemical suppliers with a proven track record that are governed by laws when it comes to powder contaminants, etc.

If the certification provided by the supplier doesn't satisfy someone then they can have the powder retested by a lab for purity - provided they know how to go about it in the appropriate manner.
 
Last edited:
So the single, yes 1, death attributed to 1.03mg/kg/day dose of DNP that CBS uses as evidence in his OP was a 13yo female. Yes a 13yo female. So CBS, I guess 13yo female case studies are an accurate representation of the risks associated with DNP use?
 
On a side note, it is NOT up to us to prove that the risk of permanent harm/damage can be mitigated or that the risk of death can be mitigated.
Your the one claiming that they cannot, nothing you have used as evidence so far shows that permanent harm/damage or death is inevitable.

Now you're asking me to prove a negative. You should know that's impossible. I didn't say permanent harm/damage or death is inevitable, those are your words. I posted the risks of DNP use. All I can do is report the risks. I can't prove that the risk of cataract CAN'T be mitigated, that's absurd. I can only point out the fact that there is no evidence showing it can be mitigated. You're the one saying I've overestimated the risks, and that those risks can be mitigated. And you're the one saying DNP can be used safely. That makes you the positive claimant. The onus is on you to support your assertions that the risk of permanent harm/damage can be mitigated or that the risk of death can be mitigated.

Yes, and saying there is NO safe dose should be seen as a claim of opinion because such a claim is unjustifiable. Logic and reason can only be applied to that which exists, not to that which doesn't exist. I cannot possibly prove there is no safe dosage as that would require me to be omniscient. If you don't agree with my opinion, show me the safe dosage. Don't ask me to prove something that is impossible. My statement should be taken as a challenge to prove me wrong.

Neither can you support your contention there is no safe dose of DNP. What's your point?

Logic 101
 
Millard, I am amazed that you don't see the weakness of CBS' case.

Here is what it boils down to:
- The evidence for mitigating the risk of cataracts is mixed. There is evidence of a role for antioxidants but I concede that it isn't strong enough and genetic predisposition to the condition seems to be the deciding factor.
- With that said, CBS admitted himself that the risk of cataracts is, at best, 1%. Let's not start SPECULATING about inaccurate statistics or a bunch of "maybes" or this person "suggested"- the evidence as a whole states it's 1%.

- There have been 62 total deaths documented in close to 100 years that can be attributed to dnp.
- We know for a fact that at least 100,000 people took dnp during the 30s over the 5 years it was available. 8 died. That gives you a rate of 0.008%. And again, all the comments about unreported deaths etc are pure SPECULATION - this is a debate based on evidence.

- the usual recommended dosing protocol is 2-6mg/kg, starting at the lower end of the scale and assessing side effects (body temp, etc) to adjust accordingly.
- Out of the 62 reported deaths, 5 occurred within this dosing range. That makes up 3.1% of the total cases.
- These 5 deaths include a 13 yr old female and an individual with a pre - existing liver condition that may have effected his ability to process dnp.

Now considering all of this data, in what way are the risks of dnp NOT overexaggerrated?
In what way does CBS' OP provide an accurate overall evaluation of dnp?

My definition of "safe" with regards to pharmaceuticals is NOT zero risk. It's is low or controllable risk.
Cataracts - 1%.
Death - 0.008%
The other side effects discussed related to skin problems, etc are even lower than the stats I gave.
These stats are based on the evidence we have available.

So if we assess a compound based on the degree of risk, there is no arguing with the fact that both cataracts and death are EXTREMELY low risks with Dnp.
The risk of death is even lower when taken at recommended dose, though I concede that dosing is irrelevant to the 1% cataracts risk.

Based on all of this, a rational reader cannot deny that the cherry - picked nature of the OP over exaggerates these risks.
I would go even further and say that you would have to be a complete and utter moron to believe that the OP represents an accurate evaluation of the risks for dnp.
 
Millard, I am amazed that you don't see the weakness of CBS' case.

Here is what it boils down to:
- The evidence for mitigating the risk of cataracts is mixed. There is evidence of a role for antioxidants but I concede that it isn't strong enough and genetic predisposition to the condition seems to be the deciding factor.
- With that said, CBS admitted himself that the risk of cataracts is, at best, 1%. Let's not start SPECULATING about inaccurate statistics or a bunch of "maybes" or this person "suggested"- the evidence as a whole states it's 1%.

- There have been 62 total deaths documented in close to 100 years that can be attributed to dnp.
- We know for a fact that at least 100,000 people took dnp during the 30s over the 5 years it was available. 8 died. That gives you a rate of 0.008%. And again, all the comments about unreported deaths etc are pure SPECULATION - this is a debate based on evidence.

- the usual recommended dosing protocol is 2-6mg/kg, starting at the lower end of the scale and assessing side effects (body temp, etc) to adjust accordingly.
- Out of the 62 reported deaths, 5 occurred within this dosing range. That makes up 3.1% of the total cases.
- These 5 deaths include a 13 yr old female and an individual with a pre - existing liver condition that may have effected his ability to process dnp.

Now considering all of this data, in what way are the risks of dnp NOT overexaggerrated?
In what way does CBS' OP provide an accurate overall evaluation of dnp?

My definition of "safe" with regards to pharmaceuticals is NOT zero risk. It's is low or controllable risk.
Cataracts - 1%.
Death - 0.008%
The other side effects discussed related to skin problems, etc are even lower than the stats I gave.
These stats are based on the evidence we have available.

So if we assess a compound based on the degree of risk, there is no arguing with the fact that both cataracts and death are EXTREMELY low risks with Dnp.
The risk of death is even lower when taken at recommended dose, though I concede that dosing is irrelevant to the 1% cataracts risk.

Based on all of this, a rational reader cannot deny that the cherry - picked nature of the OP over exaggerates these risks.
I would go even further and say that you would have to be a complete and utter moron to believe that the OP represents an accurate evaluation of the risks for dnp.

Well thought out summation for closing arguments lol
 
Back
Top