Why do people advocate high fruit with DNP?

[canucklifter]

I've heard well known industry experts (S2H) cite 'DNP doesn't work without carbs', leading to a recommendation that you eat lots of fruit with DNP (trying to preferentially fill the liver with glycogen via fructose vs. slamming it into cells indiscriminately with glucose).

I don't really understand why this would make sense, or why 'carbohydrates are required for DNP to work'.

- DNP uncouples oxidative phospholyration, making the krebs cycle 'work harder' and waste some of it's generated energy as heat.
- The krebs cycle can be powered by glucose, or fat indirectly via gluconeogenesis. But glucose will be used preferentially, since it doesn't require gluconeogenesis to convert it into usable substrate.

So... if you eat carbs, you have more free glucose. So the krebs cycle uses that for energy. Cool.

But if you don't eat carbs, your body still needs energy. It has nowhere to go but fat to generate substrates for the krebs cycle.

So... wouldn't you burn MORE fat not eating carbohydrates?

More 'anecdotally' - if you don't eat carbs on DNP but maintain your activity levels, your energy needs aren't going to change drastically. Your BMR might get a bit suppressed (if you're not using T3), your NEAT might go down, but you still need pretty much the same energy to live. Since people aren't dropping dead by default when using DNP and just eating fat, it kind of disproves that carbs are needed for it to work. Your body can survive just fine (within reason) on it's body fat stores.

I was trying to find out if some part of the krebs cycle required a compound that could only be derived from carbs. Couldn't find one, because fat can be converted to glucose.

Then I thought... OK, maybe glucose is a more efficient way of providing some substrate, so that per unit of time more fat can be burned. For example if I need spaghetti and pasta sauce to make dinner, and I've got a shit ton of spaghetti (body fat) sitting around but no pasta sauce... if I can get more pasta sauce by either converting spaghetti to sauce (which is slow and expensive), or someone just gives me sauce, I can make dinner a lot faster if someone just gives me sauce. But with DNP it doesn't look like there's a way to just get 'sauce' (sauce being some carb derivative), I can only get sauce and spaghetti at the same time. So if my goal is to get rid of all the spaghetti I have sitting around, I kind of just need to (slowly) convert some of it to sauce.

Any biochemists around that can comment?

 

[Marcus]

Can anyone pm me a source that ships international? Thanks

You're going to get scammed like this. Don't answer any PMs. There is a source in the underground who sells DNP raw I believe... spend some time looking there and stop just asking for a source

 

[canucklifter]

W
Interesting hypothesis that high E2 would cause stronger sides on DNP, but I don't see that happens if you use the atp/adp conversion as your pillar DNP effect ... I'm sure someone has a more educated view on it than me though

Not with regards to ATP production - I don't know of any pathways E2 would interfere there. But holding 10lb extra water from E2, then throwin on 5-10lb extra water from DNP would just be a lot for the body to deal with.

I know the water retention from E2 tires me out and makes me sweat more. So that's what I was getting at with 'making sides worse'

It's definitely possible my stuff is somewhat underdosed (or, of course, yours is a bit overdosed). No way to know if your 600 = my 600.

Was just trying to think if there was some interaction between E2/water retention and DNP, or high Tren and DNP, since we have such different reactions. Might just be different dosing in our stuff, or might just be different metabolisms. The lethal dose range for DNP goes from as low as 400mg to as high as 3g, so there's certainly a shit ton of range there.

(DO NOT TRY 3G DNP ANYONE READING THIS, FK...)

 

[Docd187123]

the easiest way to explain this is: the body uses carbs easier than fats therefore you have a higher metabolism when your kerbs cycle is triggered by glucose rather than by lipids. If you are keto, lets say you will burn 500 kcal and all of them will come from fat, but with carbs you will burn lets say 850. 500 from carbs and 350 from fats. Your body can metabolize carbs faster than fats and that makes you burn more calories therefore lose more fat. The source of energy that the body is using (glucose or fats) does not mean you are burning more or less fat because restoring glycogen storage also burns more calories and has an impact on the resting metabolic rate.

One's metabolism is not faster on carbs than fats. Your example makes absolutely no sense.