Very Low Dose DNP; Why Has No One Tried It?

[ucimigrate]

Hi Everyone,

Although I have no intention of doing DNP, because the long-term health effects and chance that it could kill me, I do wonder about therapeutic applications.

But, my question is, why don't people dramatically reduce the dose, and still get many of the good benefits without the bad?

Here is my rationale:

The literature from the 1930's did recognize DNP for it's amazing fat loss potential. It is the only compound I know of that causes fat oxidation, while also being protein and carbohydrate/glycogen sparing. Considering that even old-fashioned cardiovascular exercise depletes protein and carbohydrate in pursuit of fat oxidation, it's clear that DNP has many benefits that others do not have.

However, if a dose of say 200 mg produces amazing results such as a pound of pure fat loss/3500 calories expended, but has the potential for over-heating, painful death, etc., and it is shown that results are linearly dose dependent, why not do a much lower dose of say 10-20 mgs a day. Yes, it only burns 175 - 350 extra calories a day? However, the negative side effects become mitigated, it can be a safer alternative to things like an ECA stack, caffeine, diet drugs, etc.

Are there any fallacies in my thoughts? Would that dose be too low to be effective, meaning that the dose dependent relationship has a minimum? etc.

Thanks

 

[mmorso]

Yeah bro against forum rules to discuss dnp...

 

[Mraesthetic12]

Yeah bro against forum rules to discuss dnp...

Where can i check the forum rules?

 

[mmorso]

Idk in all honesty.

 

[TrenQuagmire]

I'm gonna do some low dosing soon lol

 

[EasyEJL]

because you can get that same benefit by eating 175 calories less of fats or carbs a day, and have 0 health risk

 

[TrenQuagmire]

Not true man

 

[ucimigrate]

because you can get that same benefit by eating 175 calories less of fats or carbs a day, and have 0 health risk

because you can get that same benefit by eating 175 calories less of fats or carbs a day, and have 0 health risk

But that could be said about use of any supplement, anabolic, etc. Someone could simply workout harder and more diligently, eat fewer calories, and stick to a great plan on paper.

Yet, people do DNP for the same reason they do any other supplement, legal or illegal, because it accelerates results.

If we can see the research on Pubmed, some articles actually show that low doses can be healthy in some aspects, despite the fact that DNP is a poison: (I cannot post links, look at 27599210, DNP, mitochondrial uncoupling, and neuroprotection: A little dab'll do ya.
Geisler JG1, Marosi K2, Halpern J2, Mattson MP3.)

Yes, I think the substance is unhealthy. I have never done it. I do not want to do it. I would be too scared of long-term side effects that I did not know about. But, as a research question, I wonder why all the users in the 1930's didn't simply do much lower doses.

Most humans can handle one cup of coffee; but ten cups obviously would have problems. Likewise, maybe one 200mg pill of DNP is like 10 cups of coffee, 1/10th of the dose might be much more appropriate.

(Is this post allowed? If not, I'll take it down immediately. I simply have this research question)

 

[mmorso]

(Is this post allowed? If not, I'll take it down immediately. I simply have this research question)

Honestly they're sticklers about DNP talk and for good reasons as it's such a dangerous drug.

I started a thread on the subject a couple months ago without realizing that it was against forum rules and the thread got locked and I received an infraction.

 

[EasyEJL]

But that could be said about use of any supplement, anabolic, etc. Someone could simply workout harder and more diligently, eat fewer calories, and stick to a great plan on paper.

Yet, people do DNP for the same reason they do any other supplement, legal or illegal, because it accelerates results.

Very true, but also like most others, DNP is not particularly protein sparing or anabolic at the same time. Truthfully outside of products that provide caffeine for energy or provide an appetite supressant, most products used for weight loss are a total waste. Going into ketosis (real ketosis, not the 400g of protein with 200g of fats things people call ketosis) and keeping a slightly restricted calorie level do more protein sparing with fat loss than virtually any product whether supplement or research chem

It is very different in the area of anabolics + muscle growth however, as the products can provide noticeably higher protein synthesis rates. So then having some level of health risk associated can be worth it.

The neuroprotective aspect is interesting at least.

I actually just had a conversation about this in an entirely different context last night - people really are not taught the concept of ROI (return on investment) and how it applies or should apply to virtually every decision you make. And in this case, you can get the same return as a low dose DNP run with lower health risks by just skipping 2 slices of bread a day. So the ROI is pretty bad. Like I said, it's pretty bad on virtually every fat loss product out there. Even worse comically because those products cost you money, and eating less would save you money, so the ROI is really bad.

Now granted, at a certain caloric intake level it would become more questionable, and particularly moreso for a small woman perhaps. If you're a 19 year old woman who is 4'10 and trying to get down to 100lbs from 120, its a little different as dropping further calories gets you into an unhealthy total intake level. But the 180-200lb guy here can afford to drop some more calories pretty easily most of the time, while keeping in a healthy intake range

Maybe the low dose DNP would be worth it if you had alzheimers though

 

[HIT4ME]

I hesitate to get involved in this, but here goes. There are a number of reasons.

1. 200 mg of this stuff, in most men, will not create dramatic fat loss on its own. Going even less will slow the process even more.

2. The stuff is incredibly risky. At 50-100 mg, for most people, you may not even notice much fat loss at all for a while - like mentioned above, 175 calorie/day deficit may actually be more effective than this. It's a matter of achieving an "effective" dose.

3. This stuff builds up in your system over time. It has a long half life. No matter what dose you are taking, if you take it for long enough, it will cause issues. So taking low doses reduces the effectiveness such that you have to take it for a long time, which means eventually you will have all the same sides as a moderate dose, PLUS you'll have been running a worthless dose for quite a while before that.

The risk is questionable at an effective dose. Going above this dose is crazy because the margin for error is small and you die. Going below the dose is crazy because you would be better off just dieting (especially since a low dose admits you're willing to give it time) and it only poses additional risk.

 

[ucimigrate]

Thanks. As for the research literature from the 1930's, when it was done in mass by the US population under physician supervision, does say that it was protein and glycogen sparing. That is what made it interesting and unique to researchers, because they were also investigating thyroid hormones, etc., too.

If someone asks for it, I can find those articles from the 1930's that state that. However, it is entirely possible that much more modern research does point out that it is not completely protein or carbohydrate sparing.

 

[bighulksmash]

75 mgs was effective enough for me to lose 100lbs over 6 weeks

 

[bighulksmash]

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/cycle-info/288848-hulks-welcome-back.html come sub !!!

 

[ucimigrate]

This is some joke, isn't it?