horizons
Well-known member
Wasn't sure to maybe post this in advanced discussion but this is a kind of interesting article by Andrew Roberts (no idea who that is)
Methamphetamine is a chemical that has both psychotropic and physiological effects in the human body, including elevated heart rate, diuresis, appetite reduction, increased perspiration and tolerance to pain, and a general feeling of focus and well-being at low doses that can easily turn into paranoia and anxiety at higher doses. Generally, methamphetamine is taken orally, snorted, or inhaled (smoked), and because it is relatively inexpensive compared to cocaine, it is often the drug of choice for younger adults and those of a lower economic status. As a result of these factors, combined with withdrawal symptoms, methamphetamine use is often a lifelong affair, which can end in death for some users.
Currently there is a meth-like substance being used in numerous pre-workout supplements. It’s got all of these effects, and companies are putting it in your preworkout formulas under a variety of contrived chemical names, which serve only to confuse the average consumer who might read the label of a supplement bottle and not understand that people have died from putting this stuff into their body: 3,7-Dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-IH-purine2,6-dione .
This is totally what the molecule looks like
This drug has two amide groups of nitrogen and carbon atoms, that are double bonded to each other so that both of these nitrogen atoms are essentially planar in a fused ring system. Both drugs are effectively water and lipid soluble, and able to cross the blood/brain barrier to cause a rapid increase in circulating norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin – but frighteningly, while methamphetamine clocks in at a 79% oral bioavailability, this stuff is almost completely bioavailable, at a whopping 99%! So while this drug is clearly a meth-like compound, with regards to effects and pharmacokinetics, it’s actually a bit more potent in terms of bioavailability.
The long and confusing chemical name plus the chemistry (which few are going to understand without a lot of Googling) aren’t as important as the fact that this stuff – trust me – is very similar to methamphetamine, in the ways I’ve already described and more.
There’s just one problem: 3,7-Dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-IH-purine2,6-dione is caffeine. The stuff in coffee.
The stuff in soda. The stuff that I could literally give you another fifty pages worth of ways that it’s similar to meth or amphetamine, or both. It’s one of the safest chemicals (it’s a drug, by the way) that we have on the market today. But still, people have died from it, and we could make a helluva case for it being very similar to meth. In fact, without addressing the merits of any of these particular supplements, we could make a very persuasive argument that DMAA, ephedrine, dendrobium, or any stimulant at all is similar to meth. Any. Stimulant. At. All.
Even caffeine.
Meanwhile, none of the afforementioned stimulants are “close enough” to being an amphetamine that they’ll actually produce the same metabolites and trigger a positive result on a drug test. Special tests have been made for them and their metabolites by sporting agencies to allow for their detection. So how similar are they, really? How similar is caffeine?
The evidence proffered by sporting agencies is a post-facto discovery then ban of a stimulant, followed by a failed drug test by some hapless athlete, and now they’re telling us that the stuff must be bad, because it’s banned. It’s banned because it’s bad and it’s bad because it’s banned, says WADA. Oh…and by the way, they’re the ones who banned it. Then, WADA (who hires ex-DEA agents now, because they want desperately to be a legitimate law-making agency, not a for-hire private business, which is exactly what they are), eventually gets the stuff made illegal. To put this in perspective, more women have died from using tampons (toxic shock syndrome) than ephedrine + DMAA. Look it up.
And I’m no fan of Jared Wheat, but if they’re going to say his supplements contain an amphetamine-ish compound and mention his criminal record, shouldn’t they also mention that the head of WADA was forced to retract statements when it was found that he completely fabricated statistics? Or maybe they should mention that the judge who presided over Wheat’s case is now in prison because he got caught buying cocaine from a hooker? I’m just saying, if we want to put the information out there, we need to do it on all sides.
To make their case, we’ve seen journalists (and even scientists, who should know better) playing word games – something has a methyl group or is an amine and well, jeeze, that kind of sounds like part of the word methamphetamine. Yeah, bicycle sounde like bisexual too, but they’re not too similar. But this makes me wonder: if they’re finding beta-methylphenethylamine in Jared Wheat’s supplements, why are they saying it’s related to amphetamine, when a closer relation would be to phenethylamine (the stuff found in chocolate)?They play games with chemical structures, which 99.999% of the population isn’t going to understand, saying hey, these two structures look really, really close, right? But slight differences can mean the difference between an inert chemical and a deadly one. But “meth-like” sells papers, while “caffeine-like” doesn’t…and even if something has never been studied, well heck, that doesn’t mean we can’t call it dangerous:
Invalid Link Removed
If it’s never been studied, how would we know that it’s dangerous? Maybe it cures cancer.
While we’re at it, when did we get so confused over the differences between a study and a communication, and in-house versus third-party?
Invalid Link Removed
What is being referenced here, from Harvard, is a communication. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article or study. Get that? It’s not a study. The standards for a communication are far lower (nearly non-existent) compared to a study. Because it is a Communication, there is very little background data provided that would allow any third party to evaluate the conclusion. Their testing method has not been validated in any way. No testing data is given to support any of their conclusions. No information is given about the reference standard, etc…while the “in-house” study mentioned second, wasn’t done in house at all, it was a third-party test done completely off-premises. Off-premises is very different from in-house.
Honestly, at this point the reporting on these issues has become so sensational and convoluted, I’m not even sure if there’s any fact checking being done. It’s time for people to take a step back and really consider what they’re being told by the media, and yes, if necessary, do a little research into the compounds themselves. Yes, there are bad guys in the supplement industry. Yes, there are dangerous products. And no, the latest set of sky-is-falling articles from USA Today isn’t helping anything by spreading misinformation.
Maybe everyone needs to wake up and smell the 3,7-Dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-IH-purine2,6-dione.
Methamphetamine is a chemical that has both psychotropic and physiological effects in the human body, including elevated heart rate, diuresis, appetite reduction, increased perspiration and tolerance to pain, and a general feeling of focus and well-being at low doses that can easily turn into paranoia and anxiety at higher doses. Generally, methamphetamine is taken orally, snorted, or inhaled (smoked), and because it is relatively inexpensive compared to cocaine, it is often the drug of choice for younger adults and those of a lower economic status. As a result of these factors, combined with withdrawal symptoms, methamphetamine use is often a lifelong affair, which can end in death for some users.
Currently there is a meth-like substance being used in numerous pre-workout supplements. It’s got all of these effects, and companies are putting it in your preworkout formulas under a variety of contrived chemical names, which serve only to confuse the average consumer who might read the label of a supplement bottle and not understand that people have died from putting this stuff into their body: 3,7-Dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-IH-purine2,6-dione .
This is totally what the molecule looks like
This drug has two amide groups of nitrogen and carbon atoms, that are double bonded to each other so that both of these nitrogen atoms are essentially planar in a fused ring system. Both drugs are effectively water and lipid soluble, and able to cross the blood/brain barrier to cause a rapid increase in circulating norepinephrine, dopamine, and serotonin – but frighteningly, while methamphetamine clocks in at a 79% oral bioavailability, this stuff is almost completely bioavailable, at a whopping 99%! So while this drug is clearly a meth-like compound, with regards to effects and pharmacokinetics, it’s actually a bit more potent in terms of bioavailability.
The long and confusing chemical name plus the chemistry (which few are going to understand without a lot of Googling) aren’t as important as the fact that this stuff – trust me – is very similar to methamphetamine, in the ways I’ve already described and more.
There’s just one problem: 3,7-Dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-IH-purine2,6-dione is caffeine. The stuff in coffee.
The stuff in soda. The stuff that I could literally give you another fifty pages worth of ways that it’s similar to meth or amphetamine, or both. It’s one of the safest chemicals (it’s a drug, by the way) that we have on the market today. But still, people have died from it, and we could make a helluva case for it being very similar to meth. In fact, without addressing the merits of any of these particular supplements, we could make a very persuasive argument that DMAA, ephedrine, dendrobium, or any stimulant at all is similar to meth. Any. Stimulant. At. All.
Even caffeine.
Meanwhile, none of the afforementioned stimulants are “close enough” to being an amphetamine that they’ll actually produce the same metabolites and trigger a positive result on a drug test. Special tests have been made for them and their metabolites by sporting agencies to allow for their detection. So how similar are they, really? How similar is caffeine?
The evidence proffered by sporting agencies is a post-facto discovery then ban of a stimulant, followed by a failed drug test by some hapless athlete, and now they’re telling us that the stuff must be bad, because it’s banned. It’s banned because it’s bad and it’s bad because it’s banned, says WADA. Oh…and by the way, they’re the ones who banned it. Then, WADA (who hires ex-DEA agents now, because they want desperately to be a legitimate law-making agency, not a for-hire private business, which is exactly what they are), eventually gets the stuff made illegal. To put this in perspective, more women have died from using tampons (toxic shock syndrome) than ephedrine + DMAA. Look it up.
And I’m no fan of Jared Wheat, but if they’re going to say his supplements contain an amphetamine-ish compound and mention his criminal record, shouldn’t they also mention that the head of WADA was forced to retract statements when it was found that he completely fabricated statistics? Or maybe they should mention that the judge who presided over Wheat’s case is now in prison because he got caught buying cocaine from a hooker? I’m just saying, if we want to put the information out there, we need to do it on all sides.
To make their case, we’ve seen journalists (and even scientists, who should know better) playing word games – something has a methyl group or is an amine and well, jeeze, that kind of sounds like part of the word methamphetamine. Yeah, bicycle sounde like bisexual too, but they’re not too similar. But this makes me wonder: if they’re finding beta-methylphenethylamine in Jared Wheat’s supplements, why are they saying it’s related to amphetamine, when a closer relation would be to phenethylamine (the stuff found in chocolate)?They play games with chemical structures, which 99.999% of the population isn’t going to understand, saying hey, these two structures look really, really close, right? But slight differences can mean the difference between an inert chemical and a deadly one. But “meth-like” sells papers, while “caffeine-like” doesn’t…and even if something has never been studied, well heck, that doesn’t mean we can’t call it dangerous:
Invalid Link Removed
If it’s never been studied, how would we know that it’s dangerous? Maybe it cures cancer.
While we’re at it, when did we get so confused over the differences between a study and a communication, and in-house versus third-party?
Invalid Link Removed
What is being referenced here, from Harvard, is a communication. It is not a peer-reviewed journal article or study. Get that? It’s not a study. The standards for a communication are far lower (nearly non-existent) compared to a study. Because it is a Communication, there is very little background data provided that would allow any third party to evaluate the conclusion. Their testing method has not been validated in any way. No testing data is given to support any of their conclusions. No information is given about the reference standard, etc…while the “in-house” study mentioned second, wasn’t done in house at all, it was a third-party test done completely off-premises. Off-premises is very different from in-house.
Honestly, at this point the reporting on these issues has become so sensational and convoluted, I’m not even sure if there’s any fact checking being done. It’s time for people to take a step back and really consider what they’re being told by the media, and yes, if necessary, do a little research into the compounds themselves. Yes, there are bad guys in the supplement industry. Yes, there are dangerous products. And no, the latest set of sky-is-falling articles from USA Today isn’t helping anything by spreading misinformation.
Maybe everyone needs to wake up and smell the 3,7-Dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-IH-purine2,6-dione.