# DNP Destroys Your Eggs?



## Zara-Leoni

According to the author of the article in GreatWhites sticky in this section (female steroids 101).....

"I highly suggest avoiding the use of DNP. Not only can it kill you, but it will also damage all of your eggs, thus effectively destroying your ability to have normal babies. Due to the dangers involved with the use of DNP (more so for women), I will avoid discussing it in this article."

Anyone ever heard this before? I haven't but I know of at least half a dozen women who have used DNP.....

Unfortunately theres no references to the article.


----------



## Greyphantom

I have not heard that before... its pretty harsh to use but in all the reading on DNP I have not yet come across specific egg detrimental sides... over all I guess it would effect them and I wouldnt want to conceive while on DNP... or anything for that matter (well except alcohol *ahem*  )... there is a really good DNP thread on the Oz section of anabolex.com... http://www.anabolex.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22577 and the guys are really quite knowledgeable when it comes to DNP.. helped me out no end...


----------



## GBLiz

ive heard that women should never ever use it, and that men who use it should use a condom in case they leak any DNP into the woman!!

having said that, i cannot for the life of me remember WHY.....it was a long time ago....it may just be urban myths


----------



## Zara-Leoni

GBLiz said:


> ive heard that women should never ever use it, and that men who use it should use a condom in case they leak any DNP into the woman!!
> 
> having said that, i cannot for the life of me remember WHY.....it was a long time ago....it may just be urban myths


Fair few of the guys down my gym were using it this year and their girlfriends were too lol....

I couldn't find anything anywhere to suggest women specifically shouldnt use it...?


----------



## Mr Incredible

never heard it before but its no suprise given the bodytemp increase and given that its an ingredient in weedkiller that its not good for you!


----------



## Zara-Leoni

GBLiz said:


> ive heard that women should never ever use it, and that men who use it should use a condom in case they leak any DNP into the woman!!
> 
> having said that, i cannot for the life of me remember WHY.....it was a long time ago....it may just be urban myths


From the link above liz, I spied this....

"i thought it was taken of the market in the 30's because it caused cateracts in women."

"Yes, that's right. The incidence was really low too, like 1 in 100,000 I think..."


----------



## Origin

that rings a bell but why would it make women go blind and not men?

i dunno. I dont think theres any need for a substance like that regardless, in men or women! whats wrong with diet and cardio first, clen and t3/t4 second?


----------



## ares1

yes its true - when the studies were done in the 1930's the majority of the people that were effected with cataracts were women.

cataracts does not = blindness, a simple operation can have them removed but it is by no means pleasant

as far as i can remember they never found out why it affected woman more then men but its been a long time since i looked at the studies..

its never been shown to be teratogenic in humans but there have been reports of it causing deformation with both sperm and eggs and also importantly for women altered menstrual cycles and amenorrhoea - luckily us men can make more sperm and don't menstruate (although we may act like it at times).

theres a plethora of information on DNP and lots & lots of studies were carried out on it.


----------



## ares1

sorry should have added that the dose which the effects on menstruation was recorded was 3mg/kg daily for as little as 22 days this was in simkins papers in '37.


----------



## Andrikos

Most people that use this staff does not know with what they re dealing.When Dave Palumbo says to stay away from it, that says a lot lol!

But I guess "dieting is hard"...


----------



## Zara-Leoni

cheers.... so basically the author of the article is a scaremongering [email protected] then....?


----------



## Andrikos

Zara-Leoni said:


> cheers.... so basically the author of the article is a scaremongering [email protected] then....?


DNP is for brave people , or stupid, or sometimes both I guess!


----------



## Zara-Leoni

Andrikos said:


> DNP is for brave people , or stupid, or sometimes both I guess!


Yes well no disrespect Andrikos but I didn't ask for opinions on that, I asked specifically whether anyone had any scientific data to back up that authors specific claim that DNP "damage all of your eggs, thus effectively destroying your ability to have normal babies." which it would appear there is none and he was wildly exaggerating at best.

What you think of people who use it is not relevant to the conversation in any shape or form. Nor is it constructive or useful.


----------



## ares1

Zara-Leoni said:


> cheers.... so basically the author of the article is a scaremongering [email protected] then....?


99% of the stuff online is written by self professed gurus based on little to no facts and modified from another "bros" article.

if you have lots of spare time have a read of this, its like the DNP encyclopaedia:-

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp64.html



Andrikos said:


> DNP is for brave people , or stupid, or sometimes both I guess!


no, the majority of the risks can be mitigated as with most med's natural selection will play a huge part in how a person gets on with it.

To say that everyone using it is stupid, brave or both is a very uninformed view to take.


----------



## Andrikos

Zara-Leoni said:


> Yes well no disrespect Andrikos but I didn't ask for opinions on that, I asked specifically whether anyone had any scientific data to back up that authors specific claim that DNP "damage all of your eggs, thus effectively destroying your ability to have normal babies." which it would appear there is none and he was wildly exaggerating at best.
> 
> What you think of people who use it is not relevant to the conversation in any shape or form. Nor is it constructive or useful.


Not many people can handle scientific evidence and if they can that doesn t mean they will use it in a sensible manner , and not most people entering a bodybuilding forum can handle science.

Anyways not having direct evidence what a substance does to a particular function of the body happens because it would be totally unethical to do such an expirement.Still , it 's found in incesticides, herbicides.As far as I know no such evidence will be available ,unless ... .oh yeah , almost forgot case studies are full of wannabe bodybuilders...

Αnd yes I am being a bit judgemental on this , drugs are not candy , sometimes being a bit judgemental doesn t hurt , it may as well be good for one's health. Whether I judge the person or the action is quite obvious.

There are far better/safer choices on drugs to choose from when someone wants to get lean.


----------



## Joshua

CarbWhore said:


> ...
> 
> its never been shown to be teratogenic in humans but there have been reports of it *causing deformation with both sperm* and eggs and also importantly for women altered menstrual cycles and amenorrhoea - *luckily us men can make more sperm* and don't menstruate (although we may act like it at times).
> 
> ...


I was under the impression that the effect on sperm was not down to the damage to the sperm per se, but down to the sertoli germ cells. If this is the case then there could be irreversible impact on spermatogenesis.

I suspect (but have no evidence) that DNP may affect semen, purely because the prostate end up being the dumping ground for a wide range of toxins and metabolites. If this was the case then it could cause damage to sperm in ejaculate, which could be reversible when the dnp and metabolites have fully cleared the body.

BTW: Great link in your other post.

J


----------



## Joshua

Andrikos said:


> Not many people can handle scientific evidence and if they can that doesn t mean they will use it in a sensible manner , and not most people entering a bodybuilding forum can handle science.
> 
> Anyways not having direct evidence what a substance does to a particular function of the body happens because it would be totally unethical to do such an expirement.Still , it 's found in incesticides, herbicides.As far as I know no such evidence will be available ,unless ... .oh yeah , almost forgot case studies are full of wannabe bodybuilders...
> 
> Αnd yes I am being a bit judgemental on this , drugs are not candy , sometimes being a bit judgemental doesn t hurt , it may as well be good for one's health. Whether I judge the person or the action is quite obvious.
> 
> There are far better/safer choices on drugs to choose from when someone wants to get lean.


She did not ask your opinion either on whether you think people can understand science. Scientific understanding is not an all or nothing situation. There are varying degrees of understanding over a number of different areas. I for one would prefer more scientific evidence where possible, and for people to discuss the conclusions they draw from that evidence. If people are making unsafe inferences from the evidence then they can be called out on it, and everyone benefits. Scientific evidence is far more useful than anecdotes or even worse, heresay.

As far as the lack of human experiments, as CW pointed out there have been observations made going back to the 1930s on the matter, when DNP was in more common use. That aside, as with all sorts of different chemicals, toxicity trials in animal models tell us a lot about the mechanisms of actions, which can be used to make inferences on efficacy and safety in humans.

I agree that drugs are not candy. All drugs have risks associated with them.



> Whether I judge the person or the action is quite obvious.





> DNP is for brave people , or stupid, or sometimes both I guess


I agree that the subject of your judgement is obvious.

J


----------



## Andrikos

Joshua said:


> She did not ask your opinion either on whether you think people can understand science. Scientific understanding is not an all or nothing situation. There are varying degrees of understanding over a number of different areas. I for one would prefer more scientific evidence where possible, and for people to discuss the conclusions they draw from that evidence. If people are making unsafe inferences from the evidence then they can be called out on it, and everyone benefits. Scientific evidence is far more useful than anecdotes or even worse, heresay.
> 
> As far as the lack of human experiments, as CW pointed out there have been observations made going back to the 1930s on the matter, when DNP was in more common use. That aside, as with all sorts of different chemicals, toxicity trials in animal models tell us a lot about the mechanisms of actions, which can be used to make inferences on efficacy and safety in humans.
> 
> I agree that drugs are not candy. All drugs have risks associated with them.
> 
> I agree that the subject of your judgement is obvious.
> 
> J


I am not waiting to be asked what my opinion is.For what it's worth I share my opinion with the rest , that 's what a forum is about.So yeah , if someone takes DNP is either brave , or stupid or both and take it as you want, the sides will be the same anyway.


----------



## Zara-Leoni

Andrikos said:


> Not many people can handle scientific evidence and if they can that doesn t mean they will use it in a sensible manner , and not most people entering a bodybuilding forum can handle science.


So what...? You're saying then you should just give an OPINION instead of a science-based answer incase they cant "handle" it.....?

Right then................ 



Andrikos said:


> Anyways not having direct evidence what a substance does to a particular function of the body happens because it would be totally unethical to do such an expirement.Still , it 's found in incesticides, herbicides.As far as I know no such evidence will be available ,unless ... .oh yeah , almost forgot case studies are full of wannabe bodybuilders...


Well.... If we go back to the SCIENCE bit for a minute... evidence may actually be available. If you read back and click and read the links (as opposed to just going on your opinion) you will see that it says it was discontinued for use in humans in the 30's due to certain findings..... so therefor yes, there could be hard evidence one way or another. And in any instance, whether or not the patients observed wanted to be bodybuilders or not is entirely irrelevant.

Oh and for the record. A LOT of common ingredients found in foods and licensed medicines are found in pesticides and herbicides.



Andrikos said:


> Αnd yes *I am being a bit judgemental on this *, drugs are not candy , sometimes being a bit judgemental doesn t hurt , it may as well be good for one's health. Whether I judge the person or the action is quite obvious.


No sh1t Sherlock......

To be fair, its not your place to judge anyone and it certainly doesn't help OR make the slightest bit of difference.



Andrikos said:


> There are far better/safer choices on drugs to choose from when someone wants to get lean.


It may surprise you to know that I am actually well aware of that fact.....  Its not what I asked though is it?



Joshua said:


> She did not ask your opinion either on whether you think people can understand science. Scientific understanding is not an all or nothing situation. There are varying degrees of understanding over a number of different areas. I for one would prefer more scientific evidence where possible, and for people to discuss the conclusions they draw from that evidence. If people are making unsafe inferences from the evidence then they can be called out on it, and everyone benefits. *Scientific evidence is far more useful than anecdotes or even worse, heresay.*
> 
> As far as the lack of human experiments, as CW pointed out there have been observations made going back to the 1930s on the matter, when DNP was in more common use. That aside, as with all sorts of different chemicals, toxicity trials in animal models tell us a lot about the mechanisms of actions, which can be used to make inferences on efficacy and safety in humans.
> 
> I agree that drugs are not candy. All drugs have risks associated with them.
> 
> I agree that the subject of your judgement is obvious.
> 
> J


Or even worse..... someones OPINIONS.....


----------



## Zara-Leoni

Andrikos said:


> I am not waiting to be asked what my opinion is.For what it's worth I share my opinion with the rest , that 's what a forum is about.So yeah , if someone takes DNP is either brave , or stupid or both and *take it as you want, the sides will be the same anyway*.


Gosh, thats an intelligent and responsible approach eh?

Never mind the science, all these thickits on the bodybuilding boards cant handle it anyway.....

Listen to the inexperienced OPINION of some random bloke who's never used it and has no scientific knowledge of it....

And if you choose to go ahead regardless the sides will be the same.... 

Riiiight......

By any chance were you working for the catholic church around the time of Galileo....?

Science be dammed... I'm TELLING you its this way.....

Heresey I tell thee! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Andrikos

Zara-Leoni said:


> Gosh, thats an intelligent and responsible approach eh?
> 
> Never mind the science, all these thickits on the bodybuilding boards cant handle it anyway.....
> 
> Listen to the inexperienced OPINION of some random bloke who's never used it and has no scientific knowledge of it....
> 
> And if you choose to go ahead regardless the sides will be the same....
> 
> Riiiight......
> 
> By any chance were you working for the catholic church around the time of Galileo....?
> 
> Science be dammed... I'm TELLING you its this way.....
> 
> Heresey I tell thee! :lol: :lol:


Can you explain to me how it is possible to have a decent scientific knowledge/ experience of DNP and what DNP does to humans ?

Btw ,I 've had organic chemistry and pharmacology , endocrinology at uni.Probably that doesn t qualify anyone as an expert on any subject but I can borrow you plenty of books to read anytime


----------



## Zara-Leoni

Andrikos said:


> Can you explain to me how it is possible to have a decent scientific knowledge/ experience of DNP and what DNP does to humans ?


Because it USED to be used in humans up until 1938.

Sheesh. You being from a Science background and all I'd have expected you to know that better than me..... 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,4-Dinitrophenol

"*DNP was used extensively in the 1930s in **diet pills* after Cutting and Tainter at Stanford University made their first report on the drug's ability to greatly increase metabolic rate. DNP acts as a protonophore in the mitochondrial membrane, uncoupling oxidative phosphorylation and making ATP energy production less efficient. In effect, part of the energy that is normally produced from cellular respiration is wasted as heat. This inefficiency is proportional to the dose of DNP that is taken. Thus, as the dose increases and energy production is made less efficient, the metabolic rate is increased (and more fat is burned) in order to compensate for the inefficiency and meet energy demands. Interestingly, the factor that limits ever increasing doses of DNP is not a lack of ATP energy production, but rather an excessive rise in body temperature due to the heat produced during uncoupling. Accordingly, DNP overdose will cause a fatal fever. Case reports have shown that an acute administration of 20-50 mg/kg in humans can be lethal.[1] Concerns about dangerous side-effects and rapidly developing cataracts resulted in DNP being discontinued in the United States by the end of 1938. DNP, however, continues to be used by some bodybuilders and athletes to rapidly lose body fat."



Andrikos said:


> Btw ,I 've had organic chemistry and pharmacology , endocrinology at uni.* Probably that doesn t qualify anyone as an expert on any subject but I can borrow you plenty of books to read anytime*


No thanks. I'm not sure they'd be much help - if they were you'd have known more on the subject.

Incidenty the word is "Lend". English was one of my strongest subjects 

"Having" organic chemistry, pharmacology and endocrinology as part of your uni course does not a scientist or expert make you.

Clearly.


----------



## GBLiz

wooooahh!!! Why all the jumping on Andrikos? I thought it was practically general knowledge that DNP is a pretty dodgy substance? He's only giving his opinion, and i agree , (with my very limited knowledge) its something you should stay away from!

?

I'm interested to hear evidence either way and my mind can change at any time with new information, but zara it sounds like you wanted the eggs theory disproved more than you wanted it proved?


----------



## Andrikos

I 'd rather go with the latest research (I doubt there is ever going to be one due to obvious reasons) , not inconclusive data 70 years ago.Thanx for using the Wiki ,some cool and solid conclusions there done on the 30s. I think tobacco used to be regarded as not detrimental to health back then .Still , I like to think science moved on since then

Greek is my mother language , but I bet your Greek is a bit better than my English


----------



## ares1

Andrikos said:


> I 'd rather go with the latest research


Please share this latest research


----------



## Andrikos

CarbWhore said:


> Please share this latest research


Please try to read the whole sentence next time , makes more sense that way


----------



## Zara-Leoni

GBLiz said:


> wooooahh!!! Why all the jumping on Andrikos? I thought it was practically general knowledge that DNP is a pretty dodgy substance? He's only giving his opinion, and i agree , (with my very limited knowledge) its something you should stay away from!
> 
> ?
> 
> I'm interested to hear evidence either way and my mind can change at any time with new information, but zara it sounds like you wanted the eggs theory disproved more than you wanted it proved?


I'm not saying its safe and I'm not saying its dangerous, and I dont want it proven one way or another.

I asked a SPECIFIC question - does anyone have any SCIENTIFIC information or FACTS regarding this allegation by the author in another thread, or was it scaremongering and uneducated opinion.

I personally could not give a flying fvck whether Andrikos approves or disapproves of using it, or what he thinks of people who do use it.

I do not care if he thinks people should stay away from it. I know people who have used it and I have a specific question.

What he THINKS is of no consequence and doesn't help answer the question one way or another.

If I wanted a moral lecture on what people should or shouldn't do I'd go to church.....


----------



## Zara-Leoni

Andrikos said:


> I 'd rather go with the latest research (I doubt there is ever going to be one due to obvious reasons) , not inconclusive data 70 years ago.*Thanx for using the Wiki ,some cool and solid conclusions there done on the 30s. I think tobacco used to be regarded as not detrimental to health back then* .Still , I like to think science moved on since then
> 
> Greek is my mother language , but I bet your Greek is a bit better than my English


Read it again.

It concluded that they STOPPED using it as they DIDNT feel it was safe enough back then....


----------



## Andrikos

Zara-Leoni said:


> I'm not saying its safe and I'm not saying its dangerous, and I dont want it proven one way or another.
> 
> I asked a SPECIFIC question - does anyone have any SCIENTIFIC information or FACTS regarding this allegation by the author in another thread, or was it scaremongering and uneducated opinion.


Argumentum ad ignorantiam*....* :innocent:


----------



## rs007

GBLiz said:


> wooooahh!!! Why all the jumping on Andrikos?


No expert on the subject, but maybe because he is coming over a bit....wont say it :lol: :confused1:

Can shove talk of degrees right up your ar$e, most people I meet with one are only good for sending down holes or pushing trolleys about car parks - great at telling you the square root of a jar of pickles - but can't get the fvcking lid off most times :lol: :lol: :lol:

Whether or not anyone has an issue with DNP is irrelevant. People are using it. People will continue to use it. Bit like synthol in that regard. Questions will always be asked, and unless you can answer them, best IMO to stay schtum.

And on that note,

Sorry Zara, can't answer your question, won't insult your intelligence by going on to you about how dangerous in general it is as I know you are already aware of this :thumbup1:


----------



## ba baracuss

Zara-Leoni said:


> Incidenty the word is "Lend". English was one of my strongest subjects
> 
> "Having" organic chemistry, pharmacology and endocrinology as part of your uni course does not a scientist or expert make you.
> 
> Clearly.


Cheap shot at someone who no doubt speaks better English than you do his language.

It is an open forum where people are allowed to express their opinion. Just because you don't agree with it, it's not an excuse to go into a ranting tirade.

Get over yourself.


----------



## rs007

I found this - not exactly helpful I suppose, but the rise in incidence of stillborn animals may be meaningful



> *Reproductive/Developmental Effects:*
> 
> Case reports of women taking 2,4-dinitrophenol orally for weight loss suggest that it may affect the female reproductive system, but the limited information is inconclusive. (1)
> 
> One study reported an increased incidence of stillborn animals and increased pup mortality in the offspring of animals exposed to 2,4-dintrophenol by gavage. (1)





> *References*
> 
> 1.Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Dinitrophenols. Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, GA. 1995.


I mean I suppose it is common sense for someone intending getting preggers, or god forbid already pregnant, to stay well clear of this, as with most of the drugs bbers might typically come accross.

I guess the important question is, if it damages eggs, is that damage permanant? I'm no expert on the female reproductive system I must admit, not for want of trying :lol:


----------



## chem1436114520

simple fact is it works, ive used it for years on and off and it aint done me any harm lol, thats debatable before some c)))t jumps in and says it lol ,use wisely every drug on this f~~ked up PLANET we call home , dont do this dont do that ,like the nike sighn says on the wall in my gym JUST DO IT ?

CHEM


----------



## ares1

rs007 said:


> I mean I suppose it is common sense for someone intending getting preggers, or god forbid already pregnant, to stay well clear of this, as with most of the drugs bbers might typically come accross.


Agree 100%



rs007 said:


> I guess the important question is, if it damages eggs, is that damage permanant? I'm no expert on the female reproductive system I must admit, not for want of trying :lol:


But does it damge eggs, or does it dammage embryos?

DNP is ionophoric which means it can carry the hydrogen ions AKA protons through cells.

Protons have the ability to pass straight through cells with no effect, what this means is the cell is unable to form ATP back into the cell. Without the formation of ATP, the cell's respiration comes out as heat.

Aas far as i understand eggs are not metabolically active and therefore do not produce ATP - therefore in *theory* they should not be affected.

But many things sound nice in theory.


----------



## Zara-Leoni

ba baracuss said:


> *Cheap shot at someone who no doubt speaks better English than you do his language.*
> 
> It is an open forum where people are allowed to express their opinion. Just because you don't agree with it, it's not an excuse to go into a ranting tirade.
> 
> Get over yourself.


Know that for a fact do you? 

I didnt ask for an opinion I asked for factual information.

He gave his opinion numerous times over and over despite being told that opinion is of no use in this matter..... Its not even his opinion of what he thinks of the drug thats the issue here. Its his opinion of people that USE it thats getting on peoples nerves.

And as for the "get over yourself" comment... I shan't even dignify that with a response.


----------



## Zara-Leoni

CarbWhore said:


> But does it damge eggs, or does it dammage embryos?
> 
> DNP is ionophoric which means it can carry the hydrogen ions AKA protons through cells.
> 
> Protons have the ability to pass straight through cells with no effect, what this means is the cell is unable to form ATP back into the cell. Without the formation of ATP, the cell's respiration comes out as heat.
> 
> Aas far as i understand eggs are not metabolically active and therefore do not produce ATP - therefore in *theory* they should not be affected.
> 
> But many things sound nice in theory.


Thanks mate.... well thats a start anyway


----------



## dixie normus

> *Reproductive and developmental toxicity screening study of 2,4-dinitrophenol in rats.*
> 
> Takahashi M, Sunaga M, Hirata-Koizumi M, Hirose A, Kamata E, Ema M.
> 
> Division of Risk Assessment, Biological Safety Research Center, National Institute of Health Sciences, Tokyo 158-8501, Japan.
> 
> Rats were treated by gavage once daily with 2,4-dinitrophenol (DNP) at 0 (control), 3, 10, or 30 mg/kg bw. Males were dosed for 46 days, beginning 14 days before mating, and females were dosed for 40-47 days, from 14 days before mating to day 3 of lactation. No deaths were observed in males and females of any group. A significant decrease in body weight gain and significant increase in liver weight were found in males and females at 30 mg/kg bw/day. The number of live pups on postnatal days (PNDs) 0 and 4, live birth index, and body weight of live male and female pups on PNDs 0 and 1 were significantly lowered at 30 mg/kg bw/day. External and internal examinations of pups revealed no increased incidence of malformations in DNP-treated groups. On the basis of these findings, we concluded that DNP has general and reproductive/developmental toxicity, but not teratogenicity, under the present conditions. The NOAEL of DNP is considered to be 10 mg/kg bw/day in rats.


Hope this helps a little, will keep searching


----------



## Zara-Leoni

dixie normus said:


> Hope this helps a little, will keep searching


So basically on huge doses and not the norm 3-4mgs/kg then?

Thats during pregnancy too....


----------



## dixie normus

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs64.html#bookmark05

Key paragraph



> We do not know whether DNP causes reproductive or birth defects or cancer in humans. One study in rats suggested that if DNP is swallowed during pregnancy or nursing, it may cause death in newborn babies. Two other studies in mice suggested that DNP did not have effects on the unborn infant. We do not know whether DNP causes cancer in animals.


----------



## Robsta

Funniest thread this week........

That thar DNP is plain evil, stay away from it I tell thee........I know cos someone told me in the gym :lol:

Anyway, I though it was Dolce and Gabbana, not Dolce "n" Pagana


----------



## Zara-Leoni

dixie normus said:


> http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs64.html#bookmark05
> 
> Key paragraph


Cool... so basically what we CAN say is that officially, in humans, there is no evidence either way.... But in answer to my original question, yes, presumably the author quoted must have making stuff up if there appears to be no evidence either way?

Thats all I wanted to know.... whether that quote came from hearsay/opinion on part of the author, or whether there was any scientific evidence to back it, which it appears there is not.

Sheesh.... long way for a shortcut this was....  :whistling:

I can accept that taking it while pregnant or trying to become so would be pretty dumb... those pesky rats eh? Not got the sense they were born with, why couldn't they just lay off the cheese and get on their wheel....?  :whistling: 



Robsta said:


> Funniest thread this week........
> 
> That that DNP is plain evil, stay away from it I tell thee........I know cos someone told me in the gym :lol:
> 
> Anyway, I though it was Dolce and Gabbana, not Dolce "n" Pagana


pmsl.... 

You best stay off them roids as well mate. I heard from my mates training partners cousin that they make you really short-tempered......

Ohhhh.... waittaminute....... :whistling: :whistling:

(or was that "short-and-bad-tempered..... I forget.....)

:lol: :lol:


----------



## Joshua

CarbWhore said:


> ...
> 
> Aas far as i understand eggs are not metabolically active and therefore do not produce ATP - therefore in *theory* they should not be affected.
> 
> But many things sound nice in theory.


This assumes that DNP's effect on the proton gradient is the only mechanism which could affect the egg, which maynot be the case [i am not aware of evidence either way on that].

J


----------

