# DNP veterans. Pls chime in.



## proteinbomb

I'm on my 6th day of my DNP run at 250mg right now. So far so good, losing 1lbs a day. Is t3 really necessary to run in a DNP cycle. I plan to use 250mg for 4 weeks and there are many conflicting answers about usage of t3.


----------



## MS1605

Completly unnecessary.


----------



## proteinbomb

MS1605 said:


> Completly unnecessary.



Some people say that after 2nd week the weight loss seems to stall cause the thyroid has adjusted to compensate for the dnp...


----------



## DocDePanda187123

proteinbomb said:


> Some people say that after 2nd week the weight loss seems to stall cause the thyroid has adjusted to compensate for the dnp...



Those people need to read the research again.


----------



## proteinbomb

DocDePanda187123 said:


> Those people need to read the research again.


Ok thanks for clarifying. Will continue running 250mg and if weight loss stall, might add t3


----------



## DocDePanda187123

proteinbomb said:


> Ok thanks for clarifying. Will continue running 250mg and if weight loss stall, might add t3



Only reason you'd stall is if it's bad DNP or water retention masked fat loss. Either way it wouldn't be due to your thyroid.


----------



## yamivegeta

It's weird. I'm on my 14th day already, and my weight stopped moving.
I've heard different things about T3, and I even got a tub of them I was prepared to take during my 2nd week, but I've read around and gave up on it.

Can the weight loss just stall after a few days on DNP?


----------



## PillarofBalance

Eat less. Or add ephedrine. Ephedrine and caffeine is a much better addition to a run with dnp.  Provides energy and moves the fats around. Little more efficient that way.


----------



## NbleSavage

x2 on adding EC to yer DNP. Sorts out the lethargy and aids in fat loss.


----------



## yamivegeta

Hmm I'm eating 1000-1500kcal a day, so I don't think it's the food. What's the usual dose of EC on a 200mg dnp run? Also, EC or ECA?


----------



## MrRippedZilla

yamivegeta said:


> Hmm I'm eating 1000-1500kcal a day, so I don't think it's the food. What's the usual dose of EC on a 200mg dnp run? Also, EC or ECA?



EC. No need for the A unless your really, really fat.

20/200 3x day is the established dosing scheme but obviously build up to that slowly in case your hypersensitive to stims.
Start at 20/200 1x day and go frome there.

Also, fat loss isn't linear...your going to get ups & downs with all methods. I've used 250mg for months on end (different goal in mind) and never found it to stop working.


----------



## yamivegeta

MrRippedZilla said:


> EC. No need for the A unless your really, really fat.
> 
> 20/200 3x day is the established dosing scheme but obviously build up to that slowly in case your hypersensitive to stims.
> Start at 20/200 1x day and go frome there.
> 
> Also, fat loss isn't linear...your going to get ups & downs with all methods. I've used 250mg for months on end (different goal in mind) and never found it to stop working.




As far as appetite suppression goes, would you say an EC stack is as good as sibutramine?


----------



## MrRippedZilla

yamivegeta said:


> As far as appetite suppression goes, would you say an EC stack is as good as sibutramine?



For me personally? No.
For you? I have no idea.

Appetite regulation involves multiple interacting & overlapping pathways so depending on which one is the dominant player for YOU, some drugs will work better than others. This is also the primary reason why we don't have the DNP equivalent for appetite suppression btw 

I will say that the appetite suppression/stimulant effect of the EC stack will dissappear after a couple of weeks (the thermogenic effect keeps going). So I'd recommend adding some Tyrosine (2g) to extend these sides for a little longer.


----------



## SoCalMk6GTI

yamivegeta said:


> Hmm I'm eating 1000-1500kcal a day, so I don't think it's the food. What's the usual dose of EC on a 200mg dnp run? Also, EC or ECA?



Height/weight/body fat%?

You might have stalled because your starving yourself. 1,000-1,500 calories for most men is going to be very low, this all depends on your current body composition but regardless of what you're using to burn body fat, your organs need water, your body needs protein, carbs, etc to function properly. If you're below BMR by a huge margin, your body is going to react in a survival mode so to speak. You need X amount of calories to live and breathe each day.


----------



## MrRippedZilla

SoCalMk6GTI said:


> Height/weight/body fat%?
> 
> You might have stalled because your starving yourself. 1,000-1,500 calories for most men is going to be very low, this all depends on your current body composition but regardless of what you're using to burn body fat, your organs need water, your body needs protein, carbs, etc to function properly. If you're below BMR by a huge margin, your body is going to react in a survival mode so to speak. You need X amount of calories to live and breathe each day.



Your basically talking about the so called "starvation mode", which is mostly bullshit. The whole "going too far below your BMR is bad" stuff is bullshit as well. 
I recommend you do a little bit more reading on what the body actually does when calories are low (pubmed is your friend) before you spew nonsense like this again 

If your in a caloric deficit, fat loss is happening - there is no stall. Sometimes you get cortisol going crazy, which increases water retention and hides any fat loss that's occurring (this happens mainly to women) but that's about it.


----------



## SoCalMk6GTI

MrRippedZilla said:


> Your basically talking about the so called "starvation mode", which is mostly bullshit. The whole "going too far below your BMR is bad" stuff is bullshit as well.
> I recommend you do a little bit more reading on what the body actually does when calories are low (pubmed is your friend) before you spew nonsense like this again
> 
> If your in a caloric deficit, fat loss is happening - there is no stall. Sometimes you get cortisol going crazy, which increases water retention and hides any fat loss that's occurring (this happens mainly to women) but that's about it.



If he is taking in 1,000 calories, sorry but it doesn't take pubmed research to know you aren't providing your body with enough nutrients to function properly. And I work with enough clients to know that majority of my fat loss clients are NOT losing body fat because they are limiting total calories in too much of an excess.


----------



## MrRippedZilla

SoCalMk6GTI said:


> If he is taking in 1,000 calories, sorry but it doesn't take pubmed research to know you aren't providing your body with enough nutrients to function properly. And I work with enough clients to know that *majority of my fat loss clients are NOT losing body fat because they are limiting total calories in too much of an excess.*



The part in bold is why you have no business coaching anyone.

Their isn't a single piece of evidence in the history of EVER showing fat loss stalling when a caloric deficit was still in place - go look up the Minnesota starvation data to see just how foolish you sound right now.
I also happen to be a coach & learnt a long time ago that clients misreport their caloric intake ALL the time. 

You sound like Layne Norton trying to justify metabolic damage based on some BS client emails, find me some real data or stop spreading nonsense. Either way is fine with me.


----------



## Spongy

MrRippedZilla said:


> The part in bold is why you have no business coaching anyone.
> 
> Their isn't a single piece of evidence in the history of EVER showing fat loss stalling when a caloric deficit was still in place - go look up the Minnesota starvation data to see just how foolish you sound right now.
> I also happen to be a coach & learnt a long time ago that clients misreport their caloric intake ALL the time.
> 
> You sound like Layne Norton trying to justify metabolic damage based on some BS client emails, find me some real data or stop spreading nonsense. Either way is fine with me.



Agreed with all of the above...


----------



## SoCalMk6GTI

MrRippedZilla said:


> The part in bold is why you have no business coaching anyone.
> 
> Their isn't a single piece of evidence in the history of EVER showing fat loss stalling when a caloric deficit was still in place - go look up the Minnesota starvation data to see just how foolish you sound right now.
> I also happen to be a coach & learnt a long time ago that clients misreport their caloric intake ALL the time.
> 
> You sound like Layne Norton trying to justify metabolic damage based on some BS client emails, find me some real data or stop spreading nonsense. Either way is fine with me.



Well, based on my studies, my research, and my knowledge; I disagree with you. So I'll agree to disagree and move on. 




OP, eat more and you'll hit your goals. 

Best of luck.


----------



## MrRippedZilla

SoCalMk6GTI said:


> Well, based on my studies, my research, and my knowledge; I disagree with you. So I'll agree to disagree and move on.
> 
> OP, eat more and you'll hit your goals.
> 
> Best of luck.



Your "studies" and "research" are both fantasies and we both know it - otherwise you could've easily shared one study to back you up by now. 
I have kept up to date with the data on nutrition dating back to the 60s and their is literally NOTHING to support your position of fat loss stopping in the face of a caloric deficit. Nothing at all. 
So stop the bullshit. Seriously, it isn't going to fly with me.

If you want to disagree with facts (physiology isn't based on opinion) then that's fine...I have no desire to spend time fixing stupid. 
I simply ask that you do not spread your misinformation to others. Thanks in advance.


----------



## SoCalMk6GTI

You're stuck on the wrong point. 
"Fat loss stopping in the face of a caloric deficit" The OP wants to be healthy and maximize fat loss, a 1,000 calorie diet won't do that, I don't care how much of a deficit that gives him. An average sized male requires a lot more than that to function properly(this was my point all along).

And I don't have to make anything "fly with you", what I do works and my clients are healthy, happy, and have completely changed lives; that's why I do what I do. 

I will continue to give advice, because from my studies it's right. You can argue all day long, don't care. It's your research vs. mine.


----------



## Beedeezy

SoCal, not to add insult to injury. 
Ripped and Spongy are at the top of the list of people I wouldn't argue with about diet and nutrition. Take their advice and maybe look into what they're saying. I don't doubt you've seen people stall and with a caloric increase start losing again, but that could very well have just been from the normal up and downs of weight loss progression. 
You may have mistaken it for anecdotal evidence to back your bias though.


----------



## Beedeezy

SoCalMk6GTI said:


> It's your research vs. mine.



No, it's real scientific studies backed by people with PhD's studies vs. yours.
Again, I think you are taking anecdotal evidence as gospel here.


----------



## SoCalMk6GTI

Beedeezy said:


> SoCal, not to add insult to injury.
> Ripped and Spongy are at the top of the list of people I wouldn't argue with about diet and nutrition. Take their advice and maybe look into what they're saying. I don't doubt you've seen people stall and with a caloric increase start losing again, but that could very well have just been from the normal up and downs of weight loss progression.
> You may have mistaken it for anecdotal evidence to back your bias tough.



I've read the research he pointed out. It references overall weight loss, for a bodybuilder (most on these forums) we want a targeted fat loss, not total weight. I understand what he is trying to get across and of course if you keep cutting calories you will continue to lose weight, the Minnesota Study even agrees with me. Yes if you're in a deficit you will lose weight but also, if your deficit remains low and you continue to lose weight you are putting your health in jeopardy. So why risk that? Why not take a safer approach?  The OP is talking a DNP cycle while on a caloric deficit, so he/she should be burning fat specifically, very rapidly. He's stalling so something is wrong. If you're at 1,000 calories a day, you'll burn that up just walking around doing daily tasks, then you're on DNP on top of this. So what is your body using to function? You've expended all food resources for daily tasks at this point, the DNP is targeting fat...So how are you functioning on top of this in a healthy manner? This is NOT a healthy fat loss method for anyone.


----------



## SoCalMk6GTI

Beedeezy said:


> SoCal, not to add insult to injury.
> Ripped and Spongy are at the top of the list of people I wouldn't argue with about diet and nutrition. Take their advice and maybe look into what they're saying. I don't doubt you've seen people stall and with a caloric increase start losing again, but that could very well have just been from the normal up and downs of weight loss progression.
> You may have mistaken it for anecdotal evidence to back your bias tough.



Btw I appreciate the respectful-level-headed response.


----------



## MrRippedZilla

This is what I called you out on: 



SoCalMk6GTI said:


> *You might have stalled because your starving yourself.* 1,000-1,500 calories for most men is going to be very low, this all depends on your current body composition but regardless of what you're using to burn body fat, your organs need water, your body needs protein, carbs, etc to function properly. *If you're below BMR by a huge margin, your body is going to react in a survival mode so to speak.* You need X amount of calories to live and breathe each day.



So I am not "stuck on the wrong point", you are trying to move the goal posts to focus the discussion on what's "healthy" or "functional". This approach has failed.
You keep referring to your "studies" and "research" and yet you haven't posted a SINGLE piece of evidence to support your position. Nothing but your opinion, which is meaningless since we're dealing with a FACTUAL topic.

There was a controlled, starvation study (50% deficit) from the 40s-50s where ALL the participants reached 5%bf despite severe metabolic adaptations along the way and not a single fat loss stall to be found. This study conclusively proved that fat loss DOES NOT stall at any point even in the face of starvation and extreme leanness.
It's impact was such that it has been looked at & re-analyzed many, many times:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9734736
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8696417
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16449298

Now its your turn. 
If I don't see any evidence to support your position, and I won't because it doesn't exist, I will assume that you are indeed full of shit and the discussion is over


----------



## SoCalMk6GTI

Yep, this sounds successful and appealing to all clients. 

"The full report of results from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment was published in 1950 in a two-volume, 1,385-page text entitled The Biology of Human Starvation (University of Minnesota Press). The 50-chapter work contains an extensive analysis of the physiological and psychological data collected during the study, and a comprehensive literature review.

Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[5] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123–124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema in their extremities, presumably due to decreased levels of plasma proteins given that the body's ability to construct key proteins like albumin is based on available energy sources."


----------



## Spongy

Socal, you are correct it is not ideal and can lead to more harm than good when there is a prolonged extreme defect in calories.  Nobody here is going to argue against that point.  The way your previous post came across made it sound like you were stating that fat loss ceases at such a defecit.  An individual at such an extreme defecit will lose both fat and lbm under normal/natural circumstances.  You are correct that this is not ideal for 90% of us on this board.  Other factors, of coursw, can come into play such as beginning lbm, aas usage, and genetics.


----------



## MrRippedZilla

Spongy said:


> Socal, you are correct it is not ideal and can lead to more harm than good when there is a prolonged extreme defect in calories.  Nobody here is going to argue against that point.  The way your previous post came across made it sound like you were stating that fat loss ceases at such a defecit.  An individual at such an extreme defecit will lose both fat and lbm under normal/natural circumstances.  You are correct that this is not ideal for 90% of us on this board.  Other factors, of coursw, can come into play such as beginning lbm, aas usage, and genetics.



Exactly.

This whole thing could've been avoided had he simply retracted his original statement and & re-clarified what he actually meant. Instead, he maintained an indefensible position supported by fantasy data...disappointing, but not surprising.


----------



## yamivegeta

Just wanna note, the weight started slowly going down after a while.
Got 4 days left of this cycle.

Is it true that you have to eat 0 carbs 3 days prior to finishing the cycle and a few days after finishing?


----------



## Spongy

yamivegeta said:


> Just wanna note, the weight started slowly going down after a while.
> Got 4 days left of this cycle.
> 
> Is it true that you have to eat 0 carbs 3 days prior to finishing the cycle and a few days after finishing?



Ive never heard that and I certainly don't do that.  Keep in mind dnp causes you to retain a lot of water so the actual a cake weight should continue when you stop.  

I literally ate a cake a day for 2 weeks straight at 500-750 and lost weight.  No recommended at all lol, but point is it still worked.


----------



## MrRippedZilla

yamivegeta said:


> Is it true that you have to eat 0 carbs 3 days prior to finishing the cycle and a few days after finishing?



No.

What you do at this point really depends on your goals.
Do you plan on continuing the cut? Switching to maintenance? Transitioning to a bulk?


----------



## yamivegeta

I don't think I have any water weight, since I lost 13lbs during these 3 weeks.
Anyway, I got 3 days left, and then I'll take a break since I've got some events planned.
I want to continue the cut in a few weeks when I'm done, and I'll probably do another round of DNP, since this cycle was barely noticeable.
Might up the dose if it's not too hot outside as well.

Wanna point out I haven't exercised at all during this run.
Gonna go with cardio next run so I can see the difference.


----------



## MrRippedZilla

yamivegeta said:


> I don't think I have any water weight, since I lost 13lbs during these 3 weeks.
> Anyway, I got 3 days left, and then I'll take a break since I've got some events planned.
> I want to continue the cut in a few weeks when I'm done, and I'll probably do another round of DNP, since this cycle was barely noticeable.
> Might up the dose if it's not too hot outside as well.
> 
> Wanna point out I haven't exercised at all during this run.
> Gonna go with cardio next run so I can see the difference.



In that case transition to eating 5-10% below maintenance to allow the DNP to keep doing it's thing & give your body some time to readjust.

As for the rest, just so there's no other misunderstandings in this thread, let me see if I have this right:
- Your not on ANY exercise regime at all at the moment? Do you actually lift?
- You had a successful run with a low dose of DNP and yet still want to increase the dose, correct?


----------



## yamivegeta

MrRippedZilla said:


> In that case transition to eating 5-10% below maintenance to allow the DNP to keep doing it's thing & give your body some time to readjust.
> 
> As for the rest, just so there's no other misunderstandings in this thread, let me see if I have this right:
> - Your not on ANY exercise regime at all at the moment? Do you actually lift?
> - You had a successful run with a low dose of DNP and yet still want to increase the dose, correct?




Yep, due to relocation I've not been in a gym for about 2 years now. I just get around with that I can do at home with dumbbells. 
But I didn't do any exercises at all while running DNP. I want to see if there's a big difference between not working out, and working out while on DNP.
I do want to run another cycle in a few weeks.

As for the higher dose, I would like to see how big the sides are compared to the 200mg dose which is barely noticeable.


----------



## MrRippedZilla

In that case you'll probably regain every pound that you lost during this cycle - DNP and crash diets never work in the long term so be prepared for that.

You also have the typical "more is better" attitude that many stupid dieters have - no offence, just telling it like it is. 
The horror stories associated with DNP come from people who had the same attitude as you - they found something that worked well, but wanted to see how high they could go to make it work better. It always ends in failure and you need to get out of this mindset asap.

You need to avoid any further DNP runs until you make some basic lifestyle changes.
Start focusing on the long term, adopt a moderate diet and get on a consistent lifting routine.


----------

