DMHA is rather a stim than a fat burner. But I guess it will be marketed as both.

DMHA will be banned, when this article is a SV Classic and caffeine again the stim of choice

For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More? For Caffeine, Timing Matters! 45 Min or More?

Coffee - The Good, Bad & Interesting Coffee - The Good, Bad & Interesting

Three Cups of Coffee Keep Insulin At Bay Three Cups of Coffee Keep Insulin At Bay

Caffeine's Effect on Testosterone, Estrogen & SHBG Caffeine's Effect on Testosterone, Estrogen & SHBG

The Coffee³ Ad- vantage: Fat loss, Appetite & Mood The Coffee³ Ad- vantage: Fat loss, Appetite & Mood

Caffeine Resis- tance - Does It Even Exist? Caffeine Resis- tance - Does It Even Exist?

Table 1: Trivial and chemical names of the compounds supplement companies have dug up in articles from the 1940-50s to replace banned substances in their products (Rasmussen. 2015).

Figure 1: It is not difficult to see the structural ressamblance of "geranium" or "geranamine" aka "DMAA" (found for ex. in the old "Jack3D") and "octadrine" aka "DMHA" (as it is found in supps like "InfraRed") when you compare the two.

Remember the craze about tainted charges of DS Craze with more than just dendobrium | read more Speaking of supplement junkies... in view of the facts that corresponding products are already on the market, we are certainly going to learn relatively soon about the efficacy and safety of this compound from hundreds if not thousand of human guinea pigs on "the boards" (fitness forums).



Don't be one of those guinea pigs that use an untested product of which I am sure it's going to be banned soon based on hearsay only - regardless of what you hear about purported α-2 receptor activity (like in view of the facts that corresponding products are already on the market, we are certainly going to learn relatively soon about the efficacy and safety of this compound from hundreds if not thousand of human guinea pigs on "the boards" (fitness forums).Don't be one of those guinea pigs that use an untested product of which I am sure it's going to be banned soon based on hearsay only - regardless of what you hear about purported α-2 receptor activity (like yohimbine ) or the fact that it supposedly has similar effects as high dose caffeine or DMAA, but without the crash, by the way | Comment

Craciunescu, D. G., et al. "Structure-antitumour activity relationships for new platinum complexes." Chemico-biological interactions 42.2 (1982): 153-164.

Fellows, Edwin J. "The pharmacology of 2-amino-6-methylheptane." Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 90.4 (1947): 351-358.

Monroe, Russell R., and Hyman J. Drell. "Oral use of stimulants obtained from inhalers." Journal of the American Medical Association 135.14 (1947): 909-915.

Rasmussen, Nicolas, and Peter HJ Keizers. "History full circle:‘Novel’sympathomimetics in supplements." Drug Testing and Analysis (2015).

Thompson, W.F. - Memo, ‘Low CNS Inhaler’, 22 December 1941; R.S. Fox memo, ‘Disposal of Certain Patent Cases’, 22 March 1942; M.T. Rabbitt to Thompson re ‘Chronologic Report on the Study of Normal-Amylmethyl Carbinamine Sulfate’, 7 June 1945. All in the archives of the California Institute of Technology, Gordon Alles papers, box 15, unlabelled folder.

If you are following the supplement market closely, you will have seen the first products with a new stimulant on the shelves. 2-aminoisoheptane or DMHA - a supposedly worthy successor to DMAA aka "geranamine" (the stuff in the old Jacked3D) with unquestionable structural similarities to the original banned stimulant and a questionable efficacy and safety profile. With two other non-OTC agents that have been (ab)used to lose body fat for decades, namely ephedrine and clenbuterol, DMHA, which is also called octadrine and correctly labeled "2-amino-6-methylheptane" shares a history as an asthma agent (Monroe. 1947).Aside from the previously cited study by Monroe et al., a study that showed weak, but existing cytoxic effects in cancer cells by Craciunesco et al. from the early 1980s and an old safety study in rodents and guinea pigs by Fellows (1947), which allows us to estimate the "safety range" of the agent at a human equivalent roughly < 400mg (in rodents, the equivalent dose will already trigger tremors and sign. increases in activity), there's unfortunately no scientific evidence to prove that the agent is (a) safe for human consumption and/or (b) even works as it is supposed to.Whether the active substance in Eskay Oralator inhalants from the 1940s is a legitimate successor to DMAA can thus only be answered based on speculation and information from the first users, as well as the fact that the agent ended up on Rasmussen et al's recently published list of "novel stimulants in supplements" that are supposed ot "substitute for recently successful products based on ephedrine and amphetamine" (Rasmussen. 2015 | see).So let's look at what we have: The obviously unreliable user feedback is positive and in line with the implications of the fact that DMHA shares the same structural characteristics which allowed DMAA to interact with the trace amine associated receptor 1 and modulate dopamine and norepinephrine by increasing their production and reducing their reuptake.The structural resemblance to DMAA (see) is yet not the only thing the two agents with similar acronyms have in common. Another one is the lack of compelling scientific evidence of their efficacy and safety: Just like DMHA now, DMAA had no no real scientific backup when it first appeared on the radar of the average supplement junkie and it still blew many away - in the positive sense of being happy w/ the results,... at least until the stimulant effects wore off and the crash turned the positive into similarly negative feelings.References: