Originally Posted by MFS
I never said it was stronger, merely that the reported kinetics were different. His statement is based on the assumption that "assuming the two have the same pharmacokinetics", so it's circular reasoning in that regard.
I know you didn't said stronger and I didn't implied that you said either, I just equated those claims people make elsewhere to the same line of BS that ignore well researched and known facts about DNP.
As for the pharmacokinetics, in the absence of proof or at least solid evidence, the hypotheses presented by Conciliator is a very good explanation for those reported claims. Keep in mind that people's perception of the effects of DNP vary greatly and those claims are made in BB forums where people take the same dosage of both versions of DNP and then try to draw conclusions. I didn't saw a single post of anyone doing a proper comparison of let's say 200mg powder vs 267mg crystal (which would be a true apples to apples comparison).
Contrast this with all the research made where the only observation made is that crystal have 25% less DNP than the raw powder alternative. Once in the body, the sodium salt is cleaved and you get the exact same content. So I prefer to go with a more sound explanation than giving credence to myths/baseless claims.
In the interest of science, sodium phenolate solutions at low pH (say by the addition of HCl) should protonate (based on pKa) and precipitate out of solution as the solubility of the phenol is quite low I would imagine. Obviously you wouldn't do this at home...
So this more or less simulate the fate of the sodium DNP in the stomach. Considering that DNP itself is "uber-pervasive", going thru everything all the way to the cells mitochondrias any possible difference would have minimal impact if any. Like I said there's no facts of solid evidence suggesting any difference, just bro-reports scattered over the internet alluding to that. Once in the body, both versions behave the same, the only real difference being actual mg of DNP ingested.