• Neuroscience & Pharmacology Discussion Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Recent Journal Articles Chemistry Mega-Thread
    FREE Chemistry Databases! Self-Education Guide

  • N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | someguyontheinternet

Mysterious stimulant in Slim Xtreme dietary supplement

Status
Not open for further replies.
excuse my ignorance, but does that mean that "Phenyl-pyrrolidinyltoluene" is just a misnamed diphenylmethyl-Pyrrollidine
Click to expand...

It's the same compound, and it's not misnamed, it's just a different way of naming the compound.

You can say pyrrolidinyltoluene or you can say benzylpyrrolidine, either are correct.

You could even call the compound "2-benzhydrylpyrrolidine"

however the IUPAC name is 2-(diphenylmethyl)pyrrolidine if I'm not mistaken.
 
I can't believe any diphenylprolinol derivative would be pleasant. That stuff gives me schizo paranoia.
 
dread said:
It's the same compound, and it's not misnamed, it's just a different way of naming the compound.

You can say pyrrolidinyltoluene or you can say benzylpyrrolidine, either are correct.

You could even call the compound "2-benzhydrylpyrrolidine"

however the IUPAC name is 2-(diphenylmethyl)pyrrolidine if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

thank you very much!
BTW, is this a controlled substance?
 
How is this stuff not an analogue?

Otto: not specifically, though it's being sold for human consumption and seems likely to be considered an analogue of a CI or CII, so it will be considered scheduled.
 
Hammilton said:
How is this stuff not an analogue?

Otto: not specifically, though it's being sold for human consumption and seems likely to be considered an analogue of a CI or CII, so it will be considered scheduled.
Click to expand...

thank you for the information!
 
Last edited:
dread said:
It's the same compound, and it's not misnamed, it's just a different way of naming the compound.

You can say pyrrolidinyltoluene or you can say benzylpyrrolidine, either are correct.

You could even call the compound "2-benzhydrylpyrrolidine"

however the IUPAC name is 2-(diphenylmethyl)pyrrolidine if I'm not mistaken.
Click to expand...

you cannot correctly call it pyrrolidinyltoluene
 
I have one more question.

I could find quite a bit of data on Diphenylprolinol but very little about Diphenylmethylpyrrolidin.

From a strict (bio-)chemical perspective, what difference would the methanolgroup make compared to the methylgroup with regards to permeation of the blood brain barrier, the binding kinetics to dopamine transporter (and / or to the dopamine receptors)?

I know, this is probably pure speculation, but what pharmacodynamic differences / similarities are likely to be expected from these two molecules?
 
Hi otto,

Have there been any other GCMS results from any other labs? How did you get those results, and is there any way to trace the origin?

I'm concerned because an unscrupulous company could simply post arbitrary GCMS results on a well-regarded site for drug information, obtain a credible interpretation of this arbitrary GCMS, update it's product information to incorporate this, and then have a wonderful red herring for any future competitors/regulators trying to determine the makeup of the product.

Not to mention the excellent interest drummed up in the product as a result of it being presented as a "mystery".
 
lineartransform said:
Hi otto,

Have there been any other GCMS results from any other labs? How did you get those results, and is there any way to trace the origin?

I'm concerned because an unscrupulous company could simply post arbitrary GCMS results on a well-regarded site for drug information, obtain a credible interpretation of this arbitrary GCMS, update it's product information to incorporate this, and then have a wonderful red herring for any future competitors/regulators trying to determine the makeup of the product.

Not to mention the excellent interest drummed up in the product as a result of it being presented as a "mystery".
Click to expand...

they would be monumentally stupid to identify something which is clearly an analogue of a controlled drug and therefore subject to the analog act in the US. The material is blatently presented as being for human consumption, and now that their ingredients list states it to contain this analogue they are sailing very close to the wind indeed.

even if it doesn't contain diphenylmethylpyrrolidine the fact that their ingredients list says it does means that they can be prosecuted as if it did, under the "passing off law". for example representing aspirin as ecstacy is as illegal as selling ecstacy itself and attracts exactly the same penalties.

I would be interested to see the rest of the GC-MS data
 
I remember back a MDPV batch turning out to be that same diphenylmethylpyrrolidinol crap ,yeah it must be so tempting for the lower life forms buying cheap crap and sell it for big-bucks...
 
lineartransform said:
Hi otto,

Have there been any other GCMS results from any other labs? How did you get those results, and is there any way to trace the origin?

I'm concerned because an unscrupulous company could simply post arbitrary GCMS results on a well-regarded site for drug information, obtain a credible interpretation of this arbitrary GCMS, update it's product information to incorporate this, and then have a wonderful red herring for any future competitors/regulators trying to determine the makeup of the product.

Not to mention the excellent interest drummed up in the product as a result of it being presented as a "mystery".
Click to expand...


Hi lineartransform,


If you purchased 'aspirin' for pain relief and the pill you got turns out to be as strong as buprenorphine, you would certainly scratch your head and ask yourself what is going on here....

My reasoning has always been that the stronger a substance may affect physiological functions in the body, the higher the risk would be to also introduce some potential harm to the body.

hence a number of concerned people from various internet forums, who got in touch with the said product, teamed up to research and gather as much information as possible about it. The main and driving idea behind this is the question: what may this product or substance do in my body and which conseqences might be related to it.

I will ask the chemist who thankfully performed the GC/MS measurement to provide more details. These measurments are private work, they are by no means official nor have they never been intended to be used for anything beyond personal and serious concern.
The alternative would have been to take perhaps 5000 -10000 dollars and let a lab do all the work from scratch -without even knowing whether and what they would find something.
 
Last edited:
^That is the war on drugs in action. Because the policy is 'it is illegal if we say it is at the time, in your case,' a buck can be made by trying to bewilder everyone with bullshit: well it must be all the herbs and twigs and p. anthracaeusas rootfiber areial extract and assorted shubbery--the ingredients list says something hilarious like "ketones" or "heterocyclic amines" (if even that) and the real active compound (whatever it may be) is shuffled around every few weeks/months, before paperwork is pushed, the current list of "taboo" changes, more paperpushing, squads are assembled, warrents executed, etc... Imagine a world in which people were informed and somewhat educated about chemicals (real education with actual information, not DARE and Reefer Madness), got them via regulated distribution, taxed and therefore verified, purified, presicely dosed, etc...and could make an informed choice. No more dried, gound salad with aloe, beet paste exact and mixed siberian ginseng--plus an unknown dose of a random synthetic DAT/NET ligand. Will it be an amphetamine or a uptake inhibitor? Will you like it and is going to well-tolerated and safe for you to take, physiologically? This is why I don't take pressies.

There was a great episode of the show Sealab 2021 parodying this whole 99.999% organic all-natural supplement bit.

I don't know how I feel about equivalent prosecution for fake drugs (other than to say drug prohibition in general is a losing war of attrition that does nothing but provide a recession-free source of income to organized crime groups): on one hand, it is so stupid, 15 years mantiory minimum for an inert powder--but on the other hand, fuck you; you sold me a fake, misrepresented chemical. If you are an unethical prick, then you get what you deserve.
 
"Why! Why does all the crap we consume have to be tested on animals first? A rabbit doesn't need lipstick! A Rabbit doesn't use hair spray! A monkey doesn't need pills to get revved up for hot, monkey sex! It's people man, we're miserable!"
 
there is a huge debate on this supplement at the moment

http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=119112401

there is also a lot of chemist on this board that is working on trying to figure out what it might be . If any of you would not mind chiming in on this thread that would be very helpful. As it seems you all have a handle on the chem side .

Thanks

Bad News
 
^ the substance was identified from a posted Mass spectrum. that mass spectrum shows the molecule contains the diphenyl methyl group also known as the benzhydryl group there is no doubt about that. diagnostic ions are M/z 70 for substituted pyrroles C4H8N+ and 165 for diphenyl methane C13H9+

so if the mass spectrum posted here was obtained from GC-MS of a genuine sample, then Slim xtreme contains either 2-(diphenylmethyl) pyrrolidine or 3-diphenylmethyl pyrollidine.

case closed. no further debate required.

I am slightly concerned that the mass spectrum is no longer visible :-(
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top