Thread: Methylhexanamine (Geranamine) Misinformation

Methylhexanamine (Geranamine) Misinformation
By Patrick Arnold ~ source

Methylhexaneamine, also referred to as 1,3-dimethylamylamine (and by the trademark Geranamine), is a nutritional supplement ingredient that is marketed in diet and energy products. It made its entry into the supplement market in 2005 after the discovery of literature published in China that demonstrated it to be present in Geranium Oil (at least the variety of Geranium Oil produced in that region of China).

Alot of hype has surrounded this compound, especially in the last year or so as its popularity has taken off due to it’s incorporation in the formulas of successful products such as USP Labs “Jack3d”. I don’t want to insert myself into the whole debate because it doesn’t really matter to me like it matters to people such as USP who make millions off the stuff. I do however want to correct an inaccurate and perplexing statement about this ingredient made by a renowned pharmacologist in a major US newspaper in 2006. In regards to methylhexaneamine he said:

“The chemical structure is similar to amphetamines and ephedrine”

This quote has been repeated many times by many other writers and bloggers as a suggestion that methylhexaneamine is a dangerous substance that is akin to other more well known chemicals of “ill repute”

The facts regarding the structural similarities of the compounds are not quite what the pharmacologist would have you believe however. Below are the three structures:



It does not take a chemist to see that the methylhexanamine differs substantially from the other two compounds. I don’t really know what the pharmacologist was thinking. Perhaps he saw that they all contained carbon atoms and nitrogen atoms. In that case the compound is similar to amino acids and cyanide as well. Or a million other chemicals.

The pharmacologist also made another statement at the end of the newspaper article.

“This stuff ought not be out there,” “It’s dangerous material.”

A pharmacologist does not call a material dangerous when there is no known evidence that suggests it is dangerous, and there simply is not evidence out there that methylhexaneamine is dangerous. I could make a statement and say “methylhexaneamine is completely safe” and I would be just as wrong. I would never say anything like that though because I speak like a scientist, not a propagandist. I understand when talking to the media it is tempting to give in to hyperbole, but I believe that in doing so a scientsits loses some credibility amongst his/her peers.

That is all I have to say about this. I only wanted to bring up these two points on the matter, as they have been bugging me for quite some time. Whether you think methylhexaneamine is great stuff or if you want to see it chucked out the window at least I provided you with some real information here rather than hysterical misinformation.