1,3-Dimethylbutylamine, known to some by the abbreviation 1,3-DMBA, turned heads in the early 2010s, drawing comparisons to compounds like DMAA as supplement makers searched for new stimulants after regulatory crackdowns. Both chemists and sports supplement companies paid attention. Curiosity about 1,3-DMBA grew as athletes and fitness enthusiasts sought performance-boosting compounds and energy enhancement. Product formulations shifted to sidestep new regulations, as this compound quickly became a focus for both regulators and marketers—highlighting how the supplement industry raced ahead of research and oversight. Before 2013, not much surfaced in mainstream outlets. Its rise stemmed from a persistent appetite for legal alternatives to banned stimulants, paired with a regulatory environment playing catch-up.
In recent years, 1,3-DMBA appeared in pre-workout supplements, fat-burners, and energy pills. Supplement labels sometimes used ambiguous names, fueling confusion for consumers checking for safety and legality. Rather than a pharmaceutical background, most commercial products containing 1,3-DMBA were dietary supplements, often promoted in online fitness communities. Companies leaned heavily on anecdotal reports of focus, energy, and appetite suppression—features prized in competitive sports and bodybuilding circles. In my own circle, gym-goers often discussed the punch these products packed but rarely found reliable resources verifying what they consumed. Marketing far outpaced evidence, and many users remained unaware of what the compound really brought to the table.
1,3-DMBA, formally identified as 4-methyl-2-pentanamine, registers as a colorless, volatile liquid at room temperature. It gives off a subtle, ammonia-like odor, a quality familiar to anyone who’s handled amines in a chemistry lab. With a boiling point around 120°C to 130°C and a molecular weight of 115.22 g/mol, it dissolves well in polar solvents like water and common organic solvents. Its chemical backbone features a straight four-carbon chain with two methyl groups branching off; this structure underpins both its stimulant action and metabolism in the body. Handling 1,3-DMBA involves tight controls due to its volatility and potential for inhalation exposure.
Most supplement labels list only the common name, occasionally using synonyms meant to obscure the active ingredient. Labels frequently show dosages ranging from 50 to 150 milligrams per serving, though third-party analyses sometimes reveal mislabeling or underreporting. Chemical suppliers offering the pure compound supply Certificates of Analysis for purity (often exceeding 98%) and list standard assay details, residual solvents, and storage instructions. Proper labeling standards call for clear disclosure of origin, batch number, storage details, manufacturer, and expiration date. In practice, supplement industry self-policing remains spotty, especially for direct-to-consumer online sales. The confusion leaves both end-users and clinicians guessing about actual exposure.
Lab synthesis starts with 4-methyl-2-pentanone, transformed by reductive amination using an amine source and a reducing agent like hydrogen over a nickel catalyst. This process, while established in industrial organic synthesis, involves high temperatures and pressures, along with careful handling of flammable gases. Reaction yields and purity depend on dozens of variables—solvent choice, temperature, catalyst load, and post-reaction purification. Final product isolation often uses fractional distillation under reduced pressure, then cooling and purification to remove unwanted side-products. Even for skilled chemists, minor changes in process or contamination from precursor chemicals can affect purity or safety. As with many synthetic amines, proper ventilation and waste disposal figure into every batch run.
Standard reactions include salt formation for easier handling or improved stability—key for supplement blending and shelf-life. The hydrochloride salt dissolves well in water, making it suitable for liquid formulations. Derivatization with acyl groups shifts pharmacological actions or metabolic fates, though these efforts seldom reach commercial scale outside research. Oxidation, alkylation, and reduction reactions can create structural analogs, each with distinct safety or regulatory profiles. Real-world labs focus on reliable, reproducible chemistry to avoid harmful by-products or unstable intermediates. Those in regulatory science often note the ease with which minor tweaks to the amine structure let manufacturers skirt regulatory bans, creating a near-constant arms race.
The compound goes by a host of aliases, each tailored to different audiences. In technical circles, “4-methyl-2-pentanamine” crops up. Marketing literature prefers names like AMP citrate, 1,3-dimethylbutylamine HCl, or the simple “DMBA.” Supplement manufacturers may use alternate terms like ‘AMP’ or ‘methylpentanamine’ as legal loopholes or branding tactics. Some labels invoke plant-sounding descriptors, despite no clear evidence of a natural botanical source, muddying water for consumers and regulators alike. Laboratory procurement sites rely on systematic nomenclature, but they recognize the value of keyword-rich product listings to capture online search interest. This multiplicity of names confuses even seasoned healthcare professionals trying to track the safety profiles and clinical histories tied to the substance.
Careful handling sits right at the center of safe operations, given the volatility and potential for inhalation exposure. Anyone with lab experience recognizes the need for gloves, eye protection, and fume hoods to avoid irritation or longer-term health risks. Chemical suppliers provide Safety Data Sheets flagging possible acute toxicity, CNS effects, and respiratory hazards. Storage in sealed, appropriately labeled containers at controlled temperatures extends shelf-life and reduces risks of degradation or accidental exposure. In supplement manufacturing, the absence of GMP oversight in some regions means products could contain impurities or hazardous by-products. Safety lapses don’t just stay in the factory—they spill out into real-world exposures, especially with athletes or young users who might believe “supplements” translate to “safe.”
The dominant uses appear in energy-boosting and weight-control supplements, spurred by consumer demand for sharper focus, stamina, and appetite suppression. Fitness communities promote these effects through word of mouth and online testimonials, which spread faster and more persuasively than peer-reviewed studies. I’ve met gym regulars who swear by the pre-workout “kick”—without much attention to long-term safety or addiction risks. Some research outfits examine potential applications as a starting scaffold for novel pharmaceutical agents, though enthusiasm wanes given the unresolved safety and legal questions. Outside of human consumption, there’s minimal industry uptake; no strong use case has emerged in agriculture, veterinary, or industrial settings. Most headlines trace back to human use, both due to its appeal and the questions it leaves unanswered.
Independent research trails far behind commercial use. Academic labs and some government partners scrutinize pharmacological mechanisms, absorption, and metabolic breakdown in animal and bench-top models. Few clinical trials shed light on human effects beyond short-term stimulant action. The fast-paced adoption in supplements left research gasping for air, with reports scrambling to catch up after the compound had already reached gym shelves worldwide. I’ve seen researchers struggle for grant support to examine health risks precisely because the regulatory status remains fuzzy—a recurring story with emerging psychoactive synthetic compounds. Curiosity from the clinical community hasn’t translated to robust, long-term safety data, giving rise to knowledge gaps for both users and healthcare providers.
Evidence points toward alarming safety questions. Animal studies chart the clear stimulant and cardiovascular responses, yet fail to answer what regular use means for heart, brain, or long-term metabolic health in humans. Recent work exposed potential for hypertension, rapid heartbeat, and central nervous system effects, mirroring risks seen with now-banned analogs. Case reports surfaced of acute toxicity: elevated blood pressure, heart palpitations, and severe headaches struck users of certain supplement products, sometimes in combination with other stimulants or high caffeine intake. Regulatory watchdogs flagged the lack of robust, published safety studies, which meant problems often only surfaced after consumer complaints and adverse event logs grew long enough to prompt action. Calls for rigorous, peer-reviewed research went largely unheeded in the marketing-driven rush to roll out new products.
The crystal ball points to more scrutiny from both regulators and the research community. As past stimulant analogs met with region-wide bans—DMAA among them—1,3-DMBA faces a likely squeeze as risk evidence mounts and public health agencies respond. Long-term, safe use looks doubtful given unresolved questions around cardiovascular and neurological impacts. Researchers interested in stimulant development might look to these compounds as learning tools, comparing molecular tweaks and toxicological outcomes, but the mainstream appeal in consumer fitness products seems set to fade under tighter controls. Real opportunities might emerge on the academic side, dissecting metabolism and structure-activity relationships, rather than in direct supplementation. Honest conversations—within sports circles, laboratory settings, and regulatory agencies—will spell out what this compound represents: not a miracle fix, but another case where hype roared ahead of certainty, and caution presses for a reset before new compounds repeat old errors.
1,3-Dimethylbutylamine, also known as 1,3-DMBA, often comes up in conversations around sports supplements and weight loss aids. Chemically, it’s quite similar to DMAA, a stimulant that faced heavy scrutiny. Companies turned to 1,3-DMBA as a substitute after DMAA’s regulatory problems. Much of the buzz around 1,3-DMBA surrounds its use as a stimulant ingredient, promising extra kick for athletes or anyone chasing an energy boost.
Most supplements featuring 1,3-DMBA target fitness enthusiasts. You’ll find it in pre-workout powders and energy boosters sold online, especially in places with less strict supplement regulations. The logic goes like this: if caffeine alone isn’t enough, makers throw in compounds with similar structures—hoping for a jump in alertness and physical performance. Marketers often pitch this compound as a way to sharpen focus, increase energy, and suppress appetite, all while sidestepping restrictions that pushed other stimulants off shelves.
As someone who’s spent time reading supplement labels in gyms and health stores, I see a pattern. Every few years, new ingredients pop up to keep products legal but just as strong—or stronger—than those before. 1,3-DMBA fits that cycle. Researchers and health authorities spotted issues fast, flagging potential dangers in its use. There’s little data about how it works in the body or about its long-term effects. Side effects reported with similar chemicals include spikes in blood pressure, heart palpitations, and severe headaches. The fear is, without enough testing, these risks could go unnoticed until harm happens.
Regulators in countries like the US and UK caught on quickly. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned against its use, stating that it’s not recognized as safe or approved for dietary supplements. Several studies pointed out that the stimulant never went through proper safety checks for use in consumer products. The UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) both took steps to block sales.
From experience, real progress depends on a mix of clearer supplement regulation and greater consumer awareness. Retailers could push back harder against untested ingredients—just as some chains did after scares with DMAA. The supplement industry also benefits from stronger research. If someone claims their gym powder contains an “energy blend,” transparency becomes more important than ever. The challenge usually falls on users: many trust labels that promise fast results, without knowing what’s behind the claims.
On a practical level, I’ve seen gym buddies switch to simpler options—sticking to proven safe ingredients like plain caffeine or creatine—after bad reactions to mystery compounds. Building trust comes from ensuring safety, not just innovation. The growing popularity of energy supplements means regulators, researchers, and regular people all play a role in setting the right standards and expectations.
The story of 1,3-DMBA shows how gaps in supplement oversight let risky ingredients slip through. For those reaching for a supplement promising quick fixes, it pays to take a hard look at what’s inside. Safer, time-tested choices almost always win in the long run.
Just a few years ago, supplement bottles promising energy boosts appeared on store shelves, and some of them mentioned 1,3-DMBA as a key ingredient. Plenty of fitness fans wondered if this new compound really offered a shortcut to more reps and faster sprints. Others heard rumors about its safety and legality but pushed those doubts aside in favor of results. Eventually, 1,3-DMBA stirred up enough attention for regulators to take notice. Suddenly, a popular energy booster became the subject of legal scrutiny and medical warning lists.
1,3-DMBA (1,3-dimethylbutylamine) belongs to the same chemical family as DMAA, a stimulant ingredient once common in fat burners and pre-workout powders. DMAA ended up banned in many countries after links to health problems, and DMBA slid into some supplement formulas as a replacement. According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 1,3-DMBA has never been approved for use in dietary supplements. Officials say it doesn’t qualify as a “dietary ingredient” under federal law, which sets strict requirements for what can be added to supplements sold in the United States.
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom have each taken their own steps to clamp down on DMBA—including warning letters to sellers and product recalls. Searching for these products online, I see them showing up on websites based in countries with weaker rules, or as “research chemicals”—another loophole some sellers use to skirt regulations. But these routes put buyers at risk. There’s no guarantee about purity, amounts, or even what’s inside the bottle. It’s surprisingly easy to order substances like these, but taking them brings personal risk and legal exposure.
The problem with 1,3-DMBA isn’t just the legal side. Medical experts point to a lack of safety testing, unpredictable side effects, and stories of heart problems, high blood pressure, and even deaths linked to related compounds. I have spoken with gym-goers who saw no harm in popping a capsule before a tough workout, but the risks rarely end up on the label. Legal supplements don’t always equal safe supplements—especially when ingredients slip through regulatory cracks or lack clear oversight.
Each new stimulant trend brings waves of consumers and plenty of creative marketing, but few companies slow down enough to study long-term effects. That gap leaves the door open for real harm and confusion. A 2020 research study found some “DMBA” supplements didn’t even contain the advertised ingredient, showing just how loosely these products may be assembled. Without standards, both athletes and everyday folks gamble with unknowns.
Government watchdogs keep issuing warning statements, but widespread online sales don’t disappear overnight. Real change often happens when informed consumers tell supplement stores what they won’t buy, and when companies realize customers care more about safety than empty claims of “fast results.” Some athletes talk openly about getting burned by risky supplements and push gym communities to ask questions before chasing a buzz. Doctors and coaches need regular briefings on emerging ingredients so conversations with athletes and patients don’t lag behind internet trends.
Greater legal clarity would help, not just for 1,3-DMBA but also any new chemical cousin. Banning one stimulant at a time only encourages chemical tweaks and the next loophole. Setting stronger rules about evidence and honest marketing puts everyone on a safer path. For now, reading up on what’s in a capsule and asking tough questions beats the short thrill of chasing the next stimulant fad.
Supplements claiming to boost energy or help drop weight often mention a chemical called 1,3-DMBA. It shows up on some labels as DMBA, AMP citrate, or “4-amino-2-methylpentane citrate.” This stuff isn’t made for food or medicine. Most sources link it back to research chemicals or industrial labs, not nutritionists or doctors. Very little human research backs up bold claims about sharper focus, longer workouts, or fat burning. What’s worrying is where 1,3-DMBA came from: chemical relatives like DMAA got banned in the U.S. after multiple reports of heart attacks and strokes.
There’s no magic bullet that only targets body fat or fatigue without hitting other systems. 1,3-DMBA acts as a stimulant. It causes more adrenaline and similar chemicals to flood your body. This jacks up heart rate and raises blood pressure. That alone puts extra strain on your heart and blood vessels. Some people shrug off a racing heart; others land in the ER. At high doses, or mixed with other stimulants like caffeine, the risks stack higher—heart palpitations, dizziness, and chest pain all get more likely.
I recall working at a supplement shop in college. Every time a “new” fat burner rolled out, someone returned with stories of pounding heartbeats, shakes, or feeling so wired they couldn’t sleep. Sometimes it was panic attacks. Back then, people thought, “If it doesn’t kill me fast, it’s probably safe.” Looking at DMBA research, that thinking couldn’t land further from the truth.
The quick-hit side effects from DMBA look a lot like other strong stimulants. Users report headaches, feeling jittery, trouble sleeping, anxiety, and sometimes nausea. Caffeine alone can push some folks over the edge; pairing it with DMBA amplifies the risk. More troubling: cases of high blood pressure, irregular heartbeat, and chest pain show up in reports when people take hefty doses. In rare cases, stimulants like DMBA have triggered stroke or heart attack—even in young adults with no known heart problems.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration flagged DMBA as unsafe for supplements as early as 2015. No trusted clinical studies show benefits in humans, and animal tests raise plenty of red flags: rapid blood pressure spikes, wild shifts in heart rhythm, potential damage to the brain and liver. That’s not fear mongering—it comes straight from medical case reports and independent testing performed by labs at Harvard and NSF International.
Reading a label won’t always protect you. Some supplement companies use DMBA under alternate names or leave it off labeling, which makes it hard to dodge if you’re buying pre-workouts from less-known brands online. Transparency is in short supply. Keeping an eye on ingredients and sticking with reputable companies helps. But the safest bet is to skip anything promising miraculous weight loss, all-day energy, or “DMAA alternative” in the formula. Most gains in the gym come from hard work, good food, and sleep—no mystery powder required.
DMAA once held a solid spot in many pre-workout blends and fat burners. Its reputation for delivering an unmistakable boost of energy and focus spread quickly among gym-goers. Regulators and health agencies started pulling DMAA from shelves after concerns about its safety profile surfaced. Reports linked it to heart trouble, high blood pressure, and other serious risks. With DMAA mostly gone, a new batch of compounds tried to fill the gap. 1,3-DMBA is one of them, claiming to bring energy and drive like its predecessor.
Chemically, 1,3-DMBA sits close to DMAA. Both compounds act as stimulants, stirring up the central nervous system and pushing the body into a state that many athletes say helps with training intensity. The molecular difference comes down to a single methyl group in DMAA versus a methyl and butyl group in DMBA. On paper, this might seem minor, but these tweaks often change the way the body handles each compound.
Those who’ve tried both will mention that 1,3-DMBA doesn’t always deliver the hard-hitting punch DMAA once did. DMAA's energy boost could feel almost electric—sometimes too much, leading to jitters, sweats, or a “crash.” With 1,3-DMBA, the effects—while similar—tend to feel a bit smoother and subtler. Some users still report elevated focus and endurance, but rarely the overwhelming sensation linked to DMAA.
DMAA faced warnings from the FDA and similar agencies worldwide, which eventually made it tough to find or use legally in supplements. Studies showed that DMAA can raise blood pressure and stress the heart, especially at high doses. You’ll find fewer studies about 1,3-DMBA, as it's newer and hasn’t drawn as much public attention. Early research and anecdotal evidence suggest it shares risks with DMAA—including the chance of sharp blood pressure spikes, heart palpitations, and sleepless nights.
Energy and motivation to get through a hard workout matter a lot in fitness culture. Temptation runs high when a compound seems to promise an edge. Still, history keeps showing that unregulated stimulants often come with more baggage than benefits. If you ever thought about using one of these compounds, getting honest advice from healthcare professionals who know your medical background feels critical—not only for safety but for making real progress in your fitness journey.
Looking for sustainable energy, simpler options still stand tall—nutritious meals, good hydration, a full night’s sleep, and a consistently tuned training plan. Modern supplement formulas now rely on established stimulants like caffeine, which regulators understand much better. Taking a step back and focusing on what can be controlled helps avoid unnecessary risks.
People tend to look for shortcuts, but nothing matches the long-term results of healthy habits. DMBA and DMAA both draw attention for a reason, but neither can shortcut the basics that actually work for body and mind.
Every so often, a new supplement pops up in the fitness or wellness world, promising focus, energy, or fat loss. 1,3-DMBA belongs to one of those families. It lives in the gray zone, sometimes labeled as a “designer stimulant,” hiding behind names like AMP citrate or 4-amino-2-methylpentane citrate. It’s easy to find confusion about how much, if any, someone should take. The reality is, no health authority has set a safe or effective dose for 1,3-DMBA. Researchers hardly have data on humans using the compound, and regulatory agencies in the United States and Europe have flagged it as unsafe.
Years ago, some friends and I trained for a half-marathon. One runner in our group bought a supplement at a local store with “energy blend” plastered across the label. Nobody thought to search what each ingredient meant. The bottle contained DMAA—an ingredient closely related to 1,3-DMBA. After an intense workout, he felt jittery, nauseous, and his heart pounded well past a normal finish-line high. That scare led us all to start diving into ingredients before accepting the claims on flashy bottles.
What struck me was not just the lack of clarity, but the sense of trust that clever branding managed to build. 1,3-DMBA slides into that same space, promising benefits, hiding risks, and rarely providing evidence.
1,3-DMBA never passed human trials or earned approval for use in food or supplements. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) listed it as an illegal, unapproved ingredient. Australia and the United Kingdom followed suit, warning the public about dangerous side effects. Some studies on similar compounds point to high blood pressure, rapid heartbeat, risk of heart attack, and even death. The lack of research on long-term health impacts leaves everyone in the dark.
Most shockingly, some supplements still carry it under unfamiliar names, tricking users who hope for extra edge in training or weight loss. That lack of reliable labeling only raises the odds of accidental overdose and severe side effects.
People want shortcuts. The lure of fast results tempts athletes and regular gym-goers. When no recommended dosage exists, folks often rely on half-truths from internet forums or word of mouth. That’s a bad path. Recent recalls from the FDA showed bottles with 1,3-DMBA ranging from 13 mg up to over 100 mg in a single capsule. Nobody knows how much lands on the dangerous side—since the line between “stimulated” and “in the ER” can disappear before you feel it.
No clear dosage chart can protect a user from the risks baked into these substances. The best plan: check credentials and transparency in labeling, and never trust hype without peer-reviewed research. The history of related compounds speaks louder than a million marketing claims. Unregulated stimulants bring risk, and no recommended dose replaces an honest look at real safety data. Investing in your health outdoes any quick-fix powder or pill every time.
| Names | |
| Preferred IUPAC name | 2-(Methylamino)-4-methylpentane |
| Other names |
DMBA
AMP Citrate 4-Amino-2-methylpentane 1,3-DMBA 4-Methyl-2-pentanamine 4-Methyl-2-pentylamine |
| Pronunciation | /ˈwʌn θri daɪˈmɛθɪlˈbjuːtiːl əˈmiːn/ |
| Identifiers | |
| CAS Number | 105-41-9 |
| Beilstein Reference | 1913674 |
| ChEBI | CHEBI:81923 |
| ChEMBL | CHEMBL3727417 |
| ChemSpider | 21542414 |
| DrugBank | DB11590 |
| ECHA InfoCard | 03edcd9b-62b7-4b1a-888c-06d2d3e58d1c |
| EC Number | 201-554-5 |
| Gmelin Reference | 1260002 |
| KEGG | C16397 |
| MeSH | D020141 |
| PubChem CID | 2763446 |
| RTECS number | EL9646000 |
| UNII | A180FR8NTS |
| UN number | UN3336 |
| Properties | |
| Chemical formula | C6H15N |
| Molar mass | 129.23 g/mol |
| Appearance | Colorless liquid |
| Odor | amine-like |
| Density | 0.742 g/mL at 25 °C |
| Solubility in water | Slightly soluble |
| log P | 1.86 |
| Vapor pressure | 0.332 mmHg (at 25 °C) |
| Acidity (pKa) | 10.70 |
| Basicity (pKb) | 3.36 |
| Magnetic susceptibility (χ) | -74.0×10⁻⁶ cm³/mol |
| Refractive index (nD) | 1.405 |
| Viscosity | 0.38 cP (25 °C) |
| Dipole moment | 1.123 D |
| Thermochemistry | |
| Std molar entropy (S⦵298) | 296.6 J·mol⁻¹·K⁻¹ |
| Std enthalpy of formation (ΔfH⦵298) | −124.2 kJ/mol |
| Std enthalpy of combustion (ΔcH⦵298) | −4894 kJ·mol⁻¹ |
| Hazards | |
| GHS labelling | GHS02, GHS07 |
| Pictograms | GHS05,GHS07 |
| Signal word | Warning |
| Hazard statements | H302 + H312 + H332: Harmful if swallowed, in contact with skin or if inhaled. |
| Precautionary statements | P261, P264, P271, P273, P304+P340, P312, P403+P233, P405, P501 |
| NFPA 704 (fire diamond) | 2-3-0 |
| Flash point | 54 °C (closed cup) |
| Autoignition temperature | The autoignition temperature of 1,3-Dimethylbutylamine (1,3-DMBA) is **285°C**. |
| Lethal dose or concentration | LD50 (rat, oral): >100 mg/kg |
| PEL (Permissible) | Not established |
| REL (Recommended) | Not established |
| IDLH (Immediate danger) | Not established |
| Related compounds | |
| Related compounds |
Methylhexanamine (DMAA)
Amphetamine 4-Methyl-2-hexanamine 2-Aminoisoheptane (DMHA) Phenethylamine Ephedrine |
