DMAA
1,3-Dimethylamylamine
Also known as: Methylhexanamine, geranamine, Jack3d stimulant
Evidence Strength: LIMITED
This ingredient receives a unclassified risk score due to safety concerns identified by health authorities in USA, USA/FDA. Scientific evidence indicates dMAA acts primarily as a central nervous system stimulant. It is believed….
Safety Profile
Common Adverse Effects
- Headache
- nausea
- jitteriness
- increased heart rate
- anxiety
Serious Adverse Effects
- Hypertension
- heart attack
- stroke
- seizures
- liver damage
Contraindications
- Hypertension
- cardiovascular disease
- hyperthyroidism
- anxiety disorders
- People taking Antihypertensives
- pregnancy
Interactions
| Drug / Nutrient | Interaction Mechanism | Warning |
|---|---|---|
| Antihypertensives | reduced efficacy — monitor blood pressure. MAO inhibitors: increased risk of hypertensive crisis — avoid use. Stimulants: additive effects — increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. | Monitor |
Evidence and Scientific Findings
Ingredient Overview
Biological and Chemical Classification
- Chemical Class
- Aliphatic amine
- Biological Class
- Stimulant
- Natural Source
- Synthetic origin
- Scientific Name
- 1,3-Dimethylamylamine
- Chemical Formula
- C7H17N
- CAS Number
- 105-41-9
Mechanism of Action
Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness
| Indication | Evidence Level | Summary |
|---|---|---|
| General | Moderate | Human studies on DMAA are limited and often of low quality, with many relying on small sample sizes or lacking rigorous controls. Some studies suggest it may enhance physical performance and weight loss, but these findings are inconsistent. The potential for serious adverse effects, including cardiovascular events, has been documented, raising significant safety concerns. |
Pharmacokinetics
Recommended Dosage
| Condition / Use | Typical Dose |
|---|---|
| Weight loss | 25-75 mg daily. Athletic performance: 25-50 mg pre-workout. Cognitive enhancement: 25-50 mg as needed. |
Dosage ranges are based on clinical studies and commonly used supplement formulations. Individual requirements may vary.
SETI — Scientific Evidence Transparency Index
Executive Summary — Ingredient Assessment
- 4 studies reviewed
- 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or RCT)
- Main clinical benefit observed: DMAA, or 1,3-Dimethylamylamine, is a synthetic compound originally developed as a nasal decongestant.
- Evidence consistency: High consistency across studies (100%)
- DMAA has been linked to severe cardiovascular events, including heart attacks and strokes, particularly in individuals with pre-existing conditions. Its use is not recommended during pregnancy or in children. Regulatory agencies in several countries have issued warnings or banned its sale due to safety concerns.
- USA/FDA — Banned
The available scientific evidence for DMAA indicates notable safety signals that warrant caution. Use should be considered carefully and monitored, particularly in sensitive populations or alongside other medications.
Total SETI Score
High risk| Evidence quality | 4/40 |
| Evidence consistency | 20/20 |
| Safety signals | 12/20 |
| Study recency | 10/10 |
| Evidence transparency | 10/10 |
Evidence Summary
- 4 studies reviewed
- 0 high-quality studies (meta-analysis or systematic review)
- 0 studies identified benefits or no safety concern (GREEN)
- 4 studies reported limited or advisory safety evidence (YELLOW)
Evidence Policy
Only peer-reviewed scientific literature indexed in PubMed or comparable databases is included in this evaluation. Commercial websites, blogs, and marketing materials are excluded. All references include direct traceable links to source documents.
Last updated: 23 მარ 2026, 19:17
Evidence Distribution
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWDevelopment of analytical method for determination of 1,3-dimethylamylamine in sports nutrition and bodybuilding supplements using pH-switchable deep eutectic solvents followed by high-performance… ↗Shen D et al.. Development of analytical method for determination of 1,3-dimethylamylamine in sports nutrition and bodybuilding supplements using pH-switchable deep eutectic solvents followed by high-performance liquid chromatography-diode array detector.. J Sep Sci. 2024. PMID:39215580.PMID 39215580 ↗Journal J Sep SciYear 2024Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39215580/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWIntake of Food Supplements, Caffeine, Green Tea and Protein Products among Young Danish Men Training in Commercial Gyms for Increasing Muscle Mass. ↗Pilegaard K et al.. Intake of Food Supplements, Caffeine, Green Tea and Protein Products among Young Danish Men Training in Commercial Gyms for Increasing Muscle Mass.. Foods. 2022. PMID:36553745.PMID 36553745 ↗Journal FoodsYear 2022Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36553745/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWLack of supplement regulation: A potential for ethical and physiological repercussions. ↗Benjamin S et al.. Lack of supplement regulation: A potential for ethical and physiological repercussions.. Nutr Health. 2022. PMID:35770294.PMID 35770294 ↗Journal Nutr HealthYear 2022Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35770294/
-
Observational / other LOW evidence YELLOWHave prohibition policies made the wrong decision? A critical review of studies investigating the effects of DMAA. ↗Dunn M. Have prohibition policies made the wrong decision? A critical review of studies investigating the effects of DMAA.. Int J Drug Policy. 2017. PMID:27856133.PMID 27856133 ↗Journal Int J Drug PolicyYear 2017Study type Observational / otherEvidence strength LOW evidencePubMed link https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27856133/
Score Transparency
0 of 10 approved references (score saturates at 10). More peer-reviewed studies = stronger evidence base.
Method: Q = number of approved references ÷ 10 (capped at 1.0)
Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies
Method: L = mean study-level weight across approved references. Level 1 (meta-analysis / systematic review) = 1.0; Level 2 (RCT) = 0.8; Level 3 (cohort/case-control) = 0.6; Level 4 (case report) = 0.4; Level 5 (animal / in-vitro) = 0.2.
Mixed or neutral — roughly equal benefit and risk signals
Method: D = (sum of risk-scored references − sum of benefit-scored references) ÷ total evidence score, then scaled from [−1, 1] to [0, 1]. 0.0 = pure benefit; 0.5 = neutral; 1.0 = pure risk.
High volume of active regulatory or adverse-event signals
Method: S = 0.5 (neutral baseline) + sum of active signal severity deltas ÷ 10. Severity deltas: Critical = +2.0, High = +1.5, Moderate = +1.0, Low = +0.5. Capped at 1.0.
Final GIRI Score for DMAA. Risk level thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.
Full methodology & data sources
The GIRI Score is computed entirely from structured data — no editorial scoring or subjective weighting is applied at any step.
- References: Only approved references are counted. Each reference is assigned an evidence level (L1–L5) and a direction (risk / neutral / benefit) by the reference manager or AI classifier.
- Safety Signals: Sourced from regulatory agencies (FDA, EMA, Health Canada, TGA, and others) and pharmacovigilance databases. Only active signals count toward the score.
- Formula version: GIRI Score v3.7.0 — Q × L × D × S × 10.
- Limitations: The score reflects published evidence and recorded signals as of the last update date. It is not a clinical risk assessment and should not replace advice from a qualified healthcare professional.
Risk Level Classification
Based on available regulatory signals and scientific evidence, this ingredient presents a critical safety concern. Regulatory restrictions or bans are in place in multiple jurisdictions.
0–3.0
3.0–5.5
5.5–7.5
7.5–10
The score pin shows exactly where this ingredient falls on the fixed risk scale.
What drove the Critical classification for DMAA
A score of 9.0 places this ingredient in the Critical band. Thresholds: Low 0–3.0 · Moderate 3.0–5.5 · High 5.5–7.5 · Critical 7.5–10.
0 approved references.
Limited — mostly case reports or animal studies (Level 4–5).
Neutral or mixed — benefit and risk signals roughly balanced.
2 active signals (highest severity: Critical). Each active signal raises S above the neutral baseline of 0.5.
1 jurisdiction has active restrictions or advisories. Regulatory signals are recorded as Safety Signals and raise the S component.
How are the Low / Moderate / High / Critical thresholds defined?
The four risk levels are fixed score bands. A score is assigned to exactly one level based on where it falls:
| Level | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| LOW | 0.0 – 2.9 | Sparse or predominantly beneficial evidence. No active safety alerts. |
| MODERATE | 3.0 – 5.4 | Mixed signals — some risk alongside benefit. Caution at high doses or in sensitive groups. |
| HIGH | 5.5 – 7.4 | Multiple studies or regulatory alerts documenting adverse effects. Professional oversight recommended. |
| CRITICAL | 7.5 – 10 | Regulatory restrictions in one or more major jurisdictions. Serious documented harm. Avoid without specialist supervision. |
Thresholds are fixed constants (GIRI_Score_Utils::LEVEL_THRESHOLDS). They do not change per ingredient and are never subject to editorial adjustment.