Hypoxen

Olifen — polydihydroxyphenylene thiosulfonate sodium, a Russian antihypoxant

Hypoxen (Olifen — polydihydroxyphenylene thiosulfonate sodium, a Russian antihypoxant) is a performance & endurance research compound. A polymeric phenolic thiosulfonate sodium salt. The 2025 review lists three proposed actions: improved coupling in the respiratory chain with accelerated oxidative phosphorylation, inhibition of succinate dehydrogenase, and activation of mitochondrial ATP-sensitive potassium channels in skeletal muscle and myocardium. The first and third pull in opposite directions, so the mechanism as published is a list rather than a chain. The succinate dehydrogenase claim is the interesting one: blocking succinate oxidation at complex II is the strategy the reperfusion literature identifies as protective — and it is the exact opposite of what Cytoflavin, sold on the same shelf, is designed to do.

How Hypoxen works

A polymeric phenolic thiosulfonate sodium salt. The 2025 review lists three proposed actions: improved coupling in the respiratory chain with accelerated oxidative phosphorylation, inhibition of succinate dehydrogenase, and activation of mitochondrial ATP-sensitive potassium channels in skeletal muscle and myocardium. The first and third pull in opposite directions, so the mechanism as published is a list rather than a chain. The succinate dehydrogenase claim is the interesting one: blocking succinate oxidation at complex II is the strategy the reperfusion literature identifies as protective — and it is the exact opposite of what Cytoflavin, sold on the same shelf, is designed to do.

Where to get Hypoxen

The evidence for Hypoxen

Graded by what exists behind each claim.

✅ Clinically validated

• Its own 2025 review states that human studies are limited and that no clinical trial following international standards is available (Jedrejko 2025). What exists instead is described as a developed body of work from Russia's military medical research establishment in the 1980s and 1990s, with limited online access — a literature nobody outside can read, check or cite.
• WADA added it to the Monitoring Program in 2023 after documented evidence of use by athletes. The same review names performance enhancement as the first criterion considered for adding a substance to the Prohibited List, and concludes only that the studies may provide some evidence of potential.

📊 Correlative data

• Reviewed with Mexidol and the succinate derivatives as an antihypoxic, anti-ischemic metabolic modulator used as an ergogenic aid (Jedrejko 2024), inside a wider pharmacology of targeting mitochondrial dysfunction in cerebral ischemia (Belenichev 2025).
• No pharmacokinetic parameter has ever been published — no bioavailability, no time to peak, no half-life, no clearance route. For a substance on an anti-doping monitoring program that is a practical problem too: a detection window is derived from a half-life.

🧪 Theoretical / extrapolated

• The proposed mechanism is a list rather than a chain: improved respiratory-chain coupling with accelerated oxidative phosphorylation, inhibition of succinate dehydrogenase, and activation of mitochondrial ATP-sensitive potassium channels. The first and third pull in opposite directions.
• The succinate dehydrogenase claim points somewhere respectable: blocking succinate oxidation at complex II is the strategy the reperfusion literature identifies as protective (Chouchani 2014). It also puts this tablet in direct opposition to Cytoflavin, sold on the same shelf, which supplies succinate as fuel for the same enzyme.
• The comparator its own reviewers chose was 2,4-dinitrophenol, which WADA prohibited in 2024. That is one in vitro comparison and not a claim of equivalence — but the other member of that family has killed people, and the symptom pattern of an uncoupled metabolism is fast pulse, fast breathing and drenching sweat (Hermetet 2024).

How to read these tiers: they say how much human evidence exists, not how well something works — and ✗ flags harm, never a disappointing trial. How the evidence tiers work →

What Hypoxen actually does

The one modern review of this compound says two things at once, and both are the page. Jedrejko 2025 is a 2025 review in an anti-doping journal. It records that the active substance is polydihydroxyphenylene thiosulfonate sodium, that the product was previously registered as Olifen, that “human studies are limited and no clinical trials following international standards is available,” and that in 2023 the World Anti-Doping Agency added Hypoxen to its Monitoring Program after documented evidence of use by athletes. A substance with no international-standard trial and a place on the monitoring program is an unusual combination, and it is the accurate description of what a partner sells for $21.

The proposed mechanism contains an internal tension worth naming. The same review lists three actions: improved coupling in the respiratory chain with accelerated oxidative phosphorylation, inhibition of succinate dehydrogenase, and activation of mitochondrial ATP-sensitive potassium channels in skeletal muscle and myocardium Jedrejko 2025. Improved coupling and mitoKATP activation pull in opposite directions — opening that channel depolarizes the inner membrane slightly, which is the opposite of tighter coupling. A compound may well do several things at once. The point is that the mechanism as published is a list rather than a chain, and no experiment has ranked which action dominates at a dose a person swallows.

Succinate dehydrogenase inhibition is the interesting claim, and it points somewhere respectable. Chouchani 2014 established that succinate accumulating during ischemia is rapidly oxidized at complex II on reperfusion, driving reverse electron transport and a burst of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species, and that blocking that oxidation is protective. An agent that inhibits succinate dehydrogenase is doing the thing that paper identified as protective. That is a coherent argument for an antihypoxant and it is the strongest sentence available for this product.

And it puts this tablet in direct opposition to its shelf-mate. Cytoflavin, sold by the same vendor into the same market, supplies succinate as fuel for complex II. Hypoxen is described as inhibiting the enzyme that oxidizes it. Somebody stacking the two Russian antihypoxants is buying a substrate and an inhibitor of the same enzyme, and no publication addresses what happens when they are taken together.

Cell, rodent, human — and where it stops

Start with the sentence the review itself puts in the abstract. No clinical trials following international standards are available Jedrejko 2025. What exists instead is described as a developed body of work from Russia's military medical research establishment in the 1980s and 1990s, with limited online access. That is not the same as nothing, and this page does not pretend it is. It is a literature that cannot be read, checked or cited by anybody outside the institution that produced it, which for the purpose of deciding whether to swallow something is functionally the same position as no literature.

What the review concludes, stated at its own strength and no higher. Most studies focus on exercise performance and may provide some evidence that Hypoxen has the potential to enhance performance — which the review identifies as the first of the criteria considered for adding a substance to the Prohibited List Jedrejko 2025. Read that carefully. The strongest published statement about whether this works comes from a paper assessing whether it should be banned, and it is hedged.

The in vitro comparison the review chose, and exactly what it does and does not mean. In vitro experiments compared Hypoxen's influence on oxidative phosphorylation against 2,4-dinitrophenol, a mitochondrial uncoupler that strongly accelerates metabolic rate and which WADA prohibited in 2024 Jedrejko 2025. That is a comparison of one measurement in isolated mitochondria. It is not a claim that the two compounds are equivalent, and this page does not make one. It is a statement about the family of effects the investigators thought relevant, and the other member of that family has a body count — Hermetet 2024 reports a 21-year-old bodybuilder who died of multi-organ failure after six months of 2,4-dinitrophenol, with a blood concentration of 88 mg/L and segmental hair concentrations of 5.1 to 25.5 ng/mg.

Where the class sits. Jędrejko 2024 places Hypoxen beside Mexidol and the succinate derivatives as antihypoxic and anti-ischemic metabolic modulators used as ergogenic aids by athletes. Belenichev 2025 reviews the wider pharmacology of targeting mitochondrial dysfunction in cerebral ischemia, which is the clinical problem this chemistry was built for. Neither supplies a controlled human trial of this compound, because there is not one to supply.

Hypoxen pharmacokinetics — how much of it actually gets in

There is no published pharmacokinetics for this compound, and that is the finding rather than an omission from this page. Jedrejko 2025 reports no absorption figure, no time to peak, no half-life, no volume of distribution and no clearance route. For a substance on an anti-doping monitoring program that is a practical problem as well as a scientific one: a detection window is derived from a half-life, and there is no half-life to derive it from.

What the chemistry allows anyone to reason to. The active is a polymeric phenolic thiosulfonate sodium salt. Polymeric means a distribution of chain lengths rather than one molecular weight, which is why no vendor states a molar dose. Polyphenolic and anionic means poor passive membrane permeation and heavy conjugation in the gut wall and liver, the same fate that limits dietary polyphenols to single-digit percent oral bioavailability. A polymer also cannot be assumed to reach the inner mitochondrial membrane in the way a small lipophilic quinone can. So a mitochondrial mechanism and an oral polymeric polyphenol are two claims that need a bridge nobody has built.

Compare the bridge that a mitochondrial drug normally needs. Compounds that genuinely accumulate in mitochondria do it by carrying a delocalized lipophilic cation that the membrane potential drags inward, which is the design principle behind the SkQ-type molecules on this same shelf. Hypoxen carries an anionic group instead. A membrane potential that is negative inside actively opposes accumulation of an anion. Nothing in the published record addresses that, and it is the first question a pharmacologist would ask.

What that means for dosing advice, which is none. With no exposure data, no dose-response and no trial to international standards Jedrejko 2025, any schedule attached to this product in the sports market is derived from unreadable literature or from nothing. This page states no dose for that reason.

What would have to be true, and how you would know it was not

Four predictions. The first is the sport-testing one, and it is the only one with a deadline attached.

1. If it works, it moves onto the Prohibited List. The 2023 Monitoring Program listing exists to gather prevalence data, and the review names performance enhancement as the first criterion for prohibition Jedrejko 2025. Prediction: either a controlled trial shows an ergogenic effect and the substance is prohibited, or it does not and the listing lapses. A competing athlete should read that as a live status rather than a settled one, and should check the current list themselves before every season.

2. Submaximal VO2 at a fixed workload, before and after a course. This is the classic test for an agent claiming reduced oxygen cost of work: ride or run at exactly the same power for the same duration and measure oxygen uptake, heart rate and blood lactate at the same time points. If the compound reduces oxygen consumption under load as claimed, submaximal VO2 falls. Prediction: no change, because the absorption argument above gives the mitochondrion no plausible way to see the molecule. Nobody has published this test.

3. hs-CRP and a CBC at baseline and at the end of a course. Not because either is predicted to move — nothing in the published record predicts anything — but because a compound with no pharmacokinetics, no trial and no adverse-event dataset Jedrejko 2025 deserves the two cheapest general safety measurements before a second course. Prediction: unchanged. If hs-CRP rises during a course, the antihypoxant argument is being contradicted by the one inflammatory marker anybody can order.

4. Against the product, and it is the cleanest discriminator. A true mitochondrial uncoupler raises resting metabolic rate and resting body temperature; a true improver of coupling does not. Measure resting heart rate and morning temperature daily for two weeks on and two weeks off. If they rise, the compound is behaving like the uncoupler it was compared against in vitro, which is a reason to stop rather than a sign of efficacy. If they do not move at all, the uncoupling comparison does not transfer to a swallowed dose.

What nobody has tested yet

Nobody has run a controlled trial to international standards. The review says so in its abstract Jedrejko 2025. That is a forty-year-old compound with a military research literature behind it, currently on an anti-doping monitoring program, and no randomized placebo-controlled study anybody outside its country of origin can read. A single crossover trial in thirty trained cyclists with a fixed-workload protocol would produce more usable information than everything currently in the public record.

Nobody has published a single pharmacokinetic parameter. No bioavailability, no half-life, no clearance route. Without those, the mitochondrial mechanism cannot be connected to an oral dose even in principle, and the anti-doping laboratories cannot set a detection window.

Nobody has tested the interaction that the shelf itself creates. If this compound inhibits succinate dehydrogenase Jedrejko 2025 and its neighbor supplies succinate, taking both is pharmacologically self-canceling at complex II. Nobody has measured it, nobody sells them as opposites, and both are marketed to the same buyer for the same reason.

Extrapolation, labeled as such. If the succinate dehydrogenase inhibition is real and reaches tissue, three consequences follow that nobody has looked for: the effect should be largest in ischemia-reperfusion rather than in steady-state exercise Chouchani 2014; it should reduce rather than improve sustained aerobic power, because complex II carries a meaningful share of the electron flux during hard work; and it should be detectable as a rise in circulating succinate. The second of those is the uncomfortable one for an ergogenic claim, and it is testable in an afternoon.

Hypoxen — its own safety story, not its class's

Three things this compound owns, and the first is about what is not known rather than what is.

There is no adverse-event dataset, because there is no trial dataset. Jedrejko 2025 reports no controlled human study to international standards, which means there is no published safety population, no tolerability table and no long-term follow-up. Nothing here says the compound is dangerous. It says that anyone claiming it is safe is quoting an absence of reports rather than a body of observation, and those two look identical from outside.

The comparator chosen by its own reviewers has killed people. The in vitro work set this compound against 2,4-dinitrophenol Jedrejko 2025, and 2,4-dinitrophenol is a genuine uncoupler with fatalities attached: a 21-year-old bodybuilder who died of multi-organ failure with a blood concentration of 88 mg/L, having presented for months with tachycardia, tachypnea and profuse sweating Hermetet 2024. Hypoxen is not that molecule and nothing here suggests it is. What that case supplies is the symptom pattern of an uncoupled metabolism — fast pulse, fast breathing, drenching sweat, rising temperature — and the knowledge that it is survivable only if somebody recognizes it early.

Being on a monitoring program is not the same as being permitted, and the status can change. The 2023 listing followed documented use by athletes Jedrejko 2025; the review is explicit that the evidence being assembled is the kind used to decide prohibition. A competing athlete who reads a monitoring listing as clearance has misread it, and the consequence of that misreading is a sanction rather than a side effect.

Sources read for this page

• Jedrejko K, Catlin O, Faiss R, Pokrywka A. A Review of Hypoxen Pharmacology and Potential to Enhance Sports Performance. Drug Testing and Analysis 2025 · PMID 40223246
• Jędrejko K, Catlin O, Stewart T, Muszyńska B. Mexidol, Cytoflavin, and succinic acid derivatives as antihypoxic, anti-ischemic metabolic modulators, and ergogenic aids in athletes and consideration of their potential as performance enhancing drugs. Drug Testing and Analysis 2024 · PMID 38403950
• Hermetet C, Jourdan M, Baert A, Gheddar L, Ameline A, Kintz P, Bouvet R. Case report: fatal long-term intoxication by 2,4-dinitrophenol and anabolic steroids in a young bodybuilder with muscle dysmorphia. Frontiers in Public Health 2024 · PMID 39659715
• Chouchani ET, Pell VR, Gaude E, Aksentijević D, Sundier SY, Robb EL, Logan A, Nadtochiy SM, Ord ENJ, Smith AC, et al. Ischaemic accumulation of succinate controls reperfusion injury through mitochondrial ROS. Nature 2014;515(7527):431-435 · PMID 25383517
• Belenichev I. Targeting Mitochondrial Dysfunction in Cerebral Ischemia: Advances in Pharmacological Interventions. Antioxidants (Basel) 2025 · PMID 39857442

Hypoxen — interference & stacking

Bloodwork to run alongside Hypoxen

Baseline first, then again at 8–12 weeks.

The Basics — Start Here panel covers these in one order — 4 markers, $32.40 with the discount applied.

Check results you already have → · All 103 markers A–Z

Hypoxen — frequently asked questions

What Hypoxen is used for

Hypoxen appears under 1 goal in the goal router.

Related Performance & Endurance compounds

← Explore the full Protocol Vault

↑ Back to on this page