Bart Kay On Why Extra CO2 Doesn't Matter

[jb116]

Posting this for good discussion not necessarily because I agree with him.
Ibfound it interesting because I've actually never seen anybody address the actual effect of more CO2 via carbs in terms of usefulness. Usually opponents simply just overlook the basic fact that carbs are more efficient in producing CO2. It's akin to Peat when he addresses an actual effect that is assumed to be good by others, for example when a faster will state "it raises growth hormone."



Starts at 25:00 basically.

Other things they say too are anti-peat like fasting and/or cold shock etc.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Posting this for good discussion not necessarily because I agree with him.
Ibfound it interesting because I've actually never seen anybody address the actual effect of more CO2 via carbs in terms of usefulness. Usually opponents simply just overlook the basic fact that carbs are more efficient in producing CO2. It's akin to Peat when he addresses an actual effect that is assumed to be good by others, for example when a faster will state "it raises growth hormone."



Starts at 25:00 basically.

Other things they say too are anti-peat like fasting and/or cold shock etc.

Well, his conclusion seems to be that since we can survive at a range of oxygen and CO2 concentrations, that therefore there is no real difference at any of those concentrations. I don't think that's the case at all.

He also happens to be wrong about mouth to mouth. In CPR, it's not even recommended anymore. Hands only CPR is twice as effective as using CPR with mouth to mouth. The important thing was to help keep the blood moving, as there is enough residual oxygen in the blood, and probably even the lungs, to keep a person alive for several minutes. Mouth to Mouth was probably never very effective, regardless of oxygen concentration of exhaled breath.

 

[postman]

Doesn't ketosis produce ample co2? It's beta-oxidation that doesn't. Bart is a keto guy isn't he? It would be cool to see debates of Peat followers vs other people. Danny Roddy, Haidut, Kyle Mamounis, or someone else.

 

[theLaw]

Well, his conclusion seems to be that since we can survive at a range of oxygen and CO2 concentrations, that therefore there is no real difference at any of those concentrations. I don't think that's the case at all.

This is the same trick used when people promote IF or caloric restriction.

Surviving vs thriving. Not even close.

 

[Blossom]

Well, his conclusion seems to be that since we can survive at a range of oxygen and CO2 concentrations, that therefore there is no real difference at any of those concentrations. I don't think that's the case at all.

He also happens to be wrong about mouth to mouth. In CPR, it's not even recommended anymore. Hands only CPR is twice as effective as using CPR with mouth to mouth. The important thing was to help keep the blood moving, as there is enough residual oxygen in the blood, and probably even the lungs, to keep a person alive for several minutes. Mouth to Mouth was probably never very effective, regardless of oxygen concentration of exhaled breath.

Yes, mouth to mouth hasn't been recommended for a few years but we still use rescue breathing during CPR in the medical setting. I think it's mainly because as you mentioned the chest compressions that circulate the blood are the most important part but also more people are willing to do CPR if they don't have to put their mouth on someone else's mouth. His point about humans generally only needing 20-25% of the oxygen we inhale in normal air is true.

 

[Mito]

Didn’t Bart use a reductionist argument to try and dismiss Danny’s video about CO2 which he labeled as reductionist thinking? All he discussed was the Roddy quote about CO2 and oxygen and said nothing else about CO2’s functions.

There are several important functions of CO2.

• CO2 is critically important to preventing the accumulation of lactic acid in the cell.
• CO2 is critically important to delivering oxygen to the cell for ATP creation.
• CO2 is a small gas that easily escapes the cell. CO2 leaving the cell acts as a signal that the cell is engaging in energy utilization.
  
• Vitamin K uses carbon dioxide to give proteins the ability to bind to calcium. So CO2 is important for all the functions of Vitamin K (blood clotting, preventing soft tissue calcification, etc.)
  
• Biotin uses bicarbonate for many of its actions on proteins.

The question about whether or not more CO2 is better is a valid question. What amount of CO2 is needed to optimize all of the CO2 functions listed above? I don’t think it’s been studied. I think Peat has suggested that the effects of CO2 should be studied more, but obviously he suspects the studies would show that more is better.

 

[Zpol]

I think Mr. Kay is talking about healthy people. People who are already in good health do not need to consider ways to improve their health. If someone is great at resisting the effects of stress, then sure they could do okay for a while eating a low carb diet and not have to worry about CO2. If a their oxygen saturation is fine, temps are fine, resting pulse is fine, cortisol and and other hormones are balance, etc., then surly they would not need to find an extra edge by increasing their rate of cellular respiration. But, people with asthma for example, need every advantage they can get, and that little bit of extra oxygen getting "knocked off" due to a slight increase in CO2 could mean the world to them. And people with cancer who have high lactic acid in their blood would gladly do whatever they can to increase CO2 to displace some of that load. And from a more disease prevention standpoint, CO2 aids in removal of intracellular calcium, thereby keeping mitochondria in good shape and thus preventing degenerative disease.

Mr. Kay does seem educated. And he's right that human bodies can adapt to different amounts of CO2, both metabolically generated and environmental. But if you're a sick person then that ability is compromised and your going to want to stack the cards in your favor. He's also right that you don't want to create a redox imbalance and you definitely don't want to overdo the CO2 by climbing a mountain too fast or continually bag breathing, but obviously that's not going to happen by eating carbs.

Also, Danny Roddy and RP talk about CO2 in many different contexts. Mr. Kay only played one short clip with one line of RP's text highlighted and concluded that their logic was reductionist. There's tonnes more accessible information by Roddy and RP on the integral role CO2 plays in our health.

 

[jb116]

I think these are fine observations but still, the value of the efficiency of carbs creating more CO2 is more or less in question, which again, I've never seen previously questioned. Listing the importance of and functions of CO2 is a bit strawman in this case. Kay's not questioning that, in fact he reinforced it knocks off the O2 for better use by tissues. It's a matter of usable range at which point we have possible redundancy. I think @Mito summed up succinctly. And now this question is bugging me too because it does question the predominance of carbs as the preferred fuel source. It could very well be that avoiding PUFA is key and not necessarily upping so much of the sugar or carb intake. Personally I'll never know unless I test it. It makes you sort of wish that from the get-go of discovering Peat, if one could have first changed one variable at a time (I guess I'll just speak for myself here). So I would've started with removing pufa in the most common, modern sense and gums and fillers while not changing anything else i.e. no added sugar or necessarily carb dominance.

 

[Blossom]

the value of the efficiency of carbs creating more CO2 is more or less in question,

That’s what we were taught in Respiratory Therapy school over 20 years ago. I know that’s not super impressive but figured I’d mention it anyway. It was considered best practice back then for people with Co2 retention from lung disease to eat lower carb diet to avoid additional issues from the increased co2 produced on a high carb diet.
Edit: note it doesn’t apply to healthy people.

 

[jb116]

That’s what we were taught in Respiratory Therapy school over 20 years ago. I know that’s not super impressive but figured I’d mention it anyway. It was considered best practice back then for people with Co2 retention from lung disease to eat lower carb diet to avoid additional issues from the increased co2 produced on a high carb diet.
Edit: note it doesn’t apply to healthy people.

Still interesting though, because I know for Peat he likes overarching, connective ideas. So you'll notice that if something is good, it's good through and through. And of course if it's bad, etc. So something like what you said there I've a good feeling would probably bug him.

 

[Blossom]

Still interesting though, because I know for Peat he likes overarching, connective ideas. So you'll notice that if something is good, it's good through and through. And of course if it's bad, etc. So something like what you said there I've a good feeling would probably bug him.

The patients often craved candy for energy because they worked so hard to breathe. Perhaps the body knows best. They were generally thin from struggling to breathe so the extra energy could have been helpful to prevent too much weight loss. That’s just my perspective though-I don’t have any scientific proof that it’s true.

 

[jb116]

After some thought it becomes clear that actually this guy is only addressing one aspect of CO2. It seemed so simple that it 's something easily overlooked. If you put all your eggs in that one basket then of course extra CO2 creating excess O2 that gets blown out any way comes out to be some excessive waste. This is described as Bohr effect and in fact Peat has written or talked about that before. So we are looking at a whole metabolic picture while Bart Kay is only talking about the respiratory portion. The other protective properties of CO2 are part of why producing or being around extra CO2 is more health promoting, hence being predominantly and efficiently a carb burner is better for health. Case closed, at least for me.

 

[Blossom]

After some thought it becomes clear that actually this guy is only addressing one aspect of CO2. It seemed so simple that it 's something easily overlooked. If you put all your eggs in that one basket then of course extra CO2 creating excess O2 that gets blown out any way comes out to be some excessive waste. This is described as Bohr effect and in fact Peat has written or talked about that before. So we are looking at a whole metabolic picture while Bart Kay is only talking about the respiratory portion. The other protective properties of CO2 are part of why producing or being around extra CO2 is more health promoting, hence being predominantly and efficiently a carb burner is better for health. Case closed, at least for me.

I agree. He’s only addressing one part of the bigger picture. Even though technically what he is saying is true it is a bit misleading.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

After some thought it becomes clear that actually this guy is only addressing one aspect of CO2. It seemed so simple that it 's something easily overlooked. If you put all your eggs in that one basket then of course extra CO2 creating excess O2 that gets blown out any way comes out to be some excessive waste. This is described as Bohr effect and in fact Peat has written or talked about that before. So we are looking at a whole metabolic picture while Bart Kay is only talking about the respiratory portion. The other protective properties of CO2 are part of why producing or being around extra CO2 is more health promoting, hence being predominantly and efficiently a carb burner is better for health. Case closed, at least for me.

Maybe share this on his channel. My comments keep disappearing from his authoritarian platform.

On the one hand I appreciate his pro-meat message. On the other it's clear his short fuse is due in part to his long term low carb/no carb/fasting dogma.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Maybe share this on his channel. My comments keep disappearing from his authoritarian platform.

On the one hand I appreciate his pro-meat message. On the other it's clear his short fuse is due in part to his long term low carb/no carb/fasting dogma.

I dislike his behavior. He comes off as arrogant and it doesn't take much for him to start insulting others. And he takes a looong time to talk. I prefer listening to haidut talking. I do like that Bart's pro- meat though.

 

[SOMO]

Calling Ray Peat a reductionist is ridiculous and I'm assuming he must never have actually read any of RP's work.
He's clearly a contrarian.

Also he's deeply brainwashed by the Keto Cult.
The only thing that separates him from other Keto Cultists is that he actually knows who Ray Peat is. I guess he found RP's work too dry or something and didn't read further into it or attempt to verify (on his own) that RP's claims are factually correct.

It could also be that being Low-Carb so long has reduced the availability of glucose and CO2 in his brain has affected his cerebral function negatively.

 

[jb116]

Maybe share this on his channel. My comments keep disappearing from his authoritarian platform.

On the one hand I appreciate his pro-meat message. On the other it's clear his short fuse is due in part to his long term low carb/no carb/fasting dogma.

Yea see, the fact your comments disappear from his platform gives me ZERO incentive to want to even start engaging.

I think his approach to it all was kind of rude or better, exaggerated and non-truthful. Calling Peat a reductionist is not a matter of opinion, it's totally stupid. You don't have to agree with him if you don't want to, but to call somebody that prolific with so much body of work a reductionist is just not mindful at all. Even my original post was nothing but an observation on what and how he said it. Then mulling it over, realizing that actually Bart Kay is totally reductionist here! He's eliminated the full scope of CO2 to cling only to one of its aspect.

 

[Homo Consumericus]

It could also be that being Low-Carb so long has reduced the availability of glucose and CO2 in his brain has affected his cerebral function negatively.

Surely the fact that he takes forever to verbalize his points of contention, as mentioned by Raphael Lao Wai, is indicative of a brain energy deficit and a neurotransmitter imbalance.

 

[yerrag]

Doesn't ketosis produce ample co2? It's beta-oxidation that doesn't. Bart is a keto guy isn't he? It would be cool to see debates of Peat followers vs other people. Danny Roddy, Haidut, Kyle Mamounis, or someone else.

I'm confused about your question. Probably betrays my lack of understanding about ketosis.

I thought all fatty acids are metabolized through beta oxidation. And while beta oxidation also produces CO2, it also produces keto acids. And when a lot of keto acids are produced, you have ketosis. Also, when there's a lot of keto acids produced, it increases acidity in the ecf and in the blood. It would soon an acidity where carbonic acid would need to be exhaled as CO2 by increasing breathing rate in order to maintain acid-base balance. In this situation, you could face a situation where there's very low CO2 in the blood. This would negatively affect tissue oxygenation, and when hypoxia results from having too little oxygenation, anaerobic glycolysis would become the pathway for glucose metabolism. Lactic acid would be the result, and this would increase ecf acidity further and more carbon dioxide has to be exhaled. So you end up with a person that would need to keep breathing out CO2 as he hyperventilates.

That is my understanding of how ketosis could lead to less CO2 in the long run.

But this is an extreme case. More likely, beta-oxidation would be competing with glucose metabolism, and when they have a shared pathway to the ETC in the mitochondria, they would be competing to use the ETC. This would limit the ability for glucose metabolism to use the most efficient pathway all the way through to the ETC, and it may just stall out with glycolysis.

 

[jb116]

Doesn't ketosis produce ample co2? It's beta-oxidation that doesn't. Bart is a keto guy isn't he? It would be cool to see debates of Peat followers vs other people. Danny Roddy, Haidut, Kyle Mamounis, or someone else.

By the way, in some ways ketosis might be better than hovering in an ambiguous low-carb higher fat territory. But still as compared to glucose, ketones produce less heat and less CO2.

Oxidative metabolism: glucose versus ketones.
Prince A1

The coupling of upstream oxidative processes (glycolysis, beta-oxidation, CAC turnover) to mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation (OXPHOS) under the driving conditions of energy demand by the cell results in the liberation of free energy as ATP. Perturbations in glycolytic CAC or OXPHOS can result in pathology or cell death. To better understand whole body energy expenditure during chronic ketosis, we used a diet-induced rat model of ketosis to determine if high-fat-carbohydrate-restricted "ketogenic" diet results in changes in total energy expenditure (TEE). Consistent with previous reports of increased energy expenditure in mice, we hypothesized that rats fed ketogenic diet for 3 weeks would result in increased resting energy expenditure due to alterations in metabolism associated with a "switch" in energy substrate from glucose to ketone bodies. The rationale is ketone bodies are a more efficient fuel than glucose. Indirect calorimetric analysis revealed a moderate increase in VO2 and decreased VCO2 and heat with ketosis. These results suggest ketosis induces a moderate uncoupling state and less oxidative efficiency compared to glucose oxidation.