Hi All,
My first post here. I've been dipping in and out of this forum for many years as a lurker and have had a very up and down time with my health and with trying to apply Ray Peat's work. One of the problems I've had has certainly related to the lower functioning of my mind when my metabolism has been low. The effect is only really noticeable as you get better. This has meant that I haven't been able to think very rationally about Ray's work for large periods of time, and given the nature of his writing, you really need to be able to do this.
I think that Ray's work is difficult to understand as his analysis comes from a very different perspective from most. When he looks at a certain data point, he is viewing it, for instance, in the context of a certain view of cell structure, creating different interactions with substances whose significance takes on new meaning within the overall view, eg, in the presence of carbon dioxide, the structure, function and ability to produce energy of an organism is essentially transitioned into a different phase from when CO2 is not present.
With this in mind, I find it very difficult to criticise his work, as I don't really believe that I fully understand its implications. I often find myself looking at the results of some study and believing that it nullifies a given Peatism, only to find, years later, after a few more connections have been made in my mind, dots connected, that the study may even actually corroborate his idea. We are left with self-experimentation, which itself is not at all easy, especially when you don't really understand all the possible variables that could be influencing your state of health at any given moment. Eg, you may start taking a supplement and think that nothing else has changed in your environment and put any changes down to that, when perhaps changes could be occurring from interactions with the new supplement to something that isn't on your radar, or perhaps even from something completely new that you are not aware of. An incomplete view lays down many confounding variable mines.
My question, with this context, is to do with Buteyko. Ray has given a few interviews about the Buteyko breathing technique and I seem to remember him saying that he met him, or at least knew of his work and respected it, given Buteyko's view of CO2 in in the body. For those not aware, Buteyko taught his students/patients to reduce their breathing in order to increase CO2 levels in the body to cure all manner of chronic diseases, which he termed "diseases of civilisation". He did a lot of very detailed research, which, as I said, Ray said that he greatly respected. One key finding of Buteyko, was that as CO2 levels of patients increased, not only did all of their diseases disappear, ie, they started functioning optimally, but there was a very clear and predictable decrease in heart rate as CO2 levels rose, with pulses around mid to high 40s for the healthiest of specimens - as measured by CO2 level and freedom from disease.
The freedom from disease bit could be interpreted in many ways, so I'll ignore that, but there was a definited correlation between higher CO2 and lower pulse.
This seems to be at odds with my current understanding of Ray's ideas.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this correlation?
PS, for the Americans here, please excuse my British spelling.
My first post here. I've been dipping in and out of this forum for many years as a lurker and have had a very up and down time with my health and with trying to apply Ray Peat's work. One of the problems I've had has certainly related to the lower functioning of my mind when my metabolism has been low. The effect is only really noticeable as you get better. This has meant that I haven't been able to think very rationally about Ray's work for large periods of time, and given the nature of his writing, you really need to be able to do this.
I think that Ray's work is difficult to understand as his analysis comes from a very different perspective from most. When he looks at a certain data point, he is viewing it, for instance, in the context of a certain view of cell structure, creating different interactions with substances whose significance takes on new meaning within the overall view, eg, in the presence of carbon dioxide, the structure, function and ability to produce energy of an organism is essentially transitioned into a different phase from when CO2 is not present.
With this in mind, I find it very difficult to criticise his work, as I don't really believe that I fully understand its implications. I often find myself looking at the results of some study and believing that it nullifies a given Peatism, only to find, years later, after a few more connections have been made in my mind, dots connected, that the study may even actually corroborate his idea. We are left with self-experimentation, which itself is not at all easy, especially when you don't really understand all the possible variables that could be influencing your state of health at any given moment. Eg, you may start taking a supplement and think that nothing else has changed in your environment and put any changes down to that, when perhaps changes could be occurring from interactions with the new supplement to something that isn't on your radar, or perhaps even from something completely new that you are not aware of. An incomplete view lays down many confounding variable mines.
My question, with this context, is to do with Buteyko. Ray has given a few interviews about the Buteyko breathing technique and I seem to remember him saying that he met him, or at least knew of his work and respected it, given Buteyko's view of CO2 in in the body. For those not aware, Buteyko taught his students/patients to reduce their breathing in order to increase CO2 levels in the body to cure all manner of chronic diseases, which he termed "diseases of civilisation". He did a lot of very detailed research, which, as I said, Ray said that he greatly respected. One key finding of Buteyko, was that as CO2 levels of patients increased, not only did all of their diseases disappear, ie, they started functioning optimally, but there was a very clear and predictable decrease in heart rate as CO2 levels rose, with pulses around mid to high 40s for the healthiest of specimens - as measured by CO2 level and freedom from disease.
The freedom from disease bit could be interpreted in many ways, so I'll ignore that, but there was a definited correlation between higher CO2 and lower pulse.
This seems to be at odds with my current understanding of Ray's ideas.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this correlation?
PS, for the Americans here, please excuse my British spelling.