Measurement For Intracellular CO2?

[pone]

Is there a straightforward lab test to measure intracellular CO2 instead of just serum CO2?

I read that a drop in intracellular CO2 can stimulate glycolysis. I seem to have something similar to chronic fatigue syndrome that has my muscles stuck in an anaerobic glycolysis and accumulating a lot of acid. It would be extremely interesting to start to biohack this and see if I have low intracellular CO2 that might be driving this process.

 

[kiran]

I don't know if such a test exists though. Do you have a serum CO2 value? Lab limits aren't always useful...

You have to breathe CO2 out, so all the CO2 has to go out via serum to the lungs, there's gotta be a decent correlation between intracellular and serum CO2.

 

[Blossom]

The CO2 tests that I'm aware of are venous blood, arterial blood and end tidal (exhaled CO2). Venous CO2 seems to be the most common testing done in my experience. End tidal is a great test and Peat spoke about it in a recent radio interview (I believe rainmaking) but the equipment to do the test seems to cost a couple thousand dollars. Probably the best estimate for intracellular CO2 would be to have all three test done at once (arterial, venous and end tidal) but I'm not sure of any labs that would do such a thing. The best bet is probably to get a base line venous CO2 and recheck it after implementing a Peat inspired approach for a period of time to see if there has been an increase. I don't think it's absolutely necessary but if you are planning to have blood work it would be easy enough to have the CO2 checked as well.

 

[pone]

How dynamic is the serum and intracellular CO2 level likely to be? I have a condition that appears to produce a lot of acid in muscle after any kind of aerobic exercise.

The fact that glycolysis is used so heavily and is producing acid makes me want to find some chemical marker of this. Maybe I should be getting my electrolytes (along with serum CO2) measured right after - and maybe again a day after - exercise when I feel the worst symptoms? Maybe the CO2 is normal outside of these events the CO2 dysregulation is a very short-lived thing after the exercise?

 

[Blossom]

How dynamic is the serum and intracellular CO2 level likely to be? I have a condition that appears to produce a lot of acid in muscle after any kind of aerobic exercise.

The fact that glycolysis is used so heavily and is producing acid makes me want to find some chemical marker of this. Maybe I should be getting my electrolytes (along with serum CO2) measured right after - and maybe again a day after - exercise when I feel the worst symptoms? Maybe the CO2 is normal outside of these events the CO2 dysregulation is a very short-lived thing after the exercise?

Maybe lactic acid?

 

[visionofstrength]

We use a CO2 meter to measure exhaled CO2. It cost about $300. Of the many tests that we've tried, exhaled CO2 seems to correlate best with RP's idea of metabolism. PM me if you want to know the CO2 meter supplier (I am not affiliated with the supplier).

 

[tara]

Hi,
A rough home test you could try is the 'control pause' used by Buteyko practitioners.
http://www.normalbreathing.com/index-measure-CP.php
It won't give you a number for intracellular CO2, but it can give you a rough idea of whether you have a good amount of CO2 in your system. My current interpretation would be that if your control pause is short, you are probably chronically low in CO2. Having read more of Peat's work after reading the Normal Breathing info, I now suspect that in the higher ranges it is possible to increase CP by reducing CO2 production, ie reducing metabolism. I'm not sure about this latter speculation, but I have heard of people with slow breathing rate and extremely low metabolism.

 

[visionofstrength]

Agree, Tara. I've tried tracking the Buteyko control pause (CP) against the exhaled CO2 measured by the CO2 meter, and you may be right that it seems relative to your own metabolism. As you suspect, given the same exhaled CO2, higher heartbeats-per-minute (bpm) seems to correlate with a lower CP. So maybe the takeaway is to try tracking both CP and bpm? For example, when peating my CP dropped from 60 seconds to 40 or less, but my bpm went up from 60 to 85-90.

Experiments on Wim Hof conclude that yogi feats while meditating may be be controlled by levels of acetylcholine somehow, which RP feels is involved in our nerve net mediating with the environment, or what orthodoxy calls the "autonomic" nervous system.

 

[pone]

We use a CO2 meter to measure exhaled CO2. It cost about $300. Of the many tests that we've tried, exhaled CO2 seems to correlate best with RP's idea of metabolism. PM me if you want to know the CO2 meter supplier (I am not affiliated with the supplier).

Dr Shallenberger in Nevada has a test named Bioenergy that measures CO2 exhaled, O2 inhaled, and uses these to calculate how much fat you burn, how much O2 you are using in aerobic metabolism, and how my glycolysis you do. Each of these values is defined at rest, and then at different levels of exercise.

Seems like extraordinarily valuable information.....

 

[visionofstrength]

We use a CO2 meter to measure exhaled CO2. It cost about $300. Of the many tests that we've tried, exhaled CO2 seems to correlate best with RP's idea of metabolism. PM me if you want to know the CO2 meter supplier (I am not affiliated with the supplier).

Dr Shallenberger in Nevada has a test named Bioenergy that measures CO2 exhaled, O2 inhaled, and uses these to calculate how much fat you burn, how much O2 you are using in aerobic metabolism, and how my glycolysis you do. Each of these values is defined at rest, and then at different levels of exercise.

Seems like extraordinarily valuable information.....

There is an orthodoxy taught in universities about metabolism and oxygen that is very different from RP's thinking. It seems Dr Shallenberger falls within that orthodoxy, as best as I can tell.

RP believes (following a century or so of distinguished but largely ignored work) that CO2 is the master hormone that controls all others, and that oxygen is a dangerous oxidizing compound that the body strictly regulates. In fact, the body can use oxygen at all only in relation to its levels of CO2, via the Haldane and Bohr effects (that we know of so far). Higher levels of CO2 (ideally between 41 and 60 mmhg) allow the body to use more oxygen, while at low enough levels of CO2 (below 20 mmhg) the body is at risk of ceasing to respire at all, and dying. Understood this way, the direct cause of death is really lack of CO2. For example, blood loss causes shock which in turn depletes CO2, and if this depletion of CO2 halts respiration long enough, life expires.

So what does this mean for you? It means it's pretty simple to become healthier. You need only increase your level of CO2. One way to increase CO2 is to breathe CO2, and other ways are spending time under red light and improving the function of the thyroid. Both turn up your metabolic fire, and as that metabolic fire burns it generates more CO2 inside you.

 

[pone]

We use a CO2 meter to measure exhaled CO2. It cost about $300. Of the many tests that we've tried, exhaled CO2 seems to correlate best with RP's idea of metabolism. PM me if you want to know the CO2 meter supplier (I am not affiliated with the supplier).

Dr Shallenberger in Nevada has a test named Bioenergy that measures CO2 exhaled, O2 inhaled, and uses these to calculate how much fat you burn, how much O2 you are using in aerobic metabolism, and how my glycolysis you do. Each of these values is defined at rest, and then at different levels of exercise.

Seems like extraordinarily valuable information.....

There is an orthodoxy taught in universities about metabolism and oxygen that is very different from RP's thinking. It seems Dr Shallenberger falls within that orthodoxy, as best as I can tell.

Shallenberger is definitely pro oxygen *utilization*, and he uses ozone therapy to promote conversion of NADH back to NAD+, thus stimulating more aerobic metabolism.

Regardless of whether this happens as he suggests, his bioenergy test is actually a purely mechanical calculation of:

1) how much glucose you burn in aerobic metabolism
2) how much fat you burn in aerobic metabolism
3) how much glycolysis your body performs

All of these things are measured at rest, and then again at different levels of exercise. He actually measures the point at which your body converts over to primarily glycolysis during intense exercise.

The test is enormously useful. The rule of thumb calculations about "optimal fat burning" range of exercise is usually wrong for a given individual, particularly if they are fat, or old, or metabolically impaired. I'm amazed that his test procedure has not become a standard tool for doctors everywhere, in profiling metabolic efficiency of a given individual.

RP believes (following a century or so of distinguished but largely ignored work) that CO2 is the master hormone that controls all others, and that oxygen is a dangerous oxidizing compound that the body strictly regulates. In fact, the body can use oxygen at all only in relation to its levels of CO2, via the Haldane and Bohr effects (that we know of so far). Higher levels of CO2 (ideally between 41 and 60 mmhg) allow the body to use more oxygen, while at low enough levels of CO2 (below 20 mmhg) the body is at risk of ceasing to respire at all, and dying. Understood this way, the direct cause of death is really lack of CO2. For example, blood loss causes shock which in turn depletes CO2, and if this depletion of CO2 halts respiration long enough, life expires.

So what does this mean for you? It means it's pretty simple to become healthier. You need only increase your level of CO2. One way to increase CO2 is to breathe CO2, and other ways are spending time under red light and improving the function of the thyroid. Both turn up your metabolic fire, and as that metabolic fire burns it generates more CO2 inside you.

I just don't understand why a measurement of CO2 by itself - without simultaneously measuring O2 input - would tell you something clinically useful. Isn't there a big difference between CO2 at 60 mmhg in the person inhaling twice as much O2 and the person inhaling half as much O2?

 

[tara]

I just don't understand why a measurement of CO2 by itself - without simultaneously measuring O2 input - would tell you something clinically useful. Isn't there a big difference between CO2 at 60 mmhg in the person inhaling twice as much O2 and the person inhaling half as much O2?

You did start this thread by asking how to measure CO2 itself.
Speculating: What a CO2 measurement in itself might tell you is whether you have a sufficient level of CO2 in your system to allow O2 to be easily distributed to the tissues and cells in the rest of the body, whether at high or low demand. I think CO2 has a set point that can be modified. A CO2 reading at rest would tell you something about where that set point is - ie the homeostasis your body is trying to maintain, and that may indicate that oxygen supply is generally good, or not where you want it. It doesn't necessarily tell you about oxygen consumption or efficiency or glycolysis levels.

 

[visionofstrength]

Isn't there a big difference between CO2 at 60 mmhg in the person inhaling twice as much O2 and the person inhaling half as much O2?

As I understand Peat, things like O2 max are not a good indicia of health. For example, hypothyroid athletes can extract very high O2 max from extremely stressful training methods, but once their careers are over, they pay a steep price for the stress their bodies have endured.

Similarly, those trained in orthodoxy believe it is better to burn fat, as measured by a quotient of CO2 and O2, because it indicates to them that fat is being reduced somehow.

But again, as I understand Peat, burning fat is not an indicia of health, but quite the opposite, a sign that the body has been put under such stress that the adrenals are called up and the free fatty acids have been mobilized. There are athletes who are advised to keep going when they "hit the wall", and burn fat, having run out of glycogen. However, these athletes pay a steep price later in life, too, for the stress their bodies endure from calling on their adrenals and burning fatty acids, especially when the athletes have not been advised to limit PUFAs.

I don't mean to argue that your method is not better; certainly, you may well be right. I'm only trying to provide the Peatian perspective that is entirely ignored in the orthodoxy, and not without motive: If Peat is right, then professionals taught in orthodoxy are likely doing a great deal of harm to their unsuspecting clients.

I have instruments to measure CO2 and O2, but in my experiments, only the exhaled CO2 at rest seems to correlate with improvements in metabolism, as Peat would predict.

 

[pone]

Isn't there a big difference between CO2 at 60 mmhg in the person inhaling twice as much O2 and the person inhaling half as much O2?

As I understand Peat, things like O2 max are not a good indicia of health. For example, hypothyroid athletes can extract very high O2 max from extremely stressful training methods, but once their careers are over, they pay a steep price for the stress their bodies have endured.

Shallenberger has an expensive little book with a chapter where he explains the bioenergy test:

http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Applic ... 145641335X

Again, this test is not about proving oxygen is or is not better than CO2. This test is about a scientific method of measuring how much glucose and fat you burn in aerobic metabolism, and how much glucose you burn in anerobic glycolysis. He has a very straightforward set of equations that very precisely measure these things at rest, and again at different exertion levels. It is extraordinary information to have on your own body, no matter what your belief is regarding CO2. In fact, his test taken with different intracellular CO2 levels would in fact give you a basis for understanding the metabolic effects of different CO2 levels.

His test should be Peat's friend, not the enemy.

Similarly, those trained in orthodoxy believe it is better to burn fat, as measured by a quotient of CO2 and O2, because it indicates to them that fat is being reduced somehow.

But again, as I understand Peat, burning fat is not an indicia of health, but quite the opposite, a sign that the body has been put under such stress that the adrenals are called up and the free fatty acids have been mobilized. There are athletes who are advised to keep going when they "hit the wall", and burn fat, having run out of glycogen. However, these athletes pay a steep price later in life, too, for the stress their bodies endure from calling on their adrenals and burning fatty acids, especially when the athletes have not been advised to limit PUFAs.

I think the main thing that everyone should agree on is that it is better to use aerobic metabolism than anaerobic glycolysis. Glycolysis is hugely inefficient and has very harmful byproducts if it is the main form of energy metabolism you use.

On the basis of amount of O2 consumed, burning glucose and fat are approximately equal. Aerobic metabolism of glucose burns 6 O2 versus 23 O2 for fat, and the amounts of ATP produced per molecule of O2 used is approximately equal.

I don't understand Peat's argument about burning fat in aerobic metabolism being bad. I guess the real question is can your body metabolize fat for aerobic metabolism efficiently. Because some people just cannot do that. That's the whole point of Shallenberger's wonderful bioenergy test. He shows people the exact levels of glucose and fat they burn in aerobic metabolism, and each level of exertion (measured by heartbeat probably), and then he can exactly pinpoint the level at which you switch to glycolysis. He gives clear examples of where people think they are in aerobic metabolism but actually have shifted to glycolysis and are doing a lot of harm to their bodies by repeatedly exercising for long periods producing lactic acid.

Assuming your body is even able to metabolize fat efficiently in aerobic metabolism, then I just don't understand the pros and cons of Peat's position. I guess by avoiding constant glucose ingestion you avoid the insulin spikes. You also turn off the body's constant storing of body fat and switch over to a mode where you more frequently burn fat. The 80 million+ US citizens who are fat and borderline type 2 diabetic have huge health risks because of their constant storage of fat, constant ingestion if glucose, constant insulin resistance, and metabolic tendency towards high insulin and constant fat storage. It's really really hard for me to believe that such an individual is better off eating lots of sugar. At very least, for those people it is a highly non trivial conversation.

For professional atheletes, I would be really interested to see some time graphs showing the effects on cortisol and stress hormones of burning different types of fuel throughout a long duration exercise. That might be one way for Peat to prove his points empirically. If anyone knows of such studies, please point them out.

I don't mean to argue that your method is not better; certainly, you may well be right. I'm only trying to provide the Peatian perspective that is entirely ignored in the orthodoxy, and not without motive: If Peat is right, then professionals taught in orthodoxy are likely doing a great deal of harm to their unsuspecting clients.

I have instruments to measure CO2 and O2, but in my experiments, only the exhaled CO2 at rest seems to correlate with improvements in metabolism, as Peat would predict.

How are you defining and measuring improvements in metabolism?

Are you saying that the amount of CO2 that different people exhale at rest can be directly compared? Are the ranges Peat suggests really portable to different people?

 

[visionofstrength]

How are you defining and measuring improvements in metabolism?

For Peat, improvements in metabolism seem to correlate with higher body temp, higher pulse, better sodium retention, lower body fat combined with increased lean body mass, and others.

Are you saying that the amount of CO2 that different people exhale at rest can be directly compared? Are the ranges Peat suggests really portable to different people?

Yes, each person has a resting metabolic rate, that can be measured by the amount of CO2 exhaled (I think this is so even in orthodoxy). As with all things Peatian, it's simple and economical to measure CO2, since the sensor costs about $300, and you can use a PC for the display.

 

[haidut]

We use a CO2 meter to measure exhaled CO2. It cost about $300. Of the many tests that we've tried, exhaled CO2 seems to correlate best with RP's idea of metabolism. PM me if you want to know the CO2 meter supplier (I am not affiliated with the supplier).

Dr Shallenberger in Nevada has a test named Bioenergy that measures CO2 exhaled, O2 inhaled, and uses these to calculate how much fat you burn, how much O2 you are using in aerobic metabolism, and how my glycolysis you do. Each of these values is defined at rest, and then at different levels of exercise.

Seems like extraordinarily valuable information.....

There is an orthodoxy taught in universities about metabolism and oxygen that is very different from RP's thinking. It seems Dr Shallenberger falls within that orthodoxy, as best as I can tell.

RP believes (following a century or so of distinguished but largely ignored work) that CO2 is the master hormone that controls all others, and that oxygen is a dangerous oxidizing compound that the body strictly regulates. In fact, the body can use oxygen at all only in relation to its levels of CO2, via the Haldane and Bohr effects (that we know of so far). Higher levels of CO2 (ideally between 41 and 60 mmhg) allow the body to use more oxygen, while at low enough levels of CO2 (below 20 mmhg) the body is at risk of ceasing to respire at all, and dying. Understood this way, the direct cause of death is really lack of CO2. For example, blood loss causes shock which in turn depletes CO2, and if this depletion of CO2 halts respiration long enough, life expires.

So what does this mean for you? It means it's pretty simple to become healthier. You need only increase your level of CO2. One way to increase CO2 is to breathe CO2, and other ways are spending time under red light and improving the function of the thyroid. Both turn up your metabolic fire, and as that metabolic fire burns it generates more CO2 inside you.

Ray has a quote on the FPS website that says something along the lines "if the hypothyroidism condition is simply the chronic loss of CO2 and sodium, then methods for increasing the retention of these two should fix pretty much any health problem". Since working to retain more CO2 is, IMO, simpler/easier than fixing thyroid through supplements, that may be a starting point for all hypo people - i.e. get a brown bag and (re)breathe in it like a panting race horse

 

[superhuman]

We use a CO2 meter to measure exhaled CO2. It cost about $300. Of the many tests that we've tried, exhaled CO2 seems to correlate best with RP's idea of metabolism. PM me if you want to know the CO2 meter supplier (I am not affiliated with the supplier).

Dr Shallenberger in Nevada has a test named Bioenergy that measures CO2 exhaled, O2 inhaled, and uses these to calculate how much fat you burn, how much O2 you are using in aerobic metabolism, and how my glycolysis you do. Each of these values is defined at rest, and then at different levels of exercise.

Seems like extraordinarily valuable information.....

There is an orthodoxy taught in universities about metabolism and oxygen that is very different from RP's thinking. It seems Dr Shallenberger falls within that orthodoxy, as best as I can tell.

RP believes (following a century or so of distinguished but largely ignored work) that CO2 is the master hormone that controls all others, and that oxygen is a dangerous oxidizing compound that the body strictly regulates. In fact, the body can use oxygen at all only in relation to its levels of CO2, via the Haldane and Bohr effects (that we know of so far). Higher levels of CO2 (ideally between 41 and 60 mmhg) allow the body to use more oxygen, while at low enough levels of CO2 (below 20 mmhg) the body is at risk of ceasing to respire at all, and dying. Understood this way, the direct cause of death is really lack of CO2. For example, blood loss causes shock which in turn depletes CO2, and if this depletion of CO2 halts respiration long enough, life expires.

So what does this mean for you? It means it's pretty simple to become healthier. You need only increase your level of CO2. One way to increase CO2 is to breathe CO2, and other ways are spending time under red light and improving the function of the thyroid. Both turn up your metabolic fire, and as that metabolic fire burns it generates more CO2 inside you.

Ray has a quote on the FPS website that says something along the lines "if the hypothyroidism condition is simply the chronic loss of CO2 and sodium, then methods for increasing the retention of these two should fix pretty much any health problem". Since working to retain more CO2 is, IMO, simpler/easier than fixing thyroid through supplements, that may be a starting point for all hypo people - i.e. get a brown bag and (re)breathe in it like a panting race horse

Hah yeah, btw does it have to be a paper bag? is plastic ok?

 

[haidut]

We use a CO2 meter to measure exhaled CO2. It cost about $300. Of the many tests that we've tried, exhaled CO2 seems to correlate best with RP's idea of metabolism. PM me if you want to know the CO2 meter supplier (I am not affiliated with the supplier).

Dr Shallenberger in Nevada has a test named Bioenergy that measures CO2 exhaled, O2 inhaled, and uses these to calculate how much fat you burn, how much O2 you are using in aerobic metabolism, and how my glycolysis you do. Each of these values is defined at rest, and then at different levels of exercise.

Seems like extraordinarily valuable information.....

There is an orthodoxy taught in universities about metabolism and oxygen that is very different from RP's thinking. It seems Dr Shallenberger falls within that orthodoxy, as best as I can tell.

RP believes (following a century or so of distinguished but largely ignored work) that CO2 is the master hormone that controls all others, and that oxygen is a dangerous oxidizing compound that the body strictly regulates. In fact, the body can use oxygen at all only in relation to its levels of CO2, via the Haldane and Bohr effects (that we know of so far). Higher levels of CO2 (ideally between 41 and 60 mmhg) allow the body to use more oxygen, while at low enough levels of CO2 (below 20 mmhg) the body is at risk of ceasing to respire at all, and dying. Understood this way, the direct cause of death is really lack of CO2. For example, blood loss causes shock which in turn depletes CO2, and if this depletion of CO2 halts respiration long enough, life expires.

So what does this mean for you? It means it's pretty simple to become healthier. You need only increase your level of CO2. One way to increase CO2 is to breathe CO2, and other ways are spending time under red light and improving the function of the thyroid. Both turn up your metabolic fire, and as that metabolic fire burns it generates more CO2 inside you.

Ray has a quote on the FPS website that says something along the lines "if the hypothyroidism condition is simply the chronic loss of CO2 and sodium, then methods for increasing the retention of these two should fix pretty much any health problem". Since working to retain more CO2 is, IMO, simpler/easier than fixing thyroid through supplements, that may be a starting point for all hypo people - i.e. get a brown bag and (re)breathe in it like a panting race horse

Hah yeah, btw does it have to be a paper bag? is plastic ok?

I personally have bought several large plastic trash bags with strings at one end that make tying easy. I also bought several 3ft. pieces of rubber garden hose and tied the garbage bags around one end of the hoses. I keep one at work, one at home and one mobile (smaller bag) so I can always do CO2 exercises. It works really well for me, and I don't feel the difference between paper and plastic. Unless CO2 reacts with plastic and I am breathing in some sort of BPA-complex I find the plastic bags more convenient and hermetic.

 

[thebigpeatowski]

Plastic is toxic...and estrogenic.

 

[Blossom]

Plastic is toxic...and estrogenic.

:1 I would have no problem sitting in a plastic bag filled with CO2 but bag breathing with plastic concerns me a bit. I have no scientific data to back this up just my own personal feelings on the matter. I'm not sure what may or may not be absorbed through the thin membranes of the lung but I feel pretty confident that a paper bag is probably safer than plastic. Over a decade ago I ready a study on babies in the NICU (neonatal intensive care unit) who had high levels of plastics in their blood from all the plastic tubes used to keep them alive. I know it is a different situation but it could happen to adults to a smaller extent with all of the plastics in our environment. I'm going to stick with a paper bag for breathing due to the above and it is what Peat has recommended after all. I suppose technically one will re-breathe more CO2 using plastic but my gut tells me that increasing CO2 more gradually might be the better approach since it does normally regulate our respiratory drive. That's just why I personally choose to stick with the paper bag.