Nebulized Methylene Blue

R J

Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2020
Messages
414
saw an Indian paper recommending leucomethylene blue and NAC nebulized for covid. Wondering if anyone has tried nebulizing either methylene or leucomethylene for lung issues?
 

Inaut

Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Messages
3,620
Just nebulized some methylene blue. My SpO is 99%. I’ve never been able to raise it this much. Feel lighter in general...
 

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
Just nebulized some methylene blue. My SpO is 99%. I’ve never been able to raise it this much. Feel lighter in general...
I’m not sure how to interpret SpO? Peat has suggested in interviews that an optimal SpO might be less than 99% indicating robust oxidative metabolism producing abundant carbon dioxide. I think @yerrag has discussed this in other threads.
 

golder

Member
Joined
May 10, 2018
Messages
2,851
Just nebulized some methylene blue. My SpO is 99%. I’ve never been able to raise it this much. Feel lighter in general...
Amazing, thanks for keeping us posted. I hope the benefits endure. What quantity and how did you make the MB solution for the nebuliser? Cheers!
 

yerrag

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2016
Messages
10,883
Location
Manila
I’m not sure how to interpret SpO? Peat has suggested in interviews that an optimal SpO might be less than 99% indicating robust oxidative metabolism producing abundant carbon dioxide. I think @yerrag has discussed this in other threads.
If there's a pair of healthy lungs, gas exchange is efficient and the lungs allow our red blood cells to carry as much oxygen as it can, and we can get a maximum of 100% spO2 reading in our oximeter.

But maintaining 100% all the time isn't a good sign, as that means our red blood cells are holding on to the oxygen and not releasing the oxygen it carries to our tissues, where it's needed to sustain our health and our life.

At any given time, our lungs are continually supplying oxygen and our tissues are withdrawing oxygen through our red blood cells.

When the spO2 is 100 continually , it raises red flags as it means the tissues aren't withdrawing enough oxygen. Not having enough CO2 in the blood is a big factor, as it keeps the red blood cell from releasing oxygen to the tissues.

But having enough CO2 in the blood doesn't alone determine how much oxygen is withdrawn from the blood. The tissues should have a demand for oxygen, and the higher the demand for oxygen, the more oxygen is withdrawn from blood. And this would lower the spO2 reading.

It's hard to say what spO2 reading is optimal though. But certainly 100 isn't optimal as it seems to indicate there is too little demand for oxygen from the tissues, or that the red blood.cells are holding on to the oxygen too tightly depriving the body of oxygen needed to support health and life. But a constant reading of 100 more likely only means that the lungs are doing a good job of gas exchange. It does not serve as a metric of health. As a person that uses little oxygen would not need that efficient a lung to supply him with a small amount of oxygen to keep his spO2 at 100. And a person with low oxygen demand can hardly have good metabolism.

Ray Peat has spoken of spO2 at around 90 being a sign of very good metabolism, but he was talking I think about that at high altitudes. I think the high relative CO2(relative to oxygen) content of air helps with tissue oxygenation, and the lower oxygen concentration also keeps the spO2 lower as well. But that is probably the acid test of good metabolism to be able to maintain such levels, but I don't know if that value can be maintained 24 X 7. I get the idea that Ray talks of being able to be in that state for a short time only. Maybe it's to mean achievable but not maintainable?

Nonetheless, I think the oximeter warning limit of 94 serves us well already. While thst may be a rule of thumb, it gives us wide room. If we know we have a healthy set of lungs, we can be happy to see lower spO2 readings to be indicative of higher metabolism. Having a higher metabolism already precludes having enough CO2 in our blood. As good metabolism produces enough CO2 to support good tissue oxygenation.

ps Since joining RPF I've seen my spO2 go from 99~100 to 97~98.
 

Motorneuron

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2021
Messages
444
If there's a pair of healthy lungs, gas exchange is efficient and the lungs allow our red blood cells to carry as much oxygen as it can, and we can get a maximum of 100% spO2 reading in our oximeter.

But maintaining 100% all the time isn't a good sign, as that means our red blood cells are holding on to the oxygen and not releasing the oxygen it carries to our tissues, where it's needed to sustain our health and our life.

At any given time, our lungs are continually supplying oxygen and our tissues are withdrawing oxygen through our red blood cells.

When the spO2 is 100 continually , it raises red flags as it means the tissues aren't withdrawing enough oxygen. Not having enough CO2 in the blood is a big factor, as it keeps the red blood cell from releasing oxygen to the tissues.

But having enough CO2 in the blood doesn't alone determine how much oxygen is withdrawn from the blood. The tissues should have a demand for oxygen, and the higher the demand for oxygen, the more oxygen is withdrawn from blood. And this would lower the spO2 reading.

It's hard to say what spO2 reading is optimal though. But certainly 100 isn't optimal as it seems to indicate there is too little demand for oxygen from the tissues, or that the red blood.cells are holding on to the oxygen too tightly depriving the body of oxygen needed to support health and life. But a constant reading of 100 more likely only means that the lungs are doing a good job of gas exchange. It does not serve as a metric of health. As a person that uses little oxygen would not need that efficient a lung to supply him with a small amount of oxygen to keep his spO2 at 100. And a person with low oxygen demand can hardly have good metabolism.

Ray Peat has spoken of spO2 at around 90 being a sign of very good metabolism, but he was talking I think about that at high altitudes. I think the high relative CO2(relative to oxygen) content of air helps with tissue oxygenation, and the lower oxygen concentration also keeps the spO2 lower as well. But that is probably the acid test of good metabolism to be able to maintain such levels, but I don't know if that value can be maintained 24 X 7. I get the idea that Ray talks of being able to be in that state for a short time only. Maybe it's to mean achievable but not maintainable?

Nonetheless, I think the oximeter warning limit of 94 serves us well already. While thst may be a rule of thumb, it gives us wide room. If we know we have a healthy set of lungs, we can be happy to see lower spO2 readings to be indicative of higher metabolism. Having a higher metabolism already precludes having enough CO2 in our blood. As good metabolism produces enough CO2 to support good tissue oxygenation.

ps Since joining RPF I've seen my spO2 go from 99~100 to 97~98.
Hello @yerrag , today you made me think when you pointed out that Buteyko would be "useless" if there is basically an ineffective sugar metabolism both directly and therefore as a primary cause, and indirectly as a consequence of other metabolic problems and / or genetic / enzymatic defects.

Back to the center of the speech yesterday my control pause was 32 seconds ... this morning only 10-12 seconds ... my diaphragmatic capacity cannot disappear but other internal parameters of my body have drastically worsened which seem to be linked to damage to the motor neurons.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom