You Know You've Gone Peat Mad When

[aquaman]

Now that I have read Peat's reply to Lindsay I have to say that as far as I'm concerned this topic is no longer Peaty to me. Sometimes the best intentions go wrong. Peat clearly doesn't advocate for inhaling CO2 (except bag breathing) so I don't think I should concern myself with pointing out any potential dangers of the practice. I had no ill will in doing so to begin with.

I'm starting to think that too.

I have emailed him directly to ask the specific question relating to inhaling it from CO2 tank mixed with air.

 

[tara]

VOS: Henderson's review is good, thanks. It seems to show that there are a number of specific conditions where inhaling a higher percentage of CO2 mixed with either oxygen or air can be appropriate therapeiutic measures. If I understand it right, they all involve either dangerously reduced breathing that can be stimulated by increased CO2, or clear CO2 deficiency (hypocapnia or acapnia). So it makes sense that these are conditions for which it would be suitable. They are also all situations where they are being treated in a medical setting where they would be monitored, so that problems should be noticed fairly quickly and adjustments could be made. In some cases the time frame mentioned is 5-10 minutes, in others it may be longer. Again, 'very safe' in this context is different to putting on a mask and falling asleep with it on all night. I would be very pleased to see more research done to establish more about what is safe and useful, both in a monitored health institutional setting, and as a DIY home practice, and for medical practice to make use of the research that has already been done in this area.

I think in addition to the cautions you mentioned for people with symptoms of acute hypercapnia, where adding more CO2 is potentially very dangerous, one would want to be pretty sure that adding high dose inhaled CO2 would not push one from mild/chronic hypercapnia into a more serious state. I imagine that amongst the general population, mild hypocapnia would be more common than mild hypercapnia, but if acute cases occur, presumably chronic cases also exist that may become acute under particular circumstances.

I am aware that you are far from typical as a subject for this experiment, because you have already had a lot of experience with accustoming yourself to higher CO2 levels. I think this is great for you. I bet most of us can't hold our breath for more than two minutes. So your apparently very positive experience with high dose inhaled CO2 (I'm counting 8% as a high), may not be as easily tolerated by everyone else.

Personally, and with the understanding that I tend to mild chronic hyperventilation, if I had the apppropriate gear, I would probably try it at a lower dose (eg starting at 1%, maybe going up to 3 or 4% if the results seemed good. But at least initially, I would be making sure either that the gas would stop automatically if I lost consciousness, or that someone else would be aroud to notice and stop it. I would expect that other factors would also need to be adjusted over time as the CO2 set point rose, similar to how people often need to increase and adjust nutrition to support thyroid supplementation.

I'm inclined to doubt that the US govt is deliberately suppressing CO2 research. But I think it is very likely that it gets crowded out by the influence of the pharmaceutical industry, which has an interest in selling new patentable medicines, and no interest in funding research into ways people can maintain and recover our health without their medicines, and which uses its large power to influence funding and publishing of research. CO2 is similar in this respect to progesterone, whole thyroid, aspirin, etc. If people learn to solve half their illnesses with simple unpatentable methods, there is less profit for them. Extreme capitalism being what it is, most large profitable organisations can only exist by prioritising profits over social responsibility, at least to some extent.

Rakhimov at normalbreathing.com has an article about what happened to Buteyko, his peers, and the doctors he trained so effectively in Russia. I have not done anything to check his story.

 

[pboy]

I didn't get to read the whole topic, but I figure ill give my input. The thing with Co2, Peat uses it more of an indicator or what is happening in the body, and to differentiate lactic acid metabolism from oxidizing metabolism. When oxygen is present and sugar/fat are oxidized, 32-36 atp are produced as opposed to 2 atp for lactic acid(no oxygen present)...a huge difference. Co2 is not a nutrient per se....the benefit only happens when Co2 is generated in the cell and then expelled out, carrying alkaline minerals with it, and in the process dilating that area around the cell which allows more blood (and oxygen) to go there, making more likely the cell will keep firing via oxidative metabolism. If Co2 was inserted into the blood or you drank it, it wouldn't have the benefit because the benefit comes from co2 in the cell dragging out, not the other way around. I don't think its really beneficial to mess with Co2 in an external way, Peat uses it as a way to simplify meaning fully oxidative metabolism in the cell. In fact, I wouldn't worry about it...you might get into more trouble trying to externally alter it. Carbonated water and such just cause gas and are a sedative in larger amounts (co2 can make you pass out). The body wants a fine amount, and it wants it all coming from the cell -> out. The only benefit from inhaling it would be temporary blood dilation...but you wouldn't get the cellular metabolic benefit...maybe a hint, due to more oxygen delivery...but its probably a moot point compared to actually generating co2 from within cells

 

[aquaman]

^^ not entirely sure about the above.

VoS can answer better, but VoS told me RP emailed him saying he (RP) had thought about bubbling CO2 into gelatin and lemonade so that the CO2 bubble would make it into the intestine, ie he thinks that CO2 "put" into the intestine is beneficial.

 

[visionofstrength]

I didn't get to read the whole topic, but I figure ill give my input. ...

1. Co2 is not a nutrient per se....the benefit only happens when Co2 is generated in the cell and then expelled out, carrying alkaline minerals with it, and in the process dilating that area around the cell which allows more blood (and oxygen) to go there, making more likely the cell will keep firing via oxidative metabolism.
2. If Co2 was inserted into the blood or you drank it, it wouldn't have the benefit because the benefit comes from co2 in the cell dragging out, not the other way around.
3. I don't think its really beneficial to mess with Co2 in an external way, wouldn't worry about it...
4. you might get into more trouble trying to externally alter it.
5. Carbonated water and such just cause gas and are a sedative in larger amounts (co2 can make you pass out).
6. The body wants a fine amount, and it wants it all coming from the cell -> out.
7. The only benefit from inhaling it would be temporary blood dilation...but you wouldn't get the cellular metabolic benefit...maybe a hint, due to more oxygen delivery...but its probably a moot point compared to actually generating co2 from within cells

Hi pby! I've sort of separated your posts into what I see as seven opinions (pboy's seven opinions) you seem to be expressing. Can you point me to any source for any of these, preferably in Peat's work or in the work that Peat cites to? This would be a great help to me, because I'm really trying to learn, but my problem is that my education is extremely narrow, and everything I know I've learned from Peat, Henderson, and Ling (if that's a problem). I literally have not read anyone else.

But I'm asking because, in the work I've read, there is no support for these seven opinions. And I'm a little alarmed that I may be wrong, or worse, that the work of Peat, Henderson and Ling may be wrong!

If you don't have any support, or maybe you learned these things in a school, I certainly understand. Many of the things taught in school really have no support in fact or research and are a kind of brain-washing. This is particularly true with respect to carbon dioxide, which is seen as the "evil" companion to the "good" oxygen.

My own position (and this is just me, and please disagree with me if you can!) is that opinions that are completely unsupported may well be misinformation that does not serve the public interest. I hope that's fair, and I don't want to suppress anyone's opinions at all, but only to point out that some opinions, if misinformed, do not serve the public interest.

And especially here, where the very careful and diligent work of Peat, Henderson and Ling is largely ignored by an unsuspecting public and a corruption called science.

Just for contrast, here are the two tenets that are posited to be correct, based on the work of Peat, Henderson and Ling (that I've read so far):

1. The most important master controller of hormones and anti-oxidants is carbon dioxide, and you likely need more than you have, especially as you age; and
2. Carbon dioxide therapy (i.e., inhalation) has long ago been proven to be both effective and "extremely safe" (in Peat's phrase), at least by the time Henderson published "Cyclopedia of Medicine" in 1940.

 

[aquaman]

My own position (and this is just me, and please disagree with me if you can!) is that opinions that are completely unsupported may well be misinformation that does not serve the public interest. I hope that's fair, and I don't want to suppress anyone's opinions at all, but only to point out that some opinions, if misinformed, do not serve the public interest.

This critique of yours could equally be applied to your own post from this thread, since you answered that the comment was derived "from your general reading"

akeaway: As long as carbonates are mixed with air (or water), your body has exquisite feedback mechanisms to prevent overdosing, which it lacks for any other drug or supplement, even water, sugar or salt.

 

[visionofstrength]

My own position (and this is just me, and please disagree with me if you can!) is that opinions that are completely unsupported may well be misinformation that does not serve the public interest. I hope that's fair, and I don't want to suppress anyone's opinions at all, but only to point out that some opinions, if misinformed, do not serve the public interest.

This critique of yours could equally be applied to your own post from this thread, since you answered that the comment was derived "from your general reading"

Takeaway: As long as carbonates are mixed with air (or water), your body has exquisite feedback mechanisms to prevent overdosing, which it lacks for any other drug or supplement, even water, sugar or salt.

True, though a difference may be that I think I listed (across several posts here) at least two sources from which I derived my opinion: an academic description of chemoreceptors and Peat's description of the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation. I think the opinion follows from those sources, at least in my view, because there are no known chemoreceptors for the precise control of ingestion, as there are for inhalation (or ingestion) of carbonates, and no known buffering mechanism for ingestion that is as rapid and efficient as what Henderson-Hasselbalch proved exists for inhaled (or ingested) carbonates.

[Edit: one of the many things I like about pboy's post is that he puts forward a question whether carbon dioxide is a nutrient. If you do think of carbon dioxide as a nutrient, and even the most critical one, along with oxygen, then you may begin to see the world a little like a fish -- or even a plant -- inhaling your most critical nutrients from the sea of air around you!]

 

[visionofstrength]

For me, CDC would have a conflict of interest. Government's role is to control (or manage) its population based on financial and political considerations.

How is the government trying to control the population by withholding information about CO2?!

If you look at Henderson's research you can see how far backward we've come in treating everything from pneumonia to stillborn babies.

What would be the consequences of a health care system in which far less health care was demanded, and people could live extended, healthy lives by simply breathing CO2?

Many of the same stays in a hospital that may cost $100,000 would be treated at home, extremely safely, (though possibly with a respiratory therapist visiting or attending) for less than $100 in CO2 (and the cost of the therapist if necessary).

How many corporate interests would be obsolete, how many lives would be extended for how many years, costing how much more in social security benefits?

As Peat says, "US people don't realize how ridiculously degraded their standard of living has become. Nutrition is political and economical. The governments tell people to eat beans and bread for a reason." The views of Peat, Henderson and Ling (which are largely views or physical descriptions of the health benefits of CO2, or of nutrition as it increases CO2) are being suppressed for a reason, and that is, these views are "disruptive".

 

[pboy]

ive never tried bag breathing or co2 therapy of sorts, but ive noted many subtle details of consuming carbonated beverages, baking soda, and what not...and also how I feel when I have good glycogen and am active and breathing deep and easy. The two are way different, carbonated beverages...I don't know how much actually gets into the blood, because either I burp it out soon or later the next day a large gas puff when I use the restroom. Ive actually gotten really light headed and had to nearly lay down, like a gaba sedative or something drinking carbonated beverages...so I just base it on my experience. What Peat says about oxidative metabolism as opposed to non oxidative I find correlates with my experience and feel, but taking in co2 in other ways no go...its a totally different feel and effect, and doesn't seem to be beneficial other than maybe to sleep. I think when Peat recommends it, its more like the athletes who train at high altitude...first few days they get tired easy, winded...but then the body adapts by creating more red blood cells. Then when they go down to sea level, they have an advantage...but the
body re adapts in a relatively short period of time back to the oxygen level. So maybe if you bag breathed or in a way limited your oxygen intake, you could force your body to make new red blood cells as if would feel threatened...but I dunno, seems like a type of stress response that isn't advantageous....considering youd have to do it every day or other day to keep it up...though who knows. The benefit of co2 from intracellular is that it exchanges with oxygen so it enhances oxygen uptake, whereas lactic acid doesn't...and co2 takes out alkaline minerals as it leaves the cell whereas lactic acid doesn't. By doing this co2 frees space for the next round of alkaline mineral and energy substrate to enter in a more vaccum way rather than forced

maybe people can add their own experience with co2 beverages or bag breathing...like personal really aware experience, not just well maybe

 

[Such_Saturation]

Drink a pint of coke and inhale your burps. You will become red and calm very quickly. Try it before a workout and you will notice less burning in the muscles. If we imagine the air to blood communication shares one single finite throughoutput for both oxygen and carbon dioxide, increased carbon dioxide mimicks a reduced oxygen partial pressure.

 

[jyb]

What would be the consequences of a health care system in which far less health care was demanded, and people could live extended, healthy lives by simply breathing CO2?

In terms of economic consequences, this would appocalyptic. If consumers realize that most foods and pharmaceutical drugs are irrelevant, you'd have major companies go down and probably a domino effect - it'd be the end of the economy as we know it.

 

[Such_Saturation]

What would be the consequences of a health care system in which far less health care was demanded, and people could live extended, healthy lives by simply breathing CO2?

In terms of economic consequences, this would appocalyptic. If consumers realize that most foods and pharmaceutical drugs are irrelevant, you'd have major companies go down and probably a domino effect - it'd be the end of the economy as we know it.

But we don't know "economy", this isn't economy nor is it capitalism.

 

[Blossom]

I'm sure we would see much better outcomes for people if medicine used carbogen instead of pure oxygen as RP has written about. It's referred to as the ' medical industrial complex' for a reason. It seems designed more to keep people alive but not thriving, able to go to work and pay taxes but not healthy enough to do much more. If people in general felt energized and healthy on a mass scale that would be a hard populace to control. It seems to be all about keeping the masses disempowered and convinced that they need the government and medicine just to get by. :?

 

[pboy]

people at large don't realize how good they actually are...if left to our own devices, and knowing how to procure our own food, people are humane and loving and friendly and share. Its literally misinformation and near slavery and controlled things from birth as to why people aren't like this, and its big pharma, agriculture, school system, politics, FDA...really though its the same rich class that has been doing catastrophes to the world for the past few hundred years who know whats up, call the shots, control the money and energy, ect....if these fools somehow got out of the way, and/or if people all woke up and starting making decisions in a wholistic way in their day to day life, things would rapidly get better, the economy wouldn't crash, it would change to the simple trusting better...literally it takes a monumental effort to destroy a society and individuals open mindedness and humane good will, steward of the land...but unfortuneately that's whats happening here, from birth in a hospital to the current state of the people and environment, to school, forced this and that and bombardment of memes and carefully designed fear misinformation and glorifying propaganda...it takes this onslaught daily or people would naturally wake up within a few days/weeks at most

 

[tara]

@pboy: I think you are right that ideally we want to generate or own CO2, and that optimising our metabolism include getting it into a state where it generates lots of CO2 in all our tissues. Ideally we would produce enough in our cells, and this would cause sufficient O2 to be delivered to the tissues at the rate that are using it. It is true that CO2 is useful as it leaves the cell, but the level of CO2 in the general circulation is also important for O2 delivery and other functions.

A number of different stresses can get some or all of the body into a state where it does not produce enough CO2 for optimal functioning. This is very common. In some cases and extent we can restore functioning using other factors. But sometimes adding supplementary CO2 can get the blood level CO2 level up enough that it allows the cells to resume better functioning. If some tissue has stopped producing CO2, it will not otherwise get any O2, and cannot recover. In this case, supplementary CO2 sometimes seems to be able to help restart the cells own CO2 production.

Blood CO2 levels are determined by both the rate of production of CO2 and the rate of exhaling it. That's why controlled breathing exercises can sometimes be so helpful. The breathing rate is normally controlled by the CO2 set point. This set point can be changed, and either reduced breathing or supplementary CO2 has the potential to increase this set point, improving general metabolism and function (as long as other requirements are also met). I think there are studies showing that how long it takes to increase the CO2 set point varies from person to person, but of order of 10-20 minutes. But it reverts again if it is not practiced, and if other factors are not available. There is clear evidence of supplementary inhaled CO2 being very helpful in some conditions, for instance in the extract from Henderson that vision posted above. Transdermal CO2 therapy has been shown to be helpful too.

I think you are right that it may be possible to get into trouble with supplementing it, if one is not careful and attentive.

From what you write, you sound as though you manage to keep your energy production running along well enough that this may not make much difference to you. Keep it up.

 

[tara]

@vision: I have seen Peat write that transdermal CO2 therapy is very safe. I have not seen anything from him that inhaling supplementary CO2 (beyond bag-breathing) is generally safe and/or advisable. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for it, but I haven't heard it from him. If you can point to such a quote I'd be interested. It looks to me as though you have made this assumption based on his encouragement of bag-breathing, but I don't think this assumption follows. Your interpretation of the chemical equations may well be that basis of a hypothesis worth testing (I don't have the background understanding to be able to assess this), but until the hypothesis has been empirically tested, I don't think it is very strong evidence.

 

[visionofstrength]

@vision: I have seen Peat write that transdermal CO2 therapy is very safe. I have not seen anything from him that inhaling supplementary CO2 (beyond bag-breathing) is generally safe and/or advisable. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for it, but I haven't heard it from him. If you can point to such a quote I'd be interested. It looks to me as though you have made this assumption based on his encouragement of bag-breathing, but I don't think this assumption follows. Your interpretation of the chemical equations may well be that basis of a hypothesis worth testing (I don't have the background understanding to be able to assess this), but until the hypothesis has been empirically tested, I don't think it is very strong evidence.

Peat's said (and I think I posted it here somewhere) that Henderson showed that carbon dioxide therapy is "extremely safe". When you read Henderson, you see that carbon dioxide therapy means nothing other than inhalation, and that Henderson knew that basically anyone with an inhalator could apply the inhalation therapy themselves, as Henderson suggested, at very little cost. I think Henderson mentions that Chicago firemen saved several hundred babies with their CO2 inhalators.

Long after carbon dioxide inhalation had been suppressed by a corrupt medical and scientific cabal, who realized little profit could be made from it, I think bag breathing was "invented' in the 1960s. That's another case of history being erased when it does not serve the interests of those in power.

As for me, I'd be the last to recommend to anyone that carbon dioxide therapy is extremely safe, unless I knew that it was, by first testing it exhaustively myself. I assure you all the warnings and scare tactics that you hear or see are nothing more than an ongoing disinformation campaign to keep this extremely safe and practical therapy out of the hands of the public. As I think jyb posted above, if the public could heal themselves with safe, practical carbon dioxide therapy, there would be enormous consequences to the wealthy and powerful, and the governments they bribe.

 

[tara]

@vision: Henderson's reference to resussitating babies is another case specifically of stopped breathing that CO2 is specifically good at stimulating, where almost any risk is better than nothing, with close monitoring, and short time-frames.
Lots of dangerous things happen in hospitals and during childbirth. So far, those are the contexts I've seen for his reference to 'extremely safe'.

I think there are probably many conditions and people for whom inhalation CO2 therapy can be safely and beneficially used, including some home situations. However, constantly stating that it is extremely safe doesn't encourage thoughtfulness about how to keep it safe.

I use fire and electricity regularly at home, and I like to swim and hike in the mountains. I won't consider fire, electricity, the sea or the mountains safe for my children without close supervision until they have learned about appropriate context, risks, precautions, safe use, skills. I want them to learn to use and enjoy them all. I would not be serving them well if i just kept reassuring them that they were extremely safe. I appreciate the lifeguards on the beach, the signs that show where the rips are, and the swimming lessons my parents arranged for me, etc. They make it safer. I go swimming with confidence. Without them, the sea at my local beach is deadly. With a recognition of the risks and appropriate precautions, it's a great place for thousands of us every summer.

I am not aware of any widespread public messages warning people of the dangers of CO2, other than the many references to it as a waste gas, which I assume are more ignorant than deliberately misleading. Your assurances are the scariest messages I've come across on the subject. :)

I agree that there would be major consequences for the society and the current economic order if everyone had access to information about how to maintain and restore our own health. It would also require that we were organised into enough unity to be able to require the world to be reorganised to support everyone's health. The medical, agricultural, military, chemical, etc industries have an interest in obscuring and and hindering these possibilities. Poverty and inequality continue to be major drivers of ill health, in many ways. Knowledge is the beginning of power.

 

[visionofstrength]

I think there are probably many conditions and people for whom inhalation CO2 therapy can be safely and beneficially used, including some home situations. However, constantly stating that it is extremely safe doesn't encourage thoughtfulness about how to keep it safe.

I haven't posted instructions on how to do this online, and instead encourage people to PM me if they want links, or have questions.

I would suggest if asked that the key to safety is to have a regulator with precise needle-point control, and to turn it up gradually. If you reach the point where you feel any burning in your membranes, or you are breathing full deep breaths, then you know where your own personal "limit" is (I think this could differ depending on the age or illness of the person). There is no report of anyone being overcome at that level, and it's easy to turn it down from there, or off, if you feel a headache, sweating, or panic.

At some point, I'm hoping to work with others who have tried this and develop a manual, if others have more questions or concerns.

Doing this for children to see if it helps asthma is something I haven't tried yet. But I'll put that on my bucket list, with parental permission.

The scare-mongering I'm referring to is (what I think is) the general disinformation that CO2 is "evil" or dangerous. I think you and Blossom found some of that disinformation planted on Wiki and in the CDC. I was originally scared off by this disinformation myself.

It was only after reading Peat that I decided to keep an open mind and experiment for myself. I started off very slowly, and gradually turned it up, using a CO2 sensor to check the levels. It was then that I learned that 8-10% CO2 is in no way harmful for me, and seems to be even an optimal level that you might reach if you did bag-breathing for a minute or two.

Somewhere around 15-18% I think it's fair to say that I feel as if I had done expert Buteyko breath-holding for two minutes or more, at the level of the yogis or Wim Hof. [Having found where this yogi experience is for me a few times, I don't go that far now. For now, it's an area of book study only for me, as I try to learn more about the yogi pathways, involving it seems norepinephrine and uncoupled respiration].

But you can't reach that level very easily by accident, since it would take such a large amount of CO2 to fill even a small room with that much CO2 (assuming you have a fan on to mix the air). If a 20 ounce canister could completely empty, for example, it would not be sufficient to fill a small room with more than 5% CO2 (assuming some air flow in the room to mix it).

Thanks for your thoughtful comments. You know, and I've told you so, that I always look forward to them.

 

[Blossom]

Just too be clear VoS I must say that I believe you have misunderstood me on a couple issues. I don't think the mainstream view of CO2 is correct and I do not buy into the fear mongering that dominates science and medicine when it comes to CO2. I urge caution only because the issue of directly inhaling CO2 has so little research and Peat himself has never yet mentioned utilizing it in this way. On the topic of inhaling sodium bicarbonate via nebulizer I commented that it is often given in conjunction with a bronchodilator in medicine. I believe you thought I meant it was a treatment for wheezing which it is not. Inhaled sodium bicarbonate does sometimes cause wheezing. My main objective is to speak up if I think someone might run the chance of ending up requiring medical care (from their interpretation and/or application of Peat's work) that could have been avoided. Medicine is no more correct about CO2 than it is diabetes (or nearly any other condition).
My purpose is not to disagree with you or your understanding of Peat. Please realize that just because I posted that CDC information doesn't mean I necessarily believe it all or even most of it. I thought the chart was interesting and we have so little information to go on that minimally a person could get an idea of some sort of safety range for now. It will be great if the presenter of that program gets back to you with some solid research to back up his claims.
Even better would be to hear from Dr. Peat directly on the matter.
My explanation on brain chemorecptors (should have read central and peripheral) was vague and inadequate. Our bodies do actually keep track of and regulate CO2 and considering this audience on the forum I should have been more thorough. Suffice to say our body tightly controls CO2 and our levels/ set point can gradually be increased but I think Peat has given us excellent ways of achieving this already. This post is in response to the above comment about myself and others being influenced by misinformation. I personally think I'm just being cautious and staying closer to Peat's recommendations until I see more evidence for the safety of direct inhalation. I'm not promoting mainstream views on CO2, unnecessary visits to the medical establishment or myself as any type of authority. My views on this topic are mine and mine alone based on my understanding of Peat and my incomplete understanding of the respiratory system. We all have our own unique interpretation of what his work means to us but must be careful in how we present our understanding to others. I felt I had possibly not been clear enough myself.