You Know You've Gone Peat Mad When

[Blossom]

Maybe someone could email Dr. Peat and ask him what he thinks about breathing in CO2 directly from a tank in this manner? I know we have to think for ourselves but I'm afraid this might be a bit risky. The way I understand his work is that ideally we should in the long-term enhance CO2 through good thyroid function but in the short-term bag breathing can help. I know we all have to apply his work to our unique situation the way we see fit but I'd hate to see anyone accidentally go overboard. I love CO2 as much as the next person but I also respect the fact that it has the potential to stop breathing completely in excessive amounts applied too quickly. I mentioned the venturi mask because I think if one chooses to breathe in pure CO2 it can't hurt to be as precise as possible. I'm just curious as to what Peat himself might say on this topic.

I didn't know there was a question. What's the question you would ask? Maybe I could try to answer it from whatever research there is available?

My question for Dr. Peat would be: Do you think it is safe or beneficial for the average person to breathe compressed CO2 GAS directly from a tank at an estimated 8%?
The reason I am interested in his thoughts on the topic is because he has never advised such a practice that I'm aware of and I'm concerned about the safety of breathing in too much CO2 too quickly knocking out the respiratory drive. Thanks to Peat's work I appreciate CO2 yet I'm still aware that it ultimately controls our respiration and I have the impression that adjusting to higher levels gradually may be the safest option. I appreciate your offer to research this for me vos but I feel confident I can figure it out. If I remember correctly even Peat himself said the topic of CO2 in in the context of medical use needed more research. I need to do more research myself and I do appreciate your efforts on this subject.

 

[visionofstrength]

The part of the synopsis you quoted doesn't mention levels or proportion of breathed air, and the link didn't work for me - maybe it spells this out more there. Does it say what it counts as extreme levels of hypercapnia, or how much CO2 needs to be in breathed air to approach it?

It seems the link was getting truncated by the bulletin board software, so I've formatted it as code that you can copy and paste into your browser. From the studies I've seen 7.5-10 is considered to have no risk of asphyxiation at all, and neonatal preemies really can only thrive at 7.5-10%. The only verifiable reports of asphyxiation I've seen were at levels of 20% or more.

[Thought experiment] How could carbon dioxide deprive you of oxygen? It's the very thing that allows you to use oxygen! If you were not to have any CO2, you would die of suffocation!

[spoil]Proposed answer: CO2 is heavier than O2. In other words, CO2 sinks. When the heavier CO2 has filled the air that you are in, then the O2 will float above it, out of reach of your breathing.

This actually happened when a volcano emitted a large amount of CO2 and the gas settled on a neighboring town. The invisible cloud of settling CO2 was so great that it pushed all the oxygen up and out of the town's air, and nearly everyone died.

In theory, you could become asphyxiated if you sit in a tall enough plastic tent and breathe for too long, even if there is an opening for air at the top. Your own breathing will have the same effect. Gradually, the heavier CO2 from your breathing will settle at the bottom of the tent and force the lighter oxygen up to the top of the bag where you can't get to it.[/spoil]

[Thought experiment over]

 

[visionofstrength]

Maybe someone could email Dr. Peat and ask him what he thinks about breathing in CO2 directly from a tank in this manner? I know we have to think for ourselves but I'm afraid this might be a bit risky. The way I understand his work is that ideally we should in the long-term enhance CO2 through good thyroid function but in the short-term bag breathing can help. I know we all have to apply his work to our unique situation the way we see fit but I'd hate to see anyone accidentally go overboard. I love CO2 as much as the next person but I also respect the fact that it has the potential to stop breathing completely in excessive amounts applied too quickly. I mentioned the venturi mask because I think if one chooses to breathe in pure CO2 it can't hurt to be as precise as possible. I'm just curious as to what Peat himself might say on this topic.

I didn't know there was a question. What's the question you would ask? Maybe I could try to answer it from whatever research there is available?

My question for Dr. Peat would be: Do you think it is safe or beneficial for the average person to breathe compressed CO2 GAS directly from a tank at an estimated 8%?
The reason I am interested in his thoughts on the topic is because he has never advised such a practice that I'm aware of and I'm concerned about the safety of breathing in too much CO2 too quickly knocking out the respiratory drive. Thanks to Peat's work I appreciate CO2 yet I'm still aware that it ultimately controls our respiration and I have the impression that adjusting to higher levels gradually may be the safest option. I appreciate your offer to research this for me vos but I feel confident I can figure it out. If I remember correctly even Peat himself said the topic of CO2 in in the context of medical use needed more research. I need to do more research myself and I do appreciate your efforts on this subject.

One of his 20 questions that he's working on is pretty much the same as this, right?

IMHO, I think the answer to that is, no it's not "safe", in the sense that 8% is routinely reported to evoke a panic response in some individuals (or headache, sweating, pulse increase, associated with panic).

Separately, there is no reliable report of risk of asphyxiation from breathing 8% CO2, and this practice, which is now known as therapeutic or permissive hypercapnia, has been reported to be "beneficial" across a wide (and growing) spectrum of conditions.

 

[Blossom]

The part of the synopsis you quoted doesn't mention levels or proportion of breathed air, and the link didn't work for me - maybe it spells this out more there. Does it say what it counts as extreme levels of hypercapnia, or how much CO2 needs to be in breathed air to approach it?

It seems the link was getting truncated by the bulletin board software, so I've formatted it as code that you can copy and paste into your browser. From the studies I've seen 7.5-10 is considered to have no risk of asphyxiation at all, and neonatal preemies really can only thrive at 7.5-10%. The only verifiable reports of asphyxiation I've seen were at levels of 20% or more.

[Thought experiment] How could carbon dioxide deprive you of oxygen? It's the very thing that allows you to use oxygen! If you were not to have any CO2, you would die of suffocation!

[spoil]Proposed answer: CO2 is heavier than O2. In other words, CO2 sinks. When the heavier CO2 has filled the air that you are in, then the O2 will float above it, out of reach of your breathing.

This actually happened when a volcano emitted a large amount of CO2 and the gas settled on a neighboring town. The invisible cloud of settling CO2 was so great that it pushed all the oxygen up and out of the town's air, and nearly everyone died.

In theory, you could become asphyxiated if you sit in a tall enough plastic tent and breathe for too long, even if there is an opening for air at the top. Your own breathing will have the same effect. Gradually, the heavier CO2 from your breathing will settle at the bottom of the tent and force the lighter oxygen up to the top of the bag where you can't get to it.[/spoil]

[Thought experiment over]

Thanks vos but I think we have to be careful comparing premature neonates adapted to the high CO2 levels of the womb and adults adapted to breathing room air with a 0.039% CO2 level. It still seems wise to me to proceed with caution. I know we can adapt to higher levels I just want to be sure not to take Peat's work out of context and hope for everyone to be safe.

 

[visionofstrength]

Thanks vos but I think we have to be careful comparing premature neonates adapted to the high CO2 levels of the womb and adults adapted to breathing room air with a 0.039% CO2 level. It still seems wise to me to proceed with caution. I know we can adapt to higher levels I just want to be sure not to take Peat's work out of context and hope for everyone to be safe.

End-of-life terminal patients are being given permissive hypercapnia of 7.5%, too, at least at some "progressive" care centers. It relieves suffering when you are extremely oxygen deprived.

Yes, b, in health, adapting to higher levels is the goal. if you've even seen Buteyko's study, he claimed to have measured natural CO2 levels of 7.5% in very healthy people who did not have any supplementation! I've even seen reports of yogi's attaining 10% naturally, without supplementation.

 

[Blossom]

It would be interesting to see this data (for me anyway) just because we a dealing with multiple variables in addition to the inspired CO2, for example how the subjects arterial pco2, venous CO2 or even end tidal CO2 is effected. If you could post me links to the above information it would be greatly appreciated. I have some free time tomorrow and would love to read up on all of this information! Of course I will do my own homework as well.

 

[visionofstrength]

It would be interesting to see this data (for me anyway) just because we a dealing with multiple variables in addition to the inspired CO2, for example how the subjects arterial pco2, venous CO2 or even end tidal CO2 is effected. If you could post me links to the above information it would be greatly appreciated. I have some free time tomorrow and would love to read up on all of this information! Of course I will do my own homework as well.

Go Blossom! I just search for therapeutic or permissive hypercapnia on google or google scholar. There are enough that I wouldn't know which to single out. The one I linked above seems to have a synopsis of recent findings through 2010. I've never seen any with a reference, in real studies, to a risk of asphyxiation, or loss of respiratory drive.

In my experience, it's the opposite. When you are at 10% you really can't stop breathing with deep full breaths, try as you might. That seems to accord with the treatment for neonatal, asthmatic, lung-injured, and even comatose patients. There is no cessation of breathing if the CO2 is in the range of 8%-10%.

 

[tara]

Thanks vos but I think we have to be careful comparing premature neonates adapted to the high CO2 levels of the womb and adults adapted to breathing room air with a 0.039% CO2 level. It still seems wise to me to proceed with caution. I know we can adapt to higher levels I just want to be sure not to take Peat's work out of context and hope for everyone to be safe.

End-of-life terminal patients are being given permissive hypercapnia of 7.5%, too, at least at some "progressive" care centers. It relieves suffering when you are extremely oxygen deprived.

Yes, b, in health, adapting to higher levels is the goal. if you've even seen Buteyko's study, he claimed to have measured natural CO2 levels of 7.5% in very healthy people who did not have any supplementation! I've even seen reports of yogi's attaining 10% naturally, without supplementation.

I'm sold on the value of increasing CO2 too. I think it makes sense to do it gradually, to monitor the effects and adjust accordingly, and most of all to not take serious risks.

The way you describe the 7.5% CO2 levels in the 2 cases above sounds like a measure of hypercapnea - ie a measure of their internal CO2 levels (eg by blood sample or end-tidal exhalation or other) rather than a measure of the CO2 concentration in the air they are inhaling. Am I reading you right?
I would generally expect internal/retained or exhaled CO2 levels to be a lot higher than inhaled. Yogi's practice retaining a high level of CO2. While some of the effects may be similarly positive, it doesn't in itself confirm the safety of supplementing at high levels.

So far I've only experimented with very short periods of inhaling extra CO2, controlled but not carefully measured, partly because despite your suggestions (thankyou) I haven't acquired the gear to do it continuously or at a set rate. I do it in such a way that if I become incompetent (eg dizzy, faint) the extra CO2 will stop. I've tried it to a couple of times to see if I could interrupt beginning migraines - not successful on those occasions.

 

[tara]

[spoil]In theory, you could become asphyxiated if you sit in a tall enough plastic tent and breathe for too long, even if there is an opening for air at the top. Your own breathing will have the same effect. Gradually, the heavier CO2 from your breathing will settle at the bottom of the tent and force the lighter oxygen up to the top of the bag where you can't get to it.[/spoil]
[Thought experiment over]

Possibly you could become asphyxiated in a tall enough tent, but once a gas is mixed it tends to stay mixed. Air has roughly the same gas proportions quite a long way up. Fortunately. It is only when you release a concentrated gas, and until it has time to mix with the surrounding atmosphere, that you get the settling effect. You can pour CO2 gas from one container to another, but after it has sat in an open container for a while it will mix and distribute through the room.

 

[visionofstrength]

[spoil]In theory, you could become asphyxiated if you sit in a tall enough plastic tent and breathe for too long, even if there is an opening for air at the top. Your own breathing will have the same effect. Gradually, the heavier CO2 from your breathing will settle at the bottom of the tent and force the lighter oxygen up to the top of the bag where you can't get to it.[/spoil]
[Thought experiment over]

Possibly you could become asphyxiated in a tall enough tent, but once a gas is mixed it tends to stay mixed. Air has roughly the same gas proportions quite a long way up. Fortunately. It is only when you release a concentrated gas, and until it has time to mix with the surrounding atmosphere, that you get the settling effect. You can pour CO2 gas from one container to another, but after it has sat in an open container for a while it will mix and distribute through the room.

Whoa! Yes, as you say, unless the tent is very tall, the thermal energy of the CO2 is likely orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force, and the CO2 should be diffused. Thanks!

 

[tara]

My question for Dr. Peat would be: Do you think it is safe or beneficial for the average person to breathe compressed CO2 GAS directly from a tank at an estimated 8%?
The reason I am interested in his thoughts on the topic is because he has never advised such a practice that I'm aware of and I'm concerned about the safety of breathing in too much CO2 too quickly knocking out the respiratory drive. Thanks to Peat's work I appreciate CO2 yet I'm still aware that it ultimately controls our respiration and I have the impression that adjusting to higher levels gradually may be the safest option. I appreciate your offer to research this for me vos but I feel confident I can figure it out. If I remember correctly even Peat himself said the topic of CO2 in in the context of medical use needed more research. I need to do more research myself and I do appreciate your efforts on this subject.

I'd be interested in the answer to this too, and/or possibly lower rates, eg 3-4% added to normal air.

I expect more calcium and maybe other minerals would be required. In the presence of sufficient calcium, magnesium, D3, K2, protein, sugar, etc, I would expect it to help counter osteoporosis. If it were continued at high dose for a very long time, I wonder if there could be a risk of going too far with bone building - there are rare cases (can't remember the causes, but possibly to do with carbonic anhydrase dysregulation?) where bones can get so thick and dense as to crowd out the necessary marrow. I assume most of us are a long way from that happening, and would benefit from more bone deposition.

There are probably lots of other changes that would be noticeable long before this.

 

[visionofstrength]

The way you describe the 7.5% CO2 levels in the 2 cases above sounds like a measure of hypercapnea - ie a measure of their internal CO2 levels (eg by blood sample or end-tidal exhalation or other) rather than a measure of the CO2 concentration in the air they are inhaling. Am I reading you right?

I am trying to piece this together as best I can. Recently there was a study of Wim Hof, who can submerge himself in ice baths for more than an hour. The study showed that Wim Hof had increased amounts of norepinephrine. Some consider norepinephrine to be part of the pathway for uncoupling respiration from ATP, and for increasing thermogenesis in a way that would allow Wim Hof to withstand ice baths.

Wim Hof describes how he prepares himself for the ice bath, and reports that he holds his breath for very long periods of time in advance of going in the ice bath, and while submerged. Breath-holding is a well-known yogi or Buteyko technique, and it essentially increases CO2 in the anatomical dead space of your nose and throat to very high levels. This high level of CO2 in your nose and throat in effect becomes the CO2 that your lungs are exposed to. The result is that the venous blood in your lungs accumulates CO2 that is at least equal to the CO2 in your nose and throat.

My thinking is that increasing CO2 by breath-holding ultimately leads to uncoupling of respiration, and increased thermogenesis. But breath-holding for a very long time, at least for me, is both very difficult and a risk of oxygen deprivation. A much safer way is simply to add more CO2 to the air that you breathe, thereby accomplishing the very same uncoupling of respiration (I believe) as breath-holding but without the risks of oxygen deprivation.

Someday, when I get my nerve up, I may try an ice-bath while breathing very high levels of CO2, like those that yogis and Wim Hof achieve by breath-holding. I think I can calculate that these levels might reach as high as 18% CO2, when you have held your breath as they do for several minutes. But I'm not a big fan of ice-baths, and so I'm in no hurry.

 

[visionofstrength]

My question for Dr. Peat would be: Do you think it is safe or beneficial for the average person to breathe compressed CO2 GAS directly from a tank at an estimated 8%?

I'd be interested in the answer to this too, and/or possibly lower rates, eg 3-4% added to normal air.

Here's the question Peat was asked in the 20 questions thread:
7. lindsay - In line with this question, I would like Ray Peat to further discuss the role that Co2 plays in overall metabolic and cellular health and list as many ways as he can think of that would help boost Co2 retention (or production) in the body. I'm also curious about carbon dioxide therapy and if it is safe?

My personal experience is he's been only too generous in answering questions, though I've tried not to ask him a question without pointing to a basis in research for it. I guess here, since the research consistently says what it says about therapeutic or permissive hypercapnia, it would seem unlikely that Peat would disagree, right?

 

[tara]

My question for Dr. Peat would be: Do you think it is safe or beneficial for the average person to breathe compressed CO2 GAS directly from a tank at an estimated 8%?

I'd be interested in the answer to this too, and/or possibly lower rates, eg 3-4% added to normal air.

Here's the question Peat was asked in the 20 questions thread:
7. lindsay - In line with this question, I would like Ray Peat to further discuss the role that Co2 plays in overall metabolic and cellular health and list as many ways as he can think of that would help boost Co2 retention (or production) in the body. I'm also curious about carbon dioxide therapy and if it is safe?

My personal experience is he's been only too generous in answering questions, though I've tried not to ask him a question without pointing to a basis in research for it. I guess here, since the research consistently says what it says about therapeutic or permissive hypercapnia, it would seem unlikely that Peat would disagree, right?

I agree that Peat has been generous with answering questions. Lindsay's question is good, and I'm happy to await an answer. I assumed she meant transdermal carbon dioxide therapy (which I would assume to be safe in itself, as long as good procedures are used*) or possibly injected CO2, but maybe she meant inhaled CO2. If we are lucky, all 3 will be addressed.

*except for the risk of boosting any fungii you may be harbouring on your skin - take counter-measures if you have tinea.

 

[tara]

The way you describe the 7.5% CO2 levels in the 2 cases above sounds like a measure of hypercapnea - ie a measure of their internal CO2 levels (eg by blood sample or end-tidal exhalation or other) rather than a measure of the CO2 concentration in the air they are inhaling. Am I reading you right?

I am trying to piece this together as best I can. Recently there was a study of Wim Hof, who can submerge himself in ice baths for more than an hour. The study showed that Wim Hof had increased amounts of norepinephrine. Some consider norepinephrine to be part of the pathway for uncoupling respiration from ATP, and for increasing thermogenesis in a way that would allow Wim Hof to withstand ice baths.

Wim Hof describes how he prepares himself for the ice bath, and reports that he holds his breath for very long periods of time in advance of going in the ice bath, and while submerged. Breath-holding is a well-known yogi or Buteyko technique, and it essentially increases CO2 in the anatomical dead space of your nose and throat to very high levels. This high level of CO2 in your nose and throat in effect becomes the CO2 that your lungs are exposed to. The result is that the venous blood in your lungs accumulates CO2 that is at least equal to the CO2 in your nose and throat.

My thinking is that increasing CO2 by breath-holding ultimately leads to uncoupling of respiration, and increased thermogenesis. But breath-holding for a very long time, at least for me, is both very difficult and a risk of oxygen deprivation. A much safer way is simply to add more CO2 to the air that you breathe, thereby accomplishing the very same uncoupling of respiration (I believe) as breath-holding but without the risks of oxygen deprivation.

Someday, when I get my nerve up, I may try an ice-bath while breathing very high levels of CO2, like those that yogis and Wim Hof achieve by breath-holding. I think I can calculate that these levels might reach as high as 18% CO2, when you have held your breath as they do for several minutes. But I'm not a big fan of ice-baths, and so I'm in no hurry.

Hof's procedures are clearly very different from yours. Although as you say, they should both result in higher internal CO2 levels, I think they may have some different effects too. The fact that it is hard to hold your breath for a long time forces gradual adaptation - you simply can't increase your max hold much without a lot of practice (and I imagine fuel and mineral reserves). This gradual adaption may be important for safety. Far from risking oxygen deprivation, Hof seems to demonstrate much improved oxygen delivery. I don't think it is possible for people generally to asphyxiate themselves by holding their breath - as soon as they lose consciousness, the natural drive reasserts iself. But in a too high CO2 atmosphere, there is no way to get rid of excess CO2 if you need to. This look more risky, not safer, to me.

The respiratory drive usually operates to keep CO2 levels within cooee of its current set point - that is, your autonomic nervous system tells your breathing muscles to breath when the CO2 level gets uncomfortably high. You can consciously and deliberately override it to a certain extent, and get your CO2 levels above the set point for a while - as long as you can maintain concentration and intention. I think Buteyko's methods rely on parcticing this. With enough practice, I think the CO2 set point can be raised. I think under some circumstances (severe hyperventilation/panic attacks?) the oxygen delivery can get low enough to drive respiration, regardless of the CO2 level - and this can get into a vicious circle (not so sure about how this part works). It doesn't surprise me that you breath deeply when you increase CO2 inhaled - your system is trying hard to bring the blood CO2 level down to its set point.
Have you found your deep breathing on extra CO2 has decreased over time? Have you noticed increased tolerance with time?

I'm not keen on ice baths either. Do you find yourself getting markedly warmer when you inhale CO2 at 8%? I would expect that to give a good indication of improved (increased) blood CO2 and oxygen delivery. If you ever do try to inhale very high CO2 with or without the ice bath, please make sure you have someone minding you (someone breathing regular air) who can turn off the gas if you lose consciousness.
Don't want headlines about the terrible dangers of CO2 leading to more restrictive legislation. :)

 

[Blossom]

Permissive hypercapnia is something 'medicine' begrudgingly 'allows' because the attempt to lower endogenously produced and retained CO2 would be more dangerous to ones health than to simply let the CO2 levels remain at a higher level than 'medicine' normally considers ideal. Permissive hypercapnia is NOT applying an outside source of CO2 or attempting to raise CO2 in any manner. Permissive hypercapnia involves critically ill people on mechanical ventilators and is a very different situation than a reasonably healthy person trying to optimize CO2. The fact that 'medicine' is starting to realize that in some people lowering CO2 shouldn't be the primary goal is a small step in the right direction. The most important point to emphasize about permissive hypercapnia is that it is the bodies own CO2 that is retained and not CO2 supplied from an outside source. I'm not saying it is perfect, correct or optimal but merely pointing out what permissive hypercapnia technically means.
Lindsay asked a wonderful question and I can't wait for Peat's reply but I don't think that question addresses the issue of inhaling carbon dioxide from an outside source directly.
To be continued...Go us!

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think the cold adaptation you are talking about involves a long process of adaptation mediated by adrenergic receptors. Not so Peatish.

 

[visionofstrength]

I think the cold adaptation you are talking about involves a long process of adaptation mediated by adrenergic receptors. Not so Peatish.

One study claims there's something going on with Wim Hof's yogi breathing that seems very Peatish:

Healthy volunteers practicing the learned techniques exhibited profound increases in the release of norepinephrine, which in turn led to increased production of anti-inflammatory mediators and subsequent dampening of the proinflammatory cytokine response elicited by intravenous administration of bacterial endotoxin.

http://www.icemanwimhof.com/files/pnas.pdf

Given the seemingly adrenergic release of epinephrine, my working theory is that (since norepinephrine and thermogenesis are associated with uncoupled respiration in brown adipose tissue) it's the uncoupled respiration that can increase the anti-inflammatory mediators, perhaps even in spite of the adrenergic release? Thoughts?

 

[visionofstrength]

Have you found your deep breathing on extra CO2 has decreased over time? Have you noticed increased tolerance with time?

This is an interesting question as are your other (implied) questions about comparing breath-holding with CO2 enriched air. I will try to make a separate post when I have time. Thanks!

Quick observation: when breathholding for a couple of minutes (or longer) you see your O2 saturation plunge to truly frightening levels, as measured by an oximeter, at which theoretically you could be suffering slight brain damage. You will never see your O2 saturation go very low when breathing CO2 enriched air. Much, much safer.

If you ever do try to inhale very high CO2 with or without the ice bath, please make sure you have someone minding you (someone breathing regular air) who can turn off the gas if you lose consciousness.
Don't want headlines about the terrible dangers of CO2 leading to more restrictive legislation. :)

That's a thought. If you tried it you'd be surprised I think at how safe and easy it is, as long as you simply mix the CO2 with air, for example, by keeping a fan on while you're using it. I don't see any evidence anywhere that breathing CO2 mixed with air leads to unconsciousness [CAUTION: filling your lungs with unmixed CO2 can cause asphyxiation. Also, Blossom loves and cares about all of us!] I've even seen studies going back to the 1920s when CO2 was tried and abandoned as an anesthetic gas because extremely high levels of CO2 stimulated the patient too much!

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think the cold adaptation you are talking about involves a long process of adaptation mediated by adrenergic receptors. Not so Peatish.

One study claims there's something going on with Wim Hof's yogi breathing that seems very Peatish:

Healthy volunteers practicing the learned techniques exhibited profound increases in the release of norepinephrine, which in turn led to increased production of anti-inflammatory mediators and subsequent dampening of the proinflammatory cytokine response elicited by intravenous administration of bacterial endotoxin.

http://www.icemanwimhof.com/files/pnas.pdf

Given the seemingly adrenergic release of epinephrine, my working theory is that (since norepinephrine and thermogenesis are associated with uncoupled respiration in brown adipose tissue) it's the uncoupled respiration that can increase the anti-inflammatory mediators, perhaps even in spite of the adrenergic release? Thoughts?

That's neat, Wikipedia claims "Glucose intake was found to significantly increase plasma NE levels. In contrast, protein and fat intake was found to have no effect." Norepinephrine is made from dopamine, but nonetheless we find histamine, acetylcholine, prostaglandins, serotonin, adenosine and ATP as "norepinephrine inhibitors". Maybe sugar can make an ATP abundance so then uncoupling is started through norepinephrine.