You Know You've Gone Peat Mad When

[Blossom]

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!

Yes, I do care! We talk about adverse reactions to all types of Peaty measures and being cautious and going as slow as appropriate for each individuals context. I think CO2 should be treated the same. I'm having a hard time finding anything that remotely convinces me of the safety of inhaling CO2 gas directly for any length of time. I'm sure Peat is right that it needs to be studied more. It a shame it hadn't been but that's the reality of the situation as far as I can tell thus far. I would love to see the studies you mention vos! I am all for optimizing CO2 but I do know that just because it is an invisible gas doesn't make it any less powerful. I agree with tara about playing it safe and having someone with you to intervene if you happen to stop breathing. The chemoreceptors in the brain with an overabundance of CO2 in the system might just send the signal for respiration to cease. The pattern I'd expect would be an increase in rate and depth of breathing followed by a slowdown and that's the point at which I'd probably personally stop breathing in the pure CO2 gas. Be safe my forum friends!

 

[tara]

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.

Are you speaking from experience? Have you tried max or close to max breath holds while monitoring with the oximeter? If so, how low did the oxygen saturation get? What was your perception of your own alertness towards the end of the breath holding? I cannot hold my breath for long at all, but when I hold it for short times, it generally improves my calmness and mental clarity. I think these are signs of improved, not reduced, oxygen delivery/use, even though I expect that oxygen saturation would be slightly reduced.

My theoretical understanding is that for some people long breath holds can be hazardous, by changing the CO2 level too fast and setting off other reactions (eg panic attacks). The risk can be mitigated by training/increasing capacity very slowly, and focusing on reduced breathing rather than long breath holds. Also, increasing CO2 levels may cause problems fro people who are recovering from recent serious physical trauma - esp bangs to the head (can increase bleeding), or to people instates of diabetic or very acid for other reasons (can exacerbate by reducing pH).

However, for most people, practising to extend breath-holding time does not cause problems, and results in gradually improved oxygen delivery. When blood CO2 levels (and cellular CO2 production) are higher, more oxygen can be released from the haemoglobin to the cells that are releasing CO2, even when oxygen saturation levels are lower. I don't know what the limits are of how low oxygen saturation can safely go under average CO2 levels or under so-called hypercapnic conditions before there is a risk of damage. Maybe Blossom knows more about this? Obviously, full oxygen saturation by itself is no guarantee of adequate oxygen delivery, or we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Do you think it is possible to suffer brain damage, even very slight, from oxygen deprivation from holding your breath? I thought that the natural drive to breathe would reassert itself and override intentional breath-holding before it could get dangerous (assuming airways are functioning and regular air is available - I don't assume this applies where there is lung damage or underwater, etc). Maybe there are people whose will power is so strong they can hold their breath till they pass out, but I think this would be difficult, and that it would be wise to stop before then.

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 anaesthetic gas because extremely high levels of CO2 stimulated the patient too much!

I do think there is likely potential value in increasing the CO2 in inhaled air for periods as a way to improve compromised health for many people. I think it has been demonstrated to be helpful in some emergency/extreme cases. I would be interested in knowing more about what levels are generally safe for everybody for extended times (my guess is that this will be lower than 8%, but I don't know this), and my concerns for people pushing up to higher levels are that they keep themselves safe by having a way out if it gets too much - even/especially if too much leads to drowsiness, unconsciousness, or for some other reason inability to stop the CO2 supplementation.

 

[gummybear]

So what I understand, living in the mountains is a safe and good way to get that co2?

 

[tara]

Yes. But for some people the adaptation from low lands to high mountains is hazardous if you travel up too fast. Altitude sickness is a killer.

 

[gummybear]

So defending a village far up in the mountains is proper good since the attackers are all gonna get altitude sickness? Mad good.

 

[tara]

So defending a village far up in the mountains is proper good since the attackers are all gonna get altitude sickness? Mad good.

If they walked up from the plains they probably adapted on the way. If they flew up, you might have other problems with them

 

[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.

Are you speaking from experience? Have you tried max or close to max breath holds while monitoring with the oximeter? If so, how low did the oxygen saturation get? What was your perception of your own alertness towards the end of the breath holding? ...I don't know what the limits are of how low oxygen saturation can safely go under average CO2 levels or under so-called hypercapnic conditions before there is a risk of damage. ...Do you think it is possible to suffer brain damage, even very slight, from oxygen deprivation from holding your breath?

Yes, for a time, before I encountered Peat's work, I got as far as a little more than two minutes of breath-holding, and saw my O2 saturation in the mid 70% range. Heart attack victims are thought to suffer brain damage in that range, but some studies have concluded that there may not be damage during breath-holding. I didn't like taking that chance.

Once I learned of Peat's idea that carbon dioxide was the master hormone involved in our metabolic fields, and even in our consciousness, and saw Peat's explanation of the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, it seemed clear to me, at least mathematically, that carbonates could be supplemented by better methods than breath-holding. Carbon dioxide could be precisely delivered from canisters, and either mixed with inhaled air or ingested by mouth, and so, too, could bicarbonate from nebulizers or inhalers.

I feel it's a failing of mine, not to communicate well the importance of carbon dioxide therapy, and how extraordinarily safe it is, relative to any other drug or supplement. Perhaps it is as Henderson said in "Carbon Dioxide," Cyclopedia of Medicine, 1940:

Before considering these matters, it will be best that the mind be cleared of certain deep rooted misconceptions that have long opposed the truth and impeded its applications. It will be seen that carbon dioxide is truly the breath of life.

The human mind is inherently inclined to take a moralistic view of nature. Prior to the modern scientific era, which only goes back a generation or two, if indeed it can be said as yet even to have begun in popular thought, nearly every problem was viewed as an alternative between good and evil, righteousness and sin, God and the Devil. This superstitious slant still distorts the conceptions of health and disease; indeed, it is mainly derived from the experience of physical suffering. Lavoisier contributed unintentionally to this conception when he defined the life supporting character of oxygen and the suffocating power of carbon dioxide. Accordingly, for more than a century after his death, and even now in the field of respiration and related functions, oxygen typifies the Good and carbon dioxide is still regarded as a spirit of Evil. There could scarcely be a greater misconception of the true biological relations of these gases.

Carbon dioxide is the chief hormone of the entire body; it is the only one that is produced by every tissue and that probably acts on every organ. In the regulation of the functions of the body, carbon dioxide exerts at least 3 well defined influences: (1) It is one of the prime factors in the acid-base balance of the blood. (2) It is the principal control of respiration. (3) It exerts an essential tonic influence upon the heart and peripheral circulation.

A frog's muscle will contract effectively and repeatedly under suitable stimulation in an atmosphere of pure nitrogen. In contraction, a muscle produces lactic acid, partly by reconversion into sugar. In other words, oxygen is not one of the primary factors in muscular work. The reserve store of oxygen in the body is small. Vigorous breathing does not take place before an exertion; the exertion is first made and then the oxygen needed to clear the system in preparation for another exertion is absorbed. The demand for oxygen for this scavenging of waste and restoration of power is termed by A.V. Hill the "oxygen deficit" of exercise.

On the other hand, present knowledge indicates that carbon dioxide is an absolutely essential component of protoplasm. It is one of the factors in the balance of alkali and acid for the maintenance of the normal pH of the tissues. Acapnia, that is diminution of the normal content of carbon dioxide, involves therefore, a disturbance of one of the fundamental conditions of life."
"These observations upon the circulation showed also that in animals reduced to a state of shock the carbon dioxide of the blood, or as it now be generally termed, the "alkaline reserve," is greatly reduced. This experimental result was later confirmed by the observations of Cannon upon wounded soldiers during the war.

Catatonia.---Finally, mention may be made of the extraordinary observations reported by the late A.S. Lovenhart, in which he found that inhalation of carbon dioxide to cases of catatonia induced a temporary restoration of intelligence and mental responsiveness. The simplest explanation of the results in these cases is attained by postulating an habitual contraction of blood-vessels in the brain of the catatonic patient, similar to that in the heart and limbs of the cases discussed in the previous section. If this view is correct, the beneficial effects of the inhalation are due to improvement in the circulation in the brain under the influence of carbon dioxide upon the finer blood vessels.

 

[visionofstrength]

The chemoreceptors in the brain with an overabundance of CO2 in the system might just send the signal for respiration to cease.

What's the publication that describes chemoreceptors in the brain that can send a signal for respiration to cease? The chemoreceptors in the brain I know of are in charge of making sure respiration does not cease! Maybe the "respiration cease" receptors are something we might discover in the future, though?

The basics of chemoreceptors (as it's taught so far) looks like this:

Respiratory Chemoreceptors

If respiratory chemoreceptors were not functional, hypoxia would result; no matter what happens, the subject would breathe at a normal, resting rate!

1) Central Chemoreceptors are located on both sides of the medulla where cranial nerves IX (glossopharyngeal nerves) and X (vagal nerves) leave the brain. These chemoreceptors are primarily sensitive to pCO2 and the pH of blood. As pH falls (gets more acidic) and pCO2 levels rise, these chemoreceptors provide stimulatory inputs to the inspiratory center; this increases ventilation in an attempt to reduce H+ and CO2 in the blood. The chemoreceptors are actually located in the interstitial space, outside of the blood-brain barrier. As H+ ions cannot diffuse through the blood-brain barrier, the ability of decreased pH to stimulate respiration is due to H+ ions combining with bicarbonate ions to form carbonic acid, which diffuses through the blood-brain barrier, some of which dissociates to release H+ ions in the interstitium.

In fact, the presence of carbon dioxide and H+ are so critical to maintaining normal respiration, that if someone hyperventilates long enough, they will reduce carbon dioxide so much that they may faint. This is primarily because of the important role of carbon dioxide in maintaining peripheral blood pressure. Carbon dioxide strongly stimulates constriction of arterioles. When carbon dioxide levels drop with hyperventilation, blood vessels relax, peripheral blood pressure falls, and less blood and oxygen are delivered to the brain. If the level of oxygen in the brain falls low enough, you pass out. A little bit different than passing out if you hold your breath too long, in which case you just deplete oxygen in the blood. In both cases, consciousness is lost because of lack of available oxygen for the brain.

2) Remember that the dura mater, arachnoid and pia mater surround the entire CNS, not just the spinal cord! The Bone-Dura-Arachnoid-CSF space has a pH of 7.32. This is just slightly more acidic than the pH of arterial (7.40) and venous (7.38) blood. When the pCO2 is increased in the bloodstream, CO2 diffuses easily into the CSF space. Chemoreceptors on the surface of the medulla sense this increase in CO2 in the CSF and this may be indirectly due to the resultant decrease in pH. These chemoreceptors increase respiratory rate to remove CO2 from the blood and eventually from the CSF by increasing ventilation.

3) Peripheral Chemoreceptors known as the Aortic Bodies in the aortic arch and the Carotid Bodies (by the carotid baroceptors) at the bifurcation of the carotid arteries in the neck monitor pO2. The Aortic Bodies are supplied by the vagus nerve, the Carotid Bodies are supplied by the glossopharyngeal nerve. These pO2 receptors send nerve impulses to the medulla to increase respiration when pO2 falls. These centers are actually sensitive to both PO2 and pH.

 

[tara]

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.

Are you speaking from experience? Have you tried max or close to max breath holds while monitoring with the oximeter? If so, how low did the oxygen saturation get? What was your perception of your own alertness towards the end of the breath holding? ...I don't know what the limits are of how low oxygen saturation can safely go under average CO2 levels or under so-called hypercapnic conditions before there is a risk of damage. ...Do you think it is possible to suffer brain damage, even very slight, from oxygen deprivation from holding your breath?

Yes, for a time, before I encountered Peat's work, I got as far as a little more than two minutes of breath-holding, and saw my O2 saturation in the mid 70% range. Heart attack victims are thought to suffer brain damage in that range, but some studies have concluded that there may not be damage during breath-holding. I didn't like taking that chance.

Thanks for filling that in. Other than your concern at the low oxygen saturation reading, were you aware of any negative effects? Or positive ones?

Once I learned of Peat's idea that carbon dioxide was the master hormone involved in our metabolic fields, and even in our consciousness, and saw Peat's explanation of the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, it seemed clear to me, at least mathematically, that carbonates could be supplemented by better methods than breath-holding. Carbon dioxide could be precisely delivered from canisters, and either mixed with inhaled air or ingested by mouth, and so, too, could bicarbonate from nebulizers or inhalers.

I feel it's a failing of mine, not to communicate well the importance of carbon dioxide therapy, and how extraordinarily safe it is, relative to any other drug or supplement. Perhaps it is as Henderson said in "Carbon Dioxide," Cyclopedia of Medicine, 1940...

I am aware that CO2 is crucial to all human functions - the 'master hormone', and more crucial to life itself than even oxygen. I am also aware that chronic hidden hyperventilation and impaired metabolism are very widespread and cause chronic hypocapnia in a large portion of the population, and I assume that this is an important contributor to a great deal of chronic health issues, both mild and severe. I am also aware that there have been cases of severe impairment that have responded well to higher levels of inhaled CO2, though I don't know exactly what percentage of CO2 was used in these cases.

I also believe that finding ways that work for people to raise their CO2 levels gradually and safely is likely to be an important factor for many people in improving thteir health. I have read a number of stories. Buteyko's hospital, which only took patients that the rest of the health system had nothing else to offer, lost very few patients - most of them recovered from very serious ill-health. Buteyko himself expected to die young of serious disease, until he learned the importance of CO2 and trained himself to breathe less.

You are not failing to communicate that CO2 is crucial, or that it should be possible to improve it. What I don't see in what you write, is a recognition that just because CO2 is necessary, and increasing it is often helpful, does not mean that raising it to high levels quickly is not always safe for everyone. I think (hope) you are probably aware enough of what you are doing to keep yourself safe, but I'd hate to have others reading here adopt radical measures quickly without suitable caution.

Many substances are essential for our life and function, and they all have optimal ranges. In many cases we have complex mechanisms for regulating their homeostasis, and other adaptive complex adaptive mechanisms for surviving when they get out of optimal range. Sudden large changes in a single substance can sometimes cause problems, even if the direction of the changes is towards what we think is a more optimal level. Gradual changes allow the body to adjust, and us to observe whether things seem to be going the way we expect.

Examples: sodium:http://www.raypeatforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4725#p56811;
dhmo: http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html.

We probably don't yet know everything about the possible risks associated with sudden large changes in CO2 in people in various states (we do know there are some risks).

Faced with a person who has been catatonic for a prolonged period and has not responded to other treatment, the risk-benefit analysis is very different than for someone who is mildly unwell.
If I am ever catatonic, I hope someone figures out to give me some extra CO2 to breathe.

 

[Blossom]

vos- The website http://www.normalbreathing.com seems to explain hypercarbic/hypercapnic respiratory failure well. I did not get my views on the chemoreceptors from any publication but rather learned that in respiratory therapy school. There are many problems with the medical system in understanding and treating diseases but I don't think there is any controversy at all over the role of co2 controlling respiration or the chemoreceptors involvement in the process. There really seems to be limited data on how breathing pure co2 gas directly effects us. It looks like Peat answered Lindsay's question!

 

[visionofstrength]

Thanks for filling that in. Other than your concern at the low oxygen saturation reading, were you aware of any negative effects? Or positive ones?

Measurably, it slowed my pulse rate from mid 70s to mid 60s. Somewhat subjectively, it made me more resistant to cold exposure, such that I could comfortably withstand very cold water or even snow.

What I don't see in what you write, is a recognition that just because CO2 is necessary, and increasing it is often helpful, does not mean that raising it to high levels quickly is not always safe for everyone. I think (hope) you are probably aware enough of what you are doing to keep yourself safe, but I'd hate to have others reading here adopt radical measures quickly without suitable caution.

We probably don't yet know everything about the possible risks associated with sudden large changes in CO2 in people in various states (we do know there are some risks).

Thanks for the reassuring words. But even this makes me feel like I'm not communicating well how we have an exquisitely tuned feedback mechanism for controlling carbonates, which you can verify yourself by trying to overdose on CO2 mixed with air. You simply cannot, short of IV infusion. As you gradually increase concentration in the mixed air, your body will not allow you go too high, and will give you many warning signals that you cannot miss or ignore, try as you might. [Obligatory CAUTION here: unmixed CO2 should be handled with care, and promptly mixed with air!]

Separately, you can also verify this by looking at the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation, that shows that we have an extraordinarily efficient buffering system in place, even if you somehow tricked your body into consuming too much carbonate.

And finally, you can verify this by looking at the system of chemoreceptors (described above) that are all based on the supply of CO2 (and only in very rare circumstances on the supply of O2).

I'm reluctant to try to provide anyone my authoritarian view of anything. I try to keep everything fact based, and let others draw their own conclusions -- and those conclusions often reward me with enlightenment!

But here, it seems that, at least for you and Blossom?, I'm failing to communicate whatever facts you may need to consider the issue of safety. Does it help to consider that mixed CO2 is much safer than anything else you put in your body, even water, sugar or salt, to say nothing of thyroid or progesterone, or other drugs or supplements -- because none of these other drugs and supplements have such efficient feedback mechanisms as Henderson-Hasselbalch buffering and chemoreceptors, which mixed CO2 does have, to prevent overdosing?

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.

 

[visionofstrength]

I did not get my views on the chemoreceptors from any publication but rather learned that in respiratory therapy school. There are many problems with the medical system in understanding and treating diseases but I don't think there is any controversy at all over the role of co2 controlling respiration or the chemoreceptors involvement in the process.

Ok thanks! Just fact checking in the public interest. There is no evidence (that I can see) that chemoreceptors in the brain (or perhaps just outside it) can send signals to cease respiration, based on an overabundance of CO2. I think you're right, there's not a controversy I can see about that.

 

[aquaman]

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.

Source?

 

[aquaman]

Hmmm, RP's answer to the CO2 question via Charlie:

Ray Peat - Absorbing it through the skin is safe, also bag-breathing can gradually allow the nerves to adapt to a higher concentration. In a high concentration, it burns the membranes by its acidity.

His caveat "through the skin" is interesting, and would suggest that "not through the skin" may not be safe??

 

[visionofstrength]

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.

Source?

That's just my own summary of chemoreceptors and Henderson-Hasselbalch (described above). But yes, no one has ever said as much, as far as I know. Peat has only said things like

The fact that carbon dioxide therapy is extremely safe has led to the official doctrine that it can't be effective. The results reviewed by Yandell Henderson in the Cyclopedia of Medicine in 1940 were so impressive that carbon dioxide therapy would have been as commonly used and as well known as oxygen therapy, radiation treatments, sulfa drugs, barbiturates, and digitalis, but it was completely lacking in the thrilling mystique of those dangerous treatments.

Reading between the lines, Peat may be saying that the reason CO2 is not studied more is precisely because we have long known it to be extremely safe? Only dangerous treatments are profitable to study.

 

[visionofstrength]

Hmmm, RP's answer to the CO2 question via Charlie:

Ray Peat - Absorbing it through the skin is safe, also bag-breathing can gradually allow the nerves to adapt to a higher concentration. In a high concentration, it burns the membranes by its acidity.

His caveat "through the skin" is interesting, and would suggest that "not through the skin" may not be safe??

I guess I feel reluctant to attribute opinions to him (or anyone) that he might not have meant to say, where he doesn't actually state the opinion. He's often trying to be accountable for what he writes, and careful not to overstate.

So for example, he suggests conditions when "not through the skin" would be safe (at least by implication):
1. as long as the nerves have adapted to a higher concentration, and
2. the concentration is not so high that the membranes are burned by it acidity.

[FWIW, my own experiments show pretty much the same thing. It takes a little while for the nerves to adapt, and I turn up the concentration gradually. At some point, I can feel a kind of burning, which you might call "acidic" and that signals me to reduce the concentration (along with high respiratory volume).

That's why I say it seems easy and extremely safe to self-regulate, just using your body's own feedback mechanisms.]

 

[Blossom]

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.

Source?

That's just my own summary of chemoreceptors and Henderson-Hasselbalch (described above). But yes, no one has ever said as much, as far as I know. Peat has only said things like

The fact that carbon dioxide therapy is extremely safe has led to the official doctrine that it can't be effective. The results reviewed by Yandell Henderson in the Cyclopedia of Medicine in 1940 were so impressive that carbon dioxide therapy would have been as commonly used and as well known as oxygen therapy, radiation treatments, sulfa drugs, barbiturates, and digitalis, but it was completely lacking in the thrilling mystique of those dangerous treatments.

Reading between the lines, Peat may be saying that the reason CO2 is not studied more is precisely because we have long known it to be extremely safe? Only dangerous treatments are profitable to study.

We are all on the same team here as far as I'm concerned. I would love to see CO2 vindicated in the mainstream. That doesn't mean that one can't over do it though and I'm sure how quickly or slowly that can happen is highly individual. We can over do it with water, sugar and salt (or under do it for that matter) but you can't go that long without breathing. That's all I was trying to point out. Hypercarbic respiratory failure is no laughing matter and although it's a stretch that it would happen to a reasonably healthy person people should know that it's possible. If someone breathing from a CO2 tank decided MORE flow would be better the consequences could be very damaging. For example if someone had that nice relaxed CO2 narcosis feeling and dozed off while home alone using too high of a CO2 amount and became unable to regulate the flow, now that could be a big problem. I think tara has attempted to point this out as well. I'm really not trying to contradict anyone or fear monger about CO2 but create awareness. Personally I think Peat wouldn't hesitate to recommend inhaling CO2 if he thought doing so was completely safe but he didn't so I'm going to read between the lines and personally stick with bag breathing. We should all do what we feel is best for our own unique situation. I'd just like everyone to be well informed about the various things they try for maintaining, correcting or achieving health. That's why this forum and dialogue is so valuable.

 

[Such_Saturation]

I think there are fallback receptors for acidity and oxygen. <<Both carotid and aortic bodies increase sensory discharge during hypoxia. Carotid bodies are considered the primary peripheral chemoreceptor and have been shown to contribute more to a hypoxic response. However, in the chronic absence of the carotid body, the aortic body is able to perform a similar respiratory regulatory role, suggesting that it possesses efficacious mechanisms of signal transduction as well. The differing locations of the two bodies ideally position them to take advantage of different information; the carotid bodies, located on one of the main arteries of the neck, monitor partial pressure within arterial vessels while aortic body, located on the aortic arch, monitors oxygen concentration closer to the heart. Each of these bodies is composed of a similar collection of cells, and it is the post-transduction signal processing that differentiates their responses. However, little is known about the specifics of either of these signaling mechanisms.>> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_chemoreceptors]

 

[visionofstrength]

you can't go that long without breathing. That's all I was trying to point out. Hypercarbic respiratory failure is no laughing matter and although it's a stretch that it would happen to a reasonably healthy person people should know that it's possible.

i just don't want anyone to be misinformed. So I'm going to ask (ever so politely) for a public interest fact check, please?

Is there any publication that claims that inhaling an excess of mixed CO2 caused hypercarbic respiratory failure? At what concentration?

I'm sorry I really don't mean to use your words against you, but it seems you are claiming that hypercarbic respiratory failure (not asphyxiation) occurs as a result of overabundance of CO2?

I don't know of any basis for that claim in print, and the page you pointed to at normalbreathing.com does not provide any basis for it that I can see, and instead lists only these causes of hypercarbic respiratory failure:

Acute hypercapnia causes include
- status epilepticus
- congestive heart failure
- respiratory failure or pulmonary insufficiency
- asphyxia or suffocation
- respiratory dead space excess
- breathing pure oxygen
- ventilator malfunction
- presence of foreign bodies in airways
- respiratory arrest
- coma
- overdose of medical drugs or respiratory suppressants (e.g., sedative drugs, salicylate intoxication/overdose, curare, morphine and other opiates).

 

[Blossom]

you can't go that long without breathing. That's all I was trying to point out. Hypercarbic respiratory failure is no laughing matter and although it's a stretch that it would happen to a reasonably healthy person people should know that it's possible.

i just don't want anyone to be misinformed. So I'm going to ask (ever so politely) for a public interest fact check, please?

Is there any publication that claims that inhaling an excess of mixed CO2 caused hypercarbic respiratory failure? At what concentration?

I'm sorry I really don't mean to use your words against you, but it seems you are claiming that hypercarbic respiratory failure (not asphyxiation) occurs as a result of overabundance of CO2?

I don't know of any basis for that claim in print, and the page you pointed to at normalbreathing.com does not provide any basis for it that I can see, and instead lists only these causes of hypercarbic respiratory failure:

Acute hypercapnia causes include
- status epilepticus
- congestive heart failure
- respiratory failure or pulmonary insufficiency
- asphyxia or suffocation
- respiratory dead space excess
- breathing pure oxygen
- ventilator malfunction
- presence of foreign bodies in airways
- respiratory arrest
- coma
- overdose of medical drugs or respiratory suppressants (e.g., sedative drugs, salicylate intoxication/overdose, curare, morphine and other opiates).

That's perfectly fine. We normally only see people with hypercapnic respiratory failure from the bodies own internal production and inability to blow off excess CO2 as in the above scenarios. People simply tire out and stop breathing. In the event that a person were to continue with prolonged inhalation of CO2 you could have the same end result 'hypercarbic/hypercapnic respiratory failure' and that is where the problem lies in my opinion. There hasn't been enough research in this area because medicine/science is so resistant to studying this topic in depth. People don't routinely attempt to breath in CO2 so we are very limited in our knowledge of how much and in what situations it is beneficial. Any asphyxiation is technically respiratory failure. I do admire your work vos and I think there is an optimal level of CO2 and there is going overboard. I hate to see anyone accidentally go overboard and that's all.