I needed to disable self-signups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type sign-ups lately. Please contact me directly if you want membership on this forum. Thanks.
This book will change your life (100%, "overnight")
@rachel To be honest, I have not "studied" the subject since I don't have to wear any mask except if I go to specific shops but then it is never more than a few minutes because I dont like shopping and go "straight to the point" when I need to buy something. I order 95% of what I consume online (here in Switzerland they deliver everything at your door so don't need to go to the shops).
However, I would like to develop a little bit the subject and maybe try to answer why your "Buteyko" went wrong at the same time. It is a complicated subject so I'll try to be as simple yet complete as possible.
CO2 in itself is necessary and probably the most underrated "nutrient" there is. Now, the problem is this: your brain "senses" your CO2 levels all the time and if, by whatever reason, your CO2 levels are continually low (because of wrong breathing pattern, or too much talking, or too much stress, or whatever else...), your brain will "adapt" to those low levels over time. When you try to increase your CO2, your brain will respond by "stress" and you will "need" air. However, if you do the Buteyko process well and slowly, gently, you will re-adapt your brain to normal CO2 levels (which are much higher than most people have in developed countries). If you do "force" the process, however, the "stress" will be too high and you will experience bad things.
With Buteyko (if well done), the risk is almost nil because you will restore correct breathing patterns and CO2-Oxygen-Nitric oxide sensitivity very gradually and your tissues will be more and more oxygenated over time. So that's not a problem. Wim Hof techniques are a bit more "advanced" and agressive and should not be practiced by everybody (that's at least my opinion) before at least some breath restoration is done before. It uses a different process and can "shock" someone whose system is not ready. Some advanced breathing techniques are actually so dangerous they are still maintained "secret" because of the harm the could cause if used without proper understanding and preparation. I would never advise to follow these extreme methods.
Now, concerning the masks... from a CO2 point of view, I would say "it depends"... if your breathing pattern is good, the excess CO2 will probably pose no problem. If, however, your brain "stresses" with any increase in CO2, masks can be "too harsh" because they will increase your CO2 too fast (it depends also on the quality of the mask, its material, etc. so it is bit more complicated but you get the point), especially if your wear them for hours. However, I don't think that CO2 is the major problem here.
The real "problems" I would see are manifold: 1st, as lil chick wrote, we detoxify a lot of things through breath, so re-inhaling that is probably not a very good idea. 2nd, I have no idea what effect that re-inhaling has on the nasal/buccal flora/biome but I guess it is not something very good. Then, many people actually "panic" because of the mask so it is not good in itself as it sends them stress signals throughout the body which in itself will interfere with breathing and lead to host of potentiel problems. Lastly, and this is especially true for babies and small children, I do think there is a psychological or social "bias/danger" at seeing people masked because our facial expressions, especially mouth and nose, are very important (much more so to babies and children). Time will tell what effects those kids will have by growing in a "robots" world where most time people seen wear masks...
So, to summarize as simply as possible, as long as I have choice, I would not take a mask nor give it to my children but, once again, I have not thought deeply about it nor checked anything, it is simply based on this little "thinking aloud" I've just made here.
In any case we evolved throughout millions of years without masks so it is probably not very natural to wear one all day long.
Thanks @dino for your detailed reply and explanation.
I think my question got a little muddled with all the current mask use for covid which was not my intention. I was thinking of it in the way that some people use the Frolov device or breathslim as an aid to retraining their breath. Regardless I will take on board the points that you made.
It's a long time ago since I tried Buteko so I can't remember clearly. In light of what I now experience when detoxing VA I suspect I experienced a huge dump of toxins that damaged my gut. I think I had trouble guaging the level at which to work. I have poor detection of internal body sensations (interoception) and found it really hard to guage air hunger etc. I think this led to my unintentionally doing the exercises at too high an intensity. Getting the pace wrong. A bit like if someone can't feel pressure and tries to pick up an egg it is very easy for them to grip it too hard and crush it because they aren't getting good feedback from their senses.
I will have to read up the methods again and try to work out how to avoid this in future.
Thanks @dino for posting about this book. I am currently reading it. I’ve also gone back & read all your old posts too Dino & thank you for these too. I’m therefore completely re assessing the importance of breathing (work in progress) for health & in particular the vA detox.
I’ve been focused on liver & kidney detoxification/elimination which are also very important for the vA detox but why use 2 channels of elimination when 3 are available? Perhaps I’ve been ignoring the most important one?
Grant made a comment that his daily cycling could have helped his vA detox. I’ve avoided intense exercise until recently as it made me feel really ill (I have various theories about what was particularly causing this but it’s now gone). I wonder if this avoidance has held me back in the detox? Exercise & deep breathing also help the movement of lymph which I also think is important in this process.
This whole idea of the importance of breath as a means of detox fits with a talk on the recent ‘beyond biological medicine’ summit that I’ve mentioned in a post & found so interesting. The talk was called drainage v detoxification - the 4 main ways the body gets rid of toxins: breath, bile, urine & sweat.
Thanks again Dino for bringing this topic to the forefront of my mind.
I agree that some light or medium exercize can beat back those grumbly hang-over-like detox headaches that sometimes occur. Do it outside and you get the bonus of the bright light and fresh air. (like Grant on his bike)
CO2 is a neurotoxin. There have been quite a few studies done in the last decade showing how just slightly elevated levels negatively affect cognitive function.
I bought a CO2 meter to understand how much ventilation I need in my home. I discovered how much my gas stove disrupts indoor air quality.
@tim-2: you apparently don't understand what we are talking about here nor basic human physiology...
First, I guess I have never talked about increasing CO2 in the brain directly but about increasing CO2 through breathing methods which means increasing it in the blood, which leads to more OXYGEN (and better OXYGEN/CO2 ratio) in the tissues and brain.
Then please go and read about the "Bohr Effect" and about everything you can find about human respiratory physiology and, yes, about the Buteyko Method itself. The book I mention is also more than necessary for you.
It goes like this (very summarized so for correct understand read the details yourself): CO2 increase in blood leads to an increase in oxygen delivery to tissues, organs, and brain itself (through Bohr Effect). Without adequate CO2 levels you are simply not oxygenated correctly and your cells resort to anaerobic metabolism instead of aerobic one, producing tons of lactic acid and leading to every single disease known to man as well as a completely destroyed metabolism (of sugars, fats, and proteins, so basically everything within the organism). Anything which interferes with correct oxygenation (lack of CO2 in blood, "vitamin" A, EMFs, etc.) will first slow your metabolism then if oxygenation drops too low make you ill then dead.
You put an article from the Atlantic but you should know at least that common media sources are pure brainwashing and fear mongering nonsense. Please go and read some correct material before coming here and talking about something you have no clue about. I know I am a bit "agressive" here but it is tiring having people systematically trying to destroy something without even having the most basic knowledge of what we are speaking. This is a complete lack of respect for everyone. At least read about and know the subject then I am extremely happy to share with you and yes, if you show me I am "wrong" I will be very happy to change my mind and thank you for that. Otherwise it is just propaganda and has no use for anyone except leading people to wrong ways.
I see many of your posts about the usefulness of "vitamin" A and so on then when people put you proofs of the contrary you simply ignore them and continue your circus; what is the goal? I think @ggenereux2014 has proven you more than 10x that the so-called "vitamin" A is dangerous and completely useless yet you continue writing everywhere its usefulness without ever taking the time to take into account what he actually writes about (sounds like "Ray Peat" propaganda). Same here; you have absolutely no clue about respiratory physiology, put a propaganda-article and think it goes like that? By the way people practice these breathing methods for thousands of years, thousands of books have been written on the subject yet you come with an Atlantic article and that's it? It would be very laughable if it was not dangerous. People nowadays all fear CO2 and are putting themselves in hell because of that.
CO2, once again, is absolutely essential and probably the most underrated nutrient there is. Without adequate CO2 in your blood you are first ill and then dead. Go and read if you are interested otherwise don't make me and other people lose more time.
In any case, this whole subject and the book I present here is absolutely essential read for you and I will not write anything more on the subject except with people who know what we speak of or ask questions in order to practice or know more about it.
The only advice I can give you is to buy the book and read it because you can indeed learn a few interesting things. An even better advice would be that you actually practice the methods so you can see by yourself the results instead of believing nonsense.
Dino, is CO2 important because we are all carbon-based life forms? I suppose that carbohydrates are carbon. ?
I do think that we are taught at a young age that our role in the eco-system is to exhale our waste product (co2?) and that trees and plants then utilize that to grow and subsequently release 02 for us to inhale and foods for us to eat. So, I can see how, after that being hammered into us for so long, that we might have a hard time realizing that, like trees, we also need to inhale C02? So, I guess the picture is a little more complex than what we are taught as young'ns. 😉
I think it is great if this knowledge has come down from the ages. Lots of good things do. I do think we need to realize that theories are all just lots of air (LOL), and as you say, there is nothing as good as trying things. If something works, it works, and theories can go hang.
Please post the science showing that low levels of CO2 in the blood is a common problem. I'm only aware of hypercapnia (excess levels of CO2 in the blood) being a potential problem, this makes sense since CO2 is a waste product of cellular respiration, it doesn't follow that we would be deficient in it.
If you think Grant has proven that vA is not a vitamin and only a toxin you should just quit talking about science right now before you make a bigger fool of yourself. Decades of science have shown it to be a vitamin and if you are going around telling desperate people with health conditions that vA is not a vitamin I really hope nobody listens to you. I've made a lot of science based posts here that many will likely find useful when it comes to understanding the process of depleting vA, I can't say the same for you. Additionally a lot of your posts seem to be you throwing tantrums because people have said something you disagree with... calm your horses, you aren't that important or that intelligent that your opinion matters so much.
For anyone that is interested here are some studies showing how elevated amounts of CO2 negatively affects us and why fresh air is so healthy:
Abstract
Background: Associations of higher indoor carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations with impaired work performance, increased health symptoms, and poorer perceived air quality have been attributed to correlation of indoor CO2 with concentrations of other indoor air pollutants that are also influenced by rates of outdoor-air ventilation.
Objectives: We assessed direct effects of increased CO2, within the range of indoor concentrations, on decision making.
Methods: Twenty-two participants were exposed to CO2 at 600, 1,000, and 2,500 ppm in an office-like chamber, in six groups. Each group was exposed to these conditions in three 2.5-hr sessions, all on 1 day, with exposure order balanced across groups. At 600 ppm, CO2 came from outdoor air and participants’ respiration. Higher concentrations were achieved by injecting ultrapure CO2. Ventilation rate and temperature were constant. Under each condition, participants completed a computer-based test of decision-making performance as well as questionnaires on health symptoms and perceived air quality. Participants and the person administering the decision-making test were blinded to CO2 level. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance models.
Results: Relative to 600 ppm, at 1,000 ppm CO2, moderate and statistically significant decrements occurred in six of nine scales of decision-making performance. At 2,500 ppm, large and statistically significant reductions occurred in seven scales of decision-making performance (raw score ratios, 0.06–0.56), but performance on the focused activity scale increased.
Conclusions: Direct adverse effects of CO2 on human performance may be economically important and may limit energy-saving reductions in outdoor air ventilation per person in buildings. Confirmation of these findings is needed.
Carbon Dioxide and Cognitive Function
The effects of CO2 on cognitive function scores while all other parameters were held constant are depicted in Figure 2. Because the air in each room was not completely mixed, there was some variability in CO2 levels between cubicles. Each line represents the change in an individual’s CO2 exposure and cognitive scores from one condition to the next, normalized to the average CO2 exposure across all participants during the Green+ conditions. For seven of the nine cognitive function domains, average cognitive scores decreased at each higher level of CO2 (Table 5). Cognitive function scores were 15% lower for the moderate CO2 day (~ 945 ppm) and 50% lower on the day with CO2 concentrations of ~1,400 ppm than on the two Green+ days (Table 5, dividing the average Green+ estimate by the moderate CO2 and high CO2 estimates, respectively). The exposure–response curve between CO2 and cognitive function is approximately linear across the CO2 concentrations used in this study; however, whether the largest difference in scores is between the Green+ conditions and the moderate CO2 condition or the moderate CO2 condition and the high CO2 condition depends on the domain (Figure 2).
Ventilation rate, CO2, and TVOCs were modeled separately from study day to capture the independent effects of each factor on cognitive function scores, averaged across all domains. A statistically significant increase in scores was associated with ventilation rate, CO2, and TVOCs (p < 0.0001 for all three parameters). On average, a 400-ppm increase in CO2 was associated with a 21% decrease in a typical participant’s cognitive scores across all domains after adjusting for participant (data not shown), a 20-cfm increase in outdoor air per person was associated with an 18% increase in these scores, and a 500-μg/m3 increase in TVOCs was associated with a 13% decrease in these scores. Although other environmental variables were not experimentally modified, some did vary over the course of the study (Table 2). There was a high degree of consistency in IEQ between the two rooms; however, ozone was significantly higher in one of the chambers on the Green day. Cognitive scores were 4% higher in the room with high ozone on this day, after accounting for baseline cognitive performance in the two rooms. These IEQ parameters were added to the model with the experimentally controlled variables and were not found to be significantly associated with cognitive function at the 0.05 significance level.
Classroom carbon dioxide concentration, school attendance, and educational attainment
Abstract
Background: We tested the hypothesis that classroom carbon dioxide (CO2 ) concentration is inversely related to child school attendance and educational attainment.
Methods: Concentrations of CO2 were measured over a 3-5 day period in 60 naturally ventilated classrooms of primary school children in Scotland. Concentrations of CO2 were related to the class average annual attendance and proportions attaining a national standard for reading, writing, and numeracy, adjusted for socioeconomic status and class size.
Results: The median (interquartile range, IQR) CO2 concentration averaged over the school day was 1086 ppm (922, 1310). In the model, Time Weighted Average CO2 concentrations were inversely associated with school attendance but not academic attainments. An increase of 100 ppm CO2 was associated with a reduced annual attendance of 0.2% (0.04, 0.4) roughly equivalent to 1 half day of school per annum, assuming schools are open on 190 days per year. Indoor temperature and relative humidity were not related to attendance or academic attainment.
Conclusions: Inadequate classroom ventilation, as evidenced by CO2 concentration exceeding 1000 ppm, is not uncommon and may be associated with reduced school attendance. A relationship between inadequate classroom ventilation and adverse health outcomes in children may be present and this needs to be explored.
Abstract
Poor conditions leading to substandard indoor air quality (IAQ) in classrooms have been frequently cited in the literature over the past two decades. However, there is limited data linking poor IAQ in the classrooms to student performance. Whereas, it is assumed that poor IAQ results in reduced attendance and learning potential, and subsequent poor student performance, validating this hypothesis presents a challenge in today's school environment. This study explores the association between student performance on standardized aptitude tests that are administered to students on a yearly basis, to classroom carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations, which provide a surrogate of ventilation being provided to each room. Data on classroom CO2 concentrations (over a 4-5 h time span within a typical school day) were recorded in fifth grade classrooms in 54 elementary schools within a school district in the USA. Results from this preliminary study yield a significant (P < 0.10) association between classroom-level ventilation rate and test results in math. They also indicate that non-linear effects may need to be considered for better representation of the association. A larger sample size is required in order to draw more definitive conclusions. Practical Implications Future studies could focus on (1) gathering more evidence on the possible association between classroom ventilation rates and students' academic performance; (2) the linear/non-linear nature of the association; and (3) whether it is possible to detect 'no observed adverse effect level' for adequate ventilation with respect to academic performance in schools. All of this information could be used to improve guidance and take regulatory actions to ensure adequate ventilation in schools. The high prevalence of low ventilation rates, combined with the growing evidence of the positive impact that sufficient ventilation has on human performance, suggests an opportunity for improving design and management of school facilities.
Association between substandard classroom ventilation rates and students' academic achievement
Abstract
This study focuses on the relationship between classroom ventilation rates and academic achievement. One hundred elementary schools of two school districts in the southwest United States were included in the study. Ventilation rates were estimated from fifth-grade classrooms (one per school) using CO(2) concentrations measured during occupied school days. In addition, standardized test scores and background data related to students in the classrooms studied were obtained from the districts. Of 100 classrooms, 87 had ventilation rates below recommended guidelines based on ASHRAE Standard 62 as of 2004. There is a linear association between classroom ventilation rates and students' academic achievement within the range of 0.9-7.1 l/s per person. For every unit (1 l/s per person) increase in the ventilation rate within that range, the proportion of students passing standardized test (i.e., scoring satisfactory or above) is expected to increase by 2.9% (95%CI 0.9-4.8%) for math and 2.7% (0.5-4.9%) for reading. The linear relationship observed may level off or change direction with higher ventilation rates, but given the limited number of observations, we were unable to test this hypothesis. A larger sample size is needed for estimating the effect of classroom ventilation rates higher than 7.1 l/s per person on academic achievement.
You can start by reading:
http://www.normalbreathing.com
Patrick McKeown books "The Oxygen Advantage" & "Close your mouth" and also the book I speak about here. There are TONS of references in them but if you dont want to read them I cannot force you to do it and see how much wrong yoy are.
Concerning A & "science" there is a big difference between real science (direct experience through space and time) with botched modern science due to vested interests. If you dont see the difference then I will stop this discussion here because it is useless. Same for CO2 stuff. I give tou books you refuse to read and then talk like you know.
Good luck.
@lil-chick Both CO2 and oxygen are absolutely necessary for good health. You take up only a tiny % of the oxygen available so it is basically a constant in your blood - this is not true for CO2 because hyperventilation expels too much of it and most people nowadays hyperventilate. The fact is, there are dogmas and it is very difficult to go against these dogmas. People trust much more what some "eminent professor" tells them rather than their own bodies and direct experiences. When I wanted to write my Master thesis (during my Master of Science at University of Lausanne), the Professor literally told me that my subject goes "against the established "truths" and would be dangerous for my future career". I just wanted to test whether that so-called universal "truth" (which is pure dogma) was indeed true or not but that was apparently too "dangerous for my career" (actually for the professor in question because it would prove 80% of his job was completely useless). The fact is, very few people know how easy it is to manipulate data, results and basically any scientific "experiment" (the early experiments on A are just an example of that). Even less people know how much there are vested interests and dogmatic nonsense in science nowadays. Usually the people who use the most "references" and "science" are the most ignorant in the domain or those who hold much profit from the dogmas in place. It is not exagerated to say that at least 95% of "everyone knows it scientific truths" are simply false. There are a few people in each branch who hold tight to the dogmas and whoever wants to go against is either ignored or censored (those people are supported by powerful alliances of pharmas, financials, etc.). That's the way it goes. You get only the information the "system" (if we can call it like that) wants you to know - all true research is either forbidden (through lack of funds for example or even hostile attacks by pharmaceuticals or other big industries) or simply destroyed. Almost everything without exception coming from mainstream sources and media and "big names professors" shown throughout media is wrong. Why? Because every professor who has the courage to question the dogma simply loses his job or is ignored or censored so you don't hear about him. You usually hear about maybe 5% of the same people telling always the same propaganda which is the one who profits big companies, not people.
Now, you are absolutely right. If people would just go and try things instead of "believing", everything would be settled rapidly. People should just trust more their bodies, emotions and experience than what they read. For example, concerning EMFs and health. Why not to try to go somewhere where there is no EMF (or almost none) for 2-3 days and actually see whether something happens instead of talking about it without any direct knowledge? Same story with vaccines - there are actually hundreds of thousands of people harmed by it yet the mainstream "science" still claims it is all in the "head" and vaccines are 100% safe for everyone - just go and take more of it. Now, for the discussion here and the breathing, it is the same - if people just try the method (which takes maybe 10-15 minutes), the discussion would be settled because they would see the difference (actually FEEL it) on the quality of their sleep, of their digestion, of their oxygenation, etc., but oh no, it is much more "useful" for them to talk about it without having tested anything and holding tight to what some mainstream media tells you. This is why I guess I have already spent too much time and energy on this - the problem is those people actually can give fear to others and so it goes for ever so I never know when to simply ignore them and when not but I guess from now on I will ignore because the people who really try what is written will need no proof to know it works. Actually, do people need some professor or high scientist to tell me to drink water when they are thirsty? Do they need "high universities knowledge" to know when to go and pee? What do they need to just try breathing normally, like people did for thousands of years and actually see that more CO2 is good for them? OK, I stop now.