Most lay people say “yes” to all these questions. However, medically educated people say “no” since they believe that we should breathe very little (that is in accordance with internationally accepted medical and physiological norms). Educated people also believe that we need normal concentrations of carbon dioxide in our blood and cells to survive.

Indeed, there is not a single scientific study that has proven or shown that deep breathing or hyperventilation is useful in normal conditions or at rest. Similarly, there are no studies that have proven or shown that we need to get rid of as much carbon dioxide as possible. (In fact, a human being will die within minutes if carbon dioxide level drops to a quarter or fifth of the physiological norm.)

At the same time, thousands of professional medical and physiological studies and experiments have proven the adverse effects of acute and chronic over-breathing on various cells, tissues, organs and systems of the human organism. Many professional publications confirm the importance of normal carbon dioxide concentrations for various organs and systems in the human body.

Hence, belief in the usefulness of deep breathing (or hyperventilation) is one of the greatest superstitions that exists among the general population in the West.

Why is CO2 often considered a “toxic, waste, and poisonous” gas?

In the 1780s, French scientist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier determined the composition of air. He also discovered the mechanism of gas exchange during respiration. Oxygen is consumed for the production of energy and carbon dioxide is expelled as an end product. In his classical experiments, mice died in a closed glass jar in an atmosphere containing large quantities of carbon dioxide and almost no oxygen. A candle also quickly expired in this air.

That was probably the time when a superficial understanding of respiration produced the idea that carbon dioxide was “toxic, waste, and poisonous” gas while oxygen brought life and vigor. “Take deep breath”, “Breathe more air, it is good for your health”, “Breathe deeper, get more air in your lungs, we need oxygen”, etc. became popular phrases for which there is no scientific basis. Even now, some scientific publications contain such misleading sentences, as “Respiration is the process of oxygen delivery.”

Professor Yandell Henderson gave the following explanation of this ignorance, “Likeness of Life to Fire. - Lavoisier's supreme contribution to science and particularly to physiology was the demonstration that, in their broad outlines, combustion in a fire and respiratory metabolism in an animal are identical. Both consist in the union of oxygen from the air with carbonaceous material: and both result in the liberation of heat and the production of carbon dioxide…

The human mind is inherently inclined to take 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…