Does the body get better at removing nitrogen?

[rjack321]

It’s not a silly question. But nitrogen gas is not like oxygen or carbon dioxide. Those two gases have biological activity and the body can adapt specifically in biological way to accommodate changes in chronic environment. Nitrogen in biologically inert, subject to general laws of physics when going in and out of solution.

The use of the phrase "biologically inert" is inappropriate here. N2 is not chemically reactive (the definition of inert) but does influence the body biologically in a myriad of ways. Nitrogen narcosis due to its inhibition of neural signals is one way. Bubbles and inflammation are other ways.

 

[tarponchik]

Can you expand on that?

Best regards,
DDM

Sure. To act as an immunogen, a microparticle needs a distinct and complex surface, or it won't be recognized specifically. Smooth homogenous surfaces like bubbles can't trigger immune response because they do not have distinct features that antibodies can recognize specifically and bind to via hydrogen bonding. Microparticles such as carbon nanotubes do not trigger immune response for that very reason, their surface is too homogenous. This is like running pictures of billiard balls through face recognition software. Even Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite which causes malaria, is a very poor immunogen because its surface protein features repetitive motives of just 4 amino acids. This is too simple for the immune system to take a notice. To continue with my face recognition analogy, P. falciparum has a face with a nose but no eyes or mouth. Thus, it is not recognized as a face. And the surface of nitrogen bubbles consists of molecules of water. To our immune system they look like total blanks.

 

[MichaelMc]

<tongue in cheek ish>
I managed a large change, in I guess my bodies nitrogen removal, after tuning my diet specifically for diving. Though I think my adaptation is limited to the shallower dives I do. The points on very slow ascents, exercise, and the learned responses from DDM all seem key but smaller.

I only consume air from tanks with yellow and green stickers. Someone writes EAN32.x on them, but my body doesn't understand that. By limiting my diet to air from just those tanks, the nitrogen has much less affect on me.

Lots of cool points in the thread. It just seemed like this big, obvious, one got skipped.

Yes, I understand this isn't evolution nor faster removal, but deliberate environment adjustment. I understand nitrox, O2 toxicity, and analyze and mark my own tanks. That my 'air' isn't, and has less nitrogen. I have layman familiarity with the various decompression theories. But if I breath that 'air', 'the nitrogen' doesn't affect me as much.

 

[dmaziuk]

Sure. To act as an immunogen, a microparticle needs a distinct and complex surface, or it won't be recognized specifically. ... To our immune system they look like total blanks.

So I typed "inflammatory response" in google while I have this slow script running and guess what's in the top link I got? "Immune response: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia". Ta-bleeping-da.

 

[Duke Dive Medicine]

Sure. To act as an immunogen, a microparticle needs a distinct and complex surface, or it won't be recognized specifically. Smooth homogenous surfaces like bubbles can't trigger immune response because they do not have distinct features that antibodies can recognize specifically and bind to via hydrogen bonding. Microparticles such as carbon nanotubes do not trigger immune response for that very reason, their surface is too homogenous. This is like running pictures of billiard balls through face recognition software. Even Plasmodium falciparum, the parasite which causes malaria, is a very poor immunogen because its surface protein features repetitive motives of just 4 amino acids. This is too simple for the immune system to take a notice. To continue with my face recognition analogy, P. falciparum has a face with a nose but no eyes or mouth. Thus, it is not recognized as a face. And the surface of nitrogen bubbles consists of molecules of water. To our immune system they look like total blanks.

Thanks, I could have phrased the question better, what I really wondered was whether you were seeing that bit about N2 microbubbles and the immune response from the scientific community or the lay diving community. <edit> I think @dmaziuk hit it on the head directly above - there is likely some confusion in the lay community between inflammatory and immune responses.

Best regards,
DDM

 

[Lorenzoid]

As part of the “lay community,” I admit confusing “inflammatory response” with “immune response.” Definitions like this one do not help: What is an inflammation? - InformedHealth.org - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[tarponchik]

So I typed "inflammatory response" in google while I have this slow script running and guess what's in the top link I got? "Immune response: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia". Ta-bleeping-da.

Unfortunately, you stopped reading right there. If you kept reading, however, you would have found the answer:

"Inflammation is the immune system's response to harmful stimuli, such as pathogens, damaged cells, toxic compounds, or irradiation...Various pathogenic factors, such as infection, tissue injury, or cardiac infarction, can induce inflammation by causing tissue damage."

 

[dmaziuk]

Unfortunately, you stopped reading right there. If you kept reading, however, you would have found the answer:

"Inflammation is the immune system's response to harmful stimuli, such as pathogens, damaged cells, toxic compounds, or irradiation...Various pathogenic factors, such as infection, tissue injury, or cardiac infarction, can induce inflammation by causing tissue damage."

Answer to what? Are you saying "the immune system's response" to mechanical damage caused by microbubbles is "immune response"? Or isn't because it's not a molecular-recognition-antibody-producing "immune response" to the bubbles themselves?

 

[Duke Dive Medicine]

Answer to what? Are you saying "the immune system's response" to mechanical damage caused by microbubbles is "immune response"? Or isn't because it's not a molecular-recognition-antibody-producing "immune response" to the bubbles themselves?

The immune system and the inflammatory cascade intersect, and a strong immune response can produce strong inflammation depending on the insult. Anaphylactic reactions are a good example. The inflammation that results from bubbles originates from direct mechanical damage to the vascular endothelium. It's a different pathway.

 

[dmaziuk]

"The words mean what I choose them to mean, neither more nor less". And in this case it appears the two meanings are both correct.

Could be worse: where I work Humpty-Dumpties come and say "the Internet is broken" when they mean their iPon wants to be rebooted.