This study has nothing to do with recreational diving and deep stops. There has been extensive discussion of this study and the topic in the technical diving forum and on other diving discussion sites
Correct.
The confusion I was talking about in my long post above is the confusion created by the definition of a "deep stop".
Depending on the algorithm, a computer in decompression mode will sometimes prescribe a "deep stop" or in other, more accurate words, a "deep ascent curve". In this definition, the stop is part of an
ascent strategy intended to get the diver from depth to the surface without developing decompression sickness. These stops are not normally considered to be optional by people using these ascent strategies.
In the context of a recreational dive the computer may also suggest a "deep stop". (note, I'm using the word "suggest" here and "prescribe" in my previous statement). In this definition the stop is intended to build in an
extra buffer of safety during an ascent where *all* "stops" are optional.
"Extra safety" is good (provided, of course that there isn't a compelling reason to ascend faster), but there is a
non-semantic difference between "extra safety" and "avoiding clinical DCS".
The unfortunate thing here is that we use the term "deep stop" to mean both things. That's why in threads like this we see people citing the Marroni study and the NEDU study as arguments related to the same concept. They are not. The NEDU study, as pointed out by
@scubadada is a study about the first definition and offered conclusive results. The Marroni study looked at the second and with inconclusive results.
It would be better for the discussion as a whole if we talked about "deep curve" in the first case and "deep stop" in the second, or some such thing. They really should be given two different labels at this point.
R..