. . .Getting off the bottom (that is, skipping the deep stops) can reduce tissue loading in intermediate and slow tissues. No matter what is done at depth, prolonging shallow stop time is effective at reducing VGE in individuals predisposed to develop them. Other strategies might work, but I am most impressed by those based on credible evidence. I call prolonged shallow stops really cheap insurance.
Neal Pollock Ph.D
Yes, I agree, the extended shallow time does lower stress. That has been the basic method of conservatism, both taught and used, for 40+ years of diving. i.e. to lower stress and risk, pad the shallow time longer.
But that's not the issue being discussed. The topic is the nedu test and its validity to tech diving. Does the nedu shallow model test procedure and its results, have context and relevance to tech diving?
I have shown clearly, the nedu was not a test of deep stops, and does not represent tech practices, and the imagined connection to VPM-B does not exist.
Did you examine the diagrams Kevin? Do you see now how the descriptions you made before, are not correct? I imagine you're stuck in a bit of a bind - the Dr. who treated you in Truk, is also the man driving this agenda for change.
************
From your own descriptions, the bad experience was because you undercut the shallow time. You were following a plan made from ad-hoc ratio deco styled rules, that bypassed the underlying basic gas kinetic formula, and that eventually created a situation where risk grew into injury. i.e. overlooked the basics of gas kinetics, failed to heed the wisdom of multi-day restrictions.
However, real models, like VPM-B, like full ZHL-C, like many used in dive computers, these all follow the basic gas kinetic formula. Any extra time spent deep, is correctly compensated by extra shallow time. There is nothing broken or in need of fixing here - real models already have the correct formula and proper responses inbuilt.
Of course none will predict or protect against the multi-day problem, because that issue is not a math problem - it's a stamina and fatigue issue.
***********
I think what's really happening here, is this:
A finger needs to be pointed at some of the faulty RD methods and some of its strangest deco theory explanations. But no one wants to be that brave.
The nedu test gets incorrectly interpreted, quoted out of context, over hyped and used as a distraction against everything involving deeper stops.
VPM-B gets blamed for the above and is used as a scape-goat and a proxy for all the problems of others.
Some people see this opportunity, to insist on the use of what Neal Pollock described above. To force the use of longer, slower timed, lower stress profiles, but also to sneak it in under a false premise.
**************
Please let me be clear: Everyone is free to choose their deco level and to make it as fast or slow, fat or skinny as they please. We sell programming tools to satisfy all sides of this argument.
However, those who prefer the slow long shallow version, are not permitted to make up false or self-justifications for it. The current selection of successful planning methods will not be altered, just so the slow ones can fell better about their choice.
.
