Slow tissue on gas from stops

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

Unless there is evidence to suggest that the inefficient approach may have other redeeming benefits, I don't see the value of this distinction.

The value is one is commonly perceived as a value judgement whereas the other one: not so much. In one case you get people jumping up and hotly defending the truth of their cherished beliefs, in the other: they just say "yeah well, IRL we dive much more conservative profiles and pad our ascent schedules anyway, just to be on the safe side" and move on.
 
Last edited:
We must not confuse "inefficient" with "conservative". We can apply conservatism to both efficient and inefficient approaches as well. If you're looking to practically minimize DCS risk then efficiency is key because it gives you the strongest reduction of DCS risk at any level of conservatism, and you better discard known inefficient methods.
 
We must not confuse "inefficient" with "conservative".
I have said this before--I wish we did not use the word "conservative" in relation to decompression strategies, because it can lead to confusion. I recently started a thread about an instabuddy I had who said repeatedly that he was very "conservative" in his approach to decompression because he used such a low gradient factor that he had to do much deeper stops than most people. If you read the thread, you will see that he was a very unsafe diver, but because he had "conservative" factors set so that he stayed deeper longer, he assumed he was being "safer." He equated the conservative settings on his computer with safety. Deeper=safer.
 
I think they were testing exactly that -- assuming we're all still talking about bubble models and the types of deeper stops they generate. The whole NEDU test was designed to determine whether their bubble-model deeper stops were "good or bad", although I think "better [worse]" or "more [less] effective" would be preferable language. The term "efficiency" is just the technical term for that.

All the research seems to be pointing in one direction -- that bubble-model-style deep stops are: if you're a scholar, "inefficient"; if you're tactful, "less effective"; if you're blunt, "bad".

I think we are all in agreement that a 20min deep stop is bad and less effective than a 1-2min deep stop.
 
I think we are all in agreement that a 20min deep stop is bad and less effective than a 1-2min deep stop.

"effective" gives the wrong impression that a 1-2min deep stop would do any good, which is not supported by evidence and all recent studies indicate it doesn't.
We could agree on "20min deep stop is bad and does more damage than a 1-2min deep stop".
 
Effective is if you dont get bent...
 
This is amazing!
Simply Incredible!
Science said it couldn't be done!
But it has! Hooray! The Earth is saved!

How To Invent A Perpetual Motion Machine:
1) Log on to Scubaboard.
2) Type in: "Deep Stop"
:cheers:

Funny, but the reason this topic gets re-covered frequently is because on-going research brings about discoveries that change our understanding and viewpoints on the issue.

It's a rapidly evolving subject - and there are people here actually doing dives where having the best possible contemporary understanding can mean the difference between a serious hit, or safety.
 
Effective is if you dont get bent...
Hopefully your understanding of risk is a bit more sophisticated than this sentiment.

For example, consider the UTD-RD study. The UTD-RD profile was given about 44% more decompression time than the GF profile. And yet the UTD-RD profile produced increased decompression stress. More time, inferior result.

It seems like a stretch to put the label "effective" on the UTD-RD profile. But then again, perhaps it might work this way ...

UTD-RDefective.
 

Back
Top Bottom