Are we sure about this?

[Turtleguy9]

Interesting recurring topic. I was discussing the subject once with an MD who had the firms opinion that age was a significant factor in fitness; the older axiomaticaly the less fit. He went on to say that no one should dive past a certain age (he gave a number that I will omit here).

Having never met him I was ready to give his opinion some credence. Then I saw his picture. Calling him rotund would be a gross understatement. It appeared that his medical opinion was greatly influenced by his personal fitness and protection of his self-esteem.

I wonder how many other comments on dive fitness are likewise influenced by personal self esteem? Or, some holdover from the attitudes of the early days?

Aloha Arctic Diver
I think you have made a good point. Its hard to put a number that fits all situations.
Aloha
Turtleguy9

 

[jimdiverman]

Interesting recurring topic. I was discussing the subject once with an MD who had the firms opinion that age was a significant factor in fitness; the older axiomaticaly the less fit. He went on to say that no one should dive past a certain age (he gave a number that I will omit here).

Having never met him I was ready to give his opinion some credence. Then I saw his picture. Calling him rotund would be a gross understatement. It appeared that his medical opinion was greatly influenced by his personal fitness and protection of his self-esteem.

Doctors pay a lot of attention to statistics. Could we say that statistically a 20 yo is more fit than a 50 yo? I think that is an easy assumption because in today's society many (if not most) people don't take care of themselves and exercise enough past 30. Am I implying that it is not possible to have the same level of fitness at 50 than at 20? No, I am saying that most people don't take that much care of themselves, but it is still possible to be in shape at any age. But people let other things in their lives get in front of their health, and first thing you know, a host of preventable diseases have crept in as a result. Maybe they are things that we are genetically predisposed to, but they don't need to occur so soon if at all if we are actively working to prevent it.

 

[fisherdvm]

Interesting recurring topic. I was discussing the subject once with an MD who had the firms opinion that age was a significant factor in fitness; the older axiomaticaly the less fit. He went on to say that no one should dive past a certain age (he gave a number that I will omit here).

There are certainly objective evidence to this. Look at the US army fitness requirement, and how it decreases with age. I am seeing it now, with my gradual decline in stamina and exercise tolerance. My cardiac load is fairly good, but if I push my body beyond a certain point (like I did 20 years ago), I have a price to pay in joint, muscle, and tendon pain and aches.

However, I see folks 20 to 30 years my senior, who outperform me in the pool, on the jogging trail, and in the gym. I think genetics has a big factor here, and saying a certain age is the limit doesn't take in account of other factors (cardiac health, osteoarthritis, etc).

 

[Saturation]

Fitness does not mean you can do at 50 what you did at 20, but its to be the best you can be for your age and genetics.

While the physical requirements for age in the US Military fitness schedule drops with age, its easy to maintain the 20 something lowest limits for most any age.

To New Divers!

A 50 year old as a group can clearly not do what most 20 year old do, and older folks are more likely to suffer fitness related injuries. Warm up increasingly becomes vital as you age, compared to a youth. The consequences can be painful and put a damper on your exercise regimen. Common injuries are ruptured major tendons like the biceps and Achilles, muscle tears, or worse, a ruptured spinal disk. So, one needs to exercise more caution during exercise but otherwise, what the limits are for age are not written in stone and quite variable.

 

[Pearldiver07]

There are certainly objective evidence to this. Look at the US army fitness requirement, and how it decreases with age. I am seeing it now, with my gradual decline in stamina and exercise tolerance. My cardiac load is fairly good, but if I push my body beyond a certain point (like I did 20 years ago), I have a price to pay in joint, muscle, and tendon pain and aches.

However, I see folks 20 to 30 years my senior, who outperform me in the pool, on the jogging trail, and in the gym. I think genetics has a big factor here, and saying a certain age is the limit doesn't take in account of other factors (cardiac health, osteoarthritis, etc).

While I agree that this holds some validity, I remember being briefed at one point that the Army's gradations are based on expected percentages to pass and/or fail. This was based on a sampling of different demographics broken down by both age and gender.

Having seen several iterations of the Army's AFPT over the years (20+ in my case), you could see the increased demand placed on female soldiers, the dramatic shifts across age groupings, and the general shifting of the average also.

But I agree. Genetics plays a large part of it. But even a Mercedes-Benz doesn't run well if you don't keep it maintained. Same goes for our bodies with food and exercise.

As I also have seen a significant decline in overall fitness over the last 10 years, I also note that I probably can out-run and out-lift a wide majority of those in my "pre-geezer" age group. I attribute that to nothing more than having been physically active my whole adult life.

Anyway, shouldn't we be out hitting the pavement instead of typing away here?

 

[ArcticDiver]

Doctors pay a lot of attention to statistics. ... Maybe they are things that we are genetically predisposed to, but they don't need to occur so soon if at all if we are actively working to prevent it.

When we are discussing fitness in the context of this thread we are talking about individual fitness. So, general population statistics have little, or no bearing on that decision.

Couldn't agree more that in most cases I'm personally aware of genetics are a predisposition, not a determination. Understand, I said "most cases". There are some instances where genetic marker is the determinent. In fact, from what I can gather the idea of life style vs. genetics has undergone a radical reversal in recent years. Current belief seems to be that life style has more of an effect on quality of life than does genetic heritage.

Of course there is another factor at work, lack of a functional definition of "fitness" as it pertains to diving. I've seen some definitions based on opinion; but none that would pass the objective data test.

 

[ArcticDiver]

..
Anyway, shouldn't we be out hitting the pavement instead of typing away here?

Well, I did 45 minutes in Spin Class and finished up the time with crunches and back extensions. That was to burn off the stress of publishing my first computer programing product in about 10 years. So, I guess I agree with you.

 

[fisherdvm]

Fitness does affect mortality: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/gr...2-fitness-inversely-correlated-mortality.html

 

[ArcticDiver]

Fitness does affect mortality: http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/gr...2-fitness-inversely-correlated-mortality.html

True. In fact informed opinion seems to be swinging from genetics being the most influential factor to life style (fitness) being more important that genetic predisposition; at least for most people.

But that is a bit off the track for this thread. Here we are discussing the question: How fit does a person need to be to safely dive in a recreational setting; be that reeef crawling, wreck, cave, or whatever?

I submit that although there are some WAGs that in some cases may even be elevated to SWAGs we just don't know.

 

[Charlie99]

Is there an established level of fitness for diving? If I am certified to dive at the age of 25 and I am in excellent shape to do all the pool work and open water skills, when I am 50 where do I get the information about my readiness for diving at 50, at 60, at 80? How do I know that I am physically fit enough to handle an emergency situation and survive?

The 25 year may have a physical advantage, but the 50 year old more likely has the advantage of maturity and judgement, and knowledge of his limits.

You will NEVER be physically fit enough to handle all emergencies and survive. There is always some limit to your endurance and strength. The question is whether or not your level of fitness makes the dive under consideration a reasonable risk.

I figure that I'll stop diving when I'm no longer able to gear up without having to rest up several times. Putting on a wetsuit and hauling gear (and cleaning it after the dive) are more physically challenging than most of my dives!