Does the body get better at removing nitrogen?

[Lorenzoid]

. . . The reality is, if you make slow ascents, do your stops, stay fit and don't have any underlying medical conditions, humans can do a lot of diving and be just fine. I've done back to back 6 drop days in 100 fsw. Tiring? Sure. Bent? No.

Are you attributing "tiring" to decompression stress--causing symptoms that fall short of "bent"?

 

[CuzzA]

Are you attributing "tiring" to decompression stress--causing symptoms that fall short of "bent"?

No, I attribute it to waking up at 3am, departing the dock at 4am, making a 4 hour run 100 miles offshore, doing six fishing dives, cleaning fish, cleaning up, making dinner, trying to get some sleep on the boat and then waking up at dawn and doing it all over again. Lots of fun, but tiring.

 

[tarponchik]

Then there's what has been called "sub-clinical" DCS that has been associated with symptoms such as fatigue. It's not well studied, either. It has been theorized to have something to do with the body's immune response system. So again, I suppose it's possible that the immune system could become more acclimated over time. Or conversely, more sensitized.

Oh no, not again...

 

[tarponchik]

I froze my nose about 30 years ago walking in the wind at -20C. It hasn't froze since.

Did you check if your nose is still there? Maybe it fell off...

 

[Rusty Shackleford]

I have noticed the first couple of dives of the season fatigue me more than the rest. There is some adaptive response, I am convinced of that.

 

[EireDiver606]

The short is no, the body cannot inherently become better at reducing N2 naturally but certain factors as @The Chairman pointed out definitely help.

 

[Storker]

My question is whether or not the human body improves it's ability to remove excess nitrogen from the body, and/or function under increased nitrogen load, as a diver becomes increasingly experienced.

The reason I ask is merely out of curiosity, because the human body is so amazing at adapting to various situations through training.

Well, if you're going to hypothesize something like this, you need:

1. An observation which can indicate that something like that is happening
2. An idea about how that might possibly happen (AKA a "mechanism")

Since you - AFAIK - have neither and - again AFAIK - neither has anyone else, I'd say it's highly unlikely (that's scientist-speak for "no, nope, no way!"). In fact, as several people already have pointed out, everything we know about off-gassing suggests the opposite.

 

[dmaziuk]

The obvious counter-argument is that up until relatively recently there were neither any observations to suggest the planet was round, nor any conceivable mechanism to keep us from falling off of it if it were.

 

[Lorenzoid]

What do people make of the papers DDM linked to in post #19 relating to acclimatization and reduced bubble formation? Just that there remain too many unknowns to draw conclusions?

 

[Storker]

The obvious counter-argument is that up until relatively recently there were neither any observations to suggest the planet was round, nor any conceivable mechanism to keep us from falling off of it if it were.

Fail.

We can only build our models on what our observations can tell us. The reason that we didn't realize that the planet was round or there was this thing called gravity "until relatively recently" wasn't that there were any observations contradicting those ideas. Every observation could equally easily fit with those ideas. It was just that people hadn't conceived those ideas. In this case, we have no observations which fit with the OP's hypothesis. At least AFAIK.