Dan_P
Contributor
I'm assuming we're talking about the Italy-project?
I'll be happy to elaborate on my view on it - as well as RD in terms of pro's and con's applicable to my personal diving. That's completely up for fair debate, and I recognize of course that it doesn't apply to all divers, so please don't take this as me trying to push anything on anyone. It's simply my thoughts on the matter.
All that said, in my view, the study results are nowhere near as damning as it's made out to look like sometimes. I've seen it portrayed as anything from dangerous to a downright death trap, which seen in the light of the wording in the study's conclusion and the quotes below, is wildly exaggerated.
I'm saying that according to this, presenting RD as dangerous or some form of a death trap, is representing the test's conclusion in a way much too far from its actual phrasing.
While the quote above states that deep stops have generally been weighed with more emphasis than can be supported by data at this point, we simply do not know by how much. This was taken into account in adjusting for Ratio Deco 2.0, which to me demonstrates ability and willingness towards adaptation.
In fairness, it would also be incorrect to say the discussion in its relation to deep stop theory is specific to RD, rather deep stops in general and, unless I'm mistaken, all gradient factors with emphasis on them. Therefore, if these results were damning - and that if is a stretch on my part - it wouldn't apply solely to RD but decompression theory on a much larger scale, including the use of laptop, two computers and any gradient factor adhering to the above for dive planning.
On the study itself, the conclusion section is clear that no results can be extrapolated. Further, there were several limitations on the sample dives which may or may not have influenced the results.
I particularly noted that adjustment for the actual depth was not allowed, which may have skewered the results to particular disadvantage of any deco plan emphasising deep stops over any one that doesn't or does so to a smaller degree.
Further, I noted that the dive was only just in a deco "compartment" of the RD blueprint that puts heavier emphasis on deep stops, by a slim margin. Particularly if taking into account depth averaging. To describe my thinking on it, I wonder if the same results would be brought about by a dive that only just put the dive in a deco compartment with less emphasis on deep stops.
If on some dives RD brings somewhat worse results by metrics we can't confirm the relevance of, without incidence of DCS, and on others better results by the same metrics, this makes it much more difficult for me to form any conclusion.
Particularly when I don't fully understand the mechanisms governing the decompression process.
By implication and application, in my view it would rather be suitable to think of the decompression as an extension of the standard gas paradigm - rarely entirely "optimal", but good enough while facilitating other benefits.
Those are my personal thoughts on it, for what it's worth. Keep in mind, I'm not advocating one way or another here, I'm simply stating what my thoughts are on the matter.
As an additional curiosum, I have other aspects of my life impacting inflammation levels, particularly nutrition. If these results with no incidence of DCS should dictate unilaterally my diving, so should they dictate what I eat.
As for what I personally think is smart about RD, I had a pleasant exchange with Dr. Mitchell about benefits I see to RD transcending bubble evaluation, and I wish to be clear that they're completely separate from decompression physiology per se, and on my own accord;
I think it's good to have a scalable blueprint that builds recognition across training levels, adding layers progressively from the training at OWD-level. And I think it's good that it facilitates proactive in-water adjustments very well.
I think it's good that it works across open cirquit and closed cirquit systems, and I think it's good that all I need is my good old bottom timer.
Does that apply to the next diver? Maybe not, and maybe it's not weighed as heavily by the next diver. But I think those benefits are worth taking into account, for what it's worth.
I'll be happy to elaborate on my view on it - as well as RD in terms of pro's and con's applicable to my personal diving. That's completely up for fair debate, and I recognize of course that it doesn't apply to all divers, so please don't take this as me trying to push anything on anyone. It's simply my thoughts on the matter.
All that said, in my view, the study results are nowhere near as damning as it's made out to look like sometimes. I've seen it portrayed as anything from dangerous to a downright death trap, which seen in the light of the wording in the study's conclusion and the quotes below, is wildly exaggerated.
I'm saying that according to this, presenting RD as dangerous or some form of a death trap, is representing the test's conclusion in a way much too far from its actual phrasing.
While the quote above states that deep stops have generally been weighed with more emphasis than can be supported by data at this point, we simply do not know by how much. This was taken into account in adjusting for Ratio Deco 2.0, which to me demonstrates ability and willingness towards adaptation.
In fairness, it would also be incorrect to say the discussion in its relation to deep stop theory is specific to RD, rather deep stops in general and, unless I'm mistaken, all gradient factors with emphasis on them. Therefore, if these results were damning - and that if is a stretch on my part - it wouldn't apply solely to RD but decompression theory on a much larger scale, including the use of laptop, two computers and any gradient factor adhering to the above for dive planning.
On the study itself, the conclusion section is clear that no results can be extrapolated. Further, there were several limitations on the sample dives which may or may not have influenced the results.
I particularly noted that adjustment for the actual depth was not allowed, which may have skewered the results to particular disadvantage of any deco plan emphasising deep stops over any one that doesn't or does so to a smaller degree.
Further, I noted that the dive was only just in a deco "compartment" of the RD blueprint that puts heavier emphasis on deep stops, by a slim margin. Particularly if taking into account depth averaging. To describe my thinking on it, I wonder if the same results would be brought about by a dive that only just put the dive in a deco compartment with less emphasis on deep stops.
If on some dives RD brings somewhat worse results by metrics we can't confirm the relevance of, without incidence of DCS, and on others better results by the same metrics, this makes it much more difficult for me to form any conclusion.
Particularly when I don't fully understand the mechanisms governing the decompression process.
By implication and application, in my view it would rather be suitable to think of the decompression as an extension of the standard gas paradigm - rarely entirely "optimal", but good enough while facilitating other benefits.
Those are my personal thoughts on it, for what it's worth. Keep in mind, I'm not advocating one way or another here, I'm simply stating what my thoughts are on the matter.
As an additional curiosum, I have other aspects of my life impacting inflammation levels, particularly nutrition. If these results with no incidence of DCS should dictate unilaterally my diving, so should they dictate what I eat.
As for what I personally think is smart about RD, I had a pleasant exchange with Dr. Mitchell about benefits I see to RD transcending bubble evaluation, and I wish to be clear that they're completely separate from decompression physiology per se, and on my own accord;
I think it's good to have a scalable blueprint that builds recognition across training levels, adding layers progressively from the training at OWD-level. And I think it's good that it facilitates proactive in-water adjustments very well.
I think it's good that it works across open cirquit and closed cirquit systems, and I think it's good that all I need is my good old bottom timer.
Does that apply to the next diver? Maybe not, and maybe it's not weighed as heavily by the next diver. But I think those benefits are worth taking into account, for what it's worth.
Last edited:
