GUE and smoking

[MonkSeal]

The reason that you probably won't see too many new lab studies regarding smoking's effect on diving is that we know very well what smoking does to gas exchange (both acute and chronic effects), and we know very well the role of gas exchange in safe diving. We also know its effect on CO2 retention, and we know the effect of high CO2 levels on risk of CNS oxtox.

Smoking's effects on dive safety really isn't a controversial issue for dive physiologists. There are better things to spend limited research funds and time on than this.

In the end, it usually comes down to the fact that fitness can take a long time for someone to develop once they commit to a program. That is one reason GUE is a little softer on fitness standards than many would like to see.

However, either you are a smoker, or you are not. You can change your status in either direction with a single decision.

Cameron, thanks for this summary.

 

[wreckchick]

A correlation is a statistical link coupled with an implied causality, here we have an implied causality coupled with studies that indicate an increased risk .

A correlation is a correlation, there is no causality, implied or otherwise. To prove causality it would have to be proved that a lack of Condition A would reduce the incidence of Outcome B.

As ice cream sales increase (Condition A, rising ice cream sales), the murder rate increases (Outcome B). This is a correlative relationship. A causal relationship would say that if we reduced or eliminated ice cream sales, there would be a decrease in the number of murders.

Cameron, would it not be possible to enforce the fitness rules by not issuing cards unless the student proves a level of fitness? BMI? Etc.? If that was the case, I think the smoking thing wouldn't seem so hypocritical.

R

 

[shoredivr]

Not BMI, but some other measuring tool(s) would be good

 

[amascuba]

Cameron, would it not be possible to enforce the fitness rules by not issuing cards unless the student proves a level of fitness? BMI? Etc.? If that was the case, I think the smoking thing wouldn't seem so hypocritical.

R

Tell that to the PADI's of the world. Let PADI/SSI/SDI/etc adopt the same requirements as the GUE Fundamentals class -- eg: no smoking, 300yard free swim in 14 minutes, and a 50 foot breath hold swim and you will see a dwindling industry. That's because people will avoid taking the class because of the physical requirements, even though in reality, they aren't that hard. The big names in the industry aren't going to impose any rules that limit their potential customer base. It's all about making money.

 

[CameronMartz]

Cameron, would it not be possible to enforce the fitness rules by not issuing cards unless the student proves a level of fitness? BMI? Etc.? If that was the case, I think the smoking thing wouldn't seem so hypocritical.

R

I think "hypocritical" is not the word you mean, as this would suggest that the ones making the rules are actually smokers themselves. <g>

Maybe you mean "inconsistent." I cannot provide a better answer for this apparent inconsistency than my previous post.

Cameron

 

[Thalassamania]

A correlation is a correlation, there is no causality, implied or otherwise. To prove causality it would have to be proved that a lack of Condition A would reduce the incidence of Outcome B.

As ice cream sales increase (Condition A, rising ice cream sales), the murder rate increases (Outcome B). This is a correlative relationship. A causal relationship would say that if we reduced or eliminated ice cream sales, there would be a decrease in the number of murders.

That is a perfect example of the "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy. The avoidance of that fallacy demands at least an implied causal relationship since empirically observed covariation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for causality.

 

[GreenDiverDown]

I think "hypocritical" is not the word you mean, as this would suggest that the ones making the rules are actually smokers themselves. <g>

Maybe you mean "inconsistent." I cannot provide a better answer for this apparent inconsistency than my previous post.

Cameron

One has to appreciate the irony... divers that smoke... DIR divers that aren't dedicated to physical conditioning. Life is full of inconsistencies... eh? Guess we're human after all.

 

[amascuba]

I'm definitely not the poster boy for physical fitness. Between working 12 hour days and going to school for another 5 hours .. at the end of the day I'm mentally drained ... only a little while longer though. I'm pretty lean, but that's mostly just watching what I put into my mouth. I need to get back into my cardio regiment at a minimum.

 

[adurso]

PubMed Home[/url]) for "smoking panic" and you will see several pages of them.

There are also studies linking panic attacks to respiratory illnesses, of which smoking is a contributing factor.

These studies were absolutely fascinating by the by. These studies all appear recent and an unspoken correlation seems to be that smokers nowadays evidence some form of pathology...

 

[KMD]

I remember my GUE instructor asking us after we completed the swim test with us, "Who here thinks he could be in better shape?" and he was the first to raise his hand.

Physical fitness is a journey not a defined goal. There is always something that can be improved upon no matter how fit one is. I think there is a recognition that life can and does intrude upon it.

Smoking is an either or proposition. you either smoke or you don't.