Nitrox and Fatigue: the Evidence

[tursiops]

In the third study, which seems more rigorous and is statistically significant, why do you feel this study doesn't support the proposition that nitrox reduces fatigue? (or at least the feeling of fatigue).

Are VAS and CFFF flakey measuring tools?

Yes, that one study supports the hypothesis, but the other two do not. So the "research" is not conclusive. You can't just quote that third study if you like the hypothesis, not just quote the second one if you don't. That's called cherry-picking. The first study appears to be disowned by its first author.....who by the way is of recent fame as one of the Thai cave rescuers...the one who stayed in the cave and administered the sedatives to the biys and their coach.

I have no information on the various measures of "fatigue" nor how they correlate with what you and I might call fatigue. Which seems kind of important!

 

[Jay]

Yes, that one study supports the hypothesis, but the other two do not. So the "research" is not conclusive. You can't just quote that third study if you like the hypothesis, not just quote the second one if you don't. That's called cherry-picking. The first study appears to be disowned by its first author.....who by the way is of recent fame as one of the Thai cave rescuers...the one who stayed in the cave and administered the sedatives to the biys and their coach.

I have no information on the various measures of "fatigue" nor how they correlate with what you and I might call fatigue. Which seems kind of important!

Granted, but the first two hardly have any statical merit, and therefore would barely rate a 'research'. The third study at least has some merit. That's where I was coming from and asking if there was a reason you more or less put all in the same boat.

 

[tursiops]

Granted, but the first two hardly have any statical merit, and therefore would barely rate a 'research'. The third study at least has some merit. That's where I was coming from and asking if there was a reason you more or less put all in the same boat.

I was trying to be as neutral as possible, and not jump to a conclusion based on one study....especially since I don't know how their "fatigue" correlates with my fatigue. I'll just keep on using Nitrox and feeling better, and hope the research catches up someday.

 

[AfterDark]

My guess is that at 60 feet for 40 minutes it will make little difference. 60 feet for 55 minutes might show more difference. I'm pretty sure the effect is from less deco stress.

If this is correct then longer SS may have a similar affect.

 

[MaxBottomtime]

So does a slower ascent

 

[BRT]

If this is correct then longer SS may have a similar affect.

And if it is correct, a dive to 60 feet for 40 minutes might not show any difference between 32% and air. Slower ascents and longer safety stops might make a difference and I am quite sure I feel worse if I do any yo yoing.

 

[Jay]

If this is correct then longer SS may have a similar affect.

So does a slower ascent

SW recently made graphing GF possible on Cloud. After seeing that graphic and that intense pattern repeated across every dive I've done so far in the last 10m, and especially post SS, I now do 5min SS for everything. The graph in my OP here shows that graphic: What's your SurfGF and how does it compare to your (Rec) GFHi?

In that thread you'll see how actual surfacing GFs are about 25% more conservative than diver's GFHi input. (for Rec, NDL dives).

 

[AfterDark]

So does a slower ascent

Both slower ascents and longer safety stops are cheaper than nitrox, and no cert. required.
As a plus you get to spend more time in the water!

 

[Storker]

Both slower ascents and longer safety stops are cheaper than nitrox, and no cert. required.

¿Por qué no los tres?

 

[AfterDark]

¿Por qué no los tres?

????????????????????????????????????????