SAC Rate Poll What is normal? MALES ONLY

[Viscya]

One thing that has really surprised me with the warm water diving I've done recently in Fiji and then Maui is that there wasn't a big difference in my consumption rate compared to diving cold water with a drysuit.

Depth and exertion seem to be the major elements that change the consumption rate... for me.

UP,

I find the same thing. My SAC rate here is the same as Coz. Then again, I am warm in my drysuit. As long as you are warm and relaxed, why should the water temp make a difference? Swimming against a current in doubles and a drysuit vs floating along in a 3mm, now there is a difference!

What's interesting is, why only 1/10 the votes on the women's poll as the men's? Is that the ratio on scubaboard? Or due to other factors?

Women are not as competitive as men, and may not be as interested in how their SAC rate compares.

 

[msandler]

Use for what?

Women are not as competitive as men, and may not be as interested in how their SAC rate compares.

Who says men can't hang with the women on air.

"use for what" looks like bragging rights

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

One thing that has really surprised me with the warm water diving I've done recently in Fiji and then Maui is that there wasn't a big difference in my consumption rate compared to diving cold water with a drysuit.

In other words, you don't breathe in warm water either, eh ...

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[The Kraken]

This is one of the few polls that I've found statistically interesting!!
I do like the distribution of the curve.
One data point that interests me is the .61/.65 category.
I wonder what causes this spike?

 

[miketsp]

This is one of the few polls that I've found statistically interesting!!
I do like the distribution of the curve.
One data point that interests me is the .61/.65 category.
I wonder what causes this spike?

Probably corresponds to the type of dive. I find there are those dives where I work constantly (current etc) and those where I basically just drift around slowly. So IMHO it would be reasonable to have 2 peaks with a shallow dip between them.

 

[pasley]

Well, the poll is almost ready to close. I wanted to do it to have a basis to see what the "normal" rate was. Now we all know there is no "normal" in that no one is normal. My body temp is 96.8F not 98.6F. I wanted the norms on SAC rate as a type of yard stick to measure my own performance against. In other words, is my rate good, or am I a real air hog and need to correct my weight, trim or breathing to get it down more into the most common range.

It that a good use? No, probably not, but there it is. It is not a competition, but if you are at X and most people are at X-1 then you know there is room to improve and perhaps something is not quite right.

 

[Uncle Pug]

I wanted the norms on SAC rate as a type of yard stick to measure my own performance against. In other words, is my rate good, or am I a real air hog and need to correct my weight, trim or breathing to get it down more into the most common range.

It that a good use? No, probably not, but there it is. It is not a competition, but if you are at X and most people are at X-1 then you know there is room to improve and perhaps something is not quite right.

...that is the wrong use of the *information*.

We know that the poll information is meaningless and that there really is no such thing as a normal SAC. Beyond that the real issue is being obfuscated.

Folks should not be encouraged to *improve* their SAC. They should be encouraged to improve their skill level which will improve their competence level which will improve their comfort level which will also ultimately tend to lower their SAC.

If we focus people's attention on the wrong end of the equation we do them a disservice. Improving your SAC will not improve your comfort level will not improve your competence level will not improve your skill level.

Just because someone's SAC is higher than the *norm* (which we know doesn't really exist outside of polls and internet bragging contests) doesn't mean that there is a *problem to be corrected.*

Folks... if you have a higher SAC than someone else it doesn't mean that you are a hoover or an airhog! It doesn't mean that you are less skilled, less competent or less comfortable either. It only means that you use more gas.

Do not fixate on lowering your SAC! Do as Uncle Pug says and work on improving your skills.

 

[gcbryan]

I agree with the above post 100 percent. Now if we can just get those with low SAC rates to not mention them constantly

 

[pasley]

... They should be encouraged to improve their skill level which will improve their competence level which will improve their comfort level which will also ultimately tend to lower their SAC.
...

Hmmm, ever listen to one of those discussions where the two people actually agreed but were just saying the same thing a different way?

SAC is not, or should not be the focus, I agree. Improving the skills should be. But how do you know if your skills are improving? Usally the indicator is improved air consumption and SAC rate. So I agree, the SAC is just a planning tool and a means to help you determine if you are making progress in your skills.

Now me personally, my skills are not that good, but my sac rate is in the lower range because I am an alien life form and my robotic body is programed to inhale and exhale to give the appearance of being human.

 

[Uncle Pug]

But how do you know if your skills are improving?

How about outside assessment?

Actually I think most folks who are not being assessed and challenged on a regular basis will find their skills degrading rather than improving.