Undercurrent--"Why Divers Die"

[boulderjohn]

FWIW...not true.

Olive oil, avocados...well, you need to study nutrition a bit.

Old school, just counting calories is not really cutting it these days.

good fats, bad fats...you seem a bit behind.

I too, think the diving community seems to be generally overindulgent, as a group Not only food...but alcohol too. I would like to see us tackle the problems...not each other.

Adopting a condescending attitude does not help the discussion, not does it make you right. Monosaturated fats, such as olive oil and avocados, have a number of health benefits, especially as related to cholesterol levels, but they are still fattening. They are good fats because of those additional benefits, but those benefits are not related to being fattening.

 

[in_cavediver]

I agree, I believe that divers as a group are less likely to have a BMI over 30 than the general population. That would make the obesity finding even more interesting.

I disagree. I tend to think diving is selected by those who are more afluent. Those are more likely to drive a desk and have lower activity levels and therefore have a higher BMI. I have no data to back it up but hey, its the assumption I made.

See, we disagree about a perception which is the basis for the conclusions of the study. IE, a principal assumption. If we disagree as do many others, shouldn't this assumption be removed and replaced with actual data?

Remember assumption is to make an *** out of you and me.....

 

[ArcticDiver]

All this talk about FAT has reminded me of both a personal experience and the results of some blood chemistries done on rural folks hereabouts.

Personally, when I was living almost full time off the road system and working my butt off building a house, cutting and splitting wood, and in general getting the chores done it didn't seem to make any difference what kind of fat I ate. My blood chemistry was good no matter what.

When I moved to town and was less active it definitely did make a difference. I don't burn off the calories as fast so the fats have more time to work their evil. Now, I pay attention to the kind of fat I eat. Lots of salmon, olives, etc.

Studies on rural folks seems to confirm that lots of work offsets to some degree the quantity of fat a person eats. If a person works hard physically and eats the mono fats it seems to have less adverse effect.

But fat on the body is the direct result of consuming more calories than are used. Selecting the kind of food can mitigate the adverse effect. But ther person is still going to get fat.

 

[Cacia]

Adopting a condescending attitude does not help the discussion,

yea..I am used to being called condescending here, in regards to this issue. I don't think I am...sometimes I wonder if the reaction would be the same if I had a big weight problem. Probably not...I just love talking about nutrition, I can't sit by and just let things slide by when they are incorrect.

But hey...have at it. Eat what you like, do what you want and enjoy diving.

some degree the kind of fat a person eats.

true with saturated fat...not true with trans fats.

But fat on the body is the direct result of consuming more calories than are used.

See, this is just not assumed gospel anymore, guys. But..if you aren't ready to hear it...

Insulin resistance, hormonal climate is all getting implicated and related to the overweight picture. Your propensity to burn calories at a faster or slower rate, your fat distribution...

I don't mean to sound condescending, but I urge you to look at some of the cutting edge emerging nutritional news.---just for fun.

Omentum fat, adiponectin -the fat regulating chemical that is related to hunger controlling hormone, leptin, might be a good place to start, if you are ever interested. The bodies inflamatory response (the new National Geographic has a good article) and the other risk factors like blood pressure , high cholesterol and obesity are more interrelated than we once thought.

Calories in...calories out is oversimplistic.

I disagree. I tend to think diving is selected by those who are more afluent. Those are more likely to drive a desk and have lower activity levels and therefore have a higher BMI.

?

..Another sticky fact is that the higher your socio-economic level..the less likey you are to be overweight. They attribute this to higher education, better health care access, etc. I don't think this fact is disputed...I know that is what I was taught in my public health nursing courses years ago...

Obesity is more prevelant in the underclass. Which clouds the issue in other ways, for certain. (less education, less sophisticated health care, etc)

Too bad there aren't any health care professionals here to back me up. I think they avoid these threads, to be honest. People are uncomfortable with being called vain, condescending...the list goes on.

Honestly, I am trying to be helpful, not insulting. Obesity is a problem that effects someone in almost everyone's family, mine included.

Recently my son obtained a normal weight, after much hard work on his part. It was not a fun job for me, by the way.

 

[drrich2]

Anyone seen the latest undercurrent article on death of divers? The article essentially says that the greatest risk factor for dying as a diver is obesity. Obesity in this case was a BMI (body mass index) of over 30 and stated that in Australia obesity is a reason to fail a diving physical. Degree of fitness was also felt to be central in diving accidents in this review of the DAN data from 2004.

On a recent dive trip in Hawaii I didn't see the usually very large divers that seem to be present on a lot of dives in the Caribbean.

Is this a real issue and one that needs more attention? The article essentially said that an obese dive buddy may be of little benefit and a potential liability. The article is a little frightening.

Bold emphasis mine. This post started the thread. I've quoted it here because it seems to me that this thread has gotten into a confrontation between those who believe the findings' significance was grossly exaggerated & dubious one the one hand, & those who believe those of us with 'something on the line' may wish to distort, obscure or deny the issue.

If obesity has shown a correlation with diving fatalities, allowing that correlation doesn't equal causation & there are many other negative factors to consider (i.e.: advanced age, some health problems, etc...) & individuals may be exceptions to trends, I have no problem with that.

However, as our society has become more aware of the health problems of obesity & the growing rates, it has turned a critical & condemnatory eye toward the heavy set. Some advertisements & public communications carry the undertone that if you're fat, you've failed somehow, you're irresponsible & you should be ashamed. We've even heard rumblings that some lawyers, hoping to repeat the windfall from the tobacco companies, would like to go after 'Big Food.'

So you can understand why we are wary of articles like this.

Claiming the degree of fitness was felt central to diving accidents sounds like an overgeneralization. Some, maybe, but we can always say an Olympic swimmer might've survived. If a skinny guy can look down his nose at a fatty, I suppose a pro can look down his nose at an amateur.

It sounds like Australia has chosen to discriminate against some of the obese. You see our concerns are warranted. Any idea just what level of obesity was involved? If someone was 700 lbs I could see it, but if he was 350 & could do all the skills, I contest that.

The statement an obese buddy may be little benefit & a potential liability reads like an outright accusation, quite disparaging to the fat, & a gross overgeneralization. But it sounds like the kind of attitude that would lead some people to 'take action' against fat divers. The article was 'a little frightening?' That reads like fat divers are actually scary.

As for 'is it a real issue' that 'needs more attention,' what kind of attention would that be? Australian style? I suspect this is the part we're really concerned about. Sure, you can issue public health advisory & a couple of condescending ad.s, but what if that doesn't work? What if the fattys stay fatty?

Will the political correct busybodies of the world say 'Oh, well, that's different,' & go home & let us alone?

Richard.

 

[vladimir]

Obesity is more prevelant in the underclass. Which clouds the issue in other ways, for certain. (less education, less sophisticated health care, etc)

Too bad there aren't any health care professionals here to back me up.

I'm not a health professional but I know this to be true--a quick search will confirm it. The affluent are apparently catching up, however.

 

[MikeFerrara]

..Another sticky fact is that the higher your socio-economic level..the less likey you are to be overweight. They attribute this to higher education, better health care access, etc. I don't think this fact is disputed...I know that is what I was taught in my public health nursing courses years ago...

Obesity is more prevelant in the underclass. Which clouds the issue in other ways, for certain. (less education, less sophisticated health care, etc)

I have to disput it in regard to divers based on what I saw owning a dive shop for a few years. I don't have data but I can tell you this. When I ran a dive shop, large people were very well represented in my student base. In fact the sizes we thought we would need in rental gear was WAY off and we baught all the wrong stuff before opening. In order to get started teaching classes we had to gow out an buy a buch of big wet suits. It wasn't uncommon to have a student wearing a big suit with the sleeves and legs rolled up. With the sizes that were available at the time there just weren't any other options. We had to purchase all new bc's before long because the jackets we originally baught just weren't big enough. We switched everything over to the old Zeagle concept because they had a HUGE amount of adjustment and we could get large people in them.

In my experienced, recreational divers just are NOT a bunch of athletes. A large percetage of my student base was aged 30's to 50's, well off money wise, not very active physically and not very small.

In_cavediver said he has a BMI of around 30? He was one of our students and I'd have to say that he was one of the little guys. Assuming that he hasn't changed too much since I last seen him, if that's what a 30 looks like, I would have to guess that a BMI of 30 would almost certainly have been below average in our student base.

 

[OHGoDive]

Ok, just so everyone is on the same page, I just got my latest copy of Undercurrent yesterday, and it contains the third (and last) part of this series.

The series is not intended to show the ONE reason why divers die, or even the MOST LIKELY reason. More simplistically (it's not a peer reviewed scientific publication, ok?), someone has scanned the DAN data of diving fatalities, and is pointing out what are basically some thoughts that come to mind when reviewing that data.

The third, and final, part is subtitled "Bad Decisions". It covers cases where untrained divers were found dead in caves, people who ascended too quickly (intentionally and unintentionally), and other similar cases. The point they make in this article is essentially, these people had choices, and they made the wrong ones. You can say bad training, bad habits, bad judgement, whatever, they don't make those conclusions for you.

What I got out of these articles wasn't that someone was deigning to tell me what would likely kill me while diving, but instead they were presenting things THAT I HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER that I should be thinking about before I hit the water.

Fitness was simply one aspect. And, by this thread, the article got people thinking about it. For good or for bad (I think good). Anectdotally, it doesn't appear that divers, AS A POPULATION, are the healthiest or fittest atheletes. Since we can control that, maybe people should think about it a bit more, get some facts, talk to our doctor or nutritionist, exercise more, eat more fruit, whatever. Something.

The third article, if you wanted to take it in the same "it's wrong, throw it away" attitude that some in this thread have taken, could imply that divers AS A POPULATION, may not be the sharpest crayons in the box. We make bad decisions when we should (and usually do) know better. I know I'm not stupid (though few will vouch for that), the people who died untrained in a cave probably would have said the same thing. But, there they were. So, I'm going to think about this article too. I'm not going to take the attitude of "hey, I don't make bad decisions, can't happen to me".

It's food for thought, nothing more. I think it's a great series, well presented, and somewhat enlightening.

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Ok, just so everyone is on the same page, I just got my latest copy of Undercurrent yesterday, and it contains the third (and last) part of this series.

The series is not intended to show the ONE reason why divers die, or even the MOST LIKELY reason. More simplistically (it's not a peer reviewed scientific publication, ok?), someone has scanned the DAN data of diving fatalities, and is pointing out what are basically some thoughts that come to mind when reviewing that data.

The third, and final, part is subtitled "Bad Decisions". It covers cases where untrained divers were found dead in caves, people who ascended too quickly (intentionally and unintentionally), and other similar cases. The point they make in this article is essentially, these people had choices, and they made the wrong ones. You can say bad training, bad habits, bad judgement, whatever, they don't make those conclusions for you.

What I got out of these articles wasn't that someone was deigning to tell me what would likely kill me while diving, but instead they were presenting things THAT I HAVE SOME CONTROL OVER that I should be thinking about before I hit the water.

Fitness was simply one aspect. And, by this thread, the article got people thinking about it. For good or for bad (I think good). Anectdotally, it doesn't appear that divers, AS A POPULATION, are the healthiest or fittest atheletes. Since we can control that, maybe people should think about it a bit more, get some facts, talk to our doctor or nutritionist, exercise more, eat more fruit, whatever. Something.

The third article, if you wanted to take it in the same "it's wrong, throw it away" attitude that some in this thread have taken, could imply that divers AS A POPULATION, may not be the sharpest crayons in the box. We make bad decisions when we should (and usually do) know better. I know I'm not stupid (though few will vouch for that), the people who died untrained in a cave probably would have said the same thing. But, there they were. So, I'm going to think about this article too. I'm not going to take the attitude of "hey, I don't make bad decisions, can't happen to me".

It's food for thought, nothing more. I think it's a great series, well presented, and somewhat enlightening.

Actually, had this context been presented in the OP, I doubt this discussion would've taken the direction that it did.

Which goes to point out that you can take anything out of context and change the meaning of it entirely to suit your purposes.

Compare what you just posted to the OP that started this thread (in particular the emphasized sentences) ...

Anyone seen the latest undercurrent article on death of divers? The article essentially says that the greatest risk factor for dying as a diver is obesity. Obesity in this case was a BMI (body mass index) of over 30 and stated that in Australia obesity is a reason to fail a diving physical. Degree of fitness was also felt to be central in diving accidents in this review of the DAN data from 2004.

On a recent dive trip in Hawaii I didn't see the usually very large divers that seem to be present on a lot of dives in the Caribbean.

Is this a real issue and one that needs more attention? The article essentially said that an obese dive buddy may be of little benefit and a potential liability. The article is a little frightening.

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[OHGoDive]

Actually, had this context been presented in the OP, I doubt this discussion would've taken the direction that it did.

Yeah, but where's the fun in that?

Which goes to point out that you can take anything out of context and change the meaning of it entirely to suit your purposes.

Compare what you just posted to the OP that started this thread (in particular the emphasized sentences) ...

You're right, although I genuinely don't think the intent of the OP was to inflame. That's part of the attraction of these sorts of discussions, people take different things away from them and off they go. People get all riled up. It's fascinating. And in the end, it makes people think. Maybe. Hopefully?