 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / July 2006So, I got my OW Cert
Well, I passed my open water last night. I and two other guys did our lake dives on Monday and Tuesday evening. I discovered one thing that I feared I might. I'm probably going to have to get a custom made wetsuit. I used an XXL Farmer John that was very tight (in the thigh and in the upper arms as well as the chest) and also, very long. My knee pads were really shin pads and the sleeves on my suit were an extra 3-4 inches too long. BTW, I'm 5'9" and 228 pounds at about 18% bodyfat right now. So, anyone able to recommend a good wetsuit company that custom makes a wetsuit inexpensively? Or, should I have my own gal (I'm a powerlifter and my team has a gal that custom fits some of our suits. One of my training partners has even squatted 700 pounds in a suit that she has tailored and it didn't blow out.) do that with an off the rack suit? I think it would be better get a custom from a shop that does this on a regular basis. One other thing worth mentioning, the smallest guy there had the most trouble (I had none, thank you very much) on the last night's dives. He started his emergency ascent without his regulator and he had to put that back in. He had to do his navigation twice because he f.cked up as well as a couple of other minor issues. At the end of the dives, he had by far, the most amount of air left. The next guy was the tall, medium sized guy and last but not least, there was I, the heavily muscled powerlifter with the least amount of air. > Well, I passed my open water last night. I and two other guys did our > lake dives on Monday and Tuesday evening. Congratulations. Welcome to the ranks of certified divers. > I discovered one thing that I feared I might. I'm probably going to have > to get a custom made wetsuit. Many people do. > So, anyone able to recommend a good wetsuit company that custom makes a > wetsuit inexpensively? Unfortunately, inexpensive and diving are not terms often found together. You'll have to shop around. The best advise I can offer is to try to go to the shop to be measured. Chances of someone with a powerlifter's build finding someone who can build a suit correctly for them without more than the normal few measurements seem to high to take the chance. If you are occasionally in South Florida, there's a custom wetsuit shop in Hollywood. I don't know where you are diving, but if you expect to be doing relatively long dives in water cold enough to need thermal protection, don't fail to consider a drysuit. They're expensive as all getout, but if you buy the right one, are usable in a wider range of temperatures than a wetsuit. > One other thing worth mentioning, the smallest guy there had the most > trouble (I had none, thank you very much) on the last night's dives. Nobody said that small guys are automatically better, or worse divers. > He started his emergency ascent without his regulator and he had to put > that back in. He had to do his navigation twice because > he f.cked up as well as a couple of other minor issues. Did he pass too? If so, you might want to consider how much reliance to put in the advice, on consumption or anything else, of the instructor that signed his card. Lee >> Well, I passed my open water last night. I and two other guys did our >> lake dives on Monday and Tuesday evening. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >in the advice, on consumption or anything else, of the instructor that >signed his card. Yes, he did pass. But, he was made to complete his skills. He also had done his initial training a few months ago. But, being the technician I am, I have no doubt from my observation that muscle mass is indeed the biggest factor in the amount of air consumed. Keep in mind that if I quit my powerlifting training, I would waste away to about half the amount of muscle mass I have presently, perhaps more. It takes a massive amount of energy to fuel a powerlifter who trains 4 days/week. This is a good thing. I can eat and drink whatever I want. 18% bodyfat isn't going to get me on the cover of any magazine either but it is probably less than most Americans over the age of 40. My point is Lee, that even though you've been diving for years, you have probably only experienced diving mostly with people who fit comfortably inside the bell curve as far as America in general. Muscle mass doesn't vary much among them. It does with us folks on the extreme ends of the bell. Perhaps you've given too much credence to ones comfortability is in the water. Just for the f.ck of it, what are your vital statistics? Height, weight, bodyfat %, age, etc.? > >> Well, I passed my open water last night. I and two other guys did our > >> lake dives on Monday and Tuesday evening. [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > ones comfortability is in the water. Just for the f.ck of it, what > are your vital statistics? Height, weight, bodyfat %, age, etc.? I'd be willing to wager that, as you get more comfortable in the water, you'll find that you'll consume less air. You'll also find that diving warmer water will help as well. Do check into getting a drysuit. I'll either be in a skin/trilaminate or a drysuit. Hadnt worn a wetsuit in years. Whats your cardiovascular/aerobic fitness level like? Add walking/swimming to your repetoire will help out. Dennis On Thu, 25 May 2006 03:05:02 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in rec.scuba: >> >> Well, I passed my open water last night. I and two other guys did our >> >> lake dives on Monday and Tuesday evening. [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >you'll find that you'll consume less air. >You'll also find that diving warmer water will help as well. I'm sure that is the case. But with all my training dives, and all divers had the same experience level, the variable that was always proportional to air consumption was muscle mass/skeletal size. >Do check into getting a drysuit. I'll either be in a skin/trilaminate or a >drysuit. Hadnt worn a wetsuit in years. >Whats your cardiovascular/aerobic fitness level like? Add walking/swimming >to your repetoire will help out. My cardiovascular/aerobic fitness is higher than average. I took the dogs (http://northernlinks.com/yohan/BuddyAndBailey.jpg) for two walks on Sunday. The first one was 2.5 miles, the second about a mile. We ran part of the way. I do that a couple times per week and it's fairly typical for me. > But, being the technician I am, I have no doubt from my observation that > muscle mass > is indeed the biggest factor in the amount of air consumed. You're still wrong. Size (resistance), lung volume (amount used per breath) are factors, but not the most important factors. Muscle mass may also be a factor, but I still have doubts. The individual I mentioned to you earlier is one of the most accomplished divers in the world, is roughly your size and had very low body fat and very high muscle mass. He also had one of the lowest consumption rates of any diver I've ever met. Anyone that knows him, or knows of him can confirm this. If he can do it, you can do it. I'll say it once again. Being comfortable and relaxed in the water is the number one factor in achieving the lowest possible consumption. It's not the only factor, but it is the most significant one. Lee >> But, being the technician I am, I have no doubt from my observation that >> muscle mass [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >lowest consumption rates of any diver I've ever met. Anyone that knows him, >or knows of him can confirm this. If he can do it, you can do it. Got any pictures of him? >I'll say it once again. Being comfortable and relaxed in the water is the >number one factor in achieving the lowest possible consumption. It's not >the only factor, but it is the most significant one. But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass one has, the more oxygen one needs. Period. It's a scientific fact. > Got any pictures of him? One not very good one here: http://www.huntzinger.com/dive/strokes/gi.jpg This one is maybe better: http://www.gavinscooters.com  SignatureArt Greenberg artg at eclipse dot net >> Got any pictures of him? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > http://www.gavinscooters.com He's above average in that one. He looks to be quite a bit smaller in the first one, which appears to be a much more recent pic. > On Thu, 25 May 2006 23:38:45 -0000, Art Greenberg <none@none.invalid> > wrote in rec.scuba: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > He's above average in that one. He looks to be quite a bit smaller in > the first one, which appears to be a much more recent pic. No, I think the first one is very old. Probably 5-6 years or more. SignatureArt Greenberg artg at eclipse dot net >> On Thu, 25 May 2006 23:38:45 -0000, Art Greenberg <none@none.invalid> >> wrote in rec.scuba: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >No, I think the first one is very old. Probably 5-6 years or more. Hmmm, he's very skinny in that one. Not much mass at all. > >> But, being the technician I am, I have no doubt from my observation that > >> muscle mass [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass one > has, the more oxygen one needs. Period. It's a scientific fact. Actually, it's not. Muscle mass is one varable in the equation, but just having more doesn't mean that you automatically require more oxygen than someone who has less. Fitness level and activity level are two important factors as well. > Actually, it's not. Muscle mass is one varable in the equation, Exactly. Instead of splitting hairs about which one is more important (who gives a tit anyway?), it'd be better to focus on the other aspects - attaining truly neutral buoyancy (which is not the same as being able to swim without going up and down) and relaxing in the water. Cardio fitness also makes a huge difference. All these factors need to be taken into account. I suggest taking this advice to heart. Cheers, Vandit >> >> But, being the technician I am, I have no doubt from my observation >that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >someone who has less. Fitness level and activity level are two important >factors as well. Actually, yes you do. You also need more nutrients to maintain that muscle mass. BTW, someone with a massive amount of muscle mass generally has a fairly high fitness level do to all the work (energy expenditure) one needs to do in order to maintain that muscle. > >> But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass one > >> has, the more oxygen one needs. Period. It's a scientific fact. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > generally has a fairly high fitness level do to all the work (energy > expenditure) one needs to do in order to maintain that muscle. Actaully, you don't necessarily. Lets say that, for whatever reason, you decide to veg out on the couch for a day. Meanwhile, my wife goes rock climbing. Do you honestly think that during that time you will require more oxygen than she will? By the way, I'm going to guess that you've probably got a considerably higher muscle mass than my wife. Like I said, muscle mass is ONE element of the equation, but it's not the ONLY element. If it was, then you wouldn't breathe hard when you exhert yourself. Therefor, simply having more muscle mass can't mean that you are automatically going to require more oxygen. There are MANY other factors involved. >> >> But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass one >> >> has, the more oxygen one needs. Period. It's a scientific fact. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >oxygen than she will? By the way, I'm going to guess that you've probably >got a considerably higher muscle mass than my wife. If I go rock climbing with your wife or if I veg out on the couch with you wife, I'm still going to use more oxygen than her. >Like I said, muscle mass is ONE element of the equation, but it's not the >ONLY element. If it was, then you wouldn't breathe hard when you exhert >yourself. Therefor, simply having more muscle mass can't mean that you are >automatically going to require more oxygen. There are MANY other factors >involved. Read my answer above. > >> >> But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass one > >> >> has, the more oxygen one needs. Period. It's a scientific fact. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > If I go rock climbing with your wife or if I veg out on the couch with > you wife, I'm still going to use more oxygen than her. No doubt, but the fact that you're bigger (muscle wise) doesn't automatically mean that you are using/requiring more oxygen as per your previous statement. Need I remind you of what you said? "But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass one has, the more oxygen one needs. Period. It's a scientific fact." Please notice that there are no qualifiers involved in your statement. At any rate, to make the simple statement that people with a larger muscle mass require more oxygen (period/scientific fact) is, as best, misleading within the context. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there are plenty of people on this board who both have a higher muscle mass than I do and a lower consumption (read oxygen requirement for the purpose of this discussion). Off the top of my head, I'd say that Popeye and Magilla both fit both of those criteria. I'm sure there are others, but those two are probably the best examples. According to your own accounts of your air consumption I'd have to say that we have very similar consumption (mine is moderately better). Assuming that you are honestly a body builder (you have given me no reason to believe otherwise), I'd have to say that you probably have a considerably higher muscle mass than I do. Ergo, your *considerably* larger muscle mass doesn't contribute to a larger consumption as would be expected based on your increased oxygen requirements. Can you begin to see why we have taken your instructor's comments with a grain of salt (and advised that you do likewise)? >> >> >> But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass >one [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > >Please notice that there are no qualifiers involved in your statement. Right. I will require more oxygen than your wife. Period. >At any rate, to make the simple statement that people with a larger muscle >mass require more oxygen (period/scientific fact) is, as best, misleading [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >fit both of those criteria. I'm sure there are others, but those two are >probably the best examples. There are people who can temporarily slow down their heart rate/metabolism such as free divers and I'm sure it's the same with experienced scuba divers. This is only temporary. If those people were on land, sitting around drinking beer/beverage of choice with you, they will indeed require more oxygen. It's a physiological fact. > According to your own accounts of your air >consumption I'd have to say that we have very similar consumption (mine is >moderately better). Assuming that you are honestly a body builder (you have >given me no reason to believe otherwise) I take great offense to that. I'm a powerlifter. We get to eat and drink beer:-) >, I'd have to say that you probably >have a considerably higher muscle mass than I do. Ergo, your *considerably* >larger muscle mass doesn't contribute to a larger consumption as would be >expected based on your increased oxygen requirements. Can you begin to see >why we have taken your instructor's comments with a grain of salt (and >advised that you do likewise)? No, you're wrong. This guy has trained thousands of people. As a matter of fact, he's trained most of the local dive shop owners and their instructors (and they all speak very highly of him as I've been making my stops over the past couple of weeks). He says your largest as well as most heavily muscled people, along with smokers, use the most amount of air and women and little skinny guys use the least. This is what he has witnessed over the years as an instructor. He also says that air consumption will continue to drop with experience, which I firmly believe. So I stand by what I said earlier. Those of large stature and those who possess the most muscle mass will require the most oxygen. > >> >> >> But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass > >one [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > also says that air consumption will continue to drop with experience, > which I firmly believe. Good deal - you're beginning to see that there are other factors in air consumption besides muscle mass. Fom your past posts, it seems that is your primary factor, or have I misunderstood? Air consumption is directly related to how many times you breathe off the regulator. When you begin to slow your respiration rate, you'll consume less air. > So I stand by what I said earlier. Those of large stature and those > who possess the most muscle mass will require the most oxygen. Dennis On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:01:06 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in rec.scuba: >> >> >> >> But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle >mass [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] >Fom your past posts, it seems that is your primary factor, or have I >misunderstood? You've misunderstood. I mention a particular fact and everyone jumped on it, spun it around and kicked it in a different direction. ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, the guy with the most muscle mass (as well as bone and blood) will consume more air/oxygen. >Air consumption is directly related to how many times you breathe off the >regulator. >When you begin to slow your respiration rate, you'll consume less air. > >> So I stand by what I said earlier. Those of large stature and those >> who possess the most muscle mass will require the most oxygen. Bjórrúnar skaltu John Hanson <jhanson@northernlinks.com> rista- > I mention a particular fact and everyone jumped > on it, spun it around and kicked it in a different direction. That's what the rs goon squad does. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > On Wed, 31 May 2006 21:01:06 -0500, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" > <nojunkmail@ever.invalid> wrote in rec.scuba: <snip> > >> This is what he has witnessed over the years as an instructor. He > >> also says that air consumption will continue to drop with experience, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > THINGS BEING EQUAL, the guy with the most muscle mass (as well as bone > and blood) will consume more air/oxygen. Which means that, if the rate of breathing and lung volume are the same (all things being equal, after all) then air consumption would be.....the same. Whether the person with the most muscle mass is using more oxygen from each breath wouldnt matter. At least that's my understanding. > >Air consumption is directly related to how many times you breathe off the > >regulator. > >When you begin to slow your respiration rate, you'll consume less air. Made a mistake above - lung volume (more specifically, the volume of air drawn from the tank) is also a factor. > >> So I stand by what I said earlier. Those of large stature and those > >> who possess the most muscle mass will require the most oxygen. Dennis <snip> > You've misunderstood. I mention a particular fact and everyone jumped > on it, spun it around and kicked it in a different direction. ALL > THINGS BEING EQUAL, the guy with the most muscle mass (as well as bone > and blood) will consume more air/oxygen. There's the crux of the situation. Theoretically, you are absolutely correct. Realistically, "all things are never equal." I believe that most of the people on the "muscle mass isn't as important as you make it out to be" side are speaking from a "real world" viewpoint. ---grammar police notice--- Also, I think that the phrase you wanted to shout (all caps) should actually have been "all *other* things being equal." ---end grammar police section--- > >> >> >> But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle mass > >one [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > Right. I will require more oxygen than your wife. Period. Only under the same or similar circumstances. There are plenty of possible scenarios wherein my wife would (at least for a time) require more oxygen than you. > >At any rate, to make the simple statement that people with a larger muscle > >mass require more oxygen (period/scientific fact) is, as best, misleading [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > were on land, sitting around drinking beer/beverage of choice with > you, they will indeed require more oxygen. It's a physiological fact. I've already conceded that point. The fact that those people you mentioned can slow things down though means that they don't automatically require more oxygen simply because they may have more muscle mass. > > According to your own accounts of your air > >consumption I'd have to say that we have very similar consumption (mine is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I take great offense to that. I'm a powerlifter. We get to eat and > drink beer:-) My apologies. I knew a powerlifter once. He went to Russia on some American powerlifting team. From what I understand, he did pretty well. He ended up joining that Navy and becoming one of those guys who can't tell you what he's done or where he's been (not because of any kind of trauma, but because it was part of his job - something involving being fluent in six different languages...). > >, I'd have to say that you probably > >have a considerably higher muscle mass than I do. Ergo, your *considerably* [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > No, you're wrong. I'm wrong? Are you saying that you don't have a higher muscle mass than I do? Or are you saying that your consumption is considerably higher than mine? The simple fact that he says (and you believe) that your consumption will get better as you gain experience should tell you that muscle mass/size isn't the end all/be all of air consumption. The only debate at this point becomes just exactly how much the muscle mass factor is a factor. > This guy has trained thousands of people. As a > matter of fact, he's trained most of the local dive shop owners and > their instructors (and they all speak very highly of him as I've been > making my stops over the past couple of weeks). I have no reason to doubt that he's a perfectly good instructor. That doesn't mean that everything he says is 100% accurate. > He says your largest > as well as most heavily muscled people, along with smokers, So, smoking could have something to do with it? > use the > most amount of air and women and little skinny guys use the least. As long as they don't smoke? > This is what he has witnessed over the years as an instructor. He > also says that air consumption will continue to drop with experience, > which I firmly believe. > > So I stand by what I said earlier. Those of large stature and those > who possess the most muscle mass will require the most oxygen. As long as they are in the same stage of their diving development and none of the smaller people are smokers it's probably a pretty safe assumption. It's not an automatic jackpot though. > My apologies. I knew a powerlifter once. He went to Russia on some > American powerlifting team. From what I understand, he did pretty well. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > because it was part of his job - something involving being fluent in six > different languages...). Your American friend joined the Russian Navy? > > My apologies. I knew a powerlifter once. He went to Russia on some > > American powerlifting team. From what I understand, he did pretty well. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Your American friend joined the Russian Navy? oops... should have been "the Navy" instead of "that Navy". >> >> >> >> But that has nothing to do with the fact that the more muscle >mass [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] >can slow things down though means that they don't automatically require more >oxygen simply because they may have more muscle mass. They'll have to make up for it later. A person cannot maintain muscle mass in excess of their natural genetic amount without consuming both extra calories and extra oxygen. All that varies throughout the day so if someone were to purposely slow their metabolic function, they'll have to make up for it later or they will begin to lose that mass. >> > According to your own accounts of your air >> >consumption I'd have to say that we have very similar consumption (mine [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >isn't the end all/be all of air consumption. The only debate at this point >becomes just exactly how much the muscle mass factor is a factor. I purposely slowed my breathing rate down tonight and used the same amount as the guy who has logged 585 dives. At least, he said we used the same amount (he kept checking my pressure gauge. He had a buddy who had just got certified once and he went diving with him. The guy burnt up his air right away.) I did noticed that the time between breathes was much longer for me but I blew way more bubbles than him. But, I seem to be making up for it now as my breathing and pulse rate are higher than normal. I did just eat to so that is also a factor in the increase. BTW, I went through 1850 psi (3250 to start, 1400 at the end) while diving to a max depth of 25' and a total bottom time of 50 minutes. Most of the time we were between 15 and 20 feet. Getting back to the muscle mass factor, when your body burns calories it requires oxygen. It's a direct relationship. I generally consume twice what the average male consumes daily so physiologically, I have to use twice as much oxygen. Granted, my lungs might be far more efficient than a lot people too, like say, a smoker or a non-athlete so I can get more from the air that I breathe. But, I still need far more oxygen. >> This guy has trained thousands of people. As a >> matter of fact, he's trained most of the local dive shop owners and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >So, smoking could have something to do with it? They have very inefficient lungs. Those will little muscle mass will require less oxygen but their lungs are so f.cked up they need way more air. >> use the >> most amount of air and women and little skinny guys use the least. > >As long as they don't smoke? Right. >> This is what he has witnessed over the years as an instructor. He >> also says that air consumption will continue to drop with experience, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >of the smaller people are smokers it's probably a pretty safe assumption. >It's not an automatic jackpot though. Well apparently there is enough anecdotal evidence to say so. >>I'm wrong? Are you saying that you don't have a higher muscle mass than I >>do? Or are you saying that your consumption is considerably higher than [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > so I can get more from the air that I breathe. But, I still need far > more oxygen. Which is totally irrelevant in scuba. On the surface, you only use a fraction of the oxygen you inspire. You can find out how much at any scuba shop by just exhaling through their analyzer. At depth, the partial pressure of O2 increases; .42 at 33 fsw, .63 at 66 fsw, and so on. At 100 fsw you probably use about 1% of the O2 you inspire. Oxygen transfer to hemoglobin has absolutely no effect, positive or negative, on consumption of bottled air supply in open circuit scuba. m >>>I'm wrong? Are you saying that you don't have a higher muscle mass than I >>>do? Or are you saying that your consumption is considerably higher than [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >or negative, on consumption of bottled air supply in open >circuit scuba. For God's sakes, man. There are an inordinate amount of people here who like to pick at nits. <snip> > >Which is totally irrelevant in scuba. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For God's sakes, man. There are an inordinate amount of people here > who like to pick at nits. Welcome to rec.scuba. :-) Dennis >>Which is totally irrelevant in scuba. >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > For God's sakes, man. There are an inordinate amount of people here > who like to pick at nits. No, not picking nits. Just trying to get across that air consumption, as the term is used in scuba, has nothing to do with fitness, muscle mass, hair color, or anything other than respiration rate and volume. Use yer terms accurately, and state yer case precisely. That's the way we all do it on rec.scuba. >>>Which is totally irrelevant in scuba. >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Use yer terms accurately, and state yer case precisely. That's >the way we all do it on rec.scuba. You're still wrong. >>No, not picking nits. Just trying to get across that air >>consumption, as the term is used in scuba, has nothing to do >>with fitness, muscle mass, hair color, or anything other than >>respiration rate and volume. > You're still wrong. No he's not. In the short time since you started your entry level course, some of the most experienced and knowledgeable divers you will ever meet have told you that you are mistaken on this issue. It's time you started listening and thinking about what they're telling you. Lee >>>No, not picking nits. Just trying to get across that air >>>consumption, as the term is used in scuba, has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >have told you that you are mistaken on this issue. It's time you started >listening and thinking about what they're telling you. Oh, here we go again. This is how it started: "On Sun, 14 May 2006 21:34:57 -0400, "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net> wrote in rec.scuba: >> After doing my classroom/pool training this weekend, I discovered I go >> through a helluva lot of air compared to the skinny guys and the one >> chic. > >Your comfort in the water is a far more significant factor than your size, >weight or sex. I'm extremely comfortable in the water. I live in Minnesota:-) Anywho, I've snorkeled dozens of times and do a lot of fishing and camping and I usually always swim in those circumstances and have for years. My instructor says that muscle mass has a lot to do with the amount of air one uses. At 5'9" and 232 pounds with about 18% bodyfat, I have a lot of muscle mass to fuel. Oh, and, one kid used 400 psi all day today. He was about 110 pounds dripping wet." It was a simple as that. It's all you dumb motherf..kers that have turned this into some convoluted exercise in futility. I'm still right when I say that with all "other" things being equal, the person with the most bio-active tissue (read muscle, blood, and I had also better mention brain tissue, which might be the reason for all of this silliness here.) will consume the most air/oxygen. > My instructor says that muscle mass has a lot to do with the amount of > air one uses. At 5'9" and 232 pounds with about 18% bodyfat, I have a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > better mention brain tissue, which might be the reason for all of this > silliness here.) will consume the most air/oxygen. Well, you are right and you're wrong. If all else is equal, yes, you are exactly right. However, it is almost impossible to have all else equal. When things aren't equal, there are other factors much more important than muscle mass. I would probably say that ease in the water is probably the most critical one. As an assistant instructor, I noticed that the swim test would give us the clues we needed to pick out the students we were going to have problems with (who generally had the worst air consumption as well). The students with the most general ease swimming were usually the ones with the best air consumption. Also, air usage and oxygen usage, while related, are not always the same. >>>No, not picking nits. Just trying to get across that air >>>consumption, as the term is used in scuba, has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have told you that you are mistaken on this issue. It's time you started > listening and thinking about what they're telling you. Time to stop wasting breath. (pun intended) > >>No, not picking nits. Just trying to get across that air > >>consumption, as the term is used in scuba, has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have told you that you are mistaken on this issue. It's time you started > listening and thinking about what they're telling you. Where's Jammer when ya really need 'im? >>>No, not picking nits. Just trying to get across that air >>>consumption, as the term is used in scuba, has nothing to do [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > have told you that you are mistaken on this issue. It's time you started > listening and thinking about what they're telling you. Gotta disagree here Lee, I don't think he'll EVER meet 'em. btw, did you enjyo yo Captain yet? LD. > >>>Which is totally irrelevant in scuba. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > You're still wrong. Well, one may have a leak. Otherwise.....I dont see how he's wrong. It does seem to me that the only factors governing air consumption would be how many times you breathe, and the volume of air inhaled. Now, other factors may be related as to why one person breaths 18 times a min, vs anothe who only breaths 12 times a minute (presuming the same volume). Dennis > It does seem to me that the only factors governing air consumption would > be > how many times you breathe, and the volume of air inhaled. > Now, other factors may be related as to why one person breaths 18 times a > min, vs anothe who only breaths 12 times a minute (presuming the same > volume). One is relaxed and calm, the other isn't. Simple, no? Lee > > It does seem to me that the only factors governing air consumption would > > be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > One is relaxed and calm, the other isn't. Simple, no? Yes indeed. Now lets see if John sees that as well. > Lee Dennis >> It does seem to me that the only factors governing air consumption would >> be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >One is relaxed and calm, the other isn't. Simple, no? Again, most all untrained men (or women when comparing people of the same sex) of a similar height will possess nearly the same amount of bio-active tissue whether they are 150 pounds and lean or 200 pounds and fat (fat is not very bio-active). They will require the same amount of oxygen. A heavily muscled weightlifter/powerlifter/bodybuilder will require nearly double that or more just at rest. Again, we have the basal metabolic rate. That rate spikes in the trained lifter for about 24 hours after a workout. In comparison, a runner will only have that spike for about 1-2 hours after his workout. This is a biologic fact and also why it is so important to do strength training when trying to cut fat (it's far more important than cardiovascular training) because strength training forces your body to hang onto the muscle, which is the first thing it wants to give up in a caloric deficient (in a survival situation, fat is more important than muscle). So yes, you can burn calories being a couch potato for up to a day after a serious strength workout, but I digress. Getting back to that breathing thing, this increased metabolic rate is due to the body trying to rebuild the muscle that was broken down in the last training session. It also takes place due to cellular breakdown that occurs all the time in all animals but it is greatly increased after a strenuous strength training session. During this time, the oxygen consumption increases as well as carbon dioxide expiration. Hence, you'll use more air. I would also posit that a weightlifter or a powerlifter would have a higher BMR/Training time ratio than a bodybuilder due to their different training criteria but again, I digress. So, when you say that the whole large body-muscle mass/air consumption is irrelevant, I say you don't have a clue. BTW, during my fun dive, the 6'3"+, 350 pound+ experienced diver was the first and only one to start running low on air yesterday. Which brings up another point: The largest sperm whale on this planet is far more comfortable in the water than any of you people and has far more dive experience than ALL of you put together. On top of that, his lungs are 4 times better at using the oxygen that he does inhale. Why is it that he takes into his lungs more air in one breath than you do for your whole dive? Answer me that one! > >One is relaxed and calm, the other isn't. Simple, no? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > weightlifter/powerlifter/bodybuilder will require nearly double that > or more just at rest. Okay, you're talking about basal metabolisms. > Again, we have the basal metabolic rate. That rate spikes in the > trained lifter for about 24 hours after a workout. In comparison, a > runner will only have that spike for about 1-2 hours after his > workout. Okay, you're talking about how basal values change when the exercise has stopped and the candidate has returned to rest. > Getting back to that breathing thing, this increased metabolic rate is > due to the body trying to rebuild the muscle that was broken down in > the last training session... Hence, you'll use more air. Yes, but let's remember that this higher consumption is *post* workout. > So, when you say that the whole large body-muscle mass/air consumption > is irrelevant, I say you don't have a clue. Sounds like miscommunication to me, for based on what you wrote above, nothing you said has anything to do with air consumption *during* the workout. > BTW, during my fun dive, the 6'3"+, 350 pound+ experienced diver > was the first and only one to start running low on air yesterday. How did the profile of his dive differ from yours? Of particular interest, were his activities such that he was effectively doing a "harder" workout than you? For example, swimming around more, swimming faster, carrying more stuff (drag), practicing buddy breathing / mask clearing / liftbag shooting / etc. When a dozen students are all doing approximatey the same thing at the bottom of a pool, their activities are roughly the same, so therefore their exertion levels are about the same, and they become "other factors equal", so differences in air consumption will tend to go to secondary variables such as body mass. But when class is over and the diver activites are no longer identical, then the "other factors equal" is no longer true, and the secondary variables become masked. All that you're being told here John is that to not get deceived into thinking that a secondary variable will forever be dictating your dive performance: you can make a lot of progress by properly focusing on the primary ones and diving more efficiently. In powerlifter terms,you know that you can't lift as much weight if your technique is wrong, so one way to lift more weight is to have better form. > Which brings up another point: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > his lungs more air in one breath than you do for your whole dive? > Answer me that one! Because he doesn't? The standard generic scuba tank is the AL80, which technically has roughly 78 ft^3 of stored air, but its often rounded up to 80. We'll stick with round numbers. An adult sperm whale is around 50 tons. Since he can freedive, we'll assume his density is roughly the same as water. This means that his volume is: 50 tons = 45,400 kg = 45,400 liters volume = ~1600 ft^3 Of this whole, the Sperm whale's lung volume is 2.5% of total (cite: http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/odyssey/20010606_log_transcript.html ) Lungs @2.5% of total = 1600 ft^4 *0.025 = 40 ft^3 Since the whale can only inspire 40 ft^3, this means that he *doesn't* take into his lungs more air in one breath than we do for our whole dive - - he only takes in roughly half. Now a Sperm whale will then go and dive to 5000-8000ft for 1-2 hours, but that's basically due to the fact that they hyperventillated for around 10 minutes prior to the dive, so as to dump CO2 and load up on O2, and the Sperm Whale has a [ red blood cell volume / total body volume ] ratio that's roughly 4x better than humans (us: 2.8% of total body volume, them: 12%). Think of it as "blood packing" taken to an entirely new level. -hh >>>One is relaxed and calm, the other isn't. Simple, no? >> [quoted text clipped - 95 lines] > body volume, them: 12%). Think of it as "blood packing" taken to an > entirely new level. Is that a PADI sperm whale or a NAUI sperm whale? > Is that a PADI sperm whale or a NAUI sperm whale? It's a Ma Nature sperm whale. >> >One is relaxed and calm, the other isn't. Simple, no? >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >performance: you can make a lot of progress by properly focusing on >the primary ones and diving more efficiently. And I never once thought that was the case. It was folks like Lee that automatically assumed that I did believe such a thing. I made a simple observation that my instructor has made thousands of times and Lee went off on some dumbassed tangent and a few people followed suit. I believe this is due to them have a very low amount of bio-active brain tissue. >In powerlifter terms,you know that you can't lift as much weight if >your technique is wrong, so one way to lift more weight is to have >better form. Yes, that is generally very true. >> Which brings up another point: >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >take into his lungs more air in one breath than we do for our whole >dive - - he only takes in roughly half. Okay, I'll buy that. >Now a Sperm whale will then go and dive to 5000-8000ft for 1-2 hours, >but that's basically due to the fact that they hyperventillated for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >body volume, them: 12%). Think of it as "blood packing" taken to an >entirely new level. Interesting. > >> So, when you say that the whole large body-muscle mass/air consumption > >> is irrelevant, I say you don't have a clue. > > > >Sounds like miscommunication to me, for based on what you wrote above, > >nothing you said has anything to do with air consumption *during* the > >workout. And it is "during the workout" (ie, going on a real dive) where the "all other factors being equal" is not only not equal anymore, but we realize that they contain primary variables. > >> BTW, during my fun dive, the 6'3"+, 350 pound+ experienced diver > >> was the first and only one to start running low on air yesterday. > > > >How did the profile of his dive differ from yours? Another missed response. Hm. > >All that you're being told here John is that to not get deceived into > >thinking that a secondary variable will forever be dictating your dive > >performance: you can make a lot of progress by properly focusing on > >the primary ones and diving more efficiently. > > And I never once thought that was the case. Sorry, but that message from you wasn't being articulated. If that's what you intended to say, then you were unsuccessful. Communication is a four step process, and if the miscommunication occurred on the "message decode" receiving side, then we would have expected some people to have gotten your intended message (and others not). However, when ~100% of the readers missed your message on this part, then its clear that the miscommunication did not occur on the "message decode" receiving side. Through process of elimination, when its not a faulty receiver, then its a faulty transmitter. You are the transmitter. Now are you going to take responsibility for this, or to try to continue to blame it on the rest of the world? > I made a simple observation that my instructor has made thousands of times and > Lee went off on some dumbassed tangent and a few people followed suit. FYI, you do realize that it is very natural for new divers to have a case of hero worship for their instructor, right? A longstanding joke is that every dive instructor is a former Navy SEAL who served with MacArthur and other similarly rediculous claims of qualification. Similarly, a lot of people will toss around "thousdands" this, "thousdands" that, but the simple reality is that it for your typical recreational diver, it can take a couple of years worth of vacations to build up to just 100 dives. The reason I'm saying this is because its very easy (and common) for a Novice to say "My instructor said this and he has more experience than all of you", and while your instructor is probably one hellofa nice guy, the unfortunate realities are: a) Go check PADI's website for if a person is required to have a High School diploma to become qualified to be a Dive Instructor. While you're at it, cross-walk it to ANSI Z86.3 b) Go check out Scuba "IDC" training classes to become a Dive Instructor. FWIW, here's one typical example: http://tinyurl.com/hj8oa Determine for yourself if the most important qualification is "ability to pay", or something else. Also take careful note of the "incoming candidate" qualfification tests that they have to pass before the company will accept your tuition payment. c) The structure of organized training today has (within some Agencies) very clear limits of what can be taught to the Student at the OW-I level, including some gross oversimplifiations that are in fact wrong. The rationale for allowing this is to not overwhelm the student with exceptions to generalizations, but its still wrong. Overall, its hand-waving to make a training class adequate...ie, "good enough"...so as to make it quick and cheap so that those students will go over and buy a pile of gear over in the retail store. If you don't want to believe me, simply go ask your instructor what his Agency is reporting to their professional members (him) what their estimated diver drop-out rate currently is. If the number is below 67%, that would be newsworthy: ask him for written proof, then scan it and put it up on your website. d) Even if your instructor does literally (vs figuratively) have a 1000 dives and so forth, versus some of the people who have already spoken up, he's a rookie. And he's defintely dwarfed by the collective knowledge: I did some rough counting the other day and conservatively estimated that there's 200+ years / 10,000+ dives worth of experience in the partcipants on this thread. e) Pay in the dive industry sucks, which affects your talent pool. 90% of the candiates that are attracted to become dive instructors in Resort areas are your young "Dive Gypsies" (who are using diving to go see the world), and your old Dive Gypsies (who are using "Island Life" to try to run away from some sort of personal problem), etc. Of the "Normal" ones that are left, half of these have had some prior professional career financial nest-egg which makes the low pay not that important. For local (coldwater) environment, most of the instructors will have real (well paying) Day jobs and they're teaching for non-financial reasons. And the older they get, the more often they'll be satisified with their teaching simply covering the annual cost of their liability Insurance. > I believe this is due to them have a very low amount of bio-active > brain tissue. "This medium is fraught with the potential for miscommunication". There's plenty to be learned here, but it takes a certain aptitude and willingness to see the forest for the trees in this written medium. The thing that helps the most is to come in with the right attitude. Unfortunately, you're not in the current frame of mind to be accomodating and interested in change, so I suggest you take a breather. For example, you also recently posted: "I'm very comfortable with not only my sexuality, but also my socioeconomic stature, my intellectual capacity and my athletic ability. Feel free to take whatever shot you want but keep in mind that I shoot back." None of these have any bearing on how good of a diver you currently are, or could eventually become. As such, they are irrelevant and are thus dismissed out of hand. Scuba diving is not a competition. -hh >> >> So, when you say that the whole large body-muscle mass/air consumption >> >> is irrelevant, I say you don't have a clue. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >"all other factors being equal" is not only not equal anymore, but we >realize that they contain primary variables. Diving is not a workout. Getting back to my original point of all "other" things being equal, the person with the highest bioactive tissue will use the most air/oxygen. Just about everyone else here has conceded this point. >> >> BTW, during my fun dive, the 6'3"+, 350 pound+ experienced diver >> >> was the first and only one to start running low on air yesterday. >> > >> >How did the profile of his dive differ from yours? > >Another missed response. Hm. I don't know >> >All that you're being told here John is that to not get deceived into >> >thinking that a secondary variable will forever be dictating your dive [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Sorry, but that message from you wasn't being articulated. If that's >what you intended to say, then you were unsuccessful. But, you are from Newark, right? >Communication is a four step process, and if the miscommunication >occurred on the "message decode" receiving side, then we would have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >"message decode" receiving side. Through process of elimination, when >its not a faulty receiver, then its a faulty transmitter. Again, you are wrong. It has been extremely clear what I have been saying. It is others who have changed the subject. >You are the transmitter. Now are you going to take responsibility for >this, or to try to continue to blame it on the rest of the world? Why would I take the blame for a clueless moron like you not understand simple English? >> I made a simple observation that my instructor has made thousands of times and >> Lee went off on some dumbassed tangent and a few people followed suit. > >FYI, you do realize that it is very natural for new divers to have a >case of hero worship for their instructor, right? For God sakes man. I train with world champions. Do you think I would have hero worship for simple diver? >A longstanding joke is that every dive instructor is a former Navy SEAL >who served with MacArthur and other similarly rediculous claims of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >School diploma to become qualified to be a Dive Instructor. While >you're at it, cross-walk it to ANSI Z86.3 Has it changed in the 24 years since he became an instructor? The fact of the matter is, I'm right and you are a f.cking moron. >b) Go check out Scuba "IDC" training classes to become a Dive >Instructor. FWIW, here's one typical example: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >1000 dives and so forth, versus some of the people who have already >spoken up, he's a rookie. Hey you stupid motherf..ker, when did I say he had a 1000 dives? He actually has over ten times that. Your reading comprehension is just for sh.t. I said he has trained over 1000 divers. >And he's defintely dwarfed by the collective knowledge: I did some >rough counting the other day and conservatively estimated that there's >200+ years / 10,000+ dives worth of experience in the partcipants on >this thread. Again, you are making a fool of yourself. Nearly everyone has conceded that I'm right. >e) Pay in the dive industry sucks, which affects your talent pool. >90% of the candiates that are attracted to become dive instructors in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >be satisified with their teaching simply covering the annual cost of >their liability Insurance. He's the owner. >> I believe this is due to them have a very low amount of bio-active >> brain tissue. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >accomodating and interested in change, so I suggest you take a >breather. I suggest you take your own advice. >For example, you also recently posted: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >are, or could eventually become. As such, they are irrelevant and are >thus dismissed out of hand. Again, you are being a complete dumbfuck. That was in reference to posting on this particular newsgroup and about "heat" I would take here. Why is it that you have such a hard time with reading comprehension. Is it a Newark thing? >Scuba diving is not a competition. Hehe, it certainly sounds like it is to you people. > >And it is "during the workout" (ie, going on a real dive) where the > >"all other factors being equal" is not only not equal anymore, but we > >realize that they contain primary variables. > > > Diving is not a workout. Its not sleep either, which means that all of your attempted comparisons using basal matabolisms are invalid. Remember this the first time you're trying to fight against a 0.5 knot current. For example, go perform the following experiment: a) take a full scuba tank and put your regulator on it, lie down on your couch & relax. Record your start PSI and then relax and breathe off the tank for a half hour, then record the end PSI. From this, calculate your air consumption rate. This is SAC(a). b) refill the tank and gear up for a dive in your local diveshop's swimming pool. Record your start PSI and then go "lay on the bottom" for a half hour (shorter, if your air doesn't last as long) as relaxed as you can. After the half hour, surface and record your end PSI. >From this and the depth of the pool, calculate your surface equivalent air consumption rate. This is SAC(b). What you'll find is that despite trying to make both equally non-exerting, SAC(b) > SAC(a). > Getting back to my original point of all > "other" things being equal, the person with the highest bioactive > tissue will use the most air/oxygen. Just about everyone else here > has conceded this point. I have conceded that point too - - check the archives. However, I've gone on to say that while your point is pendantly true, it is a very narrow and a second order factor (variable), so it is not particularly relevant when applied to real-world recreational diving. > >> >> BTW, during my fun dive, the 6'3"+, 350 pound+ experienced diver > >> >> was the first and only one to start running low on air yesterday. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > I don't know Which was my point: you're holding this up - - an Apples-vs-Oranges comparison - - and from it, trying from it to make a claim regarding the contribution of a non-primary variable to support your argument/claim. Objectively, your claimed causality has not been demonstrated because of the uncontrolled & unquantified variables known to be present. > >Sorry, but that message from you wasn't being articulated. If that's > >what you intended to say, then you were unsuccessful. > > But, you are from Newark, right? No. And if you're going to play semantics about regionalism, the folk here who have "misintepreted" you come from all over the country. Including people who have spent time in MSP. > Again, you are wrong. It has been extremely clear what I have been > saying. It is others who have changed the subject. Telling you that your claim is irrelevant is "changing the subject"? > >You are the transmitter. Now are you going to take responsibility for > >this, or to try to continue to blame it on the rest of the world? > > > Why would I take the blame for a clueless moron like you not > understand simple English? Because communication is and has always been a two-way process, which starts as a shared responsibility. For example, how much more explictly do I have to tell you (again) that I agree that your claim is true but is nevertheless irrelevant in the context of real world, day to day, diving practices? > >FYI, you do realize that it is very natural for new divers to have a > >case of hero worship for their instructor, right? > > For God sakes man. I train with world champions. Do you think I > would have hero worship for simple diver? All the sociological pieces are in place for it: he is better at his skill than you are, he is formally serving in a mentoring role, and by you taking dive training you're showing that you have ambition to learn the skills he has. > >a) Go check PADI's website for if a person is required to have a High > >School diploma to become qualified to be a Dive Instructor. While > >you're at it, cross-walk it to ANSI Z86.3 > > Has it changed in the 24 years since he became an instructor? Sounds like hero worship :-) And yes, the training standards have changed over that period of time. Not for the better, unfortunately. > The fact of the matter is, I'm right and you are a f.cking moron. The facts of the matter are that I've been diving since before you hit puberty, and yet I'm a rank rookie compared to several of the other respondents on this thread that you've been claiming are wrong. Sorry, but the fact of the matter is that you don't know enough yet to know what's important and what's not. > >d) Even if your instructor does literally (vs figuratively) have a > >1000 dives and so forth, versus some of the people who have already > >spoken up, he's a rookie. > > Hey you stupid motherf..ker, when did I say he had a 1000 dives? He > actually has over ten times that. People with 10K dives are exceedingly rare. How about his name, so we can cross-compare it to DEMA's list? > Your reading comprehension is just > for sh.t. I said he has trained over 1000 divers. Yes, you did say trained over a thousand. Its just that most dive instructors have more dives than they've trained students. And by you claiming that he has "over ten times that", you've effectively confirmed what I said. > Again, you are making a fool of yourself. Nearly everyone has > conceded that I'm right. I've *also* said that from a strictly pedantic standpoint you're correct, but from a real world pragmatic standpoint, the point is entirely moot because it gets overwhelmed by primary variables because the "all other things equal" is merely an intellectual construct that does not exist in the real world. For example, consider your recent weightlifting competition in Texas. >From an strictly *pedantic* view, your official lift weights were overestimated. Why? Because Earth's gravity field in Texas is around 10 milligals weaker than Earth's geoid baseline, which as per w=mg pendantically means that it was easier for you to lift, "all other factors equal". True, the real-world difference in weight from this is so small that it is effectively meaningless, but from a pendantic "all other factors equal" perspective that you've been hanging your hat on, it is absolutely true. > > And the older they get, the more often they'll be satisified with their > > teaching simply covering the annual cost of their liability Insurance. > > He's the owner. "How do you make a million dollars in the scuba industry? Start with two million." > >There's plenty to be learned here, but it takes a certain aptitude and > >willingness to see the forest for the trees in this written medium. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I suggest you take your own advice. I already am, for I've been able to control my temper. For example, despite repeated provocations, I've not had to stoop to being rude or spout profanities, and I'm continuing to stay on point. > >Scuba diving is not a competition. > > > Hehe, it certainly sounds like it is to you people. The Agencies and Diveshops have a fundamental conflict of interest between "education" and "sales", since a stricter training class will result in a smaller consumer base who will buy goods and services. The participants here aren't trying to sell you anything. Decide for yourself which one to trust. -hh > I already am, for I've been able to control my temper. For example, despite repeated provocations, I've not had to stoop to being rude or > spout profanities, and I'm continuing to stay on point. The big question is - WHY? I have my popcorn and diet soda, and am ready for a good, ole-fashioned, "computers or tables" style rec.scuba beatdown, and I get... reason and moderation? I want my money back!!! Still very bored, V. >> I already am, for I've been able to control my temper. For example, > despite repeated provocations, I've not had to stoop to being rude or >> spout profanities, and I'm continuing to stay on point. > > The big question is - WHY? simple. he did not want to stoop to the blowhard level. jh is a one way source of hot air. no listening on his part. > I have my popcorn and diet soda, and am ready for a good, > ole-fashioned, "computers or tables" style rec.scuba beatdown, and I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Still very bored, > V. >> >And it is "during the workout" (ie, going on a real dive) where the >> >"all other factors being equal" is not only not equal anymore, but we [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >comparisons using basal matabolisms are invalid. Remember this the >first time you're trying to fight against a 0.5 knot current. So, a lifter's BMR will be raised above that of sedentary diver. When they both hit the current, both of their oxygen needs will be raised. >For example, go perform the following experiment: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >narrow and a second order factor (variable), so it is not particularly >relevant when applied to real-world recreational diving. So, when all you guys with years and years of diving get together and go on a fun dive, how much does your air consumption vary and who uses the most air? >> >> >> BTW, during my fun dive, the 6'3"+, 350 pound+ experienced diver >> >> >> was the first and only one to start running low on air yesterday. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >demonstrated because of the uncontrolled & unquantified variables known >to be present. I know that but his dive was much shorter than ours and he burned through the most air. I just thought it was interesting and wasn't attempting to use that as any sort of controlled experiment. >> >Sorry, but that message from you wasn't being articulated. If that's >> >what you intended to say, then you were unsuccessful. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Telling you that your claim is irrelevant is "changing the subject"? Irrelevant? A group of diving students with nearly the same amount of experience and comfort in the water isn't a good control group for air consumption? >> >You are the transmitter. Now are you going to take responsibility for >> >this, or to try to continue to blame it on the rest of the world? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >true but is nevertheless irrelevant in the context of real world, day >to day, diving practices? Again, when all of you folks with 1000s of dives get together for fun dives, who is using the most air? >> >FYI, you do realize that it is very natural for new divers to have a >> >case of hero worship for their instructor, right? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >you taking dive training you're showing that you have ambition to learn >the skills he has. Uhmm, I don't work that way. Just ask my training partners. >> >a) Go check PADI's website for if a person is required to have a High >> >School diploma to become qualified to be a Dive Instructor. While [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Sounds like hero worship :-) No, a fact. >And yes, the training standards have changed over that period of time. >Not for the better, unfortunately. Which is what I've discovered with my research. >> The fact of the matter is, I'm right and you are a f.cking moron. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >but the fact of the matter is that you don't know enough yet to know >what's important and what's not. And again, all other things being equal, the guy with the most bioactive tissue is going to use the most air. >> >d) Even if your instructor does literally (vs figuratively) have a >> >1000 dives and so forth, versus some of the people who have already [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >People with 10K dives are exceedingly rare. How about his name, so we >can cross-compare it to DEMA's list? I'm not dragging his name into it. I'm sure you could find it if you did enough research. >> Your reading comprehension is just >> for sh.t. I said he has trained over 1000 divers. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the "all other things equal" is merely an intellectual construct that >does not exist in the real world. Well, try it with your very experienced buddies. Get the largest guy with 1000s of dives and the smallest woman with 1000s of dives and go dive a reef together and report back. That will be close enough to all other things being equal. >For example, consider your recent weightlifting competition in Texas. >>From an strictly *pedantic* view, your official lift weights were >overestimated. Why? Because Earth's gravity field in Texas is around >10 milligals weaker than Earth's geoid baseline, which as per w=mg >pendantically means that it was easier for you to lift, "all other >factors equal". Which is why the weights are figured in kilograms, which is a unit of mass:-) >True, the real-world difference in weight from this is so small that it >is effectively meaningless, but from a pendantic "all other factors >equal" perspective that you've been hanging your hat on, it is >absolutely true. Do the experiment above. >> > And the older they get, the more often they'll be satisified with their >> > teaching simply covering the annual cost of their liability Insurance. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >despite repeated provocations, I've not had to stoop to being rude or >spout profanities, and I'm continuing to stay on point. If I were to be rude, I'd tell you to go f.ck your mother with a broken Coke bottle. It's the standard expression for that sort of thing in MFW. >> >Scuba diving is not a competition. >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Decide for yourself which one to trust. Myself. > >For example, consider your recent weightlifting competition in Texas. > >>From an strictly *pedantic* view, your official lift weights were [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Which is why the weights are figured in kilograms, which is a unit of > mass:-) You obviously flunked physics. >> >For example, consider your recent weightlifting competition in Texas. >> >>From an strictly *pedantic* view, your official lift weights were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >You obviously flunked physics. Unbelievable! A kilogram is a unit of mass whereas a pound is a unit of weight, which factors in forces like gravity. A 25 kilo plate has a mass of 25 kilos whether it be in outer space or on your toe. A 45 pound plate is nearly weightless in outer space but it weighs 45 pounds while residing on your toe. Granted, the mass will be the same for the 45 both places and that 25 kilo plate will weigh about 55 pounds on your toe. Perhaps you missed the smiley or perhaps you are just stupid. > >> >For example, consider your recent weightlifting competition in Texas. > >> >>From an strictly *pedantic* view, your official lift weights were [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > pounds on your toe. Perhaps you missed the smiley or perhaps you are > just stupid. Um, the smiley is there because you think you're being clever. Do you really think that labeling weights in kilograms instead of pounds changes the effect of gravitional differences? >> >> >For example, consider your recent weightlifting competition in Texas. >> >> >>From an strictly *pedantic* view, your official lift weights were [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >really think that labeling weights in kilograms instead of pounds >changes the effect of gravitional differences? Do you really think the miniscule gravitational differences between Texas and Minnesota, when one has 540 pounds on their back, makes one iota of difference to the lift or the lifter? > >> Unbelievable! A kilogram is a unit of mass whereas a pound is a unit > >> of weight, which factors in forces like gravity. A 25 kilo plate has [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Texas and Minnesota, when one has 540 pounds on their back, makes one > iota of difference to the lift or the lifter? Of course not, which was Hugh's original point. For someone with your diving experience, bioactive body mass is a three sigma factor in air comsumption. You use a lot of air because you're overly excited, you thrash about much more than necessary and, in general, you don't know what you're doing (kind of like the teenage boy. Do you get it now?). Your instructor, a veteran of many, many egos like you, agrees with you that muscle bound guys use a lot of air because it shuts you up and is much easier for you to swallow than the truth (he's also veteran enough to know that business comes first, and if bruises your ego too much you won't spend money in his shop). We, who have no such commercial restraints, and who enjoy popping overinflated egos, simply point out the truth (and have a damn good time doing it :-). As for the weight/mass thing you're saying, or at least implying, that because you measure your dumbbells in a unit of mass instead of a unit of weight (or to be more correct, a unit of force), you somehow negate differences in "a" (for f=ma). The last time I checked, the sport was called "weightlifting" instead of "masslifting" for a good reason. >> >> Unbelievable! A kilogram is a unit of mass whereas a pound is a unit >> >> of weight, which factors in forces like gravity. A 25 kilo plate has [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >thrash about much more than necessary and, in general, you don't know >what you're doing (kind of like the teenage boy. Do you get it now?). Actually, I don't use a lot of air. As I mentioned earlier, my dive buddy last Thursday said we used about the same amount of air. We are also close to the same size with him being taller. I have more muscle mass but he has more than normal from being the martial artist, I presume. But, that is beside the point as your analogy is not even close to what I asked of Lee. >Your instructor, a veteran of many, many egos like you, agrees with you >that muscle bound guys use a lot of air because it shuts you up and is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >restraints, and who enjoy popping overinflated egos, simply point out >the truth (and have a damn good time doing it :-). See, you again know nothing in which you speak of. He was addressing the class and mentioned air consumption and how women and small people tend to use less air and that large men and those with a lot of muscle mass tend to use more air...as well as smokers. It was basically a lecture after returning from the pool on the last day. Nobody in the class mentioned it nor did they pose any question. >As for the weight/mass thing you're saying, or at least implying, that >because you measure your dumbbells in a unit of mass instead of a unit >of weight (or to be more correct, a unit of force), you somehow negate >differences in "a" (for f=ma). The last time I checked, the sport was >called "weightlifting" instead of "masslifting" for a good reason. I don't compete in weightlifting, dumbfuck. I compete in powerlifting. It just goes to again prove that you have no reading comprehension whatsoever. <snip> > See, you again know nothing in which you speak of. He was addressing > the class and mentioned air consumption and how women and small people > tend to use less air and that large men and those with a lot of muscle > mass tend to use more air...as well as smokers. It was basically a > lecture after returning from the pool on the last day. Nobody in the > class mentioned it nor did they pose any question. My instructor said it had to do more with lung size. Small people typically have smaller lungs, and hence will draw less air from the tank, than larger people. Keep the respiration rate the same, and the person inhaling the largest volume of air will use the air in the tank fastest. Dennis > <snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Keep the respiration rate the same, and the person inhaling the largest > volume of air will use the air in the tank fastest. I use more air when I'm tired. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message