Defining freediving

[wet]

Per Benny, efficient freediving is efficient duckdiving. I'd thought sea otter style diving/backfloating would be included in the definition of freediving, but now I'm wondering if Benny and others would consider that as improper form.

Is duckdiving the form of freediving? Ducks never backfloat, neither do dolphins, chimps, seals, diving macaques, diving Allen's swamp monkeys, scuba divers, submarines.

Only humans, marine otters and sea otters backfloat and alternatively dive. So is this not freediving then?


re. Sept. 21, 2009 note from BennyB at Diving and Surfacing efficiently thread:

"In the moderator's opinion ...the context of a freediving forum, ie. in freediving discussions, the term diving and surfacing efficiently typically refers to a freediver leaving the surface efficiently (for example a good duck dive) and returning efficiently (eg. ascent speed, releasing air etc)".

-

Just trying to clarify matters.

 

[Bill McIntyre]

Freediving means diving while holding your breath, period. It doesn't matter how you float on the surface.

The passage you quoted was in the context of doing it efficiently.

 

[podge]

Like Bill has said “efficiently”
It doesn’t matter how you get under the water as long as you do, as soon as you’re under the surface and holding your breath then your freediving.
Some just do it with a tad more grace than others, I’ve been known to duck dive with the grace of a champion were my fins glide down through the same hole in the water as my head had made and without a sound or hardly a ripple and on other days I’ve gone in off the side of my boat with a belly flop that would make a hippo proud, on all occasions I count myself as a freediver.

 

[wet]

Freediving = breath hold diving = apnea diving

Yes, that's what I had thought.
Ok, so the word 'efficiently' obviously requires a contextual base.

Duck diving can be done smoothly or splashily per descent, but that has nothing to do with what my thread was about, which was the optimized consistency (= efficiency) of the overall dive foraging cycle which would include numerous descents, ascents and brief backfloating surface rests.

My original thread 'Diving and Surfacing efficiently' was specifically referring to maintaining high efficiency (metabolic, hydrodynamic, physiological) continuously throughout the diving-foraging cycle series without technological assists (boats, floats, snorkels) and avoiding calorie-costly continuous treading.

In this context, a single super smooth max depth descent/ascent would not be significant, while many smooth optimum depth descents/ascents would be significant as long as they were separated by efficient rest phases.

Anyway, doesn't seem to matter, just wanted to clarify.

 

[Bill McIntyre]

Then it appears that your title was ill-chosen.

 

[wet]

Which title?

'Diving and Surfacing efficiently' precisely describes what I was talking about, within the Freediving Science subdivision of Freediving section of Deeper Blue diving forum.

If I'd have put it in the SCUBA, Freediving Photography, Freediving Competition, Spearhunting forums, then it would have been construed in very different terms, but I didn't, as it isn't part of those disciplines.

Perhaps best would have been 'Diving and Surfacing efficiently in the context of tropical partnered dive foraging with limited technology'. But that would have been a long title.

 

[Bill McIntyre]

Which title?

The title of the thread. It turns out you didn't want a definition of freediving after all.

 

[trux]

David (wet), I think that the thread originally titled 'Diving and Surfacing efficiently' was renamed mainly for the following reasons:

1) It was in the freediving forum, hence people seeing the title assumed they can learn something about diving or surfacing more efficiently in the sport. Unfortunately most of your own posts had no relation to diving whatsoever. You used the thread as a depository for posting links and abstracts of all kind of information, often not even remotely related to your own highly speculative ARC hypothesis. The title was simply misleading, and the topic was not even respected by yourself.

2) You irritate many DB members by the way of your posting, not by the information you transmit. Personally, I enjoy reading wild and improbable alternative theories of any kind, and I admire creative minds, non-conformists, alternative thinking, or brain storming with wild ideas. Unlike some others, I do not mind listening to such people, and think that it can sometimes lead to unexpected results. So your ARC ideas or the AT hypothesis are definitely not something that I would refuse to read about.

The problem begins, when instead of presenting the ideas, you start claiming them facts without any evidence. When you permanently use language like: "they were backfloating", "they were humming and clicking to communicate underwater", "they used sound to detect obstacles underwater", "they used photic sneeze reflex for rapid exhale upon surfacing", etc. instead of appropriate formulations like "I speculate they were..", "I assume they...", "according to my hypothesis, they...", "they might have ...", etc.

You are simply selling your wild ideas for facts, and that's what will piss off anyone with at least a bit of reason. Please note that I never told that some of the ideas you claim for facts are not possible. Some of them are plain nonsense, but still fun to read (like the the hydrogen in gastric gas used for buoyancy, or the feet-forward swimming with crossed legs, and couple of others), but even at the ideas that are remotely possible, the simple fact that they are possible is no evidence, and no reason for claiming them true. Just present your ideas for what they are - speculations, hypothesis, possibilities, and sometimes just wishes or fantasies, but please refrain from presenting them as unshakable facts backed with strong evidence. They are not. You will find many more readers if you stop masking ideas for facts.

 

[GreekDiver]

not having to fill up your tanks

 

[DivingDane]

i dont think the issue with your definition of free diving eas a problem the tital od your thread was changed because it was misleading, the mojority of forum readers inlcuding myself were under the impression the thread was about technique on how to efficiently leave the surface and return to maximise our diving whether that be for max depth or recreation, not a discussion about theory relating to the potential origin of man and how it was related (ifiot indeed was) to diving. thats why the Title was changed so it gave a more honest representation of the content.

I agree with Trux on this one, you add a great deal of entertainment to this forum but that is about the extent of it in most cases, theories are interesting to read until they become a little crazy and are toted to being fact without any solid proof.

DD

 

[JennyWren]

'Diving and Surfacing efficiently' precisely describes what I was talking about

I think 'Underwater foraging efficiently' would have done a better job as your title. The efficiency you are describing is the efficiency of the entire system of foraging, not just the moments of diving from the surface, and returning to the surface. If I am understanding correctly (it's hard because I simply can't make it through all the material that's been posted and retain my sanity) you are using 'efficiently' to refer to the PROCESS of food collecting as a whole, not these elements of the process.

WRT your approach, posting articles, etc etc, I truly think you are doing more harm than good to the AT hypothesis. You are clearly knowledgable on the subject and have a keen interest in it. You'd be better off to present what you know in a way that encourages discussion which might lead to *support* of the theory, rather than ridicule of it.

You are wasting your knowledge and energy which could be better used with a simple change in your attitude and approach. Take a few moments each time you post an article to explain it, and show how it supports the theory. Be open to questions about the points each article raises, and do your best to form sound and valid arguments for why each article supports the theory.

You are currently being mocked here and losing any credibility you might be owed. It's a shame (though amusing). I can't see why you'd want to do things this way, but it's up to you.

 

[wet]

I forgot about this thread. I recall an old source referring to free diving as diving without an airhose, it originally included scuba, rebreather and apnea diving, but not surface snorkeling or hookah.

Competitive diving is a specialty within free diving, but does not define it generally, per my understanding.

Combined backfloating and diving cyclically (ARC diving) would also be a specialty within general free diving, viewed as a method of cooperative partnership foraging, best set within a non-competitive framework, minised use of modern technologies.

Although the hypothesized Aquaphotic respiratory cycle has abundant circumstantial evidence to support it (genetic, convergence, etc.), empirical evidence is yet forthcoming due to lack of a diving partner.

 

[JennyWren]

Although the hypothesized Aquaphotic respiratory cycle has abundant circumstantial evidence to support it (genetic, convergence, etc.), empirical evidence is yet forthcoming due to lack of a diving partner.

whut? I haven't had much coffee today....

 

[wet]

merely a note

 

[wet]

While at Miami Beach, I had a couple of photic sneezes, but while walking on shore, not diving. Marine iguanas also sneeze ashore, probably sun-triggered.

The waves interfere with restful backfloating, I had to tilt my head forward to keep water from going into the nostrils.

Last night while laying on my back, my right nostril nasal sinus cavity drained some saltwater, 2 days after diving at the beach. Surprisingly it smelled like a fresh ocean breeze, rather than stagnant or snotty. So although saltwater entered the sinuses and some immediately drained when upright or backfloating, photic sneezing did not leak any, sleeping the first night did not leak any, and normal walking did not leak any. What seems likely is that a slight low pressure zone (a partial vacuum) in the sinus cavity formed with soft tissue enclosing the entry hole in the bony sinus, (as often happens when sick and fluids accumulate in the sinuses), and only after a couple days did it leak, perhaps due to atmospheric pressure conditions.

Also, was reading a book by Brenda, a chapter discussed the dolphin center at Key Largo Florida, semi-wild but untrained dolphins come from the sea to a lagoon where autistic and disabled kids can play with them. She noted that she could hear the dolphins buzzing and whistling and feel the echolocation sonar while in the water (a boater wouldn't have the same experience), and that they would play if she was horizontal in the water (snorkeling) but not if she was upright vertical.

[That fits the proposed evolutionary pattern, initially hominoids foraging in shallow freshwater were upright waders and only surface-swam in seawater (not foraging) and probably never in contact with dolphins, then later archaic humans became saltwater divers (backfloat horizontal) in association with shallow-water cetaceans, then later when boats/nets were developed (vertical) Homo sapiens became hunters of cetaceans.]

 

[DivingDane]

Hi Wet

not sure what the change has been BUT your last 2 posts have a completly different vibe to them. huge improvement your discussing the points makes it much easier to read and consider.

thankyou.


DD

 

[wet]

Transmission is normal
Reception is apparently improving