First of all i want to give some background to my real question. Maybe this is a general accpted theory clinical, but it struck me when i was watching a tv-show featuring critical situations. A young man had been stuck under the snow for nearly twenty minutes without air. For a long time I have been thinking in terms that the diving response(DR) is really a survival response(SR) Evolutionary it seems more plausible that human beeings have a SR rtather than a DR. Despite the fact that I stand behind the "aquatic ape hypothesis" to some extent it seem to be a simpler explanation that the response we are talking about and are trying to train is a result from natural selection originating from the fact that humans with their large brains and wits tend to subject themselves to various situations that result in disaster.
A human beeing must be able to cope with situations where they cannot save themselves by other means than blacking out and saving crucial oxygen. To me it seems unlikely that humans have evolved under such extreme situations enabling us to go past 100m CWT and 200m NLT and STA +10 mins. I agree that we most likely are descendants from some sort of aquatic apes, but never the kind of apes that expose themselves to depts past 30m. We may have evolved to stay in the "wet environment" but the response is really a way to cope with accidents when they occur.
No matter what you think of my background speculation I have a question to which i wish to hear your thoughts.
When I first heard about the young man that had been buried under the snow for twenty minutes, my ego kicked in. The thought that I as a freediver with the ability to hold my breath past six minutes would cope with oxygen deprivation much better than the average person, then I started to think.
Wouldn´t it be likely that I or any other freediver would stay concious for a longer time and spend more oxygen than an ordinary person? The ordinary person may blackout and go into the natural extreme version of the SR-mode erlier than a freediver who is trained to use the early part of the SR/DR in their sport and to stay concious and produce results. On the other hand would a freediver be trained to exist under low oxygen conditions and have a greater buffer system than an untrained person. My question to you all is really;
Is a freediver more or less fit to survive a disater? Probably more, but wouldn´t it be bad to delay the blackout?
A human beeing must be able to cope with situations where they cannot save themselves by other means than blacking out and saving crucial oxygen. To me it seems unlikely that humans have evolved under such extreme situations enabling us to go past 100m CWT and 200m NLT and STA +10 mins. I agree that we most likely are descendants from some sort of aquatic apes, but never the kind of apes that expose themselves to depts past 30m. We may have evolved to stay in the "wet environment" but the response is really a way to cope with accidents when they occur.
No matter what you think of my background speculation I have a question to which i wish to hear your thoughts.
When I first heard about the young man that had been buried under the snow for twenty minutes, my ego kicked in. The thought that I as a freediver with the ability to hold my breath past six minutes would cope with oxygen deprivation much better than the average person, then I started to think.
Wouldn´t it be likely that I or any other freediver would stay concious for a longer time and spend more oxygen than an ordinary person? The ordinary person may blackout and go into the natural extreme version of the SR-mode erlier than a freediver who is trained to use the early part of the SR/DR in their sport and to stay concious and produce results. On the other hand would a freediver be trained to exist under low oxygen conditions and have a greater buffer system than an untrained person. My question to you all is really;
Is a freediver more or less fit to survive a disater? Probably more, but wouldn´t it be bad to delay the blackout?
