Guest viewing is limited
  • Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:

    • Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
    • Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
    • Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
    • Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
    • All this and much more...

    You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!

The relationship between dynamic apnea and depth?

Thread Status: Hello , There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.

BeginnerSpear

New Member
Aug 5, 2010
14
0
0
So the most basic thinking is that if one can swim a 100m dynamic, then they can dive to 50m and return safely. Of course we know that is not the case. Not having a lot of time to train in the ocean (winter in New England... brr) I have been swimming laps fairly regularly, mainly just to cure the winter boredom. For those of you that swim dynamics and depth regularly, what is the relationship? Do any of you have extremely poor dynamics but can descend to impressive depths, like some that have terrible dry statics but are also great divers?
 
Well, the relationship is very individual and varies widely, but if you want to know the average ratios based on +30,000 competition results, then they are as follows:

Men:
CWT = 49.7% of DYN
CNF = 53,7% of DNF

Women:
CWT = 44.0% of DYN
CNF = 49.3% of DNF
 
  • Like
Reactions: mystiach
Hahah well there we go, it doesn't get much more accurate than that. A quick clarification, though. The constant weight with fins, for example, is 50% the dynamic. Does that mean that those divers (for example) swam to a depth of 50m and a dynamic of 100m? So their total "distance" swam in constant weight was essential 100m? Or did a 100m dynamic correlate to a 25m descent and back to the surface?

Thanks Trux!
 
A quick clarification, though. The constant weight with fins, for example, is 50% the dynamic. Does that mean that those divers (for example) swam to a depth of 50m and a dynamic of 100m?
I compared the performances - it means distance at dynamic disciplines with depth at depth disciplines. Converted into distance-to-distance (or points-to-points) ratios, it would be as follows:

Men:
CWT distance = 99.4% of DYN distance
CNF distance = 107.4% of DNF distance

Women:
CWT distance = 88.0% of DYN distance
CNF distance = 98.6% of DNF distance

Myself, I was a bit surprised that the ratios are so close to 100% (or even over 100% at CNF/DNF males). At experienced competitors mastering equalizing techniques properly, the ratio is to be expected quite a bit over 100% (thanks to the sink phase). However, I though the ratio would be rather deep below 90% in the overall average because there are many freedivers who are limited by equalizing problems, and not by the breath-hold. The higher ratios ad CNF/DNF confirm that, but still the high ratios (especialy at men) surprised me a bit.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting stuff. Thanks! Yes, I figured the sink phase would have a big impact (for example, those with abnormally long static breath holds would be able to really capitalize on this phase) but again you are facing some resistance coming up. Equalization at a competition level seems like it shouldnt be much of a factor, however, at depth it certainly because much more difficult and potentially energy consuming, if for no reason other than the lack of relaxation.

Thanks again!
 
Any other useful stats easily available as comparison against other disciplines?

Statics / dyn / CWT? or not usefull due to spread of data?

Thanks

Gav
 
Any other useful stats easily available as comparison against other disciplines?

Statics / dyn / CWT? or not usefull due to spread of data?
Well, yes, there are plenty of stats, and multitude of diverse reports in the competition ranking database at APNEA.cz ranking

The STA / DYN / CWT averages are as follows:
men: 280s / 104.3m / 50m
women: 241s / 96.8m / 42.6m
 
Can you do the same but disregard all cwt results of say, less than 60m. Because after those depths equalization and freefall start to play a bigger role, I would expect the ratios to be quite different. But would be interesting to see none the less.
 
I think it's not a surprise. If we master equalisation and can freefall relaxed, we consume less oxygen, but on the other hand, we have a lot of glide during DNF. What I think it's crucial, deep down there our dive response is much stronger if You compare it with 1m deep pool :)
 
Very interesting thread ! I agree with mattbigblue. When you do deep dives your dive response is much stronger. In the pool you have to consume oxygen with relaxation, etc while in a depth discipline relaxation is also crucial but on top of that you have a (strong) dive response. When doing a cwt or cnf you are also only moving the first +- 25m and during the ascent.
 
Assuming Trux has simply taken the mean performance for each discipline (?), I think those ratios say more about participation and logistics than they do about performance potential in the respective disciplines. I would've said that CNF is much, much harder than DNF. I certainly see Will's 101m CNF as a bigger achievement than either of my DNF records (NR & WR are different).

The pool events are much cheaper, easier and lower risk than the depth events. This lends them to lower performances - people often start out in the pool and only tackle depth disciplines (especially CNF) if and when they become fairly proficient. That first part of the learning curve may not be adequately represented in the official CNF results, as it is for the DNF results.

The rules will also have an effect. Divers can record short distances in the pool and still get white cards, because they can nominate much lower than their target. In depth disciplines, nomination = target and you either hit it or get penalised/DQd. Nominations tend to be ambitious because of the large investment of time, money and effort to get yourself there in the first place, so would on average be a better representation of divers' potential.

What are the standard deviations for each of those disciplines, Trux? I expect SD for the pool events will be quite high (beginners to advanced), whereas the depth events will be clustered more tightly around the mean (intermediate to advanced). Bit of a stab in the dark though so it'll be interesting to see the real numbers :)
 
Last edited:
On the other hand, I like those ratios. I should be doing 114m CNF and 142m CWT!
 
Yes, sure there are many different ways the stat's can be done. The numbers listed above are just simple averages of all performances in given disciplines. More properly I should only take performances of competitors who competed in both depth and dynamic disciplines. Or better, not using all their performances, but just their PB's or annual PB's. I should also exclude shallow dives, as Jome wrote, since those are apparently limited by the technique or equalizing. There are also many other parameters that could be fine tuned, and I am sure the result would wildly vary depedning on the choice. But anyway, it won't tell to anyone how deep he/she can dive. As I wrote in my initial answer, the ratios are very much individual. I gave the average numbers, because I had them at the hand. Of course, I can prepare more complex analysis reports (and if I'll have some free time on my hands, I may indeed do it), but still it won't help anyone finding their limits. You better go and test them out, than trying to calculate them :)
 
It's this bit that I disagree with:

At experienced competitors mastering equalizing techniques properly, the ratio is to be expected quite a bit over 100% (thanks to the sink phase)

I think that, per metre, one should expect CNF to be substantially harder than DNF. No pushoffs in CNF, little power available to overcome +ve and -ve buoyancy, more strokes overall and each of those strokes is more powerful.
 
It's this bit that I disagree with:
I think that, per metre, one should expect CNF to be substantially harder than DNF. No pushoffs in CNF, little power available to overcome +ve and -ve buoyancy, more strokes overall and each of those strokes is more powerful.
Well, it depends. For example at Will Trubridge the CNF/DNF ratio is 116.1%. So stop searching excuses and show us you can do a 135m CNF dive!
 
Shh, I'm trying to keep my CNF prowess a secret! So far, nobody suspects a thing...

I reckon Will would back me up here, despite the fact his official performances buck the trend I'm trying to establish. He only dabbled a bit in competition-style DNF for the world champs.
 
Joking aside, the ratios really vary so much that is is pointless focusing on it too much. There is a big number of top competitors with the CNF/DNF ratio over 100% (i.e. Molchanov, Winram, Nery, Maldame, Daic,...) as well as there are many with the ratio quite deep below 100%. Personally, I think too that CNF is more difficult than DNF, but it does not always show up so in the results.
 
Last edited:
DeeperBlue.com - The Worlds Largest Community Dedicated To Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing

ABOUT US

ISSN 1469-865X | Copyright © 1996 - 2025 deeperblue.net limited.

DeeperBlue.com is the World's Largest Community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving, Ocean Advocacy and Diving Travel.

We've been dedicated to bringing you the freshest news, features and discussions from around the underwater world since 1996.

ADVERT