Really good post Chris!

->And that, finally, gets my real question: since metabolisms vary all over
>the place, race to race (according to pharmaceutical revelations),
>individual to individual, lifestyle to lifestyle, then how can anyone make
>blanket statements about nutrition that are supposed to apply to everyone?



I for one, never said it should. The diets I have been talking about need to
be customized for each person---over a dozen variables effect carb and
protein intake levels in these diets, including metabolic rate, your sex,
present bodyfat levels, daily activity level, exercise regimen, aerobic
capacity, type of gym and aerobic workouts engaged in and how many per week,
carbohydrate tolerance, amount of sleep per day,  etc.
Giles does this, but can  NOT do it free, obviously.  So several on this
list began the good natured and productive discussion about the "next best
thing" to paying to have a custom diet created for your own unique biology.
This led to discussion of diets like the Zone, Atkins, high carb, low carb,
etc., some good as generic go ( Zone is not too bad as far as generic goes,
assuming you are close to "average" in your own biology), and some are
pretty bad  ---high carb being pretty bad for most on this list ( in that it
tends to promote fat creation in carbohydrate intolerant individuals, and
even in "normal" individuals without HUGE glycogen replenishment needs.

>For one diet scheme to work *for everyone*, we would all have to be the
>same! But we're not -- which is partly why we have the currently
>innumerable list of diet book/plans/products/disputes that we do.

Absolutely right.

>
>Tom tried to point out, repeatedly, that he has, after much research and
>trial and error, developed habits of eating and activity that work for him:
>personal preference -- that bugaboo which recognizes and accepts that,
>thankfully, we're all different.
>

As each person has unique needs in nutrition, Tom could well have found
something close to ideal for himself.  A quest for perfect nutrition and the
perfect physical training regimen, is a necessary part of being a REAL
athlete.

>We're not only looking at differences in metab., perhaps according to race,
>but also according to env. factors and concomitant lifestyle variables.
>
>A snack for a fit diver might be a bag of cheese puffs and a strawberry
>Yahoo -- while a Masai warrior might crunch a handful of berries and tap a
>nice warm pint of fresh beef blood direct from his keg-on-the-hoof -- and
>then maybe both the diver and the Masai go for a sushi pizza (hold the
>cheese) later? ;-)
>
>Can/should gross generalizations be made about what the Euro, the Inuit,
>and the Masai eat -- and their relative body fat levels -- and can we
>therefore determine who's a better diver/deco subject? Who's "fit"? Who'll
>live longer?
>

Gross generalizations about the diet of any culture will have very little
implications for the fitness needs of tech and cave divers on this list.
However, aerobic/ cardiovascular fitness levels, and the related bodyfat
levels will be "factors" in determining who's a better candidate for a long
deep exposure, with a minimal decompression time ( as opposed to a
saturation diving solution of giving each saturation diver many days to do
the deco).  We intend to PROVE this with the VO2max tests and chamber
results.  With the help of Morgan Wells, who has offered his assistance in
this project, and who believes firmly in the probabilities we have raised
regarding poor VO2max equating to a poor deco subject, we should have
scientific proof of of these issues within the next year ( even though much
of this should be intuitively aparrent.........I mean most Eskimos already
know this:-)).

>Women have more body fat -- yet they live longer. Does a woman who reduces
>her body fat live a shorter life?

Women require a higher bodyfat level than men.  If a man was healthy at 12%
bodyfat, the woman may require 17% to have the equivalent health, based on
the equilibriums related to bodyfat level.

The ARGUMENTS on this list have related to MUCH higher bodyfat levels----a
woman who was at 40% bodyfat would be very fat indeed, and NOT predisposed
to better health than a man at 12% bodyfat, if each was at the same
age---say 45 years old.  This fat woman would be "statistically" more likely
to live a longer life if she lost a great deal of her excess fat.
>
>If I remember correctly, this whole nutrition thread started out with body
>fat condemnation -- without regard to individual metab rates -- or what
>makes body fat harmful during deco.

Some people may have, but my whole issue related cardiovascular health, by
utilizing VO2max testing. This "indirectly" penalizes an obese person, since
the test scores the amount of oxygen they can process per kilo of body
weight.  In virtually all aerobic sports, this VO2max issue predicts
performance levels---a 400 pound guy who dreams about being a cyclist, can
get a VO2maxz test done, and see that his score is about 6 times lower than
that of a Tour de France rider----yet if he got down to a 12% bodyfat level,
which he could calculate, he could see this would set him to within range of
the tour riders.
Conceptually, the value for tech diving is that intense aerobic training
"CAUSES" many physiological adaptations.  A high VO2max score indicates
strongly that these adaptations have occurred. These adaptations will allow
the fit, high VO2max scoring diver to be an excellent deco subject, for
accelerated rate  trimix deco ( what we need to do in cave and tech diving)
.....A very low VO2max accompanied by very high bodyfat levels, will indicate
a very DIFFERENT set of adaptations, including , poor cardiovascular
functions, poor circulation, inability to process CO2 with anything close to
the ability of a fit diver at depth, and generally, the adaptations of a
sedentary and obese existance, should correlate well with both very low
VO2max scores, and with very poor accelerated deco ability.

We would expect to find a "RED Zone" if you will, of VO2 max values very low
for horribly obese, sedentary divers , which we correlate to a dangerous
incidence of DCS and CO2 buildup issues ---then we would have a NORMAL Zone,
which is exactly what it sounds like, and finally, for the ultra fit, we
would expect to find a Green Zone ( I named this for JJ :-)   high VO2max
scores show the best performance and lowest risk level in accelerated deco.
Agencies will be able to use this as a guide---as we will---if you got
certified as a "normal", then gained 50 pounds after your 2 month trip
overseas--eating nuttella and polish sausages like a hyperbaric swine....,
on your return, you VO2max test yourself, and realize you need to diet down
at least 30 of these 50 pounds to reach an acceptable level of safety for
your own risk assessment in deep diving. You get to use the test for your
own safety, as you ALREADY ARE A GOOD TECH DIVER. The newbie who knows
nothing yet of tech diving, will need to get out of the red zone, into the
normal zone, if on his initial certification test, he is guilty of being a
member of the "SEDENTARY OBESE."

Or is relative body fat merely an
>unreliable "indicator" -- of the person's excercise/metab. condition --
>which is still only a single variable out of many -- in a voodoo science?
>

Bodyfat is not nearly as reliable an indicator as is VO2max. With sufficient
chamber tests, the voodoo can be left to Gilliam for TDI ceremonies :-)

Regards,
Dan Volker
www.sfdj.com



--
Send mail for the `techdiver' mailing list to `techdiver@aquanaut.com'.
Send subscribe/unsubscribe requests to `techdiver-request@aquanaut.com'.

Navigate by Author: [Previous] [Next] [Author Search Index]
Navigate by Subject: [Previous] [Next] [Subject Search Index]

[Send Reply] [Send Message with New Topic]

[Search Selection] [Mailing List Home] [Home]