Beyond 6:30 in static apnea

[efattah]

Any person who develops thick enough blood, and a slow enough metabolism, should be able to do over 5 minutes on a FULL EXHALE. I think every person, even if they only have a 5L lung capacity, has the ability to do over 9 minutes at least, on a full inhale. This is easily shown by using real-world examples of blood volume, hematocrit, low O2 tolerance, metabolic rate, and so on.

Remember that children have gone underwater and remained there for over 40 minutes without brain damage. Don't say that they had HUGE lungs and great training...! This just shows the effect of body temperature, and decreased brain metabolism (since children's brains consume much less O2 than an ordinary 'awake' adult brain).

The minimum metabolic rate for mammals has been calculated. If you do the math, and take a fit person with big lungs, the theoretical limit for static is over 6 hours without loss of consciousness. So, to say that you can 'never reach 8 minutes' is definitely false.

Only a few years from now the record will be over 10 minutes and most people will be playing with 8 minutes rather than 6.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada

[xsaul]

HI Gang,

Just thought I'd check in. I spend most of my time on Christianfreedivers--looking for a dive buddy now....I am learning more of the sport.
8+. Tyler, I'm impressed. I like unorthodox techniques, too--'specially since I had to teach myself--'cause I grew up not knowing what freediving was--I thought I was just swimmin' underwater alot--LOL!
Water Rat

[ivan]

Originally posted by efattah


Only a few years from now the record will be over 10 minutes and most people will be playing with 8 minutes rather than 6.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada

I also believe the record will go over 10mins in the near future the question is who do ya reckon its gonna be !!!

cheers

[cebaztian]

Now we´re talking.

Thanks for your input Tylerz (8 min guy). You seem to have had a quick progress. Do you think you might have a genetic talent (apart from beeing dedicated in exploring preparation methods e t c).

There is a gene called DD. It is present in 25% of us. BUT the former east german swim athletes had this gene in 50% of them. It has something to do with bloodpressure. Could there be genes that promotes breathholding.

So to conclude; cardiotraining is not that important (Although Tyler you seem to have a quite low heartrate). May we know your VC and height, weight?
Actual training with 02 and CO2 levels seem more important.

I think (after paying attention to Eric F) that food is more important than what most freedivers think. Having the right nutrition in the blood. I have experimented with this and have had good results (although there are so many factors that are influencing so I am not really sure).

I am having a small club competition this evening and I have already broken some of my own rules: no meat (protein) 1-2 days before, since it takes longer for the stomach to break down.

And yes Eric, I have a lack of faith. In theory I should do better. But I dont see how - I can hold my breath till I faint - and I am getting worried about long term damage.

Sebastian /Sweden

[bobbybuttr]

I can hold my breath till I faint - and I am getting worried about long term damage.

I heard that the part of the brain used in worrying is the first to go, so you must still be okay. I’m kidding of course, but who knows, there maybe some truth to it. The only time I ever blacked out, I wasn’t worried about anything for the rest of the day. Reminded me of my teenage days and smoking that Mary Jane stuff. Of course those days were long ago!
Bobby

[tylerz]

With very rough tests it looks like my VC might be somewhere between 6-7.3L . I have not checked for a long time, however I think packing influences your lung volume a significant amount. I have not been doing pack stretches for a long time, so I am probably at the lower end at this point. My height is 6'1" and weight fluxuates regularly between 160-170lbs.

To be blunt I think it is the worst thing to wonder/believe that somebody has a genetic advantage. I have no clue of whether I have such a thing. If a large percentage of us could check this, then it would not be so bad because we would all know the truth and work from that. However, not having this ability to determine whether we have a genetic advantage means that speculating on whether somebody does or does not is completely meaningless. More importantly it is a strongly negative influence on beginners and all those who are not achieving the current highest results. That does not mean that everybody else won't keep trying but it does mean that some percentage will be influenced to what degree they believe in their ability and to what degree they put effort/exploration into the activity. This may all be for naught, since there may not be a gene, or genes, in the first place. So until it is for sure, I think there is no point in assuming so.

So why not just assume we are all on an equal playing field and be insistent with ourselves to explore everything we can imagine. After all as Eric has suggested and others, we are babies at this in comparison to Yogis. Our current bests are probably nothing, compared to our potential.

I find the reality of the situation is that it doesn't matter what activity/hobby/art one performs, most individuals want to claim those who excel were born to do it, were geniuses, have a gift, have genetics, etc... But I think this is farthest from the truth. I think that is the lazy persons way of finding a lie to believe in, so they can stay lazy. Lazy being the human's natural tendency (and most animals) to not do more than necessary if it does not bring great fruits easily. I have been hearing this all my life and watched people who could have done anything, do nothing. Meanwhile they always think I am nuts because I do SO many things.

The other funny thing is, let's say, the people who have the best results currently, do have a genetic advantage... what does that mean for those who do not have the best results? Are they the ones without the genetics? How would we know? At some point the person with genetics would have not had the best as well? Maybe we should be asking if the people with current bests have also had slumps! Have they had struggles? Have there been times when they doubted their ability to proceed? Have there been walls? Has their been fear? Etc.... I speculate then, we would see how similar and likely it is that we are all on a fairly even playing ground here.

So to conclude I know that maybe the genetics thing was brought up out of its own exploration, but I have seen it coming up often lately and I have felt this warning growing in me. The people who want to believe, "those at the top have genetic advantages", will do so anyhow, so be it, but lets not encourage those that would not think of that to believe it as well. There is no answer to that for now, so I personally think we should just let it go, due to its negative impact.

Cheers,

Tyler

[fpernett]

I have to agree with Tyler, who really know the human potential?.
The genetics are only a part, but I think the main part in human achievements is the will. I remember a film called GATTACA. It was similar, the persons were precluded of some activities because their genetic material was not appropriate.
I can't imagine me telling a little boy, that no matter how he try to do something, he's "genetically" unable for that task. We all are bonfires to be burn.

[efattah]

Even if genetics were important, maybe it wouldn't be the end anyway. I remember reading of some study which found that under certain conditions, people and/or animals could effect changes in their own DNA. So, perhaps visualizing that you have huge lungs eventually will change your DNA.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada

[pat fish]

i don't agree with the statement that having a heart rate of 50 bpm isn't to be seen as a genetic advantage under the conditions of no training in an "advanced way". 50 bpm lies significantly under the average persons heart rate. in terms of long statics this seems to be a genetic advantage...

i consider the two factors aerobic fitness (be it genetic or thanks to training) and relaxation ability to be the key factors for long static times.

yours pat

[cdavis]

Tyler,

I agree totally with you that the perception (or reality) of someone else's genetic advantage is a ridiculous thing to stop anyone from going for it "to the max" My observation is that hard work is always much more important than natural gifts. That said, genetics does play a role and it seems unreasonalbe to ignore that fact. For example, your lungs are considerably larger than mine. That represents an advantage, at least a portion of which is almost certainly geneticly influenced. I may be able to overcome that advantage if I work harder than you, but that doesn't affect the reality of advantage in that one, narrow (but significant) factor.

Speaking of stretch/packing affecting VC, I have been keeping track of my VC over the last few months while stretch/packing. It sees to be increasing. Has anyone kept any records to show progressive increase in VC over time? Results?

Connor

[tylerz]

To clarify some misinterpretations:

I did not say or attempt to imply the statement, "having a heart rate of 50 bpm isn't to be seen as a genetic advantage under the conditions of no training in an "advanced way"."

The context that this mis-quote is referring to is that I have not done advanced training in the normal sense. I did mention that I had done intense cardio as a youngster. What I didn't specify in my reference to continual outdoors activity, is that I push myself harder than the average in hiking and have most likely retained my endurance benefits from when I was young. I did mention I do Yoga, relaxation, and meditation which technically could be called training as well, although I was doing these prior to diving. I was using the sense of not training to mean that we had not participated in cardio and muscle training targetted towards diving/apnea. I also specified that my heart-rate is less than 50bpm mainly at key times of the day, when the body is not active. So mid-day when a doctor would test your heart-rate, I would probably have a 52-56 bpm. I will try to determine this more accurately over the next few weeks. So hopefully this clarifies this mis-quote.

The statement "your lungs are considerably larger than mine" referring to there are differences in genetics relating to apnea, is out of context from what I was referring to and what the person I was responding to, was referring to. We were talking about unknown genetic advantages, or at least that is what I understood. The main point that I was trying to suggest was, "why suggest there is unknown genetic advantages?" There is no positive value to this until we can actually work on the possibility of an actual genetic advantage to an end understanding. I do not think we are there yet, until there is some huge interest in funding such research.

Of course on the other hand we can already guarantee there will be genetic advantages and millions of them. Everybody will have a whole bunch of them. This guy has 5% more blood cells, she has more buffers, he has less skin, she has a smaller heart, he has... well I better stop there. Anyhow my point is I think we were also referring to large % genetic advantages. Meaning every one of us has a unique body so we all have a host of differences that are advantages for the same thing, but the overall summation of those advantages leaves most of us on the same field. So I hope when we are talking about genetic advantages we are on the same wave-length when we limit it to large quantitative advantages or large ratio of advantages.

I totally agree that lung volume on its own can be seen as an individual genetic advantage, determinant factor in assessing outcome or not.

Hope that clarifies those.

Cheers

[ivan]

hi

I have kept records of my FVC since I did my first Scuba diving medical back in 2000 I had a FVC recorded back then of 4.8L. I did a lot of pack stretching throughout 2002 but did not get a medical done in that year. In 2003 I did a small amount of pack stretching and packing but only minimal comapred to 2002, at the very end of 2003-2004 I had a series of FVC tests done over roughly a month The "best" FVC I have had recorded is 7.53L these were all done on the same machine however you can say I cheated for the 7.53L test becasue I did quite a bit of Max packing and pack stretching before I went into the Doc to see how far I could go.

However in another thread a guy said that showed through his results that there was a big difference between a FVC reading and a VC reading so I don't know what my VC is probably significantly less than 7.53L FVC

[cdavis]

Thanks Andrew, music to my ears. My numbers don't look that good (yet) but the directlion sure looks right.

Tyler, I think we are on the same wave length, sorry if I misunderstood the context.

Thanks again

Connor

[efattah]

First of all, heart rate means very little for static. Cardiac output is more accurate.

My friends will testify first hand that on several recent 6'40" - 7'00" wet statics, my heart rate was 107bpm for the first half or so. In fact, the first time I ever went over 7'00", my resting heart rate was around 78-80, and my heart rate was well over 100 for more than half of the breath-hold.

Lung volume is only a limiting factor when you practice 'poor-man's static', which is what most of us do. If you use the yogi method of blocking the contractions, your metabolic rate decreases exponentially, and the end result is a geometric series which probably never converges.

For example, using the yogi method, your heart rate decreases as your lack of oxygen increases. This is common even in the poor-man's method, but in the poor man's method, your heart rate bottoms out eventually, whereas in the yogi method there is no limit to the minimum heart rate. For that reason, there is not even any reason to take a full breath, because in so doing you are just delaying the hypoxia (and the HR drop) anyway.

I will give yet another example. If lung volume were that important, then why is it that Hubert Maier of Germany, who has 14L lungs, cannot hold his breath for more than 7 minutes? How is it that people with lungs of less than 7L can beat him? Sebastien Murat has 13L lungs and a resting HR of 35, and is still in the 8-minute-something zone. I pack significantly more air than Tyler and yet Tyler consistently beats me in dry static.

I fully believe that anyone who blames their own inability on poor genetics is just trying to find some reason to satisfy their own confusion as to their lack of progress. Have faith, experiment, practice, and improve.

Personally, if I must comment on genetics, I would say that my genetics are not favourable. However, I don't use that excuse as a means of explaining away why I can't perform. I have competed in many sports and activities, and I rarely (if ever) have beat anyone at their own game, using the same methods. Invariably, the times I have won, I did so because I was inventive and came up with different methods. So, perhaps a genetic disadvantage in physiology is made up for by a genetic advantage in creativity? It all balances out in the end.


Eric Fattah
BC, Canada

[derelictp]

I think that the genetics for breatholding ability is very interesting in a scientific point of view BUT for the athlete who struggles for better performance it's better to belive that everybody is on the same genetic level.

Eric- your last conclusion about that all balances in the end is the same experience that I have made during over 20 years of training/competing in sports. Often the ones with good genetics can be lazy and vice versa. The "winner" in the end seems to be the one with the strongest willpower....