"

REVIEW OF DEEP
STOPS IN
TECHNICAL DIVING
Some comments I made on the old RebreatherWorld
Deep Stops Thread.
Note: These comments reflect the thinking I had a
couple of years ago. I have added a few references
for people can look up articles I mention. In the near
future I will post some comments on technical diving
research that has come available since then, and how
my personal practices have changed.

I’ve been asked in private communication if I would

use 40/70 for all of my technical diving. I thought it
might be worthwhile for me to talk about my journey
to my current thinking. Keep in mind that I am a
programmer and avid decompression diver. I am not a
decompression scientist. This is a personal, anecdotal,
Privacy - Terms

opinion.

I began doing open-circuit nitrox and trimix

decompression in the 90s. By the end of the 90s I had
a few rebreathers and was doing a lot of
decompression diving. I logged over 500 dives back
then, but I haven’t kept logs for the last 15 years. The
reason I mention my diving activity is for statistical
reasons. I have done, and still do, a lot of technical
diving. It is important to me whether my risk of
decompression injury is 1/1,000 or 1/10,000. From the
frequency of my DCS issues I would estimate that I
was somewhere in the 1/500 range. I have had several
minor DCS injuries over the years and I have probably
had a slight skin rash on my stomach 10 or more
times. I have been actively trying to back off the risk
but it has been challenging due to the lack of hard
data for our kind of diving. Scientists might refer to it
as bounce decompression diving as opposed to
saturation decompression diving.

Deep Stops in Technical

Diving: Yes or No?
I read Dr. Richard Pyle’s speculations, The importance
of deep safety stops: Rethinking ascent patterns from
decompression dives. and they made a lot of sense.
Deeper initial stops became quite common as a
practice, and also started appearing in computers
(VR3), tables, and desktop programs (VPM and GF).
The early implementation of VPM was apparently too
aggressive so it was modified with VPM-B and then
VPM-B/E. At that point, I thought all of the solutions
were about equally likely to be optimal. I watched
presentations by Dr. Bruce Wienke, and later by Dr.
Wayne Gerth on the value of deep stops. It all seemed
reasonable and the proponents made strong
statements in favor of deeper and longer stops.

Then the Navy did their study. I was at the UHMS

Deep Stops Workshop in Salt Lake City June 24-25,
2008 where the study was presented. It was a VERY
controversial meeting. Dr. Wienke presented his case
for deep stops and Dr. Gerth, who was also promoting
deep stops with Dr. Wienke a year earlier, was
presenting the Navy study. Dr. Gerth described the
findings and how the results did not support deep
stops, as he had expected.

Then it got interesting. We go to a lot of these

conferences, and when the microphones on the floor
are opened for questions you might see a couple
people line up to ask questions. When they opened
for questions to discuss the findings of the
conference, there were immediately 20 people at the
microphone, and some of them clearly had strong
feelings.

Dr. Simon Mitchell was the moderator, tasked with

finding a consensus after all of the presentations. Lynn
and I had never met him before but were really
impressed with how he handled the group. Regardless
of the position of the speaker, Dr. Mitchell first
clarified the position, typically by rephrasing it, and
then offered suggestions about how it could be
incorporated in the position statement. If at any time
he was trying to influence the outcome of the
discussion, it certainly didn’t seem like it to us.

In the end the position statement was very weak,

neither endorsing nor discarding deep stops.

After this conference, I was still on the fence. I was

happy with offering GF and VPM-B with GF surfacing
with our products. The Navy study seemed compelling
since it was actual dive testing, but there were so
many scientists that weren’t convinced that it seemed
to me the jury was still out.

Bubble and Blood

Studies for Technical
Diving
The next direction I took came from discussions with
Dr. Neal Pollock. He and his team from DAN were
doing bubble and blood studies with trimix divers.
This DAN program is ongoing, and they continue to
collect data. I observed it for several years at
InnerSpace in Grand Cayman. These were aggressive
testing regimens with retests every 20 minutes
starting on the boat just after surfacing and then long
enough afterwards to see a safe pattern. Many of
these divers experimented with their conservatism
during the test series.

A couple of years ago, a group of divers started

talking about adjustments they were making and the
results. Phil Short and I were among the people at the
table. The consensus seemed to be that everyone was
padding their shallow stops to reduce bubble scores. I
have been padding my shallow stops for a couple
years now with something like 30/70 or 30/75 with
good results.

Now we come to the

Deep Stops threads:
1. http://www.rebreatherworld.com/showthread.php?
46994-Deep-stops-debate-(split-from-ascent-
rate-thread)&highlight=deep+stops

2. http://www.rebreatherworld.com/showthread.php?
48083-Deep-Stops-(rebreather-dive-
charts)&highlight=deep+stops

I began reading with an open mind. However, as Ross

Hemingway kept coming up with challenges and
people then came back with strong analysis, my views
changed. As far as I can tell, Ross offered every
possible objection about shape, gas transfers, and red
herring effects. In each case this prompted another
level of analysis that changed another question in my
mind to a confident belief.

The level of analysis in this thread by Dr. Dollette and

Kevin Watts was an education. The moderation,
summation, and refocusing by Dr. Mitchell has created
one of the most informative threads in the history of
RBW in my opinion.

After this I was using 40/70. The 70 drifted out to 75

or even 85 over time as I became more confident that
the shallower first stop was making a difference.

Update - May 13, 2019

John Adsit did a nice summary presenting information
gathered in recent studies. You can read his article
here: https://tecrec.padi.com/2019/04/22/evolving-
thought-on-deep-decompression-stops/

! November 9, 2015

" tec dive

Tweet Like 14

Written by Bruce Partridge

Founder of Shearwater Research Inc.

Related Posts

Diving Unexplored Sites You are one dive away

in Chechnya from your dream dive

Adventure Awaits - Déjà vu?

Evolving into a Technical
Diver

22 Responses

Darren clawson
Would love to hear more on this subject !

November 9, 2015

Stuart Girdler UK Instructor, Officer MOD

Bruce,
Very many thanks for your personal and
enlightening thoughts on this subject. The
theory of deep stops fascinates me and is in my
opinion very hard to tie down. Like you my GFs
have drifted, often through opinion than proven
fact. I am often asked my views and carefully
(like you) point out that it is simply my opinion
with no scientific back up.
I will post folk to this thread on your site as it
gives a good steer in the correct direction.
Kind regards,
Stuart Girdler

November 9, 2015

Bruce Partridge
Hi Stuart,

Yes. While the evidence against the

efficacy of deep stops is already
compelling, the exact adjustments that
should be made to my GF setting is less
clear. I have been following the Extreme
Diving Field Study as it has progressed,
and have used my discussions with several
of the participants to inform my current
views. I am looking forward to more data
from DAN’s Extreme Diving Field Study
when it gets published.

Bruce

November 10, 2015

Tim Saville
Less of a comment, more of a question. I run
my Petrel as a stand alone backup to my AP
Diving Inspiration CCR. I find that the 40/80 GF
on the Petrel gives the almost the same
runtimes as the Inspo handset set to 50/90 GF.
The only difference being that the stops start
deeper on the Petrel. Is there a simple
explanation for this?

November 10, 2015

Bruce Partridge
Hi Tim,

There is no inherent reason why the two

computers would not display the same
stops with the same settings. The
explanation is probably that the Inspiration
computer is using the live PPO2 and the
Petrel is using a preset PPO2.

As long as they have the same PPO2 and

the other settings are the same, they
should give the same run-times.

Bruce

November 10, 2015

Peter Sotis
Tim Saville asked a question and I believe
the answer Bruce offered is accurate, but I
might also add that Vision electronics uses
ZHL-16B and he might have his Shearwater
set to a ZHL-16C. This could also bring
about some differences.

November 14, 2015

Bruce Partridge
Hi Peter,

Yes, that would certainly make a

difference. The M-Values are different.
That would be an unusual choice
though. 16C is recommended for
computers.

Bruce

November 14, 2015

Neil Conlon
Bruce, I comment from a point of limited
knowledge on the subject having only done a
handful of deep ish dives with minimal deco.
What I don’t understand is why ascent rates are
arithmetic rather than geometric. Should your
computer not have a deco algorithm with a
logarithmic (or similar) ascent rate, decreasing
as you ascend to your first (shallow?) stop.
On a similar note, does your SAC rate not affect
gas loading.
Excellent article btw.

November 10, 2015

Bruce Partridge
Hi Neil,

The ascent rates that we use are defined

by common practice as taught by the
training agencies. On the other hand, one
could certainly make a case for logarithmic
ascent rates based on the relative changes
in pressure at different points in the dive.
For example, a 10 foot change in depth at
300 feet is a small relative change in
pressure, whereas a 10 foot change in
depth at 30 feet is a much bigger relative
change in pressure. These issues are being
discussed but I’m not aware of any
evidence strong enough for us to change
our calculations.

For my own diving, I ascend faster when I

am deeper and progressively slow down as
I get shallower. I don’t have good evidence
for this practice, but it makes sense to me.

SAC rate does not affect the gas loading

calculations in the Buhlmann/GF model.

Bruce

November 10, 2015

Elliott Jessup
Nice article Bruce, I still think we have some
work to do on active decompression and
biometrics….the next decade should be fun!

November 12, 2015

Mike G
Appreciate the article Bruce, and I am looking
forward to hearing more about your present
thoughts. Also, I’d like to say that I think your
product is excellent and your company’s
customer service simply outstanding.

That said, I was a bit confused about you

changes in GFs after you read and discussed
with the sources you listed. My understanding
of the Navy study and much of the discussion
on the RBW forum was that deep stops were
not supported by the evidence–which you
stated. However, if you accept this evidence, I
would have expected that to result in you
changing your GF Lo, as that controls the first
stop.

I realize you said you’ve gone from 30/70-ish

to 40/75-85. But it would seem to me that if
the efficacy of stops, according to the Navy
study, is found in the shallower depths and the
deeper stops resulted in greater on-gassing,
you would have kept a conservative GF Hi and
pushed your GF Lo up further to reduce deep
stop on-gassing.

November 12, 2015

Bruce Partridge
Hi Mike,

I agree. As I have said, my views have

changed since then, in particular with
regard to shallow stops. There are still
people today recommending 10/85 and
20/80 so it seemed like middle ground at
the time. I will talk more about this in a
future blog, but I am diving 30/70 or even
30/60 now depending on the dive.

Bruce

November 13, 2015

Ross Hemingway
Bruce,

40/70 is still a deep stop, but the 70 part is

what makes the difference. It extends the ZHL
Buhlmann shallow time by 30% to 60%, and its
that large shallow time extension that makes
the difference to microbubbles – nothing to do
with deep stops at all.

The navy test has no deep stops – instead they

fiddled the stops between 60 and 30 ft, and try
to imply its a deep stop, but simple math shows
its not. They tried to make a fake compare to
RGBM. Simon and co then stretched out VPM to
make another fake compare, invented
dimensions that do not exist, and tried to show
these. A whole lot of fallacy going on here.
Kevin Watts data is based of stretched out fake
data, and the mb/min is a fabrication to make
his point, but that risk actually works
backwards and disproves his point. The RB
thread sounds more like a marketing campaign,
which is exactly what it is.

Bruce, to add to your history, these were your

thoughts about VPM in 2001 on the decolist
http://deco.hhssoftware.com/decolist/2001/02
76.html

November 12, 2015

Bruce Partridge
Ross,

If the best argument you have is that the

Navy faked their tests and everyone else is
faking their analysis of the data, you don’t
have much to work with.

The complete absence of data to confirm

your position doesn’t help either.

As to your link to a comment I made in

2001, yes, I said that. The difference is that
I have changed my position in light of new
evidence. Evidence is the way forward.

The concept of the curve still interests me,

but now I am thinking about it more
regarding ascent rates. Should we be
adjusting our ascent rates to be a curve
rather than a strait line?

Bruce

November 13, 2015

Bruce Partridge
Ross,

Yes, I said that. I no longer believe that to be an

optimal profile. As I said above, I am now diving
30/70 or even 30/60 depending on the dive
(work at depth, total dive time, temperature
differences, availability of medical treatment…)

DAN continues to research this topic and,

although the research has not yet been
published, I have been able to talk to many
participants about their insights. My views and
my diving habits have been informed by this
information which is coming from actual
evidence from real dives.

My plan is/was to write a separate blog to

describe my reasoning for moving to 30/70.

Bruce

November 13, 2015

Lee Martin
Hi Bruce,

What are you thoughts on the VPM-GFS

algorithm then? Seems to offer a nicely
conservative approach.

December 13, 2015

Bruce Partridge
Many people spend their lives defining
what “nicely conservative” means for dive
profiles. I’m afraid that’s way beyond what
I can answer in this blog.

Bruce

December 13, 2015

Mike G
It seems to me that data from NEDU
and the French Navy (Blatteau) mean
the definition of conservatism may
need a complete rethink when it
comes to ascent profiles. If the most
current research seems to indicate
that the disadvantages of being
deeper longer outweigh the possible
advantages of controlling bubble
formation, then wouldn’t something
closer to Buhlmann’s algorithm for the
first stop (i.e., GF Lo) and something
further away from the M-values upon
surfacing (GF Hi) be the way to add
conservatism? A 90/70 GF Lo/Hi
perhaps?

December 13, 2015

Gianni Moliterni
Thanks Bruce, you said “several minor DCS…
skin rash on my stomach”, did you have had
other problems? Now do you “know” what
was/is the problem? Does the Petrel know it
too?
What do you suggest to prevent it?
What was your run time? Is a 4/6 hous dive a
bounce dive?
Thanks, Gianni.

June 24, 2017

Andy Hawkins
Hi Bruce,

Apologies if I’m being blind and conscious that

this is an old post but I just wondered if you
every did the “More to come soon …” please.

July 3, 2018

Shearwater Research
Hi, Andy. There is no blindness. We are still
working on it. There’s been more evidence
coming out lately. Stay tuned. Cheers.

July 5, 2018

Rollin Verlinde
I’m holding my breath for this new information!

Deep stops lead to lost of discussions over

here. In a recent publication the Pyle method
was still mentioned as a good way to safer
diving. It would be nice to have some more
data.
Cheers
Rollin

February 9, 2019

Featured Product

Experience Legendary
Diving

Learn More#

Upcoming Dive Shows

Shearwater Research will be at the following dive
shows:

2020 Scuba Show Long

! Beach
+ Read More / May 30-31 720

2020 DRT Shanghai

! + Read More / Jul 17-19

DRT Beijing
! + Read More / Aug 14-16 B84

2020 TDEX Thailand Dive

! Expo
+ Read More / Oct 1-4 D060

+ View All

TAGS
accidents | adaptive diving | ai | bermuda |