Skydiving, reported stress and physical stress

[Rstanley0312 0]

adamUK

Hi mate. I know Tom. He's a regular jumper. It's not an alias for everyone else.

I think he was alluding to the same statement made by excaza a few posts up.

It is rare that skydiving gets the academic treatment so I thought I'd post the abstract and it makes interesting reading. By all meas criticize the paper because that's how science works but I suggest you read the paper first.

Adam... I am not saying anything negative really. Nor am I saying that the data collected is not relevant at all. I am suggesting that the study needed to look at other factors then "Adam" decided to equate questioning things to being a skygod which makes no sense. I say studies like this are cool... I just had an opinion about it that I shared.

Cheers to you brother. The other guys posting, now a count of (2) that have never posted before....... good for you cheering on your friend.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[zhol 0]

Rstanley0312

The other guys posting, now a count of (2) that have never posted before....... good for you cheering on your friend.

Pretty low form to discuss the speakers rather than what is being said... Peace.

[Rstanley0312 0]

zhol

*** The other guys posting, now a count of (2) that have never posted before....... good for you cheering on your friend.

Pretty low form to discuss the speakers rather than what is being said... Peace.

What? I said "good for you cheering on your friend".

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[oli2842 0]

Feel free to think what you like, but I am who I say I am (Olivia Hare, the main researcher).
I only created an account on here today, yes, as i'm not fussed about these sites to be perfectly honest (thus had no need for account on here until today). Adam asked if he could post the link on here, to which I said yes, and that is why I came on, to have a look at the responses the study received.

I'm only posting again as I don't want there being doubt over the authenticity of my previous answer, addressing the questions/criticisms about my study.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I feel that reading the full publication would be a good idea before passing judgement.

Oli

[wmw999 2,123]

If folks who thought your dataset was too small would contribute generously, you could expand your research to somewhere like Z-hills, Perris Valley, or Empuriabrava

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Rstanley0312 0]

oli2842

Feel free to think what you like, but I am who I say I am (Olivia Hare, the main researcher).
I only created an account on here today, yes, as i'm not fussed about these sites to be perfectly honest (thus had no need for account on here until today). Adam asked if he could post the link on here, to which I said yes, and that is why I came on, to have a look at the responses the study received.

I'm only posting again as I don't want there being doubt over the authenticity of my previous answer, addressing the questions/criticisms about my study.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but I feel that reading the full publication would be a good idea before passing judgement.

Oli

Oli.. I was not referring to you. I was addressing the others and I was not saying they were not who they claimed. I was simply saying they are new and obviously joined to post about this topic and only this topic. I then added.... good for them for supporting a friend, significant other, or whatever they are to you. I think something was lost on the internet. Typing and not speaking in person can do that. I was not trying to be offensive just bringing up points and opinions I had. Everyone needs to breathe. I di not mean anything negative in what I was saying and I apologize if that was what was taken from my comments.

Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it.
Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000
www.fundraiseadventure.com

[jumpinjackflsh 0]

Great post Oli and great study.

The evidence points to a simple fact. The only difference in seasoned and unseasoned is managing stress.

While it may appear to us, that as we get more and more jumps, the stress / fear dissipates, the reality is we build up an ability to better manage stress.

This is NOT a hard idea to digest.

Consider this...

There are many many skydivers with a large number of cutaways, in many difficult situations, that pull it off, live and move on.

Then there are some, both low time and long time, that don't.

Sometimes those situations are similar to others that did.

This would raise the question, did person A handle the situation better than person B. Aka, manage the stress caused by the malfunction, handle it, and move on, vs fail and go in.

No way of really knowing that answer however the facts often support such a hypothesis.

You see this behavior in many high stress situations such as firefighting, etc... Season veterans who are honest with themselves, and everyone around them, when questioned "how did you get over the fear" will look you in the eye, often laugh and say, "get over it?"... I don't get over it, it's scary, it's dangerous and many times just downright nerve wracking. You learn to manage it, deal with it, and function well in the environment. Training, drilling, training, drilling, preparing, all help you be better prepared to act without question, when needed.

Common sense psychology if you think about it.

I gave a speech, awhile back on "No Fear". Essentially the speech supported this view. Ask any of the long timers in skydiving, they'll tell you, if you don't have butterflies, there is more than likely something wrong with you.

This shit is dangerous, period.

Nutshell, yeah, the study is flawed, all of them are. But when all the other facts (people fighting here endlessly about procedure/practice, etc...) point to reality?

Yeah, the difference between the pro's and the noobs, pro's learned how to mitigate risk, manage stress and perform well in very high stress environments.

Which to me means? Physiological indicators of stress such as the manifestation of cortisol, would most likely still give similar readings to those that are just getting started.

Common Sense


Jack

[al05r 2]

Hi Oli, and congratulations on a very nice article! There are not many Bachelor students who get to publish in an Elsevier journal!! Have you considered making the full paper available on a personal website/arxiv? This is common practice in many fields, and most Universities are happy to pay any OpenAccess fees that could apply.

Indeed the paper has much better answers to the questions people raise on here - I must say your replies sound a bit defensive :)

My best attempt at summarising would start by reminding people that science takes baby steps, standing on the shoulders of giants and junk. The intended audience of the paper is academics, and the question studied (as I read it) was whether skydiving is a good in environment in which to study people's reactions to stress, while the rest is a bit of a spin. Certainly not "what is the exact jump number after which a jumper gets to be called experienced" :)

And your answer seems to me to be, yeah, it allows us to observe phenomena that we haven't been able to under lab conditions, namely that the 30+ group understate/underestimate their stress levels, even though no significant difference is observed when you actually measure it. In contrast findings in controlled conditions suggest that it should go lower the more times you experience a stressor.

Your sample IS small, but I've seen worse in psychology papers.
I guess its hard to get volunteers to be put in stressful situations, and again here skydiving presents an opportunity (allbeit one you missed by collecting data during the winter).

The most basic distinction you can make is between the people who HAVE or HAVE NOT experienced skydiving before, and this is what you did, using a 30 jump window, which I think is an appropriate first step. What worries me more is the standard deviation of your 'experienced' group which is about as high as the mean. That's an indication you have some subgroups in there (and of course that also make sense, if you know about skydiving). However, theres a few things that can be clarified with the current data.

What does the distribution of jump numbers look like ?
Have you tried testing individuals off the high end of the group against your novice sample? If they're significantly higher, how many can you include in decreasing experience order before the stress levels fall below significant?

In terms of what we can learn from this as skydivers is that, well, it appears that the bodies of 24 of our sky-buddies with experience 0 - ? (must be in the thousands to get that mean) jumps experience the same levels of stress even though their owners say they get less stressed over time.

Indeed, as it has already been pointed out this might simply mean that stress is constant, we just learn to deal with it better as we grow in the sport.

Or maybe that most of us "choose" our jumps to keep the stress level costant.

Or that 'experienced' jumpers lie about their stress level - complacency, not 'listening' to your body and all that...

Probably all of them (and more) in different combinations I'd guess. And it's probably of value to discuss these.

Of course to get answers someone needs to collect more data, and I guess thats the real question for you. Are you going to follow up on your findings and study this further? The only reward for a good scientist is more work! I'm a post-doc in Computer Science at VU Amsterdam, would love to have a play with your data should you be willing to share.

Antonis Loizou

[riggerrob 558]

... asking them to self-report their level of anxiety and also taking saliva samples to measure levels of the stress hormone cortisol before and after the jump...

.............................................................................

Lesson learned: there is no co-orrelation between cortisol and self-reported stress levels.
Hah!
Hah!
What?
Skydivers laying about their stress levels?
Hah!
Hah!
Skydivers bragging to others about their stress levels?
ROFLMAO!

Your next study should compare self-reported stress levels with other metrics: pulse, blood pressure, blood oxygen levels and other chemicals.

Anyways, you are off to a good start.

[rowdy1516 0]

having a background in psychology this is pretty interesting. I would like to see it replicated using data from persons who routinely engage in other risk activities such as compare rookie firefighters, police, medics to veterans. It seems to me that the ability to cognitively compensate for the increased stress reaction may be a trait specific to individuals who engage in these occupations or activities. Is there a correlation between this trait and others that may have predictive value?
Also kudos for getting published while in undergrad. Nice work!

[obelixtim 100]

Quote

the ability to cognitively compensate for the increased stress reaction may be a trait specific to individuals who engage in these occupations or activities. Is there a correlation between this trait and others that may have predictive value?

We are all psychopaths here.

My computer beat me at chess, It was no match for me at kickboxing....

[DrDom 0]

I have to admit this is WONDERFUL research. But remember that science is really more of an artform when we talk about biology. Physics is the least unpredictable, followed by chemistry, and biology is the most random and complex with most variables. In a sentient being its barely a science at all.

With that in mind, this is a great article that shows a few things:
First, it shows that physiologically we can't undo our stress response. At least in the studied population.
Second, it shows that we may be able to separate psychology from physiology. Cortisol goes up still, but our experience may show less "felt" stress.

As a scientist myself (well, a doctor, but close enough) this study could serve as a pilot study for a much bigger research opportunity. Aside from cortisol there are many other markers of stress. You could get a larger sample and stratify them by number of jumps (student, <100, <500, >1000, >5000 etc). Even better would be to measure true physiology not just stress hormone. You could find ways to measure heart rate, BP, respiratory rate. it would be complex and likely need a grant, but maybe when you get your degree you'll be able to translate this into some substantial future opportunities (and free jumps "to study" hahaha).

Lets not downplay the importance of this study. If nothing else it shows we can OVERCOME but not REDUCE the stress response. We are able to dictate our actions despite evolution saying "DANGER" and instead we make danger into sport and into fun. No other animal does this that we are aware of.

So, we can critique the research (not enough "n", too little power, not a large enough separation from beginner to experienced, was there a control group of non jumpers?) or we can look at this as a really novel, innovative, and forward-thinking study that not only draws attention to the sport but also studies the psychology and biology of those who take part.

You are not the contents of your wallet.

[dthames 0]

DrDom

I have to admit this is WONDERFUL research. But remember that science is really more of an artform when we talk about biology. Physics is the least unpredictable, followed by chemistry, and biology is the most random and complex with most variables. In a sentient being its barely a science at all.

With that in mind, this is a great article that shows a few things:
First, it shows that physiologically we can't undo our stress response. At least in the studied population.
Second, it shows that we may be able to separate psychology from physiology. Cortisol goes up still, but our experience may show less "felt" stress.

As a scientist myself (well, a doctor, but close enough) this study could serve as a pilot study for a much bigger research opportunity. Aside from cortisol there are many other markers of stress. You could get a larger sample and stratify them by number of jumps (student, <100, <500, >1000, >5000 etc). Even better would be to measure true physiology not just stress hormone. You could find ways to measure heart rate, BP, respiratory rate. it would be complex and likely need a grant, but maybe when you get your degree you'll be able to translate this into some substantial future opportunities (and free jumps "to study" hahaha).

Lets not downplay the importance of this study. If nothing else it shows we can OVERCOME but not REDUCE the stress response. We are able to dictate our actions despite evolution saying "DANGER" and instead we make danger into sport and into fun. No other animal does this that we are aware of.

So, we can critique the research (not enough "n", too little power, not a large enough separation from beginner to experienced, was there a control group of non jumpers?) or we can look at this as a really novel, innovative, and forward-thinking study that not only draws attention to the sport but also studies the psychology and biology of those who take part.

What I recall from reading this when it was first posted is that the study did not, monitor jumpers from first jump and onward. What happens to a given person as they progress? I think there was no data on that. Listen to what some jumpers write on threads about being scared. Some say they still get scared or excited after some hundreds of jumps. But others will tell a different story. I would almost bet money that a study of a number of people over the first 100 or 200 jumps would show that some would have a reduced stress level, not just how they feel. Maybe I am wrong. It would be interesting to find out.

Instructor quote, “What's weird is that you're older than my dad!”

[adamUK 3]

dthames

It would be interesting to find out.

Well I hope you'll be pleased to hear that Oli has used this work to obtain funding for her PhD so give it a few years and we'll have a bigger, more thorough, study.

[chemist 0]

this is very interesting. I can really relate to where this study is going, I feel like the stress and fear is exactly the same jump after jump even though I may be managing/dealing with it better.

[JackC1 0]

adamUK

Well I hope you'll be pleased to hear that Oli has used this work to obtain funding for her PhD so give it a few years and we'll have a bigger, more thorough, study.

Outstanding. Good luck Oli.
If you write to The Mag asking for volunteers, I'll gladly sign up.

[unkulunkulu 0]

chemist

this is very interesting. I can really relate to where this study is going, I feel like the stress and fear is exactly the same jump after jump even though I may be managing/dealing with it better.

Really, do you still have fears that you will not be able to control the canopy and land where you want or weren't you afraid of this issue on jump 1? The same on fearing the "parachute will not open" or stability issues. I simply don't see how the fear could stay exactly the same. And consequently the stress. Yes, I do feel my heart rate going up on the jumprun and I don't want to say that it's like walking down the street, but I associate it partly to the excitement, not fear.

[DaVincisEnvy 0]

Very interesting and creative work, and congrats on acceptance into your PhD program, Oli!

Science is just a process of learning, and as such is never perfect. All we do -- all human scientific pursuits ever do -- is strive to minimize and improve upon the imperfections we discover so that we can peer deeper into the question each time.

This study, at its core, seems to bring up the fascinating question of what it really means to experience stress. The results certainly point to a disconnect between stress as it is perceived by the mind and stress as it is experienced by the body.

I'd love to see some future work address the question of where the disconnect between psychological stress and physiological stress occurs. For instance, meditation and breathing techniques have been shown to slow the heart rate and induce a sense of relaxation, but can such techniques affect cortisol levels, which this study indicates may be far more "hard wired"? Which stress markers correspond most closely to perceived/psychological stress? Which stress markers, if any, are physiologically "mandated" and uncoupled from the psychological response?

I would be willing to bet that the experienced jumpers who self-reported lower stress levels probably had lower heart and respiratory rates, but I'm not so sure about pupil dilation or other chemical stress markers (e.g. those markers that are used in reliable lie detectors).

Tons of fascinating opportunity for follow-up -- I hope you stick with this question, Oli, and keep us informed of your progress!!

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

we make danger into sport and into fun. No other animal does this that we are aware of.

http://squirrel-feeder.com/blogger/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Rocket_J__Squirrel_by_amiwakawaiidesu.png

[billvon 2,400]

>We are able to dictate our actions despite evolution saying "DANGER" and instead we
>make danger into sport and into fun. No other animal does this that we are aware of.

Many other animals do this. Google "monkey taunts tiger" for a good example. Dolphins surfing near the shore or mice taunting snakes are other examples.