I’m sort of eying an inflatable 2.0 ATA model for Xmas. It’s around $3.8K shipped direct from the manufacturer. Not sure why a hard shell should be inherently better so long as the soft shell model reaches the right pressure. Even at 1.5 ATA you largely get the same benefits but need to stay in it longer and it’s already a large time commitment.
Shipping any of the above to me is currently ~$630.
I’m not an expert yet, but I’ve read that these devices aren’t quite as secure as proper hardware wallets.
Unless needed post surgery, wound healing, etc., I’d think soft shells are better choice as cheaper and safer with the mild 1.3-1.5 being less stress on body, less risk of toxicity, or ear/sinus issues. Much of upside without possible downside & cost.
Personally I go for the normobaric hypoxia
How do you do that? Can you please send some input?
The effect won’t be the same as with an ATA 2.0. I also think you need to stay longer in the capsule. I’m really time-efficient, or at least I try to be. 
Thanks for mentioning. Read IHT (intermittent hypoxia) is viewed as complementary and used for brain health too.
For athletes this can create the ideal “live high train low” while living at the beach 
What is the best way to start here? As there are a lot of different ways to move forward here.
Yes, not as powerful and more of a time commitment to achieve what a hard shell can (if even possible), but soft shell is great for me. I think it depends on your goals.
As to what John mentioned, I know very little about IHT but it sounds interesting and logical.
I have posted my webpage looking at HIF 1 alpha.
A word of caution for people that are thinking of using HBOT regularly.
That said. HBOT is very useful for certain conditions, such as healing of various types of injuries. But for those purposes it’s used short term. There is no good evidence that long term use over years in otherwise healthy adults is beneficial. I personally wouldn’t use HBOT therapy regularly even if I had a device at home so it would cost me nothing. I would only consider it as needed short term for specific conditions. If much longer term studies on humans show no harm, and lifespan studies are done on rodents showing benefits or at least no significant harm, only then would I consider using it regularly over the long run.
Be careful people.
Good point, thanks! I’m still doing more research. If I decide to buy one, I will follow Efrati’s protocol. After completing 60 sessions within 90 days, I’ll continue with maybe two sessions per week and see how it goes. I think this is a well-balanced approach.
That sounds like a decent strategy. The protocol Efrati did sounds good. Just realize that in that protocol he incorporated short breaks (where they remove the oxygen mask for brief periods while in the chamber) and that’s not something you can replicate with some of the small at-home chambers that do not have oxygen masks but instead have high oxygen concentrations in the whole chamber.
