You need about about 20% body fat and that would help you but for a guy you could still look Like Cody Lundin with that amount, I bet he is between 20-24% body fat which also means he could be in great shape cardio wise too but just does'nt show it. A very lean person like 5 % body fat would probably have some issues. Also keep in mind, some people that lift are very strong but they do no cardio, I think a guy or gal that lifts and does cardio too would have a much better chance in a survival situation.
-
The BladeForums.com 2024 Traditional Knife is ready to order! See this thread for details: https://www.bladeforums.com/threads/bladeforums-2024-traditional-knife.2003187/
Price is $300 ea (shipped within CONUS). If you live outside the US, I will contact you after your order for extra shipping charges.
Order here: https://www.bladeforums.com/help/2024-traditional/ - Order as many as you like, we have plenty.
Is being too muscular bad for survival ?
- Thread starter ukknifer
- Start date
You need about about 20% body fat and that would help you but for a guy you could still look Like Cody Lundin with that amount, I bet he is between 20-24% body fat which also means he could be in great shape cardio wise too but just does'nt show it. A very lean person like 5 % body fat would probably have some issues. Also keep in mind, some people that lift are very strong but they do no cardio, I think a guy or gal that lifts and does cardio too would have a much better chance in a survival situation.
DennisStrickland
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2009
- Messages
- 5,040
hey pitdog if i ever hunt the mountains again i want you as a pardner. if i break something i'm sure you can tote me out.
dennis
dennis
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2008
- Messages
- 1,397
Watching NOVA or some show like this on PBS a few years back, I seem to remember an anthropologist saying that man has evolved some what to shubby to have a spare tire to make it through the "next" hard time. Drought, famine, flood, what ever may put a crimp on your source of food.
I think being toned would be better than ripped out the Wazoo. Muscle cramps suck.
Also wne it comes to Body mass and % or bodyfat, your brain weighs as fat. So if you are down to your ideal 6 or 8 % fat, not much in reserve. And blood sugar is another thing besides body fat. lots of things can get you down in a hurry.
I think being toned would be better than ripped out the Wazoo. Muscle cramps suck.
Also wne it comes to Body mass and % or bodyfat, your brain weighs as fat. So if you are down to your ideal 6 or 8 % fat, not much in reserve. And blood sugar is another thing besides body fat. lots of things can get you down in a hurry.
The amount of muscle a person has has little to do with how lean they are.
So in that case, the question would be, "Would it be better to have "X" more pounds/kilos along for the ride to help me walk/dig/climb/carry/chop/etc.?"
And since the situation is totally unknown, it seems that the answer would be that additional muscle would help a person survive a greater variety of situations than having less muscle. How many survival situations are there that are best approached by having less ability to move and work?
It is much like asking if having too much money is a detriment in a survival situation, or too much gear, etc.. Once again, it is only an issue if you are in a situation that not only doesn't require it, but where it is a detriment, and an all cases, the issue is easily solved by getting rid of it. Don't hang on to all your gear, give the money away, let your muscles atrophy.
So in that case, the question would be, "Would it be better to have "X" more pounds/kilos along for the ride to help me walk/dig/climb/carry/chop/etc.?"
And since the situation is totally unknown, it seems that the answer would be that additional muscle would help a person survive a greater variety of situations than having less muscle. How many survival situations are there that are best approached by having less ability to move and work?
It is much like asking if having too much money is a detriment in a survival situation, or too much gear, etc.. Once again, it is only an issue if you are in a situation that not only doesn't require it, but where it is a detriment, and an all cases, the issue is easily solved by getting rid of it. Don't hang on to all your gear, give the money away, let your muscles atrophy.
Classic line Moose! I agree with the posts about what weight each person is comfortable at. I stay around 195 to 200 lbs. Ive gotten up to 215 with gym time and as low as 180 before. Increasing or decreasing doesnt feel right to me. Sure, when I was 215 I was stronger but not by that much. When I was 180 I would get fatigued more. At 200 lbs I have the stamina and the strength necessary for most situations and I am alot more comfortable doing it.
Many years ago i want backpacking to the high sierra. Starting point was above 9,000ft. cotton wood pass close to 12,000ft. While getting ready and packing everything a group of guys pulled in the parking. One of the guys had to be a body builder as he was real big. I over heard the guys making jokes that he would need to carry some of them out when they get tired. He lifted his pack like it was no more then 5lb. They all got ready and hit the trail before me. I got on the trail i guess about an hour after the group. Guess what. I did catch up with them part of the way where the trail started to go up. The big guy was on the ground out of breath and couldnt get up. I guess all this muscle need alot more oxegen.
Two years later on the same trail(love that area) i came across an older woman who must have been mid 50s. She had two boys under 10 with her and she carried most of the weight, For if i dont mistaken was a 4 days trip. She must have been atlist 50lb over weight. carried about 75lb. Now who would you rather be with out in the mountains when SHTF. As for me i need to lose about 30lb. When i go on hikes with groups of people im always in the front having to wait for everyone. I dont have the need to stop and eat every 2 hours. Actualy when i go hiking alone i dont eat for the day.
Sasha
Two years later on the same trail(love that area) i came across an older woman who must have been mid 50s. She had two boys under 10 with her and she carried most of the weight, For if i dont mistaken was a 4 days trip. She must have been atlist 50lb over weight. carried about 75lb. Now who would you rather be with out in the mountains when SHTF. As for me i need to lose about 30lb. When i go on hikes with groups of people im always in the front having to wait for everyone. I dont have the need to stop and eat every 2 hours. Actualy when i go hiking alone i dont eat for the day.
Sasha
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2010
- Messages
- 324
It's all about having muscle in the right spots. Too many guys go to the gym and get big by doing nothing but bench press and bicep curls... building nice, big, USELESS muscles to have in the woods (and just about anywhere else, really)!
Guys who primarily train their back and legs, on the other hand, are in much better shape even though they don't look it. Primary lifting "drive" comes from your lower body, not your arms and upper body. So true strength is all about the dead lifts and squats - big compound lifts! Functional strength and the appropriate muscle to provide it is what you want, not the silly "beach" muscles. This applies to all aspects of life, survival included.
Example of what I'm talking about: A small guy who is strong as hell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jaRtI_2M0
My personal source: 3 years of power lifting. I'm 5'9 and usually sit between 150 and 160lbs, and I look like an average, unassuming guy with a shirt on. Then I lift 300lbs for reps and people start to get scared. I will admit however that in a real survival situation, someone with more fat on their body would last longer than me. I have basically no fat on me in order to keep me in the lightest weight class possible. Plus girls like abs... :foot:
But yeah, having muscle is a good thing if that muscle weight is in the right spot. Legs and back, mostly. I'd argue that having a good cardiovascular system is probably more important than raw strength, as well, but I wont get into that right now since this post is already long enough.
So hit the gym, guys! A beer gut is nothing to be proud of, for survival or otherwise... just ask your wife!
Guys who primarily train their back and legs, on the other hand, are in much better shape even though they don't look it. Primary lifting "drive" comes from your lower body, not your arms and upper body. So true strength is all about the dead lifts and squats - big compound lifts! Functional strength and the appropriate muscle to provide it is what you want, not the silly "beach" muscles. This applies to all aspects of life, survival included.
Example of what I'm talking about: A small guy who is strong as hell. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jaRtI_2M0
My personal source: 3 years of power lifting. I'm 5'9 and usually sit between 150 and 160lbs, and I look like an average, unassuming guy with a shirt on. Then I lift 300lbs for reps and people start to get scared. I will admit however that in a real survival situation, someone with more fat on their body would last longer than me. I have basically no fat on me in order to keep me in the lightest weight class possible. Plus girls like abs... :foot:
But yeah, having muscle is a good thing if that muscle weight is in the right spot. Legs and back, mostly. I'd argue that having a good cardiovascular system is probably more important than raw strength, as well, but I wont get into that right now since this post is already long enough.
So hit the gym, guys! A beer gut is nothing to be proud of, for survival or otherwise... just ask your wife!
I'd rather say hit the trail.
Better "train as you fight" plus gaters experience.
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2006
- Messages
- 1,357
In Australia, they had a special forces drive a few years ago and were trying to recruit ex Australian Rules Players, not ex Rugby League players. The aussie rules players can run for miles. The rugby guys are fit but bigger and more muscular on average.
not2sharp
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 1999
- Messages
- 20,409
The Ghurka's performance in the Commonwealth military is legendary and they were neither big, nor overtly muscle bound. Just the same, I would advise against kicking sand on these guys at the beach. They have been known to collect heads, and to occasionally knife fight and skin attacking tigers. This is probably close to an ideal build for survival under harsh conditions.
n2s
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 12,294
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,035
The other are right that say it has more to do with body composition than it does with only muscle or fat mass.
It also has to do with genetics.
Northmen will rarely, if ever, be able to get ripped. Genetically, they carry more fat, and I think everyone can guess the reason. When you see northern bodybuilders, I hate to say it, but when they're ripped, they took 'roids to do it, and I don't care how tall the stack of bibles is that they swear on that they are clean.
Likewise, it's very, very hard for someone from an equatorial genetic background to put on a lot of muscle or fat.
When I was in college and lifting competitively, being an engineering student I had a compulsion to graph everything. We found the optimum power to weight ration (ability to lift a certain poundage at a given bodyweight) turned out to be when the person was at approximately 12.5% bodyfat. The next thing we found out is that the fatter they got, the stronger they got, but after the optimum ratio was reached, they may only gain 1-2% lifting ability for every 8-10% bodyfat. The other thing is the ripped guys were WEAK. Once they dropped below 9-10% body fat they lost strength FAST. THis is why you don't see ripped powerlifters, and bodybuilders put on fat to train in the off season.
Being ripped, to bodybuilder standards, is also an unnatural, dangerous thing. These guys 'roid up, eat nothing but protein for weeks before an event and severely dehydrate themselves (to make the skin thinner) before competing. You'll often have seve3ral die behind the stages every year.
So, being ripped, with a lot of muscle means you aren't in a good position to survive. But it's not because of your muscle mass, it's because of everything else you did to get ripped.
On the other hand, being a chicken-legged weakling has no benefit, either, unless you live on the African plains, and don't have to have much for shelter and need to go without eating for days at a time.
What it comes down to, is eat sensibly, exercise well, and lie with what you get. Your body will quickly adapt to the situation, and then will fight you tooth and nail from there.
Example. A while back, I completely revamped my diet and exercise. I dropped 35 pounds in 4 months, and STOPPED. My doctor wanted me to lose more weight. So I dropped from the 2000 Cal a day diet I was on to a 1200 Cal a day diet, but no exercise. I dropped another 5 pounds. The last 4 months I'e kept the 1200 Cal diet, but went to hiking a 6 mile trail 4 times a week with a pack, and started lifting weights as well as doing my manual yard work (mow with an old spool mower, cut wood with an axe, clear thorns and brush with my 3 pound kukri). I dropped another pant size. Went to the doctor expecting to kick ass. What happened? I have gained 7 pounds. Yeah, I lost fat (evidenced by the drop in pant size, and I can wear a XXL shirt instead of a XXXL), but put on a lot of muscle. When my doctor saw it, she did her exam (to include my yearly physical), and told me that she can see my abs and pecs (not ripped), I don't have a gut or love handles pouring over my belt. Unless I severely catabolize a lot of muscle, or get cancer, I'm probably not going to lose anymore weight, no matter what I do.
So stop looking at bodybuilding mags, Glamour mag, artificial people on TV, etc. Be sensible and let your body find its preferred equilibrium point and just live with it. Being a "fashionista" isn't worth the trouble.
It also has to do with genetics.
Northmen will rarely, if ever, be able to get ripped. Genetically, they carry more fat, and I think everyone can guess the reason. When you see northern bodybuilders, I hate to say it, but when they're ripped, they took 'roids to do it, and I don't care how tall the stack of bibles is that they swear on that they are clean.
Likewise, it's very, very hard for someone from an equatorial genetic background to put on a lot of muscle or fat.
When I was in college and lifting competitively, being an engineering student I had a compulsion to graph everything. We found the optimum power to weight ration (ability to lift a certain poundage at a given bodyweight) turned out to be when the person was at approximately 12.5% bodyfat. The next thing we found out is that the fatter they got, the stronger they got, but after the optimum ratio was reached, they may only gain 1-2% lifting ability for every 8-10% bodyfat. The other thing is the ripped guys were WEAK. Once they dropped below 9-10% body fat they lost strength FAST. THis is why you don't see ripped powerlifters, and bodybuilders put on fat to train in the off season.
Being ripped, to bodybuilder standards, is also an unnatural, dangerous thing. These guys 'roid up, eat nothing but protein for weeks before an event and severely dehydrate themselves (to make the skin thinner) before competing. You'll often have seve3ral die behind the stages every year.
So, being ripped, with a lot of muscle means you aren't in a good position to survive. But it's not because of your muscle mass, it's because of everything else you did to get ripped.
On the other hand, being a chicken-legged weakling has no benefit, either, unless you live on the African plains, and don't have to have much for shelter and need to go without eating for days at a time.
What it comes down to, is eat sensibly, exercise well, and lie with what you get. Your body will quickly adapt to the situation, and then will fight you tooth and nail from there.
Example. A while back, I completely revamped my diet and exercise. I dropped 35 pounds in 4 months, and STOPPED. My doctor wanted me to lose more weight. So I dropped from the 2000 Cal a day diet I was on to a 1200 Cal a day diet, but no exercise. I dropped another 5 pounds. The last 4 months I'e kept the 1200 Cal diet, but went to hiking a 6 mile trail 4 times a week with a pack, and started lifting weights as well as doing my manual yard work (mow with an old spool mower, cut wood with an axe, clear thorns and brush with my 3 pound kukri). I dropped another pant size. Went to the doctor expecting to kick ass. What happened? I have gained 7 pounds. Yeah, I lost fat (evidenced by the drop in pant size, and I can wear a XXL shirt instead of a XXXL), but put on a lot of muscle. When my doctor saw it, she did her exam (to include my yearly physical), and told me that she can see my abs and pecs (not ripped), I don't have a gut or love handles pouring over my belt. Unless I severely catabolize a lot of muscle, or get cancer, I'm probably not going to lose anymore weight, no matter what I do.
So stop looking at bodybuilding mags, Glamour mag, artificial people on TV, etc. Be sensible and let your body find its preferred equilibrium point and just live with it. Being a "fashionista" isn't worth the trouble.
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2009
- Messages
- 1,120
have a bud, who teaches wilderness and survival skills in oregon. he is like a stick figure and im always thinking the same thing. that if he really got himself lost, like in the cascades or coastal range in winter. he would be screwed. most of what is shared on this forum and elsewhere is that food is not the first priority when in a survival situation. but for my pal, i would think since he has so little fat reserves and he'd be in a world of hurt without food relatively quickly. maybe im wrong?
otherwise he has great endurance and fit, but man, ya gotta have a bit o meat on those bones aye?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,035
Sounds like the kind of guy that really needs to make a can of SPAM part of his kit!
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2007
- Messages
- 12,294
I often read about people saying "I don't want to be too muscular, or too lean, because I won't cope well in a survival situation".
I personally think that your long term survival in life ie. longevity is more important. Weight training and cardio increase your chances of surviving to a decent age. Last time I checked, 1 in 4 men suffer from osteoporisis at some stage in life, resistance training helps prevent this by increasing bone density.
I think it would be silly to plan your physical condition around a hypothetical survival situation. If you're a climber, get in the best shape that you can for climbing. If you're a cyclist, get in great cycling shape.
If you find yourself in a survival situation and think "oh no, I'm in terribly good shape, if only I were more of a couch potato", I'll be surprised
I personally think that your long term survival in life ie. longevity is more important. Weight training and cardio increase your chances of surviving to a decent age. Last time I checked, 1 in 4 men suffer from osteoporisis at some stage in life, resistance training helps prevent this by increasing bone density.
I think it would be silly to plan your physical condition around a hypothetical survival situation. If you're a climber, get in the best shape that you can for climbing. If you're a cyclist, get in great cycling shape.
If you find yourself in a survival situation and think "oh no, I'm in terribly good shape, if only I were more of a couch potato", I'll be surprised
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2000
- Messages
- 6,104
I've never heard them say that about survival in particular, but I hear them make up reasons for not exercising, not wanting to be too muscular, too lean, even about how "strength doesn't help". Funny how I don't know one strong, healthy person who says anything like that. It's always someone weak, lazy, and undisciplined, who wants to feel superior without having to get off their fat ass and actually do anything.
I agree with most of what's said here. Here's some more anecdotal evidence to support the ideas.
I'm a white mutt, so I probably have plenty of scandinavian and germanic genes in me. This means that I have a pretty good sized build. I'm 6'2", 190 right now, but I still probably have another inch or two in me based on my dearth of facial hair and family history. I have a fairly slow metabolism, particularly for my age. I have a friend that's almost the same height, but about 40 pounds lighter and thin as a rail. He's healthy and strong, but doesn't make it a point to work out, apart from preferring physically demanding jobs at work. His metabolism is just fast. He gets in a bad way if he goes more than about 4 hours without eating, but I can go quite a while without needing food. I prefer to eat at least a couple of good meals a day, but I've done a 36 hour experiment fast before, and feel that I could go a couple of days in relative comfort. Comparing him and I, I would say I could much more easily survive a lot of survival situations, assuming all other factors are the same.
For leisure I enjoy running somewhat long distances (4-10 miles regularly), among other outdoor activities from time to time. I also do a short daily routine that includes pushups, crunches, situps, tricep extensions and bicep curls that I can do anywhere in about 15-20 minutes with my 15 pound resistance band. Because of my body type, if I did a serious weight training regimen, I expect I would put on much more muscle mass than I care to carry due to my preference for running over body building.
In short, I carry a couple pounds more than "ideal", perhaps. I don't quite have visible abs, but I'm strong, fit, and can go a couple days without food. My body does what I need it to, and that's all I can really ask.
I'm a white mutt, so I probably have plenty of scandinavian and germanic genes in me. This means that I have a pretty good sized build. I'm 6'2", 190 right now, but I still probably have another inch or two in me based on my dearth of facial hair and family history. I have a fairly slow metabolism, particularly for my age. I have a friend that's almost the same height, but about 40 pounds lighter and thin as a rail. He's healthy and strong, but doesn't make it a point to work out, apart from preferring physically demanding jobs at work. His metabolism is just fast. He gets in a bad way if he goes more than about 4 hours without eating, but I can go quite a while without needing food. I prefer to eat at least a couple of good meals a day, but I've done a 36 hour experiment fast before, and feel that I could go a couple of days in relative comfort. Comparing him and I, I would say I could much more easily survive a lot of survival situations, assuming all other factors are the same.
For leisure I enjoy running somewhat long distances (4-10 miles regularly), among other outdoor activities from time to time. I also do a short daily routine that includes pushups, crunches, situps, tricep extensions and bicep curls that I can do anywhere in about 15-20 minutes with my 15 pound resistance band. Because of my body type, if I did a serious weight training regimen, I expect I would put on much more muscle mass than I care to carry due to my preference for running over body building.
In short, I carry a couple pounds more than "ideal", perhaps. I don't quite have visible abs, but I'm strong, fit, and can go a couple days without food. My body does what I need it to, and that's all I can really ask.