"Man, Woman, Wild"
- Thread starter Sufler
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 20,082
What is being taught is there for all to see. The manuals are online.
Hoods work is available.
It's you who claim otherwise who have no citations.
Didn't say it was. If you're enjoying it, it's camping.
Actually, you get quite used to it. You can get pretty used to almost anything, cold, hunger, heat, fatigue. It becomes status quo.
Training is the way one becomes good. Not sure why your mocking it. :jerkit: There isn't some special superhero gene injected into certain soldiers They have trained more. That is all. And they have a survival mindset. The most important tool.
Training meant that the first time I jumped from an airplane decades ago, that I did what I was supposed to do. The level of adrenaline was sky high, and I probably wouldn't have been able to think straight but I did what I was trained to do. Same thing later, when I was involved in my first gun incidents. The adrenaline level was even higher then. I did what I was trained to do. Or the first time I treated severely injured people. I did what I had trained to do.
The fact that I have starved and still been able to function is why I know that I'll be able to do it in the future. I will do what I have been trained to do.
Mindset is everything. Mental toughness can conquer far more than you ever imagined. If you decide to quit and die, you will. Nature doesn't care. Mental softness can cost you your life. And no producer will be there to provide you with a clean pig tied to a tree.
And the military and Ron Hood still teach that you'll last weeks without food.
:jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit::jerkit:
I changed my mind.
What is being taught is there for all to see. The manuals are online.
Hoods work is available.
It's you who claim otherwise who have no citations.
Didn't say it was. If you're enjoying it, it's camping.
Actually, you get quite used to it. You can get pretty used to almost anything, cold, hunger, heat, fatigue. It becomes status quo.
Training is the way one becomes good. Not sure why your mocking it. :jerkit: There isn't some special superhero gene injected into certain soldiers They have trained more. That is all. And they have a survival mindset. The most important tool.
Training meant that the first time I jumped from an airplane decades ago, that I did what I was supposed to do. The level of adrenaline was sky high, and I probably wouldn't have been able to think straight but I did what I was trained to do. Same thing later, when I was involved in my first gun incidents. The adrenaline level was even higher then. I did what I was trained to do. Or the first time I treated severely injured people. I did what I had trained to do.
The fact that I have starved and still been able to function is why I know that I'll be able to do it in the future. I will do what I have been trained to do.
Mindset is everything. Mental toughness can conquer far more than you ever imagined. If you decide to quit and die, you will. Nature doesn't care. Mental softness can cost you your life. And no producer will be there to provide you with a clean pig tied to a tree.
And the military and Ron Hood still teach that you'll last weeks without food.
I agree with the if youre enjoying it its camping part. I also agree with the mindset is everything part. That is why I take the food part seriously. As soon as I realize Im in a survival situation I will start procuring what I need to survive, food is one of them.
I will agree to disagree with you about the importance of food. We are all free to believe what we want, afterall.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2009
- Messages
- 1,711
I am prepared to believe that the man went without food for 15 days, but I do not for an instant believe the 20+ years bullsh*t. For those that do believe that I can sell you a machine that works by perpetual motion and another that has cold fusion working in a soda bottle, I also have some nice bridges for sale.
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,709
And the military and Ron Hood still teach that you'll last weeks without food.
Saying that you'll last weeks without food is awfully simplistic. It is true you can last weeks without food under certain conditions But it is also true that a man can have a backpack full of food and still die of hypothermia.
It seems to me that what you're arguing is that given the proper physical conditions, or at least the proper shelter and clothing/sleeping systems, a man can go weeks without food. Yes, this is true. "Proper" being the operative term.
In the Alaska episode, Myke and Ruth failed to build the proper shelter. This set them up for failure and probably death if the camera crew hadn't intervened. I believe they would have encountered the exact same problem with or without food; basically, their survival strategy was way wrong given the conditions they found themselves in.
If it was me, I wouldn't have gone snowmobiling in Alaska without a fat wallet full of goodies in my backpack. (I mean, hell, they could afford the snowmobile, couldn't they? Or at least the rental fee for it. Surely they could afford a couple of hundred bucks in basic survival gear.) Among other things, my backpack would have contained proper fire making tools, at least a little food, some spare warm clothing, and most importantly a SPOT and a HAM radio. There would also have been a snow shovel on the snowmobile, and maybe some snowshoes, depending on my level of paranoia. But that's just me. I'm funny that way.
In the absence of a SPOT and/or a HAM radio, I would have used the fat wallet full of goodies to make myself a nice comfy warm little shelter, and then I would have hunkered down, moving as little as possible, for the next several days/weeks/whatever while I waited for someone to come find me. Who would come find me? Why, whoever it was that I told I was going snowmobiling, of course. I mean, when you head off into the wilderness, you DO tell people where you're going and when you'll be back, right?
Would I have gotten hungry? Sure. Could I survive that? Sure, assuming a basic set of survival gear, some basic knowledge to go with it, and, most importantly, having told someone my itinerary.
Of course, if you're determined to jump on a snowmobile in Alaska, tell no one that you're doing it, tell no one where you're going, tell no one when you plan on being back, and then decide to carry nothing with you except for some giant knives, then, sure, in the event of a mechanical failure you'll eventually die of exposure (brought on by hunger, maybe). How long "eventually" is will be determined by what you do in the first day or two after being stranded.
But arguing about whether people can live for weeks without food is way too simplistic. That's just one variable in the equation. You have to examine the hunger against everything else that's going on in order to decide just how critical of a problem it might be.
Just my two cents.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,035
I can't speak for Alaskans, though I hear they take wilderness survival prety seriously, but the show was pretty realistic in that most of the snowmobilers I've met (and been one of) in the north gave no thought to "What if my Arctic Cat breaks down in the middle of nowhere?"
They'd have less of an idea of how to build a shelter for those conditions than what was shown in the show.
Remember: the show is geared towards getting ratings from couch potatoes, not "survival experts".
In that, I think it's good to show "If you go out like you normally do in the wrong environment, you won't be coming back."
They'd have less of an idea of how to build a shelter for those conditions than what was shown in the show.
Remember: the show is geared towards getting ratings from couch potatoes, not "survival experts".
In that, I think it's good to show "If you go out like you normally do in the wrong environment, you won't be coming back."
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,709
I've said this earlier in this thread, but I'll say it again. The biggest gripe that I have with this show, and all the other shows like it, is a failure to discuss the things you can do and can carry in order to vastly improve your chances of survival in the situation described in the episode.
For the Alaska show, they could have spent some time discussing what they wish they'd carried with them in order to make their chances better. But they didn't do that. Basically, all they did was say, "We tried. We failed. We would have died if the camera crew wasn't here." Instead, they could have said, "You know, if we'd told Aunt Sally where we're going we could have just hunkered down right here and waited for SAR to come and get us. But we didn't remember to tell Aunt Sally that. Oh well, sucks to be us." Or, as they're building the snow shelter, they could have said, "Man, I wish I'd remembered to put a snow shovel on the snow machine." Or, as they're trying to build a fire, "What do you mean you forgot to bring the lighter?" And later, "Damn, why did I leave the snow shoes at home?"
Really, it wouldn't have to take more than 30 - 45 seconds in the show to get the point across that it really isn't any big deal to do a few things, and carry a few things, that can make a big difference if the outing goes sideways.
As for snowmobilers heading out with nothing and no clue, I know exactly what you're talking about. This is why whenever I leave the pavement with "normal" people, they always give me funny looks for carrying a backpack full of stuff, when they're happy with a fanny pack and a small bottle of water. But that doesn't mean survival shows have to encourage bad behavior, does it?
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 7,035
Point taken.
I mentioned in another thread, it'd be nice if these were at least two parts. One part was "This is what can happen when normal folks go out." The second episode would be a critique.
1.) This is what we did right, and why.
2.) This is what we did wrong, and why (and the why may include the fact that they simply didn't have something they should have in that environment)
3.) What they should have done, and what equipment should be considered a minimum in that locale.
It'd be interesting if they also did a third installment where they went back to the same environment with the minimum of what should be considered must have gear, and did the show again, showing how much easier it is, and how much more likely to survive, if they have the right gear.
I know someone's going to yell about skill, but the audience is still the couch potato, who isn't going to take 13 survival course before they go sea kayaking, or snowmobiling, so it should be more about what they can bring that will keep them alive. Discussion of skills that would make life much easier in that environment would also be nice, however.
But, except for us survival nuts, such a 2 or 3-part shopw structure probably wouldn't get the ratings to keep it alive. People would rather see the "pros" drinking piss and killing chained down turkeys with a beer bottle.
I mentioned in another thread, it'd be nice if these were at least two parts. One part was "This is what can happen when normal folks go out." The second episode would be a critique.
1.) This is what we did right, and why.
2.) This is what we did wrong, and why (and the why may include the fact that they simply didn't have something they should have in that environment)
3.) What they should have done, and what equipment should be considered a minimum in that locale.
It'd be interesting if they also did a third installment where they went back to the same environment with the minimum of what should be considered must have gear, and did the show again, showing how much easier it is, and how much more likely to survive, if they have the right gear.
I know someone's going to yell about skill, but the audience is still the couch potato, who isn't going to take 13 survival course before they go sea kayaking, or snowmobiling, so it should be more about what they can bring that will keep them alive. Discussion of skills that would make life much easier in that environment would also be nice, however.
But, except for us survival nuts, such a 2 or 3-part shopw structure probably wouldn't get the ratings to keep it alive. People would rather see the "pros" drinking piss and killing chained down turkeys with a beer bottle.
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,709
Yes, which is why it has to be added to the show in a subtle way. Man, Woman, Wild is particularly well-suited for this. What married man hasn't been on a trip with his wife, only to have her bitch at him for forgetting to bring some important-to-the-woman thing?
Ruth: "Myke, I know you're a he-man, and I get really hot looking at your muscles, but couldn't you remember to bring a lighter JUST ONCE when you take me camping?"
Or, hell, just do some commercials for SPOT and other emergency signaling manufacturers.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,786
Hmm, whose having the little meltdown? Now, I will offer my typical blowhard response.
Here is a calculation based on reference man. Reference man is human model used for pharmacology/physiology calculations. It is used, with tolerances, by the same military manuals referred to.
Reference man has the following morphological attributes:
Body mass - 154 lbs
Total fat content - 23 lbs
Storage fat content - 18.5 lbs
Using a daily caloric calculator and putting in reference man's attributes, I get the following metabolic needs under a low, moderate and high activity scenario. These metabolic needs (daily caloric requirements) are based on the person present within the thermoneutral zone.
Low: 2251.6 kcal/day
Med: 2598.0 kcal/day
High: 2944.4 kcal/day
Now lets parameterize our little model. We'll call the "point of no return" to represent the situation where reference man has gotten down to 15% of his storage body fat less. Despite its name, a moderate amount of storage fat is needed for body function and for physiological regulation of sugar homeostasis.
1 lbs of fat = 3500 kcal
Thus 0.85 (85% of storage fat availability) x 18.5 lbs * 3500 kcal = 55,037.5 kcal available to support daily energy requirements on starvation.
On the surface, it would look like what Nemoaz has stated is true. I.e. if reference man can stay within the thermoneutral zone using a good shelter and fire plus maintaining the insulative value of his clothing, he can last for: 18.7, 21.2 and 24.4 days under a high, moderate, low activity schedule.
A quick search found the following line in an excellent PhD dissertation on the topic of human thermogenesis related to cold:
See link for a good read: http://www.wtb.tue.nl/woc/wet/alumni/Thesis_Claessens.pdf
What the author refers to as extreme cold is in fact not very extreme. It was an exposure to 15oC (59 oF) to induce a shivering response. I think it is safe to say that M. Hawk and Ruth were experiencing effective temperatures (considering their insulation) well below this. Given this distinction, I'm going to suggest we push Claessens van Ooijen's thesis value for extreme cold to produce an effective increase of 70% higher metabolic rate under cold relative to normal.
Thus, under shivering thermogenesis cold conditions, reference man has the following daily energetic requirements:
Low: 3827.7 kcal/day
Med: 4416.6 kcal/day
High: 5005.5 kcal/day
Note, that somebody already put an estimate of caloric use of 5000 kcal/d which is pretty much bang on with the high estimate above.
Okay - back to how long will that fat sustain reference man? In this case, the range is 11.0, 12.5, 14.4 days for low, moderate and high. So I suppose the term week is applicable to survival duration. The term weeks is only applicable to the Low metabolic rate estimate.
Comments and assumptions. As Bulgeron mentions, these calculations are a bit simplistic, but they are actual calculations with sourced references for their basis. The body can also, and will begin protein catabolism long before exhaustion of full fat stores and this will provide a supplementary effect to energy needs. Excessive protein catabolism has consequences though. The circulating ketone bodies cause blood acidosis which can essentially give you diabetic type symptoms and ultimately put you into a coma.
Higher body fat contents will serve you well and I suspect that Mike Hawke and Ruth might be a little more plump than reference man. Alternatively, higher body weight contributes to a higher metabolic rate necessitating re-jigging the calculations.
The body may respond earlier than the 20% mark of loss of body fat by adaptive strategies. E.g. the body may attempt to lower metabolic rate which puts you at risk of critical loss of core temperature and death. Individuals show a high degree of variation in physiological response and what kills one person may not kill another. An interesting connotation of Claessens van Ooijen's thesis is that metabolic response is consistent from individual to individual and there was little evidence to suggest a major acclimation response, all things being equal. Thus, training isn't really going to make you better at your physiological response. Much like training does not alter your Vo2(max). However, training does influence your approach problem solving abilities.
When it comes down to it, would M. Hawke and Ruth last out weeks, not eating anything? Having a very high probability of becoming wet from the growing soggier and soggier conditions they were experiencing and given the possibility of not being able re-establish their fire, I think the prognosis for them at day 3 was pretty grim. M. Hawke acknowledged this. At that point in time a better shelter might not have helped them much more especially without getting the fire going.
Different strategies? Sure there could have been better decisions but its a heck of a lot easier to critique what was done after the fact than it is when living the life. I'm not sure why they didn't use a long fire to compliment their lean to, much like Ray Mears presented in his boreal show. Mike would have had a better fighting chance if his fire hadn't gone out. Which means he should have spent more time foraging for wood on night 2. Then again, he was totally beat at the end of that day and here I think we have a good demonstration of why the axe rather than long knife is king in the arctic environment. He was really using up a lot of energy taking down trees with his knife and having an axe instead could have helped him in the wood department.
Clearly M. Hawke wasn't planning on using as much energy as he did on day 3. Should have stopped earlier? Perhaps. A good lesson in the show is that M. Hawke basically went and pushed himself and his wife too far in the walk. It took the slush to jog his mind into realizing that air-strip wasn't going to be in the cards that day. They totally wiped themselves out. They probably blew through more than 5000 calories on the last day. So perhaps it was a poor decision to leave on the third day. Perhaps it was a poor decision to stay put the first 2 days. Still, the reference man calcs tell me that they couldn't stay put at the snowbile site indefinitely. Days, verses 2 weeks. When you don't know if help is coming, the only thing you know for sure is that you will get weaker and weaker and closer to death the longer you wait. They probably should have left immediately back on their trail which at the time was still hard packed and easier to walk.
Unfortunately, nobody has a crystal ball. They took a gamble with each major decision they made and I don't think they were unreasonable ones. Perhaps the biggest problem is that they included so little kit as part of their day trip. Heck, I take more emergency gear to the office then they had with them. A couple of survival blankets, firesteel and extra insulation layer (e.g. dry mid-weight fleece) might have made the world of difference. Four cliff bars would have made their life a tonne better.
Still, like others said. Its a TV-show. I respect the integrity of the show to demonstrate when its time to pull the plug. Even Les had to do so a time or two. I don't think it speaks poorly of Mike Hawke's survival capabilities. I sill like the show!
- Joined
- May 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,709
kgd, I enjoyed your write up.
Something to remember is that given this is a TV show, Myke may well have done things in the Alaska episode that he might not have done if the situation was real. I'm sure he had some kind of a script to follow. If the situation had been real, would he really have built the snow shelter and hunkered down overnight, or would he have walked out while the walking was good? I don't know, but it's worth remembering that Myke isn't behaving in an entirely natural way when on that show.
On the other hand, the way that Myke and Ruth behaved on that show may very well be exactly the way your average snowmobiler would behave in that situation (although I doubt very much that the average snowmobiler would have the gigantic knives). If so, the lesson is clear: Don't do that because if you do, you'll die.
Anytime all the animals in the forest have decided to hunker down and not move is probably a good time for you to hunker down and not move too. Of course, it's important to refuse to put yourself in a situation where you might have to move under those conditions.
Just sayin'.
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2006
- Messages
- 2,642
Ruth is awesome, just saw the Sonoran desert episode where she is literally dying of heatstroke but still found the umption to soldier up, I have nothin but respect for her.
I remember one of the first shows that I saw with Les Stroud was something like that.
The episode I remember concerned a guy trying to drive over a Rocky Mountain pass and getting caught with a sudden snow storm. The man tried to walk out and died.
Stroud made some comments and showed how to prep for the trip (stripping the truck) but he wasn't real narrator.
Can't remember the name.
Your Honor, let the record reflect that admission, please.
So you're numbers say 11-15 days but you admit that doesn't include protein catabolism Hardly a small omission given that that most--ahem--some of us are more muscle than fat?
So now you agree with Hood's guidelineof 3 weeks, I presume. (Just a reminder: 3 minutes without air, 3 hours without shelter, 3 days without water, and 3 weeks without food.)
Obviously, we don't burn protein well and your in dire straits at that point. And you need lotsa water.
Frankly, I wouldn't say that Ruth and Mike Hawke have large fat stores... at least in comparison to the average American. Maybe compared to you little Canadians.
Besides, my wife doesn't want me to think about Ruth's fat reserves. She thinks that's the only reason I watch the show any way.
I didn't mean physical training or somehow altering you physiological response (basal metabolism or whatever). I mean psychological training. Mental preparedness to not quit and not be overcome by the difficulty of the situation or with self-pity despite the extremis in which you may find yourself.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,786
I think it is pretty safe to say that I moved much further to your original statement after going through the calculations. Then again, my calcs generated a max. period of 2 weeks. So if my life is on the line, I think I'd want to go conservative. So why do you want to stretch the limit all the way to another week?
Ron Hood is an intelligent man. He knows that rules of thumb make thinks easier for people to remember them. He knows something like a rule of three works. I'm pretty sure he would also consider these guidance values in light of circumstance specific scenarios. We outlined one here, we ran the numbers and said that hey if you are going to be safe, better limit yourself to 2 weeks. Seeing those rational numbers, which admittedly, are scenario specific but based on some science-based assumptions, why stretch it to 3 weeks?
Hey, I can probably survive underwater for 3 minutes. But if somebody kicked me in the nuts and dunked my head in a diarrhea filled toiliette, I might not last that long.
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2008
- Messages
- 20,082