meat eaters

Assuming we are talking about long term survival, ie, a transition to primitive living.

All vitamins and minerals required to live can be found in the animal kingdom, including amino acids. The same cannot be said for the plant kingdom.

Unless you are in the tropics you are going to need a volume of fat and protein you will not be able to collect from the plant kingdom.

It takes 30 minutes to learn and make a good trap. It takes a long time to learn edibles and all that goes with it - timing, season, part, preparation, looK- a- likes, etc.

With that said, plant knowledge should still be the foundation of survival, but not so much for edibles, but what ' the real food eats', trap making, fire, shelter, tools, etc.
 
The OP's main question was "how long can a man survive on meat alone?". The answer, I would think, would be a good while- sufficient for a short-term survival situation. However, while meat alone delivers some essential nutrients not found anywhere else, it cannot deliver all of the nutrients the human body needs to function properly. Hence why you see indigenous peoples, carnivores such as wolves, and naturalist Farley Mowat (the man portrayed in Never Cry Wolf) eating the entire animal, guts, brains, and bones included. If you're not so inclined to be eating guts (and even if you are), knowing how to identify edible plants is a valuable skill.

Now, back to survival situations- The way I see it, neglecting to learn to identify edible plants (at least in some capacity) is just denying yourself a valuable and potentially lifesaving food source. Pretend you walk through a patch of blackberries. Are not going to eat them because they are plants? I doubt it. Why wouldn't you want to extend this skill to other species of plants? At the very least, they'll help stave off the hunger pangs while you set up some snares :D
 
Sorry, but those links are as credible as info on Wiki, at best. Yes, a lot of hormones and medicines are fed to livestock, but not to the point of threatening your life. If that were the case, mortality and diseases would be more common in the US then at Haiti or most African nations.

Show proof they are not credible.
 
While I'm all for meat eating (and am fairly carnivorous as it is, it wouldn't take much for my body to cut carbs out altogether), we're overlooking one important aspect of identifying plants -- in the wild, the real wild, they are the source of medicine.
 
Could certainly make you healthier and more comfortable, but if you are in need of serious medicine in a life and death situation during a survival stint, you are probably gonna die.

eg: Insulin, Nitro for your heart, antibiotic for serious infection, epi pen, etc.

Carl-
 
The original poster asked a simple question:
“Their is a lot of discussion here on harvesting game for survival, how long can a man survive on meat alone?”

To which I replied:
“As I understand it — and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong — a man can live almost indefinitely on fresh wild meat. Wild meat is not the same as the farm raised processed meat that most of us get in the supermarket. Apparently almost all, if not all, of our nutritional requirements are met by fresh wild meat. I would think fresh meat and pine tea would keep you running for a long time.

Edited to add: When we talk of eating meat for survival, we're not talking about only rabbits. Rabbits don't have enough fat, which humans need. We're talking about eating animals that do have some fat on them. Rabbits are good for some meals, if you have another source of fat.”

I’ll stand by my answer, but this thread has taken a turn away from the original question, as it should here in W&SS.

If I were asked if I would eat only meat in a survival situation I would have to say no, that would be foolish. C’mon, folks, it’s a survival situation: you eat what’s available. In that situation I would eat bugs, bears and slimy green things without a seconds thought and, one assumes, I could do that indefinitely — and be healthy, too. I hasten to point out that I am familiar with wild edible plants in my area, and have a fair grounding in what’s edible over most of North America.

Cpl Punishment brought up a good point about eating the entire animal if you want to survive on meat alone. While I concur, I don’t know how necessary it would really be if one has a supply of vegetables handy to augment your meat supply. In other words: eat both.

As an aside, I’ve been known to eat almost anything on the planet at least once, but I tend to draw the line at liver: can’t stand the stuff. I had to get rid of an otherwise wonderful woman because she was a liver lover (lips that touch liver, will never touch mine).

Okay, in a true survival situation I’d eat liver if I had to, but I’d much rather eat the rest of the critter along with my veggies. Meat, pine and stinging nettles — just those common items — could keep someone going for a long time.
 
dawsonbob said:
Cpl Punishment brought up a good point about eating the entire animal if you want to survive on meat alone. While I concur, I don’t know how necessary it would really be if one has a supply of vegetables handy to augment your meat supply. In other words: eat both.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be. But if you want to just eat critters, you have to eat the whole critter. (BTW I hate liver -- well any organ meat -- as well).

Someone brought up that you don't need to eat organ meat since they don't have anything the meat doesn't. That's not true, you'll get vital vitamins and minerals in useful concentrations in the liver, kidneys and bone marrow, and not in the "steak"meat.
 
A man can survive on just meat, without eating organ meat for probably 6 months to a year without dying.

The ONLY concern I would have is lack of vitamin C.

Would it be healthy to do so? No, but he wouldn't die.

Carl-
 
Cpl Punishment said:
It wouldn't be. But if you want to just eat critters, you have to eat the whole critter. (BTW I hate liver -- well any organ meat -- as well).

Someone brought up that you don't need to eat organ meat since they don't have anything the meat doesn't. That's not true, you'll get vital vitamins and minerals in useful concentrations in the liver, kidneys and bone marrow, and not in the "steak"meat.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly. If you're going to subsist on meat alone, you'd better be eating the entire animal. From what I've read, the liver, kidneys and other organs do contain nutrients that aren't found in the flesh alone.

On the other hand, offal is awful. I'd rather eat the flesh, and gain other nutrients from vegetables. Given a choice, liver shall never pass my lips.
 
Last edited:
Amazing, I really look forward to the follow-up thread, "I'm such an Internet tough guy I stopped learning about plants, you sissy salad eaters!" I'm sure that one will be packed with lots of great advice as well.

Thanks for reminding me why I stopped visiting this forum.
 
Actually, this has been a good and informative thread so far, and I think we'd all like to keep it that way. There are a lot of good, thoughtful, responses on this thread that we can all learn from, and I, for one, hope to see it continue.
 
^ agreed. If you don't have anything to add to the conversation, then please, refrain from posting.

Raisedby wolves said:
A man can survive on just meat, without eating organ meat for probably 6 months to a year without dying.

The ONLY concern I would have is lack of vitamin C.

Would it be healthy to do so? No, but he wouldn't die.

Carl-
Click to expand...

Continuing the discussion... Do you have any sources to back up these numbers? And, however long you can eat solely meat without dying, I'm sure you would be hurting pretty badly towards the end of it.
 
The mountain men lived primarily on meat-buffalo was a mainstay-when the comfort supplies flour,sugar etc ran out and started to rely on meat only, they needed lots of TP. :DThey ate all of the critters they killed. Heart, liver, guts. They also would eat anything they could forage, or catch in the starving times.
 
I have no data, just my gut feeling. I would think you would be OK for about 6 months, then your body would start to get pretty messed up from using up the vitamins stored.

Donner Party and the soccer team in the Andes seem to indicate you can go a while on just meat.

I think Chris McCandless (Into the wild) probably would have survived he had stuck with just meat. Killed a Moose with a Remington Nylon 66 .22. There must have been plenty of game.

Carl-
 
Cpl Punishment said:
How long you can last depends on what you are willing to eat.

Some cultures, especially in arctic areas had diets of almost exclusively meat. However, that included eating the liver and kidneys where most of the vitamins and minerals are stored. They'd also open the gullets and eat the partially digested plants the animals had eaten. This is because humans don't have the proper enzymes to digest quite a few plants, but those animals do. If you eat their stomach contents, the enzymes are already mixed in, so you can digest it.

Me? I'd rather look for plants I can digest than eat herbivore vomit.
Click to expand...

Ever notice the first thing most predators do is go straight into the viscera? Just like explained above they can process the partially digested plant matter and get there vitamins and minerals, putting it in your stewpot with the casing would be beneficial.

The drinking of blood and eating raw liver/heart in primitive and head hunter/cannibal cultures supplemented them. I read that they would feel energized and in some cases improved vision etc. Don't quote me though.....
 
Raisedby wolves said:
I agree with you 100%

I eat wild berries, make pine needle tea, can identify numerous plants and could probably survive on many of them. Have eaten cat-tails, skunk cabbage, walnuts, acorns, etc. I COULD survive on plants, but wouldn't chance it. I would eat what I was 100% sure about. But NOTHING I was 99% sure about.

For those that know their plants, by all means use your knowledge and for those that want to become experts, I admire you.


But for the average survival type guy on this forum, you are going to be much safer eating critters than plants, that's all.

Carl-
Click to expand...

I think you touched on the important practicality of foraging, but are looking at it a different way. That "Into the Wild" dude was...not dumb, but made some poor decisions that ultimately killed his ass.

Anyone in a YOU-WILL-DIE survival situation who deviates from what they know 100% to be true and safe is taking a real chance. They had better be 100% sure there is NO-OTHER-WAY to survive but to take the chance.

I think the smart person should be familiar with ways to procure meat safely and efficiently, AND be familiar with and procure COMMON edible plant life.

I'm going to use my state, Florida, as an example, because that's where I spend most of my time and am most familiar.

If the duration was 1-2 days, I would procure water and pine tea.
If the duration was longer than that, I would procure water, pine tea and seads, yucca or palm heart, and fish. I'd dig for worms and grubs and find grasshoppers to fish with regardless of whether I had line/hooks or made a gig. If I came across a field, which is pretty common in FL, I'd look for blackberries. They're also very common in FL. I'd also kill snakes, because again, they're very common, and EASY to kill and eat.

Beyond that, I wouldn't mess with anything else. Green onions would be nice, but I couldn't tell them from regular old grass in a field. I sure wouldn't try to trap animals other than snakes, turtles, and fish. It's too much effort, and I'm not familiar enough with hunting.

The sustenance that nature would provide would be the things I see every day just walking around the woods or in a field, or glancing into a small river or pond and immediately knowing that I could eat that or catch that with minimal effort and 100% assurance that I'd be fine.
 
Dnalsi said:
Sorry, but those links are as credible as info on Wiki, at best. Yes, a lot of hormones and medicines are fed to livestock, but not to the point of threatening your life. If that were the case, mortality and diseases would be more common in the US then at Haiti or most African nations.

Show proof they are not credible.
Click to expand...
Though my line of work is not nutrition or nutrology, most of that info is hogwash. No, I'm not going to prove you why it's hogwash; it took me 6 years in med school plus 3 years in a residency program plus I don't know how many hundreds of hours reading medical journals to be able to say with conviction that most of that info is hogwash. It would take a LOT of time to hunt down over the web all the info and data I would need to make a case on what I'm saying. But by no means you should take my word for it, so if you want proof, talk to a doctor or nutritionist you trust and I'm positive they can give you a lot of info - it's way easier to explain all this talking instead of writing. Typing all that is needed here would be a huge chore and a big drag for everyone - specially me :p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top