So... Tomorrow night starts the new Dual Survival...

I enjoyed the show. Maybe we should ask "What should Cody and Dave have done differently if they were REALLY trying to survive"? Aside from the cauterization and lack of footwear, I thought the wikiup was a serious waste of time and energy. Should Dave have spent the time he did hunting beaver and building the deadfall?
 
After seeing it, the thing makes some sense. They said they were basically going back through time [when there was no EMS] to see if they could cauterize a wound. It worked. Having said that, I'd never mutilate myself to see if old ways of doing things work today [unless I was getting paid handsomely of course].

Since it was wet, windy and cold, the shelter made sense.
 
Since they said it was in the 40s during the day and alternating rain and sleet between the sunshine I don't think the wikiup was that bad an idea. Especially since Cody had lots of experience in making them. It also gives people an idea of a different shelter to make besides the lean to.

Chad
 
That shelter was really nice, but a gigantic waste of energy for just one night's stay. There's a reason those are called "Semi-permanent." Happy that Codi demo'd it, not happy that he disturbed the ecosystem of the entire forest for a one-nighter.
That said, when a doctor answers my question of: "Cauterization with gun powder something that should be done in an emergency?" with "Sure, if you want to die from sepsis," I know all I need to know.
It looks to me like Codi continuously shows Dave for what he is: a goober.

BTW: can somebody tell me what was that goo that looked like pus (gotten from puncturing whatever the boil looking thing on that dead beaver was), that Canterbury smeared all over everything? Please tell me that man wasn't stupid enough to rub pus all over a knife and swear to its rust inhibiting properties.
 
The whole show is to give people something to watch that's interesting and they are succeeding, after all people are talking about it right.

They are presented situations and told what to do to showcase things.
 
KEmSAT-Survival said:
BTW: can somebody tell me what was that goo that looked like pus (gotten from puncturing whatever the boil looking thing on that dead beaver was), that Canterbury smeared all over everything? Please tell me that man wasn't stupid enough to rub pus all over a knife and swear to its rust inhibiting properties.
Click to expand...

Didn't watch it but from the description I'd say he was using the sebum from the sebaceous glands. It's a fat [lipid].
 
I hope so. I only saw bits and pieces and only sat still long enough to watch Lundin do his thing with the wikiup shelter. I just remember seeing Canterbury cut open a dead beaver, pop a big carbuncle looking thing and smear the contents all over his knife blade and something else, then talk about how great it was for rust prevention.
I wonder how far, or even IF, Canterbury researched the gunpowder cauterie thing before agreeing to it? It's his body, he's free to screw it up however he likes. The only real problem I have with it is the same problem I have with a lot of Bear Grylls's stunts: irresponsibility and the thought of "Hey, I'm on T.V. and I gave a warning, I'm absolved of all burden to act and present with sense."
I probably could have understood if they were testing in a controlled environment, where medical help was readily available, as an educational tool. But, to do something like that in the way they presented it (making Dave look like some kind of hard ass He-Man type for cutting a gash in his arm, and then setting it on fire) was completely irresponsible -- good show or not, lucrative or not. They could have turned that into a bona fide learning opportunity of what exactly to do (instead of filling the cut with gunpowder and lighting it on fire: pressure, clean dressings, real wilderness first aid), versus what not to do ("Hey, I cut a gash in my arm, on top of that I have a 3rd degree burn filled with debris -- gee, I really hope this doesn't get infected!).
 
From my perspective it is a clown show. It's Pop-Survival for people that enjoy that kind of thing. There are pop-books and pop-shows a plenty on all sorts of topics from science to cooking. Good luck to them. They owe the public nothing and the public owes them nothing. Short of fraud they can do what they like, I'm just still a little surprised that anyone here takes any notice of them for better or worse. The stopped watch being right twice a day and all that.
 
Last edited:
baldtaco-II said:
From my perspective it is a clown show. It's Pop-Survival for people that enjoy that kind of thing. There are pop-books and pop-shows a plenty on all sorts of topics from science to cooking. Good luck to them. They owe the public nothing and public owes them nothing. Short of fraud they can do what they like, I'm just still a little surprised that anyone here takes any notice of them for better or worse. The stopped watch being right twice a day and all that.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I tried watching it for the first time this past week. That shows makes Man vs Wild almost look good.

I watched an idiot that goes out in the deep forest telling me they get up to 10ft a year of rain and then says he hasn't worn shoes since 1985??? Anyone who continues to watch this (did I mention the cauterization?) after seeing this BS has way too much time on their hands. Go watch Les Stroud, at least he has some degree of reality.
 
jaymeister99 said:
Exactly. I tried watching it for the first time this past week. That shows makes Man vs Wild almost look good.

I watched an idiot that goes out in the deep forest telling me they get up to 10ft a year of rain and then says he hasn't worn shoes since 1985??? Anyone who continues to watch this (did I mention the cauterization?) after seeing this BS has way too much time on their hands. Go watch Les Stroud, at least he has some degree of reality.
Click to expand...

I'd rather just shoe my horses.
 
jaymeister99 said:
I watched an idiot that goes out in the deep forest telling me they get up to 10ft a year of rain and then says he hasn't worn shoes since 1985???
Click to expand...

There is this whole barefoot movement right now. It took running by storm last year. It resulted in a lot of overweight couch potatoes saying to themselves "the reason I can't run is because I've worn shoes!" So the couchmaster heads out onto the street, runs around the block, gets a nail in the bottom of the foot, visits the ER, gets a tetanus shot, and goes back to the couch. The podiatry forums were on fire last year with the "barefoot" trend and the marketing of Vibram fivefingers. I'm not a podiatrist, BTW, just have a lot of podiatrist friends who complain about this stuff in the doctors' lounge. I am a runner and I will occasionally run barefoot on grass just to maintain my forefoot form, but running on the street or in the woods with bare feet just isn't for me. I like my feet nice and soft and not scratchy from corns and calluses.

It seems like he really came about at the right time as far as the whole barefoot thing goes.
 
averageiowaguy said:
There is this whole barefoot movement right now. It took running by storm last year. It resulted in a lot of overweight couch potatoes saying to themselves "the reason I can't run is because I've worn shoes!" So the couchmaster heads out onto the street, runs around the block, gets a nail in the bottom of the foot, visits the ER, gets a tetanus shot, and goes back to the couch. The podiatry forums were on fire last year with the "barefoot" trend and the marketing of Vibram fivefingers. I'm not a podiatrist, BTW, just have a lot of podiatrist friends who complain about this stuff in the doctors' lounge. I am a runner and I will occasionally run barefoot on grass just to maintain my forefoot form, but running on the street or in the woods with bare feet just isn't for me. I like my feet nice and soft and not scratchy from corns and calluses.

It seems like he really came about at the right time as far as the whole barefoot thing goes.
Click to expand...

There's a related thing that always makes me smile. I've seen on a few forums now the rather bizarre claim that the natural way of walking is to put the toes down before the heal and somehow footwear stifles that and causes an unnatural manner of locomotion. I've often thought that people espousing that crap would do well to spend half an hour chatting with with folk with the job of rehabilitating damaged or deformed people, or who design prosthesis, and so on.

What really makes me chuckle is that my stuck up maternal grandmother used to make the claim that she walked like that; “I put my toes down first when I walk, like the queen”. There was no love lost between my father and her, and more than once I heard him say “if the dumb shit did walk like that she'd be going backwards”. This topic has been giving me a chuckle for nearly as long as I can remember.
 
KEmSAT-Survival said:
I hope so. I only saw bits and pieces and only sat still long enough to watch Lundin do his thing with the wikiup shelter. I just remember seeing Canterbury cut open a dead beaver, pop a big carbuncle looking thing and smear the contents all over his knife blade and something else, then talk about how great it was for rust prevention.
I wonder how far, or even IF, Canterbury researched the gunpowder cauterie thing before agreeing to it? It's his body, he's free to screw it up however he likes. The only real problem I have with it is the same problem I have with a lot of Bear Grylls's stunts: irresponsibility and the thought of "Hey, I'm on T.V. and I gave a warning, I'm absolved of all burden to act and present with sense."
I probably could have understood if they were testing in a controlled environment, where medical help was readily available, as an educational tool. But, to do something like that in the way they presented it (making Dave look like some kind of hard ass He-Man type for cutting a gash in his arm, and then setting it on fire) was completely irresponsible -- good show or not, lucrative or not. They could have turned that into a bona fide learning opportunity of what exactly to do (instead of filling the cut with gunpowder and lighting it on fire: pressure, clean dressings, real wilderness first aid), versus what not to do ("Hey, I cut a gash in my arm, on top of that I have a 3rd degree burn filled with debris -- gee, I really hope this doesn't get infected!).
Click to expand...

It's likely that the execs at discovery and their insurance company did research and figured the odds before Dave and Cody did.

baldtaco-II said:
There's a related thing that always makes me smile. I've seen on a few forums now the rather bizarre claim that the natural way of walking is to put the toes down before the heal and somehow footwear stifles that and causes an unnatural manner of locomotion. I've often thought that people espousing that crap would do well to spend half an hour chatting with with folk with the job of rehabilitating damaged or deformed people, or who design prosthesis, and so on.

What really makes me chuckle is that my stuck up maternal grandmother used to make the claim that she walked like that; “I put my toes down first when I walk, like the queen”. There was no love lost between my father and her, and more than once I heard him say “if the dumb shit did walk like that she'd be going backwards”. This topic has been giving me a chuckle for nearly as long as I can remember.
Click to expand...

My Brother was a big cross-country runner and that's how he ran. It felt weird to me so I never took it up. I should note he did the "toes first" style of running with traditional cross country sneakers on.
 
Cody is legit at least in his claim. You can find older youtube stuff of his well before anybody really knew his name where he was sporting bare feet. He's mentioned it time and time again that he has conditioned his feet and he doesn't recommend others just go barefoot. Truly it his way of life. He does put wool socks on when walking on snow and the snow freezes around it forming a boot something described by Mors K. in his book. He also was forced into make a set of thong sandals in one of the desert episodes.

As much as people like to trash the show, the cauterization (which already had an entire thread with 10-15 pages generated based on the promotional pre-season stuff) was one of the few things that really got peoples goat as to being not only bad advice but incorrect in application. We can go back to M vs W and find many, many examples where Mr. Grylls did things that were just plain wrong from a hygene and risk point of view. Still, like it or not, these shows do get people debating. They invariable do show a few neat tips and tricks, albeit watching a TV show is certainly no type of training or even a legitimate educational experience in survival skills. You gotta just treat it for what its worth. Even Les tended to play up emotions and sometimes make things more difficult than they should have been for the benefit of the storyline or to demonstrate that not everything works every time or is as easy one thought it was while practicing it on their porch.

I wish survival stories would be more simpler, kind of like how Michigan Outdoors portrays hunting. I used to remember this local show when I lived up in Sudbury, Ontario where these two guys would go fishing. It was a half hour show and they'd go to the local lakes. You felt it was a lucky episode if they hooked into two fish. Mostly, they'd just shoot the breeze, talk the local gossip about the guides and outfitters, what was hot etc. Sometimes they'd get a rental boat and the motor would belch black smoke as the tried to pull start it. Lots of people complained how boring it was. I thought it was perfect in portraying the reality of fishing and it showed me what I could really expect if I went fishing where they went. I'm pretty sure you couldn't get a show like that on air today. I'm pretty sure you couldn't get a show about what camping is really like on air today. It will either be product placement, or stupid scenarios. Have your choice. But reality won't be in the cards I'm afraid.
 
bladerique said:
My Brother was a big cross-country runner and that's how he ran. It felt weird to me so I never took it up. I should note he did the "toes first" style of running with traditional cross country sneakers on.
Click to expand...

Hola,

Just a quickie then 'cos I don't want to yank the thread too much off course. I'm only compelled to put this here because so far the dolts that believe the natural walking for humans is digitigrade or ungulate as opposed to plantigrade locomotion haven't managed to infect this forum with their nonsense, and I am eager that we should all man the battlements against such infiltration. Please consider this not as a challenge to what you said, I have no need for that, but more in the spirit of a public service announcement:

Running is not something I'm interested in and I've never enjoyed it when I've had to do it, but I am aware there is sufficient difference between running and walking that what applies to one does not necessarily apply to the other. I am aware of the toes down first technique of running, or at least the mid-foot strike style rather than the heel strikes first style. Here is a slow motion video that clearly illustrates it.

However, what I referred to wasn't running but walking. Humans evolved as a plantigrade species and that should be clearly observable during the gait. Observable heel lift is usually a manifestation of a disorder; abnormal muscle contractions, spasticity, hypertonicity, and so on.

To walk with the heels elevated as opposed to walking normally uses about half as much effort again. Not only that but in addition to the COT [costs of transport] there is evidence for a reduction in stability and that other muscles not normally involved need to be seconded. In short, there is nothing natural about it. Plantigrade locomotion is natural and economical.

The influence of foot posture on the cost of transport in humans.

C. B. Cunningham, N. Schilling, C. Anders and D. R. Carrier
Journal of Experimental Biology 213, 790-797 (2010)

and here is a follow up on podiatry forum considering biomechanics, sports and foot orthoses:

Feb. 11, 2010 - Humans, other great apes and bears are among the few animals that step first on the heel when walking, and then roll onto the ball of the foot and toes. Now, a University of Utah study shows the advantage: Compared with heel-first walking, it takes 53 percent more energy to walk on the balls of your feet, and 83 percent more energy to walk on your toes.

"Our heel touches the ground at the start of each step. In most mammals, the heel remains elevated during walking and running," says biology Professor David Carrier, senior author of the new study being published online Friday, Feb. 12 and in the March 1 print issue of The Journal of Experimental Biology.

"Most mammals - dogs, cats, raccoons - walk and run around on the balls of their feet. Ungulates like horses and deer run and walk on their tiptoes," he adds. "Few species land on their heel: bears and humans and other great apes - chimps, gorillas, orangutans."

"Our study shows that the heel-down posture increases the economy of walking but not the economy of running," says Carrier. "You consume more energy when you walk on the balls of your feet or your toes than when you walk heels first."

Economical walking would have helped early human hunter-gatherers find food, he says. Yet, because other great apes also are heel-first walkers, it means the trait evolved before our common ancestors descended from the trees, he adds.

"We [human ancestors] had this foot posture when we were up in the trees," Carrier says. "Heel-first walking was there in the great apes, but great apes don't walk long distances. So economy of walking probably doesn't explain this foot posture [and why it evolved], even though it helps us to walk economically."

Carrier speculates that a heel-first foot posture "may be advantageous during fighting by increasing stability and applying more torque to the ground to twist, push and shove. And it increases agility in rapid turning maneuvers during aggressive encounters."

The study concludes: "Relative to other mammals, humans are economical walkers but not economical runners. Given the great distances hunter-gatherers travel, it is not surprising that humans retained a foot posture, inherited from our more arboreal [tree-dwelling] great ape ancestors, that facilitates economical walking."

Measuring the Costs of Different Modes of Walking and Running

Carrier conducted the study with Christopher Cunningham, a doctoral student in biology at the University of Utah; Nadja Schilling, a zoologist at Friedrich Schiller University of Jena, Germany; and Christoph Anders, a physician at University Hospital Jena. The study was funded by the National Science Foundation, Friedrich Schiller University of Jena and a German food industry insurance group interested in back pain.

The study involved 27 volunteers, mostly athletes in their 20s, 30s and 40s. Each subject walked or ran three different ways, with each step either heel-first, ball-of-foot first with the heel a bit elevated or toes first with the heel even more elevated.

In his lab, Carrier and colleagues measured oxygen consumption - and thus energy use - as 11 volunteers wore face masks while walking or running on a treadmill. They also walked on a "force plate" to measure forces exerted on the ground.

Part of the study was conducted at Anders' lab in Germany, where 16 people walked or ran on a treadmill as scientists monitored activity of muscles that help the ankles, knees, hips and back do work during walking and running.

Findings of the experiments included:

* "You consume more energy when you walk on the balls of your feet or your toes than when you walk heels-first," Carrier says. Compared with heels-first walkers, those stepping first on the balls of their feet used 53 percent more energy, and those stepping toes-first expended 83 percent more energy.

* "The activity of the major muscles of the ankle, knee, hip and back all increase if you walk on the balls of your feet or your toes as opposed to landing on your heels," says Carrier. "That tells us the muscles increase the amount of work they are producing if you walk on the balls of your feet."

* "When we walk on the balls of our feet, we take shorter, more frequent strides," Carrier says. "But this did not make walking less economical." Putting the heel down first and pivoting onto the ball of the foot makes the stride longer because the full length of the foot is added to the length of the step. But that has no effect on energy use.

* The researchers wondered if stepping first on the balls of the feet took more energy than walking heel-first because people are less stable on their toes or balls of the feet. But increased stability did not explain why heel-first walking uses less energy.

* Stepping heel-first reduced the up-and-down motion of the body's center of mass during walking and required less work by the hips, knees and ankles. Stepping first onto the balls of the feet slows the body more and requires more re-acceleration.

* Heels-first steps also made walking more economical by increasing the transfer of movement or "kinetic" energy to stored or "potential" energy and back again. As a person starts to step forward and downward, stored energy is changed to motion or kinetic energy. Then, as weight shifts onto the foot and the person moved forward and upward, their speed slows down, so the kinetic energy of motion is converted back into stored or potential energy. The study found that stepping first onto the balls of the feet made this energy exchange less efficient that walking heels-first.

* Heel-first walking also reduced the "ground reaction force moment" at the ankle. That means stepping first onto the ball of the foot "decreases the leverage, decreases the mechanical advantage" compared with walking heel-first, Carrier says.

In sum, walking heel-first is not more economical because it is more stable or involves fewer, longer strides, but because when we land on our heels, less energy is lost to the ground, we have more leverage, and kinetic and potential energy are converted more efficiently.

Form and Function of the Foot

If heel-first walking is so economical, why do so many animals walk other ways?

"They are adapted for running," Carrier says. "They've compromised their economy of walking for the economy of running."

"Humans are very good at running long distances. We are physiologically and anatomically specialized for running long distances. But the anatomy of our feet is not consistent with economical running. Think of all the animals that are the best runners - gazelles, deer, horses, dogs - they all run on the ball of their feet or the tips of their toes."

When people run, why is there no difference in the amount of energy they expend when stepping first onto their heels versus the balls of their feet or toes?

The answer is unknown, but "if you land on your heel when you run, the force underneath the foot shoots very quickly to the ball of your foot," Carrier says. "Even when we run with a heel plant, most of the step our weight is supported by the ball of our foot. Lots of elite athletes, whether sprinters or distance runners, don't land on their heel. Many of them run on the balls of their feet," as do people who run barefoot. That appears to be the natural ancestral condition for early human runners, he adds.

"The important thing is we are remarkable economical walkers," Carrier says. "We are not efficient runners. In fact, we consume more energy to run than the typical mammal our size. But we are exceptionally economical walkers."

"This study suggests that one of the things that may explain such economy is the unusual structure of our foot," he adds. "The whole foot contacts the ground when we walk. We have a big heel. Our big toe is as long as our other toes and is much more robust. Our big toe also is parallel to and right next to the second toe."

"These features are distinct among apes, and provide the mechanical basis for economical walking. No other primate or mammal could fit into human shoes."


Anyway, this thread has served a usefulness to me now so I'm going to bail. :)
 
averageiowaguy said:
There is this whole barefoot movement right now. It took running by storm last year. It resulted in a lot of overweight couch potatoes saying to themselves "the reason I can't run is because I've worn shoes!" So the couchmaster heads out onto the street, runs around the block, gets a nail in the bottom of the foot, visits the ER, gets a tetanus shot, and goes back to the couch. The podiatry forums were on fire last year with the "barefoot" trend and the marketing of Vibram fivefingers. I'm not a podiatrist, BTW, just have a lot of podiatrist friends who complain about this stuff in the doctors' lounge. I am a runner and I will occasionally run barefoot on grass just to maintain my forefoot form, but running on the street or in the woods with bare feet just isn't for me. I like my feet nice and soft and not scratchy from corns and calluses.

It seems like he really came about at the right time as far as the whole barefoot thing goes.
Click to expand...

Ive seen that too.....I love running on sand barefoot, but even thats risky with the way people litter all over. :rolleyes:

The rural hillbilly areas deep in the ozarks call us alot for snake bites to bare feet, lacs, nail puntures, broken bones in feet and toes, sprained ankles, etc....All for lack of wearing supportive shoes. Never a frost bite call as far as I can remember though.... So cold weather injuries are the least of his concerns IMO.
 
j williams said:
Ive seen that too.....I love running on sand barefoot, but even thats risky with the way people litter all over. :rolleyes:

The rural hillbilly areas deep in the ozarks call us alot for snake bites to bare feet, lacs, nail puntures, broken bones in feet and toes, sprained ankles, etc....All for lack of wearing supportive shoes. Never a frost bite call as far as I can remember though.... So cold weather injuries are the least of his concerns IMO.
Click to expand...

For me, shoes/boots are definitely the way to go. I'm sure it is possible to build up some protection on your feet but how would you like those rasp-like things rubbing on your leg in bed? Talk about nasty! Last year when I was out deer hunting in 1.5 feet of snow I stepped down through the snow and a 3 inch thorn went through the sole of my boot and into my foot. Thankfully it didn't go in very far and no ill effects, but I was pretty glad to have had the boots on, both for the snow and for the dangers hidden underneath. Barefoot folks probably also walk a little more carefully than I do but how do you deal with situations where you can't see where your feet are falling?
 
Glad the show is back. Loved the first season and will enjoy this one as well. The cauterization thing was a bit over the top and not necessary for me. I figure it was a bit of sensationalism to kick off the new season. Perhaps future shows will get back onto the business of survival. Looking forward to the entire season. Looks like he healed up okay but I sure wouldn't have done it.

scar.jpg
 
What would be really great is if they would focus on a particular skill more in depth on each show. Like a desert one where procuring safe water is the focus, or focusing on a couple trap designs, or shelters, or fire. They could still keep it entertaining for the masses but also teach us a thing or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top