The Rule of Fours

Old CW4

Old CW4

BANNED
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
870
I can't remember when I first heard about or was taught 'the rule of fours' but it made sense to me a long time ago and still does. The rule of fours may not be strictly medically accurate but I believe it is close and this is what it says:
1. The average human can survive FOUR minutes without air.
2. The average human can survive FOUR days without water.
3. A well nourished human can survive FORTY days without food.

Therefore, since air is a given, water is critical. So, you're lost in the boonies or have fled a SHTF situation into unfamiliar territory. Hopefully, you've packed lots of water even if by plastic jugs slung on ropes over your shoulders. If so, that water is life, no tooth brushing, 'whore's' baths, cooking, etc., it's for drinking and rationed at that until another source can be found. Food can wait. Most people can pull their belts in several notches before food becomes critical, probably in two to four days depending on your fortitude and willpower because hunger isn't pleasant.

IMO, the first principal need after water is shelter. It gets cool at night almost everywhere and you need, hell, you must have, some sort of cover above you to retard body heat radiation into the night sky, protect you from rain and snow, etc.

Then, with water and shelter taken care of we worry about food. No need to dwell on that. We humans are omnivores and when needs must, can eat and survive on an amazing variety of plants, animals, fish, insects, etc. Just sample new things in small quantities to start and if you get sick, that item goes into your 'no-no' list,

While I'm out there and gradually improving my shelter and water/food sources, I'd also be thinking about migration. If I'm way north, I need to get south where it's warmer. If I'm way high, I need to get lower first and then move south for the same reason--milder climate, more moisture and water, and richer food sources.

I've seen some posts wherein folks talk about 'settling' in the high mountains and staying put. I don't think so. I've been there and it's mighty lonesome up there at many thousands of feet in the wintertime. Most everything in the way of animal life hibernates for the winter and there can be many feet of ice covering mountain lakes to try for fish. IMO, get to hell down! The high mountains are great in warm weather but damned hostile in winter. Just ask the Donner Party and Al Parker's companions. Same with the desert, takes a lot of acres to forage over to supply one human let alone a group. Get thee to milder country, the southern plains or forests where there are natural 'surpluses' sufficient to accomodate a few more human 'scavengers.' Just my $0.02
 
man I've heard rules of 2's rules of 3's, now there are rules of 4's? My one rule is stay the hell alive, I don't care who says what about how long the human condition can last. People have lasted longer. I do think so, about settling in high mountains. You just need to know where to go. Here in Idaho there are two parallel valleys that aren't more than 20 miles apart-one gets 180 inches of snow a year and one gets none, because it rarely gets colder than 55 degrees year round. Mountain weather patterns are crazy, some stay consistantly warm while others get burried. You just have to know the terrain and how to live in those conditions. People have lived in the high mountains since humanity has been known to exist. You can survive wherever you think you can, I'm heading straight to 10,000 feet where people nor government would care to go, and I'm eating elk steaks and trout fillets while everyone else is roiling in chaos.
 
CW4, I think you're referring to the "Rule of Threes," which is common in survival writings. (You have the basic idea right, and like parlay in the movie, Pirates of the Carribian, it is meant to be more as a guideline, not a hard law.) The idea is to organize priorities.

I differ with many others in that I think those priorities will shift in position depending on environment and circumstances.
 
Always heard the "rule of 3's"
Minutes without air
Hours without shelter
Days without water
Weeks without food
Months without a cheeseburger

Not sure about the last one but it's worked for me.
 
I've always heard the rule of 3s.
3 minutes without air
3 days without water
3 weeks without food

4 days is a long time with no water. (Then again I drink like a fish so 1 day is almost death for me lol)
 
2, 3, 4...Whatever the number it's kind of mental masturbation if you ask me. Yes, it's nice to know what the human body can tolerate, and still survive. It's not exactly smart to push those boundaries though if you don't have to.

Most people don't hydrate well enough, and in certain conditions, couldn't last 1 day, without water. In the poles or deserts, you may not have 3 hours without shelter...and if you DO go that long, you're possibly beyond the point that shelter alone will help, and you'll need copius amounts of water and evaporative cooling, etc.

Lack of food can cause headaches, dizziness, low blood sugar(How would you like to pass out and bust your skull open on a rock, just because food wasn't THAT high of a priority?)

The point I'm making is, know your limits, everyone is different. There are no hard and fast rules. If you're thirsty, drink. If you're hungry, eat. Cold, shelter, etc. Just because you CAN survive at extremes doesn't mean you should be skirting the boundaries.

I could probably continue rambling on, but that's about the gist of it, just something to consider I guess.


Gautier
 
this rule of 3 hours without shelter then your dead is complete and utter BS. so is the 3 - 4 minutes without air (tell that the freedivers in the pacific who dive for 6 - 9 minutes with a single breath of air)

I would really like to know who comes up with this crap. I swear they base the calculations on weak urban cubicle dwellers who never venture outside.

mental masturbation sums it up perfectly.

I should be dead right now, for i left my home (shelter) for 5 hours today. Every day i go without shelter for 6 - 10 hours, sometimes overnight!

no this rant is NOT directed at the OP of this thread. its just a statement in general
 
Mental masturbation aside, try to go 3 months without that cheeseburger... see what happens.
 
this rule of 3 hours without shelter then your dead is complete and utter BS. so is the 3 - 4 minutes without air (tell that the freedivers in the pacific who dive for 6 - 9 minutes with a single breath of air)

I would really like to know who comes up with this crap. I swear they base the calculations on weak urban cubicle dwellers who never venture outside.
Click to expand...

I first heard it from Ron Hood (although I heard a variation at Army Special Forces School). You'd have to talk to the author if you disagree. You'd also have to know what the rule is and hear his explanation before you criticize it.

Three hours doesn't mean three hours without a lean-to. Appropriate clothing is considered "shelter" and of course it depends on the environment. It may mean shade in the southern Arizona desert (ever try standing three hours in the sun when it's 119), or just shelter from the rain in 40 degree whether in the Pacnorthwest, or a "real shelter" in Michigan in the winter.

If you'd like a full explanation, go here www.survival.com. I would bet Ron Hood has forgot more than any of the people on this board. Tell him he's a cubicle dweller.

Otherwise Bushman, if you're far advanced beyond Dr. Hood, crank out your videos and show us your skills. You owe it to all the uninformed masses.

The Rule of 3s is meant to be a guide and a teaching tool, not an absolute. You'd know that if you'd taken any training. OF COURSE some people can last longer, or perhaps not last as long in certain environs (wet from taking a splash through the ice in the northern winter).

It's meant to focus people on the normal order of survival...to focus people on the priorities in the correct priorities, instead of focusing on power bars and fish hooks like the ignorant tend to do.

And it's meant to be easily memorized, even by cubicle dwellers.
 
Cynt said:
Always heard the "rule of 3's"
Minutes without air
Hours without shelter
Days without water
Weeks without food
Months without a cheeseburger

Not sure about the last one but it's worked for me.
Click to expand...

I knew someone who appended 3 seconds without common sense. And I've also heard someone refer to 3 months without hope.
Though I could probably do without the cheeseburger, if I had on-call pizza.
G
 
I have nothing but respect for Ron Hood. I am also a Hoodlum.

i dont recall saying i was "far advanced" from anyone. I was sarcastically ranting about the "rules" because there IS NO RULES TO SURVIVAL, its adapt as you go. Far too many people get STUCK inside the rigid confines of "rules" when in the woods or in other situs.

btw Nemomaz, whats your resume of instruction? what makes you an expert?

as for me, i got 30+ years under my belt of solo hiking, group hiking, camping, extended hikes, and a lot of education from people along the way who have mentored me from an extremely early age. Two include Royal Engineer sergeants, several guides and trappers, and local First Nations survival instructors from the Canadian Rangers. I dont claim to be an expert. No one is an expert.
 
Last edited:
Gautier said:
2, 3, 4...Whatever the number it's kind of mental masturbation if you ask me. Yes, it's nice to know what the human body can tolerate, and still survive. It's not exactly smart to push those boundaries though if you don't have to.
Click to expand...

It does make it easier if you are stuck in a survival situation though. Now you know what you should be able to handle, so you are more likely to suck it up and keep on truckin.
 
Bushman5 said:
this rule of 3 hours without shelter then your dead is complete and utter BS. so is the 3 - 4 minutes without air (tell that the freedivers in the pacific who dive for 6 - 9 minutes with a single breath of air) The average thinkign person would be able to see that this OBVIOUSLY applies to the average person, not a free diver who is well-versed in proper breathing exercises.

I would really like to know who comes up with this crap. I swear they base the calculations on weak urban cubicle dwellers who never venture outside. It is based on the average person. The vitriol is really pointless.

mental masturbation sums it up perfectly.

I should be dead right now, for i left my home (shelter) for 5 hours today. Every day i go without shelter for 6 - 10 hours, sometimes overnight! Your sarcasm reeally yields no relevant or valuable input. "Shelter" most obviously means in adverse conditions where a regular dwelling is not around.

no this rant is NOT directed at the OP of this thread. its just a statement in general
Click to expand...

.....................
 
I'm going with Old CW4 on this. I believe he and I attended some of the same survival schools, where he may have picked up the rule of 4's: I know I did.

Some of you have said no, it's three, or no, it's two. What are you basing this on?

Some of the best medical and survival researchers in the world work for the US Government, and they came up with the rule of 4's. Until someone proves them wrong, I'm sticking with their version.

Old CW4 has been and done, and I'm in agreement with what he wrote.
 
How the hell can people get their knickers in a bunch about the Rule of Threes/Twos/Fours/Twelves..................?

The whole idea is to establish some kind of priorities for a person in a survival situation. It's not carved in stone. Different conditions - altered priorities. Old CW4 was sharing with us something he learned to this end, and I thank him for it. I learned it as the Rule of Three's from a Ron Hood video. No matter 3's, 4's, whatever. The intent is the same.

I don't know if any of you have noticed or not, there have been a lot of regulars who very seldom come here any more. In fact, a couple of people have invited me to come with them to a different forum. This kind of bickering is one of the big reasons why.

This forum is intended as a meeting place for people with similar interests to share and learn, not to belittle and argue.

If you disagree with something, fine. Give your reasons, but don't launch personal attacks. Let's all grow the hell up.

Doc
 
dawsonbob said:
I'm going with Old CW4 on this. I believe he and I attended some of the same survival schools, where he may have picked up the rule of 4's: I know I did.

Some of you have said no, it's three, or no, it's two. What are you basing this on?

Some of the best medical and survival researchers in the world work for the US Government, and they came up with the rule of 4's. Until someone proves them wrong, I'm sticking with their version.

Old CW4 has been and done, and I'm in agreement with what he wrote.
Click to expand...

Bob, I didn't mean to contradict the OP - I honestly thought he was misremembering a presentation of the "Rule of Threes" which is broadly used, irrespective of its validity. A simple google search shows this to be the case. I cannot source the originator of the concept, although I have heard it repeated by so-called survival luminaries for the last twenty years. Who knows? Maybe the original source did present a "Rule of Fours."

Like I said in my first post, its more of a guideline, Poppet! :)
 
dawsonbob said:
I'm going with Old CW4 on this. I believe he and I attended some of the same survival schools, where he may have picked up the rule of 4's: I know I did.

Some of you have said no, it's three, or no, it's two. What are you basing this on?

Some of the best medical and survival researchers in the world work for the US Government, and they came up with the rule of 4's. Until someone proves them wrong, I'm sticking with their version.

Old CW4 has been and done, and I'm in agreement with what he wrote.
Click to expand...

Now, I use the rule of threes, however I have to say that use what works for YOU. Don't do something just because someone else says that this is best or that is. Whatever is best for you, and suits you, is what you should use.
 
Pritch said:
Bob, I didn't mean to contradict the OP - I honestly thought he was misremembering a presentation of the "Rule of Threes" which is broadly used, irrespective of its validity. A simple google search shows this to be the case. I cannot source the originator of the concept, although I have heard it repeated by so-called survival luminaries for the last twenty years. Who knows? Maybe the original source did present a "Rule of Fours."

Like I said in my first post, its more of a guideline, Poppet! :)
Click to expand...

I wasn't worried about it, Pritch. I've never seen you attack anyone, so it never entered my mind.:D

I've been hearing the "Rule of Threes" for the last twenty years or so, too. But before that — long before that — many of us in the community I belonged to were taught the rule of fours, and a lot of survival thinking and training was based on it. Who came up with it? The US Government who, coincidentally, were the ones teaching us.

It only takes a little thought to realize that — as someone pointed out — circumstances and individual capabilities are going to change the times somewhat, but the rule of fours was what was taught by the US government to those of us who fell out of aircraft and swam underwater. They had a lot of money wrapped up in us, so the training was pretty good — including the rule of fours.

Didn't mean to ramble, but I just spent an entire fun filled day at the VA doing tests, and I'm probably a little spacey right now.
 
Bushman5 said:
this rule of 3 hours without shelter then your dead is complete and utter BS. so is the 3 - 4 minutes without air (tell that the freedivers in the pacific who dive for 6 - 9 minutes with a single breath of air)

I would really like to know who comes up with this crap. I swear they base the calculations on weak urban cubicle dwellers who never venture outside.

mental masturbation sums it up perfectly.

I should be dead right now, for i left my home (shelter) for 5 hours today. Every day i go without shelter for 6 - 10 hours, sometimes overnight!

no this rant is NOT directed at the OP of this thread. its just a statement in general
Click to expand...

Whatever it is aimed at, it isn't an appropriate rant. Period.

The 4 minutes without air doesn't refer to holding your breath. Holding your breath for time involves preparation.

You may think that all persons who aren't lame couch potatoes are constantly hyperoxygeneated, and have done their 2-10 minutes of prep breathing for making a 6-19 minute breath holding attempt. I would say, that if you think this, you are nuts.

The four minutes rule (or 3 minutes) refers actually to a lack of blood oxygen. if you are in the middle of a breath and suddenly have to hold it, you have a couple minutes of (non prepped) breath holding before this sets in.

Please be aware, because this could be dangerous- you are not exempt from oxygen needs for your body's metabilosm. 4 minutes of nada in your red blood cells is going to be a bad thing.


Now, you went off on some unrelated rant about 5 hours of shelter. Where you got that, I'm not sure. What the OP said was:

"IMO, the first principal need after water is shelter. It gets cool at night almost everywhere and you need, hell, you must have, some sort of cover above you to retard body heat radiation into the night sky, protect you from rain and snow, etc."

Again, I've lived in places as diverse as Iceland and the Mojave. Shelter is a big deal. I'm completely unsure how you manage to get from needing shelter to having to never leave a house. Can you explain the logic? Because, quite honestly, and with no insult intended, it sounds too bizarre a reaction to be real. I just can't figure out what joke you were making?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top