Why even Ray Mears dies alone in the subarctic -- part 1

[dogwood]

Very interesting info. Just one point though. There really should be no difference between your basal metabolism measured in a temperate zone or an arctic zone. Basal rates don't change in the acute time frame. A basal rate is defined as being measured at thermoneutrality. I'm not even sure acclimatization would have an effect but I do believe climatic adaptation would affect BMRs.

Basal metabolism does make modest changes based on exposure to the cold. Here's one paper about it.

http://www.jashinsky.com/ama_article...al_society.pdf

In addition, other studies have found basal rates change because of consistent exposure to heat and even food -- but the adaptation is much less.

However, I confess to being a little sloppy in the original post for this reason: I was allowing the basal metabolism number to fill in the gap on calorie burn during sleep and a few other "core" areas. I just didn't want to bog the thing down with being too specific.

I also didn't include the calorie burn required to digest food etc -- I felt the core point could be made even while excluding those values and allowing the basal rate to be their proxy.

So to clarify, while there is a small change to the basal rate in cold climates, the dominant reason our hypothetical man can go from 1,770 kcals per day at rest in temperate climes to, say, 2,500kcal burn in the subarctic has to do with the extra calories burned to maintain body temperature while at sleep -- and this is well documented in the literature.

Incidentally, it's also documented that acclimatized outdoors people spend roughly 30% fewer calories to maintain body heat at sleep in cold climate than non-acclimatized people. However that acclimatization benefit takes about a year to kick in.

Thanks for calling me on this one, Hoodoo -- I guess I should have made it clear from the start. As it was I didn't think anyone would read such a long post. Guess I was wrong

[dogwood]

anyway i digress, my question is do people who are fit and conditioned to working in an arctic environment use up more calories than the average numpty who goes out in the wildnerness and tries to survive on his own?

That's hard to answer because of range of fitness to unfitness is so great. But in general, fit people burn fewer calories for the same task as unfit people.

Someone who is 30lbs overweight will always require more calories just to move around because they're carrying the equivalent of a 30 pound backpack everywhere. It adds a tremendous load to the calorie burn.

Because fit people don't tend to carry much extra weight on their bodies, they tend to burn fewer calories in similar tasks. Also, fit people burn fewer calories in the subarctic than unfit people because of higher efficiency in movement, metabolic acclimatization to work, etc.

[firecrest]

great post Dogwood, and the best Ive seen for a long time. I think people forget that hunter gatherers are almost never found alone. One thing I question about calorie research though is how it is conducted. Anybody who has undergone a diet knows that your innitian weight loss when calories are restricted to below 2000 can be several pounds in the first few weeks, after that, even if you are eating below 2000 your weightloss plateaus off and eventually reaches equalibrium. I suspect our calorie burn and weightloss has a lot to do with western diet and lifestyle, is it possible therefor, if these statistics were compiled using western men put into wilderness situations that the studies did not accurately describe calorie burn and weightloss over a long period of time?
I am reminded of a documentary where an english black male went to live in the poorest part of ethiopia. These men survived on a meagre diet, toiled all day in their field and some days did not get food at all. when they ran out they walked two days to the village. Our UK man collapsed, not just from lack of food but lack of water. These men drank and ate less. They were not `thriving` but clearly their metabolism was much more effecient.
also Annorexics, whislt dying, can carry on for several years eating no more than 200 calories a day, yet if you or I suddenly restricted ourselves to that, we would die very quickly.
Perhaps a study of this sort, if conducted on the same group of men after a year living in the wilderness would find a much lower calorie burn and intake. Its just a thought anyway.

[Hoodoo]

So to clarify, while there is a small change to the basal rate in cold climates, the dominant reason our hypothetical man can go from 1,770 kcals per day at rest in temperate climes to, say, 2,500kcal burn in the subarctic has to do with the extra calories burned to maintain body temperature while at sleep -- and this is well documented in the literature.

Thanks for calling me on this one, Hoodoo -- I guess I should have made it clear from the start. As it was I didn't think anyone would read such a long post. Guess I was wrong

Totally agree with the extra caloric demands, just not the elevated BMR part. That Kang paper is nifty but older than dust.

At any rate, the point I made really does not affect your premise or conclusions which I think are sound and valuable. But this is an area I work in so I get a little nit picky.

[dogwood]

I saw a paper somewhere recently that claimed that specialization was one of H. sapiens avantages over H. neanderthalis; out hunters were better because they did it full time, out gatherers dito. Apparently the sexual dimorphism is the basis for this. Interestingly enought, it takes way longer to become a good hunter than it takes to become a good gatherer (vaguely recalled from a lecture; gathering girls are net providers in their early teens, while hunting boys are net providers in their early 20s, all in the example cultures studied).

Sapiens ability to swing their arms over their head (and thus throw things efficiently and club more efficiently) was also a big advantage.

Neanderthal was anatomically confined to thrusting weapons and weaker side swings.

[BorderReiver]

Sapiens ability to swing their arms over their head (and thus throw things efficiently and club more efficiently) was also a big advantage.

Neanderthal was anatomically confined to thrusting weapons and weaker side swings.

Have you any references please? That's not information that I've come across before.

Thanks again for taking the time to pass on such a large volume of information.

[dogwood]

Have you any references please? That's not information that I've come across before.

Thanks again for taking the time to pass on such a large volume of information.

Sure, here's a recent paper about the topic of the Neanderthal limited range of motion due to shoulder anatomy:

http://www.physorg.com/news151326825.html

This idea has been around for a while and it's not settled science, although at this point most accept it.

It has been sometimes said that it means Neanderthals couldn't throw at all. That's not true: they could throw sidearm. And because they were more robust than us, that would still be a devastating strike -- but not nearly as accurate as an overhead throw.

The Neanderthal method of hunting continues to be hotly debated.

The large number of broken bones found in Neanderthal remains suggest to many that they confronted game in close quarters with thrusting spears. This is a popular view, but not by any means universally accepted.

On thing the shoulder anatomy does suggest: the Neanderthal was unlikely to be able to use the atlatl as effectively as sapiens (or at all). That would have made all the difference in the world. The atlatl conferred an incredible competitive advantage to whomever used it -- it was the nuclear weapon of the time...

We don't know reliably when the atlatl arrived, but some believe it showed up about 10,000 years before Neanderthal vanished. The oldest example yet found is 33,000 years old.

All that said, it's been an incredibly exciting time in our Neanderthal understanding -- they were significantly more sophisticated than once believed. Just last week in Spain a dig uncovered signs they were cooking both meat and plant material 50,000 years ago AND they build a semicircular stone wall inside the cave that long ago too.

You gotta love Neanderthals....

[BorderReiver]

Cheers for the link.

An interesting hypothesis; pity about the small sample size.

[harryhaller]

I'll slip this info here:

"Alone in the Wilderness" 57mins
http://aloneinthewilderness.com/
http://www.dickproenneke.com/


Film produced in 2003 from film footage made by Dick Proenneke himself.

Script from Dick's own journals and the book "One Mans Wilderness" by Sam Keith, Alaska Northwest Pub. Co. (1973)


Dick Proenneke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Proenneke

In the late spring of 1968, at the age of 51, Dick Proenneke went off into the Alaskan wilderness and spent 35 years "alone" in the wilderness at Twin Lakes until 1998.

At the age of eighty-two he decided that the -50F winters were becoming too much of a chore (!!). So he left and entrusted his cabin to the park service of Lake Clark National Park.

EDIT: There is an old (100 days) nzb out there as well.

[dogwood]

At the age of eighty-two he decided that the -50F winters were becoming too much of a chore (!!). So he left and entrusted his cabin to the park service of Lake Clark National Park.

His solitary living and the documents of the area are valuable. However, people should bear in mind that he was not surviving entirely off the land -- he had regular resupply via aircraft visits from a friend. His hunting was an important supplement to his supply drops, not his primary food.

However, if people want to get a sense of the rigors of the region, it's a great place to start.

I love his log cabin and watching him make it on the film.

[Hoodoo]

Pretty common for trappers, prospectors, surveyors, and scientists to spend a few months alone in northern wilderness but they take in a goodly amount of supplies as well. If you want to read what happens when the supplies run out, read RM Patterson's Dangerous River.

[rik_uk3]

Of course he had resupply, as did the mountain men of old, many of those who did not, died. A fantastic character, and an honest 'bushcrafter'

to download
http://stagevu.com/video/ogspldtejlsv

I've stated here that IMHO living off the land in the UK is impossible, you would ultimately starve to death, this thread seems to back up that view, perhaps I won't get slagged off in future for daring to suggest bushcraft skills are not always enough.

[British Red]

Startlingly good post - and one that I for one have learned a lot from!

Thanks

[Mikey P]

I've stated here that IMHO living off the land in the UK is impossible, you would ultimately starve to death, this thread seems to back up that view, perhaps I won't get slagged off in future for daring to suggest bushcraft skills are not always enough.

No. You'll still get slagged off for daring to speak the heresy that man cannot survive on bushcraft alone.

[76bts]

great discussion - I do worry about having to survive for a long period of time in the wilderness and although bushcraft skills will get me by to a certain point you will need supplies. The good thing is that by simply adding to your bushcraft kit a netbook with mobile broadband dongle and a debit card as long as you live within 15miles of tesco the friendly delivery man will drop supplies off at your camp, he'll even leave them under your tarp if you're out forraging at the time. On a serious note I think bushcraft/survival skills are a great way to build confidence in the outdoors and one day in the right (or wrong) situation they may save your life by keeping you alive for a few hours/days until help arrives in an accident/survival situation.

[Toddy]

I've stated here that IMHO living off the land in the UK is impossible, you would ultimately starve to death, this thread seems to back up that view, perhaps I won't get slagged off in future for daring to suggest bushcraft skills are not always enough.

Of course you're going to get slagged off..............it's astonishing really how humanity ever managed to survive according to all you clever folks telling us down to the last calorie how much we need to eat.
Feast and famine changes the way the body utilises food. Seasonal changes alter the hormonal levels and adjust more than just the fight, flight or fertilise bits of our psyche and physiques.

The UK is an incredibly rich environment. Our coastlines alone, with both fish and fowl provided amply for our ancestors. Why wouldn't it do so for us now ??
Agreed it wouldn't provide for the entire present population but that's only manageable now because of farming. People harvested the land long before they cultivated it.......right now we're awash with acorns, beech nuts and hazelnuts. The ponds are full of the rhizomes of the big rushes, the ground is full of pignuts, celandines, silverweed........and so, so many more edibles.

In the space of less than a week, one of my neighbours has brought home 24 pigeons, two brace of something feathery, half a dozen rabbits, two deer, three salmon, and five geese. Thankfully we all have freezers
Tell me why any competently capable adult couldn't do likewise ?

Food needs attention to find it, patience and practice to acquire it, but it's not beyond mortal wit to survive healthily in our islands.

Interesting thread Thank you for starting it
I agree, community works better than individuality when it comes down to the survival of our species

cheers,
Toddy

[John Fenna]

The trouble is - as I see it - without the resources of modern weapons (and resuply of ammo) is that it would take the "modern man" so long to get his head around the skills and practice of effective foraging and hunting that he would starve in the midst of a wild feast!
In the right season I belive I could live quite well off the land around here...but as I lack the skills and knowledge to store foods in a glut then come the lean times I would probably starve!
I would think that the combined knowledge and specialization of a group or "tribe" would make living off the land a possiblity - but not for everyone at current population numbers.
At my age I just do not have the time to learn and perfect all the skills I would need to survive a year alone in the wild!

[Toddy]

Yeah, well said
Though I have seen excellent shots with long bow, catapults and spears. I also know folks who make and use traps and nets with great effect.

We also have different views of the way life is lived to our ancestors though. Our lives are busy, busy, busy.........maybe that's why bushcraft has such an appeal, it's a time to just take time

I freely admit that I would struggle to survive on just the natural resources around us, but that's mostly because I won't eat meat, fish or fowl. I think I'd get very lean if I did, but I think survival is quite possible.

Nowadays, with present population levels, we need to farm or at lleast smallhold.

I wish I knew so much more about the plants and foods around us I think I know enough to know I don't know enough.........ah well, it's another reason to read the forums

cheers,
Mary

[forestwalker]

The trouble is - as I see it - without the resources of modern weapons (and resuply of ammo) is that it would take the "modern man" so long to get his head around the skills and practice of effective foraging and hunting that he would starve in the midst of a wild feast!

My guess is that to become a decent paleolithic hunter would take at least 5 years of more-or-less full time practice. Gatherer could perhaps be done in a couple of years. This assumes instruction from a competent teacher in both cases! With a rifle and shotgun it becomes easier (it takes a week or so to learn to shoot ok, years with the longbow, sling etc), and tghe range is greater; few archers can reach out and kill a moose at 150 m, which is simple with a scoped rifle).

[Toddy]

True, true, but we know from archaeological finds that usually big game is shot by multiple hunters to bring it down, or as in the buffalo jumps in America and pre ice age Britain, chased into a kill zone.
Similarly fish traps are built to catch the fish on the retreating tide.

cheers,
Toddy

[forestwalker]

True, true, but we know from archaeological finds that usually big game is shot by multiple hunters to bring it down, or as in the buffalo jumps in America and pre ice age Britain, chased into a kill zone.
Similarly fish traps are built to catch the fish on the retreating tide.

Which bring us back to the group issue. But even then there is lots of tricks that "we" don't know, etc. And all of those depend on there being suitable game for it. Around here there were pit traps for moose (not a one day project for a single person without a backhoe...), and self release bows were used for moose as well (doable by a single person, but a clear felony reckless endangerment and illegal hunting today; it used to be that you had to tell everyone in church when/where you had set one up).

And as to traps; I know how to make them, but have never had any great oppourtunity to try them (illegal, but I know a person who has taken rats and mice in his barn with deadfalls).

[Toddy]

In the UK fishing is heavily handedly legally proscribed to favour 'sport' fishing, rather than putting dinner in a tummy
Likewise wildfowling and sea mammals, though the latter is mostly conservation efforts these days.

cheers,
Toddy

[rik_uk3]

Of course you're going to get slagged off..............it's astonishing really how humanity ever managed to survive according to all you clever folks telling us down to the last calorie how much we need to eat.
Feast and famine changes the way the body utilises food. Seasonal changes alter the hormonal levels and adjust more than just the fight, flight or fertilise bits of our psyche and physiques.

The UK is an incredibly rich environment. Our coastlines alone, with both fish and fowl provided amply for our ancestors. Why wouldn't it do so for us now ??
Agreed it wouldn't provide for the entire present population but that's only manageable now because of farming. People harvested the land long before they cultivated it.......right now we're awash with acorns, beech nuts and hazelnuts. The ponds are full of the rhizomes of the big rushes, the ground is full of pignuts, celandines, silverweed........and so, so many more edibles.

In the space of less than a week, one of my neighbours has brought home 24 pigeons, two brace of something feathery, half a dozen rabbits, two deer, three salmon, and five geese. Thankfully we all have freezers
Tell me why any competently capable adult couldn't do likewise ?

Food needs attention to find it, patience and practice to acquire it, but it's not beyond mortal wit to survive healthily in our islands.

Interesting thread Thank you for starting it
I agree, community works better than individuality when it comes down to the survival of our species

cheers,
Toddy

You'll survive with your freezers full very BC

[Toddy]

Hmmmm, nope, nothing in there I can eat
But I know how to acquire meat for those that can, and I know others do too.

It was an example Rik........how much food is available, not we need freezers to survive

How long will your stockpiles last then ? How paranoid will you get as they run low ? or will you decide to be more widely able to acquire wild food instead ?

cheers,
M

[dogwood]

Hmmmm, nope, nothing in there I can eat
But I know how to acquire meat for those that can, and I know others do too.

Toddy,

Like you, I'm a vegetarian. Have been for decades -- but also one who hunts (and gives the meat to friends).

Be that as it may, to survive in a true wilderness (non-agricultural) setting for any reasonable duration, you will have to return to consuming animal protein in some form or another.

You simply can't get the protein you require otherwise. This fact can't be avoided. Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no vegetarians surviving in the wilds.

So the best bet is for you and I to try to avoid crashing our airplanes in the Brooks Range

[firecrest]

Oh really...

[firecrest]

This fella is doing ok with no meat
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/C...vmed.widec.jpg

[Matt.S]

I've stated here that IMHO living off the land in the UK is impossible, you would ultimately starve to death, this thread seems to back up that view, perhaps I won't get slagged off in future for daring to suggest bushcraft skills are not always enough.

Impossible or illegal?

[trewornan]

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes

I don't mind too much but just FYI that's actually a pretty unpleasant thing to say.

a) It's very disrespectful to all the non-believers who've died defending your right to practice whatever religion you choose without interference.

b) The implication that non-believers are really just hypocrites who, when under stress will suddenly have a change of heart is unjustified and arrogant.

I mention this because I've found people using this phrase who haven't really considered the implications they're making and how someone who doesn't share their beliefs will perceive them.

[rik_uk3]

I don't mind too much but just FYI that's actually a pretty unpleasant thing to say.

a) It's very disrespectful to all the non-believers who've died defending your right to practice whatever religion you choose without interference.

b) The implication that non-believers are really just hypocrites who, when under stress will suddenly have a change of heart is unjustified and arrogant.

I mention this because I've found people using this phrase who haven't really considered the implications they're making and how someone who doesn't share their beliefs will perceive them.

Lighten up mate