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

[dogwood]

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.

The point of the expression, in my mind, has less to do with religion than it does with expressing the point that under extreme circumstances people's most dearly held perspective can change.

For the record, I'm an atheist, OK?

[dogwood]

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

Firecrest, I assume you're joking, but just in case....

Different species and thus irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Cows do fine on grass too. If that's all you ate, you would die.

Our closest primate relative, the chimpanzee eats meat often. But since chimps are different species too, they are also irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

As mentioned, I happen to be a vegetarian and have been for a very long time.

But I harbor no illusions about the fact that I can afford to be a vegetarian because of the bounty provided by agriculture and, for that matter, food transportation systems that grant me easy access to high quality vegetable protein.

Surviving in the wild, you have to go back to consuming animal protein -- guaranteed.

[trewornan]

The point of the expression, in my mind, has less to do with religion than it does with expressing the point that under extreme circumstances people's most dearly held perspective can change.

I really don't want to hijack what's been an interesting thread so I'm happy to leave it at that.

[Toddy]

I think if the emphasis was on the "can" bit in the statement, I'd be happier.
I find the entire concept of actually eating meat distasteful, and I always have done. I ate it under duress and parential nagging as a child and as a young adult only because I was told I had to in order to be healthy.
Frankly, that health issue is a load of tosh.
I can imagine no circumstances now where I could actually put it into my mouth and keep it down.

To live wild as a vegetarian...........choose your habitat, have enough wandering space and some way to store a bountiful harvest, such as was done in the past by dry roasting hazelnuts, and yes, I think it's possible to survive. I don't think it'd be easy though, and I think it would take a lot of knowledge and really being aware of the seasonality of things.

I do know that given time to establish a garden/ vegetable plot, it's entirely possible to live healthily vegan let alone vegetarian, in the UK

Dogwood, I reckon that the best way to ensure survival until rescued is to be carrying a fair load of extra calories stored as fat

Moral of the tale is, "Don't fly skinny! "

cheers,
Toddy

[John Fenna]

From my experience of peoples in the developing world who still live in "tribal" type conditions, living off what they could grow or hunt/fish (plus coca cola...), skinny is the norm and I have stayed in areas where if they miss a days fishing they are VERY hungry indeed and food begging from the "Abruni" (visiting whites) is the norm.
Here because I was old (in my forties at the time) and - to put it bluntly - fat I was seen as having very high status and given more respect than those superior to me, in the organisation I was working, for who were younger and fitter (slim!) than I was.
The locals were frankly puzzled that someone who was obviously a man of import could be doing manual labour while others who were not doing so well gave the orders!
This seems to show that in such conditions, in modern times, that living off the land - even with a historic lore and a "tribe" to help - is not easy.
If you are not lucky/good at what you do you starve or die young, the lucky/clever live longer and get fat and are revered for their abilities!

[The Cumbrian]

If you are not lucky/good at what you do you starve or die young, the lucky/clever live longer and get fat and are revered for their abilities![/QUOTE]


In that case then John, they'd probably view me as some sort of prodigy.

Cheers, Michael.

[Brown Bear]

Marvellous thread. I'm going to create an excel spreadsheet so I can evaluate how much fat I need to put on for my next adventure. mmmmm.......how much increase in calorie burn should I allow for carrying each pound of additional body fat?

[Toddy]

No idea, but I do know it's the most efficient way of carrying and caring for those calories.
An anthropologist told me that the reason the Polynesians were so effective at long distance sea travel was simply because they were 'big' people

cheers,
Toddy

[Hoodoo]

Fat has twice the energy value, gram for gram, than carbs or protein.

[forestwalker]

No idea, but I do know it's the most efficient way of carrying and caring for those calories.
An anthropologist told me that the reason the Polynesians were so effective at long distance sea travel was simply because they were 'big' people

But of course long distance sailing is special; lots of time to just wait around, perhaps a little fishng, but very little hard work.

[BorderReiver]

But of course long distance sailing is special; lots of time to just wait around, perhaps a little fishng, but very little hard work.

Fairy Nuff.

Just pick your lifestyle to suit your fat reserves.

[Klenchblaize]

Best bung an extra squirrel in the pot I say!

Cheers

[dogwood]

What you actually want is a small amount of fat -- less than 10 pounds overweight. For humans, fat is simply a reserve for emergencies, not a primary source of calories.

If you go above that, you actually burn more calories doing simple tasks -- imagine carrying a 20 or 30 pound backpack everywhere you go... Simple camp duties and hunting/foraging suddenly require the same high calorie burn of moving camp!

The explanation of why being too overweight is a net negative for both an individual trying to survive in the wild or a tribe trying to survive is kind of involved. If people are really interested in that sub topic of this, let me know and I'll do the math on it to demonstrate.

However, the simplest way to explain it is that leaner people require fewer net calories to sustain body weight -- and in large measure, sustaining body weight is the name of the game.

As others have noted in this thread, there is a really good reason that nearly all people -- primitive or not -- living off the land are lean: it's significantly more efficient.

[rik_uk3]

Are there many (any) vegan diet tribes living in the wild? I'm not talking about some bunch of tipi dwelling aged hippies, I mean 'real' tribes?

[Nigel]

Dogwood wasnt fat prized by native people? Also wasnt every part of the animal consumed including marrow fat also?

[Toddy]

I don't think there are 'tribes' as such, but the Jains......many of them are, and many Bhuddists too consume no animal products. They all farm though,

cheers,
Toddy

[firecrest]

I was only kidding about the gorilla!

[firecrest]

What you actually want is a small amount of fat -- less than 10 pounds overweight. For humans, fat is simply a reserve for emergencies, not a primary source of calories.

If you go above that, you actually burn more calories doing simple tasks -- imagine carrying a 20 or 30 pound backpack everywhere you go... Simple camp duties and hunting/foraging suddenly require the same high calorie burn of moving camp!

The explanation of why being too overweight is a net negative for both an individual trying to survive in the wild or a tribe trying to survive is kind of involved. If people are really interested in that sub topic of this, let me know and I'll do the math on it to demonstrate.

However, the simplest way to explain it is that leaner people require fewer net calories to sustain body weight -- and in large measure, sustaining body weight is the name of the game.

As others have noted in this thread, there is a really good reason that nearly all people -- primitive or not -- living off the land are lean: it's significantly more efficient.

This entirely depends on where you store your fat. If it is close to your centre of gravity, it will require less calories to carry around, and some peoples evolved ways of carrying bodyfat without interferance with day to day activity
Ignoring the stomach bloating, these are members of the Khoikhoi Peoples ( I think thats the correct term) and the enlarged buttocks, medically known as Steatopygia (yes wiki is good isnt it) This fat distrubition was a common feature in many parts of Africa but is now largely dimished. The bonus ofcourse, is the ability to carry extra fluid and reserve in a way that does not restrict movement or cause health problems. The worst place to put weight on is round the middle where your organs are, where as buttock fat is relatively safe for the body to carry.


Incidentally many peoples of the world are governed by starvation genes, so no one model of calorie intake or correct weight advice can be correct. Asian men are twice as likely to have a heart attack on a western diet than a westerner because they have genes from a part of the world frequented by famine, in times of plenty (or nowadays when in Mcdonalds) they bodies store more fat than caucasians do.

[Hoodoo]

I was only kidding about the gorilla!

And here I was all set to get a gorilla and turn him loose in the brooks range to test your hypothesis.

[Colin.W]

Thanks for that. A very interesting read, fortunately it's not a situation I am likely to find myself in... I hate the cold, UK winters I can tolerate, just! but when it gets down to minus double figures I'm in favour of hibernating. I spent 12 weeks inside the arctic circle during the cod wars when I was in the RN I was so glad I was working in the boiler room hugging the front of the boiler to keep warm

[Mikey P]

Just as there are no atheists in foxholes, there are no vegetarians surviving in the wilds.

Au contraire on both counts!

i. I'm an atheist that's been in a foxhole.

ii. I'm a vegetarian living in Glasgow.

I claim my £5!

[Mikey P]

where as buttock fat is relatively safe for the body to carry.

Also makes sitting down much more comfortable.

[Colin.W]

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

I used to live near a place named Deer leap. local history is it's where ancient locals used to chase the deer up the side of the hill untill it had nowhere else to go except face the hunters of go over the sheer drop

[dogwood]

Dogwood wasnt fat prized by native people? Also wasnt every part of the animal consumed including marrow fat also?

Yes, fat was and is prized to be consumed because of its high caloric value. But that's different than carrying too much of it on your body, which increases your caloric burn rate.

[dogwood]

I was only kidding about the gorilla!

I thought so (but I'm relieved nonetheless!)

[dogwood]

Ignoring the stomach bloating, these are members of the Khoikhoi Peoples ( I think thats the correct term) and the enlarged buttocks, medically known as Steatopygia (yes wiki is good isnt it)

As you note, we should leave aside the distended stomachs because that's not fat.

So focusing on the buttocks fat, the photos you present support the case I'm making. In none of them are the individuals carrying more than 10 or at most 15 pounds of excess fat.

In fact, because these folks are quite short (if my recollection is correct) the odds are good none of them are carrying more than 8 pounds of excess weight.

[dogwood]

Are there many (any) vegan diet tribes living in the wild? I'm not talking about some bunch of tipi dwelling aged hippies, I mean 'real' tribes?

Simple answer is: no.

Being a vegetarian or a vegan is entirely a new phenomenon, relatively speaking. That's why Toddy and I are so modern and trendy

Now the discussion of how our primitive diet was distributed among food types is a subject of intense and ongoing debate among anthropolgists, and of course it also varied based on region.

But in all cases, for a couple of million years now, we've consumed animal protein.

[firecrest]

As you note, we should leave aside the distended stomachs because that's not fat.

So focusing on the buttocks fat, the photos you present support the case I'm making. In none of them are the individuals carrying more than 10 or at most 15 pounds of excess fat.

In fact, because these folks are quite short (if my recollection is correct) the odds are good none of them are carrying more than 8 pounds of excess weight.

True I can see what you mean - at some point fat is detrimental, but thats also why it was a status symbol, much as the bound feet in china were or ladies with long nails - it showed a person did not have to work hard and had plenty of `wealth` (however you may term wealth)
this is why this lady was so popular
what the venus statues show, however else we may interpret them, is that obesity was around over 35,000 years ago or else they would never have known what a big woman looked like!

[dogwood]

what the venus statues show, however else we may interpret them, is that obesity was around over 35,000 years ago or else they would never have known what a big woman looked like!

That's absolutely a true and fair point and worth mentioning.

Obesity clearly was extremely rare though.

[firecrest]

something to be worshipped by the looks of things!