THe survival experts know nowt:)

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
3
Hampshire
...particularly re cold weather.

This is a somewhat light-hearted rant about all the advice one gets from "experts" - particularly the most famous (obviousy this excludes any gems from me...) Is "accepted wisdom" really that?

PART !.

First of all - don't go into the snow in bare feet. I'm sorry, but even putting a pair of woolen socks over your tootsies isn't going to stave off frost-bite for more than a few minutes. The counter-argument is that bare feet will let you have a better understanding of the terrain. Well, in snow/ice let me save you the trouble - it'll be cold, and quite possibly slippery. And in bare feet, you're more likely to sink into the snow as your toes will have dropped off, and your weight will be spread across a smaller surface area.

Second. Fitness.

Now everyone will tell you that you need to be fit - a lean, mean fighting machine - to go into the Arctic. What rubbish! Anyone seen Arctic/Antarctic mammals? The healthy ones all have a thick layer of blubber, both to insulate their vitals from the cold and as a built-in energy reserve. The skinny ones are those about to shuffle off this mortal coil. Fact. Because your cold sensors are outside the fat layer, you will still feel the cold, but much more importantly, your core will be much better protected if you're carrying a healthy layer of blubber. IN fact, in the cold, this should be Rule 1.

Same with exercise. Have you seen the stats of the number of people dropping dead during exercise through heart failure or strokes? It's horrific! Don't do it, unless you want to add to the morgue count.

One thing most agree on is that the most important thing you should do in any survival situation is to think. But if the body is shutting down because Mr Skinny is going into hypothermia, thats just not possible. And the more you exercise, the less blubber will be available in a survival situation. What people tend to forget is that one's body adapts to carrying more weight - leg muscles, back muscles etc grow to accommodate the extra load just through simple everyday activity. And most of the additional weight is life-saving blubber. So survival rule number 2 - Be fat - be safe.

Third. Fires and Fire-lighting.

Be honest, now - when was the last time you saw someone lighting his cigarette by rubbing two sticks together, using a flint and steel striker - or even a firesteel? So why insist on carrying such stuff into sub-zero weather, when a few Bics and a petrol lighter or two will actually work much better? When you're dehydrated, do you start by cutting down trees, sectioning them, splitting to get at some dry wood, create some feather-sticks from the dry wood, some larger pieces as tinder, create a birch-bark bowl then set about melting some snow in it? Or do you just fire up a stove and put some snowballs into the pan?

Part 2 to follow - deals with - inter alia - the idiocy of thinking a quinzy/snowhole is a good idea........
 

big_swede

Native
Sep 22, 2006
1,452
8
42
W Yorkshire
...particularly re cold weather.

This is a somewhat light-hearted rant about all the advice one gets from "experts" - particularly the most famous (obviousy this excludes any gems from me...) Is "accepted wisdom" really that?

PART !.

First of all - don't go into the snow in bare feet. I'm sorry, but even putting a pair of woolen socks over your tootsies isn't going to stave off frost-bite for more than a few minutes. The counter-argument is that bare feet will let you have a better understanding of the terrain. Well, in snow/ice let me save you the trouble - it'll be cold, and quite possibly slippery. And in bare feet, you're more likely to sink into the snow as your toes will have dropped off, and your weight will be spread across a smaller surface area.

Second. Fitness.

Now everyone will tell you that you need to be fit - a lean, mean fighting machine - to go into the Arctic. What rubbish! Anyone seen Arctic/Antarctic mammals? The healthy ones all have a thick layer of blubber, both to insulate their vitals from the cold and as a built-in energy reserve. The skinny ones are those about to shuffle off this mortal coil. Fact. Because your cold sensors are outside the fat layer, you will still feel the cold, but much more importantly, your core will be much better protected if you're carrying a healthy layer of blubber. IN fact, in the cold, this should be Rule 1.

Same with exercise. Have you seen the stats of the number of people dropping dead during exercise through heart failure or strokes? It's horrific! Don't do it, unless you want to add to the morgue count.

One thing most agree on is that the most important thing you should do in any survival situation is to think. But if the body is shutting down because Mr Skinny is going into hypothermia, thats just not possible. And the more you exercise, the less blubber will be available in a survival situation. What people tend to forget is that one's body adapts to carrying more weight - leg muscles, back muscles etc grow to accommodate the extra load just through simple everyday activity. And most of the additional weight is life-saving blubber. So survival rule number 2 - Be fat - be safe.

Third. Fires and Fire-lighting.

Be honest, now - when was the last time you saw someone lighting his cigarette by rubbing two sticks together, using a flint and steel striker - or even a firesteel? So why insist on carrying such stuff into sub-zero weather, when a few Bics and a petrol lighter or two will actually work much better? When you're dehydrated, do you start by cutting down trees, sectioning them, splitting to get at some dry wood, create some feather-sticks from the dry wood, some larger pieces as tinder, create a birch-bark bowl then set about melting some snow in it? Or do you just fire up a stove and put some snowballs into the pan?

Part 2 to follow - deals with - inter alia - the idiocy of thinking a quinzy/snowhole is a good idea........

I do not agree on the fitness. I have spent enough time (amidst other things 12 months on spitsbergen) in cold regions. Fitness does make a huge difference in how you cope with cold. A decent amount of fat won't hurt but having a good stamina makes your body handle the cold a lot better! Blood circulation in really important, and more muscle mass means more heat produced when you move your body. After all, there are two ways to get warm, to move or to add heat (thru food or drink) to the body. Adding insulating layers does just that, insulate, it does not create warmth. Also, a fit person will handle the stress hormones released by the cold better.

There are tons of medical research on this. A fitter person will cope better than an unfit. Period.
 

rik_uk3

Banned
Jun 10, 2006
13,320
28
70
south wales
You can be 'fit' and still carry a few pounds of fat on your body. Period.

People like Sir Ranulph Fiennes will deliberately put on weight before expeditions as the 'reseverve fuel' is on hand for the body to use when needed. Even eating 5000 cal + a day he's gone into Ketosis on past trips.
 

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
3
Hampshire
:)

I think Big Swede missed the part about fatter folk effectively "auto-generate" larger muscles in the largest muscle groups - ie legs and back - which actually address his concerns about big muscles =good! And he is of course factually completely wrong when he disputes the benefits of blubber as core insulation. Millions of seals, whales etc agree with me... And if he still has doubts, perhaps he could enlighten me on the benefits of down gilets and other winter clothing, which is all designed to protect core temperatures by adding insulating layers. None of these are as good as blubber:)

Actually, Rik raised an interesting point. I seem to remember reading somewhere that - no matter how much you eat in extreme cold, your body cannot process much more than 5-6000 calories ingested orally on a daily basis. Yet - because it is "natural" - it can handle processing body fat much more efficiently.

I rest my case:)
 

Squidders

Full Member
Aug 3, 2004
3,853
15
48
Harrow, Middlesex
You can be 'fit' and still carry a few pounds of fat on your body. Period.

People like Sir Ranulph Fiennes will deliberately put on weight before expeditions as the 'reseverve fuel' is on hand for the body to use when needed. Even eating 5000 cal + a day he's gone into Ketosis on past trips.

You're bringing Ran Feinnes into this?

What possible comparison to that gnarly old heroic mad-man could any activity we undertake be?

He isn't a bushcrafter and i'm not the kind of lunatic that would try to walk to the south pole dragging all my kit with me as quickly as possible in winter.

I have nothing against your arguments with regard to having a bit of insulation and comfort built-in but a person with reasonable fitness will be warmer and better at self regulating their temperature than a couch potato. The healthier person will also use less calories to carryout the same workload thus conserving more energy.

Fire steels have their place, there are survival situations and there are survival situations, if everything I had was broken I would be kissing and hugging my fire steel. You are right about doing it the easy way when you need warmth in a hurry and have the easy way available - of course it's only sensible that if you have a can of petrol and are shivering you would use it. But I have spent hours in front of toasty camp fires practicing making fire so that I can impress ladies and intimidate other men, your argument is invalid.

I would even go as far as to say that the back of my knife is the squarest object known to man and the "sparks" coming off my fire steel are more like the launch of a Saturn 5 rocket than a simple fire lighter. I don't like to boast though.

p.s. Ran Feinnes is a GOD!
 

big_swede

Native
Sep 22, 2006
1,452
8
42
W Yorkshire
:)

I think Big Swede missed the part about fatter folk effectively "auto-generate" larger muscles in the largest muscle groups - ie legs and back - which actually address his concerns about big muscles =good! And he is of course factually completely wrong when he disputes the benefits of blubber as core insulation. Millions of seals, whales etc agree with me... And if he still has doubts, perhaps he could enlighten me on the benefits of down gilets and other winter clothing, which is all designed to protect core temperatures by adding insulating layers. None of these are as good as blubber:)

Actually, Rik raised an interesting point. I seem to remember reading somewhere that - no matter how much you eat in extreme cold, your body cannot process much more than 5-6000 calories ingested orally on a daily basis. Yet - because it is "natural" - it can handle processing body fat much more efficiently.

I rest my case:)

I did not dispute that blubber is an insulating layer. Nor did I say that insulating clothes are no good. I said that insulating layers does not create warmth. The body can only produce warmth by moving, and that warmth is created by muscles (strictly speaking, the basic torsoheat is also produced by muscles). And a fat persons 'auto-created' muscles are nothing in comparison to what a strict regimen of squats and dead lifts can produce. Ever seen a fat guy starting to work out in the gym? I have, not impressed by 'auto-generated' muscles...7

And if you compare loft per unit weight, down wins hand down over blubber. The reason marine mammals have blubber is because it does not compress under water to the same degree. And mammals can't produce down.
 

santaman2000

M.A.B (Mad About Bushcraft)
Jan 15, 2011
16,909
1,120
68
Florida
You can be 'fit' and still carry a few pounds of fat on your body. Period.

People like Sir Ranulph Fiennes will deliberately put on weight before expeditions as the 'reseverve fuel' is on hand for the body to use when needed. Even eating 5000 cal + a day he's gone into Ketosis on past trips.

According to current health guidelines, a "few pounds" isn't a hell of a lot. In fact, less than a "few pounds" of fat is considered unhealthily skinny.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideal Fat Percentage for Women & Men

The ideal percentage of body fat varies between each individual depending on various factors such as gender, body type, hereditary, age, activity levels and eating habits. Overweight people generally develop a higher body fat percentage due to either a sedentary lifestyle or a regular consumption of more energy than the body requires, often though it is the combination of both these factors over time that allow the body fat percentage to push to high levels.

Recommended Body Fat Levels for men and women:

Males Age Range (years)---------Too Little---------Healthy Range---------Overweight---------Obese
20-30------------------------------Below 8%--------8 - 19%----------------19 - 25%-----------over 25%
31-40------------------------------Below 8%--------8 - 19%----------------19 - 25%-----------over 25%
41-50------------------------------Below 11%------11 - 22%---------------22 - 27%-----------over 27%
51-60------------------------------Below 11%------11 - 22%---------------22 - 27%-----------over 27%
61-70------------------------------Below 13%------13 - 25%---------------25 - 30%-----------over 30%
71-80------------------------------Below 13%------13 - 25%---------------25 - 30%-----------over 30%



Females Age Range (years)-----------Too Little---------Healthy Range---------Overweight---------Obese
20-30-----------------------------------Below 21%-------21 - 33%--------------33 - 39%------------over 39%
31-40-----------------------------------Below 21%-------21 - 33%--------------33 - 39%------------over 39%
41-50-----------------------------------Below 23%-------23 - 35%--------------35 - 40%------------over 40%
51-60-----------------------------------Below 23%-------23 - 35%--------------35 - 40%------------over 40%
61-70-----------------------------------Below 24%-------24 - 36%--------------36 - 42%------------over 42%
71-80-----------------------------------Below 24%-------24 - 36%--------------36 - 42%------------over 42%

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using this table, the minimum of 8% for 20-30 year old men (the group requiring the least body fat) a 90 pound weakling would still require at least 7.2 pounds of body fat just to reach minimum.
 
Last edited:

Humpback

On a new journey
Dec 10, 2006
1,231
0
67
1/4 mile from Bramley End.
Squiders said

p.s. Ran Feinnes is a GOD!

This should of course read "p.s. Ran Feinnes is a .OD!"
As the G fell off with his toes and most of his fingers.

And of course mammals do produce down. I for one have a gland in my belly button which produces down regularly.




Alan
 

Andy BB

Full Member
Apr 19, 2010
3,290
3
Hampshire
Ah - you kind of make my point, Santaman:)

"Ideal fat percentage" is certainly not "ideal" for an Innuit, who have a massively higher fat percentage than this. (Interestingly their fat intake is also incredible, yet those living traditional lifestyles had virtually no heart problems). Why is this - evolution of the fittest in short. Adaptation to the environment - chubbies live to procreate - skinnies don't. So when in Rome - or the Arctic/Antarctic in this case - do as the Romans do.......

And, again sorry Big swede, but whales and seals (and every cold-weather clothing manufacturer on earth) disagree with your theories on skinny man surviving cold exposure longer than blubber-man. Sure, the body generates heat from burning fuel, but that will escape Mr skinny much quicker than blubber-man. If that wasn't the case, there would be little need for protective, insulating clothing:)
 

Squidders

Full Member
Aug 3, 2004
3,853
15
48
Harrow, Middlesex
So the new expert advice is to ignore everyone else and evolve to be suited to the cold? Evolution sounds like a lot of work for a few weeks a year.
 

Niels

Full Member
Mar 28, 2011
2,582
3
27
Netherlands
Cody Lundin said that boots constrict the bloodflow in your feet which cause your feet to get colder than just wearing socks.
Never tried just socks in snow though sounds colder.
 

big_swede

Native
Sep 22, 2006
1,452
8
42
W Yorkshire
Ah - you kind of make my point, Santaman:)

"Ideal fat percentage" is certainly not "ideal" for an Innuit, who have a massively higher fat percentage than this. (Interestingly their fat intake is also incredible, yet those living traditional lifestyles had virtually no heart problems). Why is this - evolution of the fittest in short. Adaptation to the environment - chubbies live to procreate - skinnies don't. So when in Rome - or the Arctic/Antarctic in this case - do as the Romans do.......

And, again sorry Big swede, but whales and seals (and every cold-weather clothing manufacturer on earth) disagree with your theories on skinny man surviving cold exposure longer than blubber-man. Sure, the body generates heat from burning fuel, but that will escape Mr skinny much quicker than blubber-man. If that wasn't the case, there would be little need for protective, insulating clothing:)

I don't know what's the deal here, maybe you're thick? I have not baited a skinny man versus blubber man (whatever he is). I said a fit man will survive longer than an unfit. If you read fit as skinny you are wrong. Fit as in having stamina, endurance and strength. And again, read what I wrote about insulating clothing.

And comparing marine mammals with humans is plain stupid. You took a 800 meter dive lasting 20 minutes lately? In an environment that has 20 times the specific heat capacity of the environment we live in?

Look, you can be as stupid as you like. I've got the medical research on my side. And what all of the worlds armies cold weather forces are saying as well.

"Okay men, now that we're up here, let's loose all our muscles, deplete our endurance and get really really fat, crazy fat. Send me the butter private!"
 

Graham_S

Squirrely!
Feb 27, 2005
4,041
66
51
Saudi Arabia
The socks only thing really depends on the temperature.
It needs to be very cold for it to work.
Russian style felt boots and mukluks are after all more like socks that what we would think of as boots in more temperate climates.
As to the fitness, if you're fitter, you're less likely to sweat when exerted.
Sweat is a major enemy in cold weather.
 

Mesquite

It is what it is.
Mar 5, 2008
28,222
3,199
63
~Hemel Hempstead~
These threads never go well

humour is almost lost on the internet....

I think a lot of people understood the tongue in cheek humour that the OP was trying to put across and had a good chuckle at it.

Unfortunately it's blatantly obvious that some didn't...

duty_calls.png
 

Stew

Bushcrafter through and through
Nov 29, 2003
6,616
1,410
Aylesbury
stewartjlight-knives.com
The socks only thing really depends on the temperature.
It needs to be very cold for it to work.
Russian style felt boots and mukluks are after all more like socks that what we would think of as boots in more temperate climates.
As to the fitness, if you're fitter, you're less likely to sweat when exerted.
Sweat is a major enemy in cold weather.

That's a complicated one. I was lead to believe by my lecturers at university (sport & exercise scince) that the fitter you are, the quicker you start sweating and the more you sweat. It's the bodies coolant system so it makes sense - it's not a waste product as such.
However, I suppose for the same workload, a less fit person would need to work harder to produce the same result so may need more cooling and therefore sweat more.
I wouldn't want to speculate on which would be the sweatier! I would want to do some testing not guessing!! :D
 

BCUK Shop

We have a a number of knives, T-Shirts and other items for sale.

SHOP HERE