What can I do... without?

[Wayland]

Thanks Tomtom

 

[tomtom]

some of them took me ages to get.. your only scratching the surface wait till you join bb

 

[BorderReiver]

I think the easily most underestimated and useless weight is the bush-crafters own body fat.

Cheers
Abbe

Very sensible Abbe.Not too many people think about that.I'm fairly lucky in that respect,as I find keeping to 70k fairly easy.

The trouble is I always carry too much "just in case" it might come in handy

 

[BorderReiver]

Of course, if I take any of these out I can guarantee that the next time I'm out somehow I'll need that exact item during an emergency

Of course,Sods Law never fails

 

[bambodoggy]

The getting rid of things you don't use approach is ok... just don't throw your FAK just because you didn't use it ;o)

P.S. I always pack loads, sure you can carry less by knowing more and all that but I don't want to. i'm on a quest to bring choice to the masses with their kit. If you want to carry more, go for it, it's not a bad thing or some sort of taboo.

It's choice, i can quite happily carry my bergen fully loaded for miles and miles without it bothering me, sure I could travel a little faster with a lighter pack but i'm not in a race usually.

I'm all for more kit personally, I like kit.

I think it's horses for course, obviously I am quite capable of doing without various items of kit but as Joe says....what's all this taboo about carrying bog all kit.
I'm a pretty stocky sort of chap and can carry my bergan full to the brim all day if needs be....and it's not that many years ago when I could run with it all day.

I (like Joe) like kit and like to play with new shiney bits of kit so I'm quite happy to carry it...and also as he says...whats the hurry when you're out for a walk? ? ?

 

[Wayland]

The things I always look at to decide what to leave behind are peices of my photographic gear.

There lies the Catch 22.

Usually I am heading into the country to take pictures so what do I dare to leave behind?

 

[Moonraker]

I think the easily most underestimated and useless weight is the bush-crafters own body fat.
I got nearly 100 kg on the scale at one point and thought how stupid the whole thing is to carry the whole lot around hurting my knees. Its funny to see how sometimes people would choose one item over the other because it has 200 gram more weight but themselves they don’t count in at all, the body fat they could spare. I got down to 85 in the first round …and saved in that way 15 kg, which I don’t have to carry all day around. Now.. after I stopped going my trap line I got up again to 89 kg. But my plan is to get down to 80 kg as a standard and that would save me 20 kg I would not need to carry around all day.

Cheers
Abbe

In a true survival situation it could be one of your most useful assets! And carrying 15kg on your back is not the same load as carrying it tucked neatly under your belt The more important factor is body strength and flexibility.

If you really want to lose weight take an axe to the computer and walk out the door

What can I do... without?

Life's worries

 

[Womble]

"If you really want to lose weight take an axe to the computer and walk out the door"

Unless - of course - the computer is at work and your mortgage depends on you remaining at work...

 

[Abbe Osram]

In a true survival situation it could be one of your most useful assets! And carrying 15kg on your back is not the same load as carrying it tucked neatly under your belt The more important factor is body strength and flexibility.

If you really want to lose weight take an axe to the computer and walk out the door

What can I do... without?

Life's worries

I am doubtful if the human body fat is of any use at all, maybe if you fall into cold water but in getting you out of a survival situation I would be interested to see a test made between a group of heavily overweight people and a group of lean, light and fast moving guys. I was reading that the apache Indians could run through the wilderness 60 to 70 miles a day. These people where living from the land and wilderness indefinitely. See the pictures none of them is fat.

It would be very interesting to study if the human body fat actually has any usefulness in a survival situation at all. Lets think that we have two Bushcrafters A and B and lets assume both are equal but B´s body weight is 95 while that of his buddy A is 75. They will walk 100 km, rest for a day and walk again 100 km. Both have a backpack of 20 kg.

A will carry on his 100 km walk 95 kg forward through the wilderness
B will carry on his 100 km walk 115 kg forward through the wilderness
A will carry on his resting day while performing the daily duties like cooking or going to the toilette only 75 kg and B will have to carry 95 kg. I don’t know how the counting would be if
Bushcrafter B would sleep and let Bushcrafter A do all the work, maybe than he would save energy but otherwise the fat Bushcrafter must use up more energy than his buddy A.

Understand me right here my friends I am not picking on fat bushcrafters I am myself overweight with a heavy 90 kg burden, .....today.

Cheers
Abbe

 

[Moonraker]

I am doubtful if the human body fat is of any use at all, maybe if you fall into cold water but in getting you out of a survival situation I would be interested to see a test made between a group of heavily overweight people and a group of lean, light and fast moving guys. I was reading that the apache Indians could run through the wilderness 60 to 70 miles a day. These people where living from the land and wilderness indefinitely. See the pictures none of them is fat.
It would be very interesting to study if the human body fat actually has any usefulness in a survival situation at all. Lets think that we have two Bushcrafters A and B and lets assume both are equal but B´s body weight is 95 while that of his buddy A is 75. They will walk 100 km, rest for a day and walk again 100 km. Both have a backpack of 20 kg.

A will carry on his 100 km walk 95 kg forward through the wilderness
B will carry on his 100 km walk 115 kg forward through the wilderness
A will carry on his resting day while performing the daily duties like cooking or going to the toilette only 75 kg and B will have to carry 95 kg. I don’t know how the counting would be if
Bushcrafter B would sleep and let Bushcrafter A do all the work, maybe than he would save energy but otherwise the fat Bushcrafter must use up more energy than his buddy A.

Understand me right here my friends I am not picking on fat bushcrafters I am myself overweight with a heavy 90 kg burden, .....today.

Cheers
Abbe

I think there is a difference between survival situation and fitness. I don't say it is right to be overweight But that perhaps in a survival situation carrying an extra energy store (i.e. fat) will aid your survival. I am not talking obese totally unfit but in this type of situation you are aiming to conserve energy by moving around as much as possible or not venturing from the site of an accident for example.

If you had two people in a survival situation, assuming they had a source of water then the fatter guy would have the larger built in energy reserves and last longer. So for instance from:

http://www.survival.com/steve2.htm

Lets get down to basics. What follows is something that if you have not heard it before, you will hear it time and again so get used to it. It is called the rule of 3’s. You can live 3 minutes without air, 3 hours with out shelter, 3 days without water and 3 weeks without food, unless you have a large supply of survival muscle (FAT) in which case you can probably make it for 6 weeks or more (One more hamburger please!)

Consider that a very basic human (and animal) survival instinct is to eat! Also it depends a lot on the sort of activities you would undertake.

If your survival depended on chasing wild animals in order to catch and eat them then being overweight would be a disadvantage. But if you had a plentiful supply of carbohydrate (such as cassava in the rainforest for instance) you could harvest from your immediate surroundings then it would be less important.

The reason why most of the people were not fat is because they used up a lot of energy in producing their food unlike us who just walks from the car to the supermarket and pays for it

I think in your scenario the fat walker would gradually use up his fat reserves and convert that into energy whilst the skinny guy will need to find the equivalent energy from elsewhere?

If you talk about two situations where body fat can help you survive, one is immersion in water and the other related to this in hypothermia i.e. the insulating properties of the fat.

There is an interesting web page which looks scientifically on body weight and survival under starvation situations. Basically a lean man of 70kg will burn 1,500kcal/day and last 64 days. An obese man of 140kg burns 2,000 - 2,500 kcal/day and lasts for 242-302 days.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e12.htm

It says:

3.3. Evidence for the first postulate of the model: Survival time in relation to body composition


There is ample evidence to support the first postulate of the model; that obesity increases survival time during starvation uncomplicated by disease. For example, obesity in both mice and humans can prolong survival time several-fold (Table 3). The remarkable obese subject studied by STUART and FLEMING (1973) had an initial body weight of 207 kg, but after successfully starving for 382 days (no energy intake) he achieved a final weight of 81.6 kg and entered the Guinness Book of Records as the subject undergoing the longest 'total' fast. In 1966, THOMSON and his colleagues (Table 2) reported two other obese subjects who fasted 200-300 days, and several other authors have reported fasts in obese subjects which lasted between 100-200 days. In contrast, the reported survival time in lean subjects is less than 80 days. Nine of the 10 Northern Ireland festers (members of the Independent Republican Army), who died of starvation between May and August 1981, survived between 57-73 days (these results have been compiled from various newspaper reports). The remaining subject died after only 45 days of starvation but he had a prior gunshot wound, emphasising the important interaction between injury and starvation.

Various famine studies have also repeatedly noted that women withstand semi-starvation better than men (KEYS et al., 1950), and this can again be explained by the larger initial percent body fat in women.

I guess for most bushcrafters it is a weekend recreational event and avoiding obesity and remaining fit and 'healthy' is more important and being prepared for the survival situation.

I think in your test the mental strengths of the individuals regardless of weight would count for more in the end.

Now pass me another reindeer steak

 

[bombadil]

My 35 litre Sabre is usually full of the same things and rarely changes. When I'm in the UK added to it is a rain jacket and fleece (obviously!), but otherwise it's pretty much always the same. Having said that, I have FAR too many knick-knacks for sharpening which live permanently in my ditty bag-but only 'cos I haven't found an alternative home for them yet. And I could probably do without taking 50 metres of 7mm rope everywhere with me, but then you never know when I'll need an extra-long clothes line.....!

 

[Keith_Beef]

I think the easily most underestimated and useless weight is the bush-crafters own body fat.
I got nearly 100 kg on the scale at one point and thought how stupid the whole thing is to carry the whole lot around hurting my knees. Its funny to see how sometimes people would choose one item over the other because it has 200 gram more weight but themselves they don’t count in at all, the body fat they could spare. I got down to 85 in the first round …and saved in that way 15 kg, which I don’t have to carry all day around. Now.. after I stopped going my trap line I got up again to 89 kg. But my plan is to get down to 80 kg as a standard and that would save me 20 kg I would not need to carry around all day.

Cheers
Abbe

That stuff you call fat is there for a reason: it's useful.

It acts as insulation when the weather turns cold, and as fuel when food is scarce.

Keith.

 

[Abbe Osram]

I think there is a difference between survival situation and fitness. I don't say it is right to be overweight But that perhaps in a survival situation carrying an extra energy store (i.e. fat) will aid your survival. I am not talking obese totally unfit but in this type of situation you are aiming to conserve energy by moving around as much as possible or not venturing from the site of an accident for example.

If you had two people in a survival situation, assuming they had a source of water then the fatter guy would have the larger built in energy reserves and last longer. So for instance from:

http://www.survival.com/steve2.htm



Consider that a very basic human (and animal) survival instinct is to eat! Also it depends a lot on the sort of activities you would undertake.

If your survival depended on chasing wild animals in order to catch and eat them then being overweight would be a disadvantage. But if you had a plentiful supply of carbohydrate (such as cassava in the rainforest for instance) you could harvest from your immediate surroundings then it would be less important.

The reason why most of the people were not fat is because they used up a lot of energy in producing their food unlike us who just walks from the car to the supermarket and pays for it

I think in your scenario the fat walker would gradually use up his fat reserves and convert that into energy whilst the skinny guy will need to find the equivalent energy from elsewhere?

If you talk about two situations where body fat can help you survive, one is immersion in water and the other related to this in hypothermia i.e. the insulating properties of the fat.

There is an interesting web page which looks scientifically on body weight and survival under starvation situations. Basically a lean man of 70kg will burn 1,500kcal/day and last 64 days. An obese man of 140kg burns 2,000 - 2,500 kcal/day and lasts for 242-302 days.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e12.htm

It says:
I guess for most bushcrafters it is a weekend recreational event and avoiding obesity and remaining fit and 'healthy' is more important and being prepared for the survival situation.

I think in your test the mental strengths of the individuals regardless of weight would count for more in the end.

Now pass me another reindeer steak

Thanks for the info mate, very interesting! I was amazed how long a human could be without food. I believe that you are right for people like the IRA men who starved to death or the two other boys sitting it out to get into the Guinness book.
And I believe you would be right too if someone sits it out and waits for the rescue team, being fat in that case is of benefit.

Living in the wild I believe it is beneficial not to carry a too heavy load of fat around while hunting. Maybe one should hunt in summer and eat himselves fat for the wintertime. Well, we have 7 month of winter here, maybe I should skip the thought of loosing weight.

cheers
Abbe

 

[Kim]

There are many things I could do without, but I'm still learning how to. In what I carry now, apart from the hot water bottle, it's all useful to me, and I use all of it too. The next stage is slowly whittling it down and getting it all a bit lighter.

The only things that I do carry that need sorting out a bit are the items in my possibles pouches that need thining out, but again that's a process of becoming really familiar with it all and knowing what I can do without (which is probably most of it)

 

[baggins]

all you need is a knife, a billy and somthing to keep you warm. Anything else you find you need, just add when you remember. Having spent alot of time climbing, light is best, less calories burned, more energy at the end of the day. the only other thing i'd always recomend is a decent first aid kit, accidents happen to the best of them.

 

[arctic hobo]

I think there is a difference between survival situation and fitness. I don't say it is right to be overweight But that perhaps in a survival situation carrying an extra energy store (i.e. fat) will aid your survival. I am not talking obese totally unfit but in this type of situation you are aiming to conserve energy by moving around as much as possible or not venturing from the site of an accident for example.

If you had two people in a survival situation, assuming they had a source of water then the fatter guy would have the larger built in energy reserves and last longer. So for instance from:

http://www.survival.com/steve2.htm



Consider that a very basic human (and animal) survival instinct is to eat! Also it depends a lot on the sort of activities you would undertake.

If your survival depended on chasing wild animals in order to catch and eat them then being overweight would be a disadvantage. But if you had a plentiful supply of carbohydrate (such as cassava in the rainforest for instance) you could harvest from your immediate surroundings then it would be less important.

The reason why most of the people were not fat is because they used up a lot of energy in producing their food unlike us who just walks from the car to the supermarket and pays for it

I think in your scenario the fat walker would gradually use up his fat reserves and convert that into energy whilst the skinny guy will need to find the equivalent energy from elsewhere?

If you talk about two situations where body fat can help you survive, one is immersion in water and the other related to this in hypothermia i.e. the insulating properties of the fat.

There is an interesting web page which looks scientifically on body weight and survival under starvation situations. Basically a lean man of 70kg will burn 1,500kcal/day and last 64 days. An obese man of 140kg burns 2,000 - 2,500 kcal/day and lasts for 242-302 days.

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e12.htm

It says:
I guess for most bushcrafters it is a weekend recreational event and avoiding obesity and remaining fit and 'healthy' is more important and being prepared for the survival situation.

I think in your test the mental strengths of the individuals regardless of weight would count for more in the end.

Now pass me another reindeer steak

I agree with all of that, although I would add that exercising on fat alone is extremely impractical. Pure fat, eg butter (well 90%) has the highest energy to weight ratio, yielding 9kcal/gram as opposed to carbs and protein which are both about 4kcal/gram. But if you look at expedition rations, although they do have a lot of fat to keep the weight down, it is nowhere near 100% and at max. is likely to be little more than 60%. This is because fat is hell to break down in exercise - ask a marathon runner what it's like after the "wall". Although a fat person may survive longer, they will find it extremely hard to do any exercise after the 64 days or however long the thin person dies, as they will have no glycogen stores. This is fine if they're going to be rescued, but if they have to get themselves any distance they're at a distinct disadvantage, even disregarding the fact that they're lumping around extra weight.
The other situation where it's useful to be fat is if you're stuck in the sea. A lean muscular person would die quickly as they are not insulated, and should not move around as in water they will actually lose heat if they do. A fat person will survive longer simply due to insulation.
But being fat has hundreds of disadvantages, too many to list here (!), and of course it's not the way a human should be - for example, although they tend to be shorter and stockier, Inuits are no fatter than the rest of the world's population. And no animals are naturally fat.

 

[spamel]

Surely the fat guy would last longer than 242-302 days.















Skinny bloke just died, get him eaten!!

Spamel

 

[Squidders]

If you eventually reach nirvana with your 2.3g full kit in its sack smaller than a possibles pouch for a three week trek into the back country... good luck carrying anything else with your new ultra light and feeble body adaptation.

This "I’m a better bushcrafter because I carry less" thing doesn't do it for me... Sure, if it all got swept away and I was left with a knife and billy I could manage but somehow, I doubt it's going to happen any time soon.

I'm sick of people giving other people hard times about their choice of kit and its volume. Sometimes bushcraft is worse than the fashion industry, we're getting completely obsessed with weight and any obsession is unhealthy.

Be satisfied with treating nature with respect and enjoying your time in the wilderness, have a few beers and worry about what really is important in life, for it is not how many micrograms you can shave off your kit folks

 

[RobertsonPau]

Here Here


Paul

 

[Toddy]

Be satisfied with treating nature with respect and enjoying your time in the wilderness, have a few beers and worry about what really is important in life, for it is not how many micrograms you can shave off your kit folks

You are so right with this...but as one who is inclined to always want the kitchen sink and my duvet and a shower and a clean loo....I struggle to keep weight to a measure I can carry without knackering my joints. Those who are trying the 'ultralight' are having fun their own way too, and their suggestions are always interesting even if their, " truer bushcrafter than thou", does irritate a bit.
I think in some ways it's a confidence thing too. Personally I'm never confident that it's *not* gonna chuck it down, turn into a quagmire or fry me to a crisp and cover me in cleg bites but hey, I still do it

Cheers,
Toddy