Ah yes, think I missed a decimal point there! Just did it again and got 2044 - much more like it!
Pete
Why even Ray Mears dies alone in the subarctic -- part 1
- Thread starter dogwood
- Start date
Pete
Which dept of Social Anthropology did you go to?
I think you cannot generalise as this, women fish and hunt in many 4th world communities and equally men gather. It has to be taken within a specific cultural context before a generalisation can be made. So I really have to disagree with you on this one it's just far to simplistic. As for the individual thing you are correct, some communities did in periods of extreme hardship split up and going solo temporally was common place however permanent exclusion from the group was seen often as a death sentance and was viewed by the innuit for example as the ultimate form of social control other than a direct assault.
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
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).
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
While it is not your fault I really, really hate the US idea that 1000 calories = 1 Calorie. I have interesting notions for what to do with that person.
6000 kcal is more reasonable. Do you now if there are any studies on the actual food budget in subarctic hunter-gatherer communities?
[/quote]
Incidentally, even in temperate climes, the work done can really affect consumption: on the Lewis and Clark expedition, when game was plentiful the men ate 14 pounds of meat a day each and STILL lost tons of weight![/QUOTE]
I wonder which parts the L&C people ate? All the animal, or just the "meat"...
That is very interesting, in fact the whole thread is. I suppose the girls will learn the gathering from their mother as they get older whilst the men are out hunting. Bear in mind, the boys would be with their mothers too to a certain age so they must learn gathering to a more than proficient degree but as they age they will focus more on hunting so that the gathering side of life becomes more of a side line thing to their main role of hunting. I believe the male Aborigines of Australia consider gathering as womens' work though!
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.
Fascinating and interesting post, thanks Dogwood.
There are reasons that the area Ed Wardle was trying to survive in is barely inhabited.
There are reasons that the area Ed Wardle was trying to survive in is barely inhabited.
Yes there have been studies that I've read, but I can't cite them off-hand. The documentation of the diets of Inuit after first contact, in other words the traditional diet, was exceedingly heavy in fats in order to push the calorie intake as high as possible.
Well it varied a bit -- when they were in game heavy areas like the upper Great Plains, they ate meat and organs. Lewis' journal talks of a couple of areas so rich in game that they literally had to push elk and buffalo aside to walk. Bison then were almost 30 percent larger than the bison of today, too.
When they were in game poor areas they ate meat, organs, marrow, pretty much everything. One historical side note: the L&C expedition's favorite meat was dog for the second half of the trip once they tired of elk and bison. They actively traded with the Indians for dogs.
Basal metabolism does make modest changes based on exposure to the cold. Here's one paper about it.
http://www.jashinsky.com/ama_articles/wilderness_medical_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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
"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.
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.
