Au contraire on both counts!
i. I'm an atheist that's been in a foxhole. :AR15firin
ii. I'm a vegetarian living in Glasgow.
I claim my £5!
Why even Ray Mears dies alone in the subarctic -- part 1
- Thread starter dogwood
- Start date
Au contraire on both counts!
i. I'm an atheist that's been in a foxhole. :AR15firin
ii. I'm a vegetarian living in Glasgow.
I claim my £5!
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
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.
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.
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.
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
That's absolutely a true and fair point and worth mentioning.
Obesity clearly was extremely rare though.
or it might just have been an image of his wife to take with him when he went trading or hunting........we just don't know. It could even be an image of a female in a group that was being offered for marriage with another group.........though I have to admit the model does look as though she has borne children........the only certainly is that she was well fed and had time to dress her hair too
cheers,
Toddy
cheers,
Toddy
this is why this lady was so popular
As a great comedian once said, "more to choose from".
or it might just have been an image of his wife to take with him when he went trading or hunting........we just don't know. It could even be an image of a female in a group that was being offered for marriage with another group.........though I have to admit the model does look as though she has borne children........the only certainly is that she was well fed and had time to dress her hair too
cheers,
Toddy
Firecrest's figurine image is a copy of the Venus of Willendorf and you're right Toddy, we're not sure what she means.
However, two notes about her are worth mentioning:
1) very similar figurines have been found in various cultures between 14,000 to 22,000 years ago (I posted the story about one in Scotland a few weeks ago) What makes her so fascinating is that she appears to be a truly archetypal human image (in the purest Jungian sense of the term..)
2) Most interpretations hold that she's not a literal depiction of a person (i.e. not really an obese person) and instead is a fertility symbol. Like Firecrest though, I suspect there was a standard of beauty being expressed here.
The Venus figurines are incredibly interesting objects -- I hope we find more supporting artifacts over the years and can piece together what they mean.
After all the discussion on this, I have gone back to my original plan as It seems to have been in use for thousands of years.Sub Artic survival relies on larger ladies and lots of lard.
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Additional note; for region as in (sometimes) "the next village over". I have a PhD thesis somewhere where she had studied isotopes[1] in teeth from some Baltic villages, and found widely varied diets in a fairly small area.
[1] The isotope distribution of <mumble> will vary between fish, sea mammals and land mammals.
Dogwood,
Thanks for the interesting thread.
There are a couple things I would like to point out, if you don't mind. I live in the Canadian subarctic, and noticed a few possible over estimates.
Calories for hiking - 1500 for a 4 hour hike. This would be close if you were speed hiking or out for a jog, but if I burned 1500 calories hiking for that long, I would be much thinner. Same for hunting. Not that your numbers are mathematically incorrect, but I think numbers like that would mean serious changes in elevation. Going up and down the mountains should and can be avoided.
What a guy needs to do is find a lake - the bigger the better. Then go to a river, stream, etc. where it enters, or flows from, the lake. There will be way more fish there, and they will be easy to catch. They will also usually be smaller than those in deeper water. With simple fishing kit, enough can usually be caught for a week's worth of food in just a few hours.
Bring or build a net, and you're all set for a boring, but reliable diet.
Dry fish can then be made while you tend to your shelter and gather wood. Dead-fall and dead standing trees are very easy to find up here, and the thicker the forest, the better. If you have tools, then this is a lot easier, but still the most labour intensive part of survival. Lots of wood can be hauled in to camp in a day or two, then cut up later. A few hours of dragging snags to your home would be tiring, so that would be a good time to sit in the berry patch filling a few pails with cloudberries, black and blueberries, cranberries, etc.. The wood can be cut up tomorrow...
There are lots of edibles, especially berries. They can be dried and preserved for winter, much like fish or other dried meat.
Large mammals will go to the lake, so hunting should be limited to a few miles to scout game trails, then waiting for the opportunity. The rush should be gone, since you'll have fish. There's a good chance a bear will come right to you if you are drying fish. You may even get more meat than you want or need. One moose will last the winter, plus the hide can be used for clothing, footwear, etc., and other projects through the cold snaps to keep you busy.
Bottom line is, you need decent equipment, including a wood stove, fishing gear, .22 for small game, 12 ga. for birds and rabbits, .308 or .30-06 or similar for large game, and edged tools like axes, saws, KNIVES ( ) plus proper clothes, or the skills to make them, for winter. You'd need to get in before September to gather the wild edibles for your vitamins over the winter, and a lot earlier to set up your camp. A cache would be very important to safely store your food. Much of what Proenneke did was ideal. He did have some resupplies, but with a few small changes, they were not necessary, but did help with the emotional and psychological components.
This would certainly be a difficult existence for a long time, but it would not be certain death. You just need to have a plan and several back-ups. Trapping can help if fishing doesn't work out. More large game, small game, birds, etc., can replace fish if required. That said, it's unlikely - people here have lived on fish when times were tight and game was scarce. There's always fish.... Not ideal, but do-able.
I guess my point is that while your numbers may be good in theory, the plan would need to be better thought out than grueling hikes and hunts, day-to-day wood gathering etc. These activities would take their toll, and would end in disaster. Slow and steady wins the race.
Just my opinion, but I have many friends here who have gone out and done this in their lifetimes, with nary a glitch.
Regards,
Jim
Thanks for the interesting thread.
There are a couple things I would like to point out, if you don't mind. I live in the Canadian subarctic, and noticed a few possible over estimates.
Calories for hiking - 1500 for a 4 hour hike. This would be close if you were speed hiking or out for a jog, but if I burned 1500 calories hiking for that long, I would be much thinner. Same for hunting. Not that your numbers are mathematically incorrect, but I think numbers like that would mean serious changes in elevation. Going up and down the mountains should and can be avoided.
What a guy needs to do is find a lake - the bigger the better. Then go to a river, stream, etc. where it enters, or flows from, the lake. There will be way more fish there, and they will be easy to catch. They will also usually be smaller than those in deeper water. With simple fishing kit, enough can usually be caught for a week's worth of food in just a few hours.
Bring or build a net, and you're all set for a boring, but reliable diet.
Dry fish can then be made while you tend to your shelter and gather wood. Dead-fall and dead standing trees are very easy to find up here, and the thicker the forest, the better. If you have tools, then this is a lot easier, but still the most labour intensive part of survival. Lots of wood can be hauled in to camp in a day or two, then cut up later. A few hours of dragging snags to your home would be tiring, so that would be a good time to sit in the berry patch filling a few pails with cloudberries, black and blueberries, cranberries, etc.. The wood can be cut up tomorrow...
There are lots of edibles, especially berries. They can be dried and preserved for winter, much like fish or other dried meat.
Large mammals will go to the lake, so hunting should be limited to a few miles to scout game trails, then waiting for the opportunity. The rush should be gone, since you'll have fish. There's a good chance a bear will come right to you if you are drying fish. You may even get more meat than you want or need. One moose will last the winter, plus the hide can be used for clothing, footwear, etc., and other projects through the cold snaps to keep you busy.
Bottom line is, you need decent equipment, including a wood stove, fishing gear, .22 for small game, 12 ga. for birds and rabbits, .308 or .30-06 or similar for large game, and edged tools like axes, saws, KNIVES (
) plus proper clothes, or the skills to make them, for winter. You'd need to get in before September to gather the wild edibles for your vitamins over the winter, and a lot earlier to set up your camp. A cache would be very important to safely store your food. Much of what Proenneke did was ideal. He did have some resupplies, but with a few small changes, they were not necessary, but did help with the emotional and psychological components.This would certainly be a difficult existence for a long time, but it would not be certain death. You just need to have a plan and several back-ups. Trapping can help if fishing doesn't work out. More large game, small game, birds, etc., can replace fish if required. That said, it's unlikely - people here have lived on fish when times were tight and game was scarce. There's always fish.... Not ideal, but do-able.
I guess my point is that while your numbers may be good in theory, the plan would need to be better thought out than grueling hikes and hunts, day-to-day wood gathering etc. These activities would take their toll, and would end in disaster. Slow and steady wins the race.
Just my opinion, but I have many friends here who have gone out and done this in their lifetimes, with nary a glitch.
Regards,
Jim
Hmm, just re-read my post. Hope I didn't come off saucy. Certainly not my intent. I just basically mean that sometimes the sum of the parts isn't the same as the whole, cuz on paper, many would have died out in the woods here by starvation if they read this, yet they didn't...
Saucy? Is that Canadian? Eh?
Jimmy, it seems like all the Canucks are huntin' moose. Where's yours?
forestwalker
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Or build a fish trap (or ten). Cordage making is time consuming, so if I had no net I'd build a fish trap (or several).
Bottom line is, you need decent equipment, including a wood stove, fishing gear, .22 for small game, 12 ga. for birds and rabbits, .308 or .30-06 or similar for large game, and edged tools like axes, saws, KNIVES (
I agree on the gun selection, though personally I'd pick a large game rifle and a over/under combo (12/222rem or something like that), since that can be the one you carry all the time, and can kill anything from birds up to a moose calf (probably not legal in Canada either...). But I gather those aren't as comon over there as they are here?
I suspect that the hunting techniques would make a difference. Around here (northern half of Sweden), I'd hunt morning and evening, mostly stationary in likely spots, and take care of fish/shelter/gathering during the day. Spending the days running up and down in the montains looking for sheep would be much more energetic.
