dvanbramer88 wrote:His whole premise was long term sustainability. Yea you could live off of much less for short periods of time or even a month or two. But he is talking about maintaining your current weight/strength indefinitely would require 3,300 calories a day for the average active/working person in that enviroment.
I've also held the understanding that 100% self sufficiency is not achievable. Even the homesteaders/preppers/survivalist types you strive for ultimate self sufficiency will admit that you can't do it. They'll still need a few thousand dollars a year to buy groceries and things they can't make themselves.
There is another school of thought I have heard of and saw a little about. Apparently if you reduce your food consumption and train yourself to live on (it's something like a third of what you eat now) you can live perfectly healthy and actually add something like 10 years to your life. The underlying premise has something to do with, at that intake rate, you trick your brain into going into starvation mode. Your finger nails and hair stop growing and your body focuses on core functions and lives very efficiently. Or so I hear.
Umm no. Do you know how many people and cultures are living 100% self sustaining.
I'll trust the research of paleontologist and evolutionary biologist before some "guys" meta study. Although it's an interesting premises, there are a number of logical flaws, and ignoring some big sets of data coming out of evolutionary biology.
He's based his entire premise on the work of Thayer (an author, not a researcher) into the death of Chris McCandless. Chris McCandless who the movie "Into The Wild" is based on, was a retard. Who went into an area of limited bio-availability in the ALASKAN wilderness and proceeded to starve to death from his stupidity. This retarded kid didnt' even bother to move beyond his little area.
STUPID.
Can you survive in an area of limited resources? Think about that, does it even need an answer? Does that mean it's impossible to survive in the wilderness for extended periods of time?
How do all the hunter gather tribes who still exist in both Africa and South America who do not farm survive today?
It's been shown that tribal humans and pre-agricultural humans don't burn carbs, but burn fat stores for energy, requiring a far lower number of calories than generally assumed. Most of the remaining hunter gatherer tribes in Africa, South America and East Asia consume far fewer calories a day, and often times periods of fasting. They also don't stay in small little swaths of land like Chris McCandless. They cover large areas of terrain to hunt and gather food.
The problem I have with the article is the painting with big brush strokes to reach conclusions and the premise is that one cannot survive long term in the wilderness is based solely on what? What wilderness? What kind of person? Caloric requirements vary based on a number of factors. Sex, Age, Height, Weight, health issues, and even the climate and terrain all play a factor.
Just where are we talking about surviving? What conditions?
One size "research" does not fit all. Thanks for the generalities though.
Once lifted 03 Trailblazer on 35's, gave it up to travel the USA with my family.