Do you ever watch the TV show Survivorman? The show's host, Les Stroud, is voluntarily "stranded" in a wide array of dangerous situations in the wild, without even a film crew, and videotapes himself figuring out how to build a shelter, find food, and get out alive.
One thing I find particularly interesting about the show is that Stroud generally doesn't seek food first -- he builds a shelter. Frequently he doesn't eat at all for the first few days. Then, when he finally manages to find something to eat, it's something most westerners would consider repulsive: ants, scorpions, rodents, even rotten fish. How can he stand to eat those things?
Well, he's got a few tricks (which I'll share later), but a recent study may also shed some light on the subject:
The researchers had participants who were hungry and participants who were satiated quickly decide whether they liked or disliked twenty-eight different snacks by pressing either a red or green button.Hungry participants were asked not to eat within four hours of the experiment. Satiated participants were presented with a large piece of cake upon arrival and told they had to finish the entire thing. On average, the participants who were hungry liked two more snacks than the participants who had cake.
So it appears that we believe we like more different foods when we're hungry compared to when we're not hungry. Perhaps if you're hungry enough, you'll eat just about anything.
Not so fast. In a second part of the experiment, hungry participants were "accidentally" exposed to two-day-old, rotting sandwiches. Then they were asked to rate their interest in a variety of sandwiches, and for those sensitive to disgustingness, the desire for variety was eliminated.
So when confronted with disgusting foods, most of us lose interest in variety. Which then makes Stroud's ability to consume things that most Westerners wouldn't consider to be food even more curious.
Thankfully, Stroud himself offers an important tip on how to eat foods you're not sure about: Don't think about it. He pops the bug or semi-rotten flesh in his mouth before he has time to consider his doubts. (He also offers tips about how to figure out if a bug is edible -- but if you want to learn those, you'll have to watch the show.)
- Log in to post comments
One thing I find particularly interesting about the show is that Stroud generally doesn't seek food first -- he builds a shelter.
Perfectly sensible. You can live without food for a surprisingly long time (3 weeks is the general rule of thumb), whereas in many parts of the world you'll be dead within 24hrs without shelter. Even in those parts of the world where shelter isn't an immediate physical necessity, it is very important psychologically. It's very difficult to make correct survival decisions in the pouring rain or blazing sun, and bad decisions are the most dangerous thing you have to watch out for.
So yeah, generally in a survival situation your immediate imperative is shelter, followed by water, followed by food.
And yes, if you're hungry enough you will eat anything. However, by that I mean hungry, not just a bit peckish. Four hours without food isn't even close to hungry.
I remember the "Rule of Fours" from Outdoor Education almost 30 years ago. It's not that accurate, but as a mnemonic it does seem to have worked.
4 minutes without air
4 hours without shelter
4 days without water
4 weeks without food
The other thing I remember is "if you don't have water, don't eat". Eating using a lot of water that you can't afford, and you can live without the food.
"Satiated participants were presented with a large piece of cake upon arrival and told they had to finish the entire thing." ... "compared to when we're not hungry."
Forcing somebody to eat a piece of cake could easily make them a little nauseous. And that's probably not the definition of "not hungry" the researchers had in mind.
I've always heard it as the Rule of Threes... I guess someone decided Fours was cutting it a bit close. ;)
The thing about not eating if you don't have water is a tricky one, and largely depends on what food you have available. If you've got watermelons, dig in - if you've only got hardtack, best not. Lots of food sources will provide significant amounts of water, provided you've got enough water in your system to digest and metabolise them first.
I really enjoy the show. One of the amusing things about Stroud's survival dining is that when he finally does get around to eating a meager shoot or grub or whatever, his apparent gustatory delight is as if he were sampling the tastiest fare at L'Orangerie or Spago's.
I would have put water as a requirement before shelter, but then I grew up in outback Australia, and three or four days without shelter is bearable.
I would not like to have to last 3-4 days without water - 'specially in summer.
This show is really one of my favorites. I really appreciate how Stroud doesn't always get everything right. The Mountain episode proved particularly difficult in the food arena and he basically had only a few small bites for the whole week. I agree, extending 4 hours to 4 days is a bit of a stretch. I bet those sandwiches would be gone in no time if those subjects were "surviving"!
I like the show too, but I also think it's rather ridiculous. It's one thing to be stuck in the outdoors for a while, it's another thing entirely to be stuck in the outdoors for a while and constantly ruminating to a camera about how your next move may be your last.
I'm not suggesting that the places Les Stroud visit aren't interesting and dangerous, but I get the feeling that a trip to the local park with him would be filled with 'harrowing tales' and 'narrow brushes with death'. I don't think I want to go camping with him.