How long do you think you'd last?

[jobo]

What I didn't see addressed is the objective, of which there are likely two:

1. To survive in the wilderness for x amount of time, or
2. to make it to civilization.

If it's the first, I'm likely a goner.

If it's the second... I should be okay. Key word, obviously, is "should."

I've walked 23 miles once, and once I got about two-thirds of the way through, I started feeling a very bad pain in my legs, as if I was tearing muscles and/or ligaments (I don't think I really did, though). It took about three days for my legs to feel normal again.

That being said, if I was trying to find my way towards civilization, I would try to limit my walking to about ten miles per day.

If, as a previous poster said, you're never more than 70 miles away from civilization (which I definitely believe to be the case in the US and Western Europe); that's the easiest part.

Where it becomes questionable is the fact that, even if you make it to civilization, you're showing up empty handed and are at the mercy of the people's hospitality. I think that's where the real challenge begins.

thats a fair and honest assessment, but your balancing two things, the longer it takes to reach civilization, the more lack of shelter warm clothing food becomes an issue.

trying to walk say 80 miles at 10 miles a day will see you in all sorts of trouble as starvation and cold takes its toll, by the 5 day you'll be lucky to get a mile

50 miles a day is well within the design capabilities of an adult human, 3 miles an hour, 16 hours. 30 should be a piece of cake

walking shouldn't tax you at all, other than holding yourself up right there's barely any muscle engagement, its really controlled falling, but it seems walking is a lost art, as you can see by watching most peoples mechanics when they walk`

nb if the charity of your fellow man isn't forthcoming, getting your self arrested works quite well, as least they feed you, give you somewhere warm to sleep and call your wife/mother to tell them where you are, even if they beat you up a bit its better than starving

 

[Rusty B]

50 miles a day is well within the design capabilities of an adult human, 3 miles an hour, 16 hours. 30 should be a piece of cake

If you're eating three meals a day with snacks in between, and getting eight hours of sleep... yes.

However, if you're out in the wilderness... you've gotta deal with the balancing act of movement and preserving calories.

 

[dvcochran]

If you're eating three meals a day with snacks in between, and getting eight hours of sleep... yes.

However, if you're out in the wilderness... you've gotta deal with the balancing act of movement and preserving calories.

And that is huge. If you have ever spent extended time in very cold weather you understand this.
My oldest brother and I have done four different 3-week long dog sled trips in Alaska. The first thing stressed to you is to conserve energy. Honestly, the dogs have to be better cared for than the passengers.

 

[jobo]

If you're eating three meals a day with snacks in between, and getting eight hours of sleep... yes.

However, if you're out in the wilderness... you've gotta deal with the balancing act of movement and preserving calories.

well your right but coming to the wrong conclusion,

your body burns a significant amount of calories just staying alive, put you in the cold and it burns even more, shivering and keeping pumping heat to your extremities burns a lot of calories.

there's intrinsically no difference between the calories you burn sitting there and keeping warm and the calories you burn walking and keeping warm. that's why walking isn't a good way of losing weight, your at most 50 calories per hour over what you burn sitting there watching tv, its just that for every hour of walking you do, your three miles nearer your next meal

its all gets a bit complicated with things like body comparison, people with bigger muscles will consume more calories at rest ( or walking which is nearly at rest) and have more weight to move. but on the other hand the bigger muscles are a handy form of energy that your body can quickly burn to use to keep you moving. so they tend to last longer as they are carrying their own food source round with them. ie you dont starve to death till you've run out of muscle to burn

as a matter of evolution your body has various survival modes that will see you through most things

 

[dvcochran]

well your right but coming to the wrong conclusion,

your body burns a significant amount of calories just staying alive, put you in the cold and it burns even more, shivering and keeping pumping heat to your extremities burns a lot of calories.

there's intrinsically no difference between the calories you burn sitting there and keeping warm and the calories you burn walking and keeping warm. that's why walking isn't a good way of losing weight, your at most 50 calories per hour over what you burn sitting there watching tv, its just that for every hour of walking you do, your three miles nearer your next meal

its all gets a bit complicated with things like body comparison, people with bigger muscles will consume more calories at rest ( or walking which is nearly at rest) and have more weight to move. but on the other hand the bigger muscles are a handy form of energy that your body can quickly burn to use to keep you moving. so they tend to last longer as they are carrying their own food source round with them. ie you dont starve to death till you've run out of muscle to burn

as a matter of evolution your body has various survival modes that will see you through most things

A good average to use for weights between 140 to 250 pounds is 300 calories per hour when walking. The higher the weight the more the calorie burn. Or you can look at it as 1 calorie for every 20 steps.
You are way off sir.

 

[jobo]

A good average to use for weights between 140 to 250 pounds is 300 calories per hour when walking. The higher the weight the more the calorie burn. Or you can look at it as 1 calorie for every 20 steps.
You are way off sir.

not sure when your getting your figures from,


ive just gone and checked this with a reputable source

so for an average sized male, say 5.10 200lbs

the difference between sedentary, that means sitting there and low level activity like walking is about 10% per hour or per day 1900 as opposed to 2100

so if your consuming 100 calories an hour sitting there your burning 110 calories on a gentle stroll. thats 3 miles an hour

if you turn the pace up to moderate, say 4 miles an hour, it goes to 15 % or a 115 calories per hour

of course if your grossly overweight the figures skew a bit, carrying an extra 100 lbs of fat does indeed use more calories, but i'm still not sure it would get you to 300 an hour or if you could even walk for an hour at that level of obesity, you certainly couldnt do ten hours

 

[jobo]

A good average to use for weights between 140 to 250 pounds is 300 calories per hour when walking. The higher the weight the more the calorie burn. Or you can look at it as 1 calorie for every 20 steps.
You are way off sir.

not sure when your getting your figures from,


ive just gone and checked this with a reputable source

so for an average sized male averagely fit, say 5.10 200lbs

the difference between sedentary, that means sitting there and low level activity like walking is about 10% per hour or per day 1900 as opposed to 2100

so if your consuming 100 calories an hour sitting there your burning 110 calories on a gentle stroll. thats 3 miles an hour

if you turn the pace up to moderate, say 4 miles an hour, it goes to 15 % or a 115 calories per hour

of course if your grossly over weight the figures skew a bit, carrying an extra 100 lbs of fat does indeed use more calories, but i'm still not sure it would get you to 300 an hour or if you could even walk for an hour at that level of obesity, you certainly couldnt do ten hours

 

[dvcochran]

not sure when your getting your figures from,


ive just gone and checked this with a reputable source

so for an average sized male averagely fit, say 5.10 200lbs

the difference between sedentary, that means sitting there and low level activity like walking is about 10% per hour or per day 1900 as opposed to 2100

so if your consuming 100 calories an hour sitting there your burning 110 calories on a gentle stroll. thats 3 miles an hour

if you turn the pace up to moderate, say 4 miles an hour, it goes to 15 % or a 115 calories per hour

of course if your grossly over weight the figures skew a bit, carrying an extra 100 lbs of fat does indeed use more calories, but i'm still not sure it would get you to 300 an hour or if you could even walk for an hour at that level of obesity, you certainly couldnt do ten hours

Sitting averages burning 90 calories across weights so you are about 100 calories off. Again, it is scalar by weight.
Just getting off the couch for a lot of people is a win.

 

[jobo]

Sitting averages burning 90 calories across weights so you are about 100 calories off. Again, it is scalar by weight.

i said it was circa a 100, at rest you said its c 90, thats 10 not a 100

i picked a 200 lbs male as its a reasonable average, there was also a worked example for that weight in the sauce

so with we take your number of 90 at rest 10% of that is 9 , so a 100 an hour, your still 200 short of your claimed 300

 

[dvcochran]

i said it was circa a 100, at rest you said its c 90, thats 10 not a 100

i picked a 200 lbs male as its a reasonable average, there was also a worked example for that weight in the sauce

so with we take your number of 90 at rest 10% of that is 9 , so a 100 an hour, your still 200 short of your claimed 300

Um, no. 90 at rest. 300 walking. So about 210 difference. That is about a 30% difference in what you said.

 

[jobo]

Um, no. 90 at rest. 300 walking. So about 210 difference. That is about a 30% difference in what you said.

yes i know what you said the first time and its wrong, at least its very very wrong for a 200lb reasonably fit male

im less sure its not correct for a 300 lb out of condition blob, but even then its easy to estimate, and see its way to high, if the difference between someone who is sedentary and some one who is moderately active (like walking about) is 300 calories a DAY, then the difference between someone sitting down and somebody walking CAN NOT be 200 per hour

but that persons dead anyway if they get stranded 80 miles from civilization so its not worth discussing in any detail

 

[dvcochran]

From livestrong:

Calories Burned for Non-Strenuous Walking
A 155-pound person burns 211 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 267 calories at 3.5 mph. A 180-pound person burns 245 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 311 calories at 3.5 mph.

 

[jobo]

From livestrong:

Calories Burned for Non-Strenuous Walking
A 155-pound person burns 211 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 267 calories at 3.5 mph. A 180-pound person burns 245 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 311 calories at 3.5 mph.

first find a source that tells you what it is the base level for these individuals are or at least find an authoritative source

From livestrong:

Calories Burned for Non-Strenuous Walking
A 155-pound person burns 211 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 267 calories at 3.5 mph. A 180-pound person burns 245 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 311 calories at 3.5 mph.

but that would only make

From livestrong:

Calories Burned for Non-Strenuous Walking
A 155-pound person burns 211 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 267 calories at 3.5 mph. A 180-pound person burns 245 calories when walking for an hour at 2.5 mph and 311 calories at 3.5 mph.

there alsort of rubbish on the internet, where's the study they got these figures from ? and just as importantly whats the base level calorie burn for each person studied, as theres no study sited one suspect there all just copying from each other

if they have any truth they must be criminally unfit people, you shouldn't even have a slightly elevated heart rate when walking at 3 miles an hour

 

[pdg]

If you're eating three meals a day with snacks in between, and getting eight hours of sleep... yes.

However, if you're out in the wilderness... you've gotta deal with the balancing act of movement and preserving calories.

I can't remember ever having 3 full meals a day, maybe before I was a teenager... But that's not indicative of calorific intake.

Ditto 8 hours of sleep - not since teenage years, even then it was rare. For the last 30+ years I've probably averaged 5-6 hours sleep per day at best. In fact, 6 hours constitutes a lie-in for me.

In my early 20s I did a bit of a hike - 5 days solo unsupported on Dartmoor. I carried all my food (stuff like granola bars for breakfast/snacks and tins (i.e. of corned beef) for main evening meal. Bedding down in a bivvy bag happened when it was too dark to walk.

I think I still have the map somewhere that I recorded my route on, roughly 170 miles - and I was hardly pressing on. And I was carrying a rucksack (bivvy, sleeping bag, stove, food, couple of tools, some water, etc.) I would've stayed longer and gone further, but for getting back for work.

There's no way I managed to take in my rda of calories


You don't need to maintain food intake for low energy activities like walking, it might get a little uncomfortable after a day or two if you eat nothing but it won't kill you - it'd probably make 90+% of the western population more healthy actually.

Hydration is the main thing.

Dehydration can kill in a few days.

Absolute starvation can take weeks to kill you, and if you have sporadic food every few days you can survive months or even years - sure, you won't be running around much without some serious conditioning but it's pretty much what we're built to cope with.

 

[Rusty B]

nb if the charity of your fellow man isn't forthcoming, getting your self arrested works quite well, as least they feed you, give you somewhere warm to sleep and call your wife/mother to tell them where you are, even if they beat you up a bit its better than starving

That depends on what country you're in. In third world countries; this is out of the question. Same for second world countries (Mexico, Russia, and Turkey are probably the most famous examples) - they're not much better.

Even in some first world countries - like Italy, Japan, and even the US... you might be better off avoiding incarceration unless you're in a life or death situation.

If you're in Western or Northern Europe, I can why you might jump to this sooner.

 

[jobo]

That depends on what country you're in. In third world countries; this is out of the question. Same for second world countries (Mexico, Russia, and Turkey are probably the most famous examples) - they're not much better.

Even in some first world countries - like Italy, Japan, and even the US... you might be better off avoiding incarceration unless you're in a life or death situation.

If you're in Western or Northern Europe, I can why you might jump to this sooner.

starvation, dehydration hypothermia is a life or death situation, its bit over the top if its just your feet are a bit cold

 

[Rusty B]

starvation, dehydration hypothermia is a life or death situation, its bit over the top if its just your feet are a bit cold

Right, but if you pass out on the street corner from any of that, you're likely to get picked up by an ambulance.

However, if you get incarcerated... now there's the prison violence that you have contend with. First, you likely won't be physically able to defend yourself in your current physical state. Secondly... even when you're back to 100%, being an exceptional fighter will only keep you safe in the short term - if someone who wants to get you is unable to beat you, they can always get a group of friends armed with shanks, and then you're done.

 

[jobo]

I can't remember ever having 3 full meals a day, maybe before I was a teenager... But that's not indicative of calorific intake.

Ditto 8 hours of sleep - not since teenage years, even then it was rare. For the last 30+ years I've probably averaged 5-6 hours sleep per day at best. In fact, 6 hours constitutes a lie-in for me.

In my early 20s I did a bit of a hike - 5 days solo unsupported on Dartmoor. I carried all my food (stuff like granola bars for breakfast/snacks and tins (i.e. of corned beef) for main evening meal. Bedding down in a bivvy bag happened when it was too dark to walk.

I think I still have the map somewhere that I recorded my route on, roughly 170 miles - and I was hardly pressing on. And I was carrying a rucksack (bivvy, sleeping bag, stove, food, couple of tools, some water, etc.) I would've stayed longer and gone further, but for getting back for work.

There's no way I managed to take in my rda of calories


You don't need to maintain food intake for low energy activities like walking, it might get a little uncomfortable after a day or two if you eat nothing but it won't kill you - it'd probably make 90+% of the western population more healthy actually.

Hydration is the main thing.

Dehydration can kill in a few days.

Absolute starvation can take weeks to kill you, and if you have sporadic food every few days you can survive months or even years - sure, you won't be running around much without some serious conditioning but it's pretty much what we're built to cope with.[/QUOTgathered,

 

[jobo]

I can't remember ever having 3 full meals a day, maybe before I was a teenager... But that's not indicative of calorific intake.

Ditto 8 hours of sleep - not since teenage years, even then it was rare. For the last 30+ years I've probably averaged 5-6 hours sleep per day at best. In fact, 6 hours constitutes a lie-in for me.

In my early 20s I did a bit of a hike - 5 days solo unsupported on Dartmoor. I carried all my food (stuff like granola bars for breakfast/snacks and tins (i.e. of corned beef) for main evening meal. Bedding down in a bivvy bag happened when it was too dark to walk.

I think I still have the map somewhere that I recorded my route on, roughly 170 miles - and I was hardly pressing on. And I was carrying a rucksack (bivvy, sleeping bag, stove, food, couple of tools, some water, etc.) I would've stayed longer and gone further, but for getting back for work.

There's no way I managed to take in my rda of calories


You don't need to maintain food intake for low energy activities like walking, it might get a little uncomfortable after a day or two if you eat nothing but it won't kill you - it'd probably make 90+% of the western population more healthy actually.

Hydration is the main thing.

Dehydration can kill in a few days.

Absolute starvation can take weeks to kill you, and if you have sporadic food every few days you can survive months or even years - sure, you won't be running around much without some serious conditioning but it's pretty much what we're built to cope with.

1


AGREE

our forebears, were hunter gathers, they would happily walk 30/ 50 miles a day hunting and gathering, I suspect hunting and gathering is a time consuming business if you are living in an ice age. walking as I said above should only be slightly more calorie intensive than sitting there, particularly if it's cold, maybe different in the tropics?. maybe also if your unfit and over weight, but as soon as your fit enough to walk 30 miles and not notice it, the calorie expenditure is very low and if your not fit enough to do that you really need to examine your fitness program, that's really base level fitness

the fat people of course can live on their fat store, i suspect the average middle aged american could live for months on that

 

[jobo]

Right, but if you pass out on the street corner from any of that, you're likely to get picked up by an ambulance.

However, if you get incarcerated... now there's the prison violence that you have contend with. First, you likely won't be physically able to defend yourself in your current physical state. Secondly... even when you're back to 100%, being an exceptional fighter will only keep you safe in the short term - if someone who wants to get you is unable to beat you, they can always get a group of friends armed with shanks, and then you're done.

I was thinking of a misdemeanor that Carrie's a 100 dollar fine, not getting caught with 20kg of heroin like midnight express, if your on two strikes you may need to rethink your strategy,