I don't subscribe to the rule of 3s, you can beat the odds if you really want to, its all about the will to survive and never giving up.
And yes Trax I'd miss you and your witty charm :D
Printable View
I don't subscribe to the rule of 3s, you can beat the odds if you really want to, its all about the will to survive and never giving up.
And yes Trax I'd miss you and your witty charm :D
Beo I actually think these rules are made up as a kind of having some thing to say by the experts to justify thier priorty order, now I have always been a big boy but food is realy some thing that should be way up there because it helps you keep warm, think straight , gives energy kinda keeps done the panic as well(we are all gonna starve)
The rule of three's are not hard and fast, set-in-stone rules, merely guidelines to follow.
3 minutes without air is very true. There are very few people in this world that can hold their breath for 3 minutes. The average person can only hold their breath for 45 to 65 seconds. After that they start to get light-headed and feel like they are going to pass out. Lack of oxygen for more than 3 minutes, or the inability to get air for 3 minutes or more, will definitely cause you to pass out and if oxygen is not restored quickly, you will die.
The shelter rule varies depending on the climate and temperature you're in at the time.
The 3-days without water rule is a solid rule though. Dehydration, whether it is summer or winter, can occur quickly. Faster in a novice than someone whom is experienced in the back country.
And the food rule. . .well that depends on your body. If you are a person that has less than 25% body fat, you are not going to sustain long without food before your body begins to shut down. If you are a person that has 26 - 40% body fat, your body can sustain off the fat reserves for a long time.
I read about a guy that sustained 47 days without food, and he had no signs of organ damage, kidney failure, or brain damage.
I don’t know about that 3 minutes without air rule. I have held my breath over 2 minutes and I felt fine. It would depend on how much air you have in your lungs when you stop breathing.
Guys Yer missing the point.
I use the rules as a prority setting guide.
When asked what the most important thing to do all my students have said light a fire.
Well no, a fire isn't going to stop you drowning or getting crushed in an avalance.
I use three sec's to do something smart.
Air. There are a number of cases where people has survived hours under water ( usaually a frozen river) but would you want to bet YOUR life on it.
I suggest that the three min for air is more for your travelling compannions. If your drowning or choking there is normally not much you can do about it. You are counting on your mates to help.
Water. Here ( queensland Australia) during Summer you won't make three days laying in the shade doing nothing. No chance.
Food. I reckon I've got at least four weeks stored food behind my belt buckle right now.
It is a easy way for instructors to ingrain a simple rule to help survivers get their prioritys sorted.
The last one is three months without company ( no I don't don't think it would worry me overly either) Or as I like to say" three months before the dog starts looking cute"
Carl
In a real life or death survival situation the rules of 3s are useless. Accidents will happen and without warning...the only rule that will apply is the law of survival or the law of death.
This is an older thread, but with a bunch of new members I thought I'd bring it up to the front of the class for your review.
Quote:
Originally Posted by owl_girl
Apparently you don't do to much scuba diving in Alaska. :) When your out of air, your out. The last breath was the one you've already taken.
If you hadn't have mentioned that, I wouldn't have noticed. I was to busy holding my breath. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
For the newbies in outdoor adventure - The rule of three's isn't designed to be a hard and fast rule. There can be exceptions to each one. The intent is to be able to remember their importance and be able to prioritize them. And....your circumstances might dictate which is the most important. If that confused you, just ask.
Recap:
3 minutes without air
3 hours without shelter
3 days without water
3 weeks without food
I would have to respectfully disagree with that one. If it were true, This world would be a much better place!!!:DQuote:
Originally Posted by glocker36
three of most things:
3 dogs, 3 guns, 3 vehicles, 3 woman, 3 camps.
this is my list of 3's, i (we) live by.
3 Women? What a glutton for punishment.
that's really interesting and handy to know. i'm a little confused about the 3 hours without shelter part. do you mean they can survive in the heat for 3 hours or the freezing cold for 3 hours?
Yes.
Actually, either one. Imagine yourself in the dead of winter in a blizzard or...in the middle of Death Valley. It's really a good question, though. The whole intent is to understand that shelter can be more important than water under the right circumstances and generally more important that food under any circumstance.
From the Fundamentals of SAR training manual:Quote:
Originally Posted by gretagreen
The Necessities of Life:
What does it actually take for a human being to stay alive for an indefinite period of time? typical answers might include clothes, a house, a car, and three mealls a day. However, several thousand years ago, humans did not have these conveniences yet they still survived. By listing the necessities of life and asking the question, "how long can a human live without each item," it is possible to prioritize these neccessities. the time factors involved with this type of analysis should be in terms of minutes, hours, days, and weeks. Although this approach may seem elementary, it will provide a foundation for good jugement when dealing with all life-threatening emergencies.
----snip-----
Priority 3: Shelter
Inherent to most survival situations is coping with inclement weather. Since human beings are designed to live naked only in areas where temperatures are very close to that of the body, environments outside this realm pose a variety of body protections problems. Anything that protects the body can be called shelter. Clothing is shelter in close proximity to the body.
How to provide adequate shelter for a specific environmental situation is the dilemma. there are temperature extrmes in the United States where inadequate shelter could cut survival time to a few hours and in some cases it could be reduced to one hour or less. Fire and warmth also can be considered under shelter because, by definition, they help maintain the body's temperature in a cold environment.
lol. I was typing that when you posted. Just as a side note, that same manual lists the priories of suvival in this order:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
1: Positive Mental Attitude
2: Air
3: Shelter
4: Rest
5: Signals
6: Water
7: Food
Greta - It doesn't have to be extremes either. More people succumb to hypothermia in 50 and 60 degrees because they get wet and under estimate the danger. OR they fail to take proper precautions when temperatures are in the 90s and succumb to hyperthermia usually due to dehydration. If you are out in the woods, appropriate shelter can help prevent either one.
I know from personal experience, that you can go longer than 3 weeks without food. When I was younger, and much chubbier than I now am, I went on a fast for just a bit over 2 months. I ate nothing and only drank water, and used vitamin suppliments to keep me healthy. I lost just over 60 Ibs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beowulf65
I feel that generally North Americans eat way too much. To this day, I only eat one meal a day. I maintain a satisfactory weight, and considering my age I'm pretty healthy. :)
Alex
That's not really all that healthy. I'm not saying eat more, I'm just saying spread it out some so that your body has fuel constantly. You'll feel a lot better. Promise. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer
Mmm...respectfully Alpine Sapper, I disagree. Fasting or semi-fasting has been part of the human condition since our ancestors scavenged the african savannah. Our bodies(from the reading that I have done) are conditioned to respond well to this 'feast or famine' way of eating. Although a person could go too far either way...too little food leads to malnutrition and it's associated sicknesses...on the other hand, just look at how obese North Americans have become generally as a society...with Mc D's on almost every corner, and everyone seemingly driving instead of walking, it doesn't bode well for those folks if thrown into a survival situation...although those who are rather large will likely outsurvive me if NO food is present...survival of the fattest sort of...:eek:
Cheers
Alex