Simple Alaska float trip masquerades as survival saga on reality TV
Craig Medred |
Dec 27, 2011
Alaska reality TV star Chris Keefer is full of crap, or at least he must have been at some point. There is no other logical explanation for the claims he makes about what should now be called "The Brooks Range Diet.'' The 32-year-old Michigan man and his 28-year-old brother Casey were in the 49th state in September for a 28-day float trip for the latest phoneyed-up Alaska reality show. Theirs is called "Dropped: Project Alaska,'' which started airing Tuesday night on the Sportsman Channel. (You can watch the trailer here.) "I shouldn't reveal too much about what people will see, but let's just say that we come back a lot lighter than when we started," Chris Keefer told the Detroit Free Press. "We each lost over 25 pounds." From that, perhaps you can guess the premise. The men and their gear are dumped in the wilderness without food and try to survive almost a month on only what they can kill or find growing. Never mind that Alaska's aboriginal peoples managed to do this successfully for thousands of years with the most primitive of tools. Those people were hardened hunters. Copying their human evolutionary experience for one month is sure to be hard for a couple white boys from the Midwest and their film crew. And, if you are to believe Chris, man but was it hard. "By the end of the trip, Chris said, "all four members of the group were physically drained,'' reported the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner's Tim Mowry. "Just setting up a tent became an ordeal, he said. Chris lost 29 pounds during the 28-day trip while Casey dropped 27 pounds." Stop right there. How many people reading this have tried to lose weight? How many lost a pound per day? Here's what the Lance Armstrong-associated website Livstrong says about the likelihood of that: The greatest decrease in calorie intake would be to eat nothing. If you fast for a day, you wouldn't expend any calories eating and digesting, so while you decrease your calorie intake, you also decrease your calorie burn by about 10 percent. A 180-lb. man would lose about 90 percent of his usual 2,350 calories intake, or about 2,115 calories, which yields a weight loss of 0.6 lbs. When your body is deprived of food, it tries to conserve energy, so your metabolism slows down and you would in fact burn fewer calories. You would have to weigh over 500 lbs. and typically consume 4,000 calories per day to lose even 1 lb. in a day by not eating at all. Armstrong, a famous Texan, is the seven-time winner of the Tour de France. Cyclists know a bit about dieting because they fixate on body weight. Winning bike races is all about power-to-weight ratios -- your muscle power to your body weight. The best cyclists usually carry 4 or 5 percent body fat. Yours is likely 15 percent or more. And yes, if you have enough body fat you could actually lose a pound per day or even more. The record for the television show "The Biggest Loser'' is 100 pounds in six weeks, or more than 2 pounds per day. Contestants on "Biggest Loser", however, are people who are morbidly obese. They are by definition twice the size they should be, and the second half of them is all fat. Anyone who looks at the Keefers on the website promoting their show can see they are not morbidly obese, if those are the real Keefers. Maybe those are actors hired to play the Keefers for the show, and the real Keefers are morbidly obese. Or maybe they've somehow hidden a load of body fat behind all that camouflage clothing and face paint. Or maybe the Keefers just started their adventure full of crap, because if you had enough crap in your system and dumped it all out, you could probably lose a lot of weight. Think of it as as water.
by fakename | December 28, 2011 - 11:35am
Every Medred article is reminder how great it is this hack in no longer at the ADN. You know you are going to get whining, self promotion or instant piling on after someone gets hurt, killed or maimed in the wilderness.
by sierraseven | December 28, 2011 - 11:19am
I just watched the three-minute trailer on the Sportsman Channel website, and it features even more ridiculously dramatic music. You know, the trailer itself shows the brothers cooking some sizable hunks of meat, and catching some good-sized fish. Soundtracks are powerful tools to manipulate viewers. You could play an upbeat, enjoying-the-adventure soundtrack behind that same footage, and it would come across as showing the trip as it really was - an adventure, a strenuous physical experience no doubt, but not the "walking into Mordor" death-defying trip they're trying to sell. Plus, the text on the Sportsman Channel page with the trailer says they were "armed only with a bow" when even in the trailer they can plainly be seen carrying at least one rifle. Why didn't they just frame this as a terrific Alaskan adventure? Does everything have to be a battle with the Grim Reaper?
by sierraseven | December 28, 2011 - 11:01am
Notice the heavy, portentious music in the trailer ... makes it sound like these guys are marching into certain doom. And the prayer. Good grief.
by Dirk Wigdoubt | December 28, 2011 - 9:57am
That don't look like a "tundra" area they floated in...there's spruce trees in every picture. What river is that you river rats? Looks like they flew in to the foothills of the Brooks range and floated south on a river like the Sheenjek. Mowry says they only floated 110 miles... in 28 days... so they had plenty of time to stumble around looking for crap to eat. Probably spent half their time trying to figure out how to put up those ridiculously heavy Arctic oven tents...those tents are for winter base camps, not float-hunting camps. Those aren't 78 pound SOAR boats... they are 100 pound SOAR Levitator rafts. There were 4 people times 100 pounds of gear each equals 400 pounds of crap. What's that black crap on their faces in the video?
by Sissalee | December 28, 2011 - 9:55am
I read the News-Miner article and was irritated by the gall of Chris when he stated that Alaska "was a place we could conquer". The bears let me down....
by ReneW | December 27, 2011 - 11:50pm
Alaskans might care to drum up a bit more righteous indignation to debunk much of what is portrayed about our state in these superficial fantasies. Craig, you were too kind.
by Borealis | December 27, 2011 - 6:53pm
It is a reality show, which means they overplay everything. Surviving off nature in Alaska is very hard and takes a lot of knowledge. The Alaska Natives did it for many generations, but I doubt many of them could do it anymore. Other people even less. Surviving and thriving in Alaska from nature takes a lot of knowledge of the annual cycle and the ability to store food from the rich times to survive the poor times. You can get food in the winter in many places, but you have to know what you are doing. The bears thrive by gorging on fish and sleeping through the winter, which isn't a bad strategy. |













Comments