actually, the reality show marks the discovery that cheaper shows can be produced by eliminating script writers, cartoonists, actors and consultants and limiting the expense to knuclehead contestants, cameramen, and a director. There is a Marxist explanation for everything.

And if you do, have a fully equipped EMS team ready with IV's and baby food!

Here is a link to the part of the story you didn't see:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...ewers-told.html

LOL you too Blast? I passed as well.

I also passed because I figured my non clothed image on a TV even blurred out would give some poor child "ugly man" nightmares.

OK...but would you change yer mind if they let you wear pants?
Being dressed, makes a little difference ...mostly psychological, granted....but the concept is interesting.
I haven't watched the show, only saw the teaser ads.
And I do expect there would be plenty of effort to introduce drama into the story line, because apparently, it's not reality with extra made up drama.
Too bad too, 'cuz made up drama is what ultimately turns me off even when I learn new tidbits, which is naturally, why I bothered to watch in the first place.
And no ... I'm too body conscious to be on TV naked or half naked, regardless of the money involved. Even though losing 40+ pounds would sure be nice.
-KW

If I was limited to one item, I think I'd prefer shoes. There are too many sharp, stinging, or biting things on the ground and a foot injury would be debilitating.

Hmm, one doesn't see aboriginals often with footwear, but they always have a blade of some sort.

Then there's Cody Lundin. While he's part of the long-haired hippie freak crowd, he does make a point that shoes in the wild are essentially unnecessary. He too always has a knife.

In a clothing optional situation, I'd say buttflap takes precedence over shoes.

It sounds like a marketing gimmick. Quite a good one; I expect at least some people will watch out of curiosity and on the off-chance of seeing some boobs. It also levels the playing field as far as EDC is concerned.

Interesting data point. I've heard other experts say that fire is a waste, as a prediction; this goes against the philosophy of many other survival shows (and many threads in this forum) which make fire seem all-important, so that's a refreshing change.

I suspect that too is harder than it looks.

There was (or maybe still is) some sort of hiking barefoot movement I saw some web sites mention a while ago based on the same idea that natives to the area didn't have shoes. IIRC they said you get a better feel for the terrain, build up immunity, etc.

I think the difference is modern society is not used to bare feet so our tender feet are going to get messed up without shoes where the barefoot natives had built up a tolerance over time.

Try a knife and a firelighting kit.
No self respecting " Aboriginal" stires out of doors without them. They leave that sort of nonsense to so called "civilised" people.

A firelighting kit and a container. You can always sharpen a stone.