As it has been pointed out, it may be true that if one examines the total heat loss/retention of a naked person, the head may (or may not, as I still do not see their published data, just their statement) only account for approximately 10% or the BSA of the head. However, if one is clothed and of course heat loss/retention will vary with the amount and type of clothes one is wearing, an uncovered head may account for 50%+ of the total heat loss/retention of the body.

Pete

There you go again, using common sense, logic, and your fantastic ability to research to make "us" chest thumpers look silly again. Makes me, think, once again, "why didn't I think of that?"...

Great job...

I always figured the alcohol thing was more about the hard stuff. I can see where 190 proof Jack could screw you up a lot of different ways if you were in a survival situation. The weak stuff like beers, wines, grog, etc... doesn't have much alcohol in it. Years ago it was the larger percentage of what people drank. Sailors mostly drank the low alcohol stuff (and some rum....arrr!) on long voyages. It keeps better than water, what's it going to do, ferment and go bad? The alcohol kills all the nasty germs so it was the safest thing to drink. Our ancestors weren't a bunch of drunks, they were survivors. (I'm not much on beer myself, but I like Stella. Let's see, a gallon a day for each person. Ouch! that could get expensive.)

Always thought the caffeine thing was kind of stupid too. I went for a period in my life where the only thing I drank was Dr. Pepper. Maybe I should be dead already.

About wearing a hat. Probably just a smart thing to keep your core areas covered in the cold. And your head IS a core area. A big puffy vest, while looking kind of dorky, works amazingly well at keeping you warm.

Another myth I've always thought was stoopid is the swimming after you eat. Don't even mention the word swim while you're eating around my grandmother. She'll start telling you about disfigurement, maiming, and death while sizing you up for a coffin. And nothing will change her mind. O.K. not really survival related, but I guess if you have to swim across a river after eating your fill of snare caught wood rats and black berries you won't die from cramps.

Argumentum ad Hominem
Translation: "Argument against the man", Latin
Alias: The Fallacy of Personal Attack

Type: Genetic Fallacy

Exposition:
A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

Earlier, you said:



I think you're being rather inconsistent here. Earlier, you used the expert status of your source to buttress your argument. Now, when someone questions the credentials of that expert, you claim it's an ad hominem attack. You can't have it both ways.

That's another good one. Something that everyone knows is true, but when put to the test it fails.

Lasd02, thanks for the post & interesting discussion you have generated.




Based on what I've read so far during this thread the jury is still out on this one, but I do know one thing for sure...the few times in my life that I've needed to take a cold shower the part where I had to wash my torso & head was by far the most brutal. The hands, feet, arms & legs sure do not seem to affect our response to the cold water the same way that the torso, neck & head do. My gut feel on this would be this is a built in survival instinct that makes us greatly desire to get those more vulnerable parts out of the contact with life draning cold more quickly BECAUSE THEY ARE LOSING HEAT FASTER. But I have no scientific proof.

I think the study you have quoted screams for more research.

For arguments sake, lets say the air temperature is 50degrees F with zero air movement (no wind chill factor). A naked person stands still in that environment. Arbitrarily let’s say the person looses 1000 BTUs in an hour. By the “debunk” SBA rule, the head (9%) would account for 90 BTUs while the remaining body would give off 910 BTUs.

Now, if we clothe the body (not he head) with clothing that achieves 70% efficiency. That would mean that 30% or 273 BTUs are still lost from the areas of the body other then the head. 273 + 90 BTUs = 363 BTUs so the loss from the head is now 24.79 % of the total heal loss.

If the body were clothed in clothing that provides 80% efficiency, then 20% would represent 180 BTUs of loss from non-head regions of the body. 180 + 90 BTUs = 270 BTUs. So now the heat loss from the head is 33.33…%.

So you can see, the greater efficiency of heat retention of the clothing worn on the body, there is a greater percent of heat loss from the uncovered head.

Comparing core temperature to BSA heat loss is like comparing apples to oranges. The body will divert blood flow to various parts of the body to maintain a survivable core temperature for as long as possible. If the “study” was not conducted with thermal imaging, then it is flawed.

Pete

Absolutely, but the 9% from the head could just as easily be the 9% from any other part of the BSA. As the study claims, you will lose the same amount of heat from an exposed head as from an exposed leg (given the same BSA %).

Thanks for the nod, I'm starting to get a little discouraged here.