There is an interesting popular article on physiological consequences of long expeditions in extreme environments in today's issue of Current Biology. It is a short and accessible overview of challenges human body is facing under such conditions. For those who do not have access to academic journals' subscriptions, feel free to write me a PM.


Halsey & Stroud 2011. Could Scott have survived with today’s physiological knowledge? Current Biology 21(12)

Abstract: In 1911, members of a British expedition walked across the Antarctic to the
South Pole, but in the punishingly hostile environment, retracing their steps
back to the edge of the continent proved fatal. Over the last 100 years,
knowledge about human physiology has greatly increased and, on the
centenary of this most extreme of all journeys, this essay explores the true
extent of the physiological stress experienced by the men involved and whether
their fate was inevitable.

Link

Amundsen managed to with that era's knowledge.

Read "Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage" & "The Endurance" and you will find an amazing and epic story of survival, during the same era, same region, same deal etc.

Difference, the leadership technique between both men.


BTW, Shackelton served under Scott and quit.












My two favorite books of all times!








ALL OF SHACKELTON'S MEN SURVIVED IN FAR WORSE CONDITIONS THAN SCOTT'S FOR A MUCH LONGER PERIOD OF TIME!

I'd love to read the books and I'm looking forward to a opportunity.

The article, however, is not concerned with leadership or really any organisational skills.

One of the points it makes is that there was really no quantitative knowledge (calories) of how the human body uses or stores the energy and what are the best sources. Therefore, at the time of Scott's expedition planning of food rations was a largely hit-or-miss thing with many misconceptions (e.g. overemphasizing the role of proteins). As a result, the daily ratios supplied Scott's expedition members with only about 4,000 calories, while it is now known that a person hauling fully packed sled on an antarctic expedition uses an average of 7,000 to 11,000 cal daily. Therefore, it was inevitable for the members of the expedition to succumb after their body reserves were depleted. This was the major cause of their failure. Had they known human physiology as it is known now, they could plan their provisions accordingly and would have probably made it, if there was no other major catastrophe.

The paper also describes the kind of changes that result from such a constant energy deficit, etc., and so on, and that is why it's neat.

Nimrod expedition faced exactly the same problem (and, in fact, provisioning of Scott's expedition was modeled after it, if we are to believe the authors of this review) and also never made it to the South Pole. I can imagine being stranded during the antarctic winter was very different, as the crew members were not hauling huge loads daily, facing the constant energy deficit of an inadequately provisioned expedition on the move.

So why did all of Shackelton's men survive for over 18 months in far worse conditions, same region, same period and most likely with less calorie intake (2000 at best per man) for the last nine months of their ordeal?

The motivation to survive has much to play in this deal. Thus, the leadership role.

Something that this paper does not even include.

I read Scott's diary, and what struck me was how stubborn he was. For instance, basically everybody was telling him not to rely too much on ponies & motorised sleds because they had proven to be unreliable & not suited for the Antartic, unlike the polar dogs Amundsen used. He didn't listen, brought only a small quantity of dogs.

Iirc more than half of the ponies died during the voyage to the south pole & the sleds turned out to be crap as well.

If this kind of unwillingness to accept other ideas and suggestions is exemplary for his leadership in general, it partly explains why he didn't make it.

BrunoM wrote:I read Scott's diary, and what struck me was how stubborn he was. For instance, basically everybody was telling him not to rely too much on ponies & motorised sleds because they had proven to be unreliable & not suited for the Antartic, unlike the polar dogs Amundsen used. He didn't listen, brought only a small quantity of dogs.

Iirc more than half of the ponies died during the voyage to the south pole & the sleds turned out to be crap as well.

If this kind of unwillingness to accept other ideas and suggestions is exemplary for his leadership in general, it partly explains why he didn't make it.

Read "The Last Place on Earth" by Roland Huntford (previously published as "Scott and Amundsen"). It describes in detail Scott's incredible arrogance and bungling, in contrast to Amundsen's leadership and planning. It is little wonder that Scott and his men died, while Amundsen & co. made it through in good shape.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
My point concerning Ernest Shackelton's incredibly powerful and motivating leadership abilities which every man in his crew credit their survival too.

It seems like a chronicle of the wrong decisions by Scott. I´ve also read accounts of his style of leadership which now seem outdated and autocratic. Anyway, he got there which is no mean feat by any means. That place is hard on wrong decisions.

BrunoM wrote:I read Scott's diary, and what struck me was how stubborn he was. For instance, basically everybody was telling him not to rely too much on ponies & motorised sleds because they had proven to be unreliable & not suited for the Antartic, unlike the polar dogs Amundsen used. He didn't listen, brought only a small quantity of dogs.

Iirc more than half of the ponies died during the voyage to the south pole & the sleds turned out to be crap as well.

If this kind of unwillingness to accept other ideas and suggestions is exemplary for his leadership in general, it partly explains why he didn't make it.

I believe Scott also disdained the use of skis. Amundsen ate his sled dogs, which got him bad press, but helped him live.

MoapaPk wrote:

BrunoM wrote:I read Scott's diary, and what struck me was how stubborn he was. For instance, basically everybody was telling him not to rely too much on ponies & motorised sleds because they had proven to be unreliable & not suited for the Antartic, unlike the polar dogs Amundsen used. He didn't listen, brought only a small quantity of dogs.

Iirc more than half of the ponies died during the voyage to the south pole & the sleds turned out to be crap as well.

If this kind of unwillingness to accept other ideas and suggestions is exemplary for his leadership in general, it partly explains why he didn't make it.

I believe Scott also disdained the use of skis. Amundsen ate his sled dogs, which got him bad press, but helped him live.

Yes, Scott ignored every technique which had been proven to work in the Antarctic. Read Huntford's book to see how blind and obstinate he truly was.

Everybody likes to dump on Scott, and some of it is justified. But to be fair to him, he was running a real scientific expedition. Amundsen cared only about the glory of winning the race, so he could go fast and light all the way, and that's what he did. Scott was still picking up rocks and samples--35 lbs of them--on the way BACK from the pole!

What I fail to understand ... HOW did the historic dudes do it without using these two items ???

chugach mtn boy wrote:Everybody likes to dump on Scott, and some of it is justified. But to be fair to him, he was running a real scientific expedition. Amundsen cared only about the glory of winning the race, so he could go fast and light all the way, and that's what he did. Scott was still picking up rocks and samples--35 lbs of them--on the way BACK from the pole!

That´s very true! He was following the tradition of an expedition was only worth while when "science" of some sort was involved.

charles wrote:

chugach mtn boy wrote:Everybody likes to dump on Scott, and some of it is justified. But to be fair to him, he was running a real scientific expedition. Amundsen cared only about the glory of winning the race, so he could go fast and light all the way, and that's what he did. Scott was still picking up rocks and samples--35 lbs of them--on the way BACK from the pole!

That´s very true! He was following the tradition of an expedition was only worth while when "science" of some sort was involved.

Not sure about that. If the "science" was so important, he would not have been so devastated when he discovered that Amundsen had beaten him to the pole; he would have gone on collecting rocks or whatever. Scott's worst fault, and he was certainly not unique in this, was his near religious belief that if an idea wasn't thought of by the British, then it couldn't be worthwhile. It lead directly to the deaths of him and his men.