|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Mar 25, 2014 21:14:06 GMT
Several times I've run across references to people eating (or claiming they will have to) eat their boots or belts. Most of these are in works of fiction, including the Discworld series. But I've also read people saying this is perfectly possible (at least for leather clothing), and in fact may have been done during the Gold Rush of California when people got lost or trapped. There is also, apparently, a short film from 1980 where someone cooked and ate their shoes after loosing a bet.
So, is this true? How much nutrition could you get from eating shoes - as in could it mean the difference between dying and surviving (assuming water isn't a major problem)?
Come to think of it, how many items of clothing might you be able to eat if you really had to?
Anyone have any further information or links?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 26, 2014 0:54:10 GMT
Several times I've run across references to people eating (or claiming they will have to) eat their boots or belts. Most of these are in works of fiction, including the Discworld series. But I've also read people saying this is perfectly possible (at least for leather clothing), and in fact may have been done during the Gold Rush of California when people got lost or trapped. There is also, apparently, a short film from 1980 where someone cooked and ate their shoes after loosing a bet. So, is this true? How much nutrition could you get from eating shoes - as in could it mean the difference between dying and surviving (assuming water isn't a major problem)? Come to think of it, how many items of clothing might you be able to eat if you really had to? Anyone have any further information or links? the Lewis and Clark expedition recorded a time period (not long, but more than a few days) in which they were reduced to boiling leather and chewing tree bark. I think nutritionally, it falls into the category of "better than nothing but not much" I couldn't find what I would consider a reliable source with a quick google search - but the sources that popped up shared that opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by kharnynb on Mar 26, 2014 21:55:40 GMT
As far as i can see, there would be so little calories in it, that it would be more the feeling of eating something, than actual benefit.
Not to mention, most leather is treated with a lot of messy chemicals.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Mar 27, 2014 0:06:14 GMT
As far as i can see, there would be so little calories in it, that it would be more the feeling of eating something, than actual benefit. Not to mention, most leather is treated with a lot of messy chemicals. the stories usually involve pre-chemical leather technology. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Mar 27, 2014 17:59:42 GMT
The Film maker Werner Herzog once made a bet that if he lost meant he would have to eat his shoe,....he lost and so had to. There is a short film documentary of this. m.imdb.com/title/tt0081746/ |
|
|
|
Post by Lex Of Sydney Australia on Apr 5, 2014 13:14:13 GMT
Well if we're talking about eating clothing & it's nutritional value then I'd like to explore the expression "Eat my shorts!" as used on a regular basis by Bart Simpson from the Simpsons.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 6, 2014 9:59:47 GMT
Its not so much as the actual shorts, more whats in them?....
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Apr 6, 2014 19:46:09 GMT
the stories usually involve pre-chemical leather technology. Presumably this "pre-chemical" technology happened back before the big bang created all those pesky chemicals that make up just about...er...everything. Tanning has always involved unpleasant chemicals long before modern production methods, such as lime, lye, urine & animal feces. Which explains why tanneries were usually sited outside of town. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Apr 6, 2014 20:01:19 GMT
A lot of the chemicals would probably be washed out, or at least diluted, if you were 'cooking' leather or had worn it for any length of time and exposed it to rain. (The latter would hold with being in a survival situation or part of an army)
I'd also guess that a lot of these chemicals would only pose a major health hazard if you were eating leather for an extended period. And lets face it if you ended up having to eat that much leather poisoning is probably the least of your worries.
|
|
|
|
Post by memeengine on Apr 6, 2014 21:25:05 GMT
A lot of the chemicals would probably be washed out, or at least diluted, if you were 'cooking' leather or had worn it for any length of time and exposed it to rain. However, the very same "washing out" action would also act to remove those chemicals which would render the leather in any way nutritious. Or at the very least, anything remaining in the leather that hasn't been leeched out by the tanning process and the period of wear, is liable to remain in the leather right through the digestive process and out the other end. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Apr 7, 2014 1:11:27 GMT
the stories usually involve pre-chemical leather technology. Presumably this "pre-chemical" technology happened back before the big bang created all those pesky chemicals that make up just about...er...everything. Tanning has always involved unpleasant chemicals long before modern production methods, such as lime, lye, urine & animal feces. Which explains why tanneries were usually sited outside of town. yes, but not chromium salts and aniline dyes. traditional American Frontier Leathermaking tended to use lye (wood ash) and animal brains. (specifically, the source of the hide also provided the tanning agent) |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Apr 7, 2014 8:34:00 GMT
Back in the days I was a bus driver, the factory next door was Kershaws tannery in Stockport, Gtr Manchester.
Some of the chemicals used in tanning were just past obnoxious into the heath hazard states.
Would I eat leather that had been tanned?... if it was the ONLY thing left?....
I may investigate the local wildlife first.
"Hey Sarge, I just finished polishing them boots"..........
|
|
