I very much enjoy this pseudo wilderness survival show, even though the situations that Bear puts himself in and the means he uses to survive them are completely absurd. With very little modification, the whole thing could have been filmed as a hilarious, Leo Wankeresque send-up of legitimate wilderness survival experts such as "The Bush Tucker Man", It is really a stunt and gross-out show in the guise of survival advice.Bear gets sent "all alone" into the most remote and inhospitable places where no-one would ever need or want to go, surrounded by what seems to be a zillion cameramen and crew. There he uses over-complicated, energy-wasting and risky survival techniques for little marginal benefit, pretending to be roughing it in the wilderness, before retiring for the night to his luxury hotel. The premise is that he is equipped only with a knife, but when required always manages to have a suitable bit of equipment that can be tendentiously improvised in the style of the "A Team" or "MacGyver" into a survival tool. Nearly every episode shows him munching on some nauseating plant or bug or other animal, usually after introducing it as a local delicacy, then struggling to avoid vomiting. All the while he dispenses his over-complicated and obscure survival advice as if it is sincere and useful, when in actual fact you could only even attempt to use it if you were trapped in the wilderness with a DVD of the show and a laptop to play it.While perhaps not the intent of the show, it really serves to corroborate my loathing of wilderness areas. Mother Nature is a truly loathsome, vindictive harpy that wants to kill you slowly and painfully after feeding you inedible food for your last supper. Watching this show makes me want to bulldoze every wilderness area on the planet and put up an air-conditioned shopping mall in its place. It really helps you understand why environmentalists generally prefer to live in the most densely populated areas of the world's largest and most developed cities.

I have been watching this show ever since it commenced & I don't think I have missed any episodes as I find them very interesting and entertaining, to say nothing about the information that is given out. I have read a lot about the supposed falsehoods that Bear Grylls is perpetrating & have read comments about many people who have criticized the show.I would like to add my own two pence of opinion here...accepted that he has a camera crew & other people running behind him, but I think the main purpose of this show is to show us how to survive...somebody has written that he puts himself into situations that nobody who actually gets lost would ever do (like climbing down a waterfall, getting soaked in ice cold water etc)...again the assumption here is that IF anybody encounters such a situation, this is how they could save their life...I have read allegations that he sleeps in motels and not in the shelters that he has himself built...clearly the filming of an episode takes several days, so why on earth would he subject himself to the inconvenience of sleeping out all that time??? hasn't he demonstrated the most effective way to build a shelter and isn't that more than enough for a person who is watching the show to learn a few tricks? There is another complaint that he never is in any real danger...in fact being the show's star attraction, he would be fool hardy if he put his life in danger and it makes sense that he takes all precautions...again he is showing us the ropes so why don't people understand that? I commend the fact that he is prudent enough to value his own life (for the sake of his producers, fans, his family & obviously himself)...As for the comparisons with survivorman, I have not seen the other show...from what I have heard that show is quite informative, though not as entertaining...I feel both of them are doing a good job in their own unique ways...it would be unfair to compare them...Bear Grylls might be making a lot of money with this show, but so what? I don't feel there is anything wrong with using your skills & abilities to earn money...don't we all try to do exactly the same??? The purpose of this show is to provide information about basic survival in various extreme environments in an entertaining manner...I think, on that score, it delivers perfectly...this is evident by the fact that my 10 year old nephew can watch this show in rapt fascination as does my 60 year old father-in-law...Lastly for all those who criticize the show, though I respect their opinion, I feel they are being too harsh & overlooking the obvious purpose of the show...this is not a test of endurance for Bear grylls and he is not trying to prove anything (check out his background, he has achieved more than most of us will in 10 lifetimes)...he is merely showing ways of survival in a very entertaining manner & let us not be so naive as to think that this could be achieved without a certain amount of manipulation...sit back & enjoy the ride, guys...

I watched and enjoyed Survivorman well before Man vs. Wild came along, and expected a similar type of show. The producers apparently anticipated the same reaction from their audience, and decided the show needed to be spiced up a bit.So we have the host, Bear Grylls, performing all sorts of highly adventurous activities, like swimming upstream, climbing cliffs and trees, eating live animals/insects, and so forth. This makes for great entertainment, but much of what Bear engages in is impractical and even dangerous at best in a survival situation.Now granted, it would also be impractical to assume that this show should be construed as a survival guide. Bear does, however, give a great deal of information and good advice mixed in with the thrills. I find him to be mostly level-headed and good natured, even when faced with very difficult situations. Despite his hardships, I don't believe I've ever heard him complain once. And that really is as important to survival as anything - having a positive attitude and making the best of one's situation.His credibility does suffer a bit with the admission that he tends to sleep in hotel rooms or base camps as opposed to in the wild. That certainly keeps him fresh and ready to face new challenges, but perhaps most importantly to speak with authority and excitement in order to keep the audience interested.It's difficult to sort through the good and bad advice, since the show is as concerned with entertainment as it is with developing survival skills. I suppose one must do whatever it takes to survive, but some things can make one even worse off. In one instance, Bear drinks his own urine without much second though, but in another case he is very careful about determining the source of potential drinking water. And a parasitic infection from frequent consumption of live animals might make hunger seem nothing but a dull ache in comparison.In all, Man vs. Wild is a good show. It is more of a show about personal challenge for Bear than it is for survival education. "The Bear Grylls Challenge" might have been a better name. At any rate, despite the liberally sprinkled good advice, this show is primarily for entertainment purposes. If you want to learn about more practical, albeit less exciting, application of survival technique, then watch "Survivorman."

"Man vs Wild" is an excellent show, unlike "Survivorman" Bear brings in charisma that isn't matched by Les Stroud. Sure there is controversy about Bear being a fake, but the Bear's adventures take him to locations that are relevant to people rather than going to Africa most of the time. Bear gives the opportunity to teach survival tips in instances when they can actually be used. Not everybody is keen to stay in the city where they are in cell phone range and near people. It's nice to get away and be secluded with just yourself and the wilderness for awhile, and if anything happens, maybe, just maybe you can remember a tip you saw Bear give that can help you. I know Les Stroud hasn't done a show involving avalanches when skiing hiking or snowmachining. Bear's show has more relevance to more people because his shows aren't in the most remote locations that are not as popular as Alaska, Sierra Nevada, Scotland, the Alps, etc.