http://entertainment.timesonline.co....cle2116195.ece

it's always been obvious that Survivorman kicks Bear's ass....he's the true survivalist. Grylls is just an adrenaline junky that does unnecessarily risky things just because.

I wonder if he will admit to having a life vest on under his sweatshirt when he went floating down the river in the Rockies ep?

Even Bear having people film him shows how much more Survivorman has on him. He doesn't have to lug around the camera equipment. It always seemed like a copy-cat show anyway, and one not as good.

is born survivor the british title for man vs. wild? or are they different shows?

i still like bear's show more than survivorman's.

I figured as much, but I view the show as a "how to" on survival. I just knew he didn't have any idea what native plants were in ALL areas of the world and if you ever watched the credits you would see other survivalist credited.

One episode that has always made me crack up is when he was in Africa, at night, going past lions and such. It was pretty damn obvious, based on the bright patches on his shirt, pants, face, the horizon, and the shadows that they filmed that during the day.

Based on the episode descriptions in the article they are the same show.

I also enjoy Man vs Wild more than Survivorman (though I like Les Stroud as well), primarily because of Bear Grylls' presentation, not because I think he is in constant actual peril. Plus, Survivorman is 7 days on his own, and Grylls is rarely out there more than two nights -- two very different scenarios.

I also don't think Man vs Wild has ever been presented as some sort of true survival test, but more of an "action lecture" based on "potential" real life situations. That being said, did anyone actually believe he stumbled on wild mustang stallions and had a chance of riding one? Besides, no one in their right mind would try that if they were truly only trying to survive as you would GREATLY increase your likelihood of sustaining injury and essentially making a fatal mistake.

I suspected that. I stopped watch that show for pretty awhile.

Lets calm down, these are allegations, and have not been proven yet. Lets wait till the facts come out.

Yeah true survivalist? Knowing that you are going to get picked up 7 days from today? Oh that Satelitte phone with a instant pickup in case of trouble, thats not so bad either.

The show is still entertaining.

I've always liked Survivorman more just because it's amazing what he does. The fact that Les lived in the wilderness with his wife for over a year is telling in of itself.

(Slightly off-topic, but don't forget the new season of Survivorman starts next month.)

...Check your local listings.

I personally like Surivorman much better & Man vs Wild isn't really that great.

The court of public opinion requires far less evidence than the court of law.

Yeah, I don't think there are going to be any "facts" coming out, but it sounds like the spokesperson basically admits it:

“Born Survivor is not an observational documentary series but a ‘how to’ guide to basic survival techniques in extreme environments,” the spokeswoman said.

“The programme explicitly does not claim that presenter Bear Grylls’s experience is one of unaided solo survival.”

Yeah, thats what I don't like about the show, if it's trying to be an "action lecture" then why tell people to do things that are more likely to hurt your chance of survival. It's a fun show, but that's about it. (there is a good quote on that article "Watching this show for wilderness survival education is like watching the Dukes of Hazard to learn defensive driving.")

None of this makes Bear Grylls a fraud -- it makes him ... a wrestler!

Still love the show. TV is entertainment, and so is the show. The fact that I sit in front of my TV instead of going to Scotland or the Alps is the best survivor tool in the world.

I don't see it as fraud. It takes a real man with a strong will to eat a live snake, live frog, worms, magots, drink from poop, drink his own pee, etc.

I dont care if these allegations are true. The show isnt about just sleeping in the wild at night. Its about showing us ways to survive out there. Its not like on the show he took that zebra meat, got in a truck, drove to a hotel and cooked it up in the room and ate it. I dont really care if he showed us how to make a shelter out of trees that fell to the ground and then as soon as he was done he went to a Holiday Inn...he still showed us how to make the shelter.

It's dishonest, the show has you think he goes from wilderness to find civilization. In reality, he's near a hotel. The show should be called "Man vs Hotel".

I love his show. It would lose some luster, but I would still watch if this is true.

Regardless, the title of the thread is misleading. If anything, you could argue that the show itself is a fraud. But Bear Grylls has done many of the toughest things done by any human, and walked almost anywhere mankind has walked, save for the surface of the moon. Bear Grylls himself is definitely no fraud.

"Top that you limey bastard!"

Seriously, I think a lot of people want to bring Bear down because what he does makes most of us seem like adventureless lemmings. If he can be made to seem less authentic, people won't feel so bad about their own wasted lives. If the show is entertaining, how the hell is it fraud? Here's a partial list of what I've seen him do that I'd never consider doing myself:

1.) Drinking water from elephant shit
2.) Eating bugs, maggots, snakes, raw fish, etc.
3.) Intentionally jumping into a frozen pond
4.) Free climbing rock formations that would make Spiderman wet his pants
5.) Skinning a rotten deer carcass and using the fur as a blanket

Any man who can do those things, not to mention climbing Everest AFTER breaking his back, is no pussy even if he sleeps at a hotel occasionally.