Narrated by Bear Grylls, participants in the show are placed on remote uninhabited islands as a test of their survival skills.

The third series (2016) continued the gender divide theme and featured eight men and eight women abandoned on opposite sides of a single island.

[7] In promoting the first series, the show was pitched as a challenge for modern men, to see if they can survive when marooned on a Pacific island armed only with minimal tools and their own initiative.

[8] According to Bear Grylls, masculinity (and machismo) is in crisis, and he is interested if men can survive after being stripped of the luxuries of 21st-century living; the show is therefore also a social experiment to see if man can recapture his primeval instincts.

The men were given machetes and knives, head torches, an initial one-day water supply, and an emergency medical kit.

In addition, the participants had GPS spot trackers, and access to radio and satellite phone in case of an emergency.

[13] Grylls, however, rejected the claims, and said that it was necessary to make sure that there would be just enough resources to sustain the participants, and that caiman crocodiles were added to the island so that if the men or women were to kill them, the natural ecosystem would not be damaged.

Lisa Fenton suggested that it was "sexism and it's deeply rooted", and Ruth England expressed disappointment with Channel 4's decision as it "perpetuates the myth that women need to be taken care of", while Sarah Outen criticised the "male-oriented bias with adventure TV programmes".

[15] In response, Bear Grylls denied that the show was sexist, and said that the series was intended as a study of masculinity of modern man and their struggles.

"[17] Rupert Hawksley of The Daily Telegraph felt that the second series, despite the presence of women, was "every bit as sexist" as the first series.,[18] saying the sexes were needlessly segregated and stereotypes allowed to flourish.

[21] Channel 4 apologised for the error and said: "The relevant national environment agency are aware of the incident and have granted a license to replace the animal which has now been done.

"[22] The second series elicited more than 600 complaints from viewers (450 to Channel 4, 185 to Ofcom); most of the complainants accused the show of "killing animals to boost ratings".

"[24] Euan Ferguson of The Observer expressed concern about the "producer selection" of mollycoddled males who might fail to cope with the wilds of the island, but thought that the participants might "make a fist of surviving, and confound a few lazy stereotypes", and that he was "semi-hooked".

[25] Regarding the second series, Charlotte Runcie of The Daily Telegraph thought that watching people learning to "cooperate in extreme situations is always strangely compelling.

[27][28] The first series was nominated in the Reality & Constructed Factual category in the 2015 British Academy Television Awards and won.