My comment: In some context, this advice will kill you.
Then there is the so called Kidnapping Survival Guidelines-NOAA-Western Regional Center, see https://www.wrc.noaa.gov/wrso/security_guide/kidnap.htm which i.a. present the following suggestions:
Kidnapping is a terrifying experience, but you probably possess more personal resources than you think to cope with the situation.
My comment: Not necessarily. Some victims break down during the assault, others in captivity.
Remember, you are of value to those who are holding you only if you are alive, and they want to keep you that way.
My comment: Not always true. The purpose may be revenge. It may be to rob or rape you and then kill you to destroy evidence. It could also be to kill you to draw attention to a political or religious cause. (Example: ISIL) Therefore, in some cases your only chance of survival is to flee.
If escape is impossible or too risky, you should nevertheless try to cause as much commotion as safely possible to draw attention to the situation.
My comment: In some cases this would be madness. If it risky to try to escape, it is also risky to create commotion.
While being confined and transported, do not struggle.
My comment: The transportation phase may offer good chances of escape.
What do the advice of Bear Grylls and NOAA-Western Regional Center have in common?
The problem is the generalisation. As pointed out in my book Surviving Kidnappers, the questions of fighting, fleeing or creating commotion demand intelligent deliberation on the spot. What makes sense in one situation, means suicide in another. There are no general answers.
Bear Grylls obviously has comprehensive knowledge about survival in the wilderness, and NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, surely has expertise in its own fields. But why pretend knowledge about kidnapping? As a lawyer I have been wondering if such misleading advice could imply legal responsibility. But this question has perhaps never been tried.