Posted: 6/25/2008 6:26:26 PM EDT
|
I have a bizarre SHTF health question that I and my friends have been cogitating on for several weeks now. A health professional would be the perfect one to answer. But by all means, everyone join in. It is generally considered healthy to be rather slimmed down and in good physical condition. But, in an extended SHTF situation where food has become scarce. Would it still be ideal to be slim and in shape? Or would it be better to actually have an extra 20 pounds to burn? I'm not talking a huge spare tire, beer belly kind of thing but actually be 20 pounds overweight along with exercising regularly and generally being in good shape (low blood pressure, correct cholesteral levels, etc.) I have friends along with myself that would fit into this category. We hike, hunt, fish, outwork, outdrink and out fornicate anyone half our age. So I know this question isn't too far out in left field. To simplify, is the fat guy going to starve first or is the slim guy going to push up daisies first when in a situation that food will be limited but all other factors being equal? If my thought process is too bizarre, please reply and I will get the doc to change my meds.  |
|
Probably 6-8% body fat is ideal. But yes, a person with 130 lbs of lean mass and 25 lbs of fat will live longer than a person that is 130 lbs of lean mass and 5 pounds of fat if you're just sitting them in a chair and giving them water and waiting to see who dies of starvation first. However, you can only eat but so much of your own proteins without becoming acidotic. That's why a 400 lb fatty could still only last ~30-40 days without eating. So, in conclusion, theoretically the bigger person should be able to last slightly longer... but it's pretty negligible. It's probably better to be fit and healthy and plan on having available food supplies. : ) |
|
I was watching a show on (I think) Discovery about human anatomy and athleticism, reflexes, etc. and one of the features in the show was about a man who swam the English Channel. He actually gained 20lbs in fat as part of his training, the reason being that in order to sustain activity for such an event, you need more energy than you can store in your digestive system as food. So does that mean that between two people of equal health - one being fat and one skinny - that there will be a difference in survivability in a food scarcity situation. Good question... For one thing, during a survival situation you won't necessarily be sititng in a room with no food just rotting away. The slim guy could have a better chance at getting food if he is slightly faster than the fat guy. Also, the skinnier guy may be skinnier because he is used to eating less food than the fat guy, in which case he could possibly have an advantage. I am no expert (obviously...) but I think that there are too many variables to take into account to make a judgement based on fat vs. thin alone. I would say though that you are probably well off to eat healthy, get exercies, and stay in generally good health and fitness. There are more factors to survival than just eating food (such as ability to fight disease and how fast your body heals from injury). Just my .02 |