General fitness and survival

**Magpie** · 08-28-2009, 02:19 PM

Okay, this might seem a little strange but giving it some thought I think it's a decent question. I got to thinking about how our body burns off body fat for energy first when food is not available. So theoretically would a hefty person be able to survive longer without food? (they seem to be the ones that are always hungry lol) Excercising and working out speed up metabolism, and when you have a high metabolism you burn energy faster and need to replace it more often (not necessarily more in amounts, but more often) It seems like this would not be ideal in a true survival situation. Because when you don't have any fat left for your body to use, it starts to burn off muscle, and that can't be good.

**Rick** · 08-28-2009, 02:28 PM

It is an interesting thought. A larger body mass requires more energy in the form of calories but a body that has more muscle than fat also requires more energy. If all things were equal, I would think, my opinion, that it would pretty much be a wash. Add in additional stresses such as quick or long term movement etc and you'll have to toss conditioning into the equation. But two normally healthy guys of different body types sitting on a rock with all the water they need would probably last about the same amount of time. IMHO.

**trax** · 08-28-2009, 02:34 PM

I've kind of wondered about the same thing Magpie and it's part of why my advice is if someone is stuck in a "survival" situation that they take time to think about how much energy they're going to expend to get food. If you use more than you gain you're fighting a losing battle no matter what your body type or condition, eventually it'll catch up to you. And if you're in a bad weather situation that'll only exacerbate (I just wrote all this cuz I wanted to use exacerbate in a sentence) your dilemma (oooh execerbate and dilemma in the same sentence I'm just a regular bard today!)

**wildWoman** · 08-28-2009, 02:35 PM

I think you'd have an advantage if you're a bit chubby but fit.
I'm one of those people who can't put on weight no matter how much they eat and it's a pain because just to keep at what's still considered a healthy weight I eat huge portions; daily living here requires plenty of physical work and when we're doing anything extra such as building, despite eating like a horse, I become totally emaciated.
When you're like that and you get sick or just have a little bit of whatever stress added to your system, it takes you way down very fast and then it takes a long time to rebuild your strength and energy. At least that's my experience. So I think being a happy medium in terms of weight would be best - don't want to be too fat or too skinny.

**Ken** · 08-28-2009, 02:36 PM

Let's just say.........

Guests can not see images in the messages. Please register in the forum.

**mountain mama** · 08-28-2009, 02:40 PM

wildwoman, I wish I had your problem. However, I do see where you are coming from. Maybe it is what you are eating? Do you need more fat and carbs added to your diet?
I think you would have a better chance of long-term survival at your fitness level than I would.

**wildWoman** · 08-28-2009, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by mountain mama

wildwoman, I wish I had your problem. However, I do see where you are coming from. Maybe it is what you are eating? Do you need more fat and carbs added to your diet?
I think you would have a better chance of long-term survival at your fitness level than I would.

I don't know...I'm a pasta addict and left to my own devices, I gobble up huge plates of pasta 1-2 times a day, seven days a week, plus indecent amounts of chocolate when I can/as long as it lasts. Just a wasteful and inefficient metabolism, I guess, sort of like an SUV...

**mountain mama** · 08-28-2009, 02:58 PM

I REALLY wish I had your problem lol

**finallyME** · 08-28-2009, 04:16 PM

In a normal survival situation (yeah, because there is such a thing as normal), a person is going to expend energy anyways, to make sure they survive. Not many people are going to lay there are wait to die. A fit person will expend less energy doing the same things than a hefty out of shape person. Their bodies are more efficient. With that thought, a fit person will have the advantage.

**Rick** · 08-28-2009, 04:20 PM

But their muscle mass requires more energy than the fat person. Muscle burns more fuel than fat does. So.......now what?

**doug1980** · 08-28-2009, 04:24 PM

I don't think it matters too much in regards to weight. Fitness is a different story though. A hefty out of shape person could have serious problems, high blood pressure, diabetes, etc. A very skinny person will also have problems as well. So I agree that an average person would do the best. But then there poses another question. What is "average" who decides what an "average" person should be? I mean as far as the Military is concerned I have been obese for 5 years and over weight since I joined. But I always passed my PT test so am I obese?

**Rick** · 08-28-2009, 04:27 PM

I uncovered this little tidbit on the net...

"The muscles in your body are what use the majority of the calories that you ingest. They are the "furnace" that cranks up your metabolism, and for every pound of muscle tissue that you have, your body needs to feed that muscle tissue just to keep it alive. A body that is in starvation mode realizes that even though not very much energy is coming in, those muscles are still needing to be "fed". In order to defend itself against actually starving to death, your body will start to break down those muscle tissues in order to use them for energy, and to prevent those muscles from needing to be fed in the future."

So it looks like you'll consume your own muscle mass before consuming fat stores. I have no idea how accurate that is but it seems to make sense to me.

Source: http://www.fitnessdestinations.com/a...ny-fat-person/

**Magpie** · 08-28-2009, 11:21 PM

That's a very interesting link you provided Rick, funny it's pretty much the opposite of what the general belief is. So do we have a catch 22 here? Seeing that muscle is used before fat, you might think the more muscle the better, but in fact the more muscle you have the more energy required for them. So am I correct to assume that amount of muscle really makes no difference in terms of how long they will last without food?
I do think there is some truth in what finallyME said though, but I think it would be more cardio-based. Good for stamina, brute strength will not play near as big of a role in simply trying to survive, no matter the situation. I would think.

**Magpie** · 08-29-2009, 12:38 AM

I think I figured out how that works. Our bodies burn the high energy fat during intense workouts, it being a better supply for energy and at those times needed to conserve and utilize the muscles for the work they are doing. When it comes to just staying alive (which will most likely not involve working the muscles too hard) it makes sense to burn off the muscles instead, saving the fat for a fight or flee situation, or final efforts at staying alive. Sounds right to me, sorry if it's obvious to others but I just sort of had an "Ah ha!" moment thinking about it.

**oly** · 08-29-2009, 07:52 AM

Fat floats while muscle sinks

**Rick** · 08-29-2009, 08:58 AM

Well, there you go, Oly. Simple.

Magpie, I don't have the answer to the question, which by the way, I think was a good one. In the end, there would probably be many underlying factors that would impact either person's survival. Mental attitude probably being one of the largest. But it is a fun question to theorize with. Thanks.