Overweight and survivability

the lone gunman

the lone gunman

Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
938
Being overweight is not good, But Could it be an advantage if you are in a survival situation with little food? I recently watched a youtube vid where they pointed out that in Alone season 1 both Sam and Alan where on the overweight side when they started the challenge. Would body fat extend your need for food? Whats your thoughts?
 
Your body fat is stored energy in any situation where you have a calorie deficit. As long as you don't require a crane to get out of bed, a little extra body fat may give you a slight edge in a survival situation where calories are lacking.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
 
It really depends on how over weight are you and what condition you are in. Fat has many benefits, it keeps you alive in lean times but it will also keeps you safe when its cold or when you get in a fight.
A good example would be Roman Gladiators unlike the movies where you see those body builders. Real gladiators were actually what you would call nice and plump on the outside. But you will not want to fight them to the death. Funny thing is that they mostly eat vegetarian diet.
you can see many thin people who are weak and in bad health. While there are also fat people that you would have hard time keeping up be it on a hike or building a wall and needing to carry cinder blocks.
Its when you feel that you cant do as much as you want to cause your weight hinders you that you really need to worry.
I had a doctor tell me that its healthy to be 10 -15lb over weight. It gives you that extra safety margin if you get sick. On one of those hard days of backpacking it would keep you going longer.
He was a long distance backpacker where he would go off for a week or two and cover up to 20 miles in a day.
 
Mors Kochanski says that for every pound overweight you can survive an extra day. This is for the fasting method of survival. Would you survive an extra hundred days if overweight that much? I would have to call into question the lack of nutrients and what that would do to the body.

As the show Alone proved last year, when doing activity you will lose weight very fast, but there is still some benefit to the extra weight so long as you can keep going.
 
Ron Hood called it "survival muscle". I knew this spare tire was worth something!
 
I was 415 last fall, and hovered around 405 for a long time. I have been trying to eat healthier foods, smaller portions and drinking more water, but I am down to 365. I have been walking a lot more, and I'm surprised at how much easier it is to get around. I give most of the credit to saw palmetto and acidophilus. Good guts and getting rid of excess fluids has really helped me out. I was in a bad accident in 2012, and my fat, according to the doctor, saved me from worse injuries. He said the fat was great then, but that now I needed to get rid of it. I halfheartedly tried. I still have bad afibb and sleep apnea etc. On top of that diabetes, neuropathy, poor blood circulation etc. I am still morbidly obese, just not as bad at 365 rather than 415. I would say that the 10-15 lb "cushion", no pun intended, is great. Personally, I like a gal that has some padding, and know plenty of women that like big guys. Especially in the winter time. But anymore than that? Not in today's world, with all of the processed crap out there. Our comfort foods, were what our ancestors used to slap some meat on the ribs for the winter, when they knew they were probably going to miss a lot of meals. The fats they had back then were a lot different than walking down the cookie aisle at Walmart. All the crap that I can pronounce on the package (Polish last name will do that) is scary enough. I can still walk long distances, at least until my broken back starts to hurt like someone is piercing it with a red hot poker. Flat trails, I will walk all day. But actually caught in a survival situation? Hypertension, diabetes, etc will drop me like a sack of potatoes. The cannibals from The Road would think they'd stumbled onto a buffet!
 
Muscles can be auto digested as well and thus sustain you during lack of food. Of course they can not pack as many calories as fat but it still puts a dent into the fat trumps muscle theory.
Also muscles are denser than fat thus the calorie comparison will look even better when looking at volume instead of weight.

I've done no science in that direction but I also have a feeling the best would be what I call construction worker strong. Sure these guys have usually no very visible muscle definition and are often "overweight" by BMI standards, however under the surface fat and beer belly they have quite a lot of muscles and highly functional ones at that. The same body type can be seen by world's strongest men contests. They don't look sculpted like Arnold though their bodies appear tougher and more capable, to me at least. This seems to be similar to how Gladiators were described earlier.
 
Ranger school students put on 10-15 lb before entering the school because they know they'll lose that much and more during the course.
So one could make the case that some extra fat is helpful for extending life.
But if it interferes with strength, ability to move and do the needed things, or causes health issues then it's no good.

I've been reading and admiring lightweight camping gear. But looking at paying $30 more for something that's 4 ounces lighter than what I already have seems silly when I'd be better off losing the 15 lb around my middle. So I'm working on the onboard tonnage instead. (but making progress is a LOT harder than just shelling out some $$$)
 
It will to a degree, how much and for how long is certainly up for debate. But think of it this way, not only is that fat a calorie source, but its also insulation, so you have a point where those of us who are rail thin can't keep warm, and burn every spare calorie shivering.

There are also different types of fat, and how much of that fat is in the muscles as well as how much of it is abdominal are going to make a difference in the balance, although I'm not sure we entirely know how that works yet. The research is getting better, but most of the starvation research we have was based off stuff done in the 30s and 40 which was not done well, and has been proven so far to be fairly worthless.

Most people have a few pounds of range in their weight, some more, some less. I think the main thing is to think about where your body is feeling best, rather than trying to see how long you can survive for. Since most people will get to 30-45 days, past that, if you haven't solved the problem, maybe you're just not going to make it?
 
I think its what feels good for you to some degree. I'd always been skinny. In the past 20ishyears I gained about 20 lbs putting me at 5'10" and right around 200 lbs. I didn't !ike the number so I ramped up my already solid exercise program in January and dropped about 10 lbs. I would have liked to have lost more but when I went for my physical the doc said, "this is a really good weight for you, anything else is because you want to see a certain number." I can live with 190ish. Silent, best of luck on your weight loss, you certainly have a good attitude!
 
Extra weight is very taxing on the joints, and leads to mobility problems: The problem is the extra pounds bears down without any pause whatsoever while standing...

You may think think ten pounds is no big deal, but because gravity never stops, but the effects of weight are larger than the raw numbers would make you think...: I noticed this on elastic shoulder harnesses: If you exceed the elasticity of the harness, then the weight carried keeps stretching down and shifting the sheath's position: A 11 ounces it holds, at 12 ounces it gives out completely... Yet the difference is only one ounce...

Also, because the extra weight is the result not just of overeating but of lack of exercise, the muscles that support the joints offer less support, which makes the joints even weaker. (Mind you, working out too much in an abusive way can also cause pain in the joints, but this is manifest in pain and not in ability, because the muscles support the joints much more, and the joints are still less prone to injury).

I think putting more weight on weaker joints is a very bad formula...: Overweight people are very prone to debilitating fall injury because of this. This is more likely to happen on rough unfamiliar terrain...

The reason this is unnoticeable to most people is because the automobile supplements, and also produces, their lack of physical fitness. The current focus is on diet, diet, diet for the current obesity epidemic, but the true underlying cause is the increasing reliance on petrol powered vehicles (even in the woods many use quads now)...

As for surviving a long time without eating, being fat means having a larger stomach that will feel hunger earlier, and will cause more violent discomfort from being deprived. It is true at the absolute outer end they might survive longer from deprivation, but they will become incapacitated earlier, because moving around requires more effort.

Gaston
 
I think the main thing to separate is the difference between functionally overweight and obese. There is a big difference.
Gaston444, there is no relation between body size, stomach size and feeling hungry. there are just as many skinny folks who can't miss a meal as big folks. And a person's ability to operate with a zero calorie input is unrelated to their weight. Some people can, and some cannot. The fact that some people have a poor metabolic regulation might mean that over time they over compensate, eat too much and put on weight, but its important to separate correlation from causation.
 
There is a difference between a 200 lbs pioneer generation farmer whose diet consisted of the full fat butter and simple staple foods, and who lived to the honorable age of 94...

and the 200 lbs couch potato whose idea of exercise is walking to the all you can eat buffet and will either need a triple bypass operation or will die from a heart attack at the age of 56.

Weight is predictive of overall health and fitness but also irrelevant. Your activity level and body composition is more important.

In terms of being able to fast on stored body fat... not so much. I wouldn't rely on it. Fasting is a skill. It is difficult. There are mental challenges involved and when your body goes in to starvation mode it won't just be burning the undesirable fat... it will be burning muscle and bone as well. Your brain and ability to function will suffer.

If you get dumped in a bad situation your skills and mental toughness are important. Your ability to plan so you aren't in a survival situation is arguably more important.

Who is the better survivor? The expert who rolled the dice but was able to escape the desert island on a raft build from back hair and pulled by turtles.... or the novice who arranged for a boat to come pick him up, took an emergency beacon or just chose to stay home instead of doing something silly. :)

The situations you put yourself in and the contingencies you have to get you out of them are wholly in your control.

Being fat doesn't make up for not laying in adequate rations and I'd take the rations over the extra fat any day of the week. :D
 
There are a lot of way to argue about the good and bad and why some people are fat. The way I see it is that if you can do everything you need to do and you are still active that all that counts.
People today live much longer then ever. Yes every once in a while you hear about someone who lived to a very old age but its not common. Few farmers lived to be past 70 in the old days. Many just looked 20 years older then they really were.

Maybe we should first set a idea when someone says fat what they think of as fat. 20lb? 40lb? or a 100lb.
what about activity of that person? Most of us here do like to go out and do some hiking while some others do cross country running for fun. The rest of us are some where in between.
 
the lone gunman said:
Being overweight is not good, But Could it be an advantage if you are in a survival situation with little food? I recently watched a youtube vid where they pointed out that in Alone season 1 both Sam and Alan where on the overweight side when they started the challenge. Would body fat extend your need for food? Whats your thoughts?
Click to expand...

All things being equal, body fat can be a big plus under certain circumstances. Dudley's perfiormance during the 1939 K2 expedition or the captain's performance after the sinking of the Essex (see Heart of The Sea - the book not the movie) are extreme examples of how carrying a few extra pounds can enhance your endurance. Both of these guys lost fat, lost weight and grew stronger even as their leiner counterparts started to burn muscle.

n2s
 
the lone gunman said:
Being overweight is not good, But Could it be an advantage if you are in a survival situation with little food?
Click to expand...

Roman Legionaires would traditionally begin to eat larger meals to 'fatten' up precampaign as they knew the March forth into enemy territory equated to lean times.

I think it important to point out the difference between a person who is in fairly good shape maintaining a healthy weight within the American Cardiology Standard who, because of upcoming training, ADDS 15 to 20 pounds to his body mass and THEN finds himself in a survival situation
Verses
The overweight sedintary individual who finds himself in the same straits.
Fat does indeed metabolize eventually as well as muscle tissue does, but it doesn't happen overnight. The fifty pounds overweight fella is going to suffer the same pangs as the thin man as they both starve on the proverbial deserted island.
Indeed the overweight man is going to be in serious dire need long before that fat store starts to break down into usable fuel. And the water need is just as great. It's going to be awful, painful, and debilitating.
Day four on the Isle of no return and our fella in question is going to be howling.
As far as who will outlive the other, all things being equal, between Gilligan and the Skipper when the fish runs out, a lot will depend on how well each is equipped to deal with the emotional, psychological, and physiological effects of starvation. In theory on paper the one with the greater storage of caloric energy should exist longer BUT the fact that the overweight man is overweight in the first place could be indicative that the body in question has a propensity to store rather than assimilate corpulent reserves. A body whom through dormancy has not consumed body fat in ages isn't necessarily going to lean back in the life raft and feel satiated as his body fat breaks down. There's a reason why he is fat and those same reasons can also diminish ones survivability. If said individual eats more when stressed out then being lost, alone and hungry is a bad mix. Although equipped with the needed reserves other factors can shorten his longevity.
 
Last edited:
There is a reason that northern European, American Indians, and etc. tend to put on the pounds. As long as you can do the work necessary to survive, a chubby person is at a definite advantage in a starvation situation. Air, water, shelter, FAT. An extra 50 pounds of fat should be good for an additional 100 days under light exertion and the body will use the fat instead of the muscle for fuel. This is one reason that fat is the premier survival food.
 
I don't know about just sitting helplessly. Intuitively the person with the most reserves would do better.

However, the bigger you are the more fuel you need to actually do anything. Bit like how we can dismiss the anecdotal tales of huge rats seen at docks and so forth. The amount they would need to consume is just not sustainable given the available resources and the effort it would take to gather them.

Hardly science but timely in as much as I have just watched yet another survival show that was more of “a bunch of starving people limp over the finish line”. Once again it was the svelte women that were fairly sprightly at the end, whereas the big ole lumbering alpha male ape sorts struggled, flaked out, & needed medics. For a reasonably average distribution of tasks across the group it was the men that struggled to get stuff done on the same amount of resources as the thin women.

Remember when Wiseman said Mears was the wrong shape for proper survival stuff in the wild? This is why.
 
baldtaco-II said:
I don't know about just sitting helplessly. Intuitively the person with the most reserves would do better.

However, the bigger you are the more fuel you need to actually do anything. Bit like how we can dismiss the anecdotal tales of huge rats seen at docks and so forth. The amount they would need to consume is just not sustainable given the available resources and the effort it would take to gather them.

Hardly science but timely in as much as I have just watched yet another survival show that was more of “a bunch of starving people limp over the finish line”. Once again it was the svelte women that were fairly sprightly at the end, whereas the big ole lumbering alpha male ape sorts struggled, flaked out, & needed medics. For a reasonably average distribution of tasks across the group it was the men that struggled to get stuff done on the same amount of resources as the thin women.

Remember when Wiseman said Mears was the wrong shape for proper survival stuff in the wild? This is why.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to the starving contestants who have gone without food for a couple of days? A few days to a few weeks without food is hunger. A few months without food is starvation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top