small vs. large people in survival situations

A

andrew7978

Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
664
At work today, me and a few others were arguing over who would survive longer/better in a survival situation with limited food sources, a small person or a large person. Just wondering which side you guys take and why.
 
Small people because no one wants to eat them. Seriously, I would argue that it depends on the knowledge and skills of the person more than their body.
 
I think it would depend more on metabolism than size.
It would also depend on individual ability to exploit the food supply.
There shouldn't be a spectacular degree of difference in either case.
 
I would say it is more like strong versus weak. A strong person can haul more weight and will naturally be ably to accomplish the harder task easier.
 
ashtxsniper said:
I would say it is more like strong versus weak. A strong person can haul more weight and will naturally be ably to accomplish the harder task easier.
Click to expand...

I was going to say something similar. Ultra light hikers seem to think my ~20-25 pound day pack is a ton of bricks but I don't even feel it.:)
 
I would say it all depends. In Ranger school I went from 160 to 130 but still looked physically OK. There was a big football type I would bet his starting weight was near 250, I saw him at the end weighing in at maybe 170. The guy had so much skin hanging off his body he looked 80. He passed but sure didn’t look near as healty at the end as I did.

I would say a strong person can accomplish a harder task as long as he has food. There was a post here saying small dogs are more efficient, I think in a long term survival situation a smaller person would be ore efficient.
 
If food resources are limited it would depend on your metabalism. An example a Mr. Olympia type body builder that relies on 15,000 calories a day wouldn't last to long in a survival situation.
I remember reading a few years ago about a woman that was adrift in a liferaft without food for a consideralbe length of time. The reports were that she had been dieting for a while before the incident and that her bodies metabolism had slowed down because of her fasting type diet and this helped safe her life.

I am a person that naturally sweats a lot, even in my younger days when I was in excellent physical condition I sweated much more then the average person. Because of this water and electolyte replacement would be a higher priority for me then the average person.
 
Larger people require more energy to move about, smaller people require less. Assuming there are no differences between the two body types in their effectiveness at gathering what little food there is, the smaller person is going to have an easier time living on a restricted diet in the long run. For example, say any human can gather 1500kcal in this environment, the ideal for the smaller person is 1750 and for the larger person 2000. It is pretty obvious who's going to have the rougher go of it.

That said, there's a lot of other factors that could play into it in a real survival situation, for example:

-the larger person might be able to gather food more effectively due to greater strength or reach
-the larger person might deal better with exposure to cold (less surface area to volume) and worse if it is very hot.
-if by 'limited food sources' you mean there is next to nothing available, and by smaller and larger person you mean thinner vs. fatter, it is likely the person with a few extra pounds will last longer than the one without anything to spare (assuming they're both basically equally healthy).
 
I think it's going to be more mental. Check out the origins of the Outward Bound Schools. The story I heard was that in WWll when the sailors would be ship wrecked the young strong guys were giving up and dying while the older guys that had been throught the depression and in general led a harder life did better at surviving.
 
Hobbits.
I rest my case.
 
From what I have read, a person's confidence, will, mental toughness, and determination (and skill level) to survive may all be more important than size (assuming we are not talking about people who are incapacitated by there size or weight). I am overweight, tall, out of shape, diabetic, with one paralized leg. On the other hand, I have years of survival training and spend alot of time in solo hunts and hikes. I go very prepared. In the classes I have taken, there is always a story of some young, fit guy or girl who dies for no good reason other than being "scared to death".
However, the 10 lb mammals survived and the 10 ton dinasours did not.
Ron Athay
 
Ron is on to something. The mentally tough small person will need less food, and patience will be a huge virtue.

I guess I'm screwed.
 
All this talk of cannibalism is making me hungry... :p

"Baby, the other other white meat!" Fat Bastard
 
i guess size only matters if it seriously gives you a disadvantage. So if you weigh as much as a small whale or if you have trouble reaching that doorknob then you might have a problem. But i have a small friend who is incredibly fit - he can climb about 8m up a tree in a few mins.
 
I think the smaller person would fare better. I base that on two things.

Here in Brazil we have lots of stray dogs. One thing you notice is that there is a certain "breed" of small semi-wild stray dog that survives very well. They are small, short haired, very fast, and resourceful. At the same time you run across larger strays and they are universally bone thin. For that small dog a half a ham sandwich is a meal, for the large dog it is just a light snack.

I went through an ordeal in Canada in which 26 of us were reduced to starvation rations for more than a week. This was a mixed group, male and female, large and small, young and old. When it comes to dividing up food humans are very democratic, everyone gets the same portion. When it comes to dividing up the work humans have greater expectations for those who are larger/stronger. The idea is, you´re a big guy, you should be able to handle it. It was my observation that the larger more muscular guys were suffering from starvation more than the smaller, less worked members of the group. I´m not saying that everyone wasn´t giving it their all, the smaller members were working hard too, but at their capacity. Some of our guys would portage a canoe and then return for packs or another canoe, but at meal time everyone would get the same half cup of macaroni. Some of our guys must have been burning 10x the calories.

To suggest in such a situation that food should be rationed in proportion to body mass and workload does not fly when everyone has a vote. It is logical to say that a male 20-something who made three heavily laden trips over a portage should get 3x the ration of a 12 year old kid who merely walked the distance once carrying a load of paddles. Try suggesting it and see what happens to the morale of the group. Mac
 
Smaller guys have lower requirements in terms of water and calories in order to remain in peak condition. That means that when resources are relatively scarce, they will thrive better than bigger guys.

All other things being equal.

But all other things aren't always equal. Size is a very minor factor and having a good survival skill set will matter more than how big/small you are.
 
I read something on this a few years back. They did some reaserch, and it seems like the averidge graduate from the navy seal schools are 5'9' and 160 pounds. Alot of the big athletic college jock guys don't make it through. Maybe its the small mongrel dog/bushman thing at work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top