MisterLogical
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2015
- Messages
- 913
- Reaction score
- 97
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Alright this seems like a very cleshay question, but there is a lot of parts of this scenarios that people do not think about and go over. Now there is the fighting for survival, making supply's out of wood and rocks and stuff you find around, technical knowledge, shelter, weapons, and all that. However we do not take into account stuff like metabolic rates. Now this goes into basic Biology and how our bodies work.
Biology of fat: Now to be skinny you have to burn a certain amount of calories and burn a certain amount of fat. Generally if you are eating constantly, small fat preserves are a good thing. However in a scenario where there is lack of food, more fat would be more beneficial. Since when your body has nothing out to burn, it start burning your fat preserves. Now there is different type of sugars. There is fast acting sugars which give you quick bursts of energy, and there is long stored sugar which is deposited as fat preserves, and generally take longer to burn. So hypothetically if someone is say 300 pounds overweight and there is a situation where they dont eat for lets say weeks they are going to just get thinner and while they might be very hungry, they wont start to die till their body burns off those extra 300 pounds. Now if someone has a normal/healthy amount of fat, they need to replenish that fuel constantly, meaning if they go weeks without eating they are going to going to be in some serious trouble.
Now its assumed that the skinny person will be able to outrun stuff in a natural disaster. Like lets say lions at the zoo are lose and chasing them, they are not going to be eaten. Now say the same for a fat guy and he is probably not going to make it but he probably wont starve like Mr.100 pound skinny guy over here. So Hypothetically, including the metabolic rate, Who do you think truly has more chance of surviving a Zombie Apocalypse, a Biological disaster, or a natural disaster, if in these situations they risk going weeks without food?
Biology of fat: Now to be skinny you have to burn a certain amount of calories and burn a certain amount of fat. Generally if you are eating constantly, small fat preserves are a good thing. However in a scenario where there is lack of food, more fat would be more beneficial. Since when your body has nothing out to burn, it start burning your fat preserves. Now there is different type of sugars. There is fast acting sugars which give you quick bursts of energy, and there is long stored sugar which is deposited as fat preserves, and generally take longer to burn. So hypothetically if someone is say 300 pounds overweight and there is a situation where they dont eat for lets say weeks they are going to just get thinner and while they might be very hungry, they wont start to die till their body burns off those extra 300 pounds. Now if someone has a normal/healthy amount of fat, they need to replenish that fuel constantly, meaning if they go weeks without eating they are going to going to be in some serious trouble.
Now its assumed that the skinny person will be able to outrun stuff in a natural disaster. Like lets say lions at the zoo are lose and chasing them, they are not going to be eaten. Now say the same for a fat guy and he is probably not going to make it but he probably wont starve like Mr.100 pound skinny guy over here. So Hypothetically, including the metabolic rate, Who do you think truly has more chance of surviving a Zombie Apocalypse, a Biological disaster, or a natural disaster, if in these situations they risk going weeks without food?