For most of human history gnawing hunger has been a constant companion, those who survive the worst they find out that when it comes down the the wire a human being is naught but a devouring mouth and instinct. Given our species’ extensive experiences with famines, starvations, deprivation, is there any consensus on what type of individual is most likely to survive while the others die?
I remember reading in Jewish ghetto accounts that the big bulky guys were first to go - the most likely to survive being short and stocky types. What exactly are we talking about in terms of ideal body shape to survive an extended period of starvation?
I would bet that the people most resistant to starvation are those who in times of plenty are moderately obese and susceptible to the Metabolic Syndrome. One possible underlying rationale for this is found in the so-called Thrifty Gene Hypothesis.
It’s important to note that survival of the individual per se is not the goal. What counts is survival of the species. In that regard, I have always been struck that women who are overweight often are infertile (one cause being Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome). However, with the weight loss that occurs during periods of starvation such women will become fertile while leaner women are becoming infertile!
The obese would probably be gone pretty early, since they can’t function without relying on the sympathy/charity of others, which goes out the window in a starvation situation. The extra fat stores aren’t enough to offset their poor overall health and especially poor mobility.
Extra height is a liability, since it’s a permanent modifier to maintenance energy requirements.
A charitable interpretation of this post suggests a belief the obese somehow need to remain obese, and that they would be unable to tap into their own fat stores to sustain themselves. That doesn’t sound right, and the value of fat in wild animals facing a winter fast cannot be overstated. It is also incorrect to suggest obese individuals lack the capacity for mobility that might be demanded of them–this is not nearly universally true.
I have to assume you wouldn’t seriously post this with the belief the less charitable interpretation were true.
In all tribal groups there are some individuals whose bodies store more fat than normal. Given a normal diet they are not obese, but when faced with famine they are most likely to survive because of their higher percentage of body fat.
And, with reference to my post above, not only are there some individuals in a tribe who “store more fat than normal”, there are tribes where (virtually) ALL individuals “store more fat than normal” (see, for example, the Pima People of Arizona).
In most famine situations, it’s not a matter of complete starvation. People still eat, they just don’t get enough to eat. Over time this causes hunger, exhaustion, weakness, and serious side effects from various types of malnutrition. Those who need larger amounts of calories and nutrients simply to fulfill the needs of their body without any particular activity, like growing children, pregnant women, and big bulky dudes, should therefore be the hardest hit at first. People with extra body mass won’t necessarily have an easier time; being hungry sucks whether you’re fat or thin, and the process of consuming your own body for fuel isn’t fun. But in a prolonged famine or complete starvation, they will probably live longer than thinner people. In a normal famine, where there are ups and downs in food supply, I’d put my money on people with smaller frames and average body mass, as the OP posits - they don’t require as many calories to function as larger folk, but they have enough lean mass and body fat that losing 20-50 lbs will not kill them.
The first is from “Impossible State”. A book about North Korea. One escapee stated “I don’t know for sure what happened to my brother. He is almost certainly dead though; He was 6’4” so he really never had a chance.". (Not word for word accurate as I’m going from memory here.)
After three decades of malnutrition and starvation, the country is described by all who visit as a world of midgets. This is partly due to stunting in the growth of children, but it’s also true of the surviving adults who ate normally in childhood. Tall people simply haven’t made it through.
The second was a conversation among a group of Vietnam War POWS. Asked about the traits that led to survival in the horrific camps they encountered, they all got very sad and quiet. Finally one man spoke up “The fat ones get skinny and the skinny ones die.” was all he had to say on the subject.
Didn’t anybody watch the first season of Survivor? The fat guy won because he had the energy stored up to get off his ass and look for food. That and he was good at playing people against each other.
The paleolithic is a period of prehistory, not history! You may see that as weaselling out, but it’s an important semantic difference. Yep. Although you’re right that famines are linked with the rise of agriculture;
ETA; on obesity, if one is overweight and then enters a period of famine, is there an effect on the body due to a drastic reduction in calorie intake? Say man A consumes 3000 calories a day, man B 6000 calories a day - if they can both only get, say 1000 calories a day would man B do worse as this is a 6th of what he used to consume, compared to a 3rd for man A?
Briefly. But soon Man B will be getting 2000 calories/day, looking hot in a swimsuit, and copulating wildly with all his female counterparts who are also enjoying their new found hotness. He’ll be the happier for the deprivation, in the end.
