IIRC a quote from the Bataan Death March in the Philippines: “Fat guys got skinny, skinny guys died.”
I don’t think your scenario is even remotely near the point where that difference in time becomes crucial. A healthy person should be able to walk 100 miles in a matter of about five or six days - that’s a pace that casual hikers can maintain, and they don’t have the added motivation that their life depends on it. Your 60 lbs overweight person might not be able to keep up with that, but even if we assume that person maintains only half that pace, we’re still short of a period of time when food deprivation becomes life threatening.
If they’re confined to a single room, unable to leave, the fat person would likely survive longer, seeing as they have more available calories to burn.
However, in a more realistic scenario, a fitter person would be more likely to provide for themselves. To hunt animals, gather plants, build shelter, escape danger, etc.
I’ve been 200 lbs and I’m currently 125 lbs. I’d give myself a LOT better odds of surviving at 125 lbs, particularly when it comes to walking long distances and still having plenty of energy. And I wasn’t morbidly obese at 200 lbs, either. You don’t need to be to still notice a HUGE difference.
Well, the fatter person may not feel energetic at the end of the day - but they’ll have more energy next week, because they carried extra with them. If you carried an extra 200,000 calories or so with you (say, you had a giant bag of pre-cooked bacon), you’d be tired too. You wouldn’t necessarily be at a calorie deficiency at the end of two weeks if you carried that bag, but you’re going to have to get the calories there somehow to keep up with them on a long trip.
I generally create/hold more fat and muscle than the average person. I could squat 450 lbs and bench press my own weight +30 lbs in jr. high the first time I touched a weight bench. Instant A+ in weight training in the first week of class. But I’ve got a weird body with the torso you’d associate with a 6’ tall person and the legs and arms you’d figure would be assigned to a 5’ person. Short limbs give you an advantage in lifting dead weight, but there’s a definite cost in speed. I’m going to lose in a foot race to just about everyone. Even when I had a dead untreated thyroid and was 100 lbs overweight, I could go all day long at a physical job that required a lot of lifting (if I became prone, I was going to sleep, though). I’m currently about 40lbs overweight (thyroid is being treated), and have been at generally an ideal weight in the memorable past. I didn’t really notice the weight I was carrying unless I jumped off something and landed on my feet. 100 extra pounds is harder to stop when gravity has a chance to accelerate it. I’d imagine my body type would account for my stamina when carrying extra weight, but either way I can carry around a lot of extra calories without it appreciably affecting my stamina or [DEL]speed[/DEL] (who am I kidding, I gots no speed).
OK, so you are saying they both would make it to the food a 100 miles a way. I’m not sure about spending only 5 or 6 days to cover the 100 miles. A lot would depend on the terrain and temperature. Also that is a pace that a healthy person could maintain IF they had food with them. The first few days said person could cover quite a few miles, but after 3 or 4 days, I imagine significant slowing would occur due to the lack of nutrition.
Why do you think that so many species developed and maintained the ability to store extra food as fat, if you’re so determined to think that this would always be a detriment?
(And “fitter” is not a synonym of “thinner”.)
Yes, and I have no doubts about that. Granted, if temperatures are hostile and the terrain is difficult to pass, there would be problems - but here we are again adapting the scenario to fit a desired result. If temperatures are moderate and terrain conditions are fine, a person could surely walk 100 miles. It really isn’t that much if you have days to cover it and there is a strong reason for doing so - it may appear very far to us because we’re not used to walking such distances nowadays, but people in the past, with no other means of transport available, would do it; Martin Luther, for instance, famously walked more than 800 miles from Nuremberg to Rome in 48 days in autumn 1520, and that included covering signficant differences in elevation because he had to cross the Alps. Sure, he could eat along the way, but I doubt his meals were lavish.
FWIW, this website gives estimates in the ballpark of 6,000 calories per day for hiking (including luggage). An estimated six-day trip to cover 100 miles would thus burn 36,000 calories. Using the figures other people have quoted in this thread, that would correspond to ten pounds of body fat. It’s a back-of-the-envelope calculation, for sure, but it shows that a person with some reserves can do it even without food.
Correction: Luthers’s hike to Rome was in 1510, not 1520 (so before he became a public figure). He was 27 years old.
This guy could walk!
From Tierra Del Fuego to the northernmost part of Alaska, George Meegan walked 19,019 miles in 2,425 days (1977-1983). He holds the record for the longest unbroken walk, the first and only walk to cover the entire western hemisphere, and the most degrees of latitude ever covered on foot.