Your body can meet the majority of your calorie requirements from stored fat, but total starvation is fatal in 8-12 weeks, regardless of initial body weight.
The article says that with full starvation it doesn’t change much because some vital organs will not be able to use your fat, but rather the proteins from your muscles, including your heart, until it fails. But if you somehow have partial starvation with some protein intake, then you may outlive a skinnier person.
My initial shower thought was if someone very muscular would outlive someone less muscular, I found this article and not one precisely on my thought. But I guess it does imply that. I am still wondering if having more muscles could also make you starve faster because your basic metabolism would require more energy?
The problem is that your body doesn’t selectively consume muscle. If your body is starving, it will break down your heart and your biceps regardless of how big either is.
This whole discussion makes me hungry tbh. I guess the real answer is to always have loads of food in the cupboard (just in case). Lucky - due to watching too many zombie apocalypse movies, combined with living in a not entirely stable country - I do.
I am still wondering if having more muscles could also make you starve faster because your basic metabolism would require more energy?
A recent video by Kurtzgesagt has lead me to believe that having lots of muscle doesn’t increase your basal metabolic rate very much. It’s a myth. It’s using your muscles that burns more energy. Simply maintaining extra muscle doesn’t burn all that many extra calories.
I would venture that having extra muscle would mean it would take longer for you to starve.
The article says that with full starvation it doesn’t change much because some vital organs will not be able to use your fat, but rather the proteins from your muscles, including your heart, until it fails. But if you somehow have partial starvation with some protein intake, then you may outlive a skinnier person.
My initial shower thought was if someone very muscular would outlive someone less muscular, I found this article and not one precisely on my thought. But I guess it does imply that. I am still wondering if having more muscles could also make you starve faster because your basic metabolism would require more energy?
The problem is that your body doesn’t selectively consume muscle. If your body is starving, it will break down your heart and your biceps regardless of how big either is.
Wouldn’t a bigger influx of energy from non-essential muscles somehow reduce the speed at which essential muscles are consumed?
This whole discussion makes me hungry tbh. I guess the real answer is to always have loads of food in the cupboard (just in case). Lucky - due to watching too many zombie apocalypse movies, combined with living in a not entirely stable country - I do.
A recent video by Kurtzgesagt has lead me to believe that having lots of muscle doesn’t increase your basal metabolic rate very much. It’s a myth. It’s using your muscles that burns more energy. Simply maintaining extra muscle doesn’t burn all that many extra calories.
I would venture that having extra muscle would mean it would take longer for you to starve.