I was shaking my head as I read about people unhappy with their bodies and going through surgery to change their gender , chest area, or noses ..etc.

Many more people are unhappy about their weight ..etc. and do whatever it takes to get thinner or (maybe) fatter

Two days ago, I was watching a movie called "The Last Legion" in which an Indian actress plays the role of a stunning female warrior able to kill anyone in her path. Wikipedia said that she was labled in India as possibly the "most beautiful woman in the world". That would be special to be so good looking and so brave and skilled in survival.

Not being ambitious to be the "most" of any type, I started wondering about body shapes that would be "best" for survival. Is it better to be taller, shorter, huge 6 footer or a short skinny guy that is hardly visible a few dozen yards away.

There was an old TV series ( Trauma Center ) featured a muscular paramedic ( Lou Ferrignio ) and another little guy working together. They are the 2 guys in the right of this pic

http://www.ivid.it/fotogallery/ismod_index.php?i_section=detail&i_categoria=2&i_id=204995

I vaguely remember some episodes where the big guy saved the day by lifting a car or fallen tree (maybe) to free a victim, while in other episodes, the little guy crawled through debris to reach to victims and save them.

So here is the question :

Do you think that a huge body or a little body is better for survival ?
Which one do you prefer ? and why ?

Obvoiusly a bigger guy ( person ) can lift more survival gear pack, but then he NEEDS a bigger pack for more food and bigger tent/sleeping bag

A smaller person can hide from the elments in almost any small space in relative comfort, but then again will not have much of reserve energy or carry much with him/her. And may not have much power to smash through whatever faces him/her.

Interesting question. My guess is that, overall, a fairly skinny, wiry body type would be best, but that would vary with the local climate. Look at the difference between Nilotic Negroes (the Masai - tall and skinny in a hot climate) versus the Inuit (more rotund, with a tendency toward insulating fat layers).

Smaller folk will do better when food is scarce, more or less.

It really all depends on many variables, which is why natural selection maintains a good variety of body types within human populations today.

Myself, I could stand to lose ten pounds. Been saying that for years - will get right on it, just as soon as I finish this bowl of ice cream.

An incredibly open-ended question. Depending on the situation, it's going to depend whether big or smaller has an advantage.

Let me just throw out the first factor that popped into my head--caloric requirements.

A bigger, more muscular person with all that metabolically active muscle is going to need more calories a day. That's something that needs to be met day in and day out, and if food is scarce or requires a lot of energy to obtain, then that's an advantage for the smaller person over the longer run.

Well, if you're "big" because you're fat, then that's likely an advantage when food is scarce, unless that makes you an easier meal for something even bigger!

As a broad generality, probably many of the situations where bulk/size is an advantage can be done pretty well by the smaller person with some brainpower and/or tools of some sort.

Being as close to average as possible has it's benefits: most stuff fits you, not noticed in a crowd...

I hypothesize that an adult in a preadolescent child's body would have the greatest advantage. Such a body would be more energy efficient, would not require adult maintenance products and, if they play it smart, they are less likely to be noticed and if noticed there is a lower likelihood of a problem.

Jeanette Isabelle

preadolescent or young adult? 50 years of experience and wisdom in an 19 year old body -- hmmm, sounds like a brain transplant is in order. I'll floss this time.

To answer the OP, Joe Average -- not too big, not too small, not too young, not too old. Definitely lean with high strength to weight ratio.

I aproch this in a Taoist prerspective.

it is always good to be in shape, but the key is to work with your body type and not fight it. if you are a little person, embrace that, be little and be wise about what you do to survive, if you are huge and muscular work with that.

If you are slow and methotical, be that, it can help you survive just as being fast and light.

It is key to not envey those who posses strengths you do not have, but to reoginze what you do have and acentuate your strengths and work with them.

Sounded good until the mention of age. Controlling of age is very much a De Leonian quest that has yet to be achieved.

Look at this from the perspective of the group, not the individual. Diversity pays, big time. A group that has gargantuan hunks as well as skinny little folk will win through over a more a less mixed group. I have seen this in caving, where you need both - it all depends on the situation and the circumstances.

I have really seen this in SAR. Our best teams were a mix of youthful enthusiasm and knowing elders, male and female. Pair the microbiologist and the plumber - between them they will have the right stuff (that is not a hypothetical pairing, by the way). Be sure you have a good technical climber and someone really good at EMS. Everybody pulls together.

Survival is much easier in a team. Sometimes you can really cold and lonely if you are by yourself at 3 AM.

From an evolutionary point of view, maybe we already have a decent configuration for survival, next to the cockroaches obviously. While there is a certain degree of diversity amongst us, we are not as different from one another as, say, mole people. On the average we're between 5'-6', between 120-200 lbs (not scientific numbers, but you get the idea). Homo floresiensis (size of a hobbit) died out, and so did our cousin Neanderthal with somewhat different a physical and mental make up. This may not be because we're "better," but we've managed to get this far.

I'm sure a part of the reason is that we're intelligent, social creatures. We can work together, and complement each other. After all, in terms of purely physical traits, we're slower than a zebra, weaker than a lion, less agile than a monkey, etc. Yet somehow we beat them all. So perhaps that's the perspective we should use to look at questions about which body type is best for survival: our bodies, while decent, are no comparison to certain wild animals. So our best trait may be how we work together as a group, using our brains to overcome things that challenge our meager bodies.

Da Bing

That's always been my excuse why I haven't gotten around to losing those ~20 lbs of fat sticking to my gut.

I call it the "Survival 6-pack". Silly people with great muscle definition and 2% body fat won't last a couple weeks without food. (I have been working out the last few months though)

In all seriousness though, I would tend to think that someone in good shape, without being a marathon runner would be in the best shape for a survival situation. No body fat becomes a liability as your body starts cannibalizing your muscle. Course being a fat out of shape lump could increase the chance of injury, or lessen the likelihood of you being able to evacuate yourself if need be. If it wasn't obvious, Im coming at this from a wilderness survival type situation, although I suppose it could apply to most situations.

Look at people who are in survival type situations for long periods, and how their bodies adapt. Indigenous peoples are good examples, but also look at soldiers who did recon for extended periods in Vietnam. None of them were very muscular, they thin and wiry, fit and strong but not big. The body adapts to the environment to be most efficient and effective. That will show you what body type would be best for survival in any type of environment.

Well said and has been my experience in rescue.

Pete

Healthy and physically fit.

For the moment let's discount mental attitude, mindset, etc. Everyone can point to cases of underdogs who pulled through due to true grit. Let's also discount specializing for wildly disparate environments, like 'arctic vs. desert'. We all know the difference between an Eskimo and a Masai but you can only pick 1 body type (Helen Parr excluded).

I have a friend who was an Army Ranger, then later was a Special Forces officer. These soldiers are subjected to extreme physical hardship in a wide variety of environments. During those times they are expected to do tons of physical work on minimal rations and minimal sleep. I asked him how the big guys did compared to the smaller, more wiry ones.

He said that overall the smaller (or at least average) guys held up better. The big guys had to lug their bulky weight everywhere and required lots of calories to get along. When the rations were restricted, the big guys had a harder time.

It is key to note the restricted rations and sleep. Everyone's a stud when they're well fed and rested.

A 175 pound man can develop a lot of a 250 pound man's functional strength but the performance improvements from the savings in body weight and bulk are enormous. 75 pounds of body mass is a huge albatross that drags you down 24 hours a day.

I would take a 175 pound dude who can run a 7 minute mile and bench press 150% of his weight over a 250 pound guy with the same stats, because the lighter guy will be able to do the work on less food. The heavier guy can exert more absolute force in a one-time lift, but I think that capability is less useful than ongoing functional endurance.

Note that really good marathoner runners tend to be on the small side and not massive.

Mostly, I think it's the luck of the draw, just like the best soldiers don't necessarily survive war.

If I had to answer, I'd guess the following in order of importance:

-mental toughness
-endurance
-pulling strength
-pushing strength
-overall power
-overall speed

I've seen seemingly overweight guys running marathons in decent times. Those same guys didn't seem to have the body type to be healthy at a lower weight. To some extent, you can't judge someone based on looks.

I agree with the 'average' response.

Natural selection proves the average are best equipped to deal with millenia of challenging times.

Where there's a will,there's a way!Mother nature doesn't give a hoot what you look like,so make the best of it with what you got!If you can't get out of it,Get into it!Adapt,Overcome!Stay Positive,Always!

An active brain with knowledge and common sense in it might well offset the ideal size.

"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill." And probably a strong body, too.

And don't discount plain old LUCK... the main reason why so many dumb people are still alive.

Sue