We often do our best to tackle serious topics related to muscle growth, proper training, sustainability, fat loss, nutrition, and more.

So, we decided to keep up our tradition of serious and helpful topics by tackling the question, “Who would survive longer in the wild?”

What? Doesn’t everyone think about this before falling asleep in the evening?

Surviving In The Wild: The Biggest Roadblocks

Before answering who would be best suited to survive in a hostile environment with little to no food, we first have to look at the primary roadblocks.

The most significant issue with surviving in the wild is food shortage. Our modern world has made food available, and we can eat as often as we would like. But, being in the wild would mean having to hunt, harvest fungi and plants, and find water sources to stay alive.

Another significant issue with surviving in the wild is the physical demand. On any given day, you might have to walk great distances, run, jump, tackle, and perform all sorts of movements to gather food, find water, and ensure shelter.

Surviving In The Wild: The Three Contestants

For the sake of this hypothetical question, let’s look at three individuals who have to survive in the wild on their own:

• Chris, a fit, lean, and athletic person.
• Peter, a moderately-athletic person with an average body fat percentage.
• Mike, an overweight and strong person.

Chris, Peter…or Mike?

At first glance, Chris would be the ideal candidate for surviving the longest. He has the best abilities, weighs less, and would be better suited for long walks, running during a hunt, and jumping. Thanks to his lean frame, he’s not carrying fat that would slow him down and increase his caloric expenditure.

But consider this:

His lack of body fat could be the thing that stops him from surviving because, while not desirable, fat is the energy we store for later use. The body breaks down fat to get the necessary energy to sustain itself when food supplies run short. Not having much fat on his frame would mean that Chris doesn’t have a lot of stored energy, which would increase the risk of starvation if he goes without much food for a while.

On the other hand, Mike is better positioned to survive longer in the wild because he has much more fat to provide him with energy if there is nothing to eat. The problem with him is that Mike’s excess weight would mean he expends more calories while performing any activity. Mike is also less agile, explosive, and resilient. On top of that, his higher body weight would mean he needs more water to support himself.

Peter seems like the most likely candidate for surviving in the wild the longest because he has some energy stored in the form of fat, but it isn’t so much that it hinders his athletic abilities too much. As a result, Peter can rely on fat if he goes without food for days, but he’s also reasonably athletic and can perform the many activities required to survive in the wild.

Want to have chat about your health and fitness goals? Click here to book a complimentary consultation with our trainers at one of our locations.