It would take longer than a thin person to starve, but they may develop a number of other health complications from lack of food intake which would lead to organ failure long before they ran out of fat to metabolize. That means that the amount of time they could survive without eating would depend more on their overall health than the amount of stored energy.
They would take pretty much the same time to starve as a healthy person, maybe slightly less because their health is fully compromised my their excess of fat... The only advantage i could see having excess layers of fat is if you are in danger of freezing to death, a fatty would live for longer... Btw id just like to mention fat deposits on fat people will never serve the purpose of acting like energy storage (which fat deposits do on healthy people) because there is so much influx of fat being deposited, the body just tries to pack it somewhere and grow viens through it, to keep the useless stored fat from going necrotic and poisoning fat people even more, once this deep storage of fat happens its pretty much impossible to get rid of that fat, unless you go under the knife to have it removed...
Mostly, people get overweight due to their activity level than what they eat or how much. A person with a desk job who plays Xbox all day will get fat much easier than someone who regularly plays sports with their friends every afternoon. Even if both of them eat the same amount and same kinds of things.
But the thing is, overweight people still get hungry at the same rate as a skinnier person. Meaning starvation would hit in just about the same amount of time. If you've ever gone a day without eating, you'd know how unpleasant or even painful it can be when your stomach is twisting itself in knots. Which would imply that either people starve at the same rate and their weight isn't a factor, or an overweight person would live longer but suffer an even slower, more painful death. Though if the latter were true, they'd probably die of going into shock from the pain right around the time they should've died from the starvation itself if they had just been skinny.
Exactly as long as it would a skinny person to starve. Fat layers aren't built by the body to keep it from starving, but to be able to withstand long periods of very little food. Not of no food at all.
We are constructed for an African-type climate. A short, lush rainy season during which everything grows and bears fruit and where there is a lot of food to be found, a really great lot of it at the same time. After that, a loooooooong dry season during which there is practically nothing eadable to be found, because the drought prevents everything to grow. The vegetation goes into hibernation and everybody, animals, plants and people desperately try to stay alive until they get to the next rainy season again. Whoever has accumulated the most fat layers will be able to do that without too many damage: for instance, without losing their teeth or in case of a pregnant woman, from dying at childbirth or afterward, from being unable to feed her baby.
This is the reason for so many of the problems we are facing today:
we are not meant to always be fat: if we do, we get all sorts of diseases. That's because we shouldn't stay fat but get skinny again, and then fat again, etcetera.
we also are unable to contain our appetite: as long as we have food available, we will go on eating, even when we're not hungry anymore. And the things we like best, are the ones with the most calories. Sweet food, fatty food and carb rich food.
we can diet all we want, it isn't any use, because as soon as we start eating normalley again, we get fat faster than we did before. (the "Jojo-effect"). That's because our body thinks it's rainy season...
and finally: women get fat faster than men. Women are a lot more important than men in order to maintain our species: one man can make 50 women pregnant, but 50 men can't make a woman any pregnant-er than one man can (at the same time). Ergo: women need to survive more urgently than men. Men are disposable.
Conclusion: in such an environment, a body that can accumulate fat layers is very useful, but not to keep someone from starving. During dry season, there IS food, only very little. To supplement what's lacking, the fat layers will be consumed. If there really is nothing at all to eat, the body will eat up it's muscles and tissues, rather than the fat layers, and will die when the damage is too great. So a fat person will starve just as fast as a skinny person, at the same pace.
Well there now, plenty of them. But in times when the Homo Sapiens started evolving, where they lived, there wasn't. If there had been genes in or DNA that came from people evolving in a moderate climate, we wouldn't have so much trouble with our diet today! We're the living proof of what happened back then.
Seasonal diets exist in most places of the world, not just in regards to africa. Though our species definitely originated in africa- the eden in which we migrated from was a lake-filled Botswanan green zone, and there is still debate about where the origin of our genus is from. Also I'm aware of how expensive muscle is, but there does seem to be a point where the body stops eating eating itself- this is something I’m curious about- no single part of the body is in-expendable, so after fat, what would a starving body view as non-essential? Which muscles? How could that be scientifically tested? Also if all the muscle is eaten then why do people/animals bounce back from starvation without any crippling disabilities? Surely a literal eating of muscle lead to some sort of severe handicap post-starvation? This confuses me when people say that, as the essential muscles are obviously there afterwards
I agree that there is more than one origin for our genus, not just the geographical African root. But you must take into account that in that time, millions of centuries ago, nearly the whole (inhabitable part of the) world had that sort of climate: the continents hadn't drifted apart yet, it was practically one big continent. And it was at a part of our globe to have one type of climate.
Also, it isn't the fat first, muscles after that; no, studies on people in Third World countries facing hunger have shown that the fat is usually the last to go. Everything else would be consumed by the body just to keep the fat layers intact. That's why it doesn't matter how fat a starving person is: they'd die from inanition at about the same speed as the skinny ones.
research has shown an average person can go around 3 weeks without starving to death. the more meat the longer. so anywhere to a month to a month/half. now water on the other paw, the average person of any size can't go any longer than a week, that is if they can survive the dangers of lack of water. hallucinations and so forth. and if one drinks salt water/urine, it causes an even faster dehydration rate.
There was an experiment in the 1950's or 60's where they literally starved an obese person (person was given vitamin water and electrolytes). Guy went into ketosis for a year and literally was at normal weight within 11 months or so.
I would like a link, but I’m a curious as to why more people don’t view it so extremely. We only have so much spine to carry on the body. We’re supposed to have muscle in our core to counter-balance the spine, fat does the opposite.