...to a lower BMR, doesn't that just mean our bodies have learned to be more efficient, in other words, better, than the average joe who has never been obese?
I got to thinking about this as I was driving home from the gym. If I can do the exact same things as, let's say, Jane, at the gym. My sleep is as good, everything else is the same, but I need 1700 calories to maintain my 160 pounds and she needs 2000 calories to maintain 160 pounds, doesn't that give me the evolutionary advantage? (not saying these are correct or accurate numbers - I just picked random numbers).
So, if resources become scarce, my body will be better adapted? Or, if resources get scarce, will her body adapt so that she too will need less fuel? It probably will, but not until she drops too much weight and puts her life in peril.
And that got me to thinking more. Isn't it better to need less food to do the same functions always? Or do we not get enough nutrients with these lower caloric needs?
It just made me wonder if perhaps people should fast or have times of scarcity so the human body is more efficient so that they don't need as much food which would make the demand for food world-wide go down.
Am I being too far out there? Being a weirdo? Just from observations of when we go overseas, it seems that in some other parts of the world they eat FAR less than Americans do and not because they are hungry, but because they don't need/want the extra food. There has to be studies of average calories consumed per region/country? isn't there? And to compare apples to apples - populations of similar wealth and food resources.
OK... I'm a weirdo, but it got me thinking!