I'll be the first to say that's a load of crap, considering I'm short for my age, but my metabolism is quick as ****. >_>
Well as long as you know that metabolism isn't merely how many corn dogs can you stuff down at the fair. You must have an extreme workout, otherwise all that extra food energy will become nothing more than a steaming pile of dung. And then you're just pissing off mom.
Hakajin said:
Eh? Actually, it's the other way around. Smaller creatures have higher metabolisms and don't use energy as efficiently. They don't live as long for that reason. This has puzzled scientists for a long time, but some now think that it has to do with fractal geometry. As the body gets more complex, it's really just building on the same pattern, and it's more efficient.
You have to slow down a little. We can't compare the metabolisms of sloths to shrews here. Diet, body structure, environmental challenges, millions of individual barriers don't allow scientists to form generalizations in such a broad topic.
If we're gonna bring different species we have to see that small hummingbirds use a far larger percentage of energy to gather their food than a leopard does. But before take this into a very off direction, let's try to stick to one species ok? Obviously we know a big bear needs a greater amounts of energy to sustain its body's nutritional needs, nature also packed the bear with a bigger punch to make this task easier than its smaller comrades. The big bear isn't filled by one or two salmon as its smaller brethren, it has to continue hunting as well as expend more energy to get its remaining fill. Afterward it still needs more energy to replace what it's been using up.
Do you see how this works? That big bear not only ends up doing more work because
just moving it's bigger limb consumes more energy, but in the end doing the greater effort chips away quicker at his bones and joints and his life ends sooner naturally. Pretty much a similar scenario in comparing
healthy human bodies.
But anyway, putting that aside, the difference in size between the male and female body is too small to make a difference, anyway. Why Asians live longer has been a mystery for a long time, but most scientists think it has to do with diet. Now they think it might be because Asians eat lots of rice instead of bread like we do.
It's not such a mystery, most of the research and analysis has already been done. But I see you have it down already. Simply that data such as this isn't very mainstream and only researchers focusing on that subject really care. Maybe it'll make it to a TV special someday and
then it'll be mainstream and make it to science books, until then it's only a matter of keeping updated.
Allow me to summarize (I don't think you want to read 20+ pages of Adobe garbage) some of the conclusions I've read: Eating abundant helpings of rice boosted the amount of insulin their bodies produced. Too much insulin became an obstacle to the growth hormone and shrunk them for a very long time as it became their staple food (compare Vietnamese and early Native Americans; similar genetics, different heights, different diets). South East Asian population exploded because of favorable conditions and limits on how much one could eat were placed. When males starve between ages 8-10 it alters the genetics for the offspring they'll have essentially stretching the lifespans of their children that they will live to a more prosperous time, for females this happens in the womb. And they did live on to pass these new gene codes for they adapted (children Africa face too many challenges to adapt in this age). Inherently small bodies and this 'code' gave them super lifespans. So if you are a small european individual, you'll find that your equal asian counterpart appears to develop slower, age slower.
