Re: Morgan; various

Paul Crowley (
Sun, 05 Nov 95 21:38:31 GMT

In article <47d7p0$> "Thomas Clarke" writes:

> I favor the fat layer being a response to hairlessness in the night
> air. <snips>
> My experience with cold is that if you keep the core body well
> insulated (body fat, proximal limb fat will do nicely) that the
> distal limbs can get quite cold. I have walked miles in subfreezing
> weather wearing thin "Florida" pants, but a borrowed "Northern" parka.
> My legs got cold and and even a little numb, but still functioned.
> So actually the fat layer is about what I would expect for protection
> from cold night air in the absence of hair.

Our ancestors must have had a significant death rate from exposure.
Surely the most obvious selective response to this during the last
N Myr would have been to put on a bit of fur? Most European males
have hairy legs (and many females). It would have been so easy to
make that hair a bit thicker - and to get some hair back on the
trunk. The goose-pimple response is still there. My hairy chest
and back keep me noticeably warmer than most.

Fat is wrong solution altogether - a) surplus food is needed;
b) it increases weight, reducing speed and endurance.

You don't see athletes or wild animals with much fat for a
lot of very good reasons.

You've not been up to your usual standard recently, Tom. Been
under the weather or something?