You seem to think it's obvious that you last longer if you ration yourself rather than eat until the food is gone and then burn fat. That sounds reasonable, but I can't exactly think of a logical argument why. Why do you think it should be true?
You make a valid point. Overall, I look at fasting as a form of preparedness before a situation because it trains the body and mind to not crave to eat in excess. But, as you correctly pointed out, I was thinking of fasting as long as much as possible to try and limit digging into my food reserves. There may be strategy in saving body fat for later in a crisis. I'm not sure.
My line of thinking is that, early on in a crisis, I don't know how long a crisis is going to last or how intense the looting will be. It could be that a week goes by and all the store shelves are bare; although I'll have potentially put myself at risk by lowering my body fat, I'd still feel more secure having extra food for myself and perhaps someone else than having eaten most of it when I didn't need to and now there's no more food to go around. Having extra food around the point at which I may need to get out of Dodge seems preferable to me than to hit the road with only bodyfat and few to no provisions.
I don't think there's a good answer to that. You make a great point. I do still think fasting is a useful in helping people break food addictions and learn self control.
