Too much generalization in this thread. I've mentioned that I'm 200 lbs. at 5'11 with abdominal definition, but a big reason for that is that I have
massive quads, hamstrings, and glutes. I don't know if it's from skating, playing soccer, or if it's just genetic, but I have them.
I imagine a 6'1 man that's 200 lbs but with tiny legs could still look fat.
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING THE SAME, it is "healthier" to carry 160 pounds than 200 pounds, even if the extra 40 pounds is muscle. Your heart has to work harder, your joints and muscles have to support more weight, etc.
I don't know if I agree with that. I know that you caveated this statement by saying "all things are never equal etc." but even holding all things equal, yes the heart has to work a little harder, but it is
much stronger.
Also, your joints, bones etc. are stronger as a result the lifting that produced the muscle, so they should actually be more protected.
Eh, 5'11 and currently weigh about 240.
I clearly have fat, but I'm on a pretty strict cut right now. Lost like 14 pounds in 1.5 weeks.
When you're squatting and dead lifting in the almost 500 range, you're going to get bulky as hell. Of course with the cut, my lifts have just taken a nose dive. Too damn hungry to lift properly.
I hope that is not the case. I want to get to those kinds of numbers eventually, and I've heard that many professional soccer and hockey players do without gaining excessive mass.