Originally Posted by
Happy Feet
I am 5'10" and have done endurance sports my whole adult life and 140 is definitely not well muscled. What I considered my ideal athletic weight was 165 and that was very lean. If I ran too much I would slip down to 155-150, which felt light for long distance running but not strong. It felt thin.
If you made the difference say 160-165 vs 200-210 I would agree more. At that point carrying the extra mass begins to negate it's benefit in a lot of tasks.
Yeah that would be a more reasonable statement.
Of course, 200-210 at 5'10" and 8% body fat is approaching the genetic limits of what a person can do without drugs (IIRC, most top natural bodybuilders are ~200 and around 5%). It would take decent genetics, plus years of dedication to achieve this naturally. Very few of the "young males" working out in gyms will get anywhere near that.
5'10" and 140 is just really, really scrawny.