Originally Posted by
Doge
More muscle is not always good. I tend to think in young males often it is less good having more muscle than not having it. That is assuming the same body composition. Most 20 something males can do more with less muscle than more. Still, the drive to be buff is strong.
At same ~8% 5'10" male age 20-30 usually a
140# vs 170# male can:
-Run faster
-Climb faster
-Ride farther
-Do more push-ups - likely
-Higher cycling FTP in many cases
-Higher VO2 max
-Do more pull-ups - likely (unless most of that 30# comes from pull-ups)
The 170# can do more weight in the gym
Has a more explosive short term power, even W/Kg. More if they get a bit fatter.
No. Just no. The only ones that are likely true are:
Run faster, but only over long distances.
Higher VO2 max since this is based on weight.
Ride further, maybe, but I doubt there is any significant difference here.
There's absolutely no way that ~30 extra pounds of muscle is going to result in someone being able to do fewer push ups or pull ups. It's certainly not going to hinder their FTP (hence why most TT specialists are heavier than pure climbers) and is going to be beneficial for most track cycling disciplines.
The heavier male will be far stronger which will provide a massive advantage in many activities. Any of the 4 major North American sports would favor the heavier and stronger individual. Combat sports all have weight classes for a reason. No 5'10" 140 lb person is elite at Cross Fit. Elite gymnasts (while shorter than 5'10") are built. Rowing has weight classes and favours bigger, stronger people. 170# is also a pretty common weight for pro soccer players. The heavier person would also be far more effective at doing manual labour that involves any sort of heavy lifting. Most elite combat troops are far closer to 170 than 140 too.