[zacharycohn]

Speaking as a fellow Starting Strength fan: this is only true in the modern era to the extent that being healthy is better than being unhealthy.

If you look at the top X causes of death in humans, very very few of them could have been avoided "if only the deceased were stronger."

[kzrdude]

Falling and then breaking bones or getting ill otherwise is a common cause of death, and muscle mass and fitness helps avoid it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5899404/

[steve_adams_86]

Although it would help if they were stronger, this isn't the result of them needing to begin a Starting Strength program. My original point was more so that stature and muscle mass might not benefit you beyond a certain point – I don't doubt at all that being fit is still tremendously beneficial.

It's also pure speculation. I read about this stuff for fun and I know just about nothing about anything. Maybe being larger really is a net positive and I just need to be pointed to the right data.

[DoreenMichele]

I'm not going to argue this with you. I'm not up for being dragged into a stupid internet fight with a random internet stranger. But this might interest you:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14667430

[steve_adams_86]

Right, and I think an important distinction here is sheer strength from general physical fitness.

If someone is relatively weak with below average lean mass, lower than average markers of muscular strength, etc. it seems like the consensus is that they are statistically likely to die or get diseases earlier in life. On the other hand, being on the other side of that seems to yield diminishing returns. It’s great to be fit, but being abnormally strong on the other hand doesn’t appear to increase your lifespan proportionally to your strength.

[spfzero]

It helps avoid frailty and it allows you to continue exercising well into old age, for two things. It delays the downward spiral of poor fitness and weak bones that eventually does most of us in.