Consider that the heart does not grow any larger due to muscularity. That's still a lot of weight to carry around, although a healthy individual might not suffer any ill effects in youth.
A person can look great at 2.5 pounds per inch of height. The BMI is overly complicated. You can arrive at the same index by simply taking your weight and dividing it by your height in inches, so 220/68 (5.8 = 68 inches of height) = 3.2 pounds per inch. That is extremely dense.
When I started bodybuilding, casually (meaning when I felt like it. I was 22 at the time) in the early '70s, I would routinely ask guys in the gym what they weighed. Here's what I found:
1) 2.0 pounds per inch of height = very lean, even what some would call "skinny." Most gymnasts are around this weight, though.
2) 2.1 pounds per inch of height= lean but with the right diet, fairly vascular (cut)
3) 2.2 pounds per inch of height= decently muscular. Visually very nice, but not competition size.
4) 2.3 pounds per inch of height = visually VERY striking in muscularity, especially if most of the weight is contained in the upper body.
5) 2.4 pounds per inch of height = muscular verging on professional bodybuilding size if in the lightweight category
6) 2.5 pounds per inch of height= at this weight, one would definitely need to be working out, or the appearance will equate with "husky"
7) 2.6 pounds per inch of height= again, without working out, person will appear husky/stocky/slightly overweight. The BMI equates 2.5 with "obese," but is clearly not thinking about body builders.
Above 2.7 pounds per inch of height = very dense looking. On the average person, will definite appear obese, although weight can be well-distributed throughout body (i.e., could have great thighs and calves, so will not look as overweight it would if the majority of weight lies in the upper half of the body).
Also, now that I'm in my late 60s, my weight looks different. I weight 180, and I can tell easily that 180 pounds at age 29 and 180 pounds at 66 are two totally
different animals. Thicker through the middle (although I could easily eliminate that by cutting out any fats in my body, but why bother? I've already seen what I looked like at 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 and it looks good enough
for me). I still carry most of my weight in my chest, shoulders and arms (the doctor's assistant looked at me yesterday and said, "you must work out a lot!" To which I replied, "not that much. Once a week, maybe twice"). This surprised her, because she said I had big biceps. (I don't think they're all that big. They're nice, but not what they looked like even when I was 50, much less at 25. And they are certainly not as vascular!) Besides which, I have rotator cuff problems and torn left bicep. I have no desire for a shoulder replacement, which I was advised I might need if I kept working out as I had been. That does not appeal to me at all! I can live with the the natural muscularity I've got. I'm a mesomorph, so I look like my dad even when I don't work out, and he had a 30" waist until he was 53, according to my mother. And he was VERY v-shaped. Man, I wouldn't mind looking like him at all! I mean, I look decent, but not the way he did! And he NEVER worked out. Just worked in a factory. I swear, some guys have ALL the luck.
. But at least I got his genes, so most guys would consider me lucky, too. Just a matter of perspective!
So, I think I'll head on down to 170, which, for my height (5'11 1/2" will be 2.3 pounds per inch. To my eyes, I look a little thick. To others, I guess I generate second looks, but even this weight is more than I want to carry around. I noticed I felt better, health-wise, at 175. At 2.5 pounds per inch - and not working out all that much (I do more elliptical) - less is more. Besides, I've been doing this for 51 years (first picked up weights in high school in 1965). I don't need (or even want) the attention.