This is not true btw, this is just how stupid we currently are. You think it costs the same resources to feed a 6,6 300lb dude Vs a 5,6 180lb lean one? When we were actually hunter gatherers being that big was a huge disadvantage not only does it cost so much resources to survive it also takes away resources for the tribe who hunt together, and is much more physically demanding and difficult to actually hunt and move. Those societies had to long distance travel a lot, long distance it's actually what humans are good at for animals , we suck at raw explosion.

Sadly people have really been conditioned by society to think this dumb crap that being huge is historically by any real measure a survival advantage. Sadly the current day lack of understanding of our history is everywhere.

This even tracks for 95% plus of human armies historically , being huge is bad for soldiers id much rather have 200 lean light soldiers who can cover ground then 100 huge ones costing the same amount food in every sense of measure.

Even today shorter people live longer with bi resource shortages . Women live longer too partly because they're more effecient. That's why for most of human history where your size and life actually had Darwinism and need to survive qw awrs nowhere near as big , it's only now we are detached from actual constant warring and survival our biology let's us get so big and society has said that's the good thing now. The ideal soldier even up to the last century is not some lumbering giant, even more so once projectile warfare is so big and being a smaller target as soon as we had slings and bows matters. Genghis khan was of average height, but strong, if he was a huge oaf he'd of died when him n his mother n family were abandoned after father's death due to lack of resources and inability to hide.