I think for general health/longevity its preferable to be out of shape but slim rather than heavier but fit.

Mark Rippletoe of Starting Strength has some counterarguments to this. E.g. being fit and heavy is better for bone density than out of shape and slim so in older age one is less likely to break something.

Built is not the same as fat, though. I’m guessing Mark is arguing for building strength not for being overweight.

  BUT, you say, look at his gut. A fat slob, obviously. Can’t be healthy. Healthy is slim. I am 5’8” and weigh 225. At 5’8”, “normal” is considered to be – incredibly enough – 125-163 pounds. Overweight is 164-196, and I am “obese” at 225. In reality, my bodyfat percentage is about 24%, and a 60-year-old guy who deadlifts 500 is an anomaly in terms of muscle mass anyway.  So I’m not worried about my body composition. [1]

Mark Rippetoe argues you should build strength to be healthy, not obsess about bodyfat% for health. If you want to look good, then by all means you should try to reduce your body fat. If you want to feel good, focus on strength.

[1] https://startingstrength.com/article/your-gut-your-health-an...

This guy is certainly strong, but he is definitely overweight. He may feel fit, but his weight will make him high risk for heart attack, stroke, or diabetes.

There's no amount of training that can fix a bad diet.

Why not do both?

His philosophy is that Strength is Everything, so cutting weight or limiting calorie intake for "lean gains" limits the muscle mass (and strength) you could be gaining.

It all depends on your goals.

It's certainly valid for him to value strength above everthing else. But most of us don't, most are more interested in longevity and quality of life during those years. And so it raises the question if his lifestyle is good in those aspects or not.

That's not really true for older people. Muscle weakness is a critical risk for falls. Once a person falls and breaks a hip or something the lack of mobility typically kills them within a couple years.