Ideal Weight vs. BMI

Options
rosebette
rosebette Posts: 1,659 Member
edited January 2015 in Health and Weight Loss
There are several online calculators for ideal weight, rather than BMI. What are they based on? I did one ideal weight calculator which said that at 5'1", my ideal weight is 105 lbs., which is pretty light for me (I was there way back when in college). Another one said it was 117, which isn't far from my goal and which I look OK at. What should I be aiming for as my goal? I did read that one's health risk goes up for every 10 lbs. one gains after age 21, which was the last time I weighted 105 or less.
«1

Replies

  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    For health I tend to go with this:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1431750/waist-should-be-less-than-half-your-height/p1
  • rosebette
    rosebette Posts: 1,659 Member
    Options
    So that one's based on waist size. I'm OK there, at 27". In college, it was only 24", though.
  • diditonthefloor
    diditonthefloor Posts: 3 Member
    Options
    I've always been an athlete. Lots of muscle. Dense bones. If I weighed what the BMI charts tell me to, I'd be frighteningly thin. (I know because I have achieved that in my younger years and the end result was that my doctor accused me of being anorexic.) So - there surely must be a happy medium. I just need to find it, then stay there!
  • malibu927
    malibu927 Posts: 17,565 Member
    Options
    I would aim for the 117 and then decide how you feel after. If you add in a strength/resistance training program, you may find you'll look better at the higher number.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    rosebette wrote: »
    So that one's based on waist size. I'm OK there, at 27". In college, it was only 24", though.

    is your waist less than half of your height?
  • Cherimoose
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,210 Member
    Options
    Most people who exercise regularly and eat sensibly tend to gravitate to a healthy weight.
    Weight is only one of many components of fitness, so i wouldn't get too hung up on numbers.
  • rosebette
    rosebette Posts: 1,659 Member
    Options
    Sabine_Stroehm wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    So that one's based on waist size. I'm OK there, at 27". In college, it was only 24", though.

    is your waist less than half of your height?
    5'1.5" is 61.5" inches, so yes. I'd hate to be only 54" tall!
  • melimomTARDIS
    melimomTARDIS Posts: 1,941 Member
    Options
    See how you look and feel and reevaluate when the time comes. My first goal was to eliminate my heartburn, and after the first 20 I did that, then I wanted to get out of the overweight range, and I did that, and lost the last 20 for looks. Im 5'4 and 117, and no one thinks Im anorexic. Thin, definitely, but they've seen me eat. The cats outta the bag.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.
  • MakePeasNotWar
    MakePeasNotWar Posts: 1,329 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.

    Why is that laughable? It actually seems like it would be a better way to differentiate between muscular or overfat physiques. I'm sure it wouldn't be 100% accurate, but I'd think it would be better than height/weight at estimating body fat.
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,459 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.

    why? see refs at bottom of this page
    http://www.health-calc.com/body-composition/waist-to-height-ratio
  • Ooci
    Ooci Posts: 247 Member
    Options
    Gosh - I'd love to be 8.3 (117 lb) - I'm
    about 5.1
    I really think any less is a bit thin - on me it's rib bones sticking right out and I don't think that's pretty.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.

    Actually if you took this comment and reversed it you would be closer to current scientific thinking about BMI / waist as a measure of health risk factors..eg BMI is laughable on an individual level but waist measurement is more indicative of cardio-vascular risk factors

    As far as the population measure of BMI goes there is no ideal weight, just a range where on a statistical measure health risks are lower than if you were outside it ...discounting the outliers, which are around 25% of the population based on a study that was posted on site a while ago (can't find it now, just remember the outtake)
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.

    Why is that laughable? It actually seems like it would be a better way to differentiate between muscular or overfat physiques. I'm sure it wouldn't be 100% accurate, but I'd think it would be better than height/weight at estimating body fat.

    At best, it is an indication of whether the fat is above the waist or not, which is why it indicates health risk. There are many fat people whose waist is less than half their height (including me). That doesn't mean they are at their ideal weight.
  • rosebette
    rosebette Posts: 1,659 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    Isn't the "apple" shape unhealthier than the "pear" shape, though? If you carry more weight below the waist, which many women do, rather than around your internal organs, aren't you less at risk for heart attack, etc.? Isn't this the reason why men with a "beer belly" are more at risk than a woman who might be overweight but more of a pear or hourglass?
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.
    You're welcome to your opinion on that. Since everyone gets one.
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    edited January 2015
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    MakePeasNotWar wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.

    Why is that laughable? It actually seems like it would be a better way to differentiate between muscular or overfat physiques. I'm sure it wouldn't be 100% accurate, but I'd think it would be better than height/weight at estimating body fat.

    At best, it is an indication of whether the fat is above the waist or not, which is why it indicates health risk. There are many fat people whose waist is less than half their height (including me). That doesn't mean they are at their ideal weight.

    It's meant to provide information about HEALTH. She asked about ideal weight for HEALTH. Which is what she asked.
  • TimothyFish
    TimothyFish Posts: 4,925 Member
    Options
    rosebette wrote: »
    Isn't the "apple" shape unhealthier than the "pear" shape, though? If you carry more weight below the waist, which many women do, rather than around your internal organs, aren't you less at risk for heart attack, etc.? Isn't this the reason why men with a "beer belly" are more at risk than a woman who might be overweight but more of a pear or hourglass?

    Yes, but how many women do you know who say, "My hips are as big as a boat, but my waist is small, so I'm fine with my weight?" Ideal weight and max healthy weight are not the same thing.
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.

    Actually if you took this comment and reversed it you would be closer to current scientific thinking about BMI / waist as a measure of health risk factors..eg BMI is laughable on an individual level but waist measurement is more indicative of cardio-vascular risk factors

    As far as the population measure of BMI goes there is no ideal weight, just a range where on a statistical measure health risks are lower than if you were outside it ...discounting the outliers, which are around 25% of the population based on a study that was posted on site a while ago (can't find it now, just remember the outtake)

    But we aren't talking about cardiovascular risk factors. I have seen more people whose ideal weight fell within the normal BMI range than I have seen people who were at their ideal weight when their waist was less than half their height. Nether will give you and ideal weight, but having a range of values is better than having a fixed number that is roughly the high end of normal BMI, but usually higher.
  • Sued0nim
    Sued0nim Posts: 17,456 Member
    Options
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    rosebette wrote: »
    Isn't the "apple" shape unhealthier than the "pear" shape, though? If you carry more weight below the waist, which many women do, rather than around your internal organs, aren't you less at risk for heart attack, etc.? Isn't this the reason why men with a "beer belly" are more at risk than a woman who might be overweight but more of a pear or hourglass?

    Yes, but how many women do you know who say, "My hips are as big as a boat, but my waist is small, so I'm fine with my weight?" Ideal weight and max healthy weight are not the same thing.
    rabbitjb wrote: »
    TimothyFish wrote: »
    That thing about the waist being half the height is laughable. BMI gives most people something to shoot for. Once you get close, evaluate were you want to be.

    Actually if you took this comment and reversed it you would be closer to current scientific thinking about BMI / waist as a measure of health risk factors..eg BMI is laughable on an individual level but waist measurement is more indicative of cardio-vascular risk factors

    As far as the population measure of BMI goes there is no ideal weight, just a range where on a statistical measure health risks are lower than if you were outside it ...discounting the outliers, which are around 25% of the population based on a study that was posted on site a while ago (can't find it now, just remember the outtake)

    But we aren't talking about cardiovascular risk factors. I have seen more people whose ideal weight fell within the normal BMI range than I have seen people who were at their ideal weight when their waist was less than half their height. Nether will give you and ideal weight, but having a range of values is better than having a fixed number that is roughly the high end of normal BMI, but usually higher.

    We are talking about health not aesthetics, as per the Original post

    As always, I have no idea what you are talking about :wink:
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,426 Member
    Options
    What about waist to hip ratio calculators? Is that worth looking at as a measure of health?

    If I put in a waist measurement into one of those calculators that is half my height as compared to my hips now those calculators say that I have a moderate health risk but 2" less of a waist measurement than that then the result would be low health risk. So my waist being half my height seems to be more like the line between healthy and unhealthy but not actually the best health situation.

Categories