What's the deal with the "ideal weight" charts?

RaeBeeBaby · June 2017

I'd set an initial weight loss goal at the upper end of the "normal" weight range and then see how you look and feel.

I'm 5'5", depending on who measures me, and my initial goal was to get from 180 down to 155. When I got there I felt very accomplished, but I knew I was still a little "fluffy" in the mid-section. Still working to get down into the 140's, build a little muscle, and then re-assess. The end result is a moving target, in my opinion.

Here's an interesting calculator that includes your age in the equation. According to this one I'm in the normal range right now!

http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/

kgirlhart · June 2017

I'm 5'4.75". The range I get is 110 - 148 so 112 would be on the the low end. Usual;y the "ideal" weight is more in the middle of the range. But it really comes down to each individual. Most charts say my "ideal" weight is 122 - 127 or so. I currently weigh 124 down from 195. I think I would look too thin at 112, but I think that where I am is perfectly reasonable. There is no reason to aim for the low end of the range. There is nothing wrong with being at the high end of the range. My goal was actually 135, but I had a hard time finding my maintenance calories and ended up losing more than I planned on and I am quite happy where I am now.

onlymuttix · June 2017

I'm 5'3 and though I put in an ideal weight, I'm really going for size and fitness level. I don't know how much I weigh right now and guesstimated my input based on clothing size. At my thinnest, I was a size 2. Friends/family say I looked best at a size 6. That size difference spanned close to the bottom to close to the top of the weight range for my height.

My goal is to get back to a size 2. I'm attaching a pic to show the difference in sizes on a curvy (pear-shaped)/athletic build at 5'3. As you can see, at the size 6 (130-ish), I look 'healthy' but not thin or even slim. In the size 4 (120-ish) pic, I'm wearing size 2 pants and you can clearly see how that caused a muffin top of fat. At size 2 (110-ish), I was slim but could have done with some toning.

Right now, I am a size 16 (pic not included

). I only started 4 days ago and am not sure of how much I've dropped but my pants fit a bit better. It seems like a drastic amount of weight to lose (I'm assuming that I have around 80 pounds to lose) and it is. However, the pound charts seem about right when looked at in clothing size.

Jthanmyfitnesspal · June 2017

Man are we all stupid, me included. I have been somewhat fascinated by the topic of "ideal weight" lately:

People like to talk about "ideal weight," but no one seems ever to say "ideal weight for what" I told my doctor (who is also a male of my age) that I had been losing weight and had gotten close to a BMI of 26. I asked him if I should go lower. His response:

"There is no evidence that (going lower than a BMI of 26) will improve your health."

By this he meant that if you are reasonably light, other factors can easily outweigh weight (genetics, activity level, nutrition, drug and alcohol use, etc.) in terms of health risk.

As it happens, I decided to lose 5lbs more and got to a BMI of 25. It makes me happy to be a bit lighter when I go running and cycling, so I guess it's worth it.

lemurcat12 · June 2017

Msneshababy wrote: »

Yea that's crazy. Most charts I see say a female at 5'4" should be about 120.

I haven't seen anything like that other than the old and outdated insurance charts not used anymore, which used to be 100 lb + 5 lbs for each inch. Because of that I've always had in my head that I should be 115 at 5'3, but I don't actually take it seriously. (I think it would be a little thinner than ideal for me.)

Running_and_Coffee · June 2017

onlymuttix wrote: »

I'm 5'3 and though I put in an ideal weight, I'm really going for size and fitness level. I don't know how much I weigh right now and guesstimated my input based on clothing size. At my thinnest, I was a size 2. Friends/family say I looked best at a size 6. That size difference spanned close to the bottom to close to the top of the weight range for my height.

My goal is to get back to a size 2. I'm attaching a pic to show the difference in sizes on a curvy (pear-shaped)/athletic build at 5'3. As you can see, at the size 6 (130-ish), I look 'healthy' but not thin or even slim. In the size 4 (120-ish) pic, I'm wearing size 2 pants and you can clearly see how that caused a muffin top of fat. At size 2 (110-ish), I was slim but could have done with some toning..

I think you look perfect in all three pics. I don't see a muffin top and honestly you look as skinny in your wedding pic as you do in the "size 2" one. JMHO.

kristen8000 · June 2017

I'm 5'11 and 38 years old. In 2011 I got down to 142. I was a size 4. I wasn't too thin for my build, but I couldn't maintain it. I basically did it because I could. I wanted to prove to myself that I could be a small size. My happy range is 150-155. Trying to get back to that after a very lazy, food driven winter.

Even though I fully believe 112 for a 5'4" woman is a bit low, 140 isn't if I can support it on a frame 6" taller.

Honestly, I wouldn't even think of that now. I'd just start losing weight and stop when I'm happy. People get so lost in the numbers and get bogged down and lose motivation because the task at hand is SO hard.

TashaFat2Fit · June 2017

onlymuttix wrote: »

I'm 5'3 and though I put in an ideal weight, I'm really going for size and fitness level. I don't know how much I weigh right now and guesstimated my input based on clothing size. At my thinnest, I was a size 2. Friends/family say I looked best at a size 6. That size difference spanned close to the bottom to close to the top of the weight range for my height.

My goal is to get back to a size 2. I'm attaching a pic to show the difference in sizes on a curvy (pear-shaped)/athletic build at 5'3. As you can see, at the size 6 (130-ish), I look 'healthy' but not thin or even slim. In the size 4 (120-ish) pic, I'm wearing size 2 pants and you can clearly see how that caused a muffin top of fat. At size 2 (110-ish), I was slim but could have done with some toning.

Right now, I am a size 16 (pic not included ). I only started 4 days ago and am not sure of how much I've dropped but my pants fit a bit better. It seems like a drastic amount of weight to lose (I'm assuming that I have around 80 pounds to lose) and it is. However, the pound charts seem about right when looked at in clothing size.

You look amazing at all sizes! When I was in high school nearly 20 years ago I was 117 pounds and STILL wore a size 6! I don't think I could ever fit in a size 2. When I met husband, I was a size 8 at 130 pounds. Best of luck to you! I'm just starting too

TashaFat2Fit · June 2017

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Msneshababy wrote: »

Yea that's crazy. Most charts I see say a female at 5'4" should be about 120.

I haven't seen anything like that other than the old and outdated insurance charts not used anymore, which used to be 100 lb + 5 lbs for each inch. Because of that I've always had in my head that I should be 115 at 5'3, but I don't actually take it seriously. (I think it would be a little thinner than ideal for me.)

Thats what i get for using Google to look up an ideal weight chart...ha ha!

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld · June 2017

In the UK Our NHS says that 108lbs is the lowest for 5ft4

http://www.nhs.uk/Tools/Pages/Healthyweightcalculator.aspx

Edit to add I'm that height and stay around 118

heathercyclist · June 2017

I'm also 5'4" and had the same question. I worked with a personal trainer two and three years ago who determined that my goal weight should be 145-150. Abbey based it on the charts, but also, on build (I've always been a curvy girl), what we were working toward in terms of strength and muscle mass, overall fitness goals, monthly measurements and my doctors' numbers. One thing I learned is that thin isn't always healthy or strong. I run, cycle and kayak. Now, if I got down to elite marathon weight (yeah...no), I might not have the strength to ride fast on the flats or row myself through the water, so I keep to the higher end. Get fit and healthy first.

RaeBeeBaby · June 2017

Fit and healthy is the goal. The weight charts are just a guideline and interesting to look up, but nothing to get overly worried about if you don't fit the numbers exactly. I was plugging in various numbers and I think it's pretty funny that 1 pound can make a difference between overweight and normal. At 151 I'm considered overweight. At 150 I'm not. That's pretty silly, actually.

Deep down inside, I think we all know when we're at the optimal weight for our age, height, body frame and fitness level.

ThatLadyFromMN · June 2017

I would say 140. (I'm not there yet) but my friend who is the same height as us is 145-150 (she lifts) and she looks F***ing AMAZING! She also is NOT busty, so if you're busty and you lift, I'd say 140-150, that's a perfect weight in my opinion. #goals

Rusty740 · June 2017

I like what's called the smart BMI. It gives you a nice range of healthy/normal, over/underweight and is adjusted for age. It's a nice way to view this stuff.

http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

Man are we all stupid, me included. I have been somewhat fascinated by the topic of "ideal weight" lately:

People like to talk about "ideal weight," but no one seems ever to say "ideal weight for what" I told my doctor (who is also a male of my age) that I had been losing weight and had gotten close to a BMI of 26. I asked him if I should go lower. His response:

"There is no evidence that (going lower than a BMI of 26) will improve your health."

By this he meant that if you are reasonably light, other factors can easily outweigh weight (genetics, activity level, nutrition, drug and alcohol use, etc.) in terms of health risk.

As it happens, I decided to lose 5lbs more and got to a BMI of 25. It makes me happy to be a bit lighter when I go running and cycling, so I guess it's worth it.

I'd dump that Dr., if he is dumb enough to say something like that then he isn't worth your time. What he should have said was your waist circumference has a more important correlation with morbidity, focus on reducing that and you'll be ok

Too many people think BMI is a great indicator for health, but it is only a very small snapshot.

You know what, there IS an ideal weight and everyone knows it involves running a couple miles a few times a week and eating more veggies. If you think you could "lose a bit of fat around your thighs or waist?" You're probably right.

TashaFat2Fit · June 2017

ThatLadyFromMN wrote: »

I would say 140. (I'm not there yet) but my friend who is the same height as us is 145-150 (she lifts) and she looks F***ing AMAZING! She also is NOT busty, so if you're busty and you lift, I'd say 140-150, that's a perfect weight in my opinion. #goals

I'd be super happy with 150 (I am busty) 140 would be awesome if I don't gain much muscle

TashaFat2Fit · June 2017

Rusty740 wrote: »

I like what's called the smart BMI. It gives you a nice range of healthy/normal, over/underweight and is adjusted for age. It's a nice way to view this stuff.

http://www.smartbmicalculator.com/

Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »

Man are we all stupid, me included. I have been somewhat fascinated by the topic of "ideal weight" lately:

People like to talk about "ideal weight," but no one seems ever to say "ideal weight for what" I told my doctor (who is also a male of my age) that I had been losing weight and had gotten close to a BMI of 26. I asked him if I should go lower. His response:

"There is no evidence that (going lower than a BMI of 26) will improve your health."

By this he meant that if you are reasonably light, other factors can easily outweigh weight (genetics, activity level, nutrition, drug and alcohol use, etc.) in terms of health risk.

As it happens, I decided to lose 5lbs more and got to a BMI of 25. It makes me happy to be a bit lighter when I go running and cycling, so I guess it's worth it.

I'd dump that Dr., if he is dumb enough to say something like that then he isn't worth your time. What he should have said was your waist circumference has a more important correlation with morbidity, focus on reducing that and you'll be ok

Too many people think BMI is a great indicator for health, but it is only a very small snapshot.

You know what, there IS an ideal weight and everyone knows it involves running a couple miles a few times a week and eating more veggies. If you think you could "lose a bit of fat around your thighs or waist?" You're probably right.

I like this, thank you!

NEOHgirl · June 2017

I am a busty 5'4" woman too (45 yrs old), and my target is to get under 150. 148 puts me in the official healthy BMI range, but personally I will be happy with anything 150 or under. Back in my 20s, the lightest I weighed was 123. Yeah, that'll never happen again, and I don't want it to. I'm currently at 169 and I am already buying US Smalls.