Ideal weight? crazy standards

btmadison

I am 6'1 male mid 30's and had my goal set at 200 as an arbitrary number I picked out. I started to think I should find a more realistic number of what a healthy weight should be. I was shocked to find that weight charts say a healthy weight for me would be 150 - 180! Wow when I was in great shape in the military the lowest I got down to was I think 187 but I never concentrated on really lowering my weight either at that time.

I think 180 is a realistic goal, but even 200 I would think would be realistic - I wonder about these height weight standards...

Not to sound all conspiratorial, but... - keeping the standards low allows the industry to say more people are overweight, thus fueling the exercise and weight-loss industries...

Kalee34

I agree with you completely!

warmachinejt

Hmm my ideal weight as a 5'8" man is 144lbs, but that's if you're skinny and have no muscle mass. I plan on being around 170 by next summer with 10% body fat.

JennLifts

i agree totally. The ranges and such they give are SO low. And everyone shoots for lower It's so encouraging to see people with a good healthy goal!

mjhuff1121

I think Body Fat Percentage is what people should go by more so than a number on a scale. :S I'm fairly new to exercise, so that's all I can come up with. I know, I know, I'm being extremely helpful, haha!

JennLifts

Hmm my ideal weight as a 5'8" man is 144lbs, but that's if you're skinny and have no muscle mass. I plan on being around 170 by next summer with 10% body fat.

whoa! I met a guy yesterday.... 125 at 5'9, and LOSING?! holy heck.

JennLifts

I think Body Fat Percentage is what people should go by more so than a number on a scale. :S I'm fairly new to exercise, so that's all I can come up with. I know, I know, I'm being extremely helpful, haha!

A) your goal is GREAT! AND, you're totally right.

fatboypup

im 6'4 and when I weighed 300lbs I never thought the 190's could be attainable and seemed unrealistic but now that im at 212 im pretty sure its doable

ja4bs

I agree with you. Those scales do not take muscle mass into consideration at all! Most professional athletes are your height and taller and definately weigh more than 200 pounds.

DorkothyParker

I don't know much about weights for men, but I do know it doesn't really take into account muscle mass or bone structure, etc etc.
Weight is a good tool for daily tracking and motivation, but body measurements would be more reliable. Body fat percentage is probably best.

I am underweight and over-fat so I am hearing you from a different area of the "weight" spectrum.

fitzie63

Take a look at how the Mayo Clinic sees it: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bmi-calculator/NU00597

erickirb

I am 6'1 male mid 30's and had my goal set at 200 as an arbitrary number I picked out. I started to think I should find a more realistic number of what a healthy weight should be. I was shocked to find that weight charts say a healthy weight for me would be 150 - 180! Wow when I was in great shape in the military the lowest I got down to was I think 187 but I never concentrated on really lowering my weight either at that time.

I think 180 is a realistic goal, but even 200 I would think would be realistic - I wonder about these height weight standards...

Not to sound all conspiratorial, but... - keeping the standards low allows the industry to say more people are overweight, thus fueling the exercise and weight-loss industries...

I always use the guideline that for a man at 5' he should be 106 and add 6 lbs for every inch, so at 6'1 that is 184 (13*6+106) for ideal weight, if you are small framed - 10% or large framed add 10%. So if you are large framed at 6'1" a good weight would be 206.4 (184*1.10). This calculation gives a range of 165.6 to 206.4.

For a woman the calculation is 100 lbs at 5' and add 5 lbs/inch, and the +/- 10% from that.

misadele

I am with you on that one! I think mine says like 120-135 or something crazy like that. I haven't weighed that since I was in High School some 20 years ago and 4 kids later!. I have put my goal at 170 which I was a few years ago and I felt amazing. Plus I like curves...so it fits me well and I know I will be happy and sexy there. I dont want to be super skinny, just healthier and able to get my butt off the ground without it being an act of congress. I say....set it for what you think is reasonable and how you feel. Good luck!

annalaura78

I just think it's great that you used the word "conspiratorial" properly.

yankeefamily05

I have to say I agree!!!! Most people raise an eyebrow when I tell them my goal weight, because most at my height is around 135-150! BUt I know what feels good on me:) And Im going with it! Im in this to be healthy, but fit! Not so much skinnY!

Saruman_w

I"m 5'8, I was hoping by the time I hit 170 my bellyfat and moobs would be completely gone. But nope, they're still there. So looks like I still got plenty more fat to burn which is why I set my goal down to 150.

KS_4691

I would disagree with that, for women at least. I am 5'5" and the healthy weight range for me is 117-155. I spent a lot of my life at the 115-122 range, even with a muscular build, and now that I'm at 130 I think I look very chubby. I've always thought that doctors tend to give women a fairly heavy weight range. This may be different for men though.

Sublog

I am 6'1 male mid 30's and had my goal set at 200 as an arbitrary number I picked out. I started to think I should find a more realistic number of what a healthy weight should be. I was shocked to find that weight charts say a healthy weight for me would be 150 - 180! Wow when I was in great shape in the military the lowest I got down to was I think 187 but I never concentrated on really lowering my weight either at that time.

I think 180 is a realistic goal, but even 200 I would think would be realistic - I wonder about these height weight standards...

Not to sound all conspiratorial, but... - keeping the standards low allows the industry to say more people are overweight, thus fueling the exercise and weight-loss industries...

Everyone carries a lot more fat on there body than they think.

A 6.1 male @ 200 lbs and 12% body fat would literally look like a mini body builder. Not many people understand what that body would look like.

Here's a search I did @ bodybuilding.com for guys who are 6.1 200 lbs.. Look at their photos.

http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/search.php?searchid=48001342

Everyone underestimates the amount of fat they have, and everyone overestimates the amount of muscle they have.

psuLemon

I am 6'1 male mid 30's and had my goal set at 200 as an arbitrary number I picked out. I started to think I should find a more realistic number of what a healthy weight should be. I was shocked to find that weight charts say a healthy weight for me would be 150 - 180! Wow when I was in great shape in the military the lowest I got down to was I think 187 but I never concentrated on really lowering my weight either at that time.

I think 180 is a realistic goal, but even 200 I would think would be realistic - I wonder about these height weight standards...

Not to sound all conspiratorial, but... - keeping the standards low allows the industry to say more people are overweight, thus fueling the exercise and weight-loss industries...

I am in the same boat as you. I am 5"11 and 29 years old. I believe it's better to look at body fat because the reality of it, those charts are for non athletic people. If you workout, the muscle growth alone will put you over the top.


Sublog, to let you know, I have 12% body fat and I look nothing like a body builder. I still have a slight gut (showing a small 4 pack). Where I make for my overall body fat is, I have liek 10% or less fat in my legs and my arms. The mid section is more around 18-19%.

yankeefamily05

KS: I think it all depends how a woman is shaped. Being at 5'8. Athletic. Larger frame. 180 lbs looked good on me.

Ge0rgiana

My boyfriend is 5'11". If he weighed 150lbs, we would not be dating. I think BMI is ok for women, but they need to get a separate BMI calculation for men.

McGruber03

We use ideal body weight for men at 106 lbs for 5' and 6 lbs per inch thereafter. So, your IBW would be 106+(6x13) = 184 lbs which puts your BMI at 24.3, which is in the normal range for BMI. You can also add or subtract 10% for small or large frame. So, your range could be 166-202 lbs. BMI, however, is not really accurate if you have a lot of muscle mass. For example, a body builder with 1% body fat would probably come in at an 'overweight' BMI, but we know he's not overweight, he just weighs a lot due to the muscle. So, don't just look at BMI or IBW, look also at your percentage body fat and waist measurement. Good luck!

valeriebpdx

You know, it really does depend on frame, though. That's why they have a range for a healthy weight. My husband is 6' and 140. He is obviously skinny but covered in lean muscle (bikes to work, plays soccer and hockey) and he looks perfect for his frame--if he gains weight it shows on his face and in his stomach only. I have known men six inches shorter that would have looked scrawny at 140. It totally depends on the guy. I am glad you know what will work for you and look good on you--go by that.

ChantalGG

200 and 6'1" is a great size, I dont like skinny men, but at the weight you will need to work on the body fat percentage so you are still healthy.

aj_rock

I'm just a bit taller than you mate, and hung around 190 for a while now. I consider myself out of danger range, but im also technically overweight.

Try measuring your belly circumference instead. if you're around 35", you're doing fine.

TS65

I would disagree with that, for women at least. I am 5'5" and the healthy weight range for me is 117-155. I spent a lot of my life at the 115-122 range, even with a muscular build, and now that I'm at 130 I think I look very chubby. I've always thought that doctors tend to give women a fairly heavy weight range. This may be different for men though.

It really, really depends on your bone and muscle structure. I'm 5'5 and at my lowest (118), I looked absolutely skeletal. At a muscular 135, I was a size 4.

Qarol

It's so true. And I've heard a lot of BMI calculators will not be accurate for some people, if they have more muscle mass and weigh more, thus making it LOOK like they're overweight, when really they're not. It's frustrating. We need to remember these are just guidelines for most people, not good recommendations for ALL people.

My husband is 6'2". If he reached his so-called ideal weight, he'd be way too skinny for my liking. I don't care for thin men.

want2walknotwaddle

i think it depends on what suits you and whether you feel healthy, i am 14 st 12 down from 20 st 1 in march, and obviously i feel much better than i did then... now i do still want to lose another 4 stone to be just under 11 stone although apparently for a woman my height would still be overweight by about 5lb but then i am also very curvy and have been slim before and looked ill so i will leave my goal where it is and once i am there concentrate on building some muscle and toning up

poseyj88

I really like what that Mayo website talks about.

I also think two things:

(a) Like everything else, one size does not fit all. The Mayo website talks about how BMI may over or under estimate body fat based on weight.

(b) Especially in the United States, I think people FORGET what healthy weight vs. overweight vs. obese look like. I had a patient the other day come in who I guessed was a little overweight.... yeah... her BMI was 33. I think we are so used to seeing individuals who are larger, that a normal healthy weight range starts looking really skinny to us. Again, this doesn't apply to everyone, but I know it's something I've come to realize.

Sublog

I am 6'1 male mid 30's and had my goal set at 200 as an arbitrary number I picked out. I started to think I should find a more realistic number of what a healthy weight should be. I was shocked to find that weight charts say a healthy weight for me would be 150 - 180! Wow when I was in great shape in the military the lowest I got down to was I think 187 but I never concentrated on really lowering my weight either at that time.

I think 180 is a realistic goal, but even 200 I would think would be realistic - I wonder about these height weight standards...

Not to sound all conspiratorial, but... - keeping the standards low allows the industry to say more people are overweight, thus fueling the exercise and weight-loss industries...

I am in the same boat as you. I am 5"11 and 29 years old. I believe it's better to look at body fat because the reality of it, those charts are for non athletic people. If you workout, the muscle growth alone will put you over the top.


Sublog, to let you know, I have 12% body fat and I look nothing like a body builder. I still have a slight gut (showing a small 4 pack). Where I make for my overall body fat is, I have liek 10% or less fat in my legs and my arms. The mid section is more around 18-19%.

Then honestly, you aren't 12%... lol (no disrespect meant)

Body fat measurements are notoriously easy to get wrong. I know it sucks. I am in the same boat. Overall body fat % is dictated by overall body fat measured across the body. If you have a gut, you aren't 12%, despite what your extremities look like.

Your body sounds a lot like mine. I genetically store most of weight in my waist.

Are you happy with your body right now? If you are not, you'll need to keep dropping fat, and then you can get a more accurate measurement of body fat when you get really lean. As you lean out, you will drop more fat free mass in the tune of about 20-40% per lb of weight loss. This is not necessarily muscle loss, this is supporting tissue for the excess fat.

Everyone has less muscle than they think they do and has more fat than they think they do. It's completely normal when you thin out.

bcattoes

I would disagree with that, for women at least. I am 5'5" and the healthy weight range for me is 117-155. I spent a lot of my life at the 115-122 range, even with a muscular build, and now that I'm at 130 I think I look very chubby. I've always thought that doctors tend to give women a fairly heavy weight range. This may be different for men though.

the range is so wide on most charts because there are many variables that influence what is "healthy". Given the exact same circumstances (diet, environment, exercise, ... everything) all women of the same height would not end up the same weight or the same size. But they could all still be very healthy. I am also 5'5" and never weighed more than 120 lbs until I had children but I was not at all muscular and did not exercise or eat a healthy diet. I could probably get back down to that size if I tried, but I'm sure I could never weigh that little and exercise because the muscle would make me weigh more.