Ideal height weight chart- truth or too small?

For me those charts always tell me I should weigh MORE than what really is ideal for me. Set your goal wherever you want and when you get there you can reassess

Yeah for us bulky men, it almost always is an understimate.

For instance, I was 210 in my profile picture (and 5'10"). So I was technically obese.

At 5'11, I've always thought the 135-179 range I'm given to be pretty good. At 145 I'm lower than I want to be - at 135 I'd be sickly thin IMO. 150-155 is my "optimum range".

Better to set your goal weight based on body fat percentage.

My goal weight is actually much higher than I have it set right now. I want to lose body fat to a good point, then switch it up to gain muscle. I wouldn't mind weighing MORE than I started MFP, so long as the body fat percentage was low and the lean body mass high.

I'm 5'0" and currently weight 199lbs. That is super high for my height. When I tell friends and family that I want to lose 70-80lbs they think I'm crazy. I further explain the "ideal weight range chart" and people then tell me those aren't realistic?? What gives? For my height the chart tells me 98-128... I'm ok with 135 even if that's where I look and feel healthy. Is this an unattainable goal? The last time I felt comfortable with myself I weighed 138lbs, but I was a "soft" 138, my husband says that I may feel great at 138 when I used weight training and a good cardio program to get there.

those weights are ideal for the average sedentary adult. So yes, it's not accurate for everyone. I was in the middle of that chart and felt like an unhealthy lard of crap. I got to the bottom end of it and that's where I'm sitting now, but I've seen other people go to the bottom end of it and it makes them look like some parts of their body are skeletal. Or some people just look sick there because some of them are because they don't eat right and don't exercise. I've also seen some people near the middle look thinner then me because they weight train (muscle more condense then fat).

Basically what I'm saying is, F weight, go by body fat%. But I would also try to get into the healthy bmi zone. That being said if you're exercising and in the overweight zone the bmi scale isn't exactly something you should be judging yourself by, because you'll look a lot better then people in the healthy zone. But if you stick to exercising and eating sensible proportions (~2000 cals on average for your average healthy women), if you keep exercising you're bound to hit the healthy zone anyway.

I think they are unrealistic. The last time I was 'in range' actually at the lower end of the range (7.5 stone) I was 17 and eating an apple a day and an occasional meal to make my Mum/friends happy and mostly going to bed early with stomach ache because I was hungry. I, like you, am 5ft tall and weigh 203 pounds now at 32. I am starting again today after just being on holiday and hating every minute of being hot and sweaty and tired. A point I was once told about the height weight chart that really finished it for me was when I was told that the entire England Rugby Union team are morbidly obese according to the chart! No one could say they were unhealthy or unfit surely? I am aiming to be 140 pounds (10 stone) which is about half a stone more that the chart says I should be but I think it is a realistic goal.

I agree with this. The last time I was in range I was binging and purging. I looked way too skinny because I have a larger frame, so my ribs were huge while my waist was small. My hair was dull and my skin was grayish. It just didn't look right. I'd talk to a doctor. Every body is different. I think as long as you are eating healthy, your cholesterol and blood pressure are in check and you're exercising, they'll be happy. As will you. :happy:

The charts are realistic, but like all population based measures, they are based on averages of the mass population and there will always be outliers. If you were comfortable at 138 before, why not make that your goal? Once you reach it, if you are healthy and happy then go to maintenance. If not, you can reevaluate and set a new goal that works for you.

This is a good idea, I didn't think of doing a "step one" goal. that may make it seem not so daunting and unreachable too. I know for sure that I wouldn't want to be on the 98lb end of the range, I want to have some muscle tone and a small amount of curve...

Looks like you're getting the right idea. Just to point out, 220 at age 30 gave me a much different body shape than 220 at age 57, so after being at goal and maintaining it for 5 mos, now moving to a new goal oriented towards both the shape and the inshape place I want to be. Do the same its a process that changes with your life.

I am your same height and the goal that you are shooting for is very realistic. I look great at 120, as long as i have some muscle, remember muscle weight more than fat, but it makes you look leaner as well. :happy:

At 5'11, I've always thought the 135-179 range I'm given to be pretty good. At 145 I'm lower than I want to be - at 135 I'd be sickly thin IMO. 150-155 is my "optimum range".

My mom is the same height, but has weighed 127-130 her entire adult life... and she's definitely not sickly. It all depends on your build.

I agree 100% it all depends on your build as well!! I have a bigger body structure.