What is the right weight for someone at 5'7?

It depends on yourself. For me personally, I'm 5"7' too and I've always dreamed of wearing a bandage crop bra top with a neon skirt. Sounds a bit slutty I know, but thats the goal. Reckon I need to be a size 0-2 for that. So ideally, my goal will be 110-115 pounds. Of course you don't want to just do cardio and have a flat bum. I'm currently doing 100-150 squats a day.

Ps: I'm referring to this outfit.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=bandage+crop+top&hl=en-GB&espv=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sboxchip=Images&sa=X&ei=lTi4UebKFs_VkAWZsYCoBw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=504#biv=i|50;d|TfsU1SIChhP8PM:

Based on the Robinson formula (1983), your ideal weight is 134.3 lbs
Based on the Miller formula (1983), your ideal weight is 138.1 lbs
Based on the Devine formula (1974), your ideal weight is 135.8 lbs
Based on the Hamwi formula (1964), your ideal weight is 134.3 lbs
Based on the healthy BMI recommendation, your recommended weight is 113.6 lbs - 169.2 lbs

However, it all depends on your body - how big your frame is, where you carry your weight, how much muscle/fat you have. Basically, it boils down to what you feel comfortable with and what you think looks best.

I'm 5'7" and between 148-155 depending what day of the week it is. My goal is 129 but I usually can maintain pretty easy at 135ish. I think so much of it depends on your frame and build. Maybe the goal shouldn't be a number on a scale but how you look and feel.

Rule of thumb for a woman is for 5ft its 100lbs and then 5lbs for every inch.. so not including muscles 135lbs is good. I think on a fit
woman who is ripped 140 would be perfect,
if you want to be lean 130-135.
For men its 120lbs for 5ft and 5 lbs for every inch. I am 5 foot 7 also and weigh 165 and people think I am to thin. But thats
mostly larger people.

Hiya!
I'm 5'7" and aiming to maintain at 130. If I'm under that I feel too scrawny! X

Ehh depends. On paper I'm around high/ideal weight for my height but I have a really small frame. Really. But if you look at my family they are all v slender- even the women have flat chests and no butts! Which means as my weight has increased, it's all gone around the thighs and hips and it looks wrong. My lower arms and legs are still thin. It's the middle that's expanding.

So rather than carry on with this idea that this arbitrary measure will do but knowing deep down inside that I'm not "myself" I'm just taking steps. I know what my body is in its healthy state and it's on the low side of the "normal" BMI.
Weirdly same goes for my boyfriend who is quite slight but is starting to get a belly- I guess we've coupled up and gotten comfortable!

What is your frame like? What do your parents/ aunts and uncles look like?

According to the BMI calulator it is 131-156. At 156 you'd be at the 25% they say is healthy..When we feel good in our clothes is a good test for me.

Rule of thumb for a woman is for 5ft its 100lbs and then 5lbs for every inch.. so not including muscles 135lbs is good. I think on a fit
woman who is ripped 140 would be perfect,
if you want to be lean 130-135.
For men its 120lbs for 5ft and 5 lbs for every inch. I am 5 foot 7 also and weigh 165 and people think I am to thin. But thats
mostly larger people.

LOL are you serious.....?

I'm 5'1" and my lean body mass (not weight, lean body mass) is 101lb. So are you seriously saying I should weigh 105lb?? That would be about 2% body fat.

Yes I lift heavy weights but I'm actually a noob (aka novice) at lifting, i.e. serious lifting for a few months or less. My lean body mass hasn't gone up more than maybe 1lb since doing that. In other words, I'm not ripped, jacked, whatever you want to call it, I'm a noob.

I weigh 130lb at 22-23% body fat. Your rule of thumb is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off. For small framed women maybe. But not for medium or large framed women.

Hey I am just the messenger I did not make this up I think 5'1 anything between 115 and 125 with muscle would be fine. Thats
just me my daughter who is 5ft weights 105 and looks great. But she is 19 who does not look great at 19.

I didn't say you made this up, but whoever did make this up did not base this rule in science, or on any knowledge of human physiology or how much humans can vary. And this kind of thing needs to be corrected, because it's potentially dangerous.

You can't say how much someone should weigh from their height alone. You're assuming that the only thing that can vary between two individuals of the same height is muscle mass. That's not how it works. Frame size (i.e. the width of the shoulder bones and pelvis, and the width and depth of the rib cage) and relative limb proportions (e.g. whether someone has a longer torso and shorter limbs or vice versa), bone density and other factors affect how heavy someone is at any given height. That's before you consider muscle mass, which also can vary considerably. But even two sedentary people (i.e. who've never built extra muscle mass) at the same height and same body fat percentage will not necessarily weigh the same, and their weight may vary by as much as 30lb or more.

I weigh more than the range you said above, i.e. 115-125lb at 5'1" and 22-23% body fat, and I haven't really started building muscle yet. The healthy range for body fat percentage is 18-28%. At 28% body fat I'd weigh 140lb and still be healthy, that's assuming I don't put on any muscle. So your range that you say above is fine, is incorrect. Also, the range that would be a healthy weight for me would not be appropriate for your daughter. If she has a healthy body fat percentage at 105lb, then she would have a too high body fat percentage at 130lb. Conversely, if I was to attempt to weigh 105lb, I'd have to starve off about 20lb of lean body mass to get there, i.e. not remotely healthy. My lean body mass is only about 4lb less than your daughter's entire weight, even though she's only an inch shorter than me. And most of that is not from muscle, it's just from variation in frame size.

So you can't tell how much someone should weigh based on their height alone, and your numbers are more worrying than usual, because they're not even appropriate for people with average frames, only small framed people. Most people are average, so your predicted ideal weights are not even appropriate for most women, and that's before anyone starts factoring in muscle mass. And I feel the same about the numbers you put down for men.

You should read this about body fat percentage as the answer to the OPs question really needs to be "base your weight on your current body fat percentage": http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages there are also plenty of sites on the internet about the futility and inappropriateness of weight/height charts including BMI. BTW when I was at university, I did my undergraduate study on this topic. Large framed athletic people frequently fall into the "overweight" range of BMI while being at a healthy body fat percentage, in the case of men (who can put on more muscle than women) being in the "obese" category of BMI while having a very low body fat percentage, e.g. 10% or less, is not uncommon.

I think you're at a point where you can make assessments based on how you look/feel. I'm also 5'7 and at 225lbs, I just wanted to be 160lbs for the longest time. Now that I am there, I am just focusing on building muscle and how I look/feel. I basically got rid of my scale.

What would you say would be a good weight for me to be?

I think it depends on your frame, your muscles, etc.. I remember a long time ago someone saying if you are 5 feet tall you should be 100 pounds, and add 5 pounds for every inch That's obviously not a scientific measurement!

I don't think anyone can tell you, you'll just know when you get there.

you're right, and it's not only not scientific, it's a potentially dangerous target for all women who have average or larger than average frames. It's a good target for small framed women only.

body fat percentage is much better, i.e. get it measured reliably and base your goal weight on that, while losing fat slowly to make sure it's just fat you're losing and not muscle: http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages

That makes the target for a woman of 5'7" 135. That is not "potentially dangerous" no matter what your "frame," It's pretty spot on healthy.

I'm just short of 46, am 5'7" and weigh 129. Around 20 I was 115. We all carry weight differently but if you make your goal to 'look' and be healthy you'll be fine. Bone structure is another thing to consider and I'm very small. You just may find once you achieve your goal that you want another. Example, mine was to be 130. Achieved that and now I want to lose more bodyfat (currently 18.2%) and build more muscles. I'd love at least a 2 pack. Weight isn't much of a concern, though I know losing more fat will cause me to lose more since I have a hard time building muscle.

Jamie Eason had on her facebook page pictures of women who all weighed the same yet looked so different. A great example for you to look up if you have the chance. Basically, it doesn't matter what we all say as long as you are happy with you and are healthy.

What would you say would be a good weight for me to be?

I think it depends on your frame, your muscles, etc.. I remember a long time ago someone saying if you are 5 feet tall you should be 100 pounds, and add 5 pounds for every inch That's obviously not a scientific measurement!

I don't think anyone can tell you, you'll just know when you get there.

you're right, and it's not only not scientific, it's a potentially dangerous target for all women who have average or larger than average frames. It's a good target for small framed women only.

body fat percentage is much better, i.e. get it measured reliably and base your goal weight on that, while losing fat slowly to make sure it's just fat you're losing and not muscle: http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages

That makes the target for a woman of 5'7" 135. That is not "potentially dangerous" no matter what your "frame," It's pretty spot on healthy.

really, it's healthy? I'm 5'1", 130lb, and my lean body mass is 101 lb, please explain to me how I could possibly be healthy at 105lb?

2% body fat is unattainable for anyone, even male bodybuilders on steroids can't get below 3% body fat. Essential body fat in women is 12-13%. The only way I can get to 105lb is by starving off about 20lb of lean body mass. If my lean body mass was 81lb, then I could be 105lb at a healthy body fat percentage. But how is it possibly healthy for me to starve off 20lb of lean body mass?

Explanation: your calculations are wrong. AND it's quite easy to lose lean body mass where that lbm is the result of intentionally putting it on.

It depends on yourself. For me personally, I'm 5"7' too and I've always dreamed of wearing a bandage crop bra top with a neon skirt. Sounds a bit slutty I know, but thats the goal. Reckon I need to be a size 0-2 for that. So ideally, my goal will be 110-115 pounds. Of course you don't want to just do cardio and have a flat bum. I'm currently doing 100-150 squats a day.

Ps: I'm referring to this outfit.
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=bandage+crop+top&hl=en-GB&espv=1&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sboxchip=Images&sa=X&ei=lTi4UebKFs_VkAWZsYCoBw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=320&bih=504#biv=i|50;d|TfsU1SIChhP8PM:

I'm aso 5'7", I'm at 137 right now and I'm a size 2 and can get away with wearing that with no shame! You don't necessarily have to weight 110-115 to be a 2. I also have a good amount of muscle though

Keep up with the squats!

What would you say would be a good weight for me to be?

I think it depends on your frame, your muscles, etc.. I remember a long time ago someone saying if you are 5 feet tall you should be 100 pounds, and add 5 pounds for every inch That's obviously not a scientific measurement!

I don't think anyone can tell you, you'll just know when you get there.

you're right, and it's not only not scientific, it's a potentially dangerous target for all women who have average or larger than average frames. It's a good target for small framed women only.

body fat percentage is much better, i.e. get it measured reliably and base your goal weight on that, while losing fat slowly to make sure it's just fat you're losing and not muscle: http://www.leighpeele.com/body-fat-pictures-and-percentages

That makes the target for a woman of 5'7" 135. That is not "potentially dangerous" no matter what your "frame," It's pretty spot on healthy.

really, it's healthy? I'm 5'1", 130lb, and my lean body mass is 101 lb, please explain to me how I could possibly be healthy at 105lb?

2% body fat is unattainable for anyone, even male bodybuilders on steroids can't get below 3% body fat. Essential body fat in women is 12-13%. The only way I can get to 105lb is by starving off about 20lb of lean body mass. If my lean body mass was 81lb, then I could be 105lb at a healthy body fat percentage. But how is it possibly healthy for me to starve off 20lb of lean body mass?

Explanation: your calculations are wrong. AND it's quite easy to lose lean body mass where that lbm is the result of intentionally putting it on.

my calculations are not wrong. Even with a 5% error margin, my lean body mass would be somewhere between 96 and 106lb, and no matter how you look it it, I can't possibly be healthy at 105lb. I have measured my body fat percentage four different ways, and come up with very similar figures each time. Also, my ribs stick out and I have muscle definition in my upper body, arms and legs. So I really truly do have a healthy body fat percentage at 130lb, and a high lean body mass for my height.

I didn't intentionally put on any lean body mass, other than 1-2lb. This is my natural build. I'm the same as my parents, incidentally, my dad more so than my mum. He is only 5'6" and heavily built, and as a young man was stronger than many men of 6' (he's now an old man in his 60s but still pretty strong). And I'm not a freak of nature, there are many other women and men with a similar build to me. 105lb is not even a reasonable weight target for an average build woman of my height. the healthy BMI range for my height is 100-132, which I am actually within (only just). I'd still be a healthy body fat percentage in the overweight range, as would many people, either due to their natural build or due to being athletic, or both.

additionally, losing lean body mass is bad for your health. You lose bone density along with it, which increases the risk of osteoporosis. I can assure you that losing 20lb of lean body mass, at least 18lb of which wasn't the result of "deliberately putting on lean body mass" (I'm not even sure a woman can put on that much lean body mass anyway) is not remotely healthy. But go on and continue to encourage women to try to reach weights that are totally unhealthy for them.....

do you really think that all humans are identical in terms of things like width of shoulders, rib cage, limb proportions etc? You really think that height is the only variable that affects how heavy someone is?

I am 5'7", and I am shooting for 160 lbs. I am highly muscled in my legs, and rump. My shoulders are wide so I feel like this is a good weight for me, personally. Also, after my son was born I was 180, and pretty dang happy with my frame, except for that 20 lbs. around my middle. I want to see me once in my life at that weight. Who knows I might change my mind when I get there.