Goal Weight- Calculate yours!!!

Options
2

Replies

  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    That can't be right. You have to factor in age. According to weight watchers those numbers are off.

    Why is age a factor, just becuse you are older doesn't mean you should weigh more. I am almost 32 and I weigh less than I did when I was a fit 19 year old.
  • CarterGrt
    CarterGrt Posts: 289 Member
    Options
    At 6 foot:
    first formula:105 + (5*12) = 165 (148.5 - 181.5)
    second formula: 106 + (6*12) = 178 (160.2 - 195.8)

    While they both work as my goal is 180, I think the second formula makes more sense and allows for more variety in body type, etc.

    Interesting...

    --Carter
  • Celo24
    Celo24 Posts: 566 Member
    Options
    I concur. At 5'8", this would put me at 145#s. I don't know of any male with that height and weight combo.

    Try this BMI calculator, I think it explains some of the variable to consider pretty succinctly.

    ;-)

    Try my calc for a man, a man at 5'8 should be 106 +6*8 = 154, 14lbs more. then you have the +/- 10% depending on frame size. So if you are a large framed 5'8 man you should be 169.4 (154*1.1)

    I am a medium size frame and according to this I am 4 lbs over the ideal weight, which makes sense as I tend to have a fair bit of muscle, especially on my back.

    With the corrected formula, this makes more sense. 154 as a base and a range of 140-169 seems a lot more logical. Thanks for the correction.
  • Marll
    Marll Posts: 904 Member
    Options
    I think that most of these types of calculations tend to be on the more slender side of things. Typical BMI calculator type stuff says that as a man at around 5'10" that I should be around 165lbs. I've been that weight and worked out a lot (was in the military at the time) and while my body looked ripped (only time I've ever had a 6-pack) but my face looked too skinny and I didn't feel all that great.

    I usually feel my best at about 180-185.
  • kmeekhof
    kmeekhof Posts: 456 Member
    Options
    I concur. At 5'8", this would put me at 145#s. I don't know of any male with that height and weight combo.

    Try this BMI calculator, I think it explains some of the variable to consider pretty succinctly.

    ;-)

    Try my calc for a man, a man at 5'8 should be 106 +6*8 = 154, 14lbs more. then you have the +/- 10% depending on frame size. So if you are a large framed 5'8 man you should be 169.4 (154*1.1)

    I am a medium size frame and according to this I am 4 lbs over the ideal weight, which makes sense as I tend to have a fair bit of muscle, especially on my back.

    With the corrected formula, this makes more sense. 154 as a base and a range of 140-169 seems a lot more logical. Thanks for the correction.

    Yes- I did initially typo the formula for a man! But the 106/5' and 6lbs/in is correct
  • AnnThereseRN
    AnnThereseRN Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    This is actually "ideal body weight" and is typically only used when calculating ideal tidal volume when patients are ventilated. BMI is a more accurate measurement of the range of where your weight should be.
  • kmeekhof
    kmeekhof Posts: 456 Member
    Options
    how do you figure out what kind of frame you have?

    It is kind of best guess... I consider myself to have a large bone structure. I have wide hips, broad shoulder and a large rib cage.

    If you are within that range then you will be fine on either end of it.
  • yyzdnl
    yyzdnl Posts: 127 Member
    Options
    I concur. At 5'8", this would put me at 145#s. I don't know of any male with that height and weight combo.

    Try this BMI calculator, I think it explains some of the variable to consider pretty succinctly.

    ;-)

    Try my calc for a man, a man at 5'8 should be 106 +6*8 = 154, 14lbs more. then you have the +/- 10% depending on frame size. So if you are a large framed 5'8 man you should be 169.4 (154*1.1)

    I am a medium size frame and according to this I am 4 lbs over the ideal weight, which makes sense as I tend to have a fair bit of muscle, especially on my back.

    With the corrected formula, this makes more sense. 154 as a base and a range of 140-169 seems a lot more logical. Thanks for the correction.

    I am 5' 8" at my current percent fat I have a lean body mass of 137 lbs.

    If I lost only fat to 145 I would have a fat % of 5% way low.

    If lost only fat to 154 I would have a fat % of 11%. That would still be the range for an athlete.

    I am going for 165 for a body fat of 17% more than acceptable for a 48 year old male.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    This is actually "ideal body weight" and is typically only used when calculating ideal tidal volume when patients are ventilated. BMI is a more accurate measurement of the range of where your weight should be.

    Actually BMI is not meant for individuals to gauge where they are. The tool got misused that way ages ago, but it is meant to compare groups of populations with other groups of populations, not individuals.
  • Jessica_Lo
    Jessica_Lo Posts: 199 Member
    Options
    O this is the first time I've seen a range that is exactly what I should be. I am 5ft and should be at 100. 105 is ideal for me.

    Thank you for posting!! I hate the regular BMI's that tell me I am in a low range at 113. If that was the case I wouldn't jiggle when I walk. :mad:
  • kmeekhof
    kmeekhof Posts: 456 Member
    Options
    This is actually "ideal body weight" and is typically only used when calculating ideal tidal volume when patients are ventilated. BMI is a more accurate measurement of the range of where your weight should be.

    Actually BMI is not meant for individuals to gauge where they are. The tool got misused that way ages ago, but it is meant to compare groups of populations with other groups of populations, not individuals.

    Thank you!!!! Although BMI is a useful tool, it is often wrong. Especially for somebody who has a lot of muscle and lean body mass.
  • ebgbjo
    ebgbjo Posts: 821 Member
    Options
    That thing would have me at around 90lbs (and that isn't even adding in the minus 10% for having a small frame).. no way accurate. I looked horribly underweight at 98lbs, no way I am going for something between 80-100lbs
  • darrenw74
    darrenw74 Posts: 86 Member
    Options
    Great, just when I started getting excited about finally getting into "modern fit" clothing, I realize that I'm still 20 lbs overweight :noway:

    I'm just going to go by what feels right.
  • erickirb
    erickirb Posts: 12,293 Member
    Options
    That thing would have me at around 90lbs (and that isn't even adding in the minus 10% for having a small frame).. no way accurate. I looked horribly underweight at 98lbs, no way I am going for something between 80-100lbs

    If that is the case you either have a lot of muscle mass or or not small framed.
  • kmeekhof
    kmeekhof Posts: 456 Member
    Options
    That thing would have me at around 90lbs (and that isn't even adding in the minus 10% for having a small frame).. no way accurate. I looked horribly underweight at 98lbs, no way I am going for something between 80-100lbs

    Obviously you are under 5' ............ so no this formula would not be accurate for you. Sorry I do not know the formula for being under 5'.
  • gdunn55
    gdunn55 Posts: 363
    Options
    It puts me at 181-201. I don't agree with it. It might be right, but I don't agree. I'm built like a deggum lumberjack. If I got down to 200 you'd see my ribs and be wanting to give me a sammich.
  • shreddingit
    shreddingit Posts: 1,133 Member
    Options
    I like!!
  • brityn
    brityn Posts: 443 Member
    Options
    This is a generic measurement. I'm a trim 130 lbs and this says i should be 10 lbs lighter. I'm in a size three pants but have a lot of muscle. I weight train for an hour 15 min 3 times a week and run around 15 miles a week. I consider myself to be in very good shape. If I lost 10 more lbs i'd be way too skinny.

    You are correct. By volume muscle weighs more than fat. That being said the averagge person does not weight train or run like you do.

    What does "average" mean?
  • katierg
    katierg Posts: 42
    Options
    You can also check this out: Its similar to that formula, but gives you the option of checking your bone structure.
    Thanks for sharing!

    http://www.healthcentral.com/diet-exercise/ideal-body-weight-3146-143.html

    Using this calculator it says I should be 124 - 136.4 lbs which sounds pretty right. My mother is 2 inches shorter than me and at my age she was 122lbs. We have similar frames.
  • rybo
    rybo Posts: 5,424 Member
    Options
    This fits me pretty accurately. I bounce between 168-170, very lean with some muscle mass.

Categories