Frame Size and Healthy Weight

13»

Replies

  • NanoReefDiver
    NanoReefDiver Posts: 153
    I am 5'10 and weigh 134. I am by no means a stick. This calculater states that I am underweight and my weight should be 156-171. I was once that weight which is why I lost it. I was miserable and looked terrible and unhealthy. I look great and feel great now so I think I will stick with where I am.

    Same problem for me. I'm 5'7", have a very small frame (but long!), and am currently 130. I still have more body fat % to lose and have decent amount of muscle. The calculator believes my ideal weight to be between 138 and 151. I've been in the upper 130s before and it isn't pretty. Though if get back up to that weight one day with a body that is tight as an athlete you won't hear me complaining!
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Remember the finger/wrist thing is a rule of thumb. There's other sites out there that measure your wrist via tape measurers for a more accurate number.

    Also remember that like most things of this type, being at either end (in the extreme), is going to skew the numbers. Substantially overweight people will likely not get a correct reading...and the same for overly thin people.

    I'm really curious what you guys think of this:

    http://www.healthcentral.com/cholesterol/home-body-fat-test-2774-143.html#accurate

    This uses a tape to measure your wrist, along with your hips/waist, and forearm. Add in your age, weight, and gender and it spits out body fat percentage.

    If it's correct, I'm at just under 20%, which is better than I expected.

    Cris
  • VictorinoDennis
    VictorinoDennis Posts: 100
    Thanks for sharing that. My doc wants me to be 170 and I did that about ten yrs ago NASTY. I looked sick. It said that I should be around 200 to 210. That was where I was at when I got married. 90 lbs to go. Thanks again.
  • Losingitin2011
    Losingitin2011 Posts: 572 Member
    Yea, I'm 3/4 German, and 1/4 Danish. I'm a big framed woman. I had my husband measure my wrist with the measuring tape, my wrists are about the only part of me with no fat on them, and it was 6.75in. That sticks me right into the large frame range. Just like the BMI, this is NOT perfect, I never said it was, but it is nice to have something else to go off of that doesn't call muscular people obese. It is also a more realistic goal for a lot of people. The BMI says I should be between 118.1 and 159.6. I just happen to have pictures of myself at 120, and in the 160-170 range.

    120

    SeniorPicPurple.jpg

    And 160ish

    700422824_m.jpg

    I am aiming more for the second picture personally! I like my curves!
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    Yea, I'm 3/4 German, and 1/4 Danish. I'm a big framed woman. I had my husband measure my wrist with the measuring tape, my wrists are about the only part of me with no fat on them, and it was 6.75in. That sticks me right into the large frame range. Just like the BMI, this is NOT perfect, I never said it was, but it is nice to have something else to go off of that doesn't call muscular people obese. It is also a more realistic goal for a lot of people.

    Amen!!

    Did he use a cloth tape or a tape measurer? There will be a BIG difference in the results. If all you have is a standard tape measurer...use a piece of string or cut a piece of paper into a narrow strip and use that, then measure it with the tape measurer.

    Cris
  • Losingitin2011
    Losingitin2011 Posts: 572 Member
    Yea, I'm 3/4 German, and 1/4 Danish. I'm a big framed woman. I had my husband measure my wrist with the measuring tape, my wrists are about the only part of me with no fat on them, and it was 6.75in. That sticks me right into the large frame range. Just like the BMI, this is NOT perfect, I never said it was, but it is nice to have something else to go off of that doesn't call muscular people obese. It is also a more realistic goal for a lot of people.

    Amen!!

    Did he use a cloth tape or a tape measurer? There will be a BIG difference in the results.

    My cloth one that I use for measurements :-)
  • NanoReefDiver
    NanoReefDiver Posts: 153
    Yea, I'm 3/4 German, and 1/4 Danish. I'm a big framed woman. I had my husband measure my wrist with the measuring tape, my wrists are about the only part of me with no fat on them, and it was 6.75in. That sticks me right into the large frame range. Just like the BMI, this is NOT perfect, I never said it was, but it is nice to have something else to go off of that doesn't call muscular people obese. It is also a more realistic goal for a lot of people. The BMI says I should be between 118.1 and 159.6. I just happen to have pictures of myself at 120, and in the 160-170 range.

    Very interesting! My wrists are slightly under 6 inches standing at the same height of 5'7". Frame plays such a big role and certainly seems like the BMI is aimed more at small to medium frames.
  • Losingitin2011
    Losingitin2011 Posts: 572 Member
    Yea, I'm 3/4 German, and 1/4 Danish. I'm a big framed woman. I had my husband measure my wrist with the measuring tape, my wrists are about the only part of me with no fat on them, and it was 6.75in. That sticks me right into the large frame range. Just like the BMI, this is NOT perfect, I never said it was, but it is nice to have something else to go off of that doesn't call muscular people obese. It is also a more realistic goal for a lot of people. The BMI says I should be between 118.1 and 159.6. I just happen to have pictures of myself at 120, and in the 160-170 range.

    Very interesting! My wrists are slightly under 6 inches standing at the same height of 5'7". Frame plays such a big role and certainly seems like the BMI is aimed more at small to medium frames.

    I also wonder if the BMI is outdated, as babies being born now are bigger than they were before. My sister, who is a twig, had an 8lb 2oz, a 9lb 5oz, and an 11lb baby. Oye!
  • Jaedynmoon
    Jaedynmoon Posts: 280 Member
    I'm underweight according to that link. I'm a medium body frame at 5'9. I weigh 142. That site you linked says 160-176 is ideal for that. According to BMI I'm normal and don't hit underweight until I hit 125. I love where I'm at right now :)
  • Improvised
    Improvised Posts: 925 Member
    Huh. If it's right, than 118 -129 lbs is a healthy weight for 5'2 person with a medium frame. I was thinking I needed to be 110 or something.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    I'm underweight according to that link. I'm a medium body frame at 5'9. I weigh 142. That site you linked says 160-176 is ideal for that. According to BMI I'm normal and don't hit underweight until I hit 125. I love where I'm at right now :)

    Yeah...lol...if your current profile picture is you now...I wouldn't change a thing =D.
  • annrum
    annrum Posts: 144
    I'd agree with frame not being included in BMI - I'm 5'8" & I'm sure the BMI for that is far lower than I want to go. At the moment I'm aiming for between 11 & 12 stone because I know if I fall below 11 stone I look ill. My sister, who is a little shorter than me has a much smaller frame than I do can go below 10 stone and not look ill. So frame definitely plays a part.
    Anyway, that site reckons I need to lose about another 45lbs, which is about right I think.... even if in lbs it sounds like loads... Think I'll stick to measuring the weight loss in kg!!
  • Windi38
    Windi38 Posts: 164 Member
    Interesting!

    Here's what it said about me.. (I'm 5'2") and my fingers barely touch, so I'm considered medium framed...

    *********Ideal weight range is 118 - 129.8 lbs. (53.6 - 59 kg.).
    You are overweight by 43.2 lbs. (20 kg.).
    You may wish to consult with your physician for medical help. ---> (yeah, did that already! LOL)*********


    I'm going for 130 right now. When I got married at 20, I was 118 and pretty skinny. I didn't start feeling 'overweight' until I was about 140.

    I think based on what I remember about my body when I was young, this is pretty accurate...
  • Jaedynmoon
    Jaedynmoon Posts: 280 Member
    Well, thank you! :) it is my most recent from a little over a week ago!
    I'm underweight according to that link. I'm a medium body frame at 5'9. I weigh 142. That site you linked says 160-176 is ideal for that. According to BMI I'm normal and don't hit underweight until I hit 125. I love where I'm at right now :)

    Yeah...lol...if your current profile picture is you now...I wouldn't change a thing =D.
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    LOL anytime hun!

    =D

    Well, thank you! :) it is my most recent from a little over a week ago!
    I'm underweight according to that link. I'm a medium body frame at 5'9. I weigh 142. That site you linked says 160-176 is ideal for that. According to BMI I'm normal and don't hit underweight until I hit 125. I love where I'm at right now :)

    Yeah...lol...if your current profile picture is you now...I wouldn't change a thing =D.
  • wildon883r
    wildon883r Posts: 429 Member
    Mine states for my large frame- "Ideal weight range is 194 - 213.4 lbs. (88.2 - 97 kg.).
    Contratulations! Your weight is ideal.

    I wear 34" waist jeans, large shirt size. I'm not totally sold on this range as i still even after 40lbs lost have some belly fat even though my upper 2/3 of my abs are defined somewhat. I'm very strong from a physical and muscle standpoint as my job demands it. I initially decided that 185-190 would be the ideal weight. I know for a fact i will look almost unhealthy thin at that weight. I would like to get rid of the fat around the lower belly area entirely while not getting any bigger muscle mass sized. I honestly think getting rid of all my belly fat is an unreasonble expectation while remaining at a healthy/ideal weight even with a body fat ratio of 20% or less. I've actually weighed 170 at my size and i looked crappy although i was in awesome physical condition..
  • Losingitin2011
    Losingitin2011 Posts: 572 Member
    bump because it's interesting :-P
  • rurukidoo
    rurukidoo Posts: 54
    It says about me Ideal weight range is 138 - 151.8 lbs. (62.7 - 69 kg.) Apparently I have a small frame, which makes sense to me since my wrists have always been tiny, I'm 5 7' so I think I'll be going for the higher end of the scale. Since I used to be 9 stone 2/128 lbs and looked seriously ill! Still shooting for 160 in the meantime then I'll reasses where I'm at. Thanks for the link though that was interesting! =)
  • mirapaigew
    mirapaigew Posts: 107
    This actually made me feel better. lol I was always told by my doctor that a healthy weight for me (at 5'4") is around 120. Not happenin! haha I haven't been 120 since 9th grade. And even then I was all boobs and butt. This says "Ideal weight range is 130 - 143 lbs. (59.1 - 65 kg.)" ... I'll take that! lol
  • mirapaigew
    mirapaigew Posts: 107
    .
    Remember the finger/wrist thing is a rule of thumb. There's other sites out there that measure your wrist via tape measurers for a more accurate number.

    Also remember that like most things of this type, being at either end (in the extreme), is going to skew the numbers. Substantially overweight people will likely not get a correct reading...and the same for overly thin people.

    I'm really curious what you guys think of this:

    http://www.healthcentral.com/cholesterol/home-body-fat-test-2774-143.html#accurate

    This uses a tape to measure your wrist, along with your hips/waist, and forearm. Add in your age, weight, and gender and it spits out body fat percentage.

    If it's correct, I'm at just under 20%, which is better than I expected.

    Cris

    UGH.

    "You have 27.9% body fat.

    You have 59.1 Pounds of fat and 152.9 Pounds of lean (muscle, bone, body water)."

    59lbs of fat???? GROSS!
  • bkthomas2004
    bkthomas2004 Posts: 130 Member
    Thanks for this! I'm marginally overweight by 6.6 lbs. Your ideal weight range-- 144 - 158.4 lbs. (65.5 - 72 kg.). --is based on a formula that calculates what a healthy weight is for most people of your height (68 inches) and frame size (Small).

    My goal is 145 so this sounds about right
  • Louiselesley
    Louiselesley Posts: 166 Member
    Ideal weight range is 126 - 138.6 lbs. (57.3 - 63 kg.) - I'm 5'5 and my fingers overlap around my wrist. IYep, it sounds about right for me.


    i'm the exact same as you! i have a really small frame!

    my problem is that i tend to loose weight of my face and it makes me LOOK terrible. eurgh.


    i had to cheat = my fingers don't overlap so much as just touch but my fingers are so small i wear kids gloves.
  • Tangerine302
    Tangerine302 Posts: 1,509 Member
    Remember the finger/wrist thing is a rule of thumb. There's other sites out there that measure your wrist via tape measurers for a more accurate number.

    Also remember that like most things of this type, being at either end (in the extreme), is going to skew the numbers. Substantially overweight people will likely not get a correct reading...and the same for overly thin people.

    I'm really curious what you guys think of this:

    http://www.healthcentral.com/cholesterol/home-body-fat-test-2774-143.html#accurate

    This uses a tape to measure your wrist, along with your hips/waist, and forearm. Add in your age, weight, and gender and it spits out body fat percentage.

    If it's correct, I'm at just under 20%, which is better than I expected.

    Cris

    The first site said I'm underweight and this one said I have 26.3% body fat with 30.2# fat and 84.8# lean. So it sounds like I'm an underweight fat person who needs to build more muscle. :) 26.3% is a lot isn't it?
  • Sparksfly
    Sparksfly Posts: 470 Member
    This is really dumb....

    Yes if you are larger, most likely you have extra weight around your wrists as well. Don't you think when you lose weight, the size of your wrist will shrink too? Hence, making the "body frame" test obsolete?

    Just saying..

    I lost weight and my watch became very loose. Initially my fingers barely touched at 165+ lbs, now at 127 they overlap...imagine that!
  • crisanderson27
    crisanderson27 Posts: 5,343 Member
    This is really dumb....

    Yes if you are larger, most likely you have extra weight around your wrists as well. Don't you think when you lose weight, the size of your wrist will shrink too? Hence, making the "body frame" test obsolete?

    Just saying..

    I lost weight and my watch became very loose. Initially my fingers barely touched at 165+ lbs, now at 127 they overlap...imagine that!

    Now...where does it say you should be? I'm betting you're very close to the range you should be in.

    That's what I was saying above...it seems to be quite inaccurate at, particularly...the higher end of the scale...and the closer you get to your optimum...the better I'm betting it works.
  • Losingitin2011
    Losingitin2011 Posts: 572 Member
    This is really dumb....

    Yes if you are larger, most likely you have extra weight around your wrists as well. Don't you think when you lose weight, the size of your wrist will shrink too? Hence, making the "body frame" test obsolete?

    Just saying..

    I lost weight and my watch became very loose. Initially my fingers barely touched at 165+ lbs, now at 127 they overlap...imagine that!

    And the BMI is better? If you haven't got anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Like I stated EARLIER in the post, my wrists are about the only part of me that DOESN'T have fat on them. They're the same size they've always been. I wasn't saying this would work for EVERYONE.

    I did a Body Fat test just because I was curious, put in my measurements for female and the body fat percentage was almost 50%, put in the same measurements for male, and it was closer to 25%.
  • yankeefamily05
    yankeefamily05 Posts: 657
    I just did mine!! My fingers don't touch around my waist, so I am a large frame-5'8...It says my ideal weight is 164-180!!! Which is too true. Me at 160-180(my high school years) I was very fit, and I looked and felt great!!! 160 is my personal goal weight!!!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories