Weight target based on sitting height
Options
Dazz123456789
Posts: 18 Member
One of the things that I struggle with is that I am as tall as a 6 ft person when sitting, but 5 ft 7 when standing. Yeah, very short legs. But this means that a LOT more of my height is torso, which means suggested target weights, even when I was young and fit and had nearly no body fat, where always very hard to attain.
Do any charts or other data exist that relate sitting height to a healthy weight range? I know they look at sitting height in some studies with regard to growth of children, but what about adults?
Do any charts or other data exist that relate sitting height to a healthy weight range? I know they look at sitting height in some studies with regard to growth of children, but what about adults?
2
Replies
-
I think you are overthinking this.
When you say "suggested target weights", do you mean BMI? Because the BMI scale gives a pretty wide range for the "ideal weight" category. At 5'7", if you are a man, the range is 133-163. If you are a woman, it's 122-149. The range accounts for different body compositions, but there are some people who are exceptions.
If you do not feel comfortable with your body when you are in this range, then you don't have to be there. You could check with your doctor to be sure, but if you are comfortable at a slightly higher range, then that's probably just fine.11 -
Funny, I've wondered this too. I am about 4'10, but have the torso length of someone about 5'9". I have a birth defect that caused my legs to stop growing. My legs are slightly shorter than my torso. I've always wondered how much that throws off the weight chart numbers. I am very disproportionate.5
-
My legs are longer than my torso. I’m considered a petite but pants look like I’m wearing capris.
What does the mirror tell you?2 -
Definitely agree that you are overthinking things. I’m leggy and 5’6”. I don’t worry about my torso length. I just worry about how I look and how much visible fat/flab I can see. My current target weight is 135 (I’m 176 now), but maybe I’ll be pleased with the way I look at 145 or I’ll get to 135 and want to lose more. I’ll just play it by ear and as long as I’m losing when that’s what my plan is, I’m good with that.4
-
There are actually a number of 'indexes' which measure a person's degree of thinness/fatness using a multiple of measuring methods. I came across one which used sitting height ages ago. I don't recall its name but this is similar, it uses the person's sitting height and upper arm length.
The article is kind of heavy going. I'll give it a proper read but in the mean-time have a read and see if it relates to you.
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/93/9/589/1584846
This article is for people aged 20 and younger:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835999/
This article shows a photo of how sitting height is measured:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/ijch.v64i2.17969
I came across a number of articles, the Google search I used is: weight index using "sitting height"2 -
[quote="SuzySunshine99;c-45470315" if you are a man, the range is 133-163. If you are a woman, it's 122-149. The range accounts for different body compositions, but there are some people who are exceptions.[/quote]
It does not account for the full range. At my very fittest around 20 yo, with practically no body fat, I was about 170. Yes, some was muscle, but still.
0 -
musicfan68 wrote: »Funny, I've wondered this too. I am about 4'10, but have the torso length of someone about 5'9". I have a birth defect that caused my legs to stop growing. My legs are slightly shorter than my torso. I've always wondered how much that throws off the weight chart numbers. I am very disproportionate.
I would say it throws it way off.0 -
L1zardQueen wrote: »My legs are longer than my torso. I’m considered a petite but pants look like I’m wearing capris.
What does the mirror tell you?
I buy the "short" sizes in trousers and still need to cut inches off.
The mirror says I am now fat (and I am over 60 yo). No problem admitting it. However, I look thinner than people whose weight on the scales is 3/4 of mine.
The thing is I am losing weight, just want to know when to stop. I feel so much better, and clothes all fit better. I have taken my belt into the last notch and cut two more
1 -
There are actually a number of 'indexes' which measure a person's degree of thinness/fatness using a multiple of measuring methods. I came across one which used sitting height ages ago. I don't recall its name but this is similar, it uses the person's sitting height and upper arm length.
The article is kind of heavy going. I'll give it a proper read but in the mean-time have a read and see if it relates to you.
https://academic.oup.com/qjmed/article/93/9/589/1584846
This article is for people aged 20 and younger:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5835999/
This article shows a photo of how sitting height is measured:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/ijch.v64i2.17969
I came across a number of articles, the Google search I used is: weight index using "sitting height"
Thanks, I have been trying to formulate a search, and have indeed found some stuff. A lot relating to young people and growing.0 -
This article shows a photo of how sitting height is measured:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/ijch.v64i2.17969
This article turned out to be very helpful. Turns out, my sitting height to standing height ratio 0.54, is the same as the Inuit men they talk about.
As they say " Data confirm that Inuit and Far East Asians have shorter legs and relatively
higher sitting heights compared with all other populations. Using standing height alone to calculate
the BMI may overestimate the number of individuals that are overweight and obese"
Other figures for this ratio for the "more normal" body types is about 0.51 I think. Looking for better data, but for youths it seems to settle at about 0.51 by about 20 yo. Scaling my height by these factors (0.54/0.51) Makes me 6 foot tall - just as I had determined by sitting alongside some friends who are 6 feet tall.
I can now look up weight charts and see a target that looks more reasonable. For example the line between overweight and obese is 100 kg instead of about 87 kg.
1 -
This is really interesting for me, as I have the opposite issue. I am 5'11" but my legs are the same length as my father's were, and he was 6'3"; sitting I used to be the same height as my mother when she was just under 5'8". (She is smaller now.) I had never thought before of the effect of longer legs and shorter torso for caluclating bmi.0
-
This is really interesting for me, as I have the opposite issue. I am 5'11" but my legs are the same length as my father's were, and he was 6'3"; sitting I used to be the same height as my mother when she was just under 5'8". (She is smaller now.) I had never thought before of the effect of longer legs and shorter torso for caluclating bmi.
Certainly seems like the scientists are starting to recognise it. You should be able to scale back the other way to get the best weight range for yourself. Of course you have to be careful with just scaling, as, obviously, that part of the height not taken up by the legs is taken up by body and vice versa. In my case, my legs are also thicker, as well as short, so I should be a little heavier than estimated. Happy to ignore that. 0 -
This article shows a photo of how sitting height is measured:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.3402/ijch.v64i2.17969Dazz123456789 wrote: »This article turned out to be very helpful. Turns out, my sitting height to standing height ratio 0.54, is the same as the Inuit men they talk about.
As they say " Data confirm that Inuit and Far East Asians have shorter legs and relatively
higher sitting heights compared with all other populations. Using standing height alone to calculate
the BMI may overestimate the number of individuals that are overweight and obese"
Other figures for this ratio for the "more normal" body types is about 0.51 I think. Looking for better data, but for youths it seems to settle at about 0.51 by about 20 yo. Scaling my height by these factors (0.54/0.51) Makes me 6 foot tall - just as I had determined by sitting alongside some friends who are 6 feet tall.
I can now look up weight charts and see a target that looks more reasonable. For example the line between overweight and obese is 100 kg instead of about 87 kg.
I think I'm doing something wrong...it's just Sitting Height / Standing Height?1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »
I think I'm doing something wrong...it's just Sitting Height / Standing Height?
Yes, my height is 173 cm standing. If I sit down, I measure 93 cm from bum to top of head. As per the article "Sitting
height is then measured as the distance from the
highest point on the head to the base of the sitting surface. "
93/173 = 0.54 approx0 -
Just curious as this is new information to me, but why would it matter? Wouldn’t your TDEE work like everyone else’s? Why would you need more calories than your height, weight, and activity suggests? Why wouldn’t your weight not fit in the higher side of normal on a BMI chart?
Btw, this is so fascinating. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.0 -
msalicia07 wrote: »Just curious as this is new information to me, but why would it matter? Wouldn’t your TDEE work like everyone else’s? Why would you need more calories than your height, weight, and activity suggests? Why wouldn’t your weight not fit in the higher side of normal on a BMI chart?
Btw, this is so fascinating. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
If the ratio is higher than normal, then a BMI higher than high normal would not actually be abnormal.
The only time as an adult my BMI was as low as 23/24 was after 6 weeks of under eating and over exercising in Boot Camp. My goal is to be a BMI of 26/27, which is what I was when I was a full time yoga teacher. I have a big head, feet, wrists, and wide shoulders, and now I know I have a long torso as well - SH/S ratio of 0.545.0 -
Dazz123456789 wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »
I think I'm doing something wrong...it's just Sitting Height / Standing Height?
Yes, my height is 173 cm standing. If I sit down, I measure 93 cm from bum to top of head. As per the article "Sitting height is then measured as the distance from the highest point on the head to the base of the sitting surface. "
93/173 = 0.54 approx
Aha, I knew I was missing something - subtracting the height of the chair.
My ratio is 0.545. This explains why, despite being 5'6.5", petite length pants fit me better than regular.2 -
msalicia07 wrote: »Just curious as this is new information to me, but why would it matter? Wouldn’t your TDEE work like everyone else’s? Why would you need more calories than your height, weight, and activity suggests? Why wouldn’t your weight not fit in the higher side of normal on a BMI chart?
Btw, this is so fascinating. Thanks for bringing it to our attention.
Think about the calculation of BMI. It's just weight divided by height squared. There's nothing in the formula to account for differing torso to leg ratio, and per unit height, torsos weigh a lot more than legs. So someone the same height as me, but with a shorter torso, of course will be lighter than me, for the same BMI0 -
Thanks for sharing. I had no idea a torso weighed so much more than legs. I figured with the length of legs it all balances out. I also figured (incorrectly) that whatever your height and weight is, regardless where the weight is carried, you just need to find your TDEE and make adjustments from there depending on the goal. That unless you were carrying some serious muscle, one would typically fall in the BMI range. I’m still confused by the reason, but will look into it further so as not to tie up the thread.0
-
Dazz123456789 wrote: »Think about the calculation of BMI. It's just weight divided by height squared. There's nothing in the formula to account for differing torso to leg ratio, and per unit height, torsos weigh a lot more than legs. So someone the same height as me, but with a shorter torso, of course will be lighter than me, for the same BMI
I think you have got a bit confused here. BMI is weight/(height)^2 so if two people are the same height and the same bmi then they are the same weight. What this thread is pondering is how that weight is likely to be distributed. Assuming that legs are lighter than torso, then the person with longer legs is likely to be carrying more of that weight proportionately in their torso, so they would probably have a bigger bust/waist/hips measurement and look heavier than the person at the same weight with shorter legs.
1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions