We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Weight target based on sitting height
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 -
msalicia07 wrote: »TI 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 would say that both these are correct. Why do you think figuring out TDEE and making adjustments is incorrect? Isn't that exactly what we are all doing?
And the BMI ranges are quite wide, so I don't think that this will make much difference to defining normal bmi (except for peak athletes). Build does make a difference to how people at the same bmi will carry their weight. As i reflected in my previous post, I think that since I have less torso than legs, I therefore have less space on my torso to carry the excess weight, so presumably look heavier. (I do carry weight on my legs too, but it's mostly round my midriff.)0 -
Ideally if you think there is a discrepancy that impacts your TDEE for this or any reason you would just calculate it based on actual results and not try to get fancy anyway. An estimate should provide results and in about 6 weeks after any initial water weight drop, you should have at least a first draft of a weight trend.
This has been interesting. I am not sure how many people set their goal weights by things like BMI charts and BF percentages. Some definitely do. I think a fair amount of people either know what weight they last appreciated or they are like me, and since they have never been there they are just waiting for it to show up.
1 -
msalicia07 wrote: »TI 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 would say that both these are correct. Why do you think figuring out TDEE and making adjustments is incorrect? Isn't that exactly what we are all doing?
And the BMI ranges are quite wide, so I don't think that this will make much difference to defining normal bmi (except for peak athletes). Build does make a difference to how people at the same bmi will carry their weight. As i reflected in my previous post, I think that since I have less torso than legs, I therefore have less space on my torso to carry the excess weight, so presumably look heavier. (I do carry weight on my legs too, but it's mostly round my midriff.)
That’s what I thought it was, but it sounds like the OP is stating otherwise as far as having a higher BMI due to her torso to legs ratio which is a .54.0 -
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.
Sounds like you just agreed with me just by saying it differently. I think you didn't understand my point, and as for what the thread is about, yes, but I started the thread, so I knew that already0 -
I am not sure how many people set their goal weights by things like BMI charts and BF percentages. Some definitely do. I think a fair amount of people either know what weight they last appreciated or they are like me, and since they have never been there they are just waiting for it to show up.
Dieticians in this country are obsessed with BMI. I was just talking to a friend (with a phd in related areas) and she was complaining about the same thing.0 -
msalicia07 wrote: »That’s what I thought it was, but it sounds like the OP is stating otherwise as far as having a higher BMI due to her torso to legs ratio which is a .54.
No, it is sitting height to standing height - different ratio.
0 -
And the BMI ranges are quite wide, so I don't think that this will make much difference to defining normal bmi (except for peak athletes).
Read the linked paper. The BMI ranges do not account for the "normal" torso to total height range of people from different ethnic backgrounds - in the case of the paper, far east asians and Inuits - and those of us who inherited similar body types. As the paper says, this has lead to incorrect diagnosing these people (Inuits) as being obese when they are not.
1 -
Dazz123456789 wrote: »
Original quote: So someone the same height as me, but with a shorter torso, of course will be lighter than me, for the same BMI
Sounds like you just agreed with me just by saying it differently. I think you didn't understand my point, and as for what the thread is about, yes, but I started the thread, so I knew that already
Apologies, I had indeed got confused about who started the thread!
What I was querying is your use of "lighter" here. If you mean lighter in terms of weight, then this makes no sense since to people who are the same height with the same bmi are also the same weight by definition.
However, I guess the point is that you have realised that your torso length is what would result in a 6 foot height if your proportions were average, so that if you take that height and calculate your bmi then it will come out lower compared with someone of your height with a torso that is more closely approximated to the average.Dazz123456789 wrote: »
And the BMI ranges are quite wide, so I don't think that this will make much difference to defining normal bmi (except for peak athletes).
Read the linked paper. The BMI ranges do not account for the "normal" torso to total height range of people from different ethnic backgrounds - in the case of the paper, far east asians and Inuits - and those of us who inherited similar body types. As the paper says, this has lead to incorrect diagnosing these people (Inuits) as being obese when they are not.
Thank you for pointing me to the paper, and I stand corrected. What your thread has made me think - and reading the paper confirmed) is that ingeneral people with shorter legs and longer torso would probably be well advised to looking at a goal weight in the upper part of the normal bmi (or just above in your case), whereas people with shorter torso and longer legs might be better advised aiming for the lower half. I was struck by the comment that "BMI will tend to underestimate obesity among those with long legs and over-estimate obesity among those with short legs relative to torso length." The former is me and I was aiming for a weight which would give me a bmi of ca. 23, but have already been thinking I might need to adjust that down a bit. This is more evidence to suggest that i should. (I'll decide when I get there.)
You have raised a really interesting question and train of thought for me about my own weight loss journey and aims: thank you.
1 -
Dazz123456789 wrote: »I am not sure how many people set their goal weights by things like BMI charts and BF percentages. Some definitely do. I think a fair amount of people either know what weight they last appreciated or they are like me, and since they have never been there they are just waiting for it to show up.
Dieticians in this country are obsessed with BMI. I was just talking to a friend (with a phd in related areas) and she was complaining about the same thing.
That has not been my experience. The ones I have talked with are so desperate for any level of client improvement they can't even begin to think about end goals. The stories are of people who consult them to lose weight and continue to gain. They seem pretty unhappy they can not make more of a difference for so many.1 -
I'm 5'7" and at 170lbs I'd still be around 12% body fat. I think you underestimate what no body fat looks like. When I competed at the same height, my competition weight was around 158lbs and that was at about 7% bodyfat.Dazz123456789 wrote: »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.
Like others I think you're overthinking this. If you were around the 180lbs range, you'd be just fine.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
6
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 442 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions