Too thin at ideal weight range?
 

I was reading a book today that claimed your ideal weight range is 100lbs for your first 5' and 5 lbs for every inch after plus or minus 10%. Now this is not your healthy weight range but ideal, a healthy weight range is much wider. So for me my ideal range would be 112-138. I've weighed 138 before and I was too thin, I assume that might be because I'm a medium frame and this range is more for people of a smaller frame, but I don't know. What do you guys think about these numbers, do they apply for you? I'm pretty comfy here in the low 150s just outside of my healthy range and think I'd feel just incredible in the low 140s but now this bs has me wondering what the 130s would be like. With my muscle tone I doubt I could get there anyway.

I'm not sure as I've never been at my ideal body weight.. According to this formula, I should be 110. My goal weight right now is 125. THe lightest I've ever been as an adult 118 except when really really sick (crohn's disease flare and couldn't swallow) that was 112 and I looked weird and dreadful..but probably also bc I was sick.
At 118 I felt chubby but I have never had much muscle tone, and my old best friend was like a size 0, and my tummy has always been distented so I don't know.

I'm thinking that anyone who's big boned, or anyone with much muscle mass would need to weight more than the formula suggests.
My sister is the same height as me, but has always been 'dense' . She is in the 130's, and takes a 4 at AE and a small in tops. And she's a DD! I don't get it. LOL So I think that formula is not accurate and it's really old (I remember hearing about it in elementary school)

That is a very old formula. It comes from a time when women--or at least the upper middle class women it was speaking to--really didn't carry that much muscle, when "regular exercise" was 30 minutes of calisthenics every other day and, perhaps, some brisk walking.

I was told in a nutrition class in college that those old charts also assumed "height in shoes" and "shoes" were assumed to have 2 inch heels. However, I've never verified that anywhere else and he told us some other stuff I know to be wrong.

This old formula caused me much unhappiness about 17 years ago, when I had an eating disorder due to over-the-top efforts to keep my weight at 115 or lower.

I can't do it. Personally, I know that's unhealthy for me. I need to be at least 10-15 pounds heavier, and even that requires a lot of hours of exercise on my part.

Wow, and this book was published 2008! It did mention that the other charts were old and based on people wearing 1 inch heals, but the formula was good for your ideal range.

It actually works for me. I am 5'7". My ideal weight per this forumula is 135. I like to weigh 130 (a little less than the "ideal weight" of this formula). I am very very small-framed, though (tiny wrists, fingers, etc).

That's ridiculous for me, it would put me at 110 pounds, which I haven't been since I was an athletic seventh grader. At 160 pounds I was sexy and muscular, so even the BMI range of normal weight for me (120-138) is ridiculously low. There's no way.

I refuse to calculate and ideal weight for myself beyond what I know looks and feels good, its that simple.

I think you have done an incredible thing losing all the weight you have! If you feel good, who cares if you are hitting a certain number. I actually based my goal weight on that same idea. That's why I'm shooting for 155. But if when I hit the 160's, I feel great, then I will not worry about the number on the scale. Congrats again! You've done an amazing thing.

Yeah I wouldn't really go by those charts, it's whatever looks good on you. Everyones body is different and carries weight differently so whose to say that chart can cover all?
For me it would be between 103.5 (yikes!) - 126.5 (maybe)
My body shape happens to be an hourglass and I have a medium frame, so 130 is honestly a really good weight for me. last time when I was at 141 (just hitting the normal range), people thought I didn't need to go down any further and I felt like the last 10 lbs or so would be for my stomach and to "iron out" a few places.

But then again 125-130 might be my happy place, so who knows?

That would never or could never apply to me. I am 5'2", so I'd have to weigh about 110...I have a friend who is an inch shorter than me, and smaller boned than me...she weighs 125 and she is in a 2/4...Personally I don't think I could ever get as small as she is, or would ever want to be as small as she is. That is why my goal is 149: I have a huge bone structure (my bones are peaking out quite a bit and I am still obese), and am fleshier in all the "right" areas. So for me the formula is not practical.

Ridiulous for me, too. I am 5 feet even and small boned. At 100 pounds I would look like a concentration camp victim. I would need to eat a very low calorie diet to get to 100 pounds and I doubt I could ever maintain that weight.

In my late 20s, I ran regularly and dropped down to 125 easily. That's well within this "ideal range" for me. And my "easy to maintain" weight earlier in my 20s was 133--also in this range. But I don't think that I could/should get down to 125 now that I'm in my 40s. And that's not to say it's right for everyone.

Okay, I've figured out how I could hit 115, at my age. It's very simple. I can have one leg cut off. I've got rather meaty thighs & calves, so that should do it. I would remove the prosthetic limb for my weigh-in, so it wouldn't count. Also, after extensive rehabilitation, perhaps I could then change jobs & become a one-legged personal trainer, and work out both alone & alongside my clients for three hours daily. Under those conditions, with all being optimum, I really think I could do it.

[/Irrational from pain & irritability.]

You know, any formula trying to describe biology that uses numbers that round and pretty and perfectly linear almost HAS to be B.S.

Ok, I'm glad that I'm not the only one who found this ridiculous. Especially as a general rule, for some people sure, for everyone, please.