I'm in my sixties, and when I was growing up and beyond, that's what the insurance companies said was the ideal. If you were truly small-boned or truly larger-boned, then your weight was supposed to be 10# lower or 10# higher than that average. Is that what anybody shoots for today, or has the Weight Watchers ideal (chart weight considerably higher than that) what most weight-watchers aspire to?

It's been so many years since I weighed 135# that I can't even remember when it was!

Interesting - I hadn't heard of that formula before... but I am 5'6", so your formula would put me at 130# - exactly what my goal is. The healthy BMI range (18.5 to 25) for my height is from 115# to 155#.

I weighed 129 when I got married, but I can't even imagine to be that weight again. We'll see

We have a consulting internist who likes this one. I dunno ...

I like 5 or 10 lbs per inch for short girls but sort of scaled down from there to taller. That is, of course, if you are an average build.

It's another guideline, I suppose.

What happens if you compare that to BMI averages?

Yeah, I've heard that estimate, and for men I think it was 120lbs for 5 ft, then 5 lbs more per inch. It seems to me to be reasonable for the average person. Although I'm sure there will be LOTS of posts pointing out that muscle mass and body composition and so on will make this estimate invalid.

Here's a link to the history of this height/weight table:
http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/met.htm

Personally, this is the rule I've used to set my "goal" weight, but I certainly will reevaluate this once I get close (fingers crossed). I recall that at my best physical condition, I weighed 145lbs and wore a size 6-8 and I looked GOOD.

Kira