HAHA mine was like 112 or something lol. HAHAHAHAHA...that is like the weight of one of my BIG BONED RIBS. I'm lucky to get down to 150 seriously. I'm swarthy...swarthy pear shaped girl...and I do enjoy green smoothies thank you VERY much. :)

Looks like "greensmoothiegirl" made up her own weight chart to me...

I'm 5'9 with a large frame...132???? Please!

This proves that there are a LOT of incredibly stupid people on the internet.

My friend Yvette, who is a scientist (she works in a lab!) has a friend who swears that eating apricot pits cures cancer. Because it worked for three friends of friends and stuff she found on the internet. *rolls eyes*


Lesson learned here: Listen to your doctor and ACTUAL science, not bad science. Those websites are prime examples of bad science.

Don't apricot pits contain cyanide? I seem to remember reading a book where someone used crushed apricot pits to slowly poison her husband. Quick internet search finds the following:

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...eeds-poisonous

Anyway, 122 at 5'7" would be too low for me (and I have a tiny frame - ridiculously small wrists, size 4 ring finger).

Hey I found this site REALLY interesting, it explains all the 'ideal' weight calculations, its amusing to see how it varies and there are further links so you can see the science behind them.

Apparently they were made in 1970s and have never been revisited.

http://www.halls.md/ideal-weight/body.htm

makes for interesting reading.

hm, i'm 5'7 and ideal weight is under 122 which is correct for me.
I'm 121 and i'm not satisfy with my weight
Not that I care about that but I have fat and not lean body on my stomach, thighs and hip. Which is because of lacking exercise. Which is something I need to work on (more exercise) rather than trying to lose more weight.
but then again, once i have more lean meat than now, I suppose my weight would go around 110 lbs. So I guess it's somewhat true in my case.

But i'm asian born and raised in asia, and asian people usually have smaller body frame than western women. That chart could work for asian ppl. For western people, I think it's abit extreme.

That's crazy. According to that my ideal is 104lbs however on wii fit it also averages your ideal weight by height and it's 130lbs. If i followed that chart i'd be on the boarder of underweight.

Wow sounds like she is promoting anorexia to me. 104 is way too low for me.

There's no way I can weigh under 100 pounds. Not and have any muscle mass, anyway. I'm up a little now, but when I am at the lower end of my maintenance range at 110-112 pounds (and I'm 5'2"), I have between 17- 20% body fat. That's a BMI of 20. But to lose ANOTHER 10 plus pounds? I don't know where it would come from except from lean body weight, which is NOT what you want. And frankly, even maintaining at 110-115 is hard for me.

I do think as a society that our perception of what is a normal weight has skewed upwards. But this chart is way too low IMO and just sets people up for failure because it promotes an unreasonable expectation for weight loss. If everyone can just get to the recommended BMI of less than 25, that is great improvement over where so many are now.

John McDougal advocates an all raw diet, and so does the website where the chart was posted. I`m interested in this lifestyle (although I don`t follow it) and read many websites and books on it.

They all have in common that they advocate a much lower weight than is generally considered normal. Their reasoning is that the usual weight charts is for people who eat the "wrong" diet while all raw is the only way we should eat. Most people who I met through raw forums etc are downright scrawny (and proud of it). Most of them are also obsessional about every morsel they put into their mouths. Alltogether, I consistently get the impression that most of them suffer from disordered eating.

The low weight which they consider as desirable seems to me like just another evidence that we are not meant to eat that way. IMO, this chart was designed by people who want to eat raw food only and justify this lifestyle (and their own low weight).

At 5'5 I weighed 115 as a teenage and was skin and bones. It says I should have weighed 112 yeah ok!

It's really hard to come up with weight charts that correct for all the factors that affect both mortality and weight, so that the direct correlation between weight and life expectancy can be shown.

One reason to consider weights that seem ridiculously low is research that shows that severe calorie restriction over time significantly increases longevity. I'm not very up on it but google calorie restriction and longevity and you'll see lots of informative sites.

Here's the wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction

Actually, the wiki article doesn't mention recent research that seems to explain the phenomena. I ran across some of the info earlier about a gene that gets turned on to produce a protein. Not sure where I read it originally, but here's something about that:

http://www.supercentenarian.com/arch...ity-genes.html

We are the same height, and according to this chart we should be under 100 lbs. How crazy is that? The last time I was under 100 lbs. I was a scrawny, skinny, big-headed mid-schooler.

There is no way for me to be healthy and maintain that weight. I would have to be seriously and gravely sick to reach that point.

This is me (blue dress) at about 140 lbs. See my arms in the blue dress? That's muscle. I lifted and ran 5K 6 days a week. When I tried to get down to 120, by doctors' advice, I started lose muscle mass, I felt like crap and couldn't run for my life.

Not all of us are built to look like Paris Hilton.

Well, cyanide does cure cancer. ;)

*chokes* 108 lbs for me?! I think my left boob weighs 108 lbs by itself.

HAHAHAHAHA!! Right? I'm still :dizzy: over my 112 lb goal.

You're welcome! :D