I should have 104 lbs. Well, I never weighed so low, I can't tell how would I look (according to frame rules I am small frame). But even if I would look like topmodel at 104, I would never go under 110 lbs. I am regular blood donor and 110 lbs is the lowest border for donating in my country.

You know, the funny part is that the weight given is not even the middle of your ideal range. It's supposed to be you *maximum* weight.

My lowest weight ever was about 114, when I was 18 and had some viral thing affecting my liver for a month, and had zero appetite. Even then I had no desire to stay that low and was relieved to gain back to 120.

The wieght charts that I have seen have put my ideal weight as 142-156 lbs (for medium frames) and 152-172 (for large frames). I would think that 170-175 lbs would be a great healthy weight for me. According to that chart, I would be at or exceed the weight ceilings (I think that I am a medium frame but who knows).

That chart puts me at 85lbs. I've been there...not going back to that!

It puts me at 132 lbs and I am 5'9". My best friend is 5'10" and she is 140-150 so I think it is only off for me by 5-10 lbs. but honestly I have never been a healthy weight so I guess I'll have to wait and see.

While I agree with most people that the suggested weights are probably lower than what most of us can comfortably achieve and maintain, I don't think they're really that extreme. Truthfully, I think part of the sticker shock we're feeling is partly due to the fact that the average body size in our society is shifting, and our conception of what is normal is following along (CNN published something about this pretty recently).

If I were to show this chart to my family members living in Croatia, I doubt they would react the same way. The last time I visited them one thing that really stood out to me (especially because I was morbidly obese at the time) is that there were almost no overweight people there. In fact, most people I saw were not just a normal size, but thin. I walked around for hours everyday marveling less at the grand churches and castles than at how slim everyone was. To me, it was a big time shock. But to them, thin is normal. It's not crazy, extreme, or disordered... it's just the way people are.

And yes, while I would consider a 5' 7" woman to be thin at 120 pounds, I really wouldn't assume she was unhealthy or anorexic. There are plenty of healthy, active women at this size who have quite a bit of muscle, too. Does this really look so painfully skinny?

Of course, I don't think maintaining a thin body is necessary to be healthy, and I agree that health should be the focus, not thinness per se. I'm definitely not advocating this weight chart. But I just wanted to make the case that the target weights it prescribes really aren't that crazy, and that plenty of healthy people can (and do) maintain this level of thinness.

That picture is 5'7" 120 pounds?

Yes, 5' 7" and 120 pounds (though this is not a photo of me).

At the moment I'm 18-19 heavier than that (at the same height) and I can attest that there's plenty of fat on my body I could comfortably lose without becoming scary/unhealthy/anorexic. My sister is only a few pounds heavier than her and looks normal and healthy, if even even a little soft. Now as I mentioned, I'm not advocating these particular standards... I'm only suggesting that they're not as crazy as everyone seems to think they are.

I think, sure, some people might look like that at 120 pounds and 5'7". But I don't think most will. Me, I'd have to restrict my eating and maintain a lower body fat than would be natural. I'm a size 6 at about 137 ... so, 120 pounds, I think I'd be a size 0 at least. And I seem to be larger than most at my height and weight. I see so many posters 140-150 wearing size 6. So, I think, of course, it might be fine for a few, but I don't think for many. JMO.

Julie, I see your point (honestly), but one question for me is, how does clothing size inform this discussion? Right now I'm sitting comfortably in a size 4 pair of jeans, but I'm by no means skinny. And of course, a size 4 in today's standards are not the same as those from years past. My aunt was 5' 10" tall and 140 pounds when she moved to the United States in the 70's and back then she wore a size 8. I would argue that as our bodies get bigger, not only does our concept of normal shift, our sizing standards do too. So what does it mean that we wear a 4/6 at our height and weight?

*Edited to say her wedding dress was a size 10 at her height and weight.

I suppose it just means I'd be unable to find anything to wear!

But, without losing muscle mass, I'd have to be around 13-15% body fat to reach 120 pounds. Not likely to happen.

:lol:

Move to Europe?

Maybe in my next life :dizzy:

She doesn't because she's muscular.

But look here:

http://x9b.xanga.com/be3f57ebc403224...b197362366.jpg

She's supposedly 5'10 136, and she looks skinny to me, and according to that chart, she'd be normal. And mind you, I found that on a thinspo website.

Or her:

http://x95.xanga.com/ffff7be05423424...b197362949.jpg

5'3 100 lbs.

Everyone looks different at different weights, which is why charts like that are dangerous. And if I got down to 112 lbs, I would probably be gaunt and look anorexic. I think that a good way to do it is to just get down to a healthy BMI as recommended by your doctor and then go from there. But to say that I should weigh 112 or LESS is just a little insane to me.