That formula would put my "range" at 117-143. At 117, I would look like a concentration camp victim. At the age of 12, I was at this height and weighed 112 with out any hips or boobs. That is totally unrealistic. In my early 20s I weighed 140 and felt really good at that weight. I feel good at this weight too, 132.5 this morning on my probably not so accurate scale. I don't think i picked this weight--it picked me.

If I'm calculating correctly it tells me I should be between somewhere between 148 and 122 or so. Honestly, my goal is 138 so it works for me. I know what I look like at that weight and it would be perfect.

According to this formula, I'd be "ideal" at 142.5...which is right where I am. I'm told I'm too thin, but I don't think so most of the time..

That would put me at 130 - 160 (145 in the middle) Nope. There is no WAY I could get down to 145. Even 160 would be difficult. I am shooting for 170. I think that will be plenty thin for me... I guess I am just big boned! I got down to 150 at the end of high school. I did unhealthy things to get there and I would not be happy going back there.

Right now, jsut about anything below 200 would make me happy.

Just an interesting note - the three of us that "agree" with the formula are at/near goal weight.

As an aside, my original goal weight was 150 - I couldn't imagine myself thinner than 150.

Glory makes an interesting point. I used to think 150 was my set point weight and I'd never lose more than that. Now, that I am close to goal, I think 120-125 is my ideal weight. Therefore, the formula works for me.

Even though I am close to goal, I have a lot of work to do. I still need to gain a few pounds of muscle and lose a few pounds of fat. My body fat % is still not ideal.

I agree what other people have said. We must decide for ourselves what our healthy weight is. After all, we know our bodies.

I have been 135 and still *thought* I was fat, but looking back at pictures of myself, I was TINY and my face looked really sharp. I was living with my grandparents, and although they never said anything, I think they worried I was anorexic. I wasn't allowed to eat dinner in my room--I had to eat it where they could see me eat. During my entire sophomore year of high school, I ate one meal a day when I got home from school. I was not healthy--and I was NOT in good shape. Now, I'm aiming for 145 with a lot more muscle, which I think will put me in a size 6. This is healthy and attainable for me--anything smaller, I just wouldn't look like myself, and I wouldn't be able to maintain the level of physical fitness that I really love. It is also the top range for BMI, so I think I'll stick with that flawed formula instead of this other flawed formula ;)

With that formula, my ideal weight would be 125 (+/- 10% would be 112.5 - 137.5)...my ultimate goal is 135 so it works for me. I'll still have a pot belly and big boobs but hey...that's my body!

My original goal weight WAS 160...but when I got there I lost another 20 pounds. Long story. But my body seems to be content where it is now. I never thought I could be in the 140s, and in fact assumed I couldn't because I'd always been told I was "big boned" by my mom and sister. Turns out I've got a small frame.

Lets see that would put me at an "ideal range" of 116.8 - 120.6

Currently that would put me at a bodyfat range of 9.6%-12.5% which would be downright unhealthy. 12% would be something I think I would look kind of scary at. Even if I assume some of my current LBM is water that may go away, the lowest my LBM has ever been as an adult would make that weight range very very low.

Originally Posted by Glory87:
Just an interesting note - the three of us that "agree" with the formula are at/near goal weight.

And the 3 of you are also a little taller than I am.

I remember this formula from the 80's. Of the thin girls in my college, the formula broke down below a certain height and above a certain height. Although I have seen some variations of interpretation here.

When that formula was out in the 80's the +/-10% was on the 5 lbs per inch which is what I posted on, not overall. Overall that gives me a range of 106.8- 130.6.

Reasonable for me is around 125-130 (which as a note to the other posters is about 15 lbs lower than I thought I would look ok at). So the very top end of the range is ok

But 106.8 heh... that would be..ummm. dead. Serious muscle loss.

But I do know for my friend who is 5'10, she considers 150 way too heavy for her, so she likes the bottom end of the range.

Originally Posted by saef:
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.]

I love a logical thinker !

I'm relatively tall.

100 pounds for the first 5 feet. 5 pounds for every inch over 5 feet.

That would put me at 145.

If I topped out at 6 feet, twelve inches over 5 feet, that would put me at 160.

I don't think I could pull it off. 170 is my tentative goal, I'll see what happens if I ever get that low. I could never dream of hitting 145, though. I have a large frame and build muscle pretty easily. . .

I've found that it works for me. I'm 5'8 and 140 is supposedly my ideal.

I was a fit 140-145 in college and so I knew that under 150 is when I'd feel 'thin' again. 140 was my goal, but I think that the mid 130s fits me better -- really just because of liking the wiggle room.

But I also know that without working this hard for it, I would be about 175ish, 10 lbs overweight. I know from going up and down that that's my body's 'set point' -- the weight that "sticks" without diet/exercise, but also without the overeating and unhealthy lifestyle that caused me to become significantly obese.

Set point and ideal being different ... probably why a high % of people are technically-but-not-obviously overweight, without the issues that plagued a lot of us who gained much more than that.

Is it sound to base this entirely on height without taking age into consideration at all?

What's attractively slender in someone who's 21 might be considered a bit frail for a woman in her early 70s.