Eh. That would put me at about 118, and I am 108 with a ton of muscle, which makes me look smaller than I am, and yet still healthy. I much prefer this to 118. These charts are nonsense. It's all about the individual: your musculature, your proportions, etc. A woman with less muscle is going to look larger at these "ideal" weights. A woman with large breasts is going to look smaller because she carries more weight in her chest. A woman who is pear shaped may need to lose a bit more to even out her proportions (if she cares to or can). People are all different.

I think body mass composition comes into play with age. At 17, I weighed 130, but was thinner than I am now at 40. I have noticed that I have a lot more fat and less muscle.

Paradoxically, I am approaching my lowest weight ever, but am not in my best shape ever. Oh well.

See, I don't really get this. I have more muscle than any woman I know and I am at 108. And we are almost the same height. I lift heavy, I run long distances up mountains, I do the stair stepper. I have a ton of muscle built over 20 years of hardcore exercise. I did not lose it to lose weight. And while I was thin at 129, I am not ridiculously thin now.

I think a lot of people really do find as they lose weight that they have a smaller frame than they thought. Fat surrounds your muscle. Often what you see in the mirror is fat AND muscle, not particularly large muscles. Women don't bulk without performance enhancers and a calorie surplus. So you can lose fat and still maintain the muscle (for the most part), provided you work to preserve it. You typically won't gain muscle—not on a caloric deficit—but you can preserve it.

I am in no way suggesting that everyone is supposed to be at these "ideal" weights. You should lose to where you feel comfortable and are still healthy. But I do think that people often think they have a larger frame than they do, or that their size is dictated by muscle when it isn't. As a number of people have stated in this thread, when they got to their original goal they realized they could actually go to a lower weight than they had previously thought possible.

Now, it could be that you carry a lot of weight in your breasts, so at 106.8 you really would look very thin everywhere else. Or you could carry more weight in your lower half and look very thin on the upper half at that weight. But you wouldn't suffer much muscle loss at all—not if you were maintaining muscle while you lost weight.

I used to think I was just HUGE. Mentally, I thought of myself as an Amazon. A "big girl." Big boned, just genetically destined to be a large woman. I honestly thought I had shoulders like a linebacker.

That was my mental picture of myself. In part because I was heavy at 200 lbs, in another part because it gave me excuses of why I was so big. For awhile, I didn't even try to lose weight, why bother - I was soooo big, I would always be BIG, LARGE, an AMAZON! (I am just speaking of my own journey and my own demons in this case).

I now call these my big fat lies. I am not an immese person, bigger than normal. I may be tall, but I have a narrow rib cage and my shoulders aren't particularly broad at all. It has taken several years of maintenance to revise my mental image of myself as a large (not just weight, but overall size) woman.

Like Petite Powerhouse said above, I had a small frame wrapped under my fat. Like a little diamond ring in a jewel box, wrapped in a big old shirt box.

I picked 150 originally because I had never been lower for any length of time in my adult life. In college (after a hideously unhealthy near starvation diet) I did get down to 137. Of course, I didn't sustain it because I didn't have any healthy eating habits or a plan for maintenance. So, I thought 137 was unsustainable. I thought the weight was the issue, not how I got there.

I had never gotten to a goal weight via a healthy method. I had never had a plan for maintenance. When I hit 150 this time, the weight was still coming off 1,2 lbs per week. It was easy to keep going.

I too thought that I was a big-boned girl with a massive frame--think bulky Scandinavian farm-girl. My original weight goal was 150--the very top of a normal bmi for my height. I didn't think that a weight under 150 would be sustainable for me. But I was wrong, not only is it sustainable but I feel great. Like Petite Powerhouse, I do weight train, probably not as much as she does though. Saef brought up a valid question regarding age. I'm 47. And my frame? I now think I have a medium frame. I wear a 6 or 8. :)

So... I enter a healthy BMI at 127 lbs. And this forumla puts my ideal weight at 100 lbs. Seriously?!?! Like, from when I was 8 years old? No. Just, no. Not ever happening. Even the standard height/weight chart puts the lowest healthy weight range for a small framed person of my height at 104. 104-115 for a small frame. And isn't that usually considered too strict as well?

So yeah, something is wrong with that formula. I'm sure it works for some, and probably at a certain height range or something. But definitely not for everyone.

I am 5'6" so my ideal would be 130. The lightest I recall being as an adult is 142 and I remember it being difficult to maintain. I comfortably maintained 148-152 for a few years. My first goal is 150 and that would put me at 108 pounds lost. When I get there I will evaluate if I want to go for another 10-15, but I just can't imagine with my bone size being 130. My husband refers to super skinny people as "sucked up" (not nice I know!) and he prefers some curvy flesh. Maybe 145 is a more realistic goal for me. I guess we'll wait and see!

I have 105-106 lbs of lean body mass currently. I have never in my adult life had less than 102 lbs of lean body mass. When I was 126 lbs a couple years ago -pre injury I was at 19% bodyfat.

Yes, I would have to lose significant muscle to be alive at 106.8

MTA: Or I could go with Saef's suggestion and lose a limb instead.

I'm five one. I'd love to weigh the 105 pounds the old formula says I should weigh, but I don't think that's going to happen unless I cut my calories down to deprivation levels and exercise four hours a day. The last time I weighed 105 was when I was in middle school.

Hmm. That would put me at 130-135. I think it's reasonable for me because I can't see myself being lighter than that.

It works for me. I'm 5'4.5" (medium frame) and according to the formula it would be 123. I've been 120-130 for the majority of my life, mainly 130 till I got married at 26. My last weight before getting pregnant this time was 141. It was fine but I still aim for the 130 after I have the baby. I've thought about going down to 125 then tone up and hope to get back up to 130 in muscle.
At 130 I was wearing size 8 jeans and wearing medium dresses.

I think everything depends on a persons frame. Its just a statistic.

there are some that are small framed, medium and large.

i'm a medium - large - even at my lowest weight i wore a large t-shirt maybe a medium if i was lucky (130-140lbs)

Forever I thought I was big-boned--or atleast that is what I told myself since I was so overweight. I thought the weight charts couldn't apply to me.

I have found they do apply to me though. As for my build I was told last summer I am actually the upper side of small or a low-medium build. Whodda thunk?

Its crazy once you get to your smallest weight you find out if you really are big boned or not! hahaha

The formula works for me too. At 5'3 my ideal weight should be 115lbs, which is my goal. Today I am at 118lbs and feel very comfortable. Keep in mind that I am a small frame person.

In my opinion, the word "ideal" is in itself a very subjective matter. So many variables to consider, but most important, what might be ideal for somebody could be totally unaceptable for someone else.
One final note, I come from a culture where what is considered a beautiful body is probably not consistent with the expectations most Americans and people from other develop countries have.
Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder!!!


Caribbean girl